First look: Apple's new third-generation iPad with Retina display

17810121316

Comments

  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    Just curious...



    Any others seeing an unusual amount of 'screen bleeding' in the corners/edges of their 'new' iPads ?



    I'm on the second one that suffers from it pretty badly, especially when compared to my GT 7.7's SAMOLED+ display (which has absolutely none).



    I have to tell you, you do need to polish up on those Photoshop skills. The image is doctored. If you sample the color values of the frames of the devices, not the actual screen region, the bezel, they both should be black however the iPad frame measures RGB (16 5 17) where the Tab measures RGB (1 0 2) making it much more black. This fact alone would lead one to suspect that the iPad image has been lightened artificially. Furthermore the whites on the two images are different, again showing that they are retouched images. And finally the iPad image is out of focus. Bottom line: both images are doctored to make the Tab blacker and the iPad lighter. Even the text you typed (in Copperplate, yuck) has different anti aliasing and color. Nice try.



    It may be true that the Tab is blacker but there is no need to misrepresent it. Besides, black is not an approved Apple color. Once you visit Apple.com with all the light open white space and soft grays, sharp bright colors, black is not so important. If you are into dark black stick with a Tab.



    BTW How did you manage to already get a return and replacement on launch day?
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    Just curious...



    Any others seeing an unusual amount of 'screen bleeding' in the corners/edges of their 'new' iPads ?



    I'm on the second one that suffers from it pretty badly, especially when compared to my GT 7.7's SAMOLED+ display (which has absolutely none).



    image: http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/2...avssamoled.jpg



    So besides using a doctored photo your argument is that AMOLED is blacker than LCD? Hold the fucking presses!!
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    BTW How did you manage to already get a return and replacement on launch day?



    I replaced mine. Received my 32GB iPad from FedEx just before noon and then walked down to the Apple Store (it's a block away) to exchange it for 64GB model. There was no line when I got there but that wouldn't have mattered since I wasn't a "new" buyer.



    Behind the Genius Bar they had hundreds stacked up. I assume each of the stacks was a different SKU but I can't be certain. When I left 5 minutes later there were about 10 people lined up between the wall and stanchions.



    In fact, they had so many in store units I will likely not pre-order my iPhone this year.
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    I see two major things happening on a large scale within the next 12 months:



    1) all online and web sites will be reworked to exploit the new iPad retina display -- why settle for anything less?



    How do we rework the website to exploit iPad retina?



    Many sites use CSS specified in pixels. The iPad has to take into account what the size of something is in 72 pixels per inch in order to scale it to the proper size even though it has a higher pixel density. The text will render much sharper but website builders cannot use higher resolution images embedded in the page or it will throw the layout off. Sure you can link to a higher res image directly which would leverage the iPad screen res, but that is just an image not a website.



    There are also some CSS bugs in Mobile Safari versus Desktop Safari with respect to specifying 'em' instead of 'px'. In either case it is the same situation we have had all along where designers need to develop multiple code bases for different devices which costs money, so I don't see people deciding to build a desktop, a mobile , and yet another iPad retina site. iPad will continue to use the regular site for awhile.
  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,303member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    So besides using a doctored photo your argument is that AMOLED is blacker than LCD? Hold the fucking presses!!



    Not only that both tablets are the same size and aspect ratio



    Black is the absence of light... A poor job of doctoring images to prove a point -- is the absence of sense.



  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,596member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    It's at 100% with Auto Adjust turned off. The iPad has never been as bright as I'd like.



    I don't know anyone who uses at close to that level.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,596member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by uguysrnuts View Post


    Well I guess my problem is gaming with IB2 extensively on the iPhone 4 and 4S. Yes, antialising has improved, but at the expense of details.



    I don't have any pic, but fire up IB2 on iPhone 4/4S and iPad (3rd Gen). You will notice that although the scenery definitely improved, the game characters themselves seem stuck in the previous resolution. Texture on the characters on iPhone is incredible next to the iPad. The HUD icons also looks washed out.



    Modern Combat 3 is even worse- the characters look like they were blown up from iPhone resolution. However, this is probably more about Gameloft putting make up on a pig (their characters tend to be look crude).



    I don't think it's the limitation of the device. I can definitely see the difference on retina native apps (non games). Hopefully, the developers release another update to bump up the resolution on the characters as well. Maybe they were being cautious that the games would slow down tremendously.



    I can't wait for IB Dungeons to be released to see if the retina screen would be fully exploited by then. The new iPad's competition is the bar set by iPhone. I want my game characters to look as sharp and gorgeous on both devices.



    That's two different things you're talking about. One is aliasing, and the other is higher Rez images. The aliasing is markedly reduced, and that's what we're originally talking about. The resolution may be the same so far. But they popped this new update out pretty fast, so that's to be expected. It does look much better when comparing both screens together at the same time.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,596member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    How do we rework the website to exploit iPad retina?



