Talk:Retina display

Pixels Per Degree
There is some good information in how to calculate a value for PPD that correlates to what defines a retina display. JBrown23, please stop deleting that information and instead discuss here. Brted (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This conversation was re-started below. . Brted (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that they use an 'average acuity of 20/20'. which is NOT true! The average acuity of the human eye is 20/15!!! 20/20 is just a benchmark number (see the original papers of Snellen). Look also here: http://www.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/accommodating.htm (in first paragraph of that page that gives a link). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vreijs (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

(Comments)
New Entry 8/26/2013 - nVidia has a product that now uses Retina Display - the "nVidia Shield" - perhaps we should have a non-Apple product list? This page makes it sound like the technology is Apple specific.

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.129.174 (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This technology was actually developed by LG Display, not Apple.

Take a look a the first sentence of http://www.oled-display.net/retina-display-apple-vs-amoled "Apple introduced the iPhone 4 with LG Display's LCD-TFT IPS Display. Apple calls this 'Retina' Display."

Another article (in Korean): http://www.fnnews.com/view?ra=Sent0701m_View&corp=fnnews&arcid=100609222343&cDateYear=2010&cDateMonth=06&cDateDay=10 "애플이 붙인 ‘망막 디스플레이’는 국내 LG디스플레이가 개발해 애플에 납품하는 제품으로 8.99㎝(3.54인치) 기준 960×640의 해상도를 지원한다." Translation: "'Retina display,' as named by Apple, is a product developed and produced by LG Display. It provides a resolution of 960x640 on a 3.54-inch screen."

-- intmotinf comment added 03:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC).

Is this a word that apple invented, meaning that you have more pixels than the human eye (retina) can sense? Read here about it: http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/07/steve-jobs-live-from-wwdc-2010/ -- Lexischemen (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is just their name for the technology. An article needs to be created as soon as possible. Mramz88 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove this article, its rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.18.30 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The article says, it's a name for the display technology. But isn't it rather a name for displays who have more than 300 dpi at 10 inches generally than for their display technology? Thus maybe an article is not really desirable, because it's just a name and not a display technology (which in fact is some kind of LCD display)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexischemen (talk • contribs) 15:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a term Apple created, not (say) an idea that's been around but only now has come into reality. I support the merger. HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I'm proposing the merger of this article with the main iPhone article, into the Screen section. "Retina Display" is a word coined by Apple and doesn't deserve it's own article. heat_fan1 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a bad idea. This has nothing to do with the iPhone. At least not now. It's endemic to all computing devices marketed by Apple. If anything then merge with an Apple article. But until you actually experience this technology, you're not likely to understand its notability.
 * I tend to agree. GreenReaper (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree as well, it's just a normal display but with a higher resolution and dpi. Pure marketing buzzword. --95.116.189.251 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree --Pan·da·mo·ni·a 03:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * +1 from me --mboverload @ 08:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * +1, pure marketing word, not really a notable fact 132.168.26.91 (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * -1. See my explanation below, this section. Misty MH (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will merge into iPhone 4, which seems to be a somewhat stable home. Somewhat, because we may still scrap the model articles (although that seems increasingly unlikely), and that future generations will also feature retina displays. HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

