 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/5/2012 14:11, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 20:53:37 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> On 05/09/2012 05:43 PM, nemesis wrote:
>>> hello, caveman. Our minimum smartphone screen sizes are now 4"
>>
>> Wouldn't that make the phone too small to fit in your pocket?
>
> Is there /any/ physical circumstances where something could be /too
> small/ to fit in a container?
Only when you start talking quantum levels.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 21:21:35 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/5/2012 14:11, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 20:53:37 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/09/2012 05:43 PM, nemesis wrote:
>>>> hello, caveman. Our minimum smartphone screen sizes are now 4"
>>>
>>> Wouldn't that make the phone too small to fit in your pocket?
>>
>> Is there /any/ physical circumstances where something could be /too
>> small/ to fit in a container?
>
> Only when you start talking quantum levels.
Sounds interesting - but that would be a very tiny mobile phone indeed. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/4/2012 11:43, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> "Lamarr's and Antheil's frequency-hopping idea serves as a basis for modern
> spread-spectrum communication technology, such as Bluetooth, COFDM used in
> Wi-Fi network connections, and CDMA used in some cordless and wireless
> telephones."
Or, more specifically,
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/04/Howspreadingactuallyworks.shtml
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Damn. And here I was thinking that's what people watch the news and read
>> newspapers for...
>
> Not WHILE they are being shot at!
>
> Did you miss the part where I said that "There were lots of people _in
> that theater_ who wanted to know what the heck was going on."
And I thought the only people who use electronic communications rather
than running for their lives are the people who write those IRC quotes
on bash.org :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And you use an on screen keyboard.
>
> http://blog.makezine.com/2012/08/30/mechanical-typewriter-keyboard-for-ipad/
1. That looks like it would probably shatter the screen.
2. Isn't this the /opposite/ of portability?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/09/2012 10:08 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-09-05 11:40, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>> On 05/09/2012 02:57 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>> "Apps" are the software that you run on iThings.
>>>
>>> For example, the Wolfram Alpha app that you mentioned earlier.
>>
>> ...the Wolfram Alpha app I mentioned as an example of utter
>> pointlessness?
>
> Having a front-end client that sanitizes the user's input before sending
> transactions back to the back-end server is NOT pointless when you are
> dealing with devices that have limited (and/or expensive) bandwidth
> capabilities, or small screen resolutions.
In the case of Wolfram Alpha, it's /supposed/ to accept free-form
natural language input, which it then does extensive sophisticated [and
frequently changing] processing on at the server side. Attempting to
work out whether a given query string will return any results on the
client side would require a severe amount of processing, not to mention
access to Alpha's multi-terebyte database... It's just not feasible.
> for example, on my phone, I could fire up the browser and access the
> phone book web site, wait while it downloads the logos, ads, etc... and
> then have to either zoom in and scroll all over the place to put the
> person's name and city and then scroll some more until I get to the
> "search" button, or I can use the app that acts as a front-end client
> for the web site and is more suited to the 640x480 resolution of the
> phone's screen. I suspect the Wolfram app is similar. (Disclaimer: I may
> be wrong, as I haven't tried it.)
Wait - they perfected web page zooming?? o_O
> Privacy concerns aside, I don't know of anyone who would want to have
> their phone vibrate whenever they get in the vicinity of a particular
> chain of clothing store. Then again, I'm not a teenage girl!
My lolrus!
>>> There are
>>> also word processors, spreadsheets, presentation packages, etc...
>>
>> How can you operate a word processor or a spreadsheet without a keyboard?
>
> Magic!
>
>
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTWfurnBt-2DPkqVngr0dQE37Vj8xclsMZDmmuGo9_BR38Ne2-t
That must be the slowest, most awkward thing EVER! o_O
>>> Who said the only thing you could do on a tablet was surf the net?
>>
>> I didn't say tablet, I said iPad.
>
> And the iPad is what, in your opinion, if not a tablet?
An iPad is one specific model of tablet. From what I've seen, "tablet"
covers a wide and vaguely-defined range of devices. (E.g., I once
purchased a "tablet" that was merely a normal PC laptop with a touch
screen. But it was the size and weight of a laptop, with a physical
keyboard, running Microsoft Windows on a normal x86 CPU. None of which
are things that describe an iPad...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/09/2012 10:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 20:53:37 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> On 05/09/2012 05:43 PM, nemesis wrote:
>>> hello, caveman. Our minimum smartphone screen sizes are now 4"
>>
>> Wouldn't that make the phone too small to fit in your pocket?
>
> Is there /any/ physical circumstances where something could be /too
> small/ to fit in a container?
*facepalm*
Obviously I meant to type "too big"...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/09/2012 05:15 AM, Darren New wrote:
> "Is it supposed to smoke when I turn it on?"
>
> "What? No, of course not!"
>
> "Should I turn it off, then?"
This thing is brilliant! I mean, it's ACTUALLY ILLUMINATING THE ROOM!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> OK, but... like what?
Well nowadays you can implement pretty much anything as a web page, so
you could argue that any phone app could instead be implemented as a web
page. The point of an app is that it can take on the same UI as the rest
of your device (menu options, saved data, sync options etc) rather than
being more limited as a web page.
Maybe there are some things web pages can't do though, like take control
of your microphone, camera, acceleration sensors etc, so you'd need an
app for them. For example I have a guitar tuner app, not sure if that
would be possible as a web page. Or the one that allows me to control
the camera remotely, again not sure a web page could manage that.
> Full HD, on a screen only an inch across. How pointless...
>
> (You realise that the human eye can only focus on objects a certain
> distance away from your face, right? Never mind if you want to see it
> with both eyes simultaneously.)
Most arguments against higher dpi displays forget/ignore the fact that
images typically displayed are not perfectly anti-aliased. Even images
from the camera are scaled by some non-optimal algorithm before being
sent to the display (unsurprisingly Apple's algorithm seemed to be the
best at this). Image that are computer generated, especially in
real-time, are likely to have far more aliasing artefacts even with so
called "AA" features enabled. You've seen how slow POV goes when you use
"+am2 +r4" - you can't afford to do that (or similar) on a mobile device.
When you have images like this you can *easily* spot the difference
between a 300 and 600 dpi display at a normal 30 cm viewing distance. At
my previous job we did lots of testing on this, and the worst image we
had was something like this, supposedly from a game (not this exact
image, but it had a lot of aliasing around certain parts of the cars):
http://cdn.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/gran-turismo-5-sema-2009-screenshots-9.jpg
A lot of people could even tell the difference between the 600 and 1200
dpi version of that one. 600 dpi = full HD on a ~4" phone.
> Oh, I know Facebook is /constantly/ trying to shove stuff like that in
> my face...
Surprising, I thought it detected the device that was requesting the
webpage and only popped up the message if you were on a phone or tablet
etc - never seen it on the desktop site.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-09-06 03:12, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>> Damn. And here I was thinking that's what people watch the news and read
>>> newspapers for...
>>
>> Not WHILE they are being shot at!
>>
>> Did you miss the part where I said that "There were lots of people _in
>> that theater_ who wanted to know what the heck was going on."
>
> And I thought the only people who use electronic communications rather
> than running for their lives are the people who write those IRC quotes
> on bash.org :-P
Ok, maybe being shot at was a little exageration. The shooting happened
outside the back entrance.
Premier is on stage giving her speech. Slight commotion is heard
backstage. Plain clothes police officers rush her off stage. Uniformed
cops appear everywhere... Everyone - including the 5 tv channels
covering the event - goes "Whuh?" *Tweet* *Tweet* *Tweet*
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 08:21:54 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 10:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 20:53:37 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/09/2012 05:43 PM, nemesis wrote:
>>>> hello, caveman. Our minimum smartphone screen sizes are now 4"
>>>
>>> Wouldn't that make the phone too small to fit in your pocket?
