Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

prometheus.med.utah.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#41

Post by nooneelse »

grandalf wrote: post #8

I looked at a iPhone 4G at the apple store yesterday and was curious to compare the display to the HTC Evo 4G's display. The verdict: slightly better crispness, comparable brightness, comparable color. The industrial design of the iPhone 4G is superb compared to any other phone (or electronic device) I've seen. It's more comparable to what you'd expect to find in a watch.

Using this article's threshold of 287ppi@12" for "retinal", and the EVO screen specs on wikipedia which give it about 217ppi, it would be retinal at a distance of 15.9".

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#42

Post by Retric »

masklinn wrote: post #33
gojomo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never is a mighty long time! Both handhelds and desktops have been increasing in resolution, and decreasing in cost, for years. There's no reason for that trend to stop until all displays reach 'retinal indifference' at their usual viewing distance. I would not be surprised to see 4000x3000 LCDs in laptops in the next decade.

> Both handhelds and desktops have been increasing in resolution, and decreasing in cost, for years. That's not entirely correct. 24" at 1920x1200 and 30" at 2560x1600 is something that's been there for years, and these days laptops are regressing rather than progressing: in 2005 I had colleagues with 15" laptops in 1920x1200, these days the majority seems to be 16/9 screens in stupid resolutions (1366x768 seems real…

Company's rarely change the name of a well liked product. Consider a 1976 Honda accord vs a 2010 Honda accord. They are vary different cars targeting different markets but as long as people think product X = quality the name tends to stick around.

(1976 68hp ) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/1977-1982...

(2010 177-hp to 271-hp on a v6) http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-sedan/exterior.aspx

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#44

Post by adolph »

borisk wrote: post #15
yardie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that link was absolutely useless. No information, no comparisons, nothing. It read more like a hit piece for samsung

How about '180 degree viewing angle', 'Quadrupling the resolution on the screen would only increase the clarity at most only three to five percent' and 'the Retina Display is too power-hungry, which drains the battery up to 30% faster than you’d find on their Super AMOLED screens' https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=...

180 degree viewing angle on a flat surface--now that's magical!

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#45

Post by cpr »

amichail wrote: post #27
watmough wrote: post #4

Having queued for 7 hours yesterday to get my iPhone 4, I can confirm that the display actually exceeded my expectations. All natively rendered text in controls, etc., looks like it was printed in a magazine. This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros.

What is the resolution for touch sensitivity in the iPhone 4?

Smaller than you could ever experience with your finger (about a 90-pixel square area on the iPhone 4), and better than any other phones on the market, apparently.

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#46

Post by qwzybug »

cpr wrote: post #45
amichail wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the resolution for touch sensitivity in the iPhone 4?

Smaller than you could ever experience with your finger (about a 90-pixel square area on the iPhone 4), and better than any other phones on the market, apparently.

Not quite. Apple's HIG recommends allotting 44pts for hit targets (about 90px on the new screen) for usability's sake, but you can hit much smaller targets if you're careful about it.

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#47

Post by abstractbill »

matthavener wrote: post #37
whyenot wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30 years ago, you were lucky if you had a 300 bps acoustic modem. 20 years ago 9600 bps was considered state of the art. I am writing this while sitting in Peets in Los Altos where I have a 54,000,000 bps wireless connection, not to some local BBS, but to this much larger, almost unimaginably (at least it would have been to me in 1980!) complex structure, the internet. In 1995, the little point and shoot camera I own…

Meanwhile, the xerox lisa had a DPI of 90, while a regular macbook has a DPI of 110. http://www.mprove.de/diplom/text/3.1.8_lisa.html http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html

Yes, but the Lisa cost about $22,000 (adjusted for inflation). A regular macbook costs $1000.

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#48

Post by cpr »

qwzybug wrote: post #46
cpr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smaller than you could ever experience with your finger (about a 90-pixel square area on the iPhone 4), and better than any other phones on the market, apparently.

Not quite. Apple's HIG recommends allotting 44pts for hit targets (about 90px on the new screen) for usability's sake, but you can hit much smaller targets if you're careful about it.

Right, I just meant your finger tip covered about that much.

You can hit smaller targets, but not easily.

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#49

Post by wtallis »

ugh wrote: post #9

It seems to me that the black gaps are bigger. I just did a back of the envelope calculation, using the photos he posted and it looks as though black gaps take up about 30 percent of the space on the first and second iPhone while they take up about 40 percent on the new iPhone 4. I wonder what the effects of that are. It probably just makes the display a bit dimmer (if one were to use the same backlight).

The article states that it was harder to focus the optics on the older displays, causing the pictures of them to be blurrier, which could explain the apparently larger inter-pixel gaps in the images of the newer display.

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#50

Post by philwelch »

Retric wrote: post #42
masklinn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both handhelds and desktops have been increasing in resolution, and decreasing in cost, for years. That's not entirely correct. 24" at 1920x1200 and 30" at 2560x1600 is something that's been there for years, and these days laptops are regressing rather than progressing: in 2005 I had colleagues with 15" laptops in 1920x1200, these days the majority seems to be 16/9 screens in stupid resolutions (1366x768 seems real…

Company's rarely change the name of a well liked product. Consider a 1976 Honda accord vs a 2010 Honda accord. They are vary different cars targeting different markets but as long as people think product X = quality the name tends to stick around. (1976 68hp ) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/1977-1982... (2010 177-hp to 271-hp on a v6) http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-sedan/exterior.aspx

On the other hand, consider PowerBook--a strong brand since the early 90's that was still phased out.
Post reply on HN