![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
it's exactly because a "retina" designation, ie pixels indescernible for a certain diagonal size at a certain distance (which can be relatively easily calculated, and apple neither can or has to specify it for every diagonal screen size and viewing distance scenario) is very valid and meaningful that someone can gauge how a 137 ppi 30" monitor can come close to looking as good as a 300 ppi phone.
Please don't confuse people any more solely because you dont like a designation because apple came up with it. Originally someone asked you if a 4k 30' monitor is retina and you replied no. That's just confusing people for the sake of having an axe to grind with who came up with the designation. The answer should have been yes.
As I said before a retina moniker is far more useful than the 1080p, 720p, 4k etc. garbage that tv manufacturers have been throwing around the past few years which are far more vague. "Is it retina?" translates to a simple question with a simple answer: Will I be able to tell pixels apart, yes or no? It doesn't imply that a monitor being high enough ppi, or retina, that other quality markers (underlying display tech, contrast, saturation, pixel substructure etc.) should be ignored and that high ppi, or retina, is the be all and end all of monitor quality. It's not, but it's a very important factor too, especially so for computer monitors.
And it's much less confusing than telling someone this 7" monitor is 1080p, and that 27" inch one is also 1080p, whereby your average Joe will go, ok, so they are equally good in that respect. No they are not, one packs enough ppi for 7" the other one doesn't and lets the pixel structure appear.I really hope someone other than apple had come up with a "retina" designation because then some people would have less resistance to use what is a very meaningful, and very apt term that gives immediate feedback on what to expect from a monitor in one particular quality marker.
Please don't confuse people any more solely because you dont like a designation because apple came up with it. Originally someone asked you if a 4k 30' monitor is retina and you replied no. That's just confusing people for the sake of having an axe to grind with who came up with the designation. The answer should have been yes.
As I said before a retina moniker is far more useful than the 1080p, 720p, 4k etc. garbage that tv manufacturers have been throwing around the past few years which are far more vague. "Is it retina?" translates to a simple question with a simple answer: Will I be able to tell pixels apart, yes or no? It doesn't imply that a monitor being high enough ppi, or retina, that other quality markers (underlying display tech, contrast, saturation, pixel substructure etc.) should be ignored and that high ppi, or retina, is the be all and end all of monitor quality. It's not, but it's a very important factor too, especially so for computer monitors.
And it's much less confusing than telling someone this 7" monitor is 1080p, and that 27" inch one is also 1080p, whereby your average Joe will go, ok, so they are equally good in that respect. No they are not, one packs enough ppi for 7" the other one doesn't and lets the pixel structure appear.I really hope someone other than apple had come up with a "retina" designation because then some people would have less resistance to use what is a very meaningful, and very apt term that gives immediate feedback on what to expect from a monitor in one particular quality marker.
Last edited:
