Rob_Quads
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: southampton
User status: Offline
|
The traffic one is an interesting one. TomTom charge ~ £10 a year for that service so would be surprised for them to license it without it being quite high that I wouldn't have expected them to pay.
That said, who knows how many pay TomTom for that vs a chunk of money from Apple.
Using anonymous iphone data is also a good way to get it nice and accurate. So much easier now many people are on decent data plans
|
Nismo
Member
Registered: 12th Sep 02
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
Surprised they're putting higher res screens in new products since CS doesn't need higher resolution 
Higher definition and higher resolution is different imo.
I run the higher res screen on my MBP and would not want any higher res, its hard enough reading small text as it is.
if it uses the same principal as the retina display on the phones then that would be ok as the res stays the same but the definition is far higher.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
How the fuck did Apple suddenly forget what the word 'retina' was all about? They introduced the Retina Display only two years ago.
New MBP is only 220 PPI, which is awesome, but hardly retina...
quote:
Originally posted by Nismo
if it uses the same principal as the retina display on the phones then that would be ok as the res stays the same but the definition is far higher.
That will only work for vector elements which in a web environment is more or less narrowed down to text.
An 800x600 image or graphic will still take up 800x600 pixels unless you zoom to 200 % in which case it wont be retina anymore.
In reality this poses a bit of an issue. Current 15" screens have two common resolutions: 1440x900 or 1680x1050.
On a 15" screen this translates to the following pixels per inch:
1440 = 110 PPI
1680 = 128 PPI
2880 = 220 PPI (new MBP display)
800 pixels will have a physical size of:
1440 = 7,3"
1680 = 6,3"
2880 = 3,6"
Everything is going to look TINY while browsing the web. The solution? Zoom to 200% and get less sharp images than on the 1680 high res displays...
That said, in every other instance than web use, this will mean very little and you'll only see the advantages.
High res photographs are going to look incredible and once developers start incorporating the extra pixel real estate in user interfaces it will come in very handy.
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rob_Quads
The traffic one is an interesting one. TomTom charge ~ £10 a year for that service so would be surprised for them to license it without it being quite high that I wouldn't have expected them to pay.
Google charge for API access.
https://developers.google.com/maps/faq#usage_pricing
|
Nismo
Member
Registered: 12th Sep 02
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
How the fuck did Apple suddenly forget what the word 'retina' was all about? They introduced the Retina Display only two years ago.
New MBP is only 220 PPI, which is awesome, but hardly retina...
quote:
Originally posted by Nismo
if it uses the same principal as the retina display on the phones then that would be ok as the res stays the same but the definition is far higher.
That will only work for vector elements which in a web environment is more or less narrowed down to text.
An 800x600 image or graphic will still take up 800x600 pixels unless you zoom to 200 % in which case it wont be retina anymore.
In reality this poses a bit of an issue. Current 15" screens have two common resolutions: 1440x900 or 1680x1050.
On a 15" screen this translates to the following pixels per inch:
1440 = 110 PPI
1680 = 128 PPI
2880 = 220 PPI (new MBP display)
800 pixels will have a physical size of:
1440 = 7,3"
1680 = 6,3"
2880 = 3,6"
Everything is going to look TINY while browsing the web. The solution? Zoom to 200% and get less sharp images than on the 1680 high res displays...
That said, in every other instance than web use, this will mean very little and you'll only see the advantages.
High res photographs are going to look incredible and once developers start incorporating the extra pixel real estate in user interfaces it will come in very handy.
Good breakdown, that clears it up for me.
But not good if 80% of my work is web development  its already awkward as I have to cross check everything using a standard res PC to see how it works.
|
Chrissy
Premium Member
Registered: 28th Jan 06
Location: Sunny Glasgow Drives: Astra J
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
How the fuck did Apple suddenly forget what the word 'retina' was all about? They introduced the Retina Display only two years ago.
