It's about time... ultra high resolution displays... for the next Macs xD xD

Next: Ultra Bluerays - 200GB per video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForumAccount

Next: Ultra Bluerays - 200GB per video

---

Yeah, right after they have 500gb USB thumb drives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

Just because you call it that, doesn't mean it's right.

I didn't know what QHD you were mentioning stood for, so I looked it up. And see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QHD#qHD_.28960.C3.97540.29

qHD is 960×540 called that because it's the quarter of the pixels of full HD.

For 7680×4320 it says it's called UHD (ultra high definiton) and it says it's 16 times the full HD resolution, not 4 times the resolution and 16 times the pixels.

QFHD on the other hand is quad Full HD, and the resoltuion is 3840×2160.

---

Perhaps I am wrong, but how are you supposed to say it then? The iPad 3 has ... the resolution of the iPad 2?

Technically speaking btw, resolution refers to PPI not pixels, "pixel dimensions" refers to 480x320.

By QHD I meant Quad HD, as I had seen an article about a 7680x4320 TV with that in the title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebuffalo

Yeah, right after they have 500gb USB thumb drives.

---

Funnily enough they already have 256GB and I think I've seen a 512GB model too but I could be wrong about that.

You'd say that iPad 3 has 4 times the resolution of iPad 2. Since the screens are exactly the same size, this means that a pixel on iPad 3 is 4 times smaller than a pixel on iPad 2.

"Technicallierly" speaking, resolution refers to many different things. Depending on the field of use it is quantified using various conventions. In terms of displays and scanners PPI makes sense since the quality will be impacted by the size, not just by pixel count, which we all know. Image resolution is usually given in a X by Y format as it gives an insight into the aspect ratio of the image or a screen. In printing they use DPI to quantify the printers ability to draw that many individual dots on one inch. Images are sometimes sized by the total number of pixels as well, since the numbers are very high, we use a unit of one million pixels, megapixel. This measurement is used with camera sensors (though usually overblown using various method for marketing purposes).

As for the article, the writer was wrong :)

EDIT: You of all people should be happy with this new knowledge. Now you know your iPad 3 is not twice, but four times better than iPad 2 ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

Funnily enough they already have 256GB and I think I've seen a 512GB model too but I could be wrong about that.

---

Oh my, I just paid $20 for a 8gb one, and I could have paid $120 for a 256gb! This is blasphemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebuffalo

Oh my, I just paid $20 for a 8gb one, and I could have paid $120 for a 256gb! This is blasphemy.

---

I didn't know they got to 256GB already. Looked on amazon, saw one with a lot of negative reviews. Couldn't find it on official Kingston website: http://www.kingston.com/us/usb/personal_business#dthx30 Then I've heard about fake drives that emulate larger capacity: http://fixfakeflash.wordpress.com/20...ps-to-succeed/ Didn't know about that either :S
But the Kingston DataTraveler HyperX 3.0 has a 256GB model, goes for over $500 on Amazon :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

You'd say that iPad 3 has 4 times the resolution of iPad 2. Since the screens are exactly the same size, this means that a pixel on iPad 3 is 4 times smaller than a pixel on iPad 2.

"Technicallierly" speaking, resolution refers to many different things. Depending on the field of use it is quantified using various conventions. In terms of displays and scanners PPI makes sense since the quality will be impacted by the size, not just by pixel count, which we all know. Image resolution is usually given in a X by Y format as it gives an insight into the aspect ratio of the image or a screen. In printing they use DPI to quantify the printers ability to draw that many individual dots on one inch. Images are sometimes sized by the total number of pixels as well, since the numbers are very high, we use a unit of one million pixels, megapixel. This measurement is used with camera sensors (though usually overblown using various method for marketing purposes).

As for the article, the writer was wrong :)

EDIT: You of all people should be happy with this new knowledge. Now you know your iPad 3 is not twice, but four times better than iPad 2 ;)

---

Actually I still believe I'm right. As I said resolution doesn't refer to pixels, but it is commonly used as such. The correct term for describing pixel rows and pixel columns is pixel dimensions. For example the iPhone 3GS has pixel dimensions of 480x320, doubling the iPhone 3GS' pixel dimensions would result in 960x640.

