Comment on Retina e-paper promises screens 'visually indistinguishable from reality'
masterspace@lemmy.ca 5 days ago
The image was shown in perfect resolution on the screen, which at approximately 1.4 x 1.9 mm was 1/4000th that of a standard smartphone.
This makes me doubt the author of the article’s credibility. What exactly is the “perfect resolution” of a hand painted piece of art?
The underlying paper is published in Nature which adds more credibility to its significance but an article that presents none of the limitations, drawbacks, or broader industry context that might hold something like this back isn’t adding much.
This makes me doubt the author of the article's credibility. What exactly is the "perfect resolution" of a hand painted piece of art?
High-enough that you can't distinguish individual pixels with your eye. At least, that's how Apple defines their retina displays; not sure if these guys are following the same standard for that terminology or not.
That’s not a resolution, that’s a pixel density at a set distance. It’s also arbitrary on Apple’s end, not actually a meaningful universal measurement.
This means that each pixel roughly corresponds to a single photoreceptor in the eye, i.e. the nerve cells in the retina that convert light into biological signals,” adds Andreas Dahlin, Professor at the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering at Chalmers. “Humans cannot perceive a higher resolution than this.”
This is the paragraph literally right above the one you quoted. Do you understand what they mean by “perfect” now? They are saying you literally could not precive a differece in resolution from the image and real life.
Again, no, because that’s not a resolution, that’s a pixel density at a set distance.
Powderhorn@beehaw.org 5 days ago
While I get your point, this is an article, not a whitepaper. The scope you’re requesting is unreasonable for “cool new thing appeared in Nature” for laypeople.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 5 days ago
If someone says something that is obviously not a thing, like ‘the perfect resolution of an analog painting’, then it means the author probably didn’t actually understand what they read and so you shouldn’t trust their interpretation of the underlying news.