""Retina Display" is a word coined by Apple and doesn't deserve it's own article" is not a valid argument since Apple has coined many terms, including the term iPhone. I'm going to unmerge, since it's already in multiple devices (iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPad 3). Going to go by WP:BOLD and unmerge it.--JBrown23 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But an iPhone is at least a distinct product. "Retina Display" isn't even a feature, it's just a quality of being higher-resolution. Apple is not the only one with high-resolution displays and yet by trademarking the term it is rendered useless for discussing the industry as a whole. vsync (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for unmerging it. I explain below, this section. Misty MH (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I find this "Retina display is a trademark used by Apple for displays" statement accurate and informative. I think the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_monitors and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone : Screen could be expanded to address the new higher PPI displays. Displays with higher PPI than 120 is an important topic, especially if you are trying to design graphics that display on many devices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary johnson 53 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that this separate article is informative and useful, and that it's a phrase that deserves defining. While it may have started out as a marketing buzzword in 2010, its use in several Apple products, and possibly (soon) by other manufacturers, makes it a useful contribution to the idea of non-pixelated-looking displays. And I think the "controversy" over whether it was really a "true" retina display is worthy of mention, which would be difficult to fully merge with or integrate into an article about some other product or feature (even the iPhone, etc.). I would like to see this article expanded, though, with a little more history to the term, and about the difficulties of design, since typical computer displays have been of much lower pixel densities. ~ However, I don't see on the Apple Web site where it's called or indicated to be a Trademark. So far, I see no TM or ™ or ® next to various uses of it. If this is really a Trademark (and which kind?), can one point to a link that shows this? And IF this was of the company LG's own design – or was it Apple's design? – can we cite that and add it, and see what LG might have called it, if anything? ~ The whole concept of a display being designed so finely that it makes pixels difficult to see with the eye's retina is a worthy topic. With all this, I think this separate article for the term "retina display" is warranted and useful. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed a registered trademark of Apple, and therefore is simply a brand name. It is irresponsible to suggest that the term has any kind of universal meaning. Apple is free to use and redefine it at will, and it cannot be used by others generically to refer to display resolutions. If Apple does decide to use it as a generic word, it loses trademark protection. Until then, one must assume that the term has no generic meaning. The fact that Apple has thus far applied the term to a certain class of displays is all that can be inferred. It should be clear that Apple has no desire for the term to acquire a generic meaning, and thus can and will use the term to refer to anything it wants going forward. Sethhoyt (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the term "Retina Display" existed well before Apple started using it. I had seen it used in several research papers as a synonym for Virtual Retina Display. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding said research papers now. I'm not sure if it's just because Google has been flooded with Apple's references, or if Apple has forced them off the internet for using the now-trademarked term. Aij (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

PROD
I removed the PROD note. The article has serious quality problems, but probably meets WP:NOTE, if it is to be deleted an Afd would be the way to do it. The content does need serious help, however. I do think this should eventually be a section in a larger article on the high pixels per inch items, not part of the iPAD article History2007 (talk)
 * I would be fine mentioning Apple's silly term for it in the section of an article on computer displays discussing high-resolution ones. Regarding your comment in the changelog "Objecting to PROD, the term is all over the news and many users who use Wikipedia as their key info source will click for it", this makes me even more strongly in favor of the deletion. Credulous readers will have the perception reinforced that it's a legitimate term to describe features of displays and disqualify products of equal quality simply because they are not using the same trademark. And by that standard wouldn't we need to have a discrete page for every single marketing term anyone ever comes up with? vsync (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In general I think the summary-execution of articles through PRODs is not a suitable path for decision making. If you think this article needs to be deleted, the obvious way is of course an Afd. It will only take a few minutes to do that if you want to do it and it will settle the issue in 7 days. That is the proper way to do it. My suggestion would be to make it a section in an article on high res displays, as stated above. History2007 (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is this shown to be an Apple Trademark? I saw no such indication (yet) in Apple descriptions (no TM, ™, or ®). Thanks! Regarding it being a legitimate term or not, I comment under the Merger Proposal section. Cheers! Misty MH (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

From the scratch
I'd like to rewrite this article from the scratch. I'm really familiar with all the math behind it and I believe I could do a great job. It has a lot to do with visual acuity (acuities) and I'm really familiar with that too. I have sources for every piece of information I'd like to write.

However, I'm afraid it'll just get deleted by someone for no reason. Any advice?