>>
>> Is there /any/ physical circumstances where something could be /too
>> small/ to fit in a container?
>
> *facepalm*
>
> Obviously I meant to type "too big"...
It was funnier the other way. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/09/2012 5:20 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> And you use an on screen keyboard.
>
>
> http://blog.makezine.com/2012/08/30/mechanical-typewriter-keyboard-for-ipad/
>
What no CR/LF lever?
Actually that video left me gobsmacked.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/5/2012 10:27 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 11:43, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> "Lamarr's and Antheil's frequency-hopping idea serves as a basis for
>> modern
>> spread-spectrum communication technology, such as Bluetooth, COFDM
>> used in
>> Wi-Fi network connections, and CDMA used in some cordless and wireless
>> telephones."
>
> Or, more specifically,
>
> http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/04/Howspreadingactuallyworks.shtml
>
Well, complain to wikipedia, and the TV show they had one a few weeks
back, that made the same claim about her invention being used in moderns
networks. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/6/2012 20:25, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Well, complain to wikipedia, and the TV show they had one a few weeks back,
> that made the same claim about her invention being used in moderns networks. ;)
The basic idea is used. But "not exactly" as I said.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hold your phone closer to your eyes then, Nokia have a full-HD
>> (1920x1080) phone in the pipeline/announced, so quality should be fine
>> for making out actors faces :-)
>
> Full HD, on a screen only an inch across. How pointless...
5" phone display with Full HD - production starting, presumably they
have a customer...
http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/121001.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotron ca> wrote:
> Le 2012-09-05 15:52, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> > On 05/09/2012 05:05 PM, scott wrote:
> >>
> >> Hold your phone closer to your eyes then, Nokia have a full-HD
> >> (1920x1080) phone in the pipeline/announced, so quality should be fine
> >> for making out actors faces :-)
> >
> > Full HD, on a screen only an inch across. How pointless...
> Where do you get this 1" figure that you keep repeating?
I get the impression that he opposes most of the new technology that
happens to be popular, just out of principle, and uses exaggeration to
denigrate the achievements of technology and progress that he doesn't
like. It's popular, therefore it must suck.
That kind of attitude doesn't make much sense, IMO. Rather than marvel
about the giant leaps in progress that technology has had during the
past couple of decades, he's more driven by prejudice, denying himself
the joy of the things that, ironically, he loves: Namely technology,
science and progress. And only because of this twisted logic that if it's
popular with the masses, it's unlikeable.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Hold your phone closer to your eyes then, Nokia have a full-HD
>>>> (1920x1080) phone in the pipeline/announced, so quality should be fine
>>>> for making out actors faces :-)
>>>
>>> Full HD, on a screen only an inch across. How pointless...
>
>> Where do you get this 1" figure that you keep repeating?
>
> I get the impression that he opposes most of the new technology that
> happens to be popular, just out of principle, and uses exaggeration to
> denigrate the achievements of technology and progress that he doesn't
> like. It's popular, therefore it must suck.
You know, it's odd. I never set out to do that. I've always been
interested in technology and the interesting directions it can take us
in. And yet, just lately, I find myself feeling like a stereotypical old
guy who doesn't understand new stuff. I don't set out to dislike things
because they're new or trendy - and yet, all the things I have a problem
with seem to turn out to be new or trendy things.
In the case of the phone thing above, it's simple: If the screen was any
bigger, the device wouldn't fit in your pocket. It's that simple. Just
some basic physics.
When you think about it for more than six consecutive seconds, the
purpose of watching a movie is total immersion. Even today, with the
rise of "home cinema systems" and so forth, people will still willingly
pay really quite large sums of money to go and watch movies in an
/actual/ cinema. Because no matter how big your plasma TV at home is, it
just doesn't compare to a cinema screen that's bigger than your entire
house. Plus, your neighbours wouldn't let you turn the sound up to the
point where the building physically shakes. But cinemas can do that.
