resolution
Latest
Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes is 1080p on PS4, 720p on Xbox One
Konami's Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes will run at 1080p on PS4 and 720p on Xbox One, according to a current-gen vs. next-gen comparison page put up by the publisher. The comparison page has side-by-side screenshots, so you can judge the difference in resolution for yourself. Both next-gen versions will run at 60 frames per second, while the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions will run at 30 frames per second. The PlayStation 4 is also getting a little extra love from Big Boss and friends thanks to a special edition console themed to fit the game. The first special edition PS4 will be the FOX Edition - a black PS4 with the FOX Engine logo branded in a pale gold on its glossy top. An image of the console is just after the break. The system is up now on the Japanese version of the Sony Store, for a price of 46,980 yen (approx. $460). No word on whether the system will be available in other regions. Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes comes to North American shores March 18. [Image: Konami]
Storyboard: Working without /random
Two weeks ago, you might recall, I ranted about using random rolls as a mechanic of resolution when roleplaying in MMOs. For those of you who can't be bothered to go back and read the whole thing now (which I totally understand; you probably have holiday games burning a hole in your pocket), the core point was that random rolls don't actually tie to anything for resolution and wind up coming off as an obvious and unfun kludge for the sake of random resolution. "Well, if you're so smart, why don't you come up with alternatives?" And I did. Readers also had some wonderful suggestions and feedback in the comments last week, which make the article even more worth reading, so really, go ahead and take a look at it. This week, I'm taking a look at how you're going to resolve conflicts in roleplaying without relying on what amounts to a coin flip. And as you may have expected, they're all taking tips from tabletop games.
Assassin's Creed 4 needs a title update to hit 1080p on PS4
Did you pick up Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag with your shiny new console during the PS4 launch yesterday? Noticed anything off about its visuals? According to the Ubiblog, that's because the game currently runs at 900p, and like Call of Duty: Ghosts before it, requires an update before it can output at native 1080p resolution. This update will be available "shortly after release." Assassin's Creed 4 Associate Producer Sylvain Trottier suggests most people won't notice the difference, but the post also notes that, "those who can spot the differences might note that the game would be, in some very subtle ways, slightly less crisp but a tiny bit smoother." Trottier also explained that Black Flag developers have created "a brand-new anti-aliasing technique" that will be available for both the PS4 and Xbox One copies of the game, in an effort to enhance visuals even further. No word if the game will ever output in 1080Arrrr.
Day-one patch bumps CoD: Ghosts campaign to 1080p on PS4
Retail copies of Call of Duty: Ghosts will require a patch on PlayStation 4 in order to fix resolution problems that stem from a "configuration issue" in the game's single player campaign. Players that dive into the game's single-player missions without the update would encounter a campaign mode that is upscaled from 720p as opposed to the game's expected 1080p resolution. "Call of Duty: Ghosts runs natively at 1080p on the PlayStation 4. There was a configuration issue in the retail version on single player mode only," Activision told Joystiq in a statement. "This has been addressed with a day one software update. People will be able to download the day one update when PlayStation 4 launches in their territory and play at native 1080p." Infinity Ward Executive Producer Mark Rubin said in late October that the game runs at a native resolution of 1080p (1920x1080) on PS4 and that the developer "optimized each console to hit 60 FPS and the game looks great on both."
Android 4.3 source code reveals support for 4K resolution
We've seen Android run on anything from low-resolution smartwatches to high-PPI phones and tablets, including the new 1920 x 1200-pixel Nexus 7 Google launched earlier this week. To make this possible, the mobile OS supports a number of pixel densities for app content -- from 120PPI (LDPI / Low DPI) to 480PPI (XXHDPI / Extra Extra High DPI). Close examination of the Android 4.3 (Jelly Bean) source code reveals the addition of a 640PPI (XXXHDPI / Extra Extra Extra High DPI) pixel density, which -- according to the comments in the code -- is intended for 4K televisions. Does this mean we'll begin to see Android devices with 640PPI Ultra HD displays? Perhaps, but considering 480PPI is overkill on handsets, this is most likely designed to make image assets and fonts, such as the Google TV UI, readable on 4K screens when viewed from a distance.
