Skip to content

Apple Retina Display

By now it seems that most people on the planet have heard of Apple’s latest iPhone, the iPhone 4 which was released today.  One of the many compelling features of the new phone is the Retina Display.  When Steve Jobs first invoked this term at the WWDC, my eyebrows were raised.  Being a retinal scientist, I was immediately skeptical of just what he meant by “retinal display”.  My mind immediately raced and I wondered if it might have been some of the interesting technology I got to see on my last visit to one of Apple’s technology development labs.  I will not say anything about that visit, but this Retina Display, a super high resolution display was new technology that I had not seen before.  Essentially it is an LED backlit LCD display with a *326* pixel per inch (960×640) display (John Gruber of Daring Fireball called this resolution display back in March) where each pixel measures a scant 78μm.    Though as you can see from these images of the displays I captured under a microscope, these pixels are not square.  Rather they are rectangular and while the short axis is 78μm, the long axis on the iPhone 4 pixel is somewhere in the neighborhood of 102μm. Update 07/23/10:  After discussion with some folks, including an LCD engineer, they have pointed out that pixels are measured from center to center rather than edge to edge, so I have changed the scale bars to reflect new measurements with a micrometer. Additionally, others have emailed me noting that if the black space surrounding the pixels is taken into account, the pixels are in fact, square.  So, the measurement of 78μm for the iPhone 4 is in fact 78μm from center to center of every pixel.  Also, Ron Uebershaer sent in screenshots I’ve included at the bottom of this post that he made in MATLAB which conceptually demonstrate that the pixels are in fact square.

I am including images below of the iPhone 1G, the iPhone 3G, the iPhone 4G and the iPad to show some perspective on pixel sizes.  The scale bar and my measurements are approximate as I was having a tough time in the lab tonight finding an appropriate calibration.  Nevertheless, this should serve as a useful metric for examining the relative pixel sizes and for making the point of whether Apple’s Retina Display is marketing speak and hyperbole or if in fact, Apple’s claims have merit.

 

As you can see from this image, the iPhone 1G pixels (each composed of a red, green and blue sub-pixel) measure approximately 150μm x 500μm.  Also note the blurryness of the image.  This was optimally focused, but the LCD panel itself is behind a non-bonded pane of glass with touch sensor on it leading to some image degradation.

 

As in the 1G iPhone, the iPhone 3G pixels are essentially the same size, though with a different contact location.  Again, these pixels measure approximately 150μm x 150μm and this LCD display has the same blurring issues that are present in the iPhone 1G.

 

This image of the iPhone 4G LCD is made at the same magnification as the 1G and 3G iPhones illustrating the substantially smaller pixel size in the iPhone 4G.  These pixels are remarkably small and if you look carefully, appear to be composites themselves where each sub-pixel is composed of its own sub-pixels.  I am not sure about this however and it may simply be an artifact of the construction.  Also note that there is very little distortion in the pixel images as the iPhone 4G has a bonded glass cover, eliminating the space in between the LCD panel and the touch sensitive glass surface.

iPhone1: ~150 x 150μm

iPhone 3G: ~150μm x 150μm

iPhone 4G: ~78μm x 78μm

So… the claim from Steve was that this display had pixels that matched the resolution display of the human retina.  Now, fan of Apple that I am, this struck me as perhaps a bit hyperbolic, so I figured I’d do some quick calculations to see where this claim fell.  Apparently I am not the first Ph.D. to wonder as another came out calling the bluff of Mr. Jobs.  Here is the deal though… While Dr. Soneira was partially correct with respect to the retina, Apple’s Retina Display adequately represents the resolution at which images fall upon our retina.

Essentially, this is a claim of visual acuity which is the ability of the visual system to resolve fine detail.  There are an awful lot of considerations to take into account when making such a claim such as contrast, distance, the resolution of the display and some metric of pixel size which gives you an estimate of visual resolution on the retina.  Claims of contrast ratios are notoriously flexible in a number of displays and will be influenced by a number of optical factors as well as the content being viewed and the black and color levels of the pixels as well as overall luminance.  Apple claims an 800:1 pixel ratio and I’ll take them at their word on that and focus on the claims of resolution here.

A “normal” human eye is considered to have standard visual acuity or 20/20 vision.  This means that a 20/20 eye can discriminate two lines or two pixels separated by 1 arcminute (1/60 degree).

The ability of an optical system to resolve fine detail requires minute spacing of optical detectors.  In the retina, there detectors are the photoreceptors.  Objects we look at at projected through the cornea and lens and imaged on the back of the eye on a plane that ideally lines up with the retinal photoreceptors.

Theoretically the limit of retinal resolution, say the ability to distinguish patterns of alternating black and white lines is approximately 120pixels/degree in an optimal, healthy eye with no optical abnormalities.  Again, this corresponds to one minute of arc or 0.000291 radians (π/(60*180)).  If one assumes that the nominal focal length of the eye is approximately 16mm, an optimal distance from the eye for viewing detail might be around 12 inches away from the eye which is reasonable to assume for someone viewing detail on their iPhone.

Dr. Soneira’s claims are based upon a retinal calculation of .5 arcminutes which to my reading of the literature is too low.  According to a relatively recent, but authoritative study of photoreceptor density in the human retina (Curcio, C.A., K.R. Sloan, R.E. Kalina and A.E. Hendrickson 1990 Human photoreceptor topography. J. Comp. Neurol. 292:497-523.), peak cone density in the human averages 199,000 cones/mm2 with a range of 100,000 to 324,000.  Dr. Curcio et. al. calculated 77 cycles/degree or .78 arcminutes/cycle of *retinal* resolution.  However, this does not take into account the optics of the system which degrade image quality somewhat giving a commonly accepted resolution of 1 arcminute/cycle.  So, if a normal human eye can discriminate two points separated by 1 arcminute/cycle at a distance of a foot, we should be able to discriminate two points 89 micrometers apart which would work out to about 287 pixels per inch.  Since the iPhone 4G display is comfortably higher than that measure at 326 pixels per inch, I’d find Apple’s claims stand up to what the human eye can perceive.

 

For reference, I am also including an image of the iPad LCD taken at the same magnification as the iPhone images above.  As you can see, the pixel size is actually much larger and herringbone shaped which is not uncommon in high quality desktop displays like say, the Apple Cinema Display line.

 

 

Update 03/02/11:  Carles Mitjá has an entry with a proceedings citation highlighting image quality expectancy here.  He has three beautiful images of a MacBook Pro 15″ display, an iPhone 4 display and a very interesting 24″ Apple Cinema Display.

Update 08/24/12:  Looks like this article has resulted in my being quoted in the NYTimes for an article on choosing computer displays.

Update 12/15/13: Linked from an NBC News article on 4k televisions, Enough pixels already! TVs, tablets, phones surpass limits of human vision, experts say.

 

Categories: Gear, News (Apple Inc.), News (Technology).

Tags: , , , ,

Comment Feed

152 Responses

  1. Absolutely fascinating – Thanks for taking the time to both share your thoughts and putting them into a perspective sub-scientists can grasp.

    I’d like to see you give similar treatment to high-end sensors sometime – I bet it’d be equally intriguing and educational too.

  2. Nice! Thanks for the awesome insight into the retinal scientist’s perspective on this. I was curious what you’d think about the screen on the iPhone 4 when it was released, and I knew you’d have one. ;)

  3. Once again, you rock Bryan.

  4. When I read the previous article by Dr. Soneira I was curious as to your thoughts. Thanks for this detailed, expert insight! I would expect nothing less from your analytical mind.

  5. Scientists can’t but argue over claims… :)

    With best intentions: “So, if a normal human eye can discriminate two points separated by 1 arcminute/cycle at a distance of a foot” is schoolbook approximation with intention for students to remember order of magnitude of this property without struggle. Obvious hint: if true it just happens that at one unit of distance measure (we invented) resolution (evolved by Nature) is defined by another unit of angle measurement (which we also independently invented)… Not likely.

    To the substance: “However, this does not take into account the optics of the system which degrade image quality ” – Nature is not wasteful during evolutionary process. Our optics (in a healthy person) are better than our sensor array. Though very close, “better” means that evolution would degrade our sensors (same as flightless birds lose ability to fly when not needed over generations) if they were collecting info optics couldn’t resolve (and vice-versa). Nature is incredible engineer.

    So, while 0.5 arcminute/cycle at one foot is still approximation, it is much closer to the real number and ability, which makes at least factor of two in Apple claim vs. properties of human eye.

  6. hi, I would like to add (and maybe you can shed insight) that it really isn’t the pixel dimension that is important for deciding this topic, but the distance between the pixels. that distance being much more important, (only in the since of someone trying to determine if they can see a pixel with their super human eye)… not in how great the display is, but strictly for this topic.

    the two pixels side by side would not show up in your vision, if the distance between them is so small that you can not define it… that distance between pixels is even smaller than the measurements being used.

    in otherwords, if a person put on Glasses that gave them 20/10 vision, according to your calcs, they should see the pixels… i’m assuming you had a better microscope than this :0)

    and I’m contending that a person with glasses that gave them 20/10 vision and at 12″ away, still would have a very very tuff time seeing a jaggy edge, or the edge or jaggies in a photo..

    that seems like a simple test, if you can get a person calibrated correctly.

