AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › First look: Apple's new third-generation iPad with Retina display
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

First look: Apple's new third-generation iPad with Retina display - Page 7

post #241 of 304
3/17/12 at 9:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post

I am quite impressed with the new iPhoto app. Here's an example of some before and after shots I took on my new iPad. The combination of iPhoto's image editing capabilities and the iPad improved built-in camera make this device a very desirable experience!



Wow...

Nice retouch work... Especially listening brush on the cat!

Soon, most of that will be doable with automatic color correction.
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #242 of 304
3/17/12 at 9:21pm
[QUOTE=Dick Applebaum;2075181]
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post

I am quite impressed with the new iPhoto app. Here's an example of some before and after shots I took on my new iPad. The combination of iPhoto's image editing capabilities and the iPad improved built-in camera make this device a very desirable experience!


Wow...

Nice retouch work... Especially listening brush on the cat!

Soon, most of that will be doable with automatic color correction.

Have you used the new iPhoto app yet? It is so fun to use!
Reply
Reply
post #243 of 304
3/17/12 at 9:34pm
[QUOTE=tyler82;2075186]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


Have you used the new iPhoto app yet? It is so fun to use!

Yeah... But I am a total dufas artistically...
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #244 of 304
3/17/12 at 10:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So besides using a doctored photo your argument is that ... blah...blah...blah

You Know... All of the pathetic, rude, and hostile Apple apologists on this site you two two truly take the prize for the worst.

FACT: In no way, shape or form were either of those photos 'doctored', and I challenge you to scientifically PROVE that they were.

Anyway... The truth is, the new iPad(s) that I've now tried each have very obvious 'screen bleeding' issues, something I find completely unacceptable in an 'allegedly' state-of-the-art modern tablet device costing almost US 900.00.

Pictured are the third new iPad that I've tried/purchased, along with my Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, just as they were taken by the camera, and the new iPad exhibits almost the exact same 'screen bleeding' as the previous two did.

"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #245 of 304
3/18/12 at 2:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The app you downloaded was a phone app, not a tablet app. Make sure you read about what you're downloading. The store makes it clear whether it's a phone app, a tablet app, or works properly with both.

It's better the way Apple does it. What I hate about WP7 is when I try to scroll a screen I'm typing into, if I'm not careful, the keyboard goes away. Very annoying.

Yeah, it woul be nice to have a trial version. But it's not that big a deal, really. It's nice to have a real free app that doesn't go away after some time as many of those trial apps do.

Free is free. I don't know what you're talking about. You seem to have gotten it backwards. A trial app isn't really free, but a free app is. You don't have to buy the paid version. That an app with more features, which is why it's a paid app. With free apps, if the features are enough, you don't need to buy the paid version at all. If not, then you've got a pretty good idea as to how the paid version will work.

Are you sure you really got an iPad? You don't have to double tap the home button. That was some time ago. You use four or five fingers and swipe up to pick any open app. Pretty easy.

No it was an iPad app, listed in the iPad section. To be specific it's called mahjong!!! And has 2356 ratings. What was interesting was the touch points were in the right place on the screen but the image only filled the bottom left corner. Only app I've seen it on so far and it is down to the dev using pixels rather than what apple say to use.

Free being free is also not true, if you search for need for speed there is need for speed hot pursuit and a lite version. The lite is essentially a trial for the paid version. I'd rather just have one app that if I want to keep I pay for. Alternatively if you search for some sudoku games there are some that are free but only have a few boards in them, after that it's an in app purchase, but you can't see how much there going to cost without going into each one. If an app ultimately charges you money then it's not free is it.

Thanks for the tip on the switching app. I would never have found that! Apple should really include something to tell people what the gestures are. Everyone I meet that has one I ask if they know how to split the keyboard in 2 so that you can use just thumbs and out of 9 people so far 0 have known how to do it! And the only reasoning know was because my 4 month old daughter did it once.
Reply
Reply
post #246 of 304
3/18/12 at 2:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There's a lot of problems with Metro. For example, after some time of buying apps, we found that we were having too many screens of them. We called for folders for organizational purposes. Because the OS is app centric, that wasn't a problem for Apple, and they complied with our requests (so much for them never listening!). But Metro isn't app centric, it's organized around functions. The problem with that is as you obtain more apps, you have to scroll. There is no way that it can accept folders without hiding those functions. That goes against the entire concept of what they're doing.

