| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Microsoft: Surface has better 'perceived resolution' than iPad |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-10-16 23:20:15 |
| Microsoft's applied sciences department manager Stevie Bathich explains why the 1366x768 Surface RT screen is actually better than the iPad's Retina display - fancy display technology talk. Conclusion? "Doing a side by side with the new iPad in a consistently lit room, we have had many people see more detail on Surface RT than on the iPad with more resolution." I'm sure there's some truth behind the sciency talk, but I highly doubt that the Surface's display bests the iPad's. Seeing is believing, but since The Netherlands is not important, I won't get the opportunity to compare for a long time to come. |
|
| RE: Wow, look at the incompetence |
| By StephenBeDoper on 2012-10-17 17:22:23 |
|
> > Hey this is Stevie. Screen resolution is one component of perceived detail. The true measure of resolvability of a screen called Modulation Transfer Function (MTF), not Pixels. MTF is a combination of both contrast and resolution. There are over a dozen subsystems that effect this MTF number.. Most folks just focus on one number out of dozens that effect perceived detail. Without good contrast resolution decreases. (Bold mine) No, resolution is resolution. It doesn't increase or decrease with contrast. Your ability to see details obviously diminishes as contrast goes down, but the resolution stays the same. It is possible that, rather than display resolution, he's actually talking about optical resolution (the capability of an optical system to distinguish, find, or record details) - which is effected by contrast. And given that he talks about "perceived detail" and "resolvability" early in the paragraph, I think it's fairly likely that it's optical resolution he's talking about. I would still fault "Stevie" for using imprecise wording, though. |
 - Score: 3 |
| RE[4]: Marketing Bullshit |
| By galvanash on 2012-10-17 18:05:47 |
|
That is why I said "In my opinion" and "little utility" instead of "no utility"... I did not say and do not believe that high DPI displays are a bad idea. On the contrary, I think ideally everything would have infinite resolution displays. But that isn't reality, so we have tradeoffs. All I'm saying is that 148 dpi is not bad at all. Its higher than an 11" Macbook Air, which most people feel has an excellent screen. It higher than most other tablets as well, the only exceptions I know of being the iPad and the Asus Trasnformer Infinity. It will require significantly less battery to power it, i.e. more of the device's volume can be dedicated to logic. Less battery = less weight. Etc. etc. |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE[4]: Marketing Bullshit |
| By modicr on 2012-10-17 18:22:40 |
|
> Does not have retina display: Can not see blur So on Surface more photos look better than on iPad retina => Surface is better than iPad. :) |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: This link was here before, forgotten . . . |
| By steve_s on 2012-10-17 19:48:23 |
| That article is about Surface Pro. We're discussing the Surface RT here. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow |
| By redshift on 2012-10-17 19:55:39 |
|
> Their screen is "retinal". By Apple definition. This is when you reverse engineer Apple declarations about "RETINA" for first iPhones that got them, you get numbers of DPI at USAGE DISTANCE. Surface have similar ratio of DPI at USAGE DISTANCE. So you benefit from higher iPad resolution only in 2 cases: 1) For some strange reason you use your tablet closer than usual. 2) You are those lucky 30% or so of population that have better eyes than those used for defining "RETINA", but there are high chances that iPad is still over kill for you. So for 70% of population, for the most usage scenarios Surface HEAVE RETINA DISPLAY. PS Why Apple gave bigger res? So apps scale well, cause iOS can't do it well. I ware glasses... but with them my corrected vision is 20/20. Text looks clearer to me on my friends iPad 3 vs my iPad 2. It does reduce eyestrain for me to read on a retina display. The pixels are not wasted. In windows cleartype was created as a software solution to compensate for typical low density LCD screens. I read an article a few weeks ago that stated that Microsoft did not apply cleartype to metro (or whatever the non sexy actual name is now) because it is built with higher density displays in mind (so now I am confused that they claim to be using cleartype on a surface... but perhaps it is more branding than software this time). Cleartype sharpened things, but it also distorted fonts a bit in the process. Apple had a similar technology that was more accurate to the intention of the font designer, but was not as sharp on the screen. With retina class displays, you can render the font as it was intended without distorting it to look sharper on a low density lcd. MS should really be wanting to use a high density display in the long term, so I am surprised they did not push to use it on a showcase product for the same reason. As for glair... I really hate the display manufactures and Apple went insane and pushed shiny displays. I understand why phones or iPads have it because you are pawing all over the screen and those coatings were fragile and hard to clean. I special ordered a 17 macbook with a anti-glare screen, because after decades of paying for nice tube monitors with special low glair coatings, I could not understand why we would want to go backwards. If the Surface does nothing more than to make manufacturers work to minimize glair on other products, I am going to have to thank MS for its contribution. I really wish I could find the article that I read about cleartype not being in metro... because it went into wonderful detail about font rendering and hi-dpi even if it was wrong about it not being in metro. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Wow, look at the incompetence |
| By WereCatf on 2012-10-17 20:59:48 |
|
> It is possible that, rather than display resolution, he's actually talking about optical resolution (the capability of an optical system to distinguish, find, or record details) - which is effected by contrast. That would still be a no -- the optical resolution doesn't change when contrast changes, the resolution still stays the same. The ability to tell one colour from another obviously is affected by contrast, but that doesn't change resolution at all, contrast is literally all about telling one colour from another. Of course you will be able to more easily tell details the better contrast you have, but just as well if you were given two displays with the exact same brightness, colour gamut and contrast you'd be more easily tell details on the one with higher DPI. > And given that he talks about "perceived detail" and "resolvability" early in the paragraph, I think it's fairly likely that it's optical resolution he's talking about. No, he is talking about colour gamut and contrast. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: Wow, look at the incompetence |
| By StephenBeDoper on 2012-10-17 22:32:52 |
|
> That would still be a no -- the optical resolution doesn't change when contrast changes, the resolution still stays the same. The ability to tell one colour from another obviously is affected by contrast, but that doesn't change resolution at all, contrast is literally all about telling one colour from another. I'm no expert on optics, but every source I can find indicates that contrast does effect optical resolution. E.g. "The concept of resolution is inseparable from contrast, and is defined as the minimum separation between two points that results in a certain level of contrast between them." - http://www.olympusconfocal.com/t... "Savants talk about resolution and contrast being the same thing. Ultimately, they do go hand-in-hand, because you can't distinguish contrast without resolution and you can't distinguish resolution without contrast." - http://www.luminous-landscape.co... > Of course you will be able to more easily tell details the better contrast you have In other words, you will be able to better resolve details the better the contrast you have. > but just as well if you were given two displays with the exact same brightness, colour gamut and contrast you'd be more easily tell details on the one with higher DPI. Oh, I'm not saying his larger conclusions have any actual validity. > > And given that he talks about "perceived detail" and "resolvability" early in the paragraph, I think it's fairly likely that it's optical resolution he's talking about. No, he is talking about colour gamut and contrast. Yes, he is talking about colour gamut and contrast... specifically, how they relate to resolution. |
| - Score: 3 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |