Evo screen pixel density

[Minjin]

Because there's such a thing as diminishing returns.

Your eyes resolve only down to a certain level - it's measured as a fraction of degree (as in 360 degrees).

Your eyes can focus only so close to your face.

The retinal display is a pixel density so small that your eye cannot focus before it loses its ability to dis-integrate the picture into dots.

As I hold my phone at roughly 3/4 of arm's length, the dot pitch on the phone is already quite invisible.

You can increase it by a factor of 100 and it still won't make a difference.

Invisible is invisible.

And I'm more than happy to hate on anyone who wants to make this into some kind of big deal - because it just isn't.

Are you familiar with the SMPTE charts for HD resolution and seating distance from a given screen of a given density? How about for the HDGuru's mods to that? How about the THX mods to that?

How about how the Apple Retinal Display goes stoopidly overboard against any known visual standard?

No - I didn't think you knew thing one about any of that.

Honestly, I read your post until I got to that line and decided that while you appear reasonable and well spoken in your other posts, it just wasn't worth reading any more. Come back when you are ready to have a civil and mature discussion.

 

[Minjin]

BTW, I find it interesting that you are touting your 720p laptop screen, because the pixel density for a 1280 X 720 resolution at 11.6 inches is 127 ppi, (and actually less than the 3G's 165 ppi). And yet you assume that the EVO screen is lacking at almost twice the ppi of your laptop? Of course, you hold your laptop further away from your eyes than a phone, but if you're stuck on numbers on spec sheets, there you go.

I wasn't "touting" the laptop screen, I was just saying that I do value resolution and hence pixel density and it is an important consideration in my purchases. If a screen existed with higher resolution for my laptop, I would be very much interested in it. What is so difficult to understand?

Yes there is a limit to the human eyes. No, we are nowhere close to it. People talk about diminishing returns, but that is most of what life is. The easy advancements are done. People are whining in other threads about the input lag when it is probably in the millisecond range. Years ago it would have been in the second range. If that isn't diminishing returns, I don't know what is. But it is still something that is noticeable and can be improved on. And that's really what it comes down to. We should always strive for improvement until is is no longer perceptible by anyone.

If screens were available for the Evo that had the exact same performance characteristics but one had 216 ppi and the other had 50% more and you saw them side by side, I think the difference would be very apparent and you would want the higher resolution one(unless you have poor vision). I can see the pixels when I use my Evo. Is it the most important thing on the phone to be upgraded? No, but I do think it is important, and at least interesting enough to have a civil conversation without throwing insults around.

 

[EarlyMon]

Honestly, I read your post until I got to that line and decided that while you appear reasonable and well spoken in your other posts, it just wasn't worth reading any more. Come back when you are ready to have a civil and mature discussion.

Your comment indicated to me that you were unaware of that information.

If I was in error, I apologize for that remark.

Perhaps you've heard the adage that it takes two to tango. You said:

Why do people need to put down a feature of another phone to feel better about theirs?

And because I hate hype wherever I find it for its own sake, I hate the Retinal Display hype and not because of any personal insecurity or need to feel better about my phone or my decision or myself.

I would therefore like to point out that I found your remark condescendingly unwarranted and flatly insulting.

Now, rather than keep that discussion up, kindly study the facts, and adjust your thinking as you think best.

 

[RickJ]

Im reminded here of the idiom, "cant see the forest for the trees"

It is simple- pixel size, spacing and density are huge factors in the perceived quality of a display.

Just because you cant see an individual pixel (whether or not you actually can) does not mean you are past the point of no return. The most immediate observation will be in sharpness whereas the eye will perceive the lower count as fuzzy (somewhat subjective based on an individuals acuity of vision, yet attached to the pixel size, density and placement) all along without actually seeing an individual pixel.

Yes, the iphone display would look better than the evo if it had the same dpi (as the evo) on the iphone smaller screen

Yes, the evo would have a much more incredible screen if it had the same dpi as iphone yet on the larger evo screen

And finally yes the evo would look much better than the iphone if it had the same proportion dpi to area of its screen that the iphone has.

This argument about not being able to distinguish an individual pixel is very close to the same fallacy that since the human eye doesnt distinguish past 30fps (not referring to the evo specific debate) there is no point in higher framerates. That argument just doesnt hold water in real life applications

 

[linzgeneral]

I was having a back and forth with an iPhone zombie the other day, and since it's the only part of the iPhone that outspecs its competitors, 329 ppi was all of a sudden the most important thing in the world and basically the line at which something is acceptable or unacceptable. It took me a while, but I finally got the point home that if I can't see any pixels on the EVO at 216 ppi, making that number higher won't do anything to make the screen look clearer, since once I pass the point where I can no longer discern pixel structure, it can't get any sharper.