European Parliament votes to investigate US surveillance of EU residents
Not surprisingly, the European Parliament isn't happy to hear that the NSA and other US agencies are allegedly snooping on communications in Europe and elsewhere. It isn't just complaining loudly, however -- the Parliament just voted 483-98 in favor of a resolution that will investigate US surveillance activities in Europe and report on their impact before the end of the year. The measure also asks EU officials to consider limiting the data they voluntarily provide to American authorities, such as shutting down programs that forward air passenger and bank records. There's nothing in the resolution that would immediately affect the EU-to-US communication pipeline, but that could change in half a year -- US intelligence outlets may not get their European information served on a silver platter for much longer. [Image credit: JLogan, Wikipedia]
Matrox DualHead2go adapter broadens your monitor horizons
If your widescreen ambitions can't be contained by a mere 1920x1080 HD screenscape, the fine folks at Matrox have a solution for you. The DualHead2Go Digital Mac Edition display adapter, priced around US$160, is built and marketed specifically for the Thunderbolt and DisplayPort-enabled Mac models. It pairs up with Matrox's PowerDesk software to enable spanned displays, rather than defining each external monitor as its own real estate. If you have the required two matching-resolution monitors, you can achieve some truly breathtaking resolutions. Design Like the rest of Matrox's line, the DualHead's pro-style design would be perfectly at home in a video editing workstation or studio. The unit, about the size of a pack of cards, sports two DVI-D ports on the back to connect your two displays for pairing. The aluminum case features cheesegrater-style ventilation holes that match nicely with the look of the aging Mac Pro desktop. I hooked up the DualHead to a Retina MacBook Pro via the provided mini DisplayPort to full-size DisplayPort adapter. This larger connector may be unfamiliar to most Mac users, but it's frequently seen on recent-model Windows laptops; it looks like a slightly cockeyed HDMI plug. The other necessary connection on the front of the unit is USB, which provides power for the adapter. Considering the number of cables going into and out of this small device, a bit of onboard cable management wouldn't be amiss. You could velcro or cable-tie your cables to the DualHead, since it doesn't get particularly hot during usage. Users who need even more space to spread out have the option of stepping up to the TripleHead2go unit, which teams three monitors instead of two -- for about 2x the price. Performance Unlike the dual-DVI connection that enables full resolution on Apple's 30" Cinema Display, the DualHead creates a virtual spanned display across both of the connected external monitors. In my testing, with two smaller Cinema Displays, the combined resolution got up to the supported maximum of 3840x1200 -- more than enough real estate for almost anyone. Given that this "one big monitor" is actually two displays with a hefty border in between, window management becomes more important than in a simplex setup. Matrox's PowerDesk software lets you define target cells for your apps, quickly moving windows around the screen and swapping content from your LCD to the wide external duplex display. It took me a few passes through the documentation to get a handle on the best way to manage the display cells; Matrox's instructions and the utility interface are aimed more at a video professional audience than at consumers. The responsiveness of the big screen was surprisingly good. Matrox's hardware doesn't do any hefty graphics processing of its own; rather, it presents the large virtual display resolution to the onboard GPU and lets the graphics chip in the Mac do the heavy lifting of drawing on that big canvas. On the Retina MBP, I didn't notice any dragging or slow performance onscreen, even with several QuickTime movies playing at once. Older Mac hardware might not fare quite as well -- Matrox's compatibility guide for adapters is a good place to start if you're considering options. Wrap-up With its base requirement of two resolution-matched external displays plus a solid GPU-equipped Mac, the DualHead2go is fairly described as a specialty item. If your needs demand extreme widescreen, however, and you'd rather repurpose older DVI monitors than shell out $999 for a 27" Thunderbolt display, Matrox is there to help you out. Pros Unique widescreen capability Small and unobtrusive Impressive performance Cons Software is a bit confusing Requires identical resolution monitors Limited consumer appeal Who is it for? Graphics and video pros who believe wider is better.
Microsoft allows Windows 8 to run on smaller displays: is a reader-sized Surface on its way?
Until now, Windows 8's official hardware requirements have been understandably ruthless: devices with anything less than 1,366 x 768 pixels need not apply. That policy was changed in a recent newsletter, however, to permit the creation of Windows 8 devices with a resolution of 1,024 x 768 -- likely representing a very different size and shape. Microsoft says the policy switch isn't meant to "encourage partners to regularly use a lower screen resolution", and it warns that such dimensions will be incompatible with Windows 8's split-screen feature, known as "snap". Which raises the question -- why mess with the rules? Ed Bott over at ZDNet has an interesting theory. 1,024 x 768 matches the size and aspect ratio of many popular reader-sized tablets, like the iPad Mini, which are meant to be used in both portrait and landscape orientations. There's no official confirmation either way, of course, but Bott believes Microsoft's move could be deliberately aimed at allowing the development of 7- or 8-inch Windows 8 (or RT) tablets, possibly with the close help of Nook-maker Barnes & Noble. Indeed, Mary Jo Foley spotted that Redmond and B&N have registered a new joint venture, "NewCo", that explicitly mentions the creation of a "Microsoft reader". Considering all these clues, can a Wook (WiNook?) really be that far off?
Nvidia's Quadro K5000 GPU coming to a Mac Pro near you, and it's fast
Graphics card maker Nvidia has announced that its brand new Quadro K5000 GPU will be available inside of Apple's Mac Pro computers, and Engadget recently got a chance to see the new cards in action. The cards will offer 4 GB of graphics memory and some superfast performance, and will be able to support up to the new 4K video standard (which is what the television manufacturers are planning as a resolution after the current 1080p). As you'd expect, Engadget says everything ran very impressively. Adobe Premiere Pro ran without a hitch, even when including plenty of video effects and processing. But that isn't really a surprise, as a super card like this shouldn't struggle in a demo situation. We'll probably need a brand new Mac Pro with one of these in it to really know for sure how the card works. Anyone have five or six grand they can spare?
RIM confirms BB10 standard screen resolutions for touch and keyboard devices
RIM took some time out from its worldwide tour to confirm that it's standardizing screen resolutions for BB10. Tim Neil took to the company's developer blog to say that forthcoming full-touch devices will ship with 1,280 x 720 displays, while keyboard-style phones would pack 720 x 720 screens. The only handset that won't play by these rules is the first (presumably flagship) BB10 handset, since it's too late to change its 1,280 x 768 screen. The company's urging developers to get tweaking to ensure apps run properly on the new gear -- or add letterboxing to offer a Sergio Leone feel to your mobile gaming.
Sony: 4K isn't just about the resolution
With M. Night Shyamalan already shooting his next movie -- After Earth -- on the F65 4K camera, Sony's PR machine is going all out to assuage remaining doubters in the film industry. One of the more curious aspects of the awareness campaign is that it doesn't focus solely on the exorbitant resolution -- in fact, it gives almost equal weight to other visual promises that Sony hopes will persuade producers, directors and cinematographers to make the leap before anyone else does. What might those eyeball treats be? Philippe Ros, a DoP hired by Sony to shoot a 4K promo film, put it succinctly at a showing we attended in London this week: "Only the first row in the cinema may notice the resolution, but I'm more interested in the colors than in the 4K." According to Ros, every terabyte that floods out of the F65 per hour of filming contains color and dynamic range info way beyond what you normally get when shooting digital. The end result? Crews on the ground can relax just that little bit more, knowing that any mundane-looking scenes can be given far greater impact later. Now, even bearing in mind that Ros couldn't have said anything bad about 4K without things getting awkward, it's still interesting that he admits to being skeptical of the resolution itself. But if others on independent shoots discover the same post-production flexibility that he did, then the push for 4K might come from filmmakers rather than those further down the food chain.
ITU lays out recommendations on 3DTV, Ultra High Definition TV standards (video)
The ITU has stayed busy, as we mentioned earlier it met to hammer out standards for UHDTV (Ultra High Definition TV), and also recently announced a new set of recommendations for 3DTV. On the 3D front it focused on standardization for delivering video in both 720 and 1080 line formats, digital interfaces used for studio production and methods to evaluate quality based on picture quality, depth and comfort levels. As far as UHDTV which is still quite a bit further off, the group has decided the term will cover both 4K and 8K (aka Super Hi-Vision) resolution video, as multiples of the existing 1080p standard. That means Quad Full HD (QFHD, or 3840x2160 resolution) and Digital Cinema 4K resolution (4096x2160) both fall under the umbrella of 4K (check the aspect ratios to see where the "missing" pixels went, or have a listen to this week's podcast. After the break we've got a video with Study Group Chairman Christoph Dosch discussing the future possibilities of both 3DTV and UHDTV, as well as press releases with a few extra details.
