 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/10/2012 04:13 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>>>> Now, imagine watching a movie on a screen that's so tiny that you have
>>>> to hold it a few inches in front of your face to even be able to /see/
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> And again with the exaggerations. Just stop it, please.
>
>> What makes you think this is an exaggeration?
>
> "A few inches" is something like 3 to 5 inches. That's like 10 cm.
> Holding anything that close would make it hard to see anything. Nobody
> does that, if for nothing else, then for that reason alone.
Oh, I see. So we're arguing over the semantics of how close that is?
All I meant was that you can't hold it at arm's length and be able to
see much. I didn't actually measure, with a ruler, exactly how close it
would need to be to your face in order to make out anything useful. If
that's an exaggeration then yeah, OK.
> It seems to me that you have never actually *tried* using an iPhone,
> you are just talking from your behind.
Who said iPhone? I just said I don't see the point of having "full HD"
on an utterly tiny screen...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Who said iPhone? I just said I don't see the point of having "full HD"
> on an utterly tiny screen...
You seem to be the kind of person who criticizes web browsing with a
cellphone because of the ridiculously low resolution, and when they make
one with a really huge resolution you criticize it for being useless.
I wonder if you understand that the clarity of eg. text is significantly
better with a high resolution screen than a low-resolution one, and that
it significantly improves eg. web browsing.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/10/2012 10:06 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Who said iPhone? I just said I don't see the point of having "full HD"
>> on an utterly tiny screen...
>
> You seem to be the kind of person who criticizes web browsing with a
> cellphone because of the ridiculously low resolution, and when they make
> one with a really huge resolution you criticize it for being useless.
To be clear: Using something with a tiny screen to watch movies seems
silly to me. Making the display clearer is a fine and good thing to want
to do. But using the words "full HD" just screams "this is a movie
player", which seems daft for something with such a tiny display.
But sure, if you're saying a higher resolution makes it easier to read
text and so forth, you'll get no argument from me...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 21:41:04 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> And again with the exaggerations. Just stop it, please.
>>>
>>> What makes you think this is an exaggeration?
>>
>> Because no one is seriously talking about watching movies on the screen
>> of a 5 year old flip-phone.
>>
>> As mentioned multiple times already, the screen size and resolution on
>> newer smart phones is at least 4 times as big as your dinosaur's, which
>> makes it more than easily viewable at a comfortable distance.
>
> And as *I* pointed out, the screen /cannot/ be of a reasonable size,
> because then it wouldn't fit in your pocket.
You have abnormally small pockets, then.
I have used my phone to watch the occasional video. It's not ideal, but
if I'm away from my projector or my laptop, it's a reasonable
substitute. But it's not a 1.5" screen, either, like your dinosaur.
And it does *gasp* fit in my pocket.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And as *I* pointed out, the screen /cannot/ be of a reasonable size,
>> because then it wouldn't fit in your pocket.
>
> You have abnormally small pockets, then.
Well, let's look at this, shall we?
A CD does not fit in either my trouser pockets or my coat pockets. A CD
is of course 120mm across, which Google informs me is slightly less than
5 inches. So yes, you /can/ fit something larger than 1.5 inch. And
/no/, you cannot fit 12 inches or something.
> I have used my phone to watch the occasional video. It's not ideal, but
> if I'm away from my projector or my laptop, it's a reasonable
> substitute.
OK, sure. "Reasonable substitute" I can go with. "Full HD experience"?
Not so much...
> But it's not a 1.5" screen, either, like your dinosaur.
I'm loving how a phone less than 1 year old is a "dinosaur"...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's curious how innovative Apple was with the iPhone, and how
> successful those ideas were.
In reality the touch screen and LCD suppliers were heavily pushing the
idea of a phone with a huge high resolution screen and no keyboard for a
long time before the iPhone (for obvious reasons), but nobody was
interested. Apple was the first company to realise that actually they
could make a really successful product with this technology.
> The iPhone might not have been the first portable device with a
> touch-screen (usable with fingers rather than a stylus) in history,
> but it was very certainly the first one produced for the masses.
> When Apple announced this, many people doubted its usability, and many
> even laughed at it (a common criticism being "it doesn't even have a
> keyboard".)
This is exactly the reasoning Nokia refused to go with such a design.
They almost managed it a few times but continued to demand a slide-out
hidden keyboard somewhere which just made the phone really chunky.
> But Apple did everything just right: Rather than going with a cheap,
> low-resolution touch-screen on a device that can be used for 2 hours,
> they really invested in it and put a really, really high-quality, accurate
> and responsive touch screen with a very decent pixel resolution (at least
> at that time) that keeps working properly no matter how dirty the screen
> gets, and they put a lot of effort on the software side to make it as
> usable as possible. And you can actually use the device for quite a long
> time without recharging.
The surprising thing is the physical resolution of the touch screen is
extremely low, something like 13x7 (sometimes if you catch the screen at
exactly the correct angle in the light you can see the pattern). All
the accuracy is in the touch controller circuits that can send clever
signals to each row/column, measure the response and use interpolation
to create a much higher accuracy value.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> All I meant was that you can't hold it at arm's length and be able to
> see much. I didn't actually measure, with a ruler, exactly how close it
> would need to be to your face in order to make out anything useful. If
> that's an exaggeration then yeah, OK.
We used to use 30cm for typical viewing distance for phones - we had a
rig that looked like some weird medical head restraint for tests to
ensure everyone was the same distance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> A CD does not fit in either my trouser pockets or my coat pockets. A CD
> is of course 120mm across, which Google informs me is slightly less than
> 5 inches. So yes, you /can/ fit something larger than 1.5 inch. And
> /no/, you cannot fit 12 inches or something.
Ok this is just getting strange now...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/10/2012 08:50 AM, scott wrote:
> We used to use 30cm for typical viewing distance for phones - we had a
> rig that looked like some weird medical head restraint for tests to
> ensure everyone was the same distance.
My lolrus... I can just picture that, actually.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/10/2012 08:53 AM, scott wrote:
> Ok this is just getting strange now...
Hi! Welcome to the Internet. :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWEjvCRPrCo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