    Many sites use CSS specified in pixels. The iPad has to take into account what the size of something is in 72 pixels per inch in order to scale it to the proper size even though it has a higher pixel density. The text will render much sharper but website builders cannot use higher resolution images embedded in the page or it will throw the layout off. Sure you can link to a higher res image directly which would leverage the iPad screen res, but that is just an image not a website.



    There are also some CSS bugs in Mobile Safari versus Desktop Safari with respect to specifying 'em' instead of 'px'. In either case it is the same situation we have had all along where designers need to develop multiple code bases for different devices which costs money, so I don't see people deciding to build a desktop, a mobile , and yet another iPad retina site. iPad will continue to use the regular site for awhile.



    Some reviewers have already said, such as The Virge, that they would now have to upgrade their sites. So apparently, there is the recognition that something must be done.
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Napoleon_PhoneApart View Post


    There's always room for cello!





    Had to Google that one. Glad I did! Thanks!



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UpHbVi2P_g
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Some reviewers have already said, such as The Virge, that they would now have to upgrade their sites. So apparently, there is the recognition that something must be done.



    Maybe Apple has invented some tags we can use to toggle images. Normally you do not want to scale images in the web page because it causes the browser to resample the image on the fly which they all suck at. If you put a high res image in a page and then scale it in the html it looks like crap.
  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,303member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    How do we rework the website to exploit iPad retina?



    Many sites use CSS specified in pixels. The iPad has to take into account what the size of something is in 72 pixels per inch in order to scale it to the proper size even though it has a higher pixel density. The text will render much sharper but website builders cannot use higher resolution images embedded in the page or it will throw the layout off. Sure you can link to a higher res image directly which would leverage the iPad screen res, but that is just an image not a website.



    There are also some CSS bugs in Mobile Safari versus Desktop Safari with respect to specifying 'em' instead of 'px'. In either case it is the same situation we have had all along where designers need to develop multiple code bases for different devices which costs money, so I don't see people deciding to build a desktop, a mobile , and yet another iPad retina site. iPad will continue to use the regular site for awhile.



    You are, of course, correct... a web developer would need to detect an iPad with retina then serve pages customized to exploit the pixel density.



    It certainly is extra work.



    Consider, though, why people develop openly-accessable web sites... to attract hits and hold onto users!



    I suspect that several innovative site designs will emerge that will attract hits by delivering a better user experience by catering to the iPad retina display -- things like:
    • bigger controls/slide-outs for easier navigation

    • full screen mode for better user immersion

    • larger/more readable text

    • higher quality images

    • higher quality video

    • better overall user experience

    There already are some sites that tailor their presentation to:
    • downloadable touch app

    • touch-optimzed browser presentation

    • normal browser presentation

    For example, visit week.com on an iPad, iPhone and computer.



    http://www.eweek.com/



    They do a nice job for an iPad (or other tablets?) but they could take it to a whole 'nother level for a retina display.



    I suspect that Apple could enhance the Safari implementation of webkit to allow web pages to exploit iPad hardware and iOS features -- including retina, graphics, animation, AirPlay, etc. Then, offer these enhancements as part of the webkit standard -- so other browser's could exploit them.



    My point is that if there is an advantage to tailoring a website to specific hardware that is very popular (tens of millions of active compatible devices) -- likely, many web sites will choose to do it.



    For example, what if Yahoo Maps and/or Mapquest does an immersive map site for iPad and iPad retina... and Google Maps continues with the same old, same old... which one would you use?



  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I don't know anyone who uses at close to that level.



    You know at least one.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,596member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Maybe Apple has invented some tags we can use to toggle images. Normally you do not want to scale images in the web page because it causes the browser to resample the image on the fly which they all suck at. If you put a high res image in a page and then scale it in the html it looks like crap.



    I can't say, as I haven't done this for several years, but I assume something can be done, and they seem to be acknowledging it.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,596member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    You know at least one.



    But do I really KNOW you?
  • multimediamultimedia Posts: 849member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    Which sound terribly inefficient, and could/should be rather upsetting to owners of the lower-capacity iPod Touch, iPhone 4, and iPad/iPad2, as the 8gb versions of the first two only provide about 6.5gb of free space, and 16gb version only about 13.8gb.



    Hopefully Apple comes up with a way in which installations can be 'intelligent' enough to recognize the specific device in use, and forego installing all those completely unnecessary/space-hogging app assets.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post


    So where's the rest of the article Dan? I expected pages 2 and 3. Anyway good to read a few preliminary words on the ipad. I can't wait to get my hands on this baby, retina display with sharp text is a dream come true for me, shame on the storage though because apple arguably could and should have offered more.



