4.7-Inch iPhone 6 Screen Put Under Microscope as New 1472 x 828 Resolution Emerges

[matrix07]

Like said, ~300 dpi/ppi is the bare minimum for even pretending that individual pixels aren't visible. I guess we can all agree on that if you can see the pixels, we aren't talking about a "retina" or any other market name high resolution display? And since studies tell us that basically everyone can tell the difference between 300 and 500 ppi, and most people can tell 1000 ppi from 500 ppi, it is safe to say that 500 ppi would be a meaningful "standard". That doesn't mean that higher would not be better, but 500-600 ppi seems to be the point where we are starting to get diminishing returns.

Also, why people keep fixating on "seeing the pixels" (or perhaps more correctly, *not* seeing the pixels) is beyond me. "Pixel peeping" would be a meaningful criteria if the human vision would consist of a digital camera mounted on an extremely sturdy tripod. Alas, it is not. Humans do not see in terms of pixels. What we have is a continuously refocusing sweeping scanner that feeds data to an incredibly complex image enhancement and processing system. Thus the whole point of even thinking in dpi when it comes to human vision is totally flawed to begin with.

----------



Yes, and those studies tell us that between 500 and 1000 dpi is where most people can easily spot differences in image quality.

You seem to be confused, or you just don't know what you're talking about. You can't talk about pixel like it's a sole entity. Pixel will co-exist with (screen) size and distance to the eyes.
Yes, we might see pixel at 500 PPI res. if screen size is >100 inches and we look at it at a meter away. In plain English, it's meaningless to talk about "resolution" alone.
But if you're telling me the study found that people can differentiate between 500 PPI and 1000 PPI res. of normal mobile phone screen size at a normal distance (around 1 foot) then sorry, you have no clue what you're talking about. You just remembered what someone said, or wrote, without understanding it, remembered it wrong, or most likely, remembered it in a wrong context.
The proof is easy. Just looks at your phone screen.

 

[Trapezoid]

I've actually looked for this proof of this claim that 1000 ppi is discernible by most, but found none. About 20-25% of the population will distinguish 400 (which is already more than most displays) from 600 But, not in all types of displayed materials. going from 600 to 800, maybe a 1-2 percent could detect it with a blind test with certainty (but I'm guessing that from reading the various studies, no substial tests yet).

Screens try to hit the average view, not the hawk eye view because of tradoffs in luminosity and battery life in going for a higher resolution. On average, with current tech, around 400 is probably the sweet spot for displays (closer to 550 for pentile displays).

The last LG G3 went for overkill and lost on other metrics with their display (its not a major improvement despite the higher resolution), so not sure it was worth it for them.

Very high resolution best use is for static display material, like text, drawings and UI elements.

The g3s display looks amazing...if you're looking at quadhd content like the sample videos loaded on the phone. If you're surfing the web, no you won't know a difference and I haven't seen one review out there that says you will.

It's always funny to me that there's so many eagle eyed people on internet forums that can pick out the slightest resolution changes.

The g3s display is awesome, and I'm glad I bought the phone but no I don't pick it up and say omg the resolution!!! everytime I use it.

Every review of the phone I've read agrees with me. Not being able to tell the difference doesn't make it any less of a phone.

 

[markglass]

Rendering

OSX and iOS have extremely robust font rendering, with respect to quality and efficiency, as compared to Android. Users can experience these differences perhaps most demonstrably when text content is being rendered on webpages as well as in PDF's. Nevertheless, more pixels will provide the capacity/potential for higher quality rendering at a certain point (ie. who here still uses a 320x200 monitor?). Still, these results are obtained at the cost of energy expenditure and other ancillary implications,

If this report is true, Apple here seems to be balancing efficiency and elegance, by designing/engineering both software/hardware to meet no more or less than is required to achieve a specific result. Android-based manufacturers prefer to throw as many pixels onscreen as possible, along with faster processors, more RAM, and larger batteries. The design/engineering philosophy is different. For now, I do prefer Apple's closed ecosystem for its smooth delivery, unified services, and relative security it provides.

Honestly, however, my initial reaction is disappointment. I can absolutely see the pixels on my iPhone 5S. That said, I can also appreciate how finely the fonts are rendered and how readily iOS presents content without having to visibly rerender the content as I adjust viewing size or scroll. We'll see how the battery fairs and whether they start adopting business-standard vCard export, etc.