Of course, that's not to say that watching movies at home is an empty
experience. It's still quite enjoyable, it's just not as awesome.
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. I just have to ask: What the hell is the point? I mean, other than
the bragging rights for saying "I have an expensive piece of equipment".
It just seems pointless to me...
(Then again, that's fine. I don't have to pay for one.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Aerghareblkn, what is this "reply" button, I expected it to have the
function of "followup".
Laaaaame. Oh well.
(Speaking of not liking newfangled technology...)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Let's try this...again.
On 2012-10-03 06:32, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> Full HD, on a screen only an inch across. How pointless...
>>> Where do you get this 1" figure that you keep repeating?
> In the case of the phone thing above, it's simple: If the screen was any
> bigger, the device wouldn't fit in your pocket. It's that simple. Just
> some basic physics.
I dunno, my Droid 2's screen is 2"x3.25", and it tends to be more useful
to play videos rotated so it comes out to 3.25"x2". It's a /little/
bigger than one inch.
...but not by terribly much, honestly.
And yet they've squoze 800x480 pixels into that space. Why, I remember
when it was normal to do 640x480 on a 9"x12" CRT! (And 320x200 for games.)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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. I just have to ask: What the hell is the point? I mean, other than
> the bragging rights for saying "I have an expensive piece of equipment".
> It just seems pointless to me...
Agreed, never watched a movie on my phone before, it would be horrible.
A FullHD screen is not just for movies though, obviously everything else
running on the phone can take advantage of it (photos, the GUI, YouTube
videos, maps, ebooks, websites, etc.).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/10/2012 01:21 PM, scott 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. I just have to ask: What the hell is the point? I mean, other than
>> the bragging rights for saying "I have an expensive piece of equipment".
>> It just seems pointless to me...
>
> Agreed, never watched a movie on my phone before, it would be horrible.
> A FullHD screen is not just for movies though, obviously everything else
> running on the phone can take advantage of it (photos, the GUI, YouTube
> videos, maps, ebooks, websites, etc.).
Being able to actually see photos slightly more clearly, or have more
legible text, might actually be worth it. Being able to watch movies in
FullHD? Not so much...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> In the case of the phone thing above, it's simple: If the screen was any
> bigger, the device wouldn't fit in your pocket. It's that simple. Just
> some basic physics.
>
My Galaxy S2 is 4.9 X 2.6 X 0.33 inches it easily fits in any of my pockets
including shirt pockets. But as for watching a movie on it, there I agree with
you. I would need to be desperate to do that. Watching clips is okay but nothing
longer than 10 minutes IMO
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> When you think about it for more than six consecutive seconds, the
> purpose of watching a movie is total immersion. Even today, with the
> rise of "home cinema systems" and so forth, people will still willingly
> pay really quite large sums of money to go and watch movies in an
> /actual/ cinema. Because no matter how big your plasma TV at home is, it
> just doesn't compare to a cinema screen that's bigger than your entire
> house. Plus, your neighbours wouldn't let you turn the sound up to the
> point where the building physically shakes. But cinemas can do that.
There's more multimedia out there than just Lord of the Rings movies.
Things like TV series, documentaries, comedy routines and so on do not
require a movie theater sized screen. They can very well be enjoyed from
a 4-inch screen while sitting on a train.
> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-10-03 08:44, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 03/10/2012 01:21 PM, scott 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. I just have to ask: What the hell is the point? I mean, other than
>>> the bragging rights for saying "I have an expensive piece of equipment".
>>> It just seems pointless to me...
>>
>> Agreed, never watched a movie on my phone before, it would be horrible.
>> A FullHD screen is not just for movies though, obviously everything else
>> running on the phone can take advantage of it (photos, the GUI, YouTube
>> videos, maps, ebooks, websites, etc.).