Now he claims he can see the pixels. I know he's ever even held an EVO, so all I could do was laugh.

What was his argument when lets say the Iphone 3GS had only half of that density. Still prob to him was the best phone in the world and incomparable ---- just amazing these people.

 

[EarlyMon]

Im reminded here of the idiom, "cant see the forest for the trees"

It is simple- pixel size, spacing and density are huge factors in the perceived quality of a display.

Just because you cant see an individual pixel (whether or not you actually can) does not mean you are past the point of no return. The most immediate observation will be in sharpness whereas the eye will perceive the lower count as fuzzy (somewhat subjective based on an individuals acuity of vision, yet attached to the pixel size, density and placement) all along without actually seeing an individual pixel.

Yes, the iphone display would look better than the evo if it had the same dpi (as the evo) on the iphone smaller screen

Yes, the evo would have a much more incredible screen if it had the same dpi as iphone yet on the larger evo screen

And finally yes the evo would look much better than the iphone if it had the same proportion dpi to area of its screen that the iphone has.

This argument about not being able to distinguish an individual pixel is very close to the same fallacy that since the human eye doesnt distinguish past 30fps (not referring to the evo specific debate) there is no point in higher framerates. That argument just doesnt hold water in real life applications

Actually, light integrates, the argument does hold water in real life - displays and indeed high quality film adhere to that as a basic principal.

Kindly don't cross it over with the 30 fps trash - I never said that nor supported it.

Just because you cant see an individual pixel (whether or not you actually can) does not mean you are past the point of no return. The most immediate observation will be in sharpness whereas the eye will perceive the lower count as fuzzy (somewhat subjective based on an individuals acuity of vision, yet attached to the pixel size, density and placement) all along without actually seeing an individual pixel.

Wanting a thing to be true does not make it true.

Once you past the point of pixel dis-integration into picture integration, you can add all of the pixels that you think you want - you would NEVER be able to differentiate them side-by-side.

One can't be fuzzier past that threshold - that would require two things:

• You're not past the threshold
• Light not integrating

I'm stating the outcome of physics, compadre, not opinion.

If this doesn't give you food for thought, then you're certainly entitled to your opinion - but the facts remain.

This argument about not being able to distinguish an individual pixel is very close to the same fallacy...

No fallacy at all - re-think very carefully.

TV guys use something called test cards - google that as a starter.

PS - Try white text, black background, on Aldiko, standard 16 font - at say, 8 to 10 inches. Look at quotation marks and dots over small "i"s. Look at the edges of every letter you find.

Now - move it out to 12".

No use arguing with me when you can prove your own argument wrong.

 

[EarlyMon]

Here's something completely counter-intuitive, but completely true:

If you have two displays - same size - side by side as follows -

Display A:

• 720p
• poor color, mediocre contrast

Display B:

• 480p
• great color and contrast

Even within the dis-integration threshold point, you would insist that Display B was the one with higher resolution because you'd be seeing MUCH more detail.

Didn't believe it for myself until I experienced it - but there it is.

Now - past the point of picture integration of two hypothetical displays - all things being equal, if you had two displays with all other characteristics the same, the higher resolution display would NOT look sharper - they would look the same.

The eye is a wondrous instrument - it does so well despite it's chaotic design.

That Retinal Display everyone's on about - that 50-cycle thing - that 1 arc-minute thing.... let's talk retinas, then.

That acuity spec? That's for one eye only. That rule changes for two eyes. And it changes as a function of brightness.

Low light? Black and white line tests (or - my little Aldiko challenge) - that's using your rods only.

That whole visual acuity thing? In degrees, cycles, or arc-minutes -

- strictly a measure against your rods, and light dependent.

Normal light? Detail and resolution - that's part of the wondrous survival mechanism we have built-in - that's using your cones.

So - you have light integration, a physical fact of lensing and chemical processes within the cellular structure of your eye.

You have picture integration taking place as a function of that effect and ALSO because of your brain running a constant process to create stereoscopic vision.

You have perceptual integration taking place with lower brain functions processing black and white and higher brain (evolutionarily later and therefore preferred) functions processing in color - and color winning.

A good black and white movie - I recommend Good Night and Good Luck on Blu-ray and HDTV if you have access - will seem so much more razor sharp than anything else you've seen - because of exploitation of simplification down to rods and bypassing some of your never-resting perceptual work in your brain. (Precisely why some filmmakers still choose B&W - even if it's sufficient to simply call it for what it is: sharper, more dramatic.)

