2 ms·

I for one don't notice any quality/resolution difference between native apps and a mirrored Mac screen. I agree it feels "worse" than a physical screen - it is

by lukev 3y ago

I for one don't notice any quality/resolution difference between native apps and a mirrored Mac screen. I agree it feels "worse" than a physical screen - it is certainly less crisp. But I ran an experiment, and created a doc with font sizes from 1-15 pt, then viewed it on my physical 24" 4k monitor, and on a mirrored Mac display in the AVP set to the same (virtual) dimensions and distance away. Interestingly, text became illegible (without leaning closer in either case) for me at around the 6pt mark for both of them. Objectively speaking, the size of font I can read is pretty equivalent, although I find myself preferring fonts about 2pts larger on the AVP than on my physical monitor. I suspect this is because the physical display is able to benefit from precise pixel alignment and subpixel rendering, which the AVP can't. But the "average density" feels pretty equivalent... it somehow feels more an issue of optical sharpness than of "pixel size" (even I know the two are related.)

cubefox 3y ago
> I for one don't notice any quality/resolution difference between native apps and a mirrored Mac screen. I wonder how so different opinions exist on things that should be pretty much the same for everyone.
- Retric 3y ago
  People’s eyes vary quite a bit even with corrective lenses.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  Some people immediately notice 90/120Hz screns vs 60. Some will see pixels on a 3K 14" screen while it will "good enough" for most. Aside from sheer eye sight, I think there's also attention and sensibility to these specific things. The same way web designers recognize fonts from 4 letters when generic users barely pay attention to whether it's serif.
- ekms 3y ago
  Some people have much worse vision? Makes sense that people would perceive visual clarity differently
- lukev 3y ago
  It's hard to talk about something so based in individual perception: it's true, my eyes could literally be different. However, my strong suspicion is that the visionOS native apps have a larger font size and bigger, smoother UX elements. In this case, the mind doesn't notice a little blurriness around the edges. Whereas with a mirrored display, there's tons of tiny thin lines where it's easier to notice that visual acuity is not 100%.

by lukev 3y ago

cubefox 3y ago

> I for one don't notice any quality/resolution difference between native apps and a mirrored Mac screen. I wonder how so different opinions exist on things that should be pretty much the same for everyone.

Retric 3y ago
People’s eyes vary quite a bit even with corrective lenses.
makeitdouble 3y ago
Some people immediately notice 90/120Hz screns vs 60. Some will see pixels on a 3K 14" screen while it will "good enough" for most. Aside from sheer eye sight, I think there's also attention and sensibility to these specific things. The same way web designers recognize fonts from 4 letters when generic users barely pay attention to whether it's serif.
ekms 3y ago
Some people have much worse vision? Makes sense that people would perceive visual clarity differently
lukev 3y ago
It's hard to talk about something so based in individual perception: it's true, my eyes could literally be different. However, my strong suspicion is that the visionOS native apps have a larger font size and bigger, smoother UX elements. In this case, the mind doesn't notice a little blurriness around the edges. Whereas with a mirrored display, there's tons of tiny thin lines where it's easier to notice that visual acuity is not 100%.