  7. Doesn’t this completely ignore the ability of the brain to perceive higher detail by coalescing data as the eye shifts slightly on a continual basis?

    While the retinal calculations above would be true if our eye took photographs, this is only a part of the system as other researchers have shown. Actual acuity of vision is substantially higher in some cases.

    Also notable is that these fixed RGB pixel layouts are not optimal for conveying image data to the eye because of difference in sensitivity to the component colours, but that isn’t a resolution issue per se.

  8. I am very curious about this but no one has ever been able to tell me the answer. But I bet that you can. In the iPad photo above, the light from blue pixels bleeds wider than the object in a kind of halo effect. Why does that happen and why doesn’t the red or green light do that?

  9. A very interesting article.
    A minor point, though: I am a bit confused by your statement of the pixels in the iPhone 4 not being square: The area covered by the red, green and blue diodes (horizontal dimension of any diode and distance from top edge of green to bottom edge of blue diode) are not square. However, isn’t the pixel comprised of the three diodes and the empty space between them (the rectangle spanning from the left/upper edge of a diode set to the next)?

    Ernst LiesmaJune 25, 2010 @ 10:14 amReply
  10. Am I confused, or are you trying to define the resolution in terms of the emissive area of a pixel rather than the distance between the discrete elements? The pixels on all these devices are square – it’s just that not all the pixel area emits light.

    I’m also a bit confused by your scale – by my measure, using the 180 micron line, the pixels are about 120 micons square. That would make the long edge of an iPhone 4 screen 4.5″, which it isn’t (it’s about 2.9″). The top left of a green subpixel to the top left of the next should be about 77 microns (both horizontally and vertically) in order to fit a 960×640 screen into the iPhone’s form factor. Are you sure of your measurements? If so, Apple have lied about the resolution, and I’d have thought someone would have noticed by now.

    There’s a lot of maths about the extinction of resolution. I claim I can see the pixels on my old 310ppi phone, I can see the pixels on a 360dpi inkjet print-out, and I therefore expect to see the pixels on a Retina Display.

    Sorry if this sounds aggressive – I just don’t see how the numbers add up.

    FluppeteerJune 25, 2010 @ 10:14 amReply
  11. How do you square this with claims that humans can easily distinguish 1200dpi from 2400dpi images [http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00002G&topic_id=1&topic=Ask+E.T.]?

    Mabel RollinsJune 25, 2010 @ 10:16 amReply
  12. Thanks for the comparisons and insight. I’m especially intrigued by the iPad’s herringbone pattern, and wondering why the green pixels have a uniform shape/clarity, while the red seems a bit fuzzier, and the blue is blurry. Plus blue and red have the extra notch at the top.

    Is the blurriness just a fluke of the imaging equipment, or is it intended by the manufacturer to soften the blues?

  13. Empirically, it’s easy enough to display a pattern of alternating pixels, and see whether your retina can pick them out. Here’s one such pattern:
    http://quezi.com/12935

    I don’t have an iPhone, but the pixels are just at the limit of my vision when viewed on my 267 pixels per inch Nokia N900, so I’m fairly sure I wouldn’t see the pixels on the iPhone 4 display.

  14. Why is it that only the blue subpixels in the iPad display are out of focus?

  15. ————————
    So, while 0.5 arcminute/cycle at one foot is still approximation, it is much closer to the real number and ability, which makes at least factor of two in Apple claim vs. properties of human eye
    —————————-

    uhh, someone obviously hasn’t seen an iPhone 4… if this were true you would be able to see the pixels from 12″ (assuming you have have very good vision)

    why is it that you can’t if the visual arc was .5? a simple test would have told you this was an incorrect number in real life.

    people have taken close up photos of the actual screen in action with micro lenses from 3″ away… with glasses that correct my vision to much better than 20/20, I could barely discern the pixels, but i could.

    this number of .5 arc is bogus in real world applications where the LCD screen is using anti-Alaising to vary the contrast between pixels, and eyes with photoreceptors in a jumbled pattern that do not line up with the gridded spaces between pixels.

    it is just plain bogus number of .5, and simple test with the actual equipment (the actual screen) shows this.

  16. “…peak cone density in the human averages 199,000 cones/mm2″

    This is incorrect. If you are going to nitpick you might as well be correct. This number refers only to cone outer segments. The Curcio et al., paper from 1990 makes the same mistake.
    theorem?

