 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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] 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
