In theory, you need infinite resolution. In practice, the filtering that is part of antialiasing is an important step for reducing certain kinds of artifacts, so you really don't want to do away with AA at all.
New "Retina Display" Macbook Pro computer
- Thread starter Grall
- Start date
UniversalTruth
Veteran
The number of 120 was put there for illustration purposes only. In reality the viewing angle is even more than 120 degrees.
I look at my laptop at a distance like one full arm length. At this distance my field of view is occupied in 30-40% by its display.
So, imagine what the difference between 30-40% of 576 megapixels and 5 megapixels is.
That is arsehole's**tty low resolution no matter what your perception is forced to be.
Personally I see that at a reasonable distance with not too big a TV, Full HD is already only marginally better with AA, only some types of graphics still cause interference issues. On the iPad 3 at an arms length, AA already becomes pretty meaningless.
It's actually very simple. All you need is a simple DPI number.
The widely accepted human eye acuity for a perfect 20-20 vision is ~0.3 arc minute (the actual number is like 0.59 arc minute per line pair, that's two pixels, so it's ~0.3 arc minute per pixel). Now, at 50cm (should be close to your "one full arm length"), that means the pixel size should be ~0.0436 mm. That's ~582 DPI.
This makes sense because most people can easily distinguish between 300 DPI and 600 DPI black and white print. Color prints generally need less DPI because they tend to have less sharp edges.
So yes, in theory, retina Macbook Pro's 220 DPI is not really enough for "real retina." But for color display it's probably good enough.
My macbook pro appears to be on its last legs and those bastards release a bunch of incredibly expensive macbook pros. It's all a conspiracy against me. I don't even want to buy another laptop. Why couldn't those guys have updated the mac mini or something? What a bunch of dicks.
Also, 600DPI panel resolution is far beyond our current capabilities (to mass-produce, anyway). If one thinks $2200 minimum for a 15" laptop is expensive, whoah, just consider what it'd cost for a screen panel nearly nine times as dense..
Anyhow, 220DPI isn't entirely accurate, as each pixel is made up of three subpixels, and "cleartype"-like antialiasing will utilize those to increase apparent resolution of text. So we'd effectively have greater-than-220 DPI horizontal rez in such a situation...
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Sure it is.
The progress is this slow because they simply have the interest to squeeze every singly penny out of your pocket. You know- if we reach those 'human vision matching" resolutions and ppi very soon, it will be very hard for them to think where to go next. The technology for improvement is present, the thing is who will use it first- he will win a lot.
For example- one 100 inch display with 326 ppi (matching iphone's "retina") should have a resolution of 27 080 Х 18 150 which is 491.5 megapixels.
Cinema screens are even bigger, so their resolution should be too...
Well, not exactly. It's not that LCD makers are not hitting a huge profit wall these days (most LCD makers are bleeding very badly right now). If they can simply sell more expensive displays by making them higher resolution, they will do. However, there are two problems: first, not everyone knows how to make them effectively (remember the rumor where Sharp was to supply iPad's retina display, but lost to Samsung because they can't ramp up quick enough?) Second, no one knows for sure how large this "expensive but retina" market is.
The reason why it has to be Apple is because these days only Apple has the "guaranteed" volume. But as you can see, even Apple didn't upgrade all their laptop line up to retina display. There are obvious reasons: price, and power consumption.
So no, LCD makers are not sandbagging. They are struggling and if there's an easy way out, they will take it.
But you don't need that DPI for a cinema display, or a TV. Basically, you can cut the DPI number by half at double distance. For example, if you watch your small TV @ 100cm, you need only 300 dpi. For large TV, it's more likely 200 cm, so 150 DPI is good enough.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Well, we can't be sure why exactly they are bleeding, the factors might be diverse, also we can't be sure what exactly they report...
Why don't we need? Who says so?
There is a barrier, if you approach the display close enough, you will actually see how low the quality is. The idea is to remove this discomfort and to be able to look at it regardless of distance.
And of course- the higher the resolution, the more data reaches your brain, the quality is beyond comparison.
Right, it's angular resolution, not absolute resolution.
With 20/20 vision, the human retina can distinguish detail down to one arc minute. To reliably reproduce detail your display device should feature twice the resolution, two pixels per arc minute.
A Full HD 50" TV watched at 4 metres of distance has roughly two pixels per arc minute, a 65" TV watched at 3 metres has 1.2 pixels per arc minute.
Cheers
UniversalTruth
Veteran
This distance is too high. Looking at a 50 inch display from 4 meters is just way too much...
This distance is too high. Looking at a 50 inch display from 4 meters is just way too much...
Pretty common in my experience. In my living room, I sit 3.5-4.5 metres away from my 50" TV. My brother sits a minimum of 4 metres away in his. Friend of mine sits 5 metres from his 60" Kuro.
Besides, I'm not telling anybody what distance they should sit from their telly, it was just two examples of angular resolutions.
For a cinematic experience, you'd want around 30 degree field of view, that corresponds roughly to 3600 x 2025 pixels for two pixels/arc minute. The higher FOV, the more distortion you experience when you move off the center line though.
Cheers
UniversalTruth
Veteran
That's one of the reasons people begin to get used pretty fast, they buy a 32 or 40 (for that matter, 50 inch is not that far away too) inch display, watch it from a long distance and in a couple of weeks they regret why they hadn't bought the bigger one...
There is still not a consensus in how much resolution is enough to fool the human eye and brain. Even if you count the ammount of light receptors in your eye, you are ignoring its capability to move by milimiters and to do a bunch of post-processing with temporal coherence in your head upping the apparant resolution much further.
I'm looking for the link of an article I read one day, but can't find it. But anyway, it basically said the amount of dpi on a lcd display required for a person to be incapable of distinguishing a doted horisontal or vertical line of pixels from a continuous one is pretty close to that of an iphone4 or ipad2. But if you have a diagonal line for instance, then our vision system has a much more acurate perseption of detail and we can notice the jaggies, and the jump from one scanline to another.
Human vision is a complex bitch
I'm looking for the link of an article I read one day, but can't find it. But anyway, it basically said the amount of dpi on a lcd display required for a person to be incapable of distinguishing a doted horisontal or vertical line of pixels from a continuous one is pretty close to that of an iphone4 or ipad2. But if you have a diagonal line for instance, then our vision system has a much more acurate perseption of detail and we can notice the jaggies, and the jump from one scanline to another.
Human vision is a complex bitch
This one?
http://filmicgames.com/archives/698
http://filmicgames.com/archives/698
thank you sir, that is it
No consensus ? A human with 20/20 vision can separate two parallel lines one arc minute apart. That's two parallel lines on a printed board, where the observer can bop and weave all he likes and temporally integrate all he wants.
Cheers
That's irrelevant. The fact is they are losing money, and will do anything to get back to profitability. If that's really as easy as you said, they should be making a lot of profits already. It's much more likely that making high resolution display is hard and costly, and that's why we are only beginning to see them now, instead of some conspiracy that LCD makers are stalling progress.
I'm not seriously suggesting there is a conspiracy against me. Read what I wrote with a lot of sarcasm. I just shouldn't be spending that much money on a new computer right now, and am not as interested in getting another laptop. Hoping for a mini/iMac refresh soon, so something more affordable will be out there for me.