Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 11th Aug 2012 14:31 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "I decided to write this post after having too many heated discussions with many users across many blogs. After hearing repeatedly; 'The iPad will have a better display' or 'It sucks because it's not Retina' I figured it was time to break the argument down and dispel the 'Retina' myth." Fantastic post at The Verge.
Permalink for comment 530855
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
_txf_
Member since:
2008-03-17

Just because our conclusions are different, doesn't mean I didn't read the article.

In the article, they made a big deal out of VA, trying to say a much lower resolution display is also "retina". They also dismissed the high DPI as a reason the display is gorgeous, instead saying it was the better colors.

Of course it is. If you look at it further away, then your eyes cannot distinguish the pixels. The author makes a very well reasoned case that at the average reading distance people hold their tablets the extra pixels beyond 1080p do not make the slightest difference. [/q]

He does however state that there is a Huge difference between the ipad2 and ipad3. This is not only because of colour gamut, but because the ipad2 is not "retina" at the average reading distance.

Part of their argument is that high DPI isn't worth it. I disagree. And pretty soon, when most non-Apple tablets and displays have high DPI, that argument will magically disappear.


If you read many recent high end phone review they always mention the pixel density of the various displays. They also mention that on high end phones that the differences are fairly indestiguishable despite the variations in dpi.

So expanding beyond a certain dpi is stupid. Apply probably only chose the resolution it did in the ipad3 because they backed themselves into a corner, not because 2048x1536 is massively better than say 1200 x 1020 at 10".

Reply Parent Score: 3