    Yes 16 is now a pathetic size, 32 is the new 16 and 64 is the new 32. I'm guessing Apple had to make a trade off on the smaller supply of 64GB storage modules - choosing to use them all in the 64GB iPhone 4S vs using two of them in 128GB iPads which I was expecting to be able to buy for perhaps $1029. I figure a $200 premium for an additional 64 is worth it. But I guess Apple makes even more off each one of those in a 64GB iPhone 4S that might otherwise go into short supply if those modules were partially diverted to the new iPads. So it looks like we'll have to figure out how to manage on the same old 64GB that filled up our first two iPads in no time at all even sooner than we did these first two years. That is the one (missing) spec that really bummed me out about this new iPad. Of course I ordered a Black AT&T 64 anyway.
  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,303member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Maybe Apple has invented some tags we can use to toggle images. Normally you do not want to scale images in the web page because it causes the browser to resample the image on the fly which they all suck at. If you put a high res image in a page and then scale it in the html it looks like crap.



    I haven't really done any web page design since 2001... so my currency is limited.



    What if you had a new, more flexible <image> tag implementation -- similar to the <video> tag.



    Say, you detect a retina device and:
    1. present/download the tailored high res image to the browser device -- where it can be scaled by the browser using the GPUs

    2. present/download a preferred medium or lower res image for immediate display, while the higher res images are downloaded in the background by a hidden frame (likely, a user browser option to prevent or allow this)

    3. Have a scalable (pinch zoom) page including a scalable image display area that holds the full res image that can be panned and zoomed itself. If done on the server the image zooming would, likely, need to be restricted to a few, predetermined, fixed sizes -- then the server would only need to serve the appropriate-sized tiles as the image is panned.

  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,303member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    But do I really KNOW you?



    How could you...



    Sol only believes in the existence of self



    solipsism |ˈsälipˌsizəm| noun

    the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.



  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    But do I really KNOW you?



    I guess one could ask if we really ever know anyone, but after chatting with you for many years I certainly know things about you. I don't know what you look like but that's mostly irrelevant to knowing someone. You know plenty of things about me as well, including my real name (assuming you paid attention).



    In regards to tech, politics, etc. I'm certain you have a pretty good idea how I and many others here will likely respond to a given topic even before we do. I don't think you can not get to know someone after years of discourse. Internet forums can be like pen pals of yesteryear except exercised in a collective.



    So yes, you do know me.
  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,303member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Multimedia View Post


    Yes 16 is now a pathetic size, 32 is the new 16 and 64 is the new 32. I'm guessing Apple had to make a trade off on the smaller supply of 64GB storage modules - choosing to use them all in the 64GB iPhone 4S vs using two of them in 128GB iPads which I was expecting to be able to buy for perhaps $1029. I figure a $200 premium for an additional 64 is worth it. But I guess Apple makes even more off each one of those in a 64GB iPhone 4S that might otherwise go into short supply if those modules were partially diverted to the new iPads. So it looks like we'll have to figure out how to manage on the same old 64GB that filled up our first two iPads in no time at all even sooner than we did these first two years. That is the one (missing) spec that really bummed me out about this new iPad. Of course I ordered a Black AT&T 64 anyway.



    I was under the impression that Apple was changing the packaging of iDevice apps so that components that were targeted at a specific screen size or resolution were packaged in separate modules that could be included or eliminated at install time...
    • base code

    • 3.5" display components

    • 9.7" display components

    • 3.5" display components standard res

    • 3.5" display components retina res

    • 9.7" display components standard res

    • 9.7" display components retina res

    For example a Universal app would only download (from the app store to the device) the components needed for that specific device type. Later, when the device syncs to local iTunes and copies the app from the app to iTunes, the entire Universal package is downloaded (for other [any] device types) whenever the local iTunes connects to iTunes store.



    I just checked, and this does not appear to be implemented for Apple's latest iWork and iLife apps.



    I wonder if I misunderstood something I read -- or am just jumping the gun...



    Maybe a natural feature for iOS 6!



  • relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    That is GOOD satire!



    Well he has a point, you can install Ubuntu on it for goodness sakes. Plus now with the ICS available it's actually a nice tablet for media consumption and surfing. Well that is if you don't live in iTunes for your media. You can plug it into any computer, let it be an Apple, Windows, Linux, Solaris or even another tablet it mounts itself as a drive. So you can simply drag your media files over without going threw the hassle of syncin with iTunes or any other annoying program. You can play every conceivable codec on it without having to buy any additinal apps. Which most that you buy still don't play every codec so you have to buy at least 3 to match the capabilties of ICS. I'm talking media here nothing else so don't get mad at me.



    If I only had two hundred dollars in my pocket the Touchpad is a very good choice. A person would be very happy with it. Sure it's not a Apple but it's still a very worthy and versatile tablet. I do know one thing for a fact your average Touchpad user is a lot more computer savy then your average Apple user so you can't call them idiots.
Sign In or Register to comment.