If you prefer the iP4 over the EVO, fine - but you've made that choice because of brightness and color saturation during that comparison.

Physical and perceptual law do not support the argument that pixel density even comes into play.

Apple - and indeed other HD - marketing have contaminated your thinking into believing that that's about pixel resolution. Nothing personal there intended to anyone - it's marketing's job to contaminate your thinking, they're good at it, we all suffer from it.

So - I repeat my Aldiko B&W challenge - it's not your normal use case of color - but it is B&W, it is therefore an acid test of visual acuity.

And - you can slide your finger along the left border to change brightness - see what happens when you do.

One thing that marketing can never defeat: physics.

 

[RickJ]

Alright fine, let me suggest this, so long as you can see a dead pixel, the pixel count has not exceeded the point of no return. as long as the source material can match the res you will see the difference.

 

[EarlyMon]

I apologize that this is a jpg - but - it's better than nothing and fairly self explanatory - except for this counter-intuitive part:

Look at the horizontal convergence lines to determine VERTICAL resolution - and vice versa.

I made a TV engineer nuts explaining that one to me, and even with my physics background, I'm not EVEN going to attempt to pass on the explanation.

Anyway - this should prove fun and informative regardless of which camp you belong to:

http://www.hdtvtotal.com/modules/gallery/albums/userpics/10775/HDNet%20TestPattern_01.jpg

 

[EarlyMon]

Alright fine, let me suggest this, so long as you can see a dead pixel, the pixel count has not exceeded the point of no return. as long as the source material can match the res you will see the difference.

In general terms, I would very much agree with this statement about seeing a dead pixel.

Would you explain what you mean by - "as long as the source material can match the res you will see the difference?"

No criticism - I just didn't follow your meaning. Kindly re-phrase??

 

[Zameus]

I can't believe I read thorugh all this. Umm...guys/gals. It's just a smart phone. Interesting discussion none the less. hehehe

Now where did I put EVO Longoria?

 

[RickJ]

Actually, light integrates, the argument does hold water in real life - displays and indeed high quality film adhere to that as a basic principal.

Kindly don't cross it over with the 30 fps trash - I never said that nor supported it.

Hey, not trying to be argumentative here, just discussion

As far as the eye and fps here, the picture industry does not use 30 still frames, they use blur which is the reason why transition is smooth at lower framrates. I might be mistaken but our phones do not.

There are a lot of factors in play on how to make low fps look good, but that doesnt apply to phones.

 

[EarlyMon]

Hey, not trying to be argumentative here, just discussion

As far as the eye and fps here, the picture industry does not use 30 still frames, they use blur which is the reason why transition is smooth at lower framrates. I might be mistaken but our phones do not.

There are a lot of factors in play on how to make low fps look good, but that doesnt apply to phones.

Sorry if I was touchy.

Totally agree on fps in the sense that it's not simple, and the whole 30 fps thing is chock-full of oversimplification - and utter nonsense from our HTC/Sprint uberlords.

NTSC TV, DVDs and 1080i are broadcast / display media that operate by updating fields - the actual pictures are assembled by our eyes.

Film is indeed 24 still frames. HOWEVER: it is shuttered by the projector to 48 Hz, and in some esoteric theaters, 72 Hz.

That's not arguing with you, even though it might seem so at first - it's supporting you.

Because we also have a flicker fusion threshold, two things come into play - we MUST have some frame/field locking for very-small-times or all we would see is blur and - this is most relevant - we need to have those still images flicker at some minimum rate or it indeed appears jerky.

24 fps - viewed raw - looks jerky as all get out. I mean, if you've ever seen it, you know - it's abhorrent to everyone.

So, they project 24 fps by shuttering each frame twice - 1/48 second twice for each film frame.

THAT is what begins to give the appearance of smooth motion - and many of you already can probably report seeing that as kinda jerky looking in the theater. You may be among those that - if you go back far enough in wrinkles - can recall computer monitors REALLY looking better when they went from 60 to 72 or even 96 Hz.

The flicker fusion threshold values were established in the 1800s using a spinning disk!!!

A lot of sports programming is 720p/60Hz - as in - 60 fps and progressive - full frame rather than field.

So - the whole "eye can see only 30 fps" thing - that's not a fallacy - it's so far to the right of fallacy that we might as well call it that far to the right of Hitler - it's that wrong.

How then, are we able to enjoy Blu-ray, DVD, or HD TV today at 24, 30 or 60 Hz?

Strobed lighting.

For phosphor technologies such as CRT or plasma, the phosphor has a natural decay and it's refreshed - those "subfield refresh rates" on top line plasmas are all about the flicker. 480 Hz rates are not uncommon.