Flickr launches prettified 'liquid' layout, brings high-resolution eye candy to the forefront
After refreshing the uploading tool (and throwing in some better editing functions), Flickr's decided to work on its looks. Its latest design update will now show a high-resolution version directly from a picture's main page. The size will also adjust itself to the resolution and size of your screen -- that's the fluid part of it -- avoid any nasty upscaling business. Hit up your own Flickr gallery to see the new design in action and expect more changes in the near future -- the developers are promising more to come.
StatCounter finds 1366 x 768 to be most popular screen resolution for the first time
It's had quite a run, but it looks like the old standby resolution of web designers everywhere, 1024 x 768, has finally been eclipsed by a newer, wider rival. According to web analytics firm StatCounter, use of 1024 x 768 fell from 41.8 percent in March of 2009 to 18.6 percent this March, while 1366 x 768 (common to many laptops) shot up from just 0.68 percent to 19.28 percent during the same time period, making it the most popular screen resolution worldwide. 1280 x 800 sits in third place at 13 percent, while all other resolutions remain in the single digits. Those interested can break down those stats further at the second source link below.
LG unveils flexible plastic e-paper display, aims for European launch next month
LG has made no secret of its fondness for flexible e-paper, but those dreams became a reality today, with the announcement of a six-inch display that promises to "revolutionize the e-book market." The malleable plastic display sports a resolution of 1024 x 768 and can bend at an angle of up to 40 degrees. At just 0.7 millimeters thick, it's about one-third thinner than similarly-specced glass displays, and weighs in at 14 grams -- about half the weight of its glassy competition. LG also claims that the display is super durable, as evidenced by a series of successful drop tests from a height of 1.5 meters. The plan going forward is to supply the display to ODMs in China, in the hopes of bringing final products to Europe by "the beginning of next month." For more details, check out the full press release after the break.
Apple ups the resolution on iTunes U and iBooks 2 for new iPad
Apple certainly had a lot of bases to cover at yesterday's new iPad unveiling, so some minor details were bound to slip through the cracks. While app suites like iLife and iWork got to bask in the Yerba Buena spotlight touting enhanced resolutions for that Retina Display, the company's decidedly less high-profile education software was also treated a face-lift -- just without the fanfare. According to a report on CNET, prospective owners of Cupertino's latest tablet will get to download an upgraded version of iBooks 2 and iTunes U that take advantage of the new 2048 x 1536 9.7-inch screen. Aside from the visual tweaks, only iBooks 2 has been imbued with extra features, adding a touch-to-highlight function and a refined page search that unites both print and ebook layouts. You'll be able to check out the 264ppi panache for yourself when those slates ship out next week.
Retina display Macs, iPads, and HiDPI: Doing the Math (updated)
Love Apple gear? Like math? TUAW's Doing the Math series examines the numbers and the science behind the hardware and software. The rumourmill has been busy lately with claims that we might get "Retina display" Macs soon -- and of course, a Retina display iPad 3 on March 7, probably, maybe, definitely. For an example of the sort of speculation, consider Bjango developer Marc Edwards, who tweeted: "Retina 27" Thunderbolt display: 5120×2880 = 14,745,600 pixels. 4K film: 4096×2160 = 8,847,360 pixels. Retina iPad 3: 2048×1536 = 3,145,728 pixels". This prompted me to dust off my Retina display iPad post from a year ago and revisit the mathematics I applied there to dig a little deeper into what a Retina display Mac might entail. Is Edwards right -- would a Retina display Thunderbolt display really need almost 15 megapixels? Isn't this all just marketing? Before I launch into a long-winded diatribe ("surely not!" -- everyone who's ever read any of my other TUAW posts), I need to address a surpisingly common point of view. Some people say that as "Retina display" was a term Apple made up, it can mean whatever it wants it to mean. If Apple wanted to, the theory goes, it could just declare the current iPad to be a Retina display and be done with it. I think this argument is asinine. Firstly, although Apple invented the term out of whole cloth, it does offer a definition: "the Retina display's pixel density is so high, your eye is unable to distinguish individual pixels." That has meaning, and if Apple were to weaselly dilute the definition for the sake of marketing some future product I think we should absolutely hold its feet to the fire. Secondly, this isn't just about Apple. High DPI screens are starting to appear on other devices, like this Android tablet from Asus. The precise phrase "Retina display" might belong to Apple but the advantages of high resolution screens do not. As this is an emerging trend across the whole industry, it behooves us to strip away the marketing pixie dust and take an objective