“Dr. Raymond Soneira runs DisplayMate Technologies,” Jason Cross reports for PC World. “This morning, Dr. Soneira shot me an interesting email regarding the so-called ‘Retina Display’ of the iPhone 4. To clarify: a retina display is one whose resolution meets or exceeds the maximum resolution the human retina is capable of resolving, assuming perfect vision.”
Dr. Soniera’s email, in full and unedited, is as follows:
The iPhone 4 has an outstanding display… and I’m glad that Apple resisted the emotional rush to OLEDs because they still need lots of improvement before they will be ready to compete with the highly refined IPS LCDs. The iPhone 4 display should be comparable to the outstanding IPS LCD in the Motorola Droid, which I tested and compared to the Nexus One OLED, which was trounced by the Droid.
Steve Jobs claimed that the iPhone 4 has a resolution higher than the retina – that’s not right:
1. The resolution of the retina is in angular measure – it’s 50 Cycles Per Degree. A cycle is a line pair, which is two pixels, so the angular resolution of the eye is 0.6 arc minutes per pixel.
2. So if you hold an iPhone at the typical 12 inches from your eyes, that works out to 477 pixels per inch. At 8 inches it’s 716 ppi. You have to hold it out 18 inches before it falls to 318 ppi.
So the iPhone has significantly lower resolution than the retina. It actually needs a resolution significantly higher than the retina in order to deliver an image that appears perfect to the retina.
It’s a great display, most likely the best mobile display in production (and I can’t wait to test it) but this is another example of spec exaggeration.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: In his WWDC 2010 keynote address, Apple CEO Steve Jobs explicitly stated (beginning at 36:35), “The Retina display has 326 pixels per inch. There’s never been a display like this on a phone. People haven’t even dreamed of a display like this on a phone. But, it’s more than that. It turns out that there’s a magic number, right around 300 pixels per inch that when you hold something around 10 or 12 inches away from your eyes is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels. And so they’re so close together when you get at this 300 pixels per inch threshold that, all of a sudden, things begin to look like continuous, continuous curves. Like text looks like when you’ve seen it in a fine printed book. Unlike you’ve ever seen on an electronic screen before. And, at 326 pixels per inch, we are comfortably over that limit.”
If you want to argue with that, you need to get a life.
According to Wikipedia, in the term “20/20 vision,” the numerator refers to the distance in feet between the subject and the chart. The denominator is the distance at which the lines that make up those letters would be separated by a visual angle of 1 arc minute, which for the lowest line that is read by an eye with no refractive error (or the errors corrected) is usually 20 feet. The metric equivalent is 6/6 vision where the distance is 6 meters. This means that at 20 feet or 6 meters, a typical human eye, able to separate 1 arc minute, can resolve lines with a spacing of about 1.75mm. At 12 inches, the normal visual acuity of the human eye is 0.00349 inch. We’re not sure where the good doc is getting “0.6 arc minutes per pixel” unless he’s using Superman as his baseline.
Dr. Soniera should seek better ways to garner free publicity for DisplayMate Technologies.
Direct link to video via YouTube here.
If I had enough to spare I would offer Dr. Soniera some hairs to split.
It’s funny, the comments on the original article already call the guy on his crap.
Well darn it, I guess we better throw them all away. Nah, the good doctor is just doing his job as an, um, ocular geek.
“… (and I can’t wait to test it) but this is another example of spec exaggeration.”
Soooo, he hasn’t tested it, but he’s already labelled it “another example of spec exaggeration.”.
And another thing I’d like to know, good Doctor, what are the “other” examples of spec exaggeration?
Or did you just casually use that term, … um, .. “in error”?
Who cares as long as Porn looks good!
Don’t agree MDN. No reason to trash Dr. Soniera, who is simply stating the facts. He seems to know what he is talking about. Looks like the Jobso did exaggerate a bit. Not the first CEO to do so by a darn sight.
Actual 18″ vs ‘something around’ 10-12″…. whateva. Jobs is no engineer. Get a life.
Dr Obvious strikes again, the point need not be belalored.
I don’t think Apple is overexaggerating the superiority of the iPhone 4’s display. There is a comparison of the Weather icon between the 3GS and the iPhone 4 at MacWorld: http://www.macworld.com/article/151880/2010/06/retinadisplay.html?lsrc=top_3
The iPhone 4 is relatively sharp, while the 3GS is very pixelated. Can’t wait to see the real thing.
Hey, what’s with all the harsh talking.
Dr whats his name is speaking clearly and with good solid arguments.
It’s a great display and Jobbs slightly exaggerated on the specs which …eeeerrh…. is a bit Apple like sometimes.
I have a macbook and and iphone and I will buy the 4g and love them all but I will not take bullshit cause “steve all mighty” has spoken.