New MBP is only 220 PPI, which is awesome, but hardly retina...
quote:
Originally posted by Nismo
if it uses the same principal as the retina display on the phones then that would be ok as the res stays the same but the definition is far higher.
That will only work for vector elements which in a web environment is more or less narrowed down to text.
An 800x600 image or graphic will still take up 800x600 pixels unless you zoom to 200 % in which case it wont be retina anymore.
In reality this poses a bit of an issue. Current 15" screens have two common resolutions: 1440x900 or 1680x1050.
On a 15" screen this translates to the following pixels per inch:
1440 = 110 PPI
1680 = 128 PPI
2880 = 220 PPI (new MBP display)
800 pixels will have a physical size of:
1440 = 7,3"
1680 = 6,3"
2880 = 3,6"
Everything is going to look TINY while browsing the web. The solution? Zoom to 200% and get less sharp images than on the 1680 high res displays...
That said, in every other instance than web use, this will mean very little and you'll only see the advantages.
High res photographs are going to look incredible and once developers start incorporating the extra pixel real estate in user interfaces it will come in very handy.
That's how the latest iPad does it and it is slightly annoying. It just uses 2 pixels to represent one, which in theory shouldn't look any worse as those two pixels will physically only be the same size as one as the screen is so dense. However not everything can be halved evenly..
>>>> Chris <<<<
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
Vector graphics will appear very smooth - i.e. fonts will be rendered very nicely. I still don't understand why people don't get how a 'Retina Display' actually works - the best way to think about it is sub-pixel rendering on steroids. Things wont appear any smaller unless they're specifically meant to, like the video preview in Final Cut.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nismo
quote:
Originally posted by John
Surprised they're putting higher res screens in new products since CS doesn't need higher resolution
Higher definition and higher resolution is different imo.
I run the higher res screen on my MBP and would not want any higher res, its hard enough reading small text as it is.
if it uses the same principal as the retina display on the phones then that would be ok as the res stays the same but the definition is far higher.
What are you talking about?
The new macbook pro had a massive res screen, that's all retina is, fitting a certain resolution into a certain space giving a high pixel density.
Retina and high resolution are one in the same.
You still don't understand resolution imo.
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
High Definition = something that a marketing department thought up.
High Resolution = something that's tangible.
It's like when someone tells me their camera is better than mine because it can take 12MP photos and mine does less 
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
Or when I'm supposed to be impressed when Sky bangs on about how they broadcast in HD.
|
Nismo
Member
Registered: 12th Sep 02
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
quote:
Originally posted by Nismo
quote:
Originally posted by John
Surprised they're putting higher res screens in new products since CS doesn't need higher resolution
Higher definition and higher resolution is different imo.
I run the higher res screen on my MBP and would not want any higher res, its hard enough reading small text as it is.
if it uses the same principal as the retina display on the phones then that would be ok as the res stays the same but the definition is far higher.
What are you talking about?
The new macbook pro had a massive res screen, that's all retina is, fitting a certain resolution into a certain space giving a high pixel density.
Retina and high resolution are one in the same.
You still don't understand resolution imo.
i do understand it, but what I'm getting at is my screen on my macbook does 1680 x 1050 i would never want it to be a higher res than that. I understand what the retina display does and how it works on the iPhone.
As Balling explained it.
800 pixels will have a physical size of:
1440 = 7,3"
1680 = 6,3"
2880 = 3,6"
For web development where items are of a fixed proportion everything will be so small, so all it will do is zoom to 200% thus making it pointless.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Apple and all the new 4K stuff coming out (movies are already being recorded in 4K) must be wrong.
Might as well just all decide 1024x768 is where we'll leave it.
|
Rob_Quads
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: southampton
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nismo
For web development where items are of a fixed proportion everything will be so small, so all it will do is zoom to 200% thus making it pointless.