    Retina guyJune 25, 2010 @ 10:38 amReply
  17. I posted a similar take on this issue a couple of weeks ago. You can even see a comparison between the human retina mosaic and several Apple displays (see note 3 at the bottom of the blog):

    http://www.kybervision.com/Blog/files/AppleRetinaDisplay.html

  18. Surely if the limit of ocular resolution is 1 _cycle_ per arc-minuted then you need 2 _pixels_ per arc-minute to reach this limit, since there must be an on and an off pixel in each cycle. This suggests that Soneira’s claims are right.

  19. It would be nice if you could include a similar microscope image corresponding to a Motorola Droid.

  20. Text and graphics on these modern displays are also anti-aliased. That has to be taken into account too, doesn’t it?

  21. ———-
    by my measure, using the 180 micron line, the pixels are about 120 micons square
    ————-

    to answer your question, by your measure you are wrong, (obviously since it doesn’t add up)

    so from that point on it is hard to believe any of the rest, including the ability to see a 310 ppi display, when you can’t tell the difference between the size of the pixel shown and the 180 sized line, which is right on top of it.

  22. This is blog-journalism at its best. Kudos.

  23. I’d been wondering about Jobs’ claims ever since the press release. Thanks for sharing your professional insight!

  24. Today I learned that the pixels in the iPad aren’t rectangular.

    What did you use to take these shots, Bryan?

    -jcr

    John C. RandolphJune 25, 2010 @ 11:22 amReply
  25. I am impressed

    if you get some free time can you review some android phone screens as well

  26. If you look at text on an iPhone 4, it looks just like text in a magazine. It is amazing.

    People are going to be clamouring for this on… slates and medium to high-end laptops.

    JonathanJune 25, 2010 @ 11:41 amReply
  27. The type is remarkably noticeably the colors and sharpness not so much, but I saw it in the fonts.

  28. It seems to me that if you defined a pixel as a set of three glowing color elements _and_ the black areas between them, the pixels would be very close to square, with about 200 such squares per inch.

    I thought the 1G iPhone display had amazing detail, so twice as good as that….

  29. Great job breaking this down! The high quality closeups are amazing! (Reading this on an iPhone 4, btw, and it looks very crisp!)

  30. Great writeup – Thank you!

    AdamTheBlueJune 25, 2010 @ 12:02 pmReply
  31. It’s also of note that there’s a point where you go cross eyed. :)

    Even if my eyes could see the pixels under 6-7 inches from my eye, it’s impossible for me to focus.

    Chase SechristJune 25, 2010 @ 12:07 pmReply
  32. Holding a phone 12″ from your eye is absurdly close. It’s more like 18-24″

  33. awesome work!

  34. A small technical note… the latest iPhone is called the iPhone 4, not the iPhone 4G. It is not a 4G phone. Also the original iPhone was simply called the iPhone, not the iPhone 1G. It was, in fact, a 2.5G phone. 1G phones were analog.

  35. Wow, this is incredibly insightful! Thank you!

  36. can you add a picture of the new nintendo 3ds?

  37. What about aliasing? Don’t we really need 574 pixels per inch?

  38. Excellent science, thank you!

    One note: the name of Apple’s product is the iPhone 4, not the iPhone 4G. It is often misspelled as the latter, leading many to believe it can move data at 4G network speeds. It is not advertised as being able to do so.

  39. Thanks for the very sharp images and thoughtful analysis!

    I assume it’s correct that the pixels, whatever inter-spacing you may find, are laid out exactly on a square grid. (Otherwise, programmers could have fits in trying to draw correctly-proportioned images, as happened in the bad old days of Win 3.)

    As to the iPad-v-iPhone comparison, all the Apple ads show the iPad used on a *laptop*. (Slight irony there.) For me, that’s maybe 20-24 inches away, so same magnification pixels would look half as big. Could we seen how resolved pixels would look at equivalent resolution by the eye?

    I also wonder whether your talents might be well applied in contrasting the fine detail of other smartphones. Several blogs have commented on the “fuzzy text” of the hi-rez Nexus, apparently from its reduced sub-pixel count; Dr. Soneira also opined that software drivers fuzzed the images to reduce moiré. I would think that iPhone4 vs DroidX is a more likely comparison than vs iPhone1, in terms of consumers’ concerns.

  40. Fascinating indeed. Thank you for taking the time to do this, Very nice pictures, I have wondered how the subpixels were arranged. Also the blurriness of earlier models really showed.

    But being able to look at these pictures makes me wonder exactly how you come up with your numbers. Looking at the Retina pictures, they look square enough to me.

    I tried the best I could by measuring and doing the math, and found they (the iPhone 4 pixels) are on average 59.6×57.3 (WxH) pixels of your image. Your 180 um scale is 87 pixels wide. So the Retina pixels actually are 123×119 um. That should be the size (give or take) of a complete Retina pixel, including of course the black interpixel spacing.

