视网膜显示屏是否消除了抗锯齿的需要？
对于 iPhone 4，Retina 显示屏的分辨率非常高，以至于大多数人无法区分彼此的像素（据说）。如果是这种情况，支持 Retina 显示屏的应用程序是否仍然需要抗锯齿以使字体和图像平滑，或者不再需要？
编辑：我对更详细的信息感兴趣。开始赏金了。
With the iPhone 4, the Retina display's resolution is so high that most people cannot distinguish the pixels from one another (supposedly). If this is the case, do apps that support the Retina display still need anti-aliasing to make fonts and images smooth, or is this no longer necessary?
Edit: I'm interested in more detailed information. Started a bounty.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（8）
毫无疑问 - 您仍然需要进行抗锯齿数学计算，因为曲线、二阶曲线、相交曲线和不同类型的连接都很复杂。
（还要注意，非常简单，因为这个问题两年前出现。视网膜显示器现在无处不在，而且事实上，抗锯齿实际上在每个视网膜显示器上的任何地方都完成了。）
当然，直线（可能是 45 度）可能会可以想象，在 A/B 测试中也可以进行测试。但只要看看较浅的线或变化的差异即可。
等等 - 这里有一个彻底的争论............
不要忘记你可以显示非常非常小的字体 em> 在视网膜显示屏上！！！
人们可能会说，只要字母高度小于（比方说）50 像素，就需要抗锯齿。因此，如果您有一个蹩脚的每英寸 10 点显示屏……但字母有 80 英尺高（8000 像素高），您就不需要抗锯齿。我们刚刚证明您在 10 ppi 显示器上“不需要”抗锯齿。
相反，假设 Steve 的下一个显示器每英寸有 1000 个像素。对于非常小的字体以及任何非常小的细节（即 50 像素或更少），您仍然需要抗锯齿！
此外：不要忘记类型的细节...它是矢量图像...是无限的！
您可能会说，哦，巴斯克维尔“M”的“身体”在视网膜显示屏上看起来很好，没有抗锯齿。那么，衬线的曲线怎么样？衬线末端的缺口怎么办？依此类推。
另一种看待它的方式：好吧，在典型的 Mac 显示器上，您不需要对平面或 45 度线进行抗锯齿处理。此外，在视网膜显示屏上，您可以在 22.5 度线甚至 12.25 度线上避免出现锯齿现象。
但那又怎样呢？如果添加抗锯齿功能，在视网膜显示屏上，您可以成功地绘制出极其浅的线条，比在视网膜显示屏之前的 MacBook 显示屏上浅得多。
再次像前面的例子一样，假设下一代 iPhone 每英寸有数十亿个像素。尽管如此，添加抗锯齿功能仍然可以让你拥有更浅的好看线条——根据定义，是的，它总是会让它看起来更好，因为它总是会改善细节。
请注意，杂志文章中的“眼睛分辨率”完全是无稽之谈。
即使在 50 dpi 显示器上，您也只能看到由像素显示策略的数学运算创建的模糊混合。
如果您不相信这是事实，请立即在 Mac 上查看此文字，并计算字母“r”中的像素。当然，你能做到这一点是不可思议的！！您也许可以在 10 dpi 显示屏上“解析”像素。重要的是显示策略所产生的模糊数学。
可以说，抗锯齿总是会产生“更好的模糊效果”。如果您一开始就有更多像素，抗锯齿只会再次提供更好的模糊效果。再次强调，只需考虑更小的功能，当然您会想要对它们进行抗锯齿处理。
看来事情就是这样啊！
There's no question at all - you still need to do antialiasing mathematics, because of the complexity of curves, second order curves, intersecting curves, and different types of joins.
(Note too that, very simply, since this question appeared two years ago. Retina displays are now ubiquitous and - indeed - antialiasing is, in fact, done everywhere on every Retina display.)
Sure, straight lines (perhaps at 45 degrees) may conceivably test as well in A/B tests. But just look at a shallower line, or a changing differential.
And wait - there's a knock-down argument here............
Don't forget that you can display typography really, really small on a retina display!!!
One could say that you need antialiasing, whenever letter are less than (let's say) 50 pixels high. Thus if you had a crappy 10 dot per inch display ... but the letters were 80 feet high (8000 pixels high) you would NOT need antialiasing. We've just proved you "don't need" antialiasing on a 10 ppi display.