>
> Being able to actually see photos slightly more clearly, or have more
> legible text, might actually be worth it. Being able to watch movies in
> FullHD? Not so much...
Agreed. The problem with cell phones is that everyone has one, so the
phone makers need to come up with new reasons for people to upgrade them
or risk going out of business. This week, it's fullHD screen and
voice-activated cloud-based buzzword-compliant search functions (such as
Siri on iThings).
I think the full HD screen is not necessarily to watch Avatar on your
phone, but to be able to quickly review the movie you just filmed before
uploading it to Youtube.
Coincidentally, I had a friend who used to say "I don't want a phone
that takes pictures, I want a DLSR camera that receives calls"... Well
guess what? the newer DLSRs from Canon an Nikon have Wifi and 3G
capabilities to be able to upload pictures and movies to the web
immediately...
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-10-03 08:53, Stephen a écrit :
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>>
>> In the case of the phone thing above, it's simple: If the screen was any
>> bigger, the device wouldn't fit in your pocket. It's that simple. Just
>> some basic physics.
>>
>
> My Galaxy S2 is 4.9 X 2.6 X 0.33 inches it easily fits in any of my pockets
> including shirt pockets. But as for watching a movie on it, there I agree with
> you. I would need to be desperate to do that. Watching clips is okay but nothing
> longer than 10 minutes IMO
>
The rule of thumb for Internet browsing is:
3 minutes on a phone.
30 minutes on a tablet.
3 hrs on a computer.
I suspect it would be the same for watching movies.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Being able to actually see photos slightly more clearly, or have more
>> legible text, might actually be worth it. Being able to watch movies in
>> FullHD? Not so much...
>
> Agreed. The problem with cell phones is that everyone has one, so the
> phone makers need to come up with new reasons for people to upgrade them
> or risk going out of business. This week, it's fullHD screen and
> voice-activated cloud-based buzzword-compliant search functions (such as
> Siri on iThings).
Yeah, that sounds about right.
At least with cars, there are few enough of them that applying different
body styling might actually make your new product stand out. That's
really not going to work with a phone; there's millions of them!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/10/2012 01:59 PM, Warp wrote:
> There's more multimedia out there than just Lord of the Rings movies.
> Things like TV series, documentaries, comedy routines and so on do not
> require a movie theater sized screen. They can very well be enjoyed from
> a 4-inch screen while sitting on a train.
I was about to make some comment about how excruciatingly loud trains
are - and then I remembered, that's only UK trains. Other parts of the
world have a train system with actual /investment/...
>> 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?
Just to make sure I'm not under-estimating or over-estimating how big an
"inch" actually is, I just took a ruler to my phone. The screen is 1.5
inches across by 2 inches tall. Now, I can see the menus on this thing
without holding it to right up to my face. But that's because it only
displays up to 4 options at once. If you were to take an image designed
to be viewed on a TV-sized screen and shrink it down to this size...
well, you wouldn't be able to see a hell of a lot, no matter how amazing
the spatial resolution is.
I actually have memories of trying to operate a Sinclair ZX Spectrum on
one of those old portable CRT things. Because it's CRT, the unit is
huge, but only has a piffling 6-inch display at the end of it. It made
the text nearly illegible. Now, admittedly a cheap CRT displaying an
RT-modulated signal is not exactly the height of visual precision. But
it would seem to me that you aren't going to see much with /any/ display
technology at that size. (We've all seen inch-sized photographs on real
photographic paper, right?)
I take your point; if you're only watching IQ, then mainly you're
listening to the witty banter. Not being able to properly see the
expressions on people's faces probably isn't /that/ critical. It just
puzzles me that anybody would think that "full HD" on such a tiny
surface would be worth the effort.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> 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.
If you are watching something like a TV series or a music video, it's
perfectly comfortable wathing it like you would read a book. There's
nothing to it. You don't keep a book 10 cm from your face when you read,
do you?