So if they do that, they will have to change the OS so that it works more like Android and iOS. If they do that, then what's the point of buying it?

Right now, there is no way to avoid scrolling down lists either. With iOS and Android, you can have those small letters on the right side you can tap. Nothing like that in WP7. We can also type a few letters, but often that's even more work. Depends on the length of the list.

Also, when you have open apps in Metro, you have to swipe screen after screen to see which ones are open. There's no way to use a gesture as we can in iOs to pull up a list on the bottom.

On WP7 you have jump lists to avoid scrolling down a list, there a lot easier and quicker than the small letters in ios. Also I don't see why you couldn't have the same folders functionality that iOS has in metro. For wp7 at least there just isn't the need as you have an app list with a jump list and a live tile screen which ultimately won't ever have to many tiles.

Win 8 has the same open app list that iOS has except its a tap in the top left and they show the open app on the left hand side rather than bottom.
Reply
Reply
post #247 of 304
3/18/12 at 5:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

You Know... All of the pathetic, rude, and hostile Apple apologists on this site you two two truly take the prize for the worst.

FACT: In no way, shape or form were either of those photos 'doctored', and I challenge you to scientifically PROVE that they were.

Anyway... The truth is, the new iPad(s) that I've now tried each have very obvious 'screen bleeding' issues, something I find completely unacceptable in an 'allegedly' state-of-the-art modern tablet device costing almost US 900.00.

Pictured are the third new iPad that I've tried/purchased, along with my Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, just as they were taken by the camera, and the new iPad exhibits almost the exact same 'screen bleeding' as the previous two did.


I'll say it again I just love my Samsung 7.7 tablet. It's one of the only ones I would buy from them at the moment but I guess every company deserves one decent tablet in their line up. Man those colours, the brightness, big bucket of win.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #248 of 304
3/18/12 at 7:11am
I went and bought the new ipad, since the screen update was the big thing that I've been wanting from the beginning, and I agree that the black levels need some work. While they're far better than my laptop, they're still a far cry from my Samsung TV. In terms of black levels, Samsung really knows what they're doing with their screens.

Still, the resolution is very nice. A resolution fine enough to not see individual pixels normally (aside from things like rounded corners, that emphasize them) is a huge improvement to any screen. I'm quite happy with it so far.
Reply
Reply
post #249 of 304
3/18/12 at 7:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

I'll say it again I just love my Samsung 7.7 tablet.

Any AMOLED screen will by definition always have much better black levels than any LCD ever will have, IPS or not. That's part of the technological advance of OLEDs.

I'd love the new iPad to have a 2048x1536 SuperAMOLED screen.
Alas that is technically not possible yet.
OLEDs with such a high pixel density have not yet been produced in 10" sizes from what I read. These densities exist only in tiny viewfinder sizes.

Even if we go back to 1024x768, there is currently no manufacturer in the world, not even Samsung, who could produce an OLED screen in numbers needed for an iPad.
Only because Samsung sells few tablets, comparatively, can they go with OLED screens. And those few probably already max out their yields.

Also there is still very little experience data in regards to the fading of OLEDs. OLED elements grow dimmer over time, depending on the hours of usage. And unfortunately different RGB elements die at different rates, blue ones dying first, green last.
Depending on use and environment temperature, could very well be that those 7.7 Samsung tablets will have noticeably dimmer images with slightly distorted colors in 2-3 years time. Although one could argue by that time one has replaced the unit...

I hope we will get there soon, but for now Apple had not much choice with regards to the screen technology they could use.
IPS was as good as it gets in the quantities they need.
Reply
Reply
post #250 of 304
3/18/12 at 9:05am
Hi Guys and Gals, I am reposting here for those interested in SuperHD aka Retina iBooks and Keynote. Some of the newcomers to this thread may not have seen our previous predictions, which is now, fact.