Resolution is often used to refer to pixel dimensions, and not just pixels. So we were both right and wrong at the same time, as it has several different meanings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

Actually I still believe I'm right.

---

That doesn't surprise me the least. Yes, resolution has several meanings, none of which are the one you're describing.

Would you look at that, those dummies at Philips got it wrong as well: http://www.business-sites.philips.co...lay/index.page Maybe you should write to them and explain how they are wrong. Be sure to use your iPhone's resolution as an example. Please tell them that Quad Full HD should be 7680×4320 and not 3840*2160. Also, if you have the time, please tell the people at VESA that they got the naming completely wrong for their display standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard I'm sure they'll be amazed by your insight into the subject matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

That doesn't surprise me the least. Yes, resolution has several meanings, none of which are the one you're describing.

Would you look at that, those dummies at Philips got it wrong as well: http://www.business-sites.philips.co...lay/index.page Maybe you should write to them and explain how they are wrong. Be sure to use your iPhone's resolution as an example. Please tell them that Quad Full HD should be 7680×4320 and not 3840*2160. Also, if you have the time, please tell the people at VESA that they got the naming completely wrong for their display standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard I'm sure they'll be amazed by your insight into the subject matter.

---

You misunderstand, I wasn't saying I was right about the naming scheme, e.g, UHD, QFHD, etc., but about being able say that double 480x320 is 960x640.

Resolution refers to PPI only, but is commonly used to refer to pixel dimensions which tells you how many pixels are in each dimension, i.e, 1920 horizontal pixels and 1080 vertical pixels -- thus I can say that Apple doubled the 480x320 resolution of the iPhone 3GS to 960x640 on the iPhone 4. You could also say they doubled the resolution as in PPI, or quadrupled the resolution as in total pixels. However doubling the pixel dimensions is simpler as far as I'm concerned.

Funnily enough they're actually both wrong as resolution does mean PPI only, but it's a commonly used, understood, and accepted term, there's no reason to change it.

And for those who predate the Justin Bieber Generation...

It's About Time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

Resolution refers to PPI only, but is commonly used to refer to pixel dimensions which tells you how many pixels are in each dimension, i.e, 1920 horizontal pixels and 1080 vertical pixels -- thus I can say that Apple doubled the 480x320 resolution of the iPhone 3GS to 960x640 on the iPhone 4. You could also say they doubled the resolution as in PPI, or quadrupled the resolution as in total pixels. However doubling the pixel dimensions is simpler as far as I'm concerned.

Funnily enough they're actually both wrong as resolution does mean PPI only, but it's a commonly used, understood, and accepted term, there's no reason to change it.

---

Your inability to accept that you're wrong is nothing short of amazing.

Where does it say that resolution refers to PPI only? In fact it's almost quite the oposite. It refers to density and is used in places where it makes sense like printing and display quality because it introduces dimension (size) into the pixel count giving you an idea of the size of a pixel, not just their numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

You misunderstand, I wasn't saying I was right about the naming scheme, e.g, UHD, QFHD, etc., but about being able say that double 480x320 is 960x640.

---

How were you right about that? VESA has been the standards body for displays for over 20 years, and it's obvious from the standards and their names that doubling, quadrupling etc refers to the total number of pixels, not multiplying each dimension by that factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

Your inability to accept that you're wrong is nothing short of amazing.

Where does it say that resolution refers to PPI only? In fact it's almost quite the oposite. It refers to density and is used in places where it makes sense like printing and display quality because it introduces dimension (size) into the pixel count giving you an idea of the size of a pixel, not just their numbers.

How were you right about that? VESA has been the standards body for displays for over 20 years, and it's obvious from the standards and their names that doubling, quadrupling etc refers to the total number of pixels, not multiplying each dimension by that factor.

---

Hardly, I said I was wrong about resolution not being applicable in that sense, but I'm not wrong about you being able to say 480x320 is half the resolution of 960x640, or visa versa. Right now it's you who aren't accepting that you also were wrong.

Where does it say that? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution

Quote:

---

Note that the use of the word resolution here is a misnomer, though common. The term “display resolution” is usually used to mean pixel dimensions, the number of pixels in each dimension (e.g., 1920 × 1080), which does not tell anything about the resolution of the display on which the image is actually formed: resolution properly refers to the pixel density, the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not total number of pixels.