Conversely, let's say Steve's next display has 1000 pixels per inch. You would STILL need antialiasing for very small type -- and any very small detail -- that is 50 pixels or less!
Furthermore: don't forget that the detail in type ... which is a vector image ... is infinite!
You might be saying, oh the "body" of a baskerville "M" looks fine with no antialiasing, on a retina display. Well, what about the curves of the serifs? What about the chipping on the ends of the serifs? And so on down the line.
Another way to look at it: ok, on your typical Mac display, you don't need antialiasing on flat lines, or maybe 45degree lines. further, on a retina display you can get away with no atialiasing on maybe 22.5 degree lines, and even 12.25 degree lines.
But so what? If you add antialiasing, on a retina display, you can successfully draw ridiculously shallow lines, much shallower than on for example a pre-retina MacBook display.
Once again as in the previous example, say the next iPhone has one zillion pixels per inch. Still, adding antialiasing will let you have EVEN SHALLOWER good-looking lines -- by definition, yes, it will always make it look better because it will always improve detail.
Note that the "eye resolution" business from the magazine articles is total and complete nonsense.
Even on say 50 dpi displays, you're only seeing a fuzzy amalgam created by the mathematics of the pixel display strategy.
If you don't believe this is so, look at this writing right now on your Mac, and count the pixels in the letter "r". Of course, it's inconceivable you could do that!! You could maybe "resolve" pixels on a 10 dpi display. What matters is the mathematics of the fuzz created by the display strategy.
Antialiasing always creates "better fuzz," as it were. If you have more pixels to begin with, antialiasing just gives even better again fuzz. Again, simply put under consideration even smaller features, and of course you'd want to antialias them.
That seems to be the state of affairs!
眼睛/大脑检测到不连续性或楼梯边缘的分辨率高于它可以解析单个像素的分辨率。视网膜显示屏对于后者来说似乎足够高。
但加上图像动画、手部动作、车辆振动、视力缺陷、显示反射等。并且您可能必须进行试验以确定前者是否对您的特定应用程序有任何影响。
The resolution at which the eye/brain will detect a discontinuity or stair edge is higher than the resolution at which it can resolve individual pixels. The Retina display appears to be high enough for the latter.
But throw in image animation, hand motion, vehicle vibration, imperfect eyesight, display reflections, et.al. and you may have to experiment to determine whether the former makes any difference in your particular application.
我在一位朋友的 iPhone 4 上使用 OpenGL 应用程序进行了一些快速测试。如果没有多重采样，输出上仍然存在楼梯和其他伪影，但是，使用多重采样后它们就消失了。
这并不奇怪，因为您仍然可以使用大量像素构建硬边缘，因此仅将更多像素放入一台设备中并不能解决问题（但是，它显然可以帮助减少多重采样的需要）
I did some quick tests on an iPhone 4 from a friend with an OpenGL application. Without multisampling, there were still stairs and other artifacts on the output, however, with multisampling they were gone.
Thats not really surprising as you can still build hard edges with a lot of pixels, so just putting more pixels into one device won't solve the problem (however, it clearly can help to reduce the need of multisampling)
做一个测试应用程序，使用两张并排的图像，一张进行了抗锯齿处理，另一张则没有。让用户选择他们认为在视网膜显示屏上看起来更好的一个，并从结果中得出结论。如果绝大多数参与者选择了抗锯齿图像，那么您肯定会有显着差异，否则可以安全地假设所述差异对于使用该应用程序的人来说并不重要。
Do a test app, with two images side by side, one antialiased and the other one not. Let users pick the one they think looks better on their retina display and draw your conclusions from the results. If a clear majority of participants pick the antialiased image, then you certainly have a significant difference, otherwise it would be safe to assume said difference not to matter to people who use the app.