The reason is because the mockups I made work EXACTLY AS INTENDED on iPad Retina. It's pretty amazing. Keynote and iBooks on iPad Retina is "blow-away stuff".

iBooks ~ As predicted by various people

Load the following original images generated natively from iBooks Author on your iPad Retina vs iPad:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21386792/high_res_01.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21386792/high_res_02.png

iPad 2


iPad Retina


Keynote ~ As predicted by various people

Load the following original images generated natively from Keynote '09 on your iPad Retina vs iPad:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21386792/hig...ote_01.001.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21386792/hig...ote_01.002.png
Generated natively from Keynote '09 on Mac.

Note that the first slide has super-crisp text and vector elements.
In the second slide, we are able to display two 720p videos on one slide.
Note Keynote '09 Mac and Keynote iPad formats are quite different.
But you get the idea.
Reply
Reply
post #251 of 304
3/18/12 at 10:06am
To add to sunilraman's post.


While it's nice to have a higher resolution for crisper Latin character texts, I find that especiallly with non-Latin texts this is actually vital.


Here's a mockup I had done for the iPad 2 and new iPad (it did look exactly like that in my real-world test). It uses 132 and 264 dpi with a zoom factor chosen so that the US Letter sized PDF fills the screen.


While the iPad 2's English text is still somewhat readable, the Chinese characters are reduced to a pixel mush. Pretty much unreadable.

On the new iPad the very same text, at the very same zoom level is completely readable, including the Chinese characters.
What a change!


Or in other words:
On the iPad 2 I was forced constantly to zoom in / zoom out to read the text.
On the new iPad zooming is no longer necessary at all.

Reply
Reply
post #252 of 304
3/18/12 at 10:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post

To add to sunilraman's post.


While it's nice to have a higher resolution for crisper Latin character texts, I find that especiallly with non-Latin texts this is actually vital.


Here's a mockup I had done for the iPad 2 and new iPad (it did look exactly like that in my real-world test). It uses 132 and 264 dpi with a zoom factor chosen so that the US Letter sized PDF fills the screen.


While the iPad 2's English text is still somewhat readable, the Chinese characters are reduced to a pixel mush. Pretty much unreadable.

On the new iPad the very same text, at the very same zoom level is completely readable, including the Chinese characters. What a change!


Or in other words:
on the iPad 2 I was forced constantly to zoom in and zoom out to read the text. On the iPad 3 zooming is no longer necessary at all.

image: http://homepage.mac.com/bauer/AppleInsider/Kanji.gif

That makes me wonder if one of Apple's primary focus for the Retina Display ASAP was geared toward non-Western markets.

"Goodbyeee…"

Reply

"Goodbyeee…"

Reply
post #253 of 304
3/18/12 at 10:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I have no idea when this changed but I hated the lack of thought put into the iPad 2's original camera app. Since it's typically held in two hands on the side having the shutter button bottom center was a poor decision. I'm glad to see they moved it at some point.


iPad 2 camera app


I used the camera on the 2 exactly once. Haven't tried it on this one yet. Still happy with the one on the 4S. If Apple can come up with a 3:1 optical zoom that fits, it will definitely kill everything up to $200 in the camera market.
Reply
Reply
post #254 of 304
3/18/12 at 10:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Was it 9.7" and black?

Oh no you didn't!

Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #255 of 304
3/18/12 at 10:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

No it was an iPad app, listed in the iPad section. To be specific it's called mahjong!!! And has 2356 ratings. What was interesting was the touch points were in the right place on the screen but the image only filled the bottom left corner. Only app I've seen it on so far and it is down to the dev using pixels rather than what apple say to use.

Free being free is also not true, if you search for need for speed there is need for speed hot pursuit and a lite version. The lite is essentially a trial for the paid version. I'd rather just have one app that if I want to keep I pay for. Alternatively if you search for some sudoku games there are some that are free but only have a few boards in them, after that it's an in app purchase, but you can't see how much there going to cost without going into each one. If an app ultimately charges you money then it's not free is it.

