3 ms·
It does, actually. It’s supposed to describe a display where the individual pixels aren’t discernible at normal viewing distance
by melq 6y ago
It does, actually. It’s supposed to describe a display where the individual pixels aren’t discernible at normal viewing distance
- noisem4ker 6y agoI prefer numbers and measurement units to trademarked, fuzzy descriptions of experiences. Since we're talking about display density, DPI is the term I want to see used.
- melq 6y agoThat's all well and good, you're entitled to your preferences. But it doesn't change the fact that it's not a 'fuzzy' description of experience. DPI alone isn't enough information to describe what it is meant to define. Again, retina refers to the minimum resolution, at a given viewing distance, where individual pixels are not recognizable. The part about the viewing distance is essential. As I sit at my desk, my monitor is about a full arms length away from me. When I use my phone, it's distance from my eyes is about 1/3 that of the monitor (ish). Thus, the DPI required for my phone to have its pixels indistinguishable is a lot higher than what my monitor needs to achieve the same. So in reality, DPI is a fuzzier description of experience than 'retina' is, even if it is an annoying, trademarked, marketing buzzword (which it is, no arguments there).