    You could ignore the spacing when talking about the pixel construction (which is interesting enough), but not when comparing to the resolution of the eye.

    Also I wonder how you came up with the 500 um pixel height for the older displays. I get 237 um. I’m not saying you’re wrong here, I just wonder why my results differ from yours.

    Nevertheless, I still think it’s a very interesting article. Thanks again!

    Stefan HolmJune 25, 2010 @ 1:10 pmReply
  41. Bryan,

    Thank you very much for this interesting article. It actually topped Hacker News today:
    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1461213

  42. honkj:

    I wrote:
    ———-
    by my measure, using the 180 micron line, the pixels are about 120 micons square
    ————-

    You wrote:
    ————-
    to answer your question, by your measure you are wrong, (obviously since it doesn’t add up)
    ————-

    Well, *something* is wrong. Looking at the bottom iPhone 4G image, the “180um” line is immediately above about 1.5 green pixels, measured from the bottom right corner of one to the middle of the bottom of the next. (I measured more accurately by scaling everything in an image editor, but it’s pretty close to 1.5.) That’s 120 microns along a pixel edge (some of which is not illuminated). 960 pixels is therefore 115.2mm, or 4.5in. The iPhone’s screen has a 3.5in diagonal, and is therefore not 4.5in along an edge. Either the image isn’t from an iPhone or the “180um” line is incorrect. I assume its an honest mistake, and it’s the latter – the 78x102um measurements seem to tally with this alleged 180um line, assuming the black space between pixels is (for reasons I consider incorrect) excluded.

    Put another way, let’s go with the claimed 102um pixel size, as the longer dimension. A 3.5in iPhone screen is 2.91in by 1.94in, or 74.0mm x 49.3mm. 102um x 960 pixels = 97mm, 102um x 640 pixels = 65mm, both of which are bigger than the possible screen.

    The quoted figures aren’t used when comparing the 326ppi official iPhone figure with visual acuity, so that conclusion may still be correct. However, the numbers, and the labelling on the image, cannot be. Sorry, just trying to help.

    ———-
    so from that point on it is hard to believe any of the rest, including the ability to see a 310 ppi display, when you can’t tell the difference between the size of the pixel shown and the 180 sized line, which is right on top of it.
    ———-

    It’s possible that my comfort zone for viewing a 3in WVGA screen is less than 12in – in other words, I would look closely enough at an iPhone screen to be able to see the pixels, even if you can’t see them from 12in away – I just do hold a small screen that close. However, in the absence of a good test case, I can definitely see 310ppi lines at a viewing distance of at least 12in, even if it’s not comfortable. I’m not making assertions based on alleged measurements or making claims for or against the Retina display – just reporting what I can see. It’s been a long time since I looked at ink-jet printout, so I can’t vouch for how far away I had to hold it.

    My vision is pretty poor (which is why I hold a phone close), but many people with poor distance vision have much better vision at short range, so the 20/20 get-out clause is a bit simplistic.

    Honestly, I’m looking forward to the Retina Display appearing in an Android phone (eventually). I like the display, I’m a great fan of resolution, I happen not to be a fan of the iPhone from a developer’s perspective. Apple (and LG) are to be commended for producing it, but making preposterous claims about it seemed unnecessary. It’s a big jump over an original iPhone display, but it’s only an incremental improvement over the WVGA 3-4in Windows Mobile and Android devices that have been out for years – it’s a nice feature, but it’s not magic.

    FluppeteerJune 25, 2010 @ 1:25 pmReply
  43. Thanks for the scientific analysis! It’s amazing to see how far display technology has come in such a short period of time.

  44. Note that if you take the three sub pixels in concert with the black “dead” row next to them, they do roughly make up a square pixel. This is why computers are referred to having square pixels (whereas, I believe, in video, pixels are based on rectangles.

  45. I apologize if you’ve answered this above, but does it make a difference that we’re talking about emitted light rather than reflected light? It seems like the ability to discriminate individual pixels would also be largely affected by the brightness of the individual pixel– the more brightness, the more likely it would be to mix with the light from the pixels around it?

  46. Great article! I’m not a Retina Neuroscientist, but I am a Cataract and Refractive Surgeon—and I love the new iPhone 4. The Retina Display is gorgeous, and the only negative is that now I’m not liking my iPad and MacBook Pro displays as much!

    However, if I look closely, I am able to see the pixelation in the “Retina Display.” I think this is explained by the fact that many healthy eyes are actually able to see 20/15 and even 20/10; i.e. up to twice the resolution that you used in your calculation. Therefore, to exceed the resolution of the human eye (cornea, lens, retina, and all!), a screen would need 287 x 2 = 574 pixels per inch.