At 12 inches someone with good eyesight one will be able to spot pixels if he tries (the older you get the worse ofcourse, of if you have eye problems).
It’s a good solid argument and it doesn’t really affect iphone 4. We will still buy it because the screen is great and it’s a great improvent.
I don’t really get why you got “insulted”.
Cheer up boys and girls and don’t treat Jobs as the son of god and Apple like heaven. Apple is fantastic at publicity and PR.. some exaggeration is expected, always!
Qwatsch!
SO ! Well what is the resolution? Total. 600 * 400? 1000 * 500? 1920 *1080? 4000*2000?
GD, just gimme the damm res total. That’s simple enough.
I know Apple may have said so, but I didn’t catch it.
Can we just be simple, without 1 million degrees of angular bi-dimentional eletromagnetic diochronic dispensaitional relative disomatic…
WTFC
The 0.00349 inch @ 12 inch distance come out to be 289 DPI … that’s what Steve’s magic number of “300 dpi or so” is.
This 300 dpi @ 12 inch is a old rule from book printing times. At 300 dpi, a half-tone photo printed in a book would start to appear continuous, non-half-toned (non-pixellated) to the average reader. That’s why the iPhone’s resolution > 300 dpi is such a big deal.
And yes, Steve Jobs has the “more right” numbers — there’s no absolutism here since all eyes are different. But Dr. Soniera clearly overestimates average eyesight.
If the smallest element your 20/20 naked eye can see from 12 inches is 0.00349 inch, it translates to 286.5 dpi. Anything above that your eye cannot distinguish.
Quoting Jobs is not a solid argument against the Dr., because it is exactly his statements that are being called into question. Wikipedia is also questionable. A typical human eye may not be a perfect human eye, so maybe that’s where the difference in arc-minutes lies. I’m no expert though…
Knowing nothing about this stuff I would tend to believe a doctor who has his reputation on the line over a wikipedia entry, depending on the source of said entry
I can’t prove If Dr. Soniera’s calculations and analysis are right or wrong; I doubt anyone here can. However, he’s using general metrics to cast aspersions about claims for a device he has never touched, let alone tested.
I recall another equally eminent (and competitively funded) expert who screamed that Jobs’ claim about iPad battery life was impossible. Of course as it turned out, Jobs, who is in a position to know, was right, and the mercenary “expert,” who had no access to the device, was wrong.
There you go Academics vs Practical theory!!
In the real world, we just want it to look great!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> Can’t wait….
My retina will be the judge when I hold the new iPhone 4 in front of me at half an arms length
Final judge is iWallet$$$$ urWallet!!!
Dr. Soniera Douce wants his 15 minutes of fame…
There you guys go again being rude and trashing someone for laughs. The “get a life” comment was in poor taste. You editors are starting to get on my nerves. Just report the news keep the cheap shots to yourselves.
With a resolution of 960 x 640 pixels…
O.K. I found it. There. that’s all I need.
(Sorry, I was out, yesterday.) Holy sh*t, batman.
Damm, that’s NUTS ! For a cell phone? That’s WAY BETTER than a dvd! What more do ya want?!?
Well, I could use an Apple i-TV with 4000*2000 res, with an option to burn to BLU-RAY ! I’d really BUY THAT!
How ’bout an i-Watch 2 way live video chat with 10,000*10,000 res? K I lost my mind on that one.
Okay, that does it – I am not getting one! Case closed!
Look, I don’t mind Apple exaggerating a bit regarding the retina display — that’s the way it is in the world of advertising. But anyone in the print side of graphic design will tell you that people with good eyesight can easily (and I do mean easily) tell the difference between (for instance) text printed at 300dpi and the same text printed at 600dpi.
I don’t claim to know what the magic number is, but it sure ain’t 300dpi.
If I had been advising Apple, I would have told them to come up with a different marketing hook, because the Apple haters were guaranteed to nitpick the technical details and make a stink about it.
How is it “spec exaggeration” when the spec says 326 DPI and that’s what it is? If he wants to complain about the name, that’s something called marketing. I think it’s a great name, because “retina” is a cool-sounding word.
People hold their iPhones at varying distances from their eyes. Some people’s eyes are better than others. Mine are probably not among the sharpest, with or without my glasses on. But the new iPhone screen DOES have 2x the sharpness (and 4x the pixels) of the previous iPhone, and most other mobile phone displays; that’s not variable nor an exaggeration.
I found it interesting that he says the iPhone 4 (960 x 640) on a 3.5″ screen should be comparable to the Motorola Droid (854 x 480) on a 3.7″ screen. Actually, the iPhone 4 boasts a little better than a 50% improvement over the Droid (pixel-wise).