---

The correct term is "pixel dimensions", and if you double the pixel dimensions of 480x320, you get 960x640. And resolution means pixel dimensions, among other things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

Hardly, I said I was wrong about resolution not being applicable in that sense, but I'm not wrong about you being able to say 480x320 is half the resolution of 960x640, or visa versa. Right now it's you who aren't accepting that you also were wrong.

---

Who except you, and possibly a few other misinformed people, says it like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

Where does it say that? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution

---

That doesn't mean that pixel density is the one and only true resolution. It means that in displays it makes sense to use it as it tells you about the quality of the display, where smaller pixels equal better quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

Who except you, and possibly a few other misinformed people, says it like that?

---

Resolution can refer to pixel count, pixel dimensions, and PPI, therefore I am not wrong or misinformed.

And who? Anyone who wants to talk about "pixel dimensions".

Quote:

---

That doesn't mean that pixel density is the one and only true resolution. It means that in displays it makes sense to use it as it tells you about the quality of the display, where smaller pixels equal better quality.

---

That's the meaning of the word.

Ok. Since you're moving away from the question, lets skip what resolution means in various situations, and lets stick with the most popular convention of saying X by Y pixels, i.e. 800x600, 1920x1080 and so on.

Who, besides yourself, when saying "doubling resolution X by Y" thinks the result is 2X by 2Y? For exampling, quadrupling 1920x1080 would give you 7680×4320. Because the Video Electronics Standards Association doesn't.

Let's forget the whole thing. Icyculyr, you can say whatever you want. There is no law that governs the meanings of words. However, if you intend to use language for the purpose of communicating, it becomes very awkward when your definition is not the same as everyone else. Regardless of whether you feel that you are right or wrong, Baja_yu has given several examples to show that the majority of people have a different definition. At that point, it really doesn't matter that he is right. For the purpose of furthering communication, you should adopt the definition that he has shown to be standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

Ok. Since you're moving away from the question, lets skip what resolution means in various situations, and lets stick with the most popular convention of saying X by Y pixels, i.e. 800x600, 1920x1080 and so on.

---

I'm not moving away from the question and when did I ever suggest moving away from saying X by Y pixels?

Quote:

---

Who, besides yourself, when saying "doubling resolution X by Y" thinks the result is 2X by 2Y? For exampling, quadrupling 1920x1080 would give you 7680×4320. Because the Video Electronics Standards Association doesn't.

---

Does it matter? But for the record, a lot of people -- if not the majoriy -- of whom I speak with online use it as I do. The fact of the matter, it can be either way. And just because VESA is using one term doesn't mean they deny the usage of the other.

Let me ask you a simple question which you've avoided answering before, how else do you say it? When referring to pixel dimensions, how do you say such is a multiple of something else? I don't want to go and say such and such doubled the horizontal and vertical pixel dimensions of the iPhone 3GS. I just want to say it has double the resolution of the 3GS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Let's forget the whole thing. Icyculyr, you can say whatever you want. There is no law that governs the meanings of words. However, if you intend to use language for the purpose of communicating, it becomes very awkward when your definition is not the same as everyone else. Regardless of whether you feel that you are right or wrong, Baja_yu has given several examples to show that the majority of people have a different definition. At that point, it really doesn't matter that he is right. For the purpose of furthering communication, you should adopt the definition that he has shown to be standard.

---

Yet almost everyone I converse with online uses the term as I do. All Baja_yu has shown is an example of VESA using one of the possible usages of the word, that in itself doesn't prove that the majority use said term.

There's a purpose for the term I use, and it's to communicate pixel dimensions. There's some topics where knowing how many pixels are in a given resolution is irrelevant, and what you're working with is just pixel dimensions.

But yes, I agree it's pointless to continue discussing it. Neither Baja_yu or I are going to change our preferred usage of the term. It doesn't matter anyway. But at least I learned something new: resolution can be PPI, total pixel count, or dimensions.

