Quote:
Originally Posted by ekaser
We really must get away from "pixel count WxH" resolutions. That worked for years (okay, decades) for computer screens, but this is a new class of device, more akin to a book than a computer (although, as time progresses, the distinction will blur). But regardless, when talking about the display resolution, I think it's much more useful to talk about the DPI (dots per inch) than the absolute count of number of pixels. Current 6" readers are pretty much all 166 DPI, whereas the 5" devices are 200 DPI. I hesitate to say that any resolution higher than that is wasted, but it's certainly a case of "diminishing returns". So, if you want to think in terms of absolute pixel count, then figure a 9" display is going to be roughly 5" x 8". At 166 DPI, that's around 830x1328 pixels. (9.7, which seems to be popular for some reason, would be slightly higher, around 5.4x8.6, or about 900x1430 pixels. At 200 DPI it would be 1000x1600 for 5x8 and 1080x1720 for the 9.7. But DPI is much easier to think about than absolute WxH pixels. Who cares how many pixels it has, WxH-wise, if the DPI stays the same and the display gets bigger, that's really all you need to know.
|
I agree that this is an issue that causes confusion, mainly because both are correct ways of describing "resolution"—that is, the ability to resolve detail in an image on a screen.
I've taken to using the general term "resolution" to refer to the more commonly understood WxH total pixel counts (the "resolution" that most people are familiar with), while using "pixel density" to describe, well, the pixel density of a screen or image. I've found that people who aren't familiar with the whole pixel density thing tend to grasp it much quicker instead of using "resolution" in two different (but again, totally correct) ways.