Cheers

 

[zipa]

I've actually looked for this proof of this claim that 1000 ppi is discernible by most, but found none.

Very high resolution best use is for static display material, like text, drawings and UI elements.

There's a lot of good stuff (with links to sources) in this article:

http://mostly-tech.com/2013/11/08/debunking-the-retina-display-myth/

Also, absolutely correct on that last statement. For line drawings, text and such the usual suggested printing resolution for high quality is 1200 dpi. I assume that a similar figure applies for displays as well.

----------

But if you're telling me the study found that people can differentiate between 500 PPI and 1000 PPI res. of normal mobile phone screen size at a normal distance (around 1 foot) then sorry, you have no clue what you're talking about.

The clueless one would be you, since that is exactly what the study was about. Small-to-medium sized displays with resolutions up to ~1000 ppi with a viewing distance of 300 mm.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsid.186/abstract

How's that crow tasting?

 

[matrix07]

There's a lot of good stuff (with links to sources) in this article:

http://mostly-tech.com/2013/11/08/debunking-the-retina-display-myth/

The problem with this kind of article is it started with a slant goal from the first place. By wanting to destroy Apple's "Retina" marketing, it cherished (and likely picked & chose) everything that contradicted with what Jobs use. But what it use is just as debatable as what Jobs use, like the claim that the true retina is 480 (or something) PPI, or a normal eyesight can see a pixel of 300 PPI at a foot away, for example.
If you want to hold this article as a gospel, then proceed. But you should be aware that this article is by no means academic.

----------

The clueless one would be you, since that is exactly what the study was about. Small-to-medium sized displays with resolutions up to ~1000 ppi with a viewing distance of 300 mm.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsid.186/abstract

How's that crow tasting?

I can find anything on the internet, even the one that proves Area 51 is the UFO landing. The proof, like I said, is easy, and plenty. Looks at the phone screen with your own eyes.
Those numbers in the research is most questionable.

 

[zipa]

The problem with this kind of article is it started with a slant goal from the first place, by want to destroy Apple's "Retina" marketing. So it cherished everything that contradicted with what Jobs use as a gospel. But what it use is just debatable as what Jobs use, like the claim that the true retina is 480 (or something) PPI, or a normal eyesight can see a pixel of 300 PPI at a foot away, for example.
If you want to hold this article as a gospel, then proceed. But you should aware that this article is by no means academic.

Maybe you should have read the actual studies that the article referred to, and which I linked to directly as well.

It's really simple: human vision is not a digital camera, i.e. you can not think of it as having some specific resolution or anything like that. It is a highly subjective system with so many different components interacting that any simple attempts at quantifying it will inevitably fail. Really the best thing you can do is to set up a bunch of screens with different resolutions and let a bunch of people tell you what they think.

----------

Those numbers in the research is most questionable.

Do feel free to offer your critique of it. After all, that is how science works.

 

[matrix07]

Maybe you should have read the actual studies that the article referred to, and which I linked to directly as well.

It's really simple: human vision is not a digital camera, i.e. you can not think of it as having some specific resolution or anything like that. It is a highly subjective system with so many different components interacting that any simple attempts at quantifying it will inevitably fail. Really the best thing you can do is to set up a bunch of screens with different resolutions and let a bunch of people tell you what they think.

In the end, it will be "we see what we see". If we don't see what we see then it's beyond our eyes' resolution. It's as simple as that. And I don't need to explain it like a textbook.

Do feel free to offer your critique of it. After all, that is how science works.

Well, I offered it already. A couple of times in fact. That the proof is in front of you, and everyone has one: A hi-res screen mobile phone.
Just-looks-at-it.
I work in the field of video and printing, and I say with my own professional experience that the research is very questionable. But since I have no way to know what "criteria" they use to test how people can tell the difference, then "questionable" is all I can say.

 

[zipa]

ct. That the proof is in front of you, and everyone has one: A hi-res screen mobile phone.
Just looks at it.
I work in the field of video and printing, and I'll say with my own professional experience that the research is very questionable. But since I have no way to know what "criteria" they use to test how people can tell the difference, then "questionable" is all I can say.

In other words, you don't have anything to back up your claims, and are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I work in the field of science, and I can assure you that nothing that gets printed in a scientific journal is in any way questionable, unless specifically mentioned as "experimental", "early research" or something similar.

As for your proof, yes, just by looking at the screen of an iPhone 5 you can clearly see that the screen is not sharp enough to present text and line drawings without fuzzy or jagged edges. One only needs to look at the "signal bar" circles, especially when they are not filled or at the "rotation lock" symbol in the top bar.