So yes, "you have to hold it a few inches in front of your face" is a
huge exaggeration.
It seems to me that you have never actually *tried* using an iPhone,
you are just talking from your behind.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> At least with cars, there are few enough of them that applying different
> body styling might actually make your new product stand out. That's
> really not going to work with a phone; there's millions of them!
The iPhone managed to somehow work very well out of nowhere when
millions of other phones were available.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> The iPhone managed to somehow work very well out of nowhere when
> millions of other phones were available.
It's curious how innovative Apple was with the iPhone, and how
successful those ideas were.
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".)
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.
Before the iPhone many people laughed at the concept. After the iPhone
and its huge success, every single cellphone manufacturer has created
their own clone of it. Many of them of abysmal quality (really inaccurate
finger tracking, extremely prone to misbehave when the screen gets even
slightly dirty, and so on.)
Touchscreens are the new black.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:54:41 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> The screen is 1.5 inches across by 2 inches tall.
That's small by modern smartphone standards.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-10-03 10:54, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 03/10/2012 01:59 PM, Warp wrote:
>> There's more multimedia out there than just Lord of the Rings movies.
>> Things like TV series, documentaries, comedy routines and so on do not
>> require a movie theater sized screen. They can very well be enjoyed from
>> a 4-inch screen while sitting on a train.
>
> I was about to make some comment about how excruciatingly loud trains
> are - and then I remembered, that's only UK trains. Other parts of the
> world have a train system with actual /investment/...
>
>>> 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?
>
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.
Exhibit A:
http://clicktechnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/mw1.jpg
Exhibit B:
http://sp.life123.com/bm.pix/how-to-put-movies-on-iphone.s600x600.jpg
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2012-10-03 10:13, Warp wrote:
> "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.
>
> If you are watching something like a TV series or a music video, it's
> perfectly comfortable wathing it like you would read a book. There's
> nothing to it. You don't keep a book 10 cm from your face when you read,
> do you?
>
> So yes, "you have to hold it a few inches in front of your face" is a
> huge exaggeration.
I hold my phone that close when I'm trying to watch a video on it or
read some text...
...but I'm way nearsighted.
That's my excuse, anyways.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Exhibit C:
http://tinyurl.com/9emeeee
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/10/2012 2:40 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> The rule of thumb for Internet browsing is:
> 3 minutes on a phone.
> 30 minutes on a tablet.
> 3 hrs on a computer.
>
Only 3 hours? o_O
> I suspect it would be the same for watching movies.
Mind you, I have seen people watch the small screens on the back of an
airliner's seat for hours and hours.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/10/2012 04:25 PM, scott wrote:
>> At least with cars, there are few enough of them that applying different
>> body styling might actually make your new product stand out. That's
>> really not going to work with a phone; there's millions of them!
>
> The iPhone managed to somehow work very well out of nowhere when
> millions of other phones were available.
Sure. But /not/ just by putting some slightly different styling on a
basically identical unit.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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.
I'm sure you could quite happily watch TV on an iPad. But you can't put
that in your pocket.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/10/2012 04:13 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> 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.
>
> I'm sure you could quite happily watch TV on an iPad. But you can't put
> that in your pocket.
I watch TV series streaming from Netflix to my 3.7" smartphone screen. While on
the bus.
sorry to hear you got to wear large binoculars for glasses
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 08:33:42 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> 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.
Show me a mobile phone that's 12 inches in size.
>> 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...
If it gives 720xwhatever resolution, it qualifies as full HD. No, it's
not a 10' screen, but *that* certainly *wouldn't* fit in your pockets
*or* mine. ;)
>> 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"...
I can't help it that you've opted for an undersized phone and have small
pockets. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/4/2012 0:33, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> A CD does not fit in either my trouser pockets or my coat pockets. And /no/, you
> cannot fit 12 inches or something.
Not in my trouser *pocket*, no... Hyuck hyuck hyuck.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
