![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |