[jbri]

> again, maybe I'm getting old, but to see the pixels on my current screen I have to get my nose almost right up to the display, which I'm never going to do

The point of going to higher and higher resolutions is that eventually, you don't see the pixels. Pixels are an implementation detail, what you're really wanting to see is the image they represent.

[steveridout]

Exactly.

And for anyone who struggles to see the pixels on a typical desktop monitor, that's probably because a lot of tricks are used to disguise them. Try turning off anti-aliasing or sub-pixel font rendering and then tell me you can't see the pixels.

[300bps]

So the point of higher pixels is so you can't see the pixels and to prove this point, you tell people to turn off other (cheaper) technologies that already hide the pixels.

There seems to be some faulty logic here. What is the point of the higher resolution displays if the pixels are already hidden with other technologies?

[jonknee]

The tricks aren't perfect--antialiasing is blurry for example. A properly high DPI monitor is a thing of beauty--crisp images and text.

[baldfat]

Actually in video/ photography these tricks don't work. So BIG DEAL :)

It's like mixing music with $5 ear buds.

[Geee]

More pixels = sharper image. Try putting a printed high-DPI magazine next to your monitor and compare text and images.

[jre]

Antialiasing typically produce artifacts and somewhat blurry letters.

[timr]

Gee, thanks. All these years, and I've been looking at the pixels and not noticing the image! You've changed my life!

ahem...

Condescending explanations aside, you know that there's a limit to the human eye's ability to resolve detail, right? We can resolve up to about 150ppi at 2ft. The Apple Cinema Display is at 109ppi. There's room for improvement, but not 60% more...

[photojosh]

Yes, but when you're actually working on a hi-PPI display, you can then lean in to view more detail, rather than zooming in. Much like we inspect things in the real world.

As a photographer, this means a great deal. I can verify the sharpness of an image (a key component in deciding whether to keep it or chuck it) at a glance. Saves a lot of time.

[timr]

Yeah, maybe...but there's still a practical limit. In order to see the pixels on a thunderbolt display (again, 109ppi) I have to get my face about 7 inches away from the screen.

Closer than about 5 inches, and I lose the ability to focus because the screen is too close -- so there's a band of about 2 inches where I can gain from a higher pixel density than 109ppi, without losing due to eyestrain. And in any case, I'm not going to spend much time in that zone. It's hard to work with your nose in the screen.

YMMV, but I think I'm fairly typical. Most people dramatically overestimate the precision of their eyes.

[rayiner]

You can see image degradation from pixelation long before you can make out individual pixels. I can't really make out individual pixels on my MBA (130 ppi) at one foot, but looking at a MBP Retina at the same distance looks dramatically better. On the MBA, the fuzziness from the heavy anti-aliasing used to hide the pixelation is quite apparent, but on the MBP Retina pixels look like sharp-edged solid shapes.

[photojosh]

I don't know whether it's due solely to the resolution, but I was pretty shocked to realise I can tell the difference between 300 and 600 dpi photographic prints (assuming there's enough detail in the image to do so, you need to print a 23 MP DSLR shot with high detail at a 7x10" print size to get there). I have had other photographers tell me that they don't see any benefit to retina screens at all... you're giving me the reason why here. :)

[wnissen]

109ppi is good enough, but there is a significant difference. It's true that beyond a certain point it doesn't make a difference (1080p phones, I'm looking at you!) but 109ppi is not that point, for most people. Retina web content and applications look decisively better.