Isn't this obvious to anyone seeing the ads? I don't think people skiing are actually going to fly out of my TV when I see those ads, or that a humanoid rabbit is actually going to try to steal my Trix.
I also posted this on the article:<p>No one that sees these videos or ads on the web will be using a 300dpi screen so they need to overcompensate. A more interesting comparison will be what resolution they show in their print ads.
Actually, I just realized... for the <i>effect</i> of what they're claiming (pixels smaller than you can see), this is a perfect comparison. Blocks to none. Sure, they're achieving it by bending the rules, but I got the impression that 300dpi played second fiddle to <i>"your eye is unable to distinguish individual pixels."</i>[1]<p>[1] <a href="http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/retina-display.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/retina-display.html</a><p>edit: their side-by-side comparison shows the correct number of pixels between the two.
It was not the high-quality of the "a" on the right that was exaggerated, it was the low quality of the one on the left.<p>The "a" on the right is fine, it is there to represent the kind of image in which you no longer are able to detect pixillation, going above of the supposed 300dpi limit, like what would happen on the iPhone4. On the other hand, presenting on the left an "a" with half the quality of the one on the right would probably be too difficult for people to spot the difference.<p>If they were fair on that slide, it probably would be interesting to analyze if people would really notice the difference or if they would just pretend they did (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperors_New_Clothes" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperors_New_Clothes</a>). Sure thing, it would not have that much of an impact, at least until all of those people get the chance of having the new iPhone in their hands.
Adding to that the fact that their clever semantics is making it <i>sound</i> better than it is (claiming '4x more pixels' - which is true, but it's just 2x the resolution)...<p>It's the best mobile device screen out there, hands down. They really don't need to do that.
I was wondering about that. It did look like the "after" image was just someone using the font at full resolution, rather than being properly scaled down.
The ratios in the demo are correct if you compare them not to the iPhone 3G but to desktop monitors at 72dpi.<p>But seriously, this is all to demonstrate the difference. It’s not a ‘claim’. After all, 815dpi will look the same to the human eye as 370dpi…
Is 300 really the max of the eye, I wonder how that is calculated. For instance, if you had a 1 pixel line at about a 15 degree angle, does that mean you would see no aliasing effects?
This is a bit of sensationalist non-news, isn't it? I mean, we all know how exactly <i>every single computer software/hardware manufacturer</i> always use "resolution-less" photographs in their ads on computer screens, cellphone screens and so on.
"So you’re calling Apple out on their supposed exaggeration of the pixel density<p>based on… Screenshots from compressed videos?"<p>unbelievably dumb blog post.