With the production of Apple's Retina Display will any higher resolution ever be needed?

Maybe not. I don’t know when it comes down to the hard facts. But I can say that every time I got a better resolution TV, I never thought it could get better . . . but it always does.

Maybe our eyes will get used to the quality, and by the time something better comes out, we will be able to see the difference b/c of what has become standard.

What does “greater resolution than the eye can see” actually mean?

The larger a display gets at a certain resolution, the more evident its pixels are.

Therefore, it all depends on the size of the display.

“Greater resolution than the eye can see” is a classic Apple marketing gimmick. I really dig the screen, but I don’t buy that.

The eye can not distinguish the pixels at 10 inches. Thus we will need higher dpi if we need to see it closer than 10 inches

The more important thing in display improvement is contrast ratio, which is far from what reality has to offer.

@the100thmonkey :: the key is DPI. Resolution is irrelevant.

@johnpowell – that’s what I thought I said? A 1680×1050 display will still show perceptible blockiness if it’s 5 metres across.

Here’s some handy information if you guys haven’t seen it…

Who knows—I thought the resolution on previous versions was okay.

Magazine print resolution is on the lower end of 266dpi for cheap publications and up to 350dpi for fine art books. 300dpi is typical for most popular consumer magazines.

My digital camera back has a preview screen at 290dpi. It is essentially print quality. I can’t see the pixels anymore than a magazine image. I use a magnifier lupe to judge density and only then do I see pixels, just like putting a magnifier on a magazine.

But that is a far cry from my fine art giclee printers at 2700dpi. These are considered “Continuous Tone” resolution (ConTone). One is hard pressed to see any pixellation on those prints even with a very powerful lupe.

So why go so high resolution if 266dpi is all one really needs? Well, although the dots might be there, higher resolutions are much better at blending colors and pulling details from deep shadows and bright highlights. The “depth” of a 2700dpi image is outstanding compared to a 300dpi image. The shadows don’t block up and the highlights don’t clip to white as easily.

Another consideration is the number of colors we’re working with. My giclee printers are 12 different colors. RGB monitors are 3 colors. You might imagine there would be considerable differences in color accuracy and nuances of tonalities… and you’d be right.

Interesting to see some new TV’s advertise extra colors in their pixels recently. I’d bet we’ll see more of that to come. We’ll also see liquid lens technology, where Phillips has demonstrated changing the shape of nano water droplets into different lens shapes simply by applying electricity at certain pulsations. So two side by side pixels will be capable of being different shapes, thereby increasing defocused bokeh smoothness in contrast to sharp lines, and effectively bringing about a more realistic three dimensional appearance.

The big problem is that optical lenses have not been able to keep pace with output technology or chip capture capabilities. The traditional glass lens is still the first line of bending light onto a chip, and even the best Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, and Canon L lenses have great difficulty drawing light sharp enough for the real quality that input/put can handle.

Nikon shows great promise with their new nanocrystal lens technologies though. That’s some pretty fab new glass.

@the100thmonkey :: You are assuming resolution is fixed. They upped the recommended resolution on the iPhone with app developers. Doubling the pixels is only done on apps that aren’t using the new resolution.

@johnpowell : yes. Again, that is quite clear – my point is based on @MeinTeil‘s question. They asked if there was any point in further increasing monitor resolution given that the Retina display has greater resolution than the eye can see.. My posts indicate why I think the answer is “yes”.

I’m not exactly sure what you’re getting at.

@dverhey I think that by saying “pixel density” instead of “resolution” there would be less confusion.

The pixels are 4 times smaller than it previously was. It is very difficult to see individual pixels anymore, and reading books looks like fine printed paper. I don’t know how far you need to hold the phone away from your eyes for it to be invisible to the human retina but after a while I can start to notice individual pixels (barely).

It is true though.

Pixel density is like ink spread on a printed page. 300dpi is different between devices just as it is on printed page where a glossy page has much less ink spread than a matte page where the droplet hits the paper and spreads out upon contact.

The integrity of the pixel lens is a factor to consider. Sony is incorporating a two lens system to allow for the peripheral pixels at the edges to be viewable with the same integrity as the centered pixels in the middle. There are many advances yet to be achieved, yet they are nuance advances that may not be noticed by anything less than the most critical eye.

Nano pixel density promises the greatest advantages because it is a thin sheet which may be applied to current manufacturing technologies. No major retooling required. It’s just a film that adheres to current processes.