I see no reason to double the screen Rez on the Air. That would be over 520 ppi. There's no point in that. But games would fly with it as it is and the faster SoC.
That's true, but an appreciable increase in ppi is in the best interests of both apple and the consumer, even amazon (they 've grown a pretty nice collection of content and devices btw, kudos) has better screens nowadays. I was thinking about doubling the res as a way to aid devs go with the least effort in updating their apps.
Ive never been a developer. I did do work for DEC at one time, programming graphics software for the VAX. But that was a long time ago, and wasn't a main thing for me.
At first, I did do the product photos for Magnum Opus. But then I was offered a partnership, because I designed soeaker systems and electronics. So I do
I'd that.
Well, an sRGB display will never have the same rendering as an Adobe RGB display. It can't. The color gamut is too small. I don't know of any serious color work that would be done on an sRGB display. HD broadcast is sRGB. But deep color is beginning to replace it. However, there are very few tv displays that can reproduce even sRGB, no matter what the price is. They're all variations of TNN, and such.
CMYK has the poorest color gamut because print, quite frankly, sucks.
Wacon is, by far, the best pro level graphics tablet. None other comes close. I've never had a problem with the regular tablets, or the Cintiq. I know a lot of people who love them. I do have hopes the iPad Pro will be even better, after some time.
Wacom is effectively the only pro level graphics tablet. That doesn't do anything to quell my irritation with poorly designed/soldered usb connections or the slight parallax and lag on the cintiqs. They are just the only reasonable option, and the market they serve isn't big enough to support multiple competitors, especially given the number of patents held by Wacom. I think Wacom may have implemented an Adobe RGB panel in one of their more recent displays, but it was all sRGB for a very long time. High quality Adobe RGB displays have only been a thing since 2010-2011. Everything before that point sucked, and Wacom usually trails them by a bit, which is understandable. For anything that requires precise judgement, you will probably still need a dedicated display aside from the touchscreen one. Also remember that the ipad pro runs ios, so the overlap with Wacom is still quite restricted.
I am going by a couple of mates I had in College always running around with some, then, uber expensive camera gear and getting laid, while I d have to chase, write letters, send flowers, get drunk, get stoned, charm, engage in long talks, plead to get any, and I was better looking than them too.
Glad to hear that's not how the industry works. One less wrong decision in my life off my back, hahaha.
Well, back then, if you had expensive gear, or what appeared to be expensive gear, and lied about what you did, to women (Do guys do that! Nah!) you might be able fool a few. But as most of the women I interacted with back then were the models I worked with, sure, we would go out. What was funny was that I knew a number of pretty famous models, having worked with them. If we were on the street together, and their height next to my 5'8" attracted attention, I'm sure people would wonder why they were with a guy like me. Jean Shrimpton, a major model, at the time, is 6' tall, with medium heels, 6'3".
There was a movie at the time, called Blowup, about a fashion photographer who took some photos, I think, in a park. Blowing them up revealed a murder, I believe it was. Ok movie, but his antics with models had people thinking that this went on all the time. We got a lot of guys trying to enter the business about then. I reviewed "portfolios" of dogs, and other junk from guys wanting to be hired as a fashion photographer. I stopped looking quickly, and told my people to stop putting them through. It's funny, now.
That movie started much of this. On the low levels, it happens.
That's true, but an appreciable increase in ppi is in the best interests of both apple and the consumer, even amazon (they 've grown a pretty nice collection of content and devices btw, kudos) has better screens nowadays. I was thinking about doubling the res as a way to aid devs go with the least effort in updating their apps.
There no benefit in it at all. It's just a marketing move. That high Rez adds nothing to the quality of the screen. It actually lowers the functionality of the device, as you need four times as much graphics memory, and a GPU that's four times as fast just to maintain the same video rates. It's a total waste of resources. It has nothing to do with color gamut, contrast, or anything.
Wacom is effectively the only pro level graphics tablet. That doesn't do anything to quell my irritation with poorly designed/soldered usb connections or the slight parallax and lag on the cintiqs. They are just the only reasonable option, and the market they serve isn't big enough to support multiple competitors, especially given the number of patents held by Wacom. I think Wacom may have implemented an Adobe RGB panel in one of their more recent displays, but it was all sRGB for a very long time. High quality Adobe RGB displays have only been a thing since 2010-2011. Everything before that point sucked, and Wacom usually trails them by a bit, which is understandable. For anything that requires precise judgement, you will probably still need a dedicated display aside from the touchscreen one. Also remember that the ipad pro runs ios, so the overlap with Wacom is still quite restricted.
