ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
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!
If you use CSS to design your UI then you've done it. Don't use bitmaps to create bevels, box shadows or rounded corners. Textured backgrounds which use a bitmap may need the background-size attribute to be applied depending on what you're trying to do, otherwise they can end up smaller than expected.
And after saying all that, CS works just fine on an iPhone and New iPad. Nothing's tiny (apart from what you'd expect on a phone), all the bitmap stuff works just fine and the design of this site pre-dates phones with colour screens and mobile web.
|
Chrissy
Premium Member
Registered: 28th Jan 06
Location: Sunny Glasgow Drives: Astra J
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
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!
I am coming across more and more retina enabled websites.. However the vast majority of them just use 2 pixels to represent 1 it seems... Which poses a problem for example when you have a 13 pixel wide image and it can't half it evenly leaving it looking slightly ropey.
Edit: And yeah as Ed says, nothing becomes tiny.. It doesn't work like how you'd expect a computer monitor to work (higher resolution = more space)
[Edited on 12-06-2012 by Chrissy]
>>>> Chris <<<<
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
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.
Yup, their not the only ones producing high res/high pixel density panels. Apparently Samsung, who i believe made the Apple panel, is coming out with a phone with a retina-esque display.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dom
Vector'd images do exist in web and UI. Whether there common place is another issue but this statement is incorrect.
Well, they hardly exist then.
Some elements are scalable with predefined sizes, take desktop icons for instance, but that's not to say they are vector. Desktop icons can be smoothly resized without any issues.
However, if the future of web and UI design looks anything like icon design with a handful of predefined resolutions for every element, then that's going to be a bitch for the designers.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
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.
It WAS a good name for 300+ PPI resolution until Apple decided to forget the definition. Now is a useless expression that might make it easier for some people to digest than "higher than average resolution".
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
Whenever you create a div with any kind of colour or styling, you've just created a vector graphic.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ed
If you use CSS to design your UI then you've done it. Don't use bitmaps to create bevels, box shadows or rounded corners. Textured backgrounds which use a bitmap may need the background-size attribute to be applied depending on what you're trying to do, otherwise they can end up smaller than expected.
Oh, I'm not saying it can't be done. I know it can.
What I'm saying is it ISN'T done.
|
Chrissy
Premium Member
Registered: 28th Jan 06
Location: Sunny Glasgow Drives: Astra J
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
quote:
Originally posted by John
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.
It WAS a good name for 300+ PPI resolution until Apple decided to forget the definition. Now is a useless expression that might make it easier for some people to digest than "higher than average resolution".
It's called Retina as it's supposedly impossible to see individual pixels at a normal viewing distance.. I don't view a laptop as close as I do my phone therefore 220 can be retina.
>>>> Chris <<<<
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chrissy
It's called Retina as it's supposedly impossible to see individual pixels at a normal viewing distance.. I don't view a laptop as close as I do my phone therefore 220 can be retina.
Whereas at 300 PPI it's impossible to see individuel pixels at ANY distance. Hence, true "retina" resolution.
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
quote:
Originally posted by Dom
Vector'd images do exist in web and UI. Whether there common place is another issue but this statement is incorrect.
Well, they hardly exist then.
Wouldn't say hardly as a lot of monitoring apps/websites use vector'd 'images' for graphing. You'll also find sites like Wiki use them (SVG anyway) a fair amount.
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
What I'm saying is it ISN'T done.
Have a look at CSS3; use of images for container effects (rounded corners etc) died off ages ago and are only used for backwards-compatibility with old browsers.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dom
Have a look at CSS3; use of images for container effects (rounded corners etc) died off ages ago and are only used for backwards-compatibility with old browsers.
I think I misphrased that. I'm not saying CSS vector elements are not used, I'm just saying websites without bitmap graphics don't exist (or are very uncommon anyway).
How many websites utilises a vector company logo do you think?
