O/T: Nibbling on an Apple

On 8/14/2013 5:19 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 01:12:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The thing which nobody has specifically stated is that the actual
pixels/inch used by the monitor are fixed.

i said it yesterday or the day before.

Sorry: I missed it.



It seems important to nospam that he says something first. Especially
when it is said obliquity.


--
PeterN

On 8/14/2013 8:55 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

meanwhile, the rest of the world likes their photos properly exposed
and in focus and won't have a problem with something that flags photos
that aren't.

Then they will miss some damn good photographs.

not necessarily, and most people aren't interested in pushing the
limits. they want well exposed and in focus images.

That's fine, as long as you don't claim that those who can make images
out of photographs that are less than properly focussed or exposed are
at fault for not wanting to use software that rejects photographs that
are less than well exposed or focussed.

i said all along you can not use it.


Take oe of Sandman's gold stars, and pin it on your computer.



--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 8/14/2013 8:55 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

meanwhile, the rest of the world likes their photos properly exposed
and in focus and won't have a problem with something that flags photos
that aren't.

Then they will miss some damn good photographs.

not necessarily, and most people aren't interested in pushing the
limits. they want well exposed and in focus images.

That's fine, as long as you don't claim that those who can make images
out of photographs that are less than properly focussed or exposed are
at fault for not wanting to use software that rejects photographs that
are less than well exposed or focussed.

i said all along you can not use it.


Take oe of Sandman's gold stars, and pin it on your computer.

I can't begin to imagine what it must feel like to participate in a
discussion and slowly realize you have it all wrong and end up resorting
to empty non-responses just for the sake of posting *something*.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

you don't have to get real close to see pixelization on a non-retina
display. that's the point. they are much sharper.

You must have better eyes than me.

dunno but pretty much everyone who uses a retina display notices a
difference, especially when they go back to the older non-retina
display.

I go from an iPad to a matte 24" colour calibrated 1920 x 1200. Apart
from PPI there are too many other differences to enable me to select
one to explain why the two look different.

the proper comparison is a retina ipad versus a non-retina ipad or the
new nexus 7 versus the older one. those who have made the comparison
pick the higher resolution display.

..

On 8/15/2013 12:25 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 8/14/2013 8:55 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

meanwhile, the rest of the world likes their photos properly exposed
and in focus and won't have a problem with something that flags photos
that aren't.

Then they will miss some damn good photographs.

not necessarily, and most people aren't interested in pushing the
limits. they want well exposed and in focus images.

That's fine, as long as you don't claim that those who can make images
out of photographs that are less than properly focussed or exposed are
at fault for not wanting to use software that rejects photographs that
are less than well exposed or focussed.

i said all along you can not use it.


Take oe of Sandman's gold stars, and pin it on your computer.

I can't begin to imagine what it must feel like to participate in a
discussion and slowly realize you have it all wrong and end up resorting
to empty non-responses just for the sake of posting *something*.



I completely believe that statement. If you went to Kindergarten here,
you would understand my comment.


--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Take oe of Sandman's gold stars, and pin it on your computer.

I can't begin to imagine what it must feel like to participate in a
discussion and slowly realize you have it all wrong and end up resorting
to empty non-responses just for the sake of posting *something*.



I completely believe that statement. If you went to Kindergarten here,
you would understand my comment.

I *understand* it just fine. It's the lack of actual content I'm amazed
of, and why you even choose to post it.


--
Sandman[.net]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:54:21 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

you don't have to get real close to see pixelization on a non-retina
display. that's the point. they are much sharper.

You must have better eyes than me.

dunno but pretty much everyone who uses a retina display notices a
difference, especially when they go back to the older non-retina
display.

I go from an iPad to a matte 24" colour calibrated 1920 x 1200. Apart
from PPI there are too many other differences to enable me to select
one to explain why the two look different.

the proper comparison is a retina ipad versus a non-retina ipad or the
new nexus 7 versus the older one. those who have made the comparison
pick the higher resolution display.

.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ew,3156-4.html
throws some more light on the differences between the iPads 2 and 3.

Their alleged colour gamuts are such that I would not want either of
them for my monitor, not withstanding their high resolution.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-08-15 15:48:30 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:54:21 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

you don't have to get real close to see pixelization on a non-retina
display. that's the point. they are much sharper.

You must have better eyes than me.

dunno but pretty much everyone who uses a retina display notices a
difference, especially when they go back to the older non-retina
display.

I go from an iPad to a matte 24" colour calibrated 1920 x 1200. Apart
from PPI there are too many other differences to enable me to select
one to explain why the two look different.

the proper comparison is a retina ipad versus a non-retina ipad or the
new nexus 7 versus the older one. those who have made the comparison
pick the higher resolution display.

.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ew,3156-4.html
throws some more light on the differences between the iPads 2 and 3.

Their alleged colour gamuts are such that I would not want either of
them for my monitor, not withstanding their high resolution.

Why would you even be considering any iPad as a primary
monitor/display? That is not their intended purpose.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 16:51:45 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-15 15:48:30 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:54:21 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

you don't have to get real close to see pixelization on a non-retina
display. that's the point. they are much sharper.

You must have better eyes than me.

dunno but pretty much everyone who uses a retina display notices a
difference, especially when they go back to the older non-retina
display.

I go from an iPad to a matte 24" colour calibrated 1920 x 1200. Apart
from PPI there are too many other differences to enable me to select
one to explain why the two look different.

the proper comparison is a retina ipad versus a non-retina ipad or the
new nexus 7 versus the older one. those who have made the comparison
pick the higher resolution display.

.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ew,3156-4.html
throws some more light on the differences between the iPads 2 and 3.

Their alleged colour gamuts are such that I would not want either of
them for my monitor, not withstanding their high resolution.

Why would you even be considering any iPad as a primary
monitor/display? That is not their intended purpose.

Just making clear to nospam that with or without the retina display a
monitor with the qualities of the iPad would not satisfy my needs.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ew,3156-4.html
throws some more light on the differences between the iPads 2 and 3.

Their alleged colour gamuts are such that I would not want either of
them for my monitor, not withstanding their high resolution.

Why would you even be considering any iPad as a primary
monitor/display? That is not their intended purpose.

Just making clear to nospam that with or without the retina display a
monitor with the qualities of the iPad would not satisfy my needs.

what do you have now and how does it compare to a retina ipad display?

anyway, the comparison to be made would be what you have now versus a
similar size retina display which doesn't exist yet because graphics
cards can't move that much data nor can the interconnects.

however, laptop retina displays do, and those who have them love them.