Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Mar 2012 22:59 UTC
Apple And it was that time of the year again - Apple held one of its product announcements. This one focussed on the iPad mostly, and while some will call it a disappointment merely because virtually everything had already been leaked, I'm still in awe over the fact the newly announced iPad has a 2048x1536 display. My mind is blown.
Thread beginning with comment 509877
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not really Retina, is it?
by gan17 on Wed 7th Mar 2012 23:18 UTC
gan17
Member since:
2008-06-03

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Apple made a big deal out of the iPhone 4/4s having 326ppi and went to great lengths to tell everyone that the human eye was unable to discern more than 300 or so ppi. They coined the term "retina" based on pixel density alone, not perceived sharpness at different viewing distances.

And now they're saying this new iPad's "measly" 264ppi is retina display spec as well, just because you hold it further away from you?!

Yeah, I agree that it's nice to have resolution better than my 40" TV or 13" laptop LCD on a 9.7" slate, and I know viewing distance plays a big part in perceived image sharpness..... but it's still inconsistent with Apple's past claims about what a retina display is supposed to be.

Edited 2012-03-07 23:19 UTC

Reply Score: 11

RE: Not really Retina, is it?
by Laurence on Wed 7th Mar 2012 23:43 in reply to "Not really Retina, is it?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Apple made a big deal out of the iPhone 4/4s having 326ppi and went to great lengths to tell everyone that the human eye was unable to discern more than 300 or so ppi. They coined the term "retina" based on pixel density alone, not perceived sharpness at different viewing distances.

And now they're saying this new iPad's "measly" 264ppi is retina display spec as well, just because you hold it further away from you?!

Yeah, I agree that it's nice to have resolution better than my 40" TV or 13" laptop LCD on a 9.7" slate, and I know viewing distance plays a big part in perceived image sharpness..... but it's still inconsistent with Apple's past claims about what a retina display is supposed to be.


I'm usually the 1st to find fault with Apple's business practices, but in fairness here, everyone makes up BS terms to sell their display-focused devices - many of who dream up far more imprecise definitions.

Whether that be "retina displays", the high def "standard" (how many resolutions are classed as "HD" these days?) or even LCD TVs that are miss-sold as "LED TVs" simply because they use LED back lights (rather than true OLED displays - which I'm guessing manufacturers are hoping consumers get muddled for). It's all just worthless jargon.

So it's really no wonder that consumers are confused when it comes to technology when the fact's that they are presented don't even hint at the true specs.

Edited 2012-03-07 23:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I knew this was the case in my head, but didn't quite do the math enough to figure that out.

It wouldn't be apple if they didn't claim something absurd that wasn't true.

Still, this is the first ipad that I would consider buying. I hope this really just drives displays into higher Pixel densities all around. I want more than 1080 on my desktop!

Edit: doesn't Apple still sell displays? Well, their top of the line display is 2560-by-1440 27 inch. Compared to the ipad's 2048x 1536. So it has all of 540,672 pixels more for all of the extra size. Upgrade that already, will you apple?

Edited 2012-03-07 23:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

I want at least 5760x3600
by Kivada on Fri 9th Mar 2012 04:07 in reply to "RE: Not really Retina, is it?"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Hopefully the next gen Cinema Displays will be 5760x3600 somewhere between 22-30" for 9x 1920x1200. I may not like Apple anymore, but I'd buy a display like that instantly.

Maybe a nice laptop at 3840x2400 at 15-18" for 4x 1920x1200?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Not really Retina, is it?
by d3vi1 on Wed 7th Mar 2012 23:53 in reply to "Not really Retina, is it?"
d3vi1 Member since:
2006-01-28

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Apple made a big deal out of the iPhone 4/4s having 326ppi and went to great lengths to tell everyone that the human eye was unable to discern more than 300 or so ppi. They coined the term "retina" based on pixel density alone, not perceived sharpness at different viewing distances.

And now they're saying this new iPad's "measly" 264ppi is retina display spec as well, just because you hold it further away from you?!

Here's the correction you're looking for: when using an iPhone you're usually holding it closer to your head than an iPad. Apple estimates that most people will hold the iPhone at a distance of 10" (25cm for normal people) and an iPad at 15" (38cm).
I can say that I mostly agree as I usually hold my iPhone at almost 35cm and my iPad at roughly 40cm, but their point is still valid.

At 330dpi a pixel is 0.077mm wide so the width of a pixel would be 0.0176470995˚(degrees) at 25cm. At 264dpi a pixel is 0.096mm so the width of a pixel would be 0.0144747229˚(degrees) at 38cm. As such, the pixels seem even smaller on an iPad3 (if you use Apple's math). I assume they should look about the same at the distances I use. My math might be wrong, but it's been ages since I needed trigonometry.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: Not really Retina, is it?
by No it isnt on Wed 7th Mar 2012 23:56 in reply to "Not really Retina, is it?"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Yes, but it's still great news. I've always wanted better resolution, and when the rest of the industry starts following, that's what we'll get. Hopefully for 22" plus desktop monitors as well. I've noticed a sharp decline in the price of IPS panels lately.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Not really Retina, is it?
by kovacm on Thu 8th Mar 2012 08:36 in reply to "Not really Retina, is it?"
kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Apple made a big deal out of the iPhone 4/4s having 326ppi and went to great lengths to tell everyone that the human eye was unable to discern more than 300 or so ppi. They coined the term "retina" based on pixel density alone, not perceived sharpness at different viewing distances.


FUD!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohMgjabfiUM 7:10

"It turns out that there’s a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch that when you hold something around 10 or 12 inches from your eyes is the limit of the human retina to differentiate… and at 326 pixels per inch we are comfortably over that limit."

Steve Jobs 14. Jun 2010 at WWDC

Reply Parent Score: 2

gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

So, are you saying it's me or Mr Jobs that's spreading the "FUD" ?

Thanks for the vid link, btw.

Reply Parent Score: 3

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

sorry 10-12 inches is way too close. More typical is likely 18 inches or more. For young kids the extra rez might matter. I personally don't notice the difference and wouldn't pick this tablet over a 1080p or even 1280x800 just for resolution.

A buddy of mine in the early 2000s had one of those tiny sony winows machines with the insane resolution. I frankly couldn't make out jack without squinting at it.

Edited 2012-03-08 22:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Not really Retina, is it?
by dsmogor on Fri 9th Mar 2012 21:37 in reply to "Not really Retina, is it?"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I think this comes from observation that on usual you keep tables at longer distances that the phone.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Not really Retina, is it?
by earksiinni on Sat 10th Mar 2012 18:19 in reply to "Not really Retina, is it?"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

300 dpi is the golden number in the printing business, so I, too, am disappointed. The implication was that computer screens would finally be as sharp as print.

Of course, in reality I think it's not that simple. Ink dots bleed into each other but pixels will always remain discrete.

Reply Parent Score: 2

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

You're comparing a physical DPI to a relative DPI. Big difference.

Apple's "Retina Display" is a marketing term, meaning "DPI at which you can no longer see individual pixels when viewed at a "normal" distance". Look up the Trademark entry, the Patent, etc. Everything relating to the "Retina Display" term deals with relative DPI, based on the "normal" viewing distance of the device (which is different for an iPhone and an iPad).

While it would be nice to have a physical DPI over 300 on a computer screen (regardless of the screen size), it has 0 bearing on the "Retina Display" trademark.

Reply Parent Score: 2