Thanks for the tip on the switching app. I would never have found that! Apple should really include something to tell people what the gestures are. Everyone I meet that has one I ask if they know how to split the keyboard in 2 so that you can use just thumbs and out of 9 people so far 0 have known how to do it! And the only reasoning know was because my 4 month old daughter did it once.

Which Mahjong app it it exactly? I have four. I'll buy this to check it out myself. I've got over 350 apps, and I've never seen that happen.

In app purchasing has proven to be VERY popular. VERY! So people like that. It's certainly not a negative.

You can also switch between apps by swiping with four or five fingers sideways, and then you go to the next app directly. Forgot that one before.
Reply
Reply
post #256 of 304
3/18/12 at 10:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

On WP7 you have jump lists to avoid scrolling down a list, there a lot easier and quicker than the small letters in ios. Also I don't see why you couldn't have the same folders functionality that iOS has in metro. For wp7 at least there just isn't the need as you have an app list with a jump list and a live tile screen which ultimately won't ever have to many tiles.

Win 8 has the same open app list that iOS has except its a tap in the top left and they show the open app on the left hand side rather than bottom.

The jump list helps, but I don't find it to be as easy or nearly as useful if you have a lot of stuff. Of course, right now, there isn't a lot of stuff.
Reply
Reply
post #257 of 304
3/18/12 at 10:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsilver View Post

I went and bought the new ipad, since the screen update was the big thing that I've been wanting from the beginning, and I agree that the black levels need some work. While they're far better than my laptop, they're still a far cry from my Samsung TV. In terms of black levels, Samsung really knows what they're doing with their screens.

Still, the resolution is very nice. A resolution fine enough to not see individual pixels normally (aside from things like rounded corners, that emphasize them) is a huge improvement to any screen. I'm quite happy with it so far.

It's true that black levels on an AMOLED will be zero. They would have to be. But the colors are unrealistic. This is something that's been confirmed in every review as well as every scientific test. They are also much dimmer than a modern LED backlit LCD display, often only one third to one half as bright. They seem bright because of the black, but in reality, they are not.

In addition, they use power like crazy, which is why MS, for example, uses so much black and single color areas in their UI, along with those thin stroke white fonts on dark, or black backgrounds, which gets so much criticism. AMOLED models also have lacked good battery life.

So for a better black, you get more negatives. Not thrilled by any of that. The blacks on IPS screens is fine, as is the viewing angle. The truth is that you really don't notice the lack of true black unless you look directly at the black glass. On a white model, the blacks look total. Would I like it even blacker? Sure, but it's a more minor problem than the ones you get with current AMOLEDS.
Reply
Reply
post #258 of 304
3/18/12 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

A little off subject here but do you think Apple is slowly converging iOS with OSX like what Microsoft is doing with their desktop and mobile OS. If so do you think that is a good thing? Will we see a smarter phone/tablet OS and a dumber desktop OS, well not dumber just more iOSified, so yea dumber.

I am the oldest person in my office. Yet I am the only person there capable of dealing with multiple types of OS (various versions of Win7 and XP - don't ask) installed across many different devices and a great age range of both genders.

In short, I spend way too much of my time attempting to explain the most basic computer functions to people who, for the most part, do not wish to learn how it really works, then just want it to work THEIR way.

Now if this office consisted of Apple products only, my "job" would be incredibly easy. Instead it is more of a dreaded nightmare. I would much rather be spending all my time on my "real" job of helping clients.

There are days when I just feel like retirement is the only answer where I will find some peace/
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #259 of 304
3/18/12 at 10:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I used the camera on the 2 exactly once. Haven't tried it on this one yet. Still happy with the one on the 4S. If Apple can come up with a 3:1 optical zoom that fits, it will definitely kill everything up to $200 in the camera market.

I don't know anything about camera optics, but is it possible to increase the zoom with lenses and mirrors within the case -- nothing protruding from the back of the iPad?
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #260 of 304
3/18/12 at 10:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post

To add to sunilraman's post.


While it's nice to have a higher resolution for crisper Latin character texts, I find that especiallly with non-Latin texts this is actually vital.