Despite specs to the contrary, LCDs do not refresh - the LCD panel updates and by a convention now biting their butts, the manufacturers agreed years ago to just call the update rate the refresh rate. An LCD subpixel element is simply a electrochemical VALVE - it's an aperture, or shutter - with a colored lens (red, green, or blue) in front. Behind it is a backlight and regardless of whether CCFL or LED type - the backlight on LCDs flicker to beat the band - just at a super high frequency (no, 120 or 240 Hz, that's more marketing muffing up science - LCD backlights flicker probably in the 300 Hz or better range, depending on make).

AMOLED - haven't bother to check how, but probably a most similar control circuit to that used for the LCD's LED backlight.

So - the eye can only see 30 fps?

If you ever saw 24 or 30 fps it would look like a jerky old flick from Hollywood's silent era.

PS - ABC pioneered 720p/60 Hz in the pre-mandate, experimental HDTV days. (I watched their first national broadcasts - I'm an HDTV early adopter. Can you tell? )

They had the most marvelous website calming explaining why - as a sports-oriented network - they first closely studied and THEN selected 720p/60 Hz.

As 1080i vs. 720p became a marketing debate, they removed that website, chock full of engineering details and perceptual study results - marketing can't defeat physics, but they can sure pull its budget!

I continue to search the webarchive for it, but that's taken many, many hours and it was a cul de sac on their site. (Not so much babbling here as hoping that somebuddy reads this and will turn me on to the archive if they know about it.)

Thanks for reading this far, here's the bottom line of ABC's study:

720p vs 1080i at 60 Hz (US broadcast) approximately boils down to the same thing (hence, the encompassing ATSC standard): both are roughly broadcasting 60 megapixels per second.

But the studies - based on physics, not focus groups! - clearly showed that viewers would prefer 1080i - with a maximum perceivable full-frame rate of ~30 fps - for highly detailed, slow-moving frames.

For anything with fast motion, 60 fps was determined to be absolutely essential.

They also recognized that the 720 would be ultimately lower resolution than 1080, no matter how you sliced it.

They therefore mandated, as a corporation down to their affiliates, that all such broadcasts be end-to-end supported by 720p machinery - from the cameras on down - no changes, no other conversions - and most importantly - that all such components be certified color accuracy and fully calibrated prior to each broadcast. In their own words - it was already well established that color and frame rate far outweighed raw resolution for fast motion and TV picture quality.

I can almost guarantee that was about 8 years ago.

Wonderful study.

I do have the physics investigations from Bells Labs on how the eye perceives resolution as a function contrast for moving pictures - I caution that that's for those with a physics background only, but if interested, I'll provide links. It's from the 50s - and boy, was I surprised to find that none of that was old hat.

Here's the thing - you have to be an SMPTE member to easily access their guarded info - and that ain't cheap. Further, they speak in the language of their craft - TV engineering terms. I took a month just to translate one of those monologues (a private gift) into physics-based language that I could follow - and I needed (yet another) TV engineer's help to even do that.

Those guys really know what they're talking about - I'm just doing my best to pass some of it on, because like so many engineers, they don't know how to talk to those of us who haven't studied their craft. Pity.

Final edit, I promise!

For me, 30 fps is just fine. I'll be happy with that and H.264 movies.

For many others, 30 fps is not fine, they'll be happy with 60 fps for animation and games.

We're different audiences and we're both right.

If there is any way that it's a performance trade-off, then I advocate and support a Settings option.

Neither group should suffer for the other - we're all in this together, we're all EVO consumers.

Unlike others, I do not associate the input /response lag with 30 fps - and yes, I've seen the vids. It's far worse at 30 fps, I agree, but it looked poor to me at both rates in the XDA videos on this. This is a separate issue in my mind, entirely. Again, not being a gamer, I don't care - but I've read that many enjoy lower lag on their Dialer One app - so I'm hoping lag will someday be addressed as well.

 

[MrX8503]

EarlyMon although I dont doubt your knowledge about film, tv broadcasting, video games, and how all the different formats pertains to FPS, I just wanted to add a little bit of info.

There are too many people who make blatant statements saying "Well film is filmed at 24fps, we don't need much more than 30fps" are deluding themselves because that's not what its about.

The reason why film is filmed at a lower framerate is because it gives us that cinematic feel. Has anyone ever seen film at a high FPS or refresh rate? It looks really odd and it looks like a soap opera.

What I'm getting at is that people are comparing two different things. Just because film does one thing, that doesn't directly translate to TV broadcasting, video games, or other types of videos.

