this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
66 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
40762 readers
729 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This makes me doubt the author of the article's credibility. What exactly is the "perfect resolution" of a hand painted piece of art?
The underlying paper is published in Nature which adds more credibility to its significance but an article that presents none of the limitations, drawbacks, or broader industry context that might hold something like this back isn't adding much. What was the colour depth? Refresh rate? Is it thrown if the external light shifts and changes? How many children have to be sacrificed to the machine gods to produce it? Etc. etc.
While I get your point, this is an article, not a whitepaper. The scope you're requesting is unreasonable for "cool new thing appeared in Nature" for laypeople.
If someone says something that is obviously not a thing, like 'the perfect resolution of an analog painting', then it means the author probably didn't actually understand what they read and so you shouldn't trust their interpretation of the underlying news.
High-enough that you can't distinguish individual pixels with your eye. At least, that's how Apple defines their retina displays; not sure if these guys are following the same standard for that terminology or not.
That's not a resolution, that's a pixel density at a set distance. It's also arbitrary on Apple's end, not actually a meaningful universal measurement.
This is the paragraph literally right above the one you quoted. Do you understand what they mean by "perfect" now? They are saying you literally could not precive a differece in resolution from the image and real life.
Again, no, because that's not a resolution, that's a pixel density at a set distance.