Here's a mockup I had done for the iPad 2 and new iPad (it did look exactly like that in my real-world test). It uses 132 and 264 dpi with a zoom factor chosen so that the US Letter sized PDF fills the screen.


While the iPad 2's English text is still somewhat readable, the Chinese characters are reduced to a pixel mush. Pretty much unreadable.

On the new iPad the very same text, at the very same zoom level is completely readable, including the Chinese characters.
What a change!


Or in other words:
On the iPad 2 I was forced constantly to zoom in / zoom out to read the text.
On the new iPad zooming is no longer necessary at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That makes me wonder if one of Apple's primary focus for the Retina Display ASAP was geared toward non-Western markets.

I'm finding the screen to be so good, that I can actually forget it's a computer screen. The smallest type that I could ever hope to read just based on the size is now not only legible, meaning, for those who don't know what that really means, that it can be read, but uncomfortably, but readable, meaning can be done with little effort for a long while.

I noticed that first on my iPhone 4, where reading 4 point type became, amazingly, easy to read, whereas in a well printed magazine, it would be almost impossible. I would say that 5 point type is about equal on the new iPad. That's better than life.
Reply
Reply
post #261 of 304
3/18/12 at 10:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm finding the screen to be so good, that I can actually forget it's a computer screen. The smallest type that I could ever hope to read just based on the size is now not only legible, meaning, for those who don't know what that really means, that it can be read, but uncomfortably, but readable, meaning can be done with little effort for a long while.

I noticed the first on my iPhone 4, where reading 4 point type became, amazingly, easy to read, whereas in a well printed magazine, it would be almost impossible. I would say that 5 point type is about equal on the new iPad. That's better than life.

?
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #262 of 304
3/18/12 at 10:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That makes me wonder if one of Apple's primary focus for the Retina Display ASAP was geared toward non-Western markets.

Wow! Being an "ugly American", I hadn't even considered that...

AFAICT, this puts the iPad in a class apart from any other device -- think of the potential for education or medical uses, alone...

Also, you may have uncovered the major justification of a low price 16 GB retina iPad...
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #263 of 304
3/18/12 at 10:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I don't know anything about camera optics, but is it possible to increase the zoom with lenses and mirrors within the case -- nothing protruding from the back of the iPad?

There is such a thing as "folded optics". Just like in magic acts, it's done with mirrors. Have you ever wondered how DLP sets could be thin? My 61" Samsing is only 12" thick in the middle, at the bottom, thinning out to about 1.5" at the edges.

So optics could have a component that faces out, as it does now, and using a mirror or two, bend the light 90 degrees to the sensor, or to even more optics. Use a parabolic, or perhaps an aspheric mirror, and you can further focus the light. It's certainly doable. I've had various pieces of equipment that worked that way. But it's expensive, and would take more room in the phone.

Depends on how serious Apple is about this. They keep hiring more engineers in optics, sensors and processors, so it seems they are very serious.
Reply
Reply
post #264 of 304
3/18/12 at 10:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


Wow! Being an "ugly American", I hadn't even considered that...

AFAICT, this puts the iPad in a class apart from any other device -- think of the potential for education or medical uses, alone...

Also, you may have uncovered the major justification of a low price 16 GB retina iPad...

Sol is right. I've been thinking about that as well, as I have dealings with some Korean sites for which I did some work for several years ago, but like keeping in touch with me. Asian characters are so complex, I've often wondered how they can read that in newspapers, as the ones I've seen have such small type. On web sites, the type can become unusable. This screen changes that, as does my 27" monitor. But this is better, because no one, unless they have impaired sight, wants to view a web page across an entire 24" or 27" screen width.
Reply
Reply
post #265 of 304
3/18/12 at 10:59am
[QUOTE=tyler82;2075186]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


Have you used the new iPhoto app yet? It is so fun to use!

The iPhoto app is unusably slow with a large library. It's horrid.
Reply
Reply
post #266 of 304
3/18/12 at 11:02am
[QUOTE=tonton;2075374]
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post


The iPhoto app is unusably slow with a large library. It's horrid.

