On a mostly unrelated note, I wish blatanly marketing driven terms like "retina display" would stop getting thrown around like this. Thanks to Apple's latest marketing adjustment for the iPad 3, it turns the phone I've owned for over 2 years now actually posesses a "retina display" (N900 for anyone wondering). At the viewing distance specified by Apple, the human retina is in fact capable of discerning a far higher pixel density anyway.
How is he "throwing around" this term? He's specifically talking about the iPad 3. Apple uses this marketing term to signal to the purchaser that they are going to get a certain pixel density. I see retina display, I know I will get a "good looking" display by Apple's standards. If I trust Apple, it means something. That's the purpose of marketing and branding. So what if your phone also has the same pixel density?
Do you have a problem with marketing in general? Is it a problem that Audi makes quattro cars or that Volkswagens have 4motion or BMWs have cars with 'x' in the model number? They only signify 4WD after all.
BTW, iPhone 4 is a 3.5 inch 640×960 resolution (326 ppi). N900 is 3.5 inch 800 × 480 resolution (267 ppi). Not that it matters either way.
No, I have a problem with marketing that is intentionally deceptive and can easily confuse non-technical users into believing they're paying for something they're not.
Neither of your car manufacturer examples demonstrate this. However, when a certain US cellular carrier slapped a "4G" sticker on 3G technology simply to make their product appear competitive in the market that was not OK.
Similarly, implying to users the pixel density of their device matches the resolving capabilities of the retina, when actual scientific studies demonstrate otherwise, is not OK with me.
A subset of human retinas can discern a higher pixel density, in the same way that a subset of the human population is capable of running the 4 minute mile. It doesn't make us all professional middle-distance runners.
The majority of people don't even have 20/20 uncorrected vision much less the ability to discern the pixels on a Retina display.
That would be a nice explanation if it actually fit the numbers. That subset of human retinas actually turns out to be 75% of the population. As for average vision, 35% of people can see better than 20/20 with no aids, and once glasses/contacts are added this number jumps significantly.
Apple's displays may well be termed true "20/20 displays" but calling them "retina displays" seems disingenuous.
I was referring to studies made by actual doctors not PR campaigns.
Edit: For those downvoting this I should have probably provided supporting evidence, though oddly no one treated the parent post in the same way. Feel free to follow the references at the base of this article: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
It's funny how you send as "supporting evidence" non-specific to the subject matter studies, that just talk about the eye and it's capabilities, while never testing the actual "retina display" math and numbers. It's like you point us to some huge volume of "Ophthalmology" and say "I'm right and here's the proof".
Yes, both those articles confirm Apple has created the "20/20 display" not the "retina display" (which turns out to make a difference to a large part of the population). The article I linked to talks about pixel density calculations, I'm sorry if this was too much effort but all the numbers are there for anyone that cares about the actual resolving power of the retina. Surely you're not going to suggest there are serious scientific sources that focus specifically on Apple screens? I thought actual research was what you made your initial comment about.
>Yes, both those articles confirm Apple has created the "20/20 display" not the "retina display" (which turns out to make a difference to a large part of the population). The article I linked to talks about pixel density calculations, I'm sorry if this was too much effort but all the numbers are there for anyone that cares about the actual resolving power of the retina.
We don't care about the resolving power of the retina for some bizarro "Heroes" type people with super-sight, or in the abstract. We care that we can't distinguish individual pixels or nearly can't distinguish them. Which is the case.
That "large part of the population"? Actually minuscule.
>Surely you're not going to suggest there are serious scientific sources that focus specifically on Apple screens? I thought actual research was what you made your initial comment about.
I didn't suggest such at the first place. What I wrote was that "actual doctors and optical specialists" agree that the claims are accurate. Plus, you don't need "actual research on Apple screens". If you know their DPI and the viewing distance, you can work it out from general research on the eye, and it will hold true for any other manufacturer too.
So, here's another actual expert (noticed the Ph.D and vision scientist parts?):
According to William H.A. Beaudot, Ph.D., a vision scientist who was a research associate at McGill University in Montreal and founder of KyberVision. “In my opinion, Apple’s claim is not just marketing, it is actually quite accurate based on a 20/20 visual acuity,” said Beaudot.
(...) Dr. Soneira also claims in the Wired article that the term Retina Display is more of a marketing term and is “superamplified imaginary nonsense.” Beaudot doesn’t agree. “Since this display is able to provide a visual input to the retina with a spatial frequency up to 50 cycles per degree when viewed from a distance of 18-inches, it almost matches the retina resolution according to the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem,” said Beaudot. “As such, Apple new display device can be called without dispute a Retina Display. Could it get better? Sure, but so far this is the closest thing ever done in display technology for the consumer market that matches the human retina resolution.”
Plus, as a tech geek, shouldn't you be jumping with joy that we have achieved widespread adoption of such high DPI screens, instead of arguing for minor details on their naming, and if they match the retina perfectly or just 20/20 vision etc?
So I had previously wondered about this "minority of the population" claim and I looked up the stats. Apparently 35% of the population has better than 20/20 vision without any corrective measures. With glasses/contacts/etc that numbers jumps to 75%. I think it's safe to say "heroes" is a bit of an exaggeration.
I don't know why the expert you're quoting is specifying an 18 inch viewing distance when the article you appear to have quoted from was speaking of the iPhone 4; Apple claims a 12 inch viewing distance here as far as I'm aware. Then he makes some vague statement about it being possible to do better and this is simply the closest we've gotten to a retina resolution so far. Sometimes academics just want a bit of press time because it makes them look good.
Anyway, it's great we're getting increasing DPI on our devices, I'm just a bit afraid we'll get stuck and not progress to true retina displays because the consumers will be convinced they already have it anyway.
