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

The next MacBook Air, MacBook Pro and iMac are all rumoured to have 'retina' displays. That's resolutions starting at 2560x1600 for the 13 inch MacBook Pro up to 5120x2800 for the 27 inch iMac.

I thought you'd all want to know immediately! Yay!

lol xD

Ouch, I think I sprained my jaw yawning.

That's the most exciting news I have heard all day.
I plan to book all three of these as soon as they come out.

My credit card won't let me buy these, so I need to plan a heist.

Maybe grow a grungy beard, put on a black turtleneck, wear a fake Madonna-esque wireless headset/mic, and play a few Steve Jobs Impersonator Act gigs in Vegas? The Apple Corps will probably throw money at you on stage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

Maybe grow a grungy beard, put on a black turtleneck, wear a fake Madonna-esque wireless headset/mic, and play a few Steve Jobs Impersonator Act gigs in Vegas? The Apple Corps will probably throw money at you on stage.

---

A little late for that. Ashton Kutcher is already doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abhijit

That's the most exciting news I have heard all day.
I plan to book all three of these as soon as they come out.

My credit card won't let me buy these, so I need to plan a heist.

---

I know, I considered that too... I may go and work at a local Apple store and then turn the staff against them!

TAKE ALL THE MACS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

A little late for that. Ashton Kutcher is already doing it.

---

Yeah I'm always slow with the million dollar ideas.

Ashton's probably taken his act on the road playing LOAF (Legion Of Apple Fanboys) chapter meetings by now.

Gaming on the systems with Intel HD 4000 graphics is going to be a real treat at native resolution... you can muster a whopping 5 FPS in the Sims 3 on lowest settings! lol :p

http://i.imgur.com/tCp90.gif

http://thegboatdotnet.files.wordpres...acedancing.gif

C'mon, put Steve back in his box.

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/4341/20542505.jpg

iBorgs?

I... what? Is that? o.O

iPod, iPhone, iPad, iKat, iDawg, IHOP, retina, EyeBorgs

This summer, A Steve Jobs biopic written by Aaron Sorkin. Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs, in... Dude, Where's My iPad! Coming to theaters near you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

iPod, iPhone, iPad, iKat, iDawg, IHOP, retina, EyeBorgs

---

Lol... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

This summer, A Steve Jobs biopic written by Aaron Sorkin. Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs, in... Dude, Where's My iPad! Coming to theaters near you.

---

Rofl! That's funny lol.

>>>>>

How many framies will I get at 5120x2880 in The Witcher 2 on ultra (uber off)? Does anyone know?

5120x2800 px? what graphics card can run that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justa Lol

5120x2800 px? what graphics card can run that?

---

The mid and high end GTX 600 series and AMD 7000 series -- I think the 77xx, 78xx and 79xx can all handle 7680x4320 which is 33 million pixels.

Does it even matter? Are there any games that support resolutions that high, or is this just so that you can have an obscene number of columns in Excel, or something?

I seriously doubt they will be using such high resolutions. There's really no point since at standard viewing distances for a computer monitor, the resolution currently in the 27" iMac (and other screens) are pretty close to what would be considered "Retina", meaning the pixels aren't discernable.

1920x1080 is good enough for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Does it even matter? Are there any games that support resolutions that high, or is this just so that you can have an obscene number of columns in Excel, or something?

---

Of course, games don't have resolution limits afaik. Even today SSAA is still the best quality anti-aliasing, it's just that it's such a performance hog that it's been replaced by many others.

Say you've got a 1920x1080 resolution and you've got SSAA set to 2x, it would render the game at 3840x2160 and then downscale it to 1920x1080. And as I said, it's absurdly demanding.

With these displays games will actually be rendered at that resolution and displayed on the screen fully -- it'll look even better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

I seriously doubt they will be using such high resolutions. There's really no point since at standard viewing distances for a computer monitor, the resolution currently in the 27" iMac (and other screens) are pretty close to what would be considered "Retina", meaning the pixels aren't discernable.