look at what this technology can offer. Defining "Retina display" So what does it mean to say that a screen's individual pixes are indistinguishable? The launch of the iPhone 4 and the first Retina display was, of course, accompanied by a jump in the screen resolution from 480×320 to 960×640 -- from 163 pixels-per-inch (ppi) to 326 ppi. This in turn lead many people to label some arbitrary resolution as "Retina display" -- typically 326 ppi itself, or 300 ppi. The latter number is a common rule-of-thumb baseline in the print industry for "photo resolution". It's not that simple, however. Hold a small-print book at arm's length. Notice how it's hard to read the text. Now bring the book up to a few inches from your nose. Notice how much easier it is to read now. Clearly, if Apple is defining a "Retina display" as "one where users can't see the pixels" then any discussion of whether a given display qualifies or not needs to take into account the distance between the screen and the user -- and that differs according to the device. An iMac on a desk, a MacBook in your lap, and a hand-held iPhone all have different viewing distances. So, how do we determine how small a pixel has to be to be bordering on invisible? To answer this we need to think about subtended angles. Consider the following scenario: The viewing angle in this diagram, a, is called the angle subtended by the inter-pixel spacing, s. Whether or not a given detail is too small to be discerned by the eye is down to the size of this angle. This is how the size of an object is related to the viewing distance -- as you move an object of a given size closer or further away from the eye, so the size of this angle changes. Conversely, at given distance, a larger object will also subtend a bigger angle. The size of the image on the retina is intrinsically derived from the object size and the viewing distance, linked by this formula: So what subtended angle is too small to see? The average person has 20/20 vision. This was historically defined as the ability to read letters on a standard eye chart that subtend 5 arcminutes of angle (an arcminute is 1/60th of a degree). What does that mean in pixel terms? Consider that just about the smallest legible fonts, Tinyfont by Ken Perlin and Tiny by Matthew Welch, uses five pixels of height (including descenders for Tiny) for each letter. This suggests the smallest resolvable detail for an average eye is around one arcminute. Indeed, one arcminute is an accepted value amongst academics for the resolution limit of a typical human retina. Retina-ness of Apple's current displays With the data above in mind, and applying the mathematics from my previous post, we can take some typical viewing distances for different Apple devices, combine it with the screen size and resolution, and calculate how close the screen comes to the definition of a Retina display we have arrived at above. You can view a Google spreadsheet that shows the details of how this data is calculated. Update, 2012-03-02: I've had quite a bit of feedback that many people sit closer to their devices than I do. I'm not sure if it's personal preference, or because I've used multi-monitor for many years (my 27" iMac is flanked by a 26" Samsung monitor, so I have to sit a little way back to fit it all in my vision). Either way, I've added a few rows to that spreadsheet that aren't shown on the table above to reflect these scenarios. Update 2, 2012-03-04: The original version of the above table contained an error; I had forgotten that the screen sizes of the MacBook Air 11", 13" and MacBook Pro 15" are actually 11.6", 13.3", and 15.4", respectively. I used the wrong version in the calculation. This has now been fixed. This changes some of the pixel-per-inch figures slightly. Just for fun, I threw in a couple of non-Apple devices for comparison -- a 50" TV at a distance of six feet, playing back a Blu-Ray and a DVD; and the announced Asus Transformer Prime Android tablet, which has a 1920×1200 display. This table shows some things that surprised me. Firstly, it shows that Apple's definition of Retina display aligns quite closely with my mathematic derivation. The iPhone 4 screen at a typical distance of 11" is just barely above the threshold for a Retina display. I believe this justifies my methodology. Secondly, it repeats my previous conclusion that a pixel-doubled iPad running at 2048x1536 is easily enough definition to count as a Retina display -- even at a 16" viewing distance, which is on the close side from my experimentation with an iPad and a tape measure. Similarly, that Asus tablet is a Retina display too. It also shows that many current Mac displays are a lot closer to Retina display levels than you might have thought. The 27" iMac at a distance of 28", a 17" MacBook Pro at 26", an 11" MacBook Air at 22" -- these screens all have pixels small enough to border on invisible. Furthermore, the 480×320 iPhone screen is notably worse than everything else Apple makes today, at 53% of a Retina display. Even the second-worst 1024×768 iPad screen has finer detail at 61%. The worst Mac display is the 24" iMac at a distance of 28", at which distance its pixels are one-third too large to be individually indistinguishable. Finally, this also shows why BluRay looks so