3 ms·

By defining Retina as 220PPI most options are excluded as 4K at 27" or 32" is common but more isn't. A look at what Apple calls Retina though shows that angular

By defining Retina as 220PPI most options are excluded as 4K at 27" or 32" is common but more isn't. A look at what Apple calls Retina though shows that angular density is a much better definition. The initial presentation by Jobs was about angular resolution and the actual screens follow it. PPI ranges from 218 to 476 but angular density only between 57 to 92. So if you set a 27" or 32" screen at a decent distance you get "Retina" quality. If you want the screen closer maybe not. Unfortunately the market for more than 4K isn't really yet here for various reasons. Maybe if 8K catches on as a media format we take the next step. At that point only if you want to set the screen so close you can't view it all at once will it be worth it to go higher.

floatboth 5y ago
Yep, trying to find PPI based rules of thumb is silly. The better definition of "retina" is far simpler: you render UI at >1x scale on it.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  What does 1X scale mean? If your application is resolution independent, it doesn’t seem to be a meaningful distinction.
  - floatboth 5y ago
    In a "logical pixel" system (macOS, Wayland, …Android??) the scale is the relationship between logical and physical pixels. In an "app go draw bigger stuff" system like Windows, it's just the factor of how much bigger the UI elements should be. E.g. in Windows settings you can set 150% scale and all UI elements will be 1.5X as large. And the "good" scale depends mostly on PPI of the monitor, as well as user preference. On a 27" 4K monitor, 1x scale is near unusable: the UI elements would be microscopic. Windows defaults to 150%, but 175% and 200% are fine as well (here's the user preference aspect).
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      WPF and some other windows APIs support resolution independence, so you don’t have an arbitrary size defined set as 1X. It seems weird that Apple hasn’t been able to do resolution independence yet, and there is some arbitrary 1X that is based on monitor tech that was popular this decade (and definitely not resolutions like 800 x 600 or 640 x 480 resolutions that we used in the 90s). Eventually, we should at least rename 2X to 1X and move on like we did before.
      - floatboth 5y ago
        Directly using physical PPI has basically never taken off anywhere. Everyone is using "arbitrary 1x" because designers and developers have never started using physical dimensions for digital UI elements. Most people speak in "96-dpi-ish logical pixels" because it's much more convenient. Everyone knows what 128px approximately looks like. No one measures UI elements with a physical ruler in millimeters.

floatboth 5y ago

Yep, trying to find PPI based rules of thumb is silly. The better definition of "retina" is far simpler: you render UI at >1x scale on it.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
What does 1X scale mean? If your application is resolution independent, it doesn’t seem to be a meaningful distinction.
- floatboth 5y ago
  In a "logical pixel" system (macOS, Wayland, …Android??) the scale is the relationship between logical and physical pixels. In an "app go draw bigger stuff" system like Windows, it's just the factor of how much bigger the UI elements should be. E.g. in Windows settings you can set 150% scale and all UI elements will be 1.5X as large. And the "good" scale depends mostly on PPI of the monitor, as well as user preference. On a 27" 4K monitor, 1x scale is near unusable: the UI elements would be microscopic. Windows defaults to 150%, but 175% and 200% are fine as well (here's the user preference aspect).
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    WPF and some other windows APIs support resolution independence, so you don’t have an arbitrary size defined set as 1X. It seems weird that Apple hasn’t been able to do resolution independence yet, and there is some arbitrary 1X that is based on monitor tech that was popular this decade (and definitely not resolutions like 800 x 600 or 640 x 480 resolutions that we used in the 90s). Eventually, we should at least rename 2X to 1X and move on like we did before.
    - floatboth 5y ago
      Directly using physical PPI has basically never taken off anywhere. Everyone is using "arbitrary 1x" because designers and developers have never started using physical dimensions for digital UI elements. Most people speak in "96-dpi-ish logical pixels" because it's much more convenient. Everyone knows what 128px approximately looks like. No one measures UI elements with a physical ruler in millimeters.