Randomoneh (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted on your talk page about some possible ideas. Airplaneman   ✈  06:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article seemed fine when I last checked it. Why rewrite it? Misty MH (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This article seems heavily slanted against Apple products, and is so lacking in science that I agree it should be either deleted or rewritten. The photograph of two pixellated Chinese characters is obviously uploaded by someone who is desperate to discredit Apple, and is just plain silly.  Thank you for your offer.  I vote that you go ahead.  I would be eager to read your piece.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.78.196 (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Must all articles be written in the present tense? Please, no. It ensures the article will have to be re-written in a few years, when technology makes it non-current. And the article needs info on refresh rates! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.81.189.241 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow + Did Amiga originally use the term "retina" related to their graphics/display technology?
It is funny that not only was resolution like this was available in 1992, they actually called it Retina. Retina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.110.146 (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting link! It would be interesting to see if someone at Apple got the idea from Amiga! More links about this would be great. And if it's related, or not, it could be incorporated into the article as part of the history of retina displays. Very cool. Misty MH (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, no in a word. The product linked to is a graphics card produced by a third party (MacroVision) for the Commodore Amiga. Since it is 'only' a graphics card, it does not affect the pixel density of the display. When this card was current, monitors were virtually all CRT types, and a 'Hi resolution' screen from this period would have pixel densities of about 70dpi. So, the only similarity is the name. Possibly is someone wanted to be mischievous they could buy the IP from MacroVision (or whoever is the current owner) and then take Apple to court for Trademark infringement, assuming that Apple hasn't already taken care of this issue. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Retina display → Retina Display – swap Retina display (make it the redirect) with Retina Display (make it the correct term). Currently the wrong way around. Jimthing (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support "retina display" lowercase is generic, while this is a product name. Further retinal displays/retinal projectors are also called "retina displays" (projectors that project onto the retina) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Move it to Retina (display). It seems to me that the brand name is just “Retina”: even Apple themselves consistently call it “the Retina display” with a small D and the definite article (except in the headline), and I'm pretty sure I've seen it referred to as just “Retina”. &mdash; A. di M.  18:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Usage in reliable sources appears split, with the lowercase "d" slightly predominant and apparently preferred by Apple... so I see no compelling reason to move at this time.  I oppose A. di M.'s suggestion as natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical.  Powers T 02:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Case for move is not solid as per A di M and Power. --Kvng (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What a mess. I recently moved this page to Retina Display at Jimthing's request, without seeing this thread (the previous series of botched moves had buried the discussion beyond my ability to locate it). I've now moved it to the main article's talkpage for higher visibility. I take no stance with regard to what the correct name of the page should be, but want it to be known that I'm more than happy for any admin to move the page to wherever this discussion decides it should go; I'll even do it myself if asked. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 22:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's no big deal to me either way, but I'd likely Oppose (writing this after it was changed/moved). In English, titles are often capitalized, which always seemed questionable to me, but on Wikipedia that could be confusing. It has seemed (from my various observations) that capitalizing in W. titles does NOT often capitalize each word, unless it's part of the original topic's own capitalization. English is also weird in that it varies in how to indicate a title in other writings: italicize it? underline it? (like on typewriters, which had no italics) put the title in quotes (quotation marks)? caps starting each word? sometimes small caps? artistic displays? different fonts? fancy fonts? etc. I prefer the typical Wiki style of only capitalizing in a title what needs to be capitalized. In this case, "Display" does not need to be capitalized. And, further, with the new comment under "Wow" above, it is possible that "retina" has been used by others (e.g., Amiga), predating Apple's use of it. In this case, all the more reason to NOT capitalize the D; and, further, the article may need to be renamed once again, once the new comment info can be confirmed with other sources, as it may have been a term used by others, before Apple started using it. Cheers! Misty MH (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Regarding User:Brted's recent edit
Brted expressed disinterest in having a conversation at User talk:Brted, so I am moving the discussion here. Awaiting constructive conversation and answer to my questions regarding reverting seven recent edits to the article. --JBrown23 (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edit at Retina Display
I am sorry that you are unhappy with the recent contributions I've made to the Retina Display article. I only wish to collaborate and gain your understanding. Regarding your recent edit, please explain what you didn't like about the past seven edits, which you reverted: Note that I am choosing to have a dialogue with you and not brand your edit simply as vandalism. Thank you for your understanding and contribution to Wikipedia. --JBrown23 (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retina_Display&diff=526041382&oldid=526041204
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retina_Display&diff=526041204&oldid=526039910
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retina_Display&diff=526039910&oldid=526039646
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retina_Display&diff=526039646&oldid=526039354
 * Especially note that I've recommended that, should you wish to add PPD, I don't discourage you from doing so. However, it is not a topic specific to Apple branding, and hence deserves to be located at the general topic article of Pixel density. If it is encyclopedic, please feel free to ADD your content there. Also, note that you should add a reference that actually mentions the term "PPD", so that we know this is not a violation of Wikipedia policies WP:SOAP and WP:OR. Do feel encouraged to add quality content to our site.
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retina_Display&diff=526039354&oldid=526039062
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retina_Display&diff=526039062&oldid=526038757
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retina_Display&diff=526038757&oldid=525970855


