This gives me the vibe of calling high resolution screens as "retina" screens.
But this is exactly the type of marketing Apple is good at, though "retina" is probably not the most successful example.
One of the album covers being stretched had some kind of fine pattern on it that caused a clearly visible shifting/flashing Moiré pattern as it was being stretched.
Wish I could remember what album cover it was now.
Though really it's simple enough: As long as you can still spot a single dark pixel in the middle of an illuminated white screen, the pixels could benefit from being smaller. (Edit: swapped black and white)
20/10 is rare but can easily be corrected to with glasses or contacts.
You also left that "intended viewing distance" hanging there, without at all acknowledging what that is at a minimum?
Still remember the hard time using Apple newton in a conference vs the palm freely on loan in a Gartner group conference. Palm solved a problem, even though not very Apple … user can input on a small device. I kept it, on top of my newly bought newton.
It is the user …
Or Intel calling USB4 devices and cables which meet quality and feature requirements 'Thunderbolt 5'
Compared to, say, manufacturers who aren't willing to meet any certification requirements or to properly implement the standards at play saying they have "USB-A 3.2 2x2 ports" on their motherboards.
Retina doesn't carry the same weight as an industry certification effort like thunderbolt, but it still informs people that a screen actually meets some sort of bar without them having to evaluate pages of tech specs, and reviews saying whether the tech specs are accurate or have undocumented caveats.
Finally, establishing such certifications are difficult - look at the number of failed attempts at creating industry quality/feature marks in the television market.
The term "resolution" transitioned gradually to mean number-of-individual-lines-rendered horizontally and vertically for displays, but really, the idea is how many dots can you "resolve" (or "resolving power"): a "high resolution" screen or screen mode had a larger number of individual pixels being drawn, which meant that the density is higher. You never talk about a scanner having a resolution of 7200x3600 even if it can scan 12"x6" at 600dpi.
So really, in an informal conversation, I believe both are fine. If you want to be extremely precise, you missed the mark: width and height in pixels is the sanest way to call what you refer to as "resolution".
> For device displays such as phones, tablets, monitors and televisions, the use of the term display resolution as defined above is a misnomer, though common. The term display resolution is usually used to mean pixel dimensions, the maximum number of pixels in each dimension (e.g. 1920 × 1080), which does not tell anything about the pixel density of the display on which the image is actually formed: resolution properly refers to the pixel density, the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not the total number of pixels. In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch (PPI).