---

Just because you can't see an individual pixel doesn't mean there's no benefit to a higher PPI, I sit 18 inches from my 21.5 inch 1080p iMac and I can still see jaggies on text, images, and especially in games.

Time to move out of Mom's basement I'd say.

Having experienced the 'retina display', i must say that it is a lot easier on the eyes. i have the iPhone, and have played around with the latest iPad. Reading on these devices seems less stressful. But then, I'm a *user* not a *power user* of such devices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

Just because you can't see an individual pixel doesn't mean there's no benefit to a higher PPI, I sit 18 inches from my 21.5 inch 1080p iMac and I can still see jaggies on text, images, and especially in games.

---

Actually, that's pretty much what it means. It's like saying video should be 100 frames per second, when the eye can't really notice the difference from 30 fps.
Once you can't discern pixels at your standard viewing distance that's it. Right now it's still not there, but it doesn't need a quadrupled resolution to achieve it.

:rolleyes: I don't see any pixels in my screen, even if I move close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

Of course, games don't have resolution limits afaik.

---

My information is probably dated, but I thought ALL games had resolution limits above which they don't support. If they had no resolution limits, wouldn't that mean that all textures would have to be near-infinite resolution?

Suppose you had a character on the screen in a game such as Skyrim. If that character is a certain height at 1900x1200, then you changed the resolution to four times that, there are only two options:
1) The character gets MUCH smaller.
2) The textures that make up the character have to be MUCH larger.

Obviously, the first alternative is silly, so it would have to be the second. The only way to do that would be to either provide a texture with a much higher resolution, or programatically stretch a lower resolution texture to the larger number of pixels...which will look like muddy hell.

Am I mistaken on this?

Most games have resolution limits, I actually haven't played a game that goes over 1600x1024 and its usually 1600x900.

Diablo 3 for example, doesn't get 1920x1080

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

My information is probably dated, but I thought ALL games had resolution limits above which they don't support. If they had no resolution limits, wouldn't that mean that all textures would have to be near-infinite resolution?

Suppose you had a character on the screen in a game such as Skyrim. If that character is a certain height at 1900x1200, then you changed the resolution to four times that, there are only two options:
1) The character gets MUCH smaller.
2) The textures that make up the character have to be MUCH larger.

Obviously, the first alternative is silly, so it would have to be the second. The only way to do that would be to either provide a texture with a much higher resolution, or programatically stretch a lower resolution texture to the larger number of pixels...which will look like muddy hell.

Am I mistaken on this?

---

as far as i know, that's how it works with photographs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

Time to move out of Mom's basement I'd say.

---

Ah you've not left yet? I commend you on your move towards independence though ;) :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

Actually, that's pretty much what it means. It's like saying video should be 100 frames per second, when the eye can't really notice the difference from 30 fps.
Once you can't discern pixels at your standard viewing distance that's it. Right now it's still not there, but it doesn't need a quadrupled resolution to achieve it.

---

Let me use games as an example: you can clearly see aliasing is games, and at a higher resolution it will be much less noticeable and that's definitely an improvement.

That aside, if you sit closer than the maximum viewing distance for your display then you'll still be able to see improvement from a higher resolution for more common things. This site helps you calculate that: http://bhtooefr.org/displaycalc.htm, apparently the normal viewing distance for a 21.5 inch 1080p display is 33 inches with a visual acuity of 20/20, but I sit around 20 inches from my display.

Btw, you can actually notice the difference between video filmed at 30 FPS and 100 FPS -- the difference between 24 FPS and 48 FPS is very substantial, and in games even up to 120 FPS shows significantly smoother... everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

My information is probably dated, but I thought ALL games had resolution limits above which they don't support. If they had no resolution limits, wouldn't that mean that all textures would have to be near-infinite resolution?

Suppose you had a character on the screen in a game such as Skyrim. If that character is a certain height at 1900x1200, then you changed the resolution to four times that, there are only two options:
1) The character gets MUCH smaller.
2) The textures that make up the character have to be MUCH larger.

