|
|
|
|
|
|
by esolyt
5028 days ago
|
|
|
Your definition of retina is based on 2 assumptions: 1) Everyone has the same eyes. 2) Everyone holds their phone at the same distance. Both of these assumptions are incorrect. Therefore, a display that is retina to you, may not be retina to me. It is therefore meaningless to talk about whether a display is retina or not (unless a specific human and a specific distance is specified). |
|
|
You are confusing with "these assumptions are not true 100% of the time" with "these assumptions are not true most of the time". In fact, just like sound perception, motion perception, and eyesight resolution, the vast, vast, vast majority of the world is tightly clustered around a maximum.
There are a small number of humans who can hear above 20kHz, but that doesn't change the fact that 99% of the world can't - in fact, most adults sit closer to 16Hz. Ditto, for the vast, vast majority of the people on this fair planet, framerates above somewhere between 70-80Hz become imperceptible, with a lot of people sitting closer to 60Hz.
Both audio and video equipment are engineered with these limits in mind, and there is no fundamental problem with engineering screens with the limitations of the ultramajority in mind.
The fact that there are a few extraordinary individuals whose sensory abilities far exceed that of the rest of the population, does not make it "meaningless" as a concept. What is "retina" as defined above, is retina to everyone but the statistical outliers.
To address your original post, it seems like you're taking out your Apple rage against a concept that is older than Apple. "Retina" as Apple uses in its own advertising is really whatever the damn hell Apple feels like calling retina, but the concept predates Apple's usage of it and has validity. The Xperia S, the Galaxy Nexus, are all "retina" in the non-Apple-marketing sense of the word.