  47. This is great, thanks for posting this!

  48. It’s the iPhone 4 … not 4G. But don’t get me wrong, I blame Apple for not having a consistent naming scheme for things. I have so many friends who call the “Touch” the “iTouch” … In my opinion, it’s a failure in Apple’s marketing. If you go to google and type “iphone” followed by a space, you’ll see “iphone 4g” as the first suggestion, so it’s apparently an epidemic.

    Anyway, I loved the technical information on the screen. I’m still waiting for my iPhone 4 to be shipped. For some reason I wasn’t able to order it on the 15th of June … :)

  49. Hmmm … research I’ve seen suggests that the cone density of the retina near the center is such that it can discern resolutions close to 30 line pairs / mm, if the image is projected directly onto it (bypassing the eye’s lens). Of course real world human vision never comes close to this, but there have been tests where subjects with good eyes, viewing high contrast backlit test targets, could discern up to 21 lp/mm. With ordinary photographic detail, people can discern up to 11 lp / mm, if the contrast is high and the lighting is bright. The new iPhone display is the equivalent of 6 lp / mm. This is very fine resolution, but it’s no surprise that people with decent eyes can see the pixels. And all of this suggests that Mr. Jobs’s claim is goofy.

    I can send you my sources if you’re at all curious.

  50. I can distinguish the difference between 300 and 600 DPI laser printing at about 8 inches… but i typically hold my iPhone at about 12 to 14 inches so i doubt i will be able to make out “jaggies” when i upgrade to V4.

Newer Comments »



Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.

Continuing the Discussion

  1. === popurls.com === popular today…

    yeah! this story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…

  2. […] Apple Retina Display – Jonesblog […]

  3. […] the com­plete cal­cu­la­tion take a look at Jonesblog’s Apple Retina Display arti­cle. And here’s what I con­cluded in Retina Display I wrote back on June 9th: So when […]

  4. […] as diferenças entra as telas do primeiro modelo do iPhone, do iPhone 3G, do iPad e do iPhone 4. Ele diz em seu blog que a tela do iPhone parece ser “mais confortável” para o olho humano do que a medida […]

  5. […] vas zanima naučno-tehnička strana priče, tekst Bryana Jonesa je pre­pun deta­lja i raču­na­nja da vas glava zaboli. Ili […]

  6. […] wel eens bevestigd zien dat het Retina Display van de iPhone 4 daadwerkelijk kleinere pixels heeft dan het menselijk oog kan waarnemen. Hij legde het toestel onder de microscoop en constateerde rechthoekige pixels van 78 x 102 […]

  7. […] Apple Retina Display – Jonesblog – (tags: apple retina display iphone4 science analysis optics lcd pixel ) […]

  8. […] behauptet, die Pixel-Unterscheidungsfähigkeit des menschlichen Auges übersteigt, sei mal dahingestellt. Fakt ist aber, dass die Auflösung von 960 x 640 Pixel bei 326 dpi schon sehr beeindruckende […]

  9. […] “”I’d find Apple’s claims stand up to what the human eye can perceive,” writes Bryan Jones after an exhaustive analysis of the iPhone 4′s 3.5-inch, 960×640 display. Article […]

  10. […] screen I’ve always wanted but never thought I’d see. It’s not just the pixel den­sity (which accord­ing to an actual reti­nal sci­en­tist, actu­ally does live up to the hype, even under a micro­scope), but what that pixel den­sity […]

  11. […] mostramos até agora devem ter sido insatisfatórias. Bem, agora não tem muito pra onde correr: um cientista usou uma aproximação que permitiu ver até os subpixels dos subpixels dos pixels na tela de um iPhone 4 (se é que […]

  12. […] Leia todo o artigo do Dr. Brian Jones aqui. […]

  13. […] (Bryan Jones), спeциaлизирующийся нa изучeнии сeтчaтки глaзa, oпубликoвaл рeзультaты сoбствeннoгo исслeдoвaния, кoтoрыe oпрoвeргaют […]

  14. […] screen I’ve always wanted but never thought I’d see. It’s not just the pixel density (which according to an actual retinal scien­tist, actually does live up to the hype, even under a micro scope), but what that pixel den­sity does […]

  15. […] The Apple Retina Display Under the Microscope – If you haven’t seen a ‘Retina’ display in person, these photos of iPhone […]

  16. […] (via prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2010/06/apple-retina-display/) […]

  17. […] like with a resolution like that (or if we’d even tell the difference, given that our eyes have a limit on the amount of detail they can discern). Obviously, this is strictly a research project at this point — creating all of the […]

  18. […] like with a resolution like that (or if we’d even tell the difference, given that our eyes have a limit on the amount of detail they can discern). Obviously, this is strictly a research project at this point — creating all of the […]