Obviously, the first alternative is silly, so it would have to be the second. The only way to do that would be to either provide a texture with a much higher resolution, or programatically stretch a lower resolution texture to the larger number of pixels...which will look like muddy hell.

Am I mistaken on this?

---

You're pretty much correct.

The content in the game doesn't get any smaller with a resolution increase, so as the resolution increases higher resolution textures are required else it just streches the lower resolution textures and in normal circumstances that would result in blurrier textures as you said, but since the resolution is increasing (by two fold) but the screen size is remaining the same, the stretched textures end up looking the same as they do on a standard display because everything is physically the same size.

However we don't know what resolution textures are included with games, but considering how popular 2560x1440 is I expect most, if not all games, supply the appropriately sized textures. On top of that, resolutions like 7680x1600 with multi-monitors still look and work great as well otherwise people wouldn't use them.

How do I get these super fat resolutions you guys speak of? I need a new video card? I have a Nvidia 560m, 1920x1080 is the highest I can get without going 'past' windows supported resolutions, which when I tried this, I did not succeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

Ah you've not left yet? I commend you on your move towards independence though ;) :p

---

Good answer.

Quote:

---

but since the resolution is increasing (by two fold) but the screen size is remaining the same, the stretched textures end up looking the same as they do on a standard display because everything is physically the same size.

---

The increase is four fold, since doubling both dimensions would square the total pixels. Doubling one dimension would fatten the image, not phatten them.

I see what you are saying, but I think it won't work that way. If your texture had a single pixel at point (100,100) that was blue, and you doubled the horizontal and vertical, then to keep the image the same size, there would have to be four pixels that were now blue. If you could figure out which four, then the image should remain the same, as you say, but which four pixels would now be blue? Do you copy to the right and down? That would shift the total image. Do you take the single blue pixel that was at (100,100), map that to the new screen coordinates then average the pixels around that point? You can't simply say, "It was (100,100), so set (x,y) to that color along with the pixels around it.", because there would be nine pixels of that color rather than the four you need. If you chose only four of the nine, then the image would shift slightly in one direction or another. The latter is clearly preferrable to the former, but neither is quite correct, so it seems like there would have to be some distortion that would result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebuffalo

How do I get these super fat resolutions you guys speak of? I need a new video card? I have a Nvidia 560m, 1920x1080 is the highest I can get without going 'past' windows supported resolutions, which when I tried this, I did not succeed.

---

You need a monitor which supports such high resolutions, and then a GPU which supports it as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Good answer.


The increase is four fold, since doubling both dimensions would square the total pixels. Doubling one dimension would fatten the image, not phatten them.

---

The pixel increase is four fold, but the resolution increase is two fold. For example if you double 480x320 you get 960x640 which is twice the resolution as 480x320, but the pixels are quadrupled.

Quote:

---

I see what you are saying, but I think it won't work that way. If your texture had a single pixel at point (100,100) that was blue, and you doubled the horizontal and vertical, then to keep the image the same size, there would have to be four pixels that were now blue. If you could figure out which four, then the image should remain the same, as you say, but which four pixels would now be blue? Do you copy to the right and down? That would shift the total image. Do you take the single blue pixel that was at (100,100), map that to the new screen coordinates then average the pixels around that point? You can't simply say, "It was (100,100), so set (x,y) to that color along with the pixels around it.", because there would be nine pixels of that color rather than the four you need. If you chose only four of the nine, then the image would shift slightly in one direction or another. The latter is clearly preferrable to the former, but neither is quite correct, so it seems like there would have to be some distortion that would result.

---

I don't entirely understand your example -- if you take a 100x100 image and set it to fill a 200x200 picture box, every pixel in that image will be quadrupled automatically, you don't need to do anything about it. The very top left pixel, which might be blue for example, will now have a blue one to the right of it, to the bottom of it, and then to the bottom right of it.