They are, and they aren't perfect. But they got on top because of a far better implementation. As far as quality goes, it's not really their fault. The truth is that their tablets used to cost far more. But people simply won't pay that much. It's been that way for a while now.
I used to have Barco monitors for my color correction department. Those monitors, which were 21" 1600x1200 rez, using CRTs, cost $16,000 each. That's not a typo. They had glossy screens, and we used them in a room with no lighting, and wore black shirts so there would be no reflections. The Wacom 12x18 tablets we used cost $1,200 each. Compare that to the way people work today.
When people ask me what graphics monitor to use, and I suggest a NEC. Or Ezio, for about $1,600, they say that's too much. Too much? Those are the minimum. A really good graphics monitor costs between $7,000 and $8,000 today, now that Barco is out of the graphics business. But only the highest quality color houses will buy them.
So is the Wacom more cheaply made than they used to be? Yup. Because people won't pay what we used to pay. As the song goes: Something's gotta give. And quality suffers. People are comprising about the $99 Apple is charging for the Pencil. Man, a crappy $99 for a pro tool! I've got brushes that cost a large fraction of that.
They are, and they aren't perfect. But they got on top because of a far better implementation. As far as quality goes, it's not really their fault. The truth is that their tablets used to cost far more. But people simply won't pay that much. It's been that way for a while now.
I used to have Barco monitors for my color correction department. Those monitors, which were 21" 1600x1200 rez, using CRTs, cost $16,000 each. That's not a typo. They had glossy screens, and we used them in a room with no lighting, and wore black shirts so there would be no reflections. The Wacom 12x18 tablets we used cost $1,200 each. Compare that to the way people work today.
When people ask me what graphics monitor to use, and I suggest a NEC. Or Ezio, for about $1,600, they say that's too much. Too much? Those are the minimum. A really good graphics monitor costs between $7,000 and $8,000 today, now that Barco is out of the graphics business. But only the highest quality color houses will buy them.
So is the Wacom more cheaply made than they used to be? Yup. Because people won't pay what we used to pay. As the song goes: Something's gotta give. And quality suffers. People are comprising about the $99 Apple is charging for the Pencil. Man, a crappy $99 for a pro tool! I've got brushes that cost a large fraction of that.
Apple is at its best when it makes the very highest-end technology available to a wider consumer base. Maybe not for "everyone", but they expand what we thought was possible.
Apple is at its best when it makes the very highest-end technology available to a wider consumer base. Maybe not for "everyone", but they expand what we thought was possible.
That's exactly what Apple's all about. Apple's products are called "affordable luxury". They aren't cheap, but seem to cost more than they do, because Apple doesn't make cheap things.
The new iPad Pro is an exciting development, as the Pencil is. They keyboard, much less so, as there were things they could have done better there.
Comments
I see no reason to double the screen Rez on the Air. That would be over 520 ppi. There's no point in that. But games would fly with it as it is and the faster SoC.
That's true, but an appreciable increase in ppi is in the best interests of both apple and the consumer, even amazon (they 've grown a pretty nice collection of content and devices btw, kudos) has better screens nowadays. I was thinking about doubling the res as a way to aid devs go with the least effort in updating their apps.
Ive never been a developer. I did do work for DEC at one time, programming graphics software for the VAX. But that was a long time ago, and wasn't a main thing for me.
At first, I did do the product photos for Magnum Opus. But then I was offered a partnership, because I designed soeaker systems and electronics. So I do
I'd that.
Well, an sRGB display will never have the same rendering as an Adobe RGB display. It can't. The color gamut is too small. I don't know of any serious color work that would be done on an sRGB display. HD broadcast is sRGB. But deep color is beginning to replace it. However, there are very few tv displays that can reproduce even sRGB, no matter what the price is. They're all variations of TNN, and such.
CMYK has the poorest color gamut because print, quite frankly, sucks.
Wacon is, by far, the best pro level graphics tablet. None other comes close. I've never had a problem with the regular tablets, or the Cintiq. I know a lot of people who love them. I do have hopes the iPad Pro will be even better, after some time.