A couple of the reports I have read that says that even if you have it set to the same res as the current screen its an improved picture so not sure pointless is quite appropriate.
|
Nismo
Member
Registered: 12th Sep 02
User status: Offline
|
for someone who spent the previous years as Mr Anti Apple you can't get your ePenis further up their eRectum 
Im sure Apple are right at what ever there doing, I'm just saying that I find what they currently have isn't the best at somethings and find myself reverting to a different screen to do certain tasks.
But then everybody is different.
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
You don't need to zoom to 200% either; The operating system handles that.
When developing a website for a retina display you ignore the physical amount of pixels you're working with. On an iPhone or iPad (and now Mac) an 800x800px image will be exactly the same physical size, the image will probably look a bit murky on the retina display.
There's a slightly strange exception I've noticed, background images in CSS seem to take notice of the true screen resolution. To solve this issue on webkit, you can use a media query to serve a higher resolution image.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ed
Vector graphics will appear very smooth - i.e. fonts will be rendered very nicely. I still don't understand why people don't get how a 'Retina Display' actually works - the best way to think about it is sub-pixel rendering on steroids. Things wont appear any smaller unless they're specifically meant to, like the video preview in Final Cut.
You're wrong.
In web and our current UI's the only thing vector is fonts. All else is bitmap graphics.
Today, developers have to make two different interfaces for their iPhone apps if they want them to work on both retina and older none retina displays. This goes for the iPad as well.
This wont happen on the web though. Webdesigners aren't going to start making retina specific websites and until the retina Macs are more common software developers will not pay attention to it either.
Take something simple as your browser window. I'm using Chrome, and the small house button (home page) next to the address bar is approximately 3 mm high on my work laptop (1440 x 900).
This button will be 1,5 mm high on a retina screen. That's a very small button.
quote:
Originally posted by ed
the best way to think about it is sub-pixel rendering on steroids.
The retina screen will use the exact same kind of SPR as any other screen. As the pixels are smaller stuff will just appear sharper. Thinking high resolution has anything to do with SPR is just wrong. If anything, higher resolution screens will make SPR unnecessary. Not until they are true retina, above 300 PPI, though.
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
In web and our current UI's the only thing vector is fonts.
What does the V stand for in SVG again? Canvas is getting pretty popular. What about Flash too?
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ed
What does the V stand for in SVG again? Canvas is getting pretty popular. What about Flash too?
How common do you feel SVG is today? How much of your software is SVG? Can you make a photograph SVG? Are a lot of web elements SVG?
Flash? Please, that's a dying breed. Do you want Ian to remake all the buttons on CS to be flash, so future retina displays will show them at a proper size?
We're simply not there yet. And I'm skeptical we'll ever be.
Are you not seeing the issue?
You say that "things wont appear any smaller unless they are meant to".
Do you think that Ian means for all the bitmap elements of CS to appear at half they current size on a high res screen?
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nismo
for someone who spent the previous years as Mr Anti Apple you can't get your ePenis further up their eRectum
I'm still anti Apple, I disagree with them marketing everything as if they invented it but I can't fault them for pushing forward.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
I'll have as many pixels as I can get in any circumstance I can think of.
Everything will be changed to suit.
1080p is common now, it wasn't only a couple of years ago.
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
Are you not seeing the issue?
Clearly not, which is strange because I've been working on retina compatible mobile sites a lot recently and haven't seen my websites end up tiny on iPhone 4s or New iPads.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
I'll have as many pixels as I can get in any circumstance I can think of.
Everything will be changed to suit.
1080p is common now, it wasn't only a couple of years ago.
Completely agree. The hardware needs to be ahead for the standards to change.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ed
Clearly not, which is strange because I've been working on retina compatible mobile sites a lot recently and haven't seen my websites end up tiny on iPhone 4s or New iPads.
FFS man, that's my point exactly!
No website or software on the planet is made for retina compatible computers!
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
In web and our current UI's the only thing vector is fonts. All else is bitmap graphics.
Vector'd images do exist in web and UI. Whether there common place is another issue but this statement is incorrect.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Everyone in here talking about retina is why I hate Apple.
It's a fairly high resolution screen, the same as any other company can have.
|