What you'll see in that form is that the image becomes blurry, but when the resolution of the monitor is doubled, then there's four times as many pixels in the same area as one on the previous display, so even though there's four blue pixels, they're only talking up the physical size of one pixel on the old display. So you can't see a difference.

Does that make sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

The pixel increase is four fold, but the resolution increase is two fold. For example if you double 480x320 you get 960x640 which is twice the resolution as 480x320, but the pixels are quadrupled.

---

Yeah, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

Yeah, no.

---

Yeah, yes.

If you've got a resolution of 480x320 and you double it, you get 960x640 which is four times as many pixels as 480x320.

Well, I'm not a good enough artist to know whether it would look the same. The point is that if the pixel at 0,0 is blue, with no other blue around it, then when you double the dimensions, there will still be a blue dot in the upper left corner, but the center of the blue dot is no longer at 0,0, but shifted down and to the right. 0,0 is still part of the dot, but that doesn't matter. To the viewer, the center of the dot is shifted, so the dot will appear shifted, as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

Yeah, yes.

If you've got a resolution of 480x320 and you double it, you get 960x640 which is four times as many pixels as 480x320.

---

Actually, no. The resolution refers to the total number of pixels, which are for various reasons in some situations, by convention represented by two numbers corresponding to the number of pixel rows and columns. Doubling the resolution means doubling the total number of pixels, not doubling the number of pixel rows and columns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Well, I'm not a good enough artist to know whether it would look the same. The point is that if the pixel at 0,0 is blue, with no other blue around it, then when you double the dimensions, there will still be a blue dot in the upper left corner, but the center of the blue dot is no longer at 0,0, but shifted down and to the right. 0,0 is still part of the dot, but that doesn't matter. To the viewer, the center of the dot is shifted, so the dot will appear shifted, as well.

---

Actually because the image is being stretched (and every pixel is thus quadrupled) there is now four blue pixels in the same area of space as that one blue pixel on the display with the half resolution, at 0.0, 0.1, 1.0 and 1.1.

Have a look at this:

http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/3357/testue.th.png

The top is a 100x100 image on a 100x100 display, and the bottom is a 100x100 image stretched over a 200x200 display, in which the pixels are quadrupled. The cluster of blue pixels on the bottom is the same physical size as on the top, so to the eye there's no difference.

That's why assets such as images or video suited to 1080p on a 21.5 inch display will look the same on a 2160p display.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

Actually, no. The resolution refers to the total number of pixels, which are for various reasons in some situations, by convention represented by two numbers corresponding to the number of pixel rows and columns. Doubling the resolution means doubling the total number of pixels, not doubling the number of pixel rows and columns.

---

The resolution refers to the number of pixel rows and columns and that's it. From that you can determine how many pixels are in said resolution, but you don't refer to differences in resolution by the pixels.

You're treating this like mathematics -- if someone asks what's 10x10 I'd say 100, if they asked what's double 10x10, I'd say 200 -- because we're talking about the result. But if someone asks me what's the resolution of my iPhone 3GS I'm going to say 480x320 not 153,600 and if they ask me what's double the that resolution I'm going to respond 960x640.

Look at the official term for the 7680x4320 resolution -- it's QHD, and four times (the resolution) 1920x1080 is 7680x4320 even though there's sixteen times more pixels in QHD than FHD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icyculyr

The resolution refers to the number of pixel rows and columns and that's it. From that you can determine how many pixels are in said resolution, but you don't refer to differences in resolution by the pixels.

You're treating this like mathematics -- if someone asks what's 10x10 I'd say 100, if they asked what's double 10x10, I'd say 200 -- because we're talking about the result. But if someone asks me what's the resolution of my iPhone 3GS I'm going to say 480x320 not 153,600 and if they ask me what's double the that resolution I'm going to respond 960x640.

Look at the official term for the 7680x4320 resolution -- it's QHD, and four times (the resolution) 1920x1080 is 7680x4320 even though there's sixteen times more pixels in QHD than FHD.

---

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.

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.