Wacom is effectively the only pro level graphics tablet. That doesn't do anything to quell my irritation with poorly designed/soldered usb connections or the slight parallax and lag on the cintiqs. They are just the only reasonable option, and the market they serve isn't big enough to support multiple competitors, especially given the number of patents held by Wacom. I think Wacom may have implemented an Adobe RGB panel in one of their more recent displays, but it was all sRGB for a very long time. High quality Adobe RGB displays have only been a thing since 2010-2011. Everything before that point sucked, and Wacom usually trails them by a bit, which is understandable. For anything that requires precise judgement, you will probably still need a dedicated display aside from the touchscreen one. Also remember that the ipad pro runs ios, so the overlap with Wacom is still quite restricted.
Well, back then, if you had expensive gear, or what appeared to be expensive gear, and lied about what you did, to women (Do guys do that! Nah!) you might be able fool a few. But as most of the women I interacted with back then were the models I worked with, sure, we would go out. What was funny was that I knew a number of pretty famous models, having worked with them. If we were on the street together, and their height next to my 5'8" attracted attention, I'm sure people would wonder why they were with a guy like me. Jean Shrimpton, a major model, at the time, is 6' tall, with medium heels, 6'3".
There was a movie at the time, called Blowup, about a fashion photographer who took some photos, I think, in a park. Blowing them up revealed a murder, I believe it was. Ok movie, but his antics with models had people thinking that this went on all the time. We got a lot of guys trying to enter the business about then. I reviewed "portfolios" of dogs, and other junk from guys wanting to be hired as a fashion photographer. I stopped looking quickly, and told my people to stop putting them through. It's funny, now.
That movie started much of this. On the low levels, it happens.
There no benefit in it at all. It's just a marketing move. That high Rez adds nothing to the quality of the screen. It actually lowers the functionality of the device, as you need four times as much graphics memory, and a GPU that's four times as fast just to maintain the same video rates. It's a total waste of resources. It has nothing to do with color gamut, contrast, or anything.
They are, and they aren't perfect. But they got on top because of a far better implementation. As far as quality goes, it's not really their fault. The truth is that their tablets used to cost far more. But people simply won't pay that much. It's been that way for a while now.
I used to have Barco monitors for my color correction department. Those monitors, which were 21" 1600x1200 rez, using CRTs, cost $16,000 each. That's not a typo. They had glossy screens, and we used them in a room with no lighting, and wore black shirts so there would be no reflections. The Wacom 12x18 tablets we used cost $1,200 each. Compare that to the way people work today.
When people ask me what graphics monitor to use, and I suggest a NEC. Or Ezio, for about $1,600, they say that's too much. Too much? Those are the minimum. A really good graphics monitor costs between $7,000 and $8,000 today, now that Barco is out of the graphics business. But only the highest quality color houses will buy them.
So is the Wacom more cheaply made than they used to be? Yup. Because people won't pay what we used to pay. As the song goes: Something's gotta give. And quality suffers. People are comprising about the $99 Apple is charging for the Pencil. Man, a crappy $99 for a pro tool! I've got brushes that cost a large fraction of that.
I reviewed "portfolios" of dogs, and other junk from guys wanting to be hired as a fashion photographer.
lmao!
They are, and they aren't perfect. But they got on top because of a far better implementation. As far as quality goes, it's not really their fault. The truth is that their tablets used to cost far more. But people simply won't pay that much. It's been that way for a while now.
I used to have Barco monitors for my color correction department. Those monitors, which were 21" 1600x1200 rez, using CRTs, cost $16,000 each. That's not a typo. They had glossy screens, and we used them in a room with no lighting, and wore black shirts so there would be no reflections. The Wacom 12x18 tablets we used cost $1,200 each. Compare that to the way people work today.
When people ask me what graphics monitor to use, and I suggest a NEC. Or Ezio, for about $1,600, they say that's too much. Too much? Those are the minimum. A really good graphics monitor costs between $7,000 and $8,000 today, now that Barco is out of the graphics business. But only the highest quality color houses will buy them.
So is the Wacom more cheaply made than they used to be? Yup. Because people won't pay what we used to pay. As the song goes: Something's gotta give. And quality suffers. People are comprising about the $99 Apple is charging for the Pencil. Man, a crappy $99 for a pro tool! I've got brushes that cost a large fraction of that.
Apple is at its best when it makes the very highest-end technology available to a wider consumer base. Maybe not for "everyone", but they expand what we thought was possible.
That's exactly what Apple's all about. Apple's products are called "affordable luxury". They aren't cheap, but seem to cost more than they do, because Apple doesn't make cheap things.
The new iPad Pro is an exciting development, as the Pencil is. They keyboard, much less so, as there were things they could have done better there.
I'm counting down to November.