 * Seems more appropriate to talk about it on the article's talk page. I went to that article looking specifically for how Apple would measure the quality of a display to determine retina display and you blanked that section. So it seems like good info, specific to retina displays. If you hadn't blanked the entire section, I wouldn't have had to revert your edits. Blanking a section, calling the information fluff, and saying Retina Display is just marketing and doesn't mean anything made me think you were just a troll.Brted (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Brted, I hope to understand from you, why you reverted my edits to multiple article sections to the article Retina Display, spanning seven edits. You also blanked our conversation I tried to have on your User talk page, but I don't care to have it here instead. I hope you understand that in order to introduce a term like PPD and devote an entire section to that term, you need an external reference. If it's a well established term, it can be an article by itself, or even be a subsection in the main article, Pixel density. Imagine yourself to be professional writing for an encyclopedia. If you were to introduce the term PPD, it should certainly have a reference mentioning the term. I am not opposed to supporting the article with reference. I also have read and know about the distance to the screen being relevant, I just want the writing to be encyclopedic in quality. You reverted:
 * The new mention of HiDPI mode, where UI widgets are doubled in resolution.
 * Addition of references to the spec table. Why does addition of references keep on getting reverted?
 * Consolidate display manufacturing information with spec information. I found this to be too much detail for the intro paragraph to the article, so I moved this info to a section that goes deeper into the technical detail. Why rever this edit?
 * In the section that you restored, "Trigonometrical pixel density of Retina Display" (which I've already stated why it does not belong in this article), you've also reverted my attempts improve this section, including:
 * Converting the language to be more NPOV (see: WP:NPOV): from "Retina Display's real unit of measure is PPD: Pixels Per Degree.", to "Another unit of measurement for displays is pixels per degree (PPD), which measures the pixel density in relation to the user's viewing angle." Not only does this edit move away from the biased terminology of "real" unit of measurement, but I've also added a description of what the terminology is supposed to mean in the first sentence.
 * Note that the section gave an arbitrary value of PPD as the definition for "Retina Display". This is false, as Apple does not have a strict number like that. It's just marketing.
 * And so on. In conclusion, you just reverted a series of updates to the article, and failed to acknowledge the efforts to improve the article. I've already gave my suggestion where the PPD paragraph could go, should an editor feel like finding a reference for it. --JBrown23 (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You keep blanking a section of the article that gives a technical definition of "Retina Display". Why do you feel the need to blank this? It is better to err on the side of giving more information than elminating information. I don't know that very many others will weigh in on this, but I think it is good information and maybe only needs tweaking, not blanking. Your explanation was that it was fluff, which it is not. If there is not a technical definition then how can someone compare their non-Apple device to Apple devices that claim a Retina Display? That's why I came here: I wanted to see if a Nexus 7 met Apple's definition of Retina Display, which it does. I'm sure other people would also like to be able to make that kind of comparison. Brted (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Christopher Kristofa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.228.46 (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ultimate Resolution
Why are 300 dpi inkjet printers an atrocity but 300 ppi displays should be as much as you'd ever need physiologically? Is the viewing distance for paper so much smaller than for electronic devices? I welcome this jump in resolution but those physiological claims in the article that this is all you'll ever need unless you get really close to your device seem very fishy to me. Is there any better source than some guy saying "Well I can't see a difference and I have normal eyesight"? Maybe at least some statement whether he looked at a photo, a sans serif font, or a font with very fine serifs? --Mudd1 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Because a printer needs to place many dots of ink to achieve a desired colour. A 300dpi printer man only achieve 85 lines per inch. A 300 lines per inch print is "glossy photo" quality.