 

[matrix07]

In other words, you don't have anything to back up your claims, and are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I work in the field of science, and I can assure you that nothing that gets printed in a scientific journal is in any way questionable, unless specifically mentioned as "experimental", "early research" or something similar.

Tell me, what subject scientists agree with each others totally? How many times we hear global warming is true? And how many times we hear it's false? If you want to cherish a few studies as a gospel to all the knowledges in the field, then goes ahead.

As for your proof, yes, just by looking at the screen of an iPhone 5 you can clearly see that the screen is not sharp enough to present text and line drawings without fuzzy or jagged edges. One only needs to look at the "signal bar" circles, especially when they are not filled or at the "rotation lock" symbol in the top bar.

Interesting that you didn't talk about "text". You see that from a foot away? I have friends that swear by his mother that he can hear a difference between SACD and CD from the same master. I made a blind test. He failed. Are you swear you saw it?

 

[zipa]

Tell me, what subject scientists agree with each others totally?

Pretty much all of them. Science is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

Interesting that you didn't talk about "text". You see that from a foot away?

I don't use a ruler to measure the distance at which I hold my phone, but yes, from a normal viewing distance all similar line graphics look fuzzy or jagged.

I can't really talk about anything else than text or line graphics, since I do not have in my possession similar display panels that are nearly identical in all other aspects except resolution. Any subjective image quality test between different phones will have so many other factors that it is impossible to focus on resolution alone.

 

[matrix07]

Pretty much all of them. Science is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

Funny that often times this "facts" can be changed as time goes on.

I don't use a ruler to measure the distance at which I hold my phone, but yes, from a normal viewing distance all similar line graphics look fuzzy or jagged.

I can't really talk about anything else than text or line graphics, since I do not have in my possession similar display panels that are nearly identical in all other aspects except resolution. Any subjective image quality test between different phones will have so many other factors that it is impossible to focus on resolution alone.

It's too bad that you don't live near me, or I could think of a way to test this kind of thing. it could be the most interesting test.

 

[Karma*Police]

For the same reason no one in the entire world will ever need more than 640KB of RAM. At least according to Bill Gates.

That's a poor analogy for a couple of reasons:

1) Apple, to my knowledge, never said no one would ever need more than 300PPI. They only said you couldn't see individual pixels at a certain distance.

2) There's no performance tradeoff by installing more RAM in a desktop. Increasing PPI on a smartphone OTOH has tons, including reduced screen brightness, battery life, black levels, storage and performance; all of which with today's tech, outweigh the slight benefits in screen sharpness IMO.

 

[cmaier]

Tell me, what subject scientists agree with each others totally? How many times we hear global warming is true? And how many times we hear it's false? If you want to cherish a few studies as a gospel to all the knowledges in the field, then goes ahead.



Interesting that you didn't talk about "text". You see that from a foot away? I have friends that swear by his mother that he can hear a difference between SACD and CD from the same master. I made a blind test. He failed. Are you swear you saw it?

Pretty much all scientists agree global warming is true. The fact that you can find one or two who disagrees doesn't change that. And this hasn't changed over time. And so far I've seen zero scientists who say the average human can discern a difference between 500 and 350ppi on a 4.5" screen held 1.5-2 ft from the eyes.

 

[matrix07]

Pretty much all scientists agree global warming is true. The fact that you can find one or two who disagrees doesn't change that. And this hasn't changed over time. And so far I've seen zero scientists who say the average human can discern a difference between 500 and 350ppi on a 4.5" screen held 1.5-2 ft from the eyes.

And that is completely my point.

 

[Karma*Police]

Again Apple has failed, mate 1.5GB RAM was out what 2 years ago? Now we are seeing 3GB RAM and the Note 4 is rumoured to have 4GB RAM, where is Apple's response to that then? It puts in 64 bit but then does nothing with the RAM yet you claim that's the whole reason for 64 bit.
64 bit was implemented to boost performance and nothing more, their are PLENTY of 32 bit phones with 2GB Ram out there.

If you buy an iPhone 6 with 1GB Ram and a sub 1080P screen towards the end of 2014 then it really is more fool you, for the price it will cost the only winner is Apple's profit margin.