Getting back to the actual topic

If you haven't seen the retina display, if your curious, you should check out the iPhone4 display model at an ATT store. If you're the type of person that can notice going from SD to HD on a TV, then you'll notice the resolution on the retina display.

I'm quite sensitive when it comes to resolutions, so when I saw the retina display, I was absolutely floored by its clarity. Remember that print has a dpi of 300, basically this screen looks like print. On top of that its viewing angles are excellent. The IPS display also is comparable to the Super AMOLED screen in direct sunlight.

The only thing holding it back is its smallish screen. The EVO has that instant wow factor, and the iPhone 4 is stunning only to those who are gung ho about High Def.

If we could get a 300dpi 4.3" screen, that would be simply awesome.

 

[EarlyMon]

When mikeyandroid stops lurking and starts explaining here, I get to shut up!

 

[EarlyMon]

MrX8503 - I have seen the iPhone 4, I like the display, a buddy replaced his 3-whatever (I didn't keep up on their models).

I liked the 3's display. It's not as good as the Evo or the 4 - but I thought that they did a good job on that display - especially for a mobile device.

I use other Apple products, and have always found that they've done a pretty great job - overall, over time - with their displays (yeah - with some real stinkers in the mix, too).

I do not say that the EVO display surpasses the iP4 - in many cases, it's not as necessarily as good, IMO.

But, I believe - hopefully without any bias whatsoever - that this is far more due to our limited overall color palette, the subject brought forth by others culminating in these talks - not at all due to actual resolution.

I can give cogent theories - such as cone clustering within the retina, not even distribution - but those are theories.

These days are probably gone, but I can tell you this, as can every TV guy and HDTV hobbiest from the day - you could once walk into a video store, look at a still picture or slideshow, side by side, with two properly calibrated, high quality HDTVs - one in the 40" range, one in the 50" or better range - and the 40" set always looked sharper - even if it was 720 and the larger set was 1080 (and progressive vs. interlaced didn't count, I predicated stills and slideshows).

A smaller relative image looks sharper, not for mere ppi specs, but because of how that light focuses and integrates and is end-result perceived.

Now - try this test:

• Put some decent static image or text on both an Evo and an iP4 - if text, adjust so that the text matches matches line for line (use same font family, but not necessarily same font pitch) and because of complications - a detailed photo will do.
• Place the iP4 on some stand about 12" away - or 14" or farther if you like - something you feel is reasonable for common use - but pretty much side by side.
• Place the Evo beside it but further back so that through one eye (killing your depth perception), so that both screens look equal in size. I think you'll find this is another 3 to 5 inches or so back from the iP4.
• Adjust as best possible the brightness so that both seem about the same brightness (not a lot of margin here).
  • How to Adjust iPhone Brightness | eHow.com
• Look at both phones with just one eye, then the other, then both.

Now - that's the idea - let's make it interesting:

1. Two pictures - one at around 700x400, one at around 1200x800 - one below and one above the native resolutions of both phones.
2. Use the three preset brightnesses of the Evo via no-auto-brightness and via the Power Control (Android) widget - adjust the iPhone to fit the Evo.
3. This is most important part - use Mike's (mikeyandroid) trick to force your Evo into 24 bit in the gallery.

When you're done - tell me if you're still convinced the iP4's superior crispness and goodness is due to resolution.

Here's my little test - apologies, I've had somebuddy around here check this out already, sorry if its a duplicate - which of the following has the highest resolution - take your time, look closely at detail - tear off, make same size and side-by-side on your desktop if you like - but - look for detail.

The colors change - but which one was downrezzed - which one has the highest resolution? (No cheating! ) Which has the highest detail?

Now - this one (I think it was tardmobile asking for spaces between pix for mobile usability, hence this comment):

Finally - this one:

If after all of this, YOU can still be sure that you can see a resolution difference on the iP4, I'll have to accept that your vision is uncommonly acute - rarely so, but not impossibly nor sarcastically - but seriously - rarely so.

Give it a go.

I have.

 

[EarlyMon]

Forgot to post mikeyandroid's trick, so cross-posting it here:

YouTube - evo.mts

 

[MrX8503]

EarlyMon

I think the first image has the higher resolution. I think the last one is definitely a lower resolution picture. The first two are harder to tell the difference, but may I ask why the color discrepancy? The second one looks like it has been doctored and has an unsharpen mask applied to it.

With unsharpen mask it creates a higher contrast from one edge of the pixel to its neighboring pixel, creating a clearer picture. Too much of unsharpen mask you get a halo effect.

But, I believe - hopefully without any bias whatsoever - that this is far more due to our limited overall color palette, the subject brought forth by others culminating in these talks - not at all due to actual resolution.

