Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 21st Oct 2012 15:11 UTC
Google The Next Web: "Google has also been working with Samsung to launch a 10-inch tablet, confirming leaks which suggested Google had teamed up with the Korean manufacturer for another device. Our source tells us that internally the tablet goes under the name 'Codename Manta', runs Google's new Android 4.2 operating system (previously referred to as Key Lime Pie, but is set to retain the Jelly Bean branding), and will offer a 2560x1600 pixel (10:16) resolution, which we believe will offer around 300 pixels per inch compared to the new iPad's 264 PPI." Between the iPad and this supposed Android tablet... Poor Surface. Poor, poor Surface.
Thread beginning with comment 539348
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why the focus on screen resolution?
by WereCatf on Sun 21st Oct 2012 15:48 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

Why do people and companies focus so hard on resolution? Everyone keeps masturbating to ever higher pixel counts while all the other features -- both in software and in hardware -- are ignored. IMHO Microsoft went the better direction with Surface's screen -- if what they claim about its better colour balance, gamut and brightness are true. I own an Acer Iconia Tab A500 which has 1280x800 pixels and I have no complaints whatsoever about the pixel count, but its colour representations leaves a lot to be desired.

Reply Score: 3

drcouzelis Member since:
2010-01-11

It's like the megapixels race for cameras all over again. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4

quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Up to a point, though marketing speak aside the new 'retina screen' on the iPad is lovely. It almost made me want one and I find it's OS a pain-in-butt. So I, imagine most everyone given the choice, want it's equivalent in their choice of tablet, laptop etc.

Edited 2012-10-21 16:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Yoko_T Member since:
2011-08-18

Up to a point, though marketing speak aside the new 'retina screen' on the iPad is lovely. It almost made me want one and I find it's OS a pain-in-butt. So I, imagine most everyone given the choice, want it's equivalent in their choice of tablet, laptop etc.


I frankly don't see the point of a 10+-inch tablet. All you're basically getting is all the hassles of a laptop, with none of the benefits.

Reply Parent Score: 3

kholinar Member since:
2007-09-10

Because eye strain is a real issue vs. minor clock speed bumps and bad glass with 10 mp sensors.

Readability at these resolutions and distances is a real benefit, far more so something like he video in a living room.

But it's nothing like the megapixel or clock speed races because there's a limited return on anything past retina until you jump to 4k. This is just the minimum that all displays should have been pushing to for years...

Until you've used one for a while and return to a normal display, you won't get it.

Reply Parent Score: 5

dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

If it is not about clock race and megapixel, why is Apple also making benchmark ?

If I had the option I would choose e-ink for readability (plus I'm pretty sure that looking at backlit display in wrong condition cause more eye strain than low resolution display, because you know ... gameboy)

Reply Parent Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Because eye strain is a real issue vs. minor clock speed bumps and bad glass with 10 mp sensors.

Readability at these resolutions and distances is a real benefit, far more so something like he video in a living room.


Alas, colour gamut, contrast and brightness affect readability much more than the occasional bump in PPI at these resolutions. You can cram 20 000 x 20 000 pixels in the screen if you want but it won't be readable and it will definitely cause eye strain if colours, contrast and brightness are subpar, ie. high pixel count is not a substitute for those. That's exactly why I am asking: why masturbate to high pixel count when concentrating on the other aspects is much more beneficial after a certain point?

This is just the minimum that all displays should have been pushing to for years...


I have to say that I disagree.

Reply Parent Score: 2

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Because eye strain is a real issue vs. minor clock speed bumps and bad glass with 10 mp sensors.

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.


Readability at these resolutions and distances is a real benefit, far more so something like he video in a living room.

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.


But it's nothing like the megapixel or clock speed races because there's a limited return on anything past retina until you jump to 4k.

"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.


This is just the minimum that all displays should have been pushing to for years...

There is this small consideration in manufacturing called "practicality."

Furthermore, with computer devices, there is this limitation known as "bandwidth capability."


Until you've used one for a while and return to a normal display, you won't get it.

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

Reply Parent Score: 1

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Why do people and companies focus so hard on resolution? Everyone keeps masturbating to ever higher pixel counts while all the other features -- both in software and in hardware -- are ignored.

It's quite simple, really. Higher pixel counts basically translates to higher res screens which allows the display of higher quality boobs. And that is something that can be worth masturbating over.

I guess the problem occurs when people masturbate over the thought of such a screen, without any porn on the screen in front of them.

Reply Parent Score: 10

ParadoxUncreated Member since:
2009-12-05

How gay to mention masturbation in every second sentence. OFCOURSE you would want HIGH resolution, on a SMALL display.

Very cool news. It seems though that certain people think the opposite, who I have always found to be really offensive. No doubt they block rational thought and the praises of God, and brilliance and excellence in all spheres of life.

Provocative idiocy, all the way to the "cottaging", where no humanity is left.

If you have been on the internet for a while, you notice this.

So yeah, praises of God, or cottaging? ;)

Peace Be With You.

Reply Parent Score: 0

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

uh huh...

Reply Parent Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I don't get the point of your comment. Is it supposed to be sarcasm or what?

Reply Parent Score: 2