4 ms·
"LG also claims that the high density of the display will make it impossible for the human eye to distinguish between individual pixels." Wasn't that already t
by vibragiel 14y ago
"LG also claims that the high density of the display will make it impossible for the human eye to distinguish between individual pixels."
Wasn't that already true for Retina displays? Maybe I'm missing something but why keep increasing the PPI?
- falling 14y agoThat's not important, the important thing is that numbers have to be higher than Apple's, whatever it takes.
- vecinu 14y agoIs anyone else disappointed that companies are now trying to outnumber their competition instead of 'out-innovate' ?
- beagle3 14y agonow? It's been going on forever. Occasionally, a company manages to get the race off the number tracks - e.g. AMD, whose lower-frequency processors were way better higher-frequency than Intel's Pentium 4 processors of the time. But in general, companies compete on (numerical) price or on (numerical) specs, and almost always have.
- mtgx 14y agoOnly for a certain distance, I suppose. Also, it was true for the iPhone at 329 PPI. Is it still true for the iPad 3 at 264 PPI? Apple keeps calling it retina for marketing purposes, but there's quite a gap between 329 and 264. And if 264 is "good enough", does that mean 250 PPI is good enough, too? What about 220?
- mahyarm 14y agoIt's about average holding distance. iPads are held farther. The iPad 3 already had a 4:3 2K screen.
- whatusername 14y agoThere is an argument that you hold the larger screen further from your face. Thus the pixel density your eyes see is different. This would imply that a 5" screen needs less PPI than the 3.5" iPhone.