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.
Thread beginning with comment 530848
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
tony
Member since:
2005-07-06

"That article is full of sour grapes, picking and choosing on stats to be overly pedantic. Trying to disprove the obvious (that new iPad screens/MacBookProR screens look amazing). And yes, some of it is the color, but a lot of it is the DPI.


Hardly. The author does not dispute the fact tha the retina displays aren't good, just superfluous. If you had actually read the article the author posits that the retina displays benefit more from the better contrast and color gamut, more than the 400% more pixels.

What's more the iPad 3 has 70% more battery capacity than the ipad2 but has 10~20% less battery life.

If apple hadn't gotten lazy by not making a proper scalable UI then they could have easily gone 1080p. Instead they're adding invisible pixels at a massive battery life cost.
"

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.

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

_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