Hardware Has 3DS HD?

[BlueStar]

You don't actually believe that nonsense do you? You'd have to actually hold the iPhone 4 about 12~18 inches away from your face to not be able to see the pixels. Any closer and you'll see them. 328 pixels per inch might sound like a lot on paper, but it's still much lower than what the eye can process.

Well I've got a Desire S, with a resolution of 480 x 800 and when viewing things like zoomed in rendered text I can't see a pixel no matter how close I hold it. Maybe my eyes are getting old.

 

[Rydian]

So high end mobile devices like the Desire HD and the iPhone 4/5, which display at a higher resolution than the eye can see, aren't actually HD simply because due to their screen size the resolution is only around 640x960?Correct.

QUOTE(BlueStar @ May 26 2011, 01:34 PM) Surely the ratio of screensize to pixels must come into play when deciding if a device's 'R' is classified as 'H'? If you put a piece of card over your HDTV which only shows 800x600 of the pixels and look at a face in the cut-out portion, are you no longer seeing the image in 'HD'?

http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-018/_2577.htm
It's about the resolution it's dealing with.

"High-definition" is used as a keyword to sound like "high-quality", so everybody's got an "HD" boner, but it doesn't necessarily mean high-quality.

Spoiler

This actually causes companies to use the phrase "HD" where it doesn't belong, to make people think it's better. For example, HD Radio... is "Hybrid-Digital Radio".

For example this is technically high-definition. That doesn't mean it looks good, though.

Companies have done a good job training people to think that "HD" means "better quality".

 

[Rydian]

Well if that's how we've decided to define the term 'HD' then it's meaningless for a handheld device then. The NGP certainly won't be HD and in fact it's possible handhelds will never be classified as HD, seeing as how you would pass the limit for a discernable difference before you reached those numbers.It's not all about physical size. It's about the size to your eyes.

On the left is my 2-inch Sansa Fuze MP3 player. It's being held close, like an Mp3 player would.
On the right is my 20-inch desktop monitor. It's further away, like an actual monitor in use.

Get what I mean?

QUOTE(BlueStar @ May 26 2011, 02:30 PM) Interesting that I could make a screen with pixels the size of beermats and as long as I made it big enough it would still be counted as "HD"

Heh, yeah, I did that in the previous post before I saw this one.

 

[BlueStar]

Viewing distance is certainly an issue. But how come resolution has become the yardstick to measure it by (and the holy grail being set at a resolution based on the usage in a TV or monitor) when your viewing pleasure is basically down to simply a combination if ppi and distance?

 

[Rydian]

'Cause in general objects are grouped into categories based on viewing distance. Almost every MP3 player has a screen within a certain range, and they don't wander into TV-size territory, for example.

 

[Deleted User]

Simply put, on a 3" screen, HD won't make an ounce of difference, will it?

 

[Wintrale]

Well I've got a Desire S, with a resolution of 480 x 800 and when viewing things like zoomed in rendered text I can't see a pixel no matter how close I hold it. Maybe my eyes are getting old.

Pretty much. At their best, eyes cannot be outdone by technology at its current level. Obviously age and just plain poor eyesight will make them weaker, but by-and-large it's currently impossible to create a resolution so high that the eye cannot still see the pixels.

 

[Rydian]

Simply put, on a 3" screen, HD won't make an ounce of difference, will it?It will if you're holding it really, really close... but I'm pretty sure the human eye can't focus that close. I know cat's eyes lose focus a few inches from their face (which is why they always seem to have trouble finding a piece of meat that's right in front of them).

QUOTE(Wintrale @ May 26 2011, 04:04 PM) by-and-large it's currently impossible to create a resolution so high that the eye cannot still see the pixels.

Thinks like font kerning and such have been made to attempt to make things look smoother without raising the resolution in reaction to this, but it's not concrete if it's good enough to break that barrier (though it certainly is an improvement).

 

[Veho]

"High-definition" is used as a keyword to sound like "high-quality", so everybody's got an "HD" boner, but it doesn't necessarily mean high-quality.

Spoiler

This actually causes companies to use the phrase "HD" where it doesn't belong, to make people think it's better. For example, HD Radio... is "Hybrid-Digital Radio".

[...]

Companies have done a good job training people to think that "HD" means "better quality".

It's getting out of hand, really.

EDIT: Resized the pic.

 

[NES SNES V.B. N64 G.C. Wii WiiU]

The 3DS is worth it, however it does not have a HD screen. If you absolutely need a HD screen wait for the upcoming Next Generaton Portable by Sony.

 

[Nollog]

Seriously mods?
You couldn't just let it die in the faq section or deleted it?
You had to move it here so it could be bumped incessantly with "yeah i agree with the 9001 posters above me"?

 

[leeday100196]

Seriously mods?
You couldn't just let it die in the faq section or deleted it?
You had to move it here so it could be bumped incessantly with "yeah i agree with the 9001 posters above me"?

Yeah I agree with this guy

 

[Rydian]

Somebody didn't read the thread...

 

[chris888222]

The 3DS is worth it, however it does not have a HD screen. If you absolutely need a HD screen wait for the upcoming Next Generaton Portable by Sony.

That isn't exactly HD either. It's just 960 by 540 if i'm not wrong. HD is at least 1024 by 768.

 

[Deleted User]

HD=idk on 3ds

 

[MADKATZ99]

I hate the whole HD thing too. I think it should be measured in pixels per inch. You can have a HD TV but if it's too big the picture looks stretched and ends up looking like ass anyway. Yet a smartphone with pixels so small you can't even see them doesn't get to be called HD. Some telly's these days, the main selling point is 'Full HD!' as if that's as many pixels as humanly possible or something. What're the next TV's with even better resolution going to be, 'better than full hd'?

Does the 3DS have a nice pixels per inch ratio? Well, it's a step up from the DS anyway...

 

[pachura]

The 3DS is worth it, however it does not have a HD screen. If you absolutely need a HD screen wait for the upcoming Next Generaton Portable by Sony.

That isn't exactly HD either. It's just 960 by 540 if i'm not wrong. HD is at least 1024 by 768.

However, it will most probably be able to output 720p via HDMI. I expect games will be slightly upscaled, but 720p videos will play pixel-perfectly.

 

[Nollog]

The 3DS is worth it, however it does not have a HD screen. If you absolutely need a HD screen wait for the upcoming Next Generaton Portable by Sony.
That isn't exactly HD either. It's just 960 by 540 if i'm not wrong. HD is at least 1024 by 768.


However, it will most probably be able to output 720p via HDMI. I expect games will be slightly upscaled, but 720p videos will play pixel-perfectly.

Is the PS3P 16:9 ?
If not, it won't be pixel perfect.


QUOTE(MADKATZ99 @ May 28 2011, 07:22 AM)

What're the next TV's with even better resolution going to be, 'better than full hd'?

2K, 4K and Ultra HDTV/8K.

 

[Rydian]

On the subject of TVs...

http://gizmodo.com/5669331/why-most-hardwa...-total-bullshit

 

[ccfreak2k]

I hate the whole HD thing too. I think it should be measured in pixels per inch. You can have a HD TV but if it's too big the picture looks stretched and ends up looking like ass anyway. Yet a smartphone with pixels so small you can't even see them doesn't get to be called HD. Some telly's these days, the main selling point is 'Full HD!' as if that's as many pixels as humanly possible or something. What're the next TV's with even better resolution going to be, 'better than full hd'?

Err, HDTVs are rather well-defined at least.