I think you place too much import on specs. It's important for some things, but it's the overall experience that matters. I've never felt the iPhone to be lacking cos it only had 1GB or RAM. My HTC One with 2 GB of RAM and quadcore CPU on the other hand leaves a *lot* to be desired from a performance and battery standpoint... at least compared to the iPhone 5S.

If Apple continues with 1GB of RAM in the iPhone, most people won't care cos it already feels faster and more fluid than any Android phone. Where Apple needs to up their RAM IMO is the iPad... the constant reloading of Safari tabs really hinders an otherwise awesome experience.

 

[AEdouard]

Pretty much all of them. Science is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

Well, science is a matter of facts, yes, but understanding how to interpret facts and what facts matter with what other fact is why we have peer reviews and debates in science.
And there's always one dude who disagrees with anything you might think of. 1+1=2, that's a math ''fact''. How much will the earth warm up in the next century is slightly more complicated

 

[zipa]

Funny that often times this "facts" can be changed as time goes on.

No, not really. They get refined, but what is true today won't become untrue tomorrow no matter what.

----------

And so far I've seen zero scientists who say the average human can discern a difference between 500 and 350ppi on a 4.5" screen held 1.5-2 ft from the eyes.

You'll have four right here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsid.186/abstract

And not only between 350 and 500, but 500 and 1000 as well in many cases.

Not to mention that 1200 dpi is pretty much the standard print resolution for high quality text and line art.

 

[matrix07]

No, not really. They get refined, but what is true today won't become untrue tomorrow no matter what.

We are not talking about the same thing.
Yes, that human can see is fact. But how good? See...

 

[AEdouard]

Scientists disagree all the time. 95%+ of climate change scientists think man has made the planet warmer, there's not a whole lot of debate about this in the scientific community (except for some loud dissenters, of course).

But one example of a pretty divisive issue is the importance of saturated fats as the main bad guy compared to sugar in the diet. You have some wild debates there.

Pretty much all scientists agree global warming is true. The fact that you can find one or two who disagrees doesn't change that. And this hasn't changed over time. And so far I've seen zero scientists who say the average human can discern a difference between 500 and 350ppi on a 4.5" screen held 1.5-2 ft from the eyes.

 

[matrix07]

Not to mention that 1200 dpi is pretty much the standard print resolution for high quality text and line art.

You think that 1200 dpi is the standard for printing today?

 

[zipa]

But one example of a pretty divisive issue is the importance of saturated fats as the main bad guy compared to sugar in the diet. You have some wild debates there.

If you look a bit closer at those debates, you'll find that they have the scientists on one side and diet mongers, lifestyle coaches and others who are in it for the money on the other side. That the debate is loud doesn't really mean anything. Just look at creationists and the madness they are spouting...

But I fear this is getting waaay off topic now.

----------

You think that 1200 dpi is the standard for printing today?

Yes. For high quality line art. 1200 or 2400 dpi, actually. Depending on the platesetter.

 

[matrix07]

Yes. For high quality line art.

What does that mean?

 

[AEdouard]

hehe. yeah. when people start talking about climate change, diet or religion, it can go anywhere fast. we should go back to arguing about the matter at hand, pixels.

If you look a bit closer at those debates, you'll find that they have the scientists on one side and diet mongers, lifestyle coaches and others who are in it for the money on the other side. That the debate is loud doesn't really mean anything. Just look at creationists and the madness they are spouting...

But I fear this is getting waaay off topic now.

----------



Yes. For high quality line art. 1200 or 2400 dpi, actually. Depending on the platesetter.

 

[Keirasplace]

Pretty much all scientists agree global warming is true. The fact that you can find one or two who disagrees doesn't change that. And this hasn't changed over time. And so far I've seen zero scientists who say the average human can discern a difference between 500 and 350ppi on a 4.5" screen held 1.5-2 ft from the eyes.

The average human, within 1 sigma, probably cannot, but there a substantial number who could. But... That difference is very small even for them even in cases were they notice : text, UI, and drawing.

Luminosity, black level, battery life, can the GPU run fast at that resolution and color accuracy may be much more important to them than this slight improvement. Design has to look at all of this.

 

[zipa]

Luminosity, black level, battery life, can the GPU run fast at that resolution and color accuracy may be much more important to them than this slight improvement. Design has to look at all of this.

Absolutely. I do not think that anyone would claim that resolution alone determines image quality.

One issue with a low res screen is that virtual/enhanced reality applications where you plug your phone into "goggles" that go over your eyes basically need resolutions beyond fullhd to look good.