这里有一篇文章建议您需要 477 DPI 的分辨率才能消除看到像素的能力，该分辨率高于 iPhone 4 Retina 显示屏的 326 DPI。还请务必点击文章中的反驳链接。 http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/06/ iphone-4-retina/
我还记得不久前读过一个论点，即在一定程度上，抗锯齿在更高的分辨率下效果更好；不幸的是我无法提供参考。
编辑：我仍然找不到我想要的原始参考资料，但 John Gruber 将 iPhone 4 的 326 DPI 屏幕与 Retina MacBook Pro 的 220 DPI 屏幕进行了比较，发现 MacBook 由于文本抗锯齿而更胜一筹。看看文章的中间部分：http://daringfireball.net/2012/08/pixel_perfect
Here's an article that suggests you need a resolution of 477 DPI to eliminate the ability to see pixels, higher than the 326 DPI of the IPhone 4 Retina display. Be sure also to follow the rebuttal link in the article. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/06/iphone-4-retina/
I also remember reading an argument some time ago that anti-aliasing works better at higher resolutions up to a certain point; unfortunately I can't come up with a reference.
Edit: I still can't find the original reference I was thinking of, but John Gruber has compared the 326 DPI screen of the IPhone 4 to the 220 DPI of the Retina MacBook Pro and found the MacBook superior because of the text anti-aliasing. Look about halfway down in the article: http://daringfireball.net/2012/08/pixel_perfect
在某些时候，DPI 的数量足够高，以至于如此高分辨率的“像素化”线条仍然看起来很平滑。我不确定 Retina 是否会是这样。对于游戏等应用程序，如果您的屏幕具有 300 DPI 或更高，则不需要几何图形抗锯齿。 （尽管纹理和精灵之类的东西仍然需要它，因为当您接近 3D 世界中的对象（甚至从不同角度查看它们）时，纹理会拉伸或收缩）
这是一篇关于该主题的精彩文章：
http://gamintafiles.wordpress。 com/2012/03/12/when-anti-aliasing-is-no-longer-needed/
At some point the number of DPI is high enough that a "pixelated" line at such a high resolution will still look smooth. I'm not sure if Retina would be it. For application like gaming, if you had a screen with 300 DPI or more, you would not need anti-aliasing for geometry. (though things like textures and sprites would still need it since when you approach objects in a 3D world (or even look at them from different angles) the textures are stretched or shrunk)
Here's a great article on the subject:
http://gamintafiles.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/when-anti-aliasing-is-no-longer-needed/
是的，你仍然需要它。如果您确实想利用较高的 PPI，您将使用抗锯齿功能。其要点是提供“出血”，这是使图像以模拟形式尽可能呈现最佳效果所必需的。神奇的 300 PPI 或 DPI 数字在打印中产生差异的唯一原因是点会渗色到一起。当您处理 LCD 像素的硬边缘时，您必须使用抗锯齿功能，否则您仍在处理以模拟方式进行通信的数字尝试。
由于我们处理的是发光像素，而不是光反射像素，因此需求甚至更高，因为屏幕中硬边界的对比度更加明显。反射光混合并渗透，比直接来自发射源的相同光强度更好地收集。
在我们拥有高分辨率有机非网格显示器（最好是反射性显示器）之前，我们将需要抗锯齿功能。
Yes, you still needs it. If you really want to take advantage of the higher PPI, you will use antialiasing. The point of it is to provide the "bleed" that is necessary to make the image appear as best as it can in it's analog form. The only reason the magical 300 PPI or DPI number makes a difference in print is that the dots bleed together some. When you're dealing with the hard edges of an LCD pixel, you have to use antialiasing or you're still dealing with the digital attempt to communicate in the analog.
Since we're dealing with light emitting pixels, instead of light reflecting pixels, the need is even higher, since the contrast of the hard boundaries in the screen are even more noticeable. Reflective light blends and bleeds to gather better than the same light intensity be very directly from the emitting source.
Antialiasing will be needed until we have high resolution organic, non-grid based displays, preferably reflective in nature.
好问题！
当我想到抗锯齿时，我想到了一种为补偿太大像素而发明的技术。图像细节会扩散到周围的像素，因为它们在像素边缘过早地被切断。由于您无法在视网膜显示屏上看到单个像素（无论如何从一定距离），我认为抗锯齿根据定义变得无关紧要。
Nice question!
When I think of anti-aliasing, I think of a technique that was invented to compensate for pixels that were too big. Image details are spread to surrounding pixels because they are cut off on the pixel edge prematurely. Since you cannot see individual pixels on the retina display (from a certain distance anyway) I think anti-aliasing becomes irrelevant by definition.