PPI Values wrong
I believe the values in the table are wrong. Theking2 (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * SQRT[ SQR(2560)+SQR(1600) ] = 3018.87 px
 * 3018.87 / 13" ≈ 232 px/"

Relevance to Web development?
As a Web developer without an Apple "retina display" product to test on, I came here hoping to find out what, if anything, I can or should do to accommodate or optimize for these displays in my graphics and code. I found nothing on this. I realize Wikipedia isn't a "how to" guide, but at least some links to the best discussions of this elsewhere... or maybe even a Wikipedia page about the relevance of "retina" to Web development... would be nice. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.6.24 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

How to write code is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. There are numerous docs on the web at Apple's developer site and elsewhere - Google and Bing are your friends. Cgtyoder (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

mixed use of word "manufacturer"
you say "Many other manufacturers' displays have similar or higher pixel densities." then in the next paragraph state. "The displays are manufactured worldwide by different suppliers." These two sentences follow no logic. Either Apple is a not a manufacturer, or the suppliers are actually manufacturers. Or the screens are manufactured, rather than displays.

Didn't want to change it myself, but believe Apple make displays, not screens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.184.24.90 (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have found quite a different definition
Look here: http://isthisretina.com/ 85.193.211.244 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Classification of displays not dependent on user behavior
"CultOfMac also noted that people do not always view displays at a constant distance, and will sometimes move closer, at which point the display could no longer be classed as Retina."

This is stupid. The display is what is it is regardless of the distance at which it is viewed.

Furthermore, why is "CultOfMac" regarded as a valid source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poihths (talk • contribs) 18:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Retina Display. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://billhillsblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/3rd-generation-ipad-entering-high.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

PPD derivation is misleading
The text states that the value of 57ppd is "Based on Jobs' predicted number of 300", implying a viewing distance of 12 inches, and "the threshold for a Retina Display starts at the PPD value of 57". The formula shown is: 2 * d * r * tan(radians(0.5°)) which is roughly d * r * 0.01745  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaskarth (talk • contribs) 14:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But 57 is based on 330ppi @10 inches
 * 300ppi @12" gives 62.8ppd

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mac Mini which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Liquid Retina on iPad Pro 2018
The 2018 iPad pros have Liquid Retina displays https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/10/new-ipad-pro-with-all-screen-design-is-most-advanced-powerful-ipad-ever/ Editor8778 (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Second paragraph under "Detractors" and references
It's Sunday, my day to be annoyingly pedantic. Here goes:

I'm inclined to delete the second paragraph and the related references (to the CultOfMac article [33] and perfect vision[34]) due to citing inaccurate information. The second paragraph hinges on these references:


 * 33 Brownlee, John (June 15, 2012). "Why Retina Isn't Enough". CultOfMac. Retrieved June 15, 2012.

and
 * 34 "Visual Acuity". Precision Vision. (dead link, no reference)

Brownlee makes some weird math leaps, and the other article is gone, and I cannot find the support for the reference claiming people's vision is better than 20/20 until they are 60 or 70. Nonsense. The vast majority of the population develops presbyopia in their early 40s, requiring glasses for reading.

Brownlee's assertion of "normal vision" being able to resolve ⅓rd an arc minute is not supported, excellent vision is typically 20/16 capable of resolving ⅔rd' making his resultant figures off by a factor of two.

Brownlee's idea that the human eye can resolve 900ppi at 12" is unsupported. 20/10 can do *maybe* 448ppi under ideal conditions. And his further statement that "if you move closer it's no longer retina" is also not supported as near-focusing not only diminishes with age (rapidly) but is limited for all ages without help (magnifying glass, LOL).

Accurate facts in terms of vision:
"Normal vision" is 20/20, but "perfect" healthy vision is more tyically 20/16. The world record for a human is 20/09

20/20 means being able to resolve a capital E that subtends 5 arc minutes onto the retina of the eye. The stroke, and the spaces between strokes on the E are then each 1 arc minute.