Resolution, contrast, color, brightness, this all effects what we perceive as a "better" picture, but I wouldn't say if the iPhone4 has better contrast/color/brightness that its "resolution" doesn't mean anything. Another thing to take into account that it has an IPS, this is a bigger deal than people realize. I don't need to get into TN, S-IPS, P-MVA, panels as I'm sure you know what the differences are.

The final thing that makes our eye perceive clarity is the distance you are viewing the object.

This is where things get interesting. Ask yourself this...why is that HDTVs have lower resolutions than computer monitors? One step down, why is that computer monitors have lower resolutions than printed paper?

It all comes down to distance of viewing. The closer the object is to your eyes, that said object must have a higher pixel density than an object that was 10 feet farther away.

A previous poster said "Well your laptop has an even lower ppi..." My answer to that is which device is closer to your face? A phone or a laptop? Obviously your phone is closer to your face, in which case the phone needs a higher ppi. So the comparison between Laptop and phone resolutions doesn't apply.

Bottom Line
The objects that we view the closest to our faces is PRINT. Print has a dpi of 300. We don't hold our cellphones that much farther from our faces compared to print, so my conclusion is that phones from here on out DO benefit from having a 300 ppi density.

 

[EarlyMon]

The resolutions are identical.

The pictures came from here:

Colorfulness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Print media is reflected light - displays (aside from e-Ink) are all some form of emitted light.

Emitted light has natural diffusion.

I would suggest that your eye integrates those sources rather differently and maybe an intuitive judgement of ppi is reasonable, but less than fully accurate. Merely a suggestion, though.

I happen to more than well versed on LCD technologies. I'm staring into an H-IPS display as I type this - it the LG supplied one for Apple. They offer a wide range of features, and a very wide field of view. They also have a strong tendency to not get down to deepest black levels possible. S-PVA seems to offer the widest contrast range without black crushing, but only when the panel is supported by sufficient control circuitry. Circularly polarized vertical alignment seems even better.

So - IPS is pretty good, it's quite ubiquitous, it has its variants. Kinda surprised that that the iP4 isn't H-IPS, then.

But seriously lmao! over the various articles that cropped up lauding Apple for bringing IPS back or daring to spend more on IPS technology.

What Apple decided to do for their main line was to finally standardize on a quality supplier with a sensible set of tradeoffs for a computer monitor - IPS-type from LG. They could do that because LG has their act together and is snapping out IPS panels at high quality and reasonably low prices. The rest is hype.

And because Chunghua is right up the road from HTC (I visit Taiwan often for extended periods due to my work - everything's right up the road from everything else) and because HTC likes to buy from the island (the Snapdragon in the EVO is made under license by TSMC, where the T stands for Taiwan), then I'd be very surprised if somehow the screens in the EVO were not, therefore, some flavor of IPS, regardless of Novatek or Epson supply.

I could be wrong on the IPS part - never say never.

PS - Don't visit the Novatek web site to check - it's reported as recently infected.

PPS - My laptop is a 900 line display - landscape my phone is 480 lines, horizontal, it's 800 lines. My phone is always at or about the 1/2 point for the laptop. By your own logic - it still hangs together.

 

[mrspeedmaster]

I apologize that this is a jpg - but - it's better than nothing and fairly self explanatory - except for this counter-intuitive part:\

Anyway - this should prove fun and informative regardless of which camp you belong to:

http://www.hdtvtotal.com/modules/gallery/albums/userpics/10775/HDNet%20TestPattern_01.jpg

On an iPhone 4, I can read to line #9: Last few lines,your display

Very clearly without zooming in. I don't know if that means anything.

I can barely make out line 10. If this was a 300 dpi TIFF, I could probably read line 10.

 

[MrX8503]

The resolutions are identical.

The pictures came from here:

Colorfulness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The resolutions are identical, but the quality of the picture was affected from the color saturation. I did end up choosing the original image as the best looking one. I was really confused as to why all the pictures looked differently in color. The last picture, the board graphics are very blurry.

The EVO takes a 8mp picture while my Fuji f31 fd is a 6.3. Of course the resolution on the EVO is higher, but its blurrier.

So I'm not sure if that three picture test really means anything. I think what would be more relevant is two of the same picture stretched into a 4" x 4" square. One originally being 300dpi and the other being 200dpi.

Print media is reflected light - displays (aside from e-Ink) are all some form of emitted light.

Emitted light has natural diffusion.

I would suggest that your eye integrates those sources rather differently and maybe an intuitive judgement of ppi is reasonable, but less than fully accurate. Merely a suggestion, though.

