4 ms·
edit for context: bsimpson's comment originally said "I think it was a Thinkpad with a 1080p monitor" Minor niggles: 1. 1080p would have been rare in 2003, co
by lowboy 13y ago
edit for context: bsimpson's comment originally said "I think it was a Thinkpad with a 1080p monitor"
Minor niggles:
1. 1080p would have been rare in 2003, considering 16:10 was the usual widescreen format at the time[0].
2. In order for a 1080p to be "retina" (by Apple's standards, not true retina[1]), at the typical 20" viewing distance of a laptop, it would have to be only a 9" screen. I don't think they ever made a 9" Thinkpad, but I could be wrong.
More comparative info on the Retina Display wiki page[2].
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen#Transition_to_widescreen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen#Transition_to_widesc...
[1]: http://www.displaymate.com/iPhone_4_ShootOut.htm#Retina http://www.displaymate.com/iPhone_4_ShootOut.htm#Retina
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display#Retina_Display_models http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display#Retina_Display_m...
- bsimpson 13y agoI looked it up, and it was 2048 x 1536, which is retina at 20", according to isthisretina.com.
- lowboy 13y agoAh nice, that must have cost a pretty penny to get that screen. I still wonder if that's not quite retina though. For better or for worse, Apple coined the phrase, and I'd tend to peg off of that to make 220ppi @ 20" the lower bound for retina-quality. Maybe 200ppi. 170ppi @ 20" is quite a step down from that. That's 4:3, not even close to the 16:9 aspect ratio that 1080p implies... and you edited your post to take that out. Okay then!
- bsimpson 13y agoIt wasn't my laptop, so I didn't know the details. I just remembered it being around 2000px. My original reply was meant to be a "hey, so I did some research and edited the post." Sorry for any confusion.
- lowboy 13y agoNo worries! I just put some context in my reply so that it made sense, not as a comment on your edits.