You could remove the ambiguity by using "linear resolution" which means the number of pixels per unit length in the X or Y direction (or both). I suppose "pixel resolution" would be an appropriate term for the VESA standard (as described by baja).
BB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boops boops

You could remove the ambiguity by using "linear resolution" which means the number of pixels per unit length in the X or Y direction (or both). I suppose "pixel resolution" would be an appropriate term for the VESA standard (as described by baja).
BB

---

That's true, good point. I never thought of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

Does it matter? But for the record, a lot of people -- if not the majoriy -- of whom I speak with online use it as I do.

---

I don't know how many people say it like that since you're the first one. But a lot of people pronounce affidavit with a D instead of T. That doesn't make them right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

The fact of the matter, it can be either way. And just because VESA is using one term doesn't mean they deny the usage of the other.

---

Show me any official usage of it and I'll believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

Let me ask you a simple question which you've avoided answering before, how else do you say it? When referring to pixel dimensions, how do you say such is a multiple of something else? I don't want to go and say such and such doubled the horizontal and vertical pixel dimensions of the iPhone 3GS. I just want to say it has double the resolution of the 3GS.

---

Avoided?! Look at the first sentence of post #44.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

Yet almost everyone I converse with online uses the term as I do. All Baja_yu has shown is an example of VESA using one of the possible usages of the word, that in itself doesn't prove that the majority use said term.

---

It's not supposed to prove what percentage of people use that, it's supposed to prove which convention is officially accepted in the field.

And yes, you can use "linear resolution" as boops boops suggested, but know that in that case you are referring to just one of the components, and not the entire 2D surface. It all comes down to math that you think has nothing to do with it, but in fact it has everything to do with it, from invention, production to nomenclature. In fact, if we ever have 3D holographic displays, doubling each of the 3 dimensions will not result in a doubled resolution but octapled (if that's correct spelling of 8 fold increase).

But you can call it whatever you want. As Shaggy said, there's no law against it. So feel free to call it pumpkin-pieing the resolution. You can say that your iPhone 4 has pumpkin-pie the resolution of iPhone 3GS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

I don't know how many people say it like that since you're the first one. But a lot of people pronounce affidavit with a D instead of T. That doesn't make them right.

---

Well then why did you ask who other than me says it? :p

Quote:

---

Show me any official usage of it and I'll believe it.

---

Err, *cough cough*, I lost Google. (I don't want to spend time doing that.)

It's quite simple really: pixel dimensions can be doubled as I've said, and resolution is often used to refer to pixel dimensions.

Quote:

---

Avoided?! Look at the first sentence of post #44.

---

That's not what I was asking though. I was asking how do say it's double 480x320 (meaning 960x640).

Quote:

---

It's not supposed to prove what percentage of people use that, it's supposed to prove which convention is officially accepted in the field.

---

The fact that VESA uses one of its meanings doesn't mean the other isn't valid.

Quote:

---

And yes, you can use "linear resolution" as boops boops suggested, but know that in that case you are referring to just one of the components, and not the entire 2D surface. It all comes down to math that you think has nothing to do with it, but in fact it has everything to do with it, from invention, production to nomenclature. In fact, if we ever have 3D holographic displays, doubling each of the 3 dimensions will not result in a doubled resolution but octapled (if that's correct spelling of 8 fold increase).

---

I'm aware I'm referring to the dimensions only, that's the point. If I want to make an image, a video, or anything, I do it with the dimensions not the pixel count.

Let me ask you a question: if I say: I have a 2560x1440 display but I have to game at half my native resolution... what comes to mind? To me, it's 1280x720.

Quote:

---

But you can call it whatever you want. As Shaggy said, there's no law against it. So feel free to call it pumpkin-pieing the resolution. You can say that your iPhone 4 has pumpkin-pie the resolution of iPhone 3GS.

---

My iPhone 4 has baja-yu the resolution of the iPhone 3GS.

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__...Troll_face.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

My iPhone 4 has baja-yu the resolution of the iPhone 3GS.

---

That's wrong as well. It's baja underscore yu, not dash. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

That's wrong as well. It's baja underscore yu, not dash. :)

---

NOOOOOOOOOO!!! Haha lol. Initially I had baju-ya, so at least there was only one typo after proof reading it several times.

It's late... :o