good. On a largish TV at a shortish distance (50" at 6'), a 1080p image is at 92% of Retina level, whereas a DVD is a downright poor 36%. There are two very important points here. The first is that in order to achieve, or even handily exceed, the threshold for a Retina display, Apple does not need to double resolutions on most of its displays. Far from it. It would suffice to boost a 27" Thunderbolt Display from 2560×1440 to something around 2912×1638. (But note that there could be image quality issues from this -- see "The pixel doubling argument" below.) The second point is that people shouldn't get their hopes up for how much better a Retina display Mac would be compared to the current offerings. The iPhone 4 was a huge step forward from the iPhone 3GS mostly because the 3GS's screen was comparatively poor. Existing Macs have much better screens to start with, so any improvement will be much more modest. Looking beyond one arcminute From the above, you might think that there is hardly any reason to Apple to change anything, because the benefits of higher resolution screens are so modest. But clearly HiDPI mode exists, and specialist medical imaging screens are between 508 and 750 ppi. What's the benefit to these high pixel densities? The answer is that our definition of the limits of human vision -- details that subtend an angle of one arcminute -- is rather simplistic. There's a lot more to think about when considering how real human vision interacts with computer display technology, including atypical viewing distances, different sorts of patterns, and so forth. Reading words, for example, is possible at smaller sizes than reading random letters, because your brain has more context to guess at the characters. Your brain is a sophisticated pattern matching tool and it will use information from the surroundings to try and interpret details your eyes can't quite make out clearly. Here's a number of test patterns for you to try this out on your own display. If you want to try this on an iOS device, you need to get the appropriate file for your device -- iPhone or iPad -- and save it to the Camera Roll. This is because iOS will helpfully try and zoom and pan images but we want to ensure that one pixel in the test image takes up one pixel on your display. Once you have them in the Camera Roll, view them full screen through the Photos app with your device in the portrait position. If you compare your Mac, iPad, and iPhone, you should see quite a difference in how well each screen performs. The pixel doubling argument Rene Ritchie for iMore makes a solid argument for why an iPad retina display must be pixel-doubled -- i.e. 2048×1536 -- and not some intermediate resolution (just as was the case for the iPhone 4 before it). Anything else means every single existing app either has to re-scale art assets -- resulting in a fuzzy display -- or let them appear at a different size on-screen -- resulting in usability problems as the tap targets are resized. This is because every single existing iPad app is hard-coded to run full screen in 1024×768. The situation is fuzzier on desktop, however. Apple's current displays already vary between 92 and 135 pixels-per-inch. Users are more tolerant of UI element resizing, within reason. Consider the 109 ppi 2560×1440 27" Thunderbolt display, and let's suppose Apple wanted to Retina it up. It could up the resolution to 4192×2358 -- which works out to 178 ppi -- and achieve a display with finer details than the iPhone 4. This is one-third less pixels than the native pixel-doubled resolution (which would be 5120×2880). UI elements would look proportionally larger -- but no more than they do on the 24" iMac display today, so it wouldn't look clumsy or odd. Update, 2012-03-02: David Barnard of App Cubby wrote a great followup post with some mockups comparing a 27" 168 ppi screen in HiDPI mode (at a resolution of 3840×2400) and the current 109 ppi one. He also makes an interesting point that he find Apple's more dense modern displays harder to use: What you should notice is that the text and UI elements are physically smaller on the current 109ppi iMac than they'd be on the hypothetical 84/168ppi 27″ iMac. This may be frustrating to some users, but I actually prefer my old 94ppi 24″ Cinema Display to any of Apple's higher PPI displays. I like that the system default 12pt text is larger. The sacrifice is in the usable workspace, and that's a matter of taste. I've been hearing from more and more people on Twitter that the 11″ Macbook Air is surprisingly usable with OS X Lion, even though the workspace is a scant 1366x768 pixels. Wrapping up Hopefully, I have convinced you of several things in this post. "Retina display" carries more meaning than pure marketing. The definition of what is, and what isn't, a Retina display must consider viewing distance. The improvement you'd see from a Retina display Mac is significant, but less than the improvement the iPhone 4 offered over the 3GS. A 2048×1536 iPad would be a Retina display and would look quite a bit better than the current model (but, again, be less of an improvement than the iPhone 4). Still not convinced? Sound off in our comments! I'd like to thank fellow TUAWers Brett Terpstra and Erica Sadun for helping me with the Retina Tester graphic.