I happen to more than well versed on LCD technologies. I'm staring into an H-IPS display as I type this - it the LG supplied one for Apple. They offer a wide range of features, and a very wide field of view. They also have a strong tendency to not get down to deepest black levels possible. S-PVA seems to offer the widest contrast range without black crushing, but only when the panel is supported by sufficient control circuitry. Circularly polarized vertical alignment seems even better.

So - IPS is pretty good, it's quite ubiquitous, it has its variants. Kinda surprised that that the iP4 isn't H-IPS, then.

But seriously lmao! over the various articles that cropped up lauding Apple for bringing IPS back or daring to spend more on IPS technology.

What Apple decided to do for their main line was to finally standardize on a quality supplier with a sensible set of tradeoffs for a computer monitor - IPS-type from LG. They could do that because LG has their act together and is snapping out IPS panels at high quality and reasonably low prices. The rest is hype.

And because Chunghua is right up the road from HTC (I visit Taiwan often for extended periods due to my work - everything's right up the road from everything else) and because HTC likes to buy from the island (the Snapdragon in the EVO is made under license by TSMC, where the T stands for Taiwan), then I'd be very surprised if somehow the screens in the EVO were not, therefore, some flavor of IPS, regardless of Novatek or Epson supply.

I could be wrong on the IPS part - never say never.

PS - Don't visit the Novatek web site to check - it's reported as recently infected.

PPS - My laptop is a 900 line display - landscape my phone is 480 lines, horizontal, it's 800 lines. My phone is always at or about the 1/2 point for the laptop. By your own logic - it still hangs together.

Reflected light and emitted light are two different things, you are right about that, but I'm not so sure that it affects perceived resolution. Color is affected by reflected/emitted, I'm not so sure the same applies to resolution.

As for IPS displays, the EVO I could say with almost positive certainty that its not any flavor of IPS. Its most definitely a TN panel of some sort because of its poor viewing angles.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the laptop, but your phone (the EVO) needs to have higher pixel density because its closer to your face when in use. Your laptop is farther away when in use.

To get the same perceived clarity, your EVO needs to have a higher pixel density.

 

[EarlyMon]

On an iPhone 4, I can read to line #9: Last few lines,your display

Very clearly without zooming in. I don't know if that means anything.

I can barely make out line 10. If this was a 300 dpi TIFF, I could probably read line 10.

Almost kinda unpossible to read line 10 under those conditions. I'm looking at the jpg of that test card display, now, on a 1440x900 monitor, and very up close, I can MAKE OUT what line 10 says, but I cannot read it - as I have a 900 line display, as suggested. This was widely reported to be the case until 1080p TVs of sufficient quality came out.

At 12" I can clearly read line 7 and I can make out line 8. (Edit - I can make that out kinda well, save for the last word, that blocks, as does the "can".)

I chose this distance as actually under my normal viewing distance, and the the figure cited by Soneira in the article.

May I respectfully inquire as to your reading distance?

Also - and I don't know if this is meaningful - the aspect ratio for the card image is 1.78:1 - my phone is 1.67:1 - yours is 1.5:1 - not sure this will come into play, but I thought I'd output that early on.

By the way - I do have my screen covered with a protector, but under high magnification, find that it's optically sufficient to see pixels with only the rarely occasional moir

 

[mrspeedmaster]

May I respectfully inquire as to your reading distance?

About 7-9 inches away. If this was a PDF or some sort of vector file, it would be much clearer. You can see some jpeg artifacts in the file when you zoom in. This isn't a good test.

As for font text comparison on the EVO and iPhone. Not possible to make a fair comparison. I've tried it. Android has a limited set of fonts.

 

[EarlyMon]

So I'm not sure if that three picture test really means anything.

Its meaning is the full support of my claim - perceived detail is influenced by color before resolution. You confirmed that and because of a learned bias, even admitted to judging resolution - I took you at your word.

So - it means a lot, right there.

Reflected light and emitted light are two different things, you are right about that, but I'm not so sure that it affects perceived resolution. Color is affected by reflected/emitted, I'm not so sure the same applies to resolution.

The point in play is that the light being emitted is diffusing as it does so. This also helps with dots-into-lines perception, because that's in part what the light itself is really doing.

As for IPS displays, the EVO I could say with almost positive certainty that its not any flavor of IPS. Its most definitely a TN panel of some sort because of its poor viewing angles.

It does not appear to smear at all the way a TN panel does, and specific IPS technologies vary in their viewing angles. Without a final reference - and I'm doing my best to find that out without violating any NDAs - all we can do is guess. You may be right, I may be right. Face to face, though, I'd bet you a dollar it was IPS and 5 that it wasn't TN whatever it is.

