Neuroscientist: iPhone 4's 'Retina display' not bullsh*t An America retinal neuroscientist has focused his boffinistic eye on the iPhone 4's much-touted high-res display, and has come to the conclusion that Apple's claim that the "Retina display's pixel density is so high, your eye is unable to distinguish individual pixels" is true. "I'd find Apple’s claims stand up to what the …
Of course there's no reason to go beyond 300dpi. That's why Epson didn't introduce 360dpi printers around 1990, magazine print-out quality is perfect, nobody looks closer at a phone than they do at a double-page spread, and 300ppi isn't the *lower* limit for what's acceptable in quality print.
Current Epson printers are 720dpi. Canon, HP, Lexmark and others are 600dpi.
All the claims of 1200 or 1440dpi are just marketing tricks that refer to the number of individual ink droplets they can spray per inch. But each 'pixel' (a collection of dots that is the nearest think in printing that equates to a pixel) is 1/720 of an inch on an Epson or 1/600 on the rest.
And just because you can't make out individual dots, doesn't mean there won't be a difference to the overall image when printed above 300dpi. An image created for 720dpi printing on an Epson will look a little better than one created with 360dpi in mind, and scaled up (let alone one created at 300dpi and then scaled up by a non-integer factor)
@VeganVegan, no *YOU* read their marketing crap carefully:
"Thanks to the Retina display, everything you see and do on iPhone 4 looks amazing. Text in books, web pages, and email is crisp at any size. Images in movies and photos are stunning at almost any angle. That’s because the Retina display’s pixel density is so high, your eye is unable to distinguish individual pixels."
Read the last sentence --- I'll even quote it a second time "That's because the Retina display's pixel density is so high, your eye is unable to distinguish individual pixels."
Anyway, that said... *shrug*. It seems rather than being a flat-out marketing lie, this is at least a debatable statement (debatable by NORMAL people -- fanbois don't count, they'll just say Apple is right even when they are provably wrong.) There's far more sins to worry about regarding Apple than borderline-hyperbole. I would LOVE something like the IBM T220 (22.2" 204 DPI monitor -- 3840x2400) even though I admit I wouldn't have use for resolution that high. It's been off the market for YEARS though, and I don't think I'll ever find a nice used one.
Keep an eye out for T221s and VP2290bs on eBay - they show up occasionally, although they're not cheap. Nobody thinks there's any benefit to the resolution until they actually get to look at one. I saw one at a SIGGRAPH in 2001 and bought a second-hand one as soon as I could afford it. Nothing like editing a 9MP photograph at 1:1. I wish I could afford another for work.
I can see clearly now, thanks to my iPhone display. (Sorry about that.) The correct answer is one. The iPhone 4. Speaking hypothetically, while we wait for all the other smart phone guys to catch up. Again. Some day. Real soon now. Just copy Apple and try to catch up.
Just to point out (as I did in the comments on Bryan Jones's blog), the microscope shots and the quoted pixels sizes in his article are incorrect. Not only does he consider a pixel to be the convex hull of a light emitting triplet, rather than the offset between equivalent points on adjacent pixels, the scale shown on the iPhone 4 image (and the figures that are apparently derived from it) must be incorrect. At the scale shown (according to the 180um marker), the iPhone 4's screen would have about 5" on the diagonal - the scale must be incorrect.
Most of his discussion uses Apple's official figures for the resolution, and I have no reason to doubt his knowledge of the human eye, so this apparent error doesn't alter his conclusions (even though, subjectively, I have to say that assuming anyone with less-than-perfect vision won't be able to see something up close seems to be a bit of a sweeping generalisation). I just wanted to bring it to the attention of anyone who starts quoting his figures or images (ahem, Reg).
It doen't matter if hes right or wrong, he is henceforth an iHater.
So what they are all saying is that when a screen exceeds 286 dpi it requires better than 20/20 vision and hence is just wasting power rendering and powering the excess? so the screen should have been a little bigger? iPhone too small shocker?
BTW I have TWO retinas. (oh dear, now I am an iHater)
200dpi on a fax (and some faxes are only 100dpi) is poor because it only uses black or white.
300dpi or 360dpi on a Laser or Inkjet too. Also the pitch may be 300dpi or 360dpi but the dots overlap/bigger.
with just 16 brightness levels instead of black and white, you can smooth the jaggies (anti aliasing) and have x4 the apparent sharpness.
also the gaps between pixels only important at lower DPI. At higher dpi gaps on pixels simply reduces brightness.
So really the 366dpi on a full colour display is a gimmick.
133dpi would be very good and 200dpi + excellent
It's true, to a point, that a multi-level screen can avoid some of the aliasing seen in bilevel display devices. It's certainly true when you have to resort to dithering (I really doubt you can see the difference between a 1200dpi printer and a 2400dpi one unless halftone screening is involved - but when halftoning *is* involved, it really makes a difference).
However, antialiasing isn't everything. Some people, myself included, really can see pixels at >300ppi, and there's a real difference between a genuine 300ppi display and something with reduced resolution but antialiasing - especially if you're trying to get a whole A4 page's worth of PDF on the screen at once. Of course, the Windows Mobile devices I've used have had ClearType, so I only assume the iPhone 4's screen will actually be smoother (I understand Apple aren't using it on the iPhone). For everyone who says "there's no reason for this technology" there are a bunch of enthusiasts going "shutupshutupshutup" and being grateful that not every device on the market is designed for the lowest common denominator. If you don't have need for a 960x640 mobile phone screen, congratulations, the older iPhone is cheaper.
133ppi is much lower than the original iPhone. It's the pixel pitch of a Sony-Ericsson P910i, or a few laptops. It's fine for making phone calls, terrible for trying to surf the web. If you've only got a certain area (defined by the pocket size and thumb reach) into which to fit a display, the ppi has to go up - otherwise you're looking at projector phones. 200+ppi is excellent - on a desktop monitor. On something that fits in your pocket, it's still poor for those of us who can look at the phone up close. If you're long-sighted, sorry - ye cannae change the laws of physics.
Please, no more extrapolating "I won't benefit from this" to "this is pointless".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
