Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 21st Oct 2012 15:11 UTC
Permalink for comment 539591
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-11-12
Not sure what is meant by this statement, but eye strain is not affected by the resolution of a display as much as how something is rendered on that display.
Which resolutions? Which distances?
What type of rendering? What type of content? How keen is the viewer's eyesight?
All of these variables are important to establish in determining the validity of such a "readability" claim.
"Retina" is an Apple BS marketing term (as is "4k" in the cinematography world).
Resolution is purely a matter of degree -- there is no magical resolution range "of limited return" that Apple has discovered.
"Effective" resolution is determined by the variables mentioned above.
There is this small consideration in manufacturing called "practicality."
Furthermore, with computer devices, there is this limitation known as "bandwidth capability."
Perhaps it would be best if we didn't live the fanboy stereotype.
By the way, for about 15 years, one could use Linux terminal emulators with LCD/LED screens. When the resolution was properly set, the font in these terminals was perfectly aligned with each pixel, so that the characters were razor sharp, with no aliasing. Thus, these 15-year-old terminal emulators were sharper than aliased fonts on "retina" displays.
Edited 2012-10-22 19:42 UTC