The entire World of Warcraft being recreated with Minecraft blocks
We all have goals in life -- some of us work for our families, some seek money and fame, and some work for a greater good. Minecraft forum user Rumsey's chosen path is to recreate the entire World of Warcraft inside the indie sandbox hit, Minecraft. And as you can see above, he's doing pretty well -- the entire continent of Kalimdor (including the new zones from the Cataclysm expansion) is almost done, and he's well on his way to doing the rest, including all of the instances and dungeons.Rumsey came up with some custom software to put it all together, which basically translates the current maps of WoW over to the measurements of Minecraft blocks. Rumsey is trying to keep Minecraft's "1 yard to 1 block" ratio, though that means he has to balance WoW's detail with Minecraft's inherent blockiness (and Minecraft's height limit of 128 blocks has required mods to make some of WoW's tallest features work). Still, what's been created so far is certainly recognizable as Azeroth.Now if we can only get StarCraft, Crafting Mama, CrimeCraft, GemCraft, and macaroni and cheese in this project somehow.
SWTOR Senior Community Manager responds to high-res texture concerns
Many keen-eyed Star Wars: The Old Republic players noticed that, while there were "low," "medium," and "high" options for the game's texture quality settings, there seemed to be only two different sets of textures, and neither of them includes the high-resolution textures seen in the game's cutscenes and conversations. As it tends to go with the MMO community, the forums were soon filled with cries of "WTFM8?" And thus did BioWare's own Senior Community Manager Stephen Reid appear on the scene to clarify what exactly was happening. The low-medium-high texture quality scale is, he says, a bug, and the medium choice was never supposed to exist. So yes, the game has only two sets of textures, low- and high-resolution, but even the high-resolution textures don't look as shiny as the ones featured in SWTOR's cutscenes. And so the chorus repeated, "WTFM8?" Reid drops a ton of technical information to explain why players can't run around with conversation-quality textures 24/7, but the fact of the matter is that an MMO could potentially have anywhere from one to who-knows-how-many people on-screen at any given time, and BioWare "discovered that using [...] 'maximum resolution' textures on in-game characters during normal gameplay could cause severe performance issues, even on powerful PCs." That's the short of it, but if you'd like the full, unadulterated technical breakdown, just head on over to the official forum post for more info and screaming.
JVC's Procision, Reference Series projectors now available, replete with '4K precision'
After making their grand debut at this year's CEDIA Expo, JVC's line of Procision and Reference series projectors have finally begun marching out to market. The manufacturer announced the news this week, confirming that its array of seven new projectors are now available for purchase, with prices ranging from $3,500 to $12,000. All seven devices feature JVC's proprietary e-Shift technology, and are capable of projecting images in 3840 x 2160 resolution -- not exactly 4K, but still four times what you'll get with full HD. The Procision Series, including the DLA-X90R, DLA-X70R and DLA-X30, is geared toward the consumer market, while the Reference Series (DLA-RS65, DLA-RS55, DLA-RS4800 and DLA-RS45) is now available through JVC's Professional Products Company. For more details on pricing and availability, check out the full PR after the break. Update: So, we got a little mixed up by the poorly worded JVC press release, but it looks like only the DLA-X90R, DLA-X70R, DLA-RS65 and DLA-RS55 actually sport the company's e-Shift tech.