For someone with super-excellent 20/10, that means the E subtends 2.5 arc minutes, and the stroke is ½ an arc minute, implying only that they can resolve ½' enough to determine it is an "E" 68% of the time.

So if someone can resolve 0.5 arc minute of visual angle (not common), then here are the ppi densities for a few viewing distances:

Resolving capability: 0.5 arc-minute
 * 10" — 536ppi (who holds their phone this close?!? No one over 40...)
 * 13" — 408ppi (More reasonable phone distance)
 * 17" — 320ppi (A typical mobile/tablet view distance)
 * 21" — 256ppi (Laptop)
 * 28" — 192ppi (desktop)

While 20/10 is rare, perfect vision like 20/11.75 is a "perfect vision benchmark" with the resolution at 0.59 arc min:

Resolving capability: 0.59 arc-minute
 * 10" — 454ppi
 * 13" — 346ppi
 * 17" — 258ppi
 * 21" — 217ppi
 * 28" — 163ppi

The more common 20/16 resolves about 2/3rd an arc minute, so in this case:

Resolving capability: 0.666 arc-minute
 * 10" — 402ppi
 * 13" — 306ppi
 * 17" — 238ppi
 * 21" — 192ppi
 * 28" — 144ppi

For the record, the CSS reference px is 1.276 arc minutes.

I am not considering Nyquist as the circle of confusion gives us the assumed filtering if you will, so if someone can resolve 0.667 an arc minute enough to recognize a high contrast letter 68% of the time, that does not imply they are sharp at 0.667 and certainly not sharp enough to make out pixel edges. when we are evaluated we can see the letters well enough to determine what they are, but that does not mean they are sharply defined. Myndex (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding: there is some odd misunderstandings of how acuity/resolution is defined, that seems to be part of what led to the cult of mac weird article... Some people are making a leap of logic that the studies on acuity are defining two pixels in the subtended size, when the subtended size is referring to only the single point, just as Snellen refers to the E as 5 arc min, one arc min for each stroke OR space, not a stroke AND space. Myndex (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is a useful reference which says more or less what I was saying above, but with greater detail:

Quote: "Spatial Acuity Estimate From Mosaic"

 * From the cone mosaic we can estimate spatial acuity or the ability to see fine detail.


 * In the central fovea, there are approximately 150,000 cones/ sq. mm. The distance between cone centers in the hexagonal packing of the cones is about 0.003mm. To convert this to degrees of visual angle you need to know that there are 0.29 mm/deg so that the spacing is 0.003/0.29 = 0.013° between cone centers.


 * The Nyquist frequency, f, is the frequency at which aliasing begins. That is a grating pattern of cos(2*pi(N/2+f)) above the Nyquist frequency is indistinguishable from the signal cos(2*pi(N/2-f)) below the Nyquist frequency where N is the number of sample points per unit distance. The Nyquist frequency is f = 1/N. The value of N = 1/0.0102 = 97. Therefore f = 48 cycles per degree.


 * In actuality, the foveal Nyquist limit is more like 60 cycles per degree. This may be a result of the hexagonal rather than the rectangular packing of the cone mosaic. The optics of the eye blur the retinal image so that this aliasing is not produced. Using laser interferometry, the optics of the eye can be bypassed so we can reveal this aliasing. We will discuss this in more detail in the chapter on visual acuity.


 * The mosaic of the retina in addition to the processing in the visual system produces another ability to see fine resolution and ascertain alignment of object called hyperacuity. People have the ability to see misalignment of objects of 5 seconds of arc (which is 1/5 of a cone width). This corresponds to seeing the misalignment in headlights 39 miles away. Maybe you can try working this out to see if I am exaggerating.

Quoted from: https://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandplite/pages/chap_9/ch9p1.html

The last paragraph there is interesting, essentially saying our resolution is what most vision scientists say (about 0.6 to 0.7 arc minute, about 20/16 vision) but that we can perceive certain misalignments much finer than that.

How does this relate to a retina display? Perhaps the limit where we can detect one subpixel out of line with the others? Myndex (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Add new Studio Display?
Apple just released the Mac Studio display, so we should add it to the list of devices with Retina display and the table of devices below it. Alaska nam (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)