Human Eye and Pixel Density

Forums › Off topic › Human Eye and Pixel Density

Ramboss

202 posts

Master Geek

#98903 8-Mar-2012 14:21

What pixel density can the human eye even see?
With the new ipad and its huge pixel density i was just wondering if it is even worth it. The human eye is good but that good?

All the new devices coming out with higher and higher pixel densities. to be honest on my 1080p laptop screen which is a fairly nice screen to look at, i can't really tell much difference between 1080 and 720. But maybe i just have bad eyes.

Note: just did a quick google, Wiki says 300PPI is when the human eye cant differentiate detail, but there are more factors to image then pixel density.

ALSO: Does the “Retina Display” live up to its name? and i guess his info came from:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

stevenz

2802 posts

Uber Geek

#592354 8-Mar-2012 14:38

Here's a basic article on it:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/06/iphone-4-retina/

Beyond a point it pretty much just becomes bragging rights. 1024x768 is plenty for a 10" display for most purposes IMO. If it can be done whilst not being at the cost of performance, then they might as well though.

Here's a fairly in depth analysis - YMMV:

http://filmicgames.com/archives/698

@KnightNZ

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#592847 9-Mar-2012 17:22

I was actually thinking about this today weirdly enough

Got back from my first check after my laser eye surgery, 20/10 vision now, up from 20/15 after the surgery last week.

So that means, that for the supposed Retina display, I'd need a pixel density of 652 ppi at 10.5", whereas the average/nominal vision, would need a 326ppi screen. Which means the iPad 3 shouldn't really have the name Retina screen, if it's only

This display calculator is interesting:
http://bhtooefr.org/displaycalc.htm

Shows that it'd have to be at least:

33cm 20/20
43cm 20/15
66cm 20/10

Away from the eyes, for the pixels to not be visible, which might only just be doable, at the average male height/arm length, at 20/20

However most people hold a tablet, about 15-25cm away from themselves?

I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#592874 9-Mar-2012 18:46

vinnieg: I was actually thinking about this today weirdly enough

Got back from my first check after my laser eye surgery, 20/10 vision now, up from 20/15 after the surgery last week.

So that means, that for the supposed Retina display, I'd need a pixel density of?652 ppi at 10.5", whereas the average/nominal vision, would need a 326ppi screen. ?Which means the iPad 3 shouldn't really have the name Retina screen, if it's only?

This display calculator is interesting:
http://bhtooefr.org/displaycalc.htm

Shows that it'd have to be at least:

33cm 20/20
43cm 20/15
66cm ?20/10

Away from the eyes, for the pixels to not be visible, which might only just be doable, at the average male height/arm length, at 20/20

However most people hold a tablet, about 15-25cm away from themselves?

?

FOr some uses, you may need to view it closer, such as for detailed drawings in a book, were the ipad 3 would be an advantage. But for most people the screen on the ipad 2 would be more than good enough.

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#592890 9-Mar-2012 19:28

mattwnz:
FOr some uses, you may need to view it closer, such as for detailed drawings in a book, were the ipad 3 would be an advantage. But for most people the screen on the ipad 2 would be more than good enough.

Yeah I agree, will be telling my mum, and friends with the 2, to stick with it for now, I don't believe the new one is worth selling the 2 for

I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

Printertech

81 posts

Master Geek

#593435 11-Mar-2012 09:47

Hmm. So increasing pixels presumably takes up more memory and resources that could be used for other features.

toyonut

1508 posts

Uber Geek

#593443 11-Mar-2012 10:01

Yep, that is why the 3/hd has a quad core gpu and only a dual core cpu. Needs a big gpu to push that many pixels. It is 4 times more pixels than a blu ray movie has.
IMO its a little pointless, nothing will ever be able to natively take advantage of that many pixels on an ipad.

Try Vultr using this link and get us both some credit:

http://www.vultr.com/?ref=7033587-3B

Behodar

10502 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#593446 11-Mar-2012 10:05

paulmilbank: It is 4 times more pixels than a blu ray movie has.

I think you may have done your calculations incorrectly; it's only about 50% more.

2048 x 1536 ~ 3.1 million pixels
1920 x 1080 ~ 2 million pixels

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

toyonut

1508 posts

Uber Geek

#593477 11-Mar-2012 11:51

Sorry, didn't fact check, just thought I had read somewhere it was 4 times more. Still pushing another 50% more pixels than a blu ray movie on a tablet is a big ask.
Guess it will remain to be seen if Apple has taken the right direction compared to companies like Huawei which have set more modest pixel goals but have given more cpu processing with quad core.

Sorry it was the Apple 4x faster than tegra 3 claim that threw me:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/nvidia-on-apples-ipad-a5x-graphics-claims-show-us-the-benchmarks/71065

Try Vultr using this link and get us both some credit:

http://www.vultr.com/?ref=7033587-3B

merve0o0

492 posts

Ultimate Geek

#594414 13-Mar-2012 00:20

After using the iPhone 4 with retina I find it difficult using a screen with bigger pixels. If windows and osx would sort out their scaling with higher resolutions I would like a retina style screen for my pc. Currently 2560x1440 and its only disadvantage is that windows can't scale properly with higher dpi. And pictures look tiny