[Edited on 12-06-2012 by Balling]
|
Chrissy
Premium Member
Registered: 28th Jan 06
Location: Sunny Glasgow Drives: Astra J
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
quote:
Originally posted by Chrissy
It's called Retina as it's supposedly impossible to see individual pixels at a normal viewing distance.. I don't view a laptop as close as I do my phone therefore 220 can be retina.
Whereas at 300 PPI it's impossible to see individuel pixels at ANY distance. Hence, true "retina" resolution.
I can see pixels on my iPhone if I hold it right up to my face.. That's not how the name came about. It was at the natural viewing distance.. Which, if my iPad3 is anything to go by which also has a lower than 300ppi resolution, is true.
>>>> Chris <<<<
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
Whereas at 300 PPI it's impossible to see individuel pixels at ANY distance. Hence, true "retina" resolution.
Any links for this?
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
I think the natural viewing distance thing came about because of the practicalities of sticking a 300PPI display on other devices - they have an answer for everything!
That's not taking away anything from the technology because they are very nice displays, it's more to do with Apple having to be infallible.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
So the limit is 300ppi, rather convenient that every human eye resolves to the same round figure.
BTW enjoy your tiny buttons.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
Whereas at 300 PPI it's impossible to see individuel pixels at ANY distance. Hence, true "retina" resolution.
Any links for this?
quote:
It has been observed that the unaided human eye can generally not differentiate detail beyond 300 PPI;[5] however, this figure depends both on the distance between viewer and image, and the viewer’s visual acuity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density
Of course a single pixel or a one pixel line will be easily noticeable on a contrast background, but in a photo or smooth graphic it will not be possible to see the pixels unless using a magnifier.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
So the limit is 300ppi, rather convenient that every human eye resolves to the same round figure.
BTW enjoy your tiny buttons.
It's actually at around 250 PPI that most people start having trouble seeing single pixels, however at 300 PPI it's generally said that everyone should be left behind. This "magic number" has been used by the print industry for years.
|
A2H GO
Member
Registered: 14th Sep 04
Location: Stoke
User status: Offline
|
http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2010/06/apple-retina-display/
"So, if a normal human eye can discriminate two points separated by 1 arcminute/cycle at a distance of a foot, we should be able to discriminate two points 89 micrometers apart which would work out to about 287 pixels per inch. Since the iPhone 4G display is comfortably higher than that measure at 326 pixels per inch, I’d find Apple’s claims stand up to what the human eye can perceive."
The Retina justification has always been pixel density in relation to distance.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
Interestingly enough, to some anyway, when I went to school I made a project to find the best PPI for a given distance, intended for big format printing.
It turned out that the PPI could actually be too high and at 25 metres all test subjects found a 20 PPI image to be sharper than the same image at 150 PPI.
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
BTW enjoy your tiny buttons.
Better fix it ASAP 
[Edited on 12-06-2012 by ed]
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
It turned out that the PPI could actually be too high and at 25 metres all test subjects found a 20 PPI image to be sharper than the same image at 150 PPI.
I'd far rather be able to see pixels, gives me something to focus on. That's why I've stuck with XP on low res displays for so long, otherwise I can't do anything like the lengths of time at a computer that I need.
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ed
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
BTW enjoy your tiny buttons.
Better fix it ASAP
404!
Simple solution though, use font based icons like Entypo.
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
Seen font based icons used a fair bit now - it's a pretty neat solution. Disqus use it on their comments platform.
I'll fix the image, it's a bit stupid really.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
BTW enjoy your tiny buttons.
If your current display is around 110 PPI this is the button size on the new MBP:
The big difference of course being that they will be completely crisp on the higher res screen.
So everything is going to look phenomenal but the bitmap is going to be tiny.
Also, there's no truly good solution to it. Zooming the font only can screw up the layout of some websites and zooming everything will make it look less crisp than what the display is capable of.
The desktop wallpaper is going to look fantastic though! 
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
Oh for fucks sake. THE BUTTONS WONT BE ANY SMALLER! They will remain the same size as they would be on a 72PPI display and they will appear slightly fuzzy. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp?
|
