Macworld Forums: Experts weigh in on iPhone 4 display quality - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Experts weigh in on iPhone 4 display quality here

Who really cares what the self proclaimed "experts" have to say anyways? I sure don't. When it comes out I will check out the display myself with my own eyes.

len

I'm sure Apple didn't make up the numbers they used to back up the name, they got data from some other expert or research paper someplace...

everyone's eyes are different some may be able to see sharper than others... the numbers sound close enough to me, for the average smart phone user....

I'm eager to see one in person myself.

len5, on 12 June 2010 - 10:10 AM, said:

Is it the display the best on the market? Yes. I'm getting tired of these pundit MS waterboys questioning everything About Apple & not applying the same critical eye to Android, or MS products. It is no surprise that it is PCWorld & This Chen guy at wired. Does any one take these publications seriously anymore? They seem to have an agenda. 20/20 is now poor eye sight? Really?

This post has been edited by D_Dog: 12 June 2010 - 10:20 AM

len5, on 12 June 2010 - 10:10 AM, said:

My comments to the above? Ditto. Ditto. And, ditto.

I wouldn't call Brian Chen a Waterboy. He is actually a former Macworld editor and a nice guy. But his headline (which he probably didn't write) was terrible.

The Wired story, like the recent story in Gawker with a headline accusing Apple of a security breach with the iPad (when the problem was with an ATT web site on which device IDs and email addresses were stored and had nothing to do with the iPad itself) remind us that there is a lot of shoddy "journalism" in the tech world, the same as in other media, especially on the internet. No big surprise there. With Apple on the top of the tech world these days, it's likely to be the target of more such tabloid attacks, though in the case of Gawker there's the added motivation that its sister publication Gizmodo is still trying to defend its conduct in purchasing stolen property to get a scoop.

Anything having to do with the human body has variables, since we are all different.

Jobs' claims are well within the intended audience for the display, which is just fine by me.

20/20 vision was established as a base line for a reason. And the idea proposed above that the "Retina" Display should be based solely upon the retina without the lens in front is just plain being silly.

How many of us who are going to use an iPhone 4 are going to use it sans lens in our eyes?

Sheeeeeesh!

It is a RETINA display for all intents and purposes.

Greg

Articles like the one discussed here just show all that is wrong in media reporting today. Have people got nothing better to do than to pick holes in everything other people say?

Thanks to MacUser for giving us some, if you'll pardon the pun, perspective on the matter. Really and honestly, who gives a damn if it's a perfectly accurate claim or not... The proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say, and it sounds as though it tastes pretty good to me.

@ Len5. A person with a PhD in physics is not a "self proclaimed" expert, he is an expert proclaimed by an academic institution after year of study and original work. It took me eleven years for someone else to proclaim me an expert.

Back to the subject: Resolution of the eye is a definition, not an absolute scientific fact. A guy named Rayleigh defined the resolution of the eye at 1 min of arc between two luminous bodies (actually stars). All this came out of astronomy. There are actually several other "definitions" of resolution, but Rayliegh's won out. Phil Plait has correctly stated the definition used by astronomers.

Then the two dots or bodies are not luminous, ie. printed dots for newspapers, a different dynamic in the eye takes over and the definition can be different. I have heard that the eye resolution is 1500 dots across the central field of view of the eye, for example (as when looking at a picture).

When two (luminous) bodies are 1 min apart, the eye begins to see the separation. They are not separate and apart, but they are "distinguishable" from each other. Think of a camel with two humps. Now imaging separating two luminous bodies by one minute of arc. The look like two camel humps. That is also called the limit of discrimination. In fact, the little dip between the two bodies is less than 20% of the diameter when the bodies are called Resolved. When we can discriminate there are two bodies, not one, we call that the resolution. You can't see the two bodies separately, you just know there are two.

In the print world, the dots are not luminous, they are a reflective darker color on a lighter color, not white luminous dots on a dark sky with the iris wide open.

At 300 dpi and normal reading distance, the dots are joined together, but all "bumpiness"is not gone. The camel humps are still there. When there are 600 dpi the interaction between different lines crossing each other and individual dots is about gone for any eye. Then you through color into the equation, and the fact that an LCD screen is actually luminous and we will be here all day.

Jobs was correct in his description of the resolution of the display. He stated the common definition of 300 dpi - he didn't make that up. And he said the display had 325 dpi - also true. All the rest is a shouting contest over nothing.

Fingers got faster than my brain
"after yearS of study..."
"When the to dots..."
"They look like two camel humps..."
"Then you throw color into the equation..."

wish there were editing available

Good grief, this is a classic PC fanatics attempt to subvert Apples claim.
Yeah, Apple just makes this stuff up willy nilly without any thought about the claim itself being researched.
So, some experts seem to agree with Apple and some seem to disagree.
This is really a NON story. Just a bunch of brouhaha.

Cosmic, on 12 June 2010 - 10:53 AM, said:

If you click on "View entire thread" at the top of the comments you will be taken to a screen where the comments are formatted differently. You should find a "Edit" button on comments that you wrote. I have had this not work for me, but most of the time it will work. Good luck.

Is the display sharper? A lot shaper? Does it have a cool (or stupid) name? Does it render things better than before?

So far: Yes, Yes, Yes (yes), yes.

Look, that's all I really care about. Any phone, it doesn't matter. This will be good! Especially since I DO have bad eyesight. I can use Universal access and things will be shaper, and sharper text is better in general.