  19. […] look like with a resolution like that (or if we'd even tell the difference, given that our eyes have a limit on the amount of detail they can discern). Obviously, this is strictly a research project at this point — creating all of the […]

  20. […] like with a resolution like that (or if we’d even tell the difference, given that our eyes have a limit on the amount of detail they can discern). Obviously, this is strictly a research project at this point — creating all of the […]

  21. […] look like with a resolution like that (or if we'd even tell the difference, given that our eyes have a limit on the amount of detail they can discern). Obviously, this is strictly a research project at this point — creating all of the […]

  22. […] es suficientemente pequeña para que el ojo humano no pueda distinguirlos (afirmaciones basadas en el artículo sobre el tema del especialista en Neurobiología de la Retina de la Universidad de Utah, el Dr. […]

  23. […] really improve on something like the Retina Display, which is supposed to have a pixel density that goes beyond what our eyes can pick […]

  24. […] like with a resolution like that (or if we’d even tell the difference, given that our eyes have a limit on the amount of detail they can discern). Obviously, this is strictly a research project at this point — creating all of the […]

  25. […] gráfico, olhei apenas a comparação de imagem dos modelos antigos para o novo iPhone: Fonte : Apple Retina Display. No site onde encontrei esta foto vocês também encontram detalhes técnicos.. Se alguém tiver […]

  26. […] Formally and technically these screens vary – in size and aspect ratio, display technology, spatiotemporal limits, and so on. They are united however in two basic attributes, which are something like the contract of the screen. First, the screen operates as a mediating substrate for its content – the screen itself recedes in favor of its hosted image. The screen is self-effacing (though never of course absent or invisible). This tendency is clearly evident in screen design and technology; we prize screens that are slight and bright – those that best make themselves disappear. Apple’s “Retina” display technology claims to have passed an important perceptual threshold of self-effacement, attaining a spatial density so high that individual pixels are indistinguishable to the naked eye (below – image Bryan Jones). […]

  27. […] за дисплейте на iPhone 4 е така наречения от Стив Джопс Retina display. AMOLED са по- добри от обикновенните LCD […]

  28. […] med sin Retina Display har högre upplösning än ögat kan urskilja. En klart intressant utredning som mynnar ut i följande.So, if a normal human eye can discriminate two points separated by 1 […]

  29. […] is a low traffic site with only about 250,000 unique visitors/year with posts that generate occasional spikes of insane levels of traffic, but the visitors are steady from almost all parts of the globe brought primarily through Google. […]

  30. […] Jones, Ph.D, retinal neuroscientist at the University of Utah, the eye is only capable of seeing 287 ppi. Note that this is based on the average human eye. Some people might have more sensitive eyes and […]

  31. […] Radians (อ้างอิง: Jones Blog) หรือที่บางคนเรียกว่า 1′ […]

  32. […] that nobody has made any quantitative imagery of the new iPad display yet.  So, in the spirit of the previous Retina Display post back when Apple first announced a “Retina Display”, I grabbed a couple of quick images on the microscope this afternoon.  The first image is from the […]

  33. […] have the effect of being unable to resolve individual pixels. With the Retina display however, you can’t distinguish between individual pixels, and so the image quality is essentially […]

  34. […] cierto, el dpi (puntos por pulgada) máximo de los ojos es aprox. 287 pixeles por pulgada, osea, menos que los impresos (300dpi) y menos que los celulares […]

  35. […] but the last time Steve Jobs invoked the Retina Display moniker, the vision scientist in me checked to see if his claims held up and sure enough, they did.  This time I was not so concerned withthe technical details of Apple‘s marketing claims, […]

  36. […] but the last time Steve Jobs invoked the Retina Display moniker, the vision scientist in me checked to see if his claims held up and sure enough, they did.  This time I was not so concerned withthe technical details of Apple‘s marketing claims, but […]

  37. […] en iPhone 4 med den på en nya iPhone 5, och även om skilnaderna är långt ifrån lika stora som mellan iPhone 3GS och iPhone 4 är det ändå en hel del intressant som kommer fram i hans […]

  38. […] with Apple’s Retina Display claim. He comprehensively explained his take on the matter on his blog and pointed out that “Soneira’s claims are based upon a retinal calculation that is too low”. […]

  39. […] mentioned the work of Bryan Jones, Ph.D and retinal neuroscientist at the University of Utah. He investigated and evaluated Apple’s claim that the new iPhones and iPad are Retina Displays and found those claims to be accurate. At a viewing distance of approximately 15-18 inches, which […]