But I'm way right about the IPS being overhyped by Apple - even though I very much like their IPS displays. If you've been insensitive to that hype, let's let that part go.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the laptop, but your phone (the EVO) needs to have higher pixel density because its closer to your face when in use. Your laptop is farther away when in use.

To get the same perceived clarity, your EVO needs to have a higher pixel density.

800 lines at 12 inches from my face offers higher resolution than 900 lines at 24 inches from my eyes.

480 lines at 12 inches is roughly equivalent to - or slightly higher resolution than - 900 lines at 24".

However!!!! Placing the EVO at that halfway point between myself and my laptop - 12:24" - the EVO is 1/4 the size of laptop display in my field of vision.

Normalizing:

800x480x4=1,536,000

1440x900=1,296,000

Under my normal use condition, the Evo does have higher resolution and higher pixel density than my 15" MacBook Pro.

And my 15" MacBook Pro looks really, really great where detail and resolution is concerned.

And my Evo is beating it on your own measures.

And I can NOT see the difference in resolution.

The Apple hype is getting into raw resolution - no fair to leave off the rest of the equation.

Properly - it's resolution with respect to effective screen size in your field of view under normal viewing condition with respect to your distance from that screen as established by your normal viewing condition.

The equation has three parts - that must be kept together, not decomposed into discrete elements.

Such decomposition always leads to hype.

 

[EarlyMon]

About 7-9 inches away.

And that would give it roughly the same relative viewing size as my Evo at 12".

That was very much the answer I expected.

I am way ok with that.

If this was a PDF or some sort of vector file, it would be much clearer. You can see some jpeg artifacts in the file when you zoom in. This isn't a good test.

Agreed! I wasn't expecting anyone to take it to this level, but I'm happy we did. As I mentioned, it was for fun and information, as I questioned how many people knew what I meant when I said "test card" (it's a piece of hardware that generates a test image as a signal - hence - the example jpg).

I believe the vectored version of this is under copyright and therefore not publicly available.

However, just casually, here is, with copyright granted for personal use (Broadcasting) BBC Test Card K -

http://www.matoverton.com/video/testcardk_1920.png

I can probably scrounge up the use instructions for it. Ditto for the infamous Sky card - (warning 1440 x 900):

http://joeljohnson.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/bbc-hd-test-card.png

As for font text comparison on the EVO and iPhone. Not possible to make a fair comparison. I've tried it. Android has a limited set of fonts.

Ah. Makes sense. I was counting the iPhone to be able to match an available font - but not ever owning one, I was applying desktop thinking there - my bad.

~~~~~~

Now - I think that we've covered the fun, let's get down to cases.

Soneira claimed that Jobs exaggerated in his retinal display claim, citing a needed line resolution at 12".

Do you see any pixeling or picture disintegration at your 7 to 9"? At 12"?

I'll bet you don't.

Soneira - fail.

My claim has always been about effective use cases - I've harped on it.

There's a reasonable distance we use for our mobile displays - and it's not a constant 12".

It's a sweet spot that occupies our field of view and I'll bet we arrive at it almost instinctively.

I used my 2.4" Ocean at one distance, my 3.2" Moment another and my 4.3" Evo another. (The 2.4" screen skews this a bit because I had to juggle also my comfort zone for close focus.)

Without being given any conditions whatsoever by me, you naturally gravitated to a different distance than my Evo use - but you ended up with that same effective coverage in your field of view as I did. (And I was in the Bay Area a short while back for a week without a phone - so I borrowed an iPhone. Now, I don't mean to speak for you - but yeah, I naturally held that phone closer to my face - as did the two other guys I was with that were iPhone owners - than I do now for my Evo.)

As our friend MrX8503 points out, that requires that your device have a higher pixel density than mine. And it does by a substantial margin: 1.6 times more.

But - neither you nor I are seeing any picture disintegration - I'm seeing no pixels whatsoever.

Even on a lousy jpg reproduction of a test card, we're both able to read beyond the expected resolution indicators.

Jobs claim fails for the reason I gave MrX8503 - the claim is absolute - if we were to both use our devices at the same close distance, then yeah, maybe, I guess his claim is canonically true.

But we naturally don't - and in context strictly of the Evo's size, I call shenanigans and claim Jobs has failed.

While that iP4 display is great - it's past the point of diminishing returns instead of not there yet - your own personal test proved what I claimed to have known what was fallacy by Soneria.

If you can't see dots at 7 to 9" then you certainly can't at 12".

Bet me - most every Evo owner agreeing with me is using the same common sense - and using their Evos further away.

This fully re-iterates my claims and I believe you have helped substantiate them.