4 ms·
I think there is actually a pretty common consensus that returns diminish at ~220 ppi, i.e. what Apple calls "Retina."
by 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
I think there is actually a pretty common consensus that returns diminish at ~220 ppi, i.e. what Apple calls "Retina."
- vanviegen 3y agoI would guess that returns diminish a lot earlier, and just stop to matter entirely at around 220.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y agoI don't have a definite reference for anything between 185 and 217, but it is a big difference visually. Somewhere in that range, the pixels disappear at a reasonable viewing distance.
- lrem 3y agoRead any old book on photography printing. If it is new enough to mention DPI, it insists at 300 for amateur prints.
- helf 3y agoOh god. I hate that Apple helped stick this BS in people's heads. The human eye can resolve way, way past 220PPI. Even at distance. I'm sitting here typing on a surface book with a 13" panel that is 267PPI and I would adore it to be double that. I run at native resolution with no scaling. For the "average" human eye (20/20 vision) it's something like ~338ppi at 25cm right? If you have better vision (my corrected vision is 20/10 which is near the theoretical max for a human (20/8 I think is the max~?). It's aggravating that people are like "over 300PPI is the max so screw improving". It's literally just the "max" at being able to discern the spacing between pixels accurately. Higher PPIs/DPIs still lead to an increase in objective clarity and crispness as you are able to improve aliasing etc. Some of my old devices had PPIs in excess of 520PPI and I absolutely adored it (Note Edge). I would kill for a desktop monitor with similar PPI. SO yeah, I guess "diminishing returns" is a thing but I wish it was at least a readily available option. I would adore a 27-30" monitor that was ~500ppi.. sighs
- user_7832 3y agoYeah, as a fellow ultra-high dpi lover I'm just disappointed by the market offering a lot of things but not higher framerates.
- dmitrygr 3y ago> Oh god. I hate that Apple helped stick this BS in people's heads. You do realize that without apple pushing the others froward, most laptops would still be 1366x768, right?
- helf 3y ago[dead]
- lern_too_spel 3y agoNo, the consensus is that pixel density should be inversely related to viewing distance.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y agoSure, and this is for the range of distances most common for desktop computer users.
- travisjungroth 3y agoThe scoreboard at Oracle Park (SF Giants) looks great and has 2.5 ppi. It’s a 2,032” 4,672 x 2,160 display.
- aitchnyu 3y agoI got a 218 ppi 27 incher, and I was disappointed when English is crisp but my native language is a pain at small font sizes. My 350+ ppi mobile renders them fine at those sizes.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y agoTalking about PPI without including distance to the screen is like talking about how far your car can drive on a tank of gas without mentioning how big the gas tank is. 220 PPI on a TV screen that you're sitting 8 feet away from? More than most people will ever notice. 220 PPI on a monitor that you're 18-24 inches away from? Probably the ideal density. On a phone or tablet? Meh. On a VR display? Absolutely unusable.