  40. […] la del iPhone 5, aún cuando no tenga un nombre tan marketinero. Pueden leer mas sobre el tema en éste articulo, el cual habla sobre la densidad de píxeles que es capaz de percibir el ojo humano. […]

  41. […] Display (JDI) y Sharp. Como ya hemos comentado alguna vez en este blog, los estudios indican que el ojo humano sin entrenar no distingue más de 300 ppp, por lo que este incremento de densidad va más allá de lo razonable y, en nuestra opinión, […]

  42. […] bien, dado que el ojo humano sin entrenar no parecer ser capaz de distinguir por encima de 287 ppp, la tendencia actual de dotar a las pantallas de densidades de píxeles muy por encima de 300 ppp […]

  43. […] de píxeles tan brutal (y en cierto modo absurda) como 469 ppp. Para que os hagáis una idea, el ojo humano sin entrenar no parecer ser capaz de distinguir por encima de 287 ppp, por lo que todo lo que pase de 300 ppp resulta ser más un reclamo publicitario que una […]

  44. […] bien, dado que el ojo humano sin entrenar no parecer ser capaz de distinguir por encima de 287 ppp, la tendencia actual de dotar a las pantallas de densidades de píxeles muy por encima de 300 ppp […]

  45. […] Nada menos que una densidad de 538 ppp… y eso que decíamos que el ojo humano no distingue por encima de 300 ppp. […]

  46. […] ya hemos comentado alguna vez, el ojo humano sin entrenar no parecer ser capaz de distinguir por encima de 287 ppp, por lo que densidades de píxeles muy por encima de 300 ppp resultan ser más un reclamo […]

  47. […] under normal usage. You can probably see pixels if you squint really close, but is there any real benefit to going up this […]

  48. […] here). As explained by someone much smarter than me (scientist and photographer Bryan Jones) in this article, Apple essentially topped what the average human eye is capable of distinguishing on a smartphone […]

  49. […] Samsungがもう一つ口を滑らしたのは、二年後の、スマートフォンのディスプレイの解像度の大幅増大だ。まず、来年はWQHD(2560 x 1440)のディスプレイを出す。そして2015年には3840 x 2106(Ultra HDとも呼ばれる)を出す。すばらしいことのように聞こえるが、でもわずか5インチの画面だ(fonbletはそれよりやや大きいか)。ぼくよりも頭の良い人(科学者で写真家のBryan Jones)がこの記事で説明しているが、平均的な人間が通常の使用距離で個々の画素を見分ける能力の限界に、すでにApple製品は到達しており、それはiPhone 4の326ppiのレティナディスプレイである。 […]

  50. […] primero en ofrecer una pantalla Retina) tiene una densidad en pantalla de 326 pixeles por pulgada. Acá tienen una explicación técnica sobre el porqué arriba de ese número (por encima de los 300 ppp, digamos) el ojo normal no llega […]

  51. […] having displays that go past the 342 ppi level or the 720p resolution on a 4.3” screen. Even the Retina display of the iPhones, at 326 ppi, is already sharp enough to be more than pleasant. Past these pixel […]

  52. […] which is equal to 300 PPI, and it is ok. But let’s check PPI value of 4.7” Full HD smartphones. In this case it equals 468 PPI, which is simply ridiculous. In most cases, 300ppi or so exceeds what the human eyes can readily […]

  53. […] que el ojo humano sin entrenar no parecer ser capaz de distinguir por encima de 287 ppp, la tendencia actual de dotar a las pantallas de densidades de píxeles muy por encima de 300 ppp […]

  54. […] que el ojo humano sin entrenar no parecer ser capaz de distinguir por encima de 287 ppp, cualquier resolución que ofrezca una densidades de píxeles muy por encima de 300 ppp es más un […]

  55. […] resolution of the Retina Display, at least for the iPhone 4s, 5s, 5c and 6 is identical.  I had previously measured and calculated the pixel size of the retina display and for the standard iPhone 6, the pixel size is ~326 PPI. The same […]

  56. […] Bryan W. Jones, a retinal neuroscientist at the University of Utah, conducted one such analysis. He concluded a person with 20/20 vision couldn’t discern more than 287 pixels per inch at a […]

  57. […] viewyun' earlee Retina displays. Dr. Bryun W. Jones, a retinal neuroscyintist at t'Univesty o'Utah, conductid one such analeesis. He concludet a persen wit 20/20 vishun coultn’t discern mer thun 287 pixels p'r inch at a […]

  58. […] viewyun' earlee Retina displays. Dr. Bryun W. Jones, a retinal neuroscyintist at t'Univesty o'Utah, conductid one such analeesis. He concludet a persen wit 20/20 vishun coultn’t discern mer thun 287 pixels p'r inch at a […]