You keep a huge photo library on your iPad? Why? I find that if they're arranged in albums, the speed increases.
Reply
Reply
post #267 of 304
3/18/12 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There is such a thing as "folded optics". Just like in magic acts, it's done with mirrors. Have you ever wondered how DLP sets could be thin? My 61" Samsing is only 12" thick in the middle, at the bottom, thinning out to about 1.5" at the edges.

So optics could have a component that faces out, as it does now, and using a mirror or two, bend the light 90 degrees to the sensor, or to even more optics. Use a parabolic, or perhaps an aspheric mirror, and you can further focus the light. It's certainly doable. I've had various pieces of equipment that worked that way. But it's expensive, and would take more room in the phone.

Depends on how serious Apple is about this. They keep hiring more engineers in optics, sensors and processors, so it seems they are very serious.

Whoa!

Reading up on DLP now...

If I understand what you're saying: By dedicating some space for electronics, mirrors and lenses within a case as narrow as an iPhone or iPad... you could have a camera with entirely internal optical zoom... Verdad?


Sigh... too bad that everything worth inventing has already been invented \
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #268 of 304
3/18/12 at 11:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Whoa!

Reading up on DLP now...

If I understand what you're saying: By dedicating some space for electronics, mirrors and lenses within a case as narrow as an iPhone or iPad... you could have a camera with entirely internal optical zoom... Verdad?


Sigh... too bad that everything worth inventing has already been invented \

Sure. In fact, many modern lenses even use internal focussing, so that the lens unit as a whole doesn't move much, or at all. And a zoom section moves internally as well. So a lens could have a 90 degree shape, using internally moving portions. The whole thing could be made as one rectangular part. I guess it could be maybe .25" thick, by .315" wide, by about 1" long. The extra width is for the sensor width. The sensor could also be flat against the back, as another mirror could bend the light to that. That way, the sensor needn't be perpendicular to the front and back, making the camera thinner.

We,re talking microscope sized optics, certainly doable, as the optics we have now proves.
Reply
Reply
post #269 of 304
3/18/12 at 11:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Sol is right. I've been thinking about that as well, as I have dealings with some Korean sites for which I did some work for several years ago, but like keeping in touch with me. Asian characters are so complex, I've often wondered how they can read that in newspapers, as the ones I've seen have such small type. On web sites, the type can become unusable. This screen changes that, as does my 27" monitor. But this is better, because no one, unless they have impaired sight, wants to view a web page across an entire 24" or 27" screen width.

I have an iMac 27" with a 2560 x 1440 display.

I fiddled with the iPad 3 image from post #253...

To my eyes, the characters are more readable at any zoom level on the iPad than on the iMac.

I realize that I am looking at a rasterized image...

If the characters are vector-based then they should be true at any image size...

...all on a $500 device that you can carry in combats, a backpack, satchel or man-purse...

Wow... Just Wow!
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #270 of 304
3/18/12 at 11:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Sure. In fact, many modern lenses even use internal focussing, so that the lens unit as a whole doesn't move much, or at all. And a zoom section moves internally as well. So a lens could have a 90 degree shape, using internally moving portions. The whole thing could be made as one rectangular part. I guess it could be maybe .25" thick, by .315" wide, by about 1" long. The extra width is for the sensor width. The sensor could also be flat against the back, as another mirror could bend the light to that. That way, the sensor needn't be perpendicular to the front and back, making the camera thinner.

We,re talking microscope sized optics, certainly doable, as the optics we have now proves.

Mmmm... the new iPad and iPhone 4S are both 0.37 inch thick -- don't know the thickness of the glass front/back and the metal case back.

So if they can find the internal real estate, it sounds quite doable...

...The camera you have with you...
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #271 of 304
3/18/12 at 12:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There is such a thing as "folded optics". Just like in magic acts, it's done with mirrors. Have you ever wondered how DLP sets could be thin? My 61" Samsing is only 12" thick in the middle, at the bottom, thinning out to about 1.5" at the edges.

So optics could have a component that faces out, as it does now, and using a mirror or two, bend the light 90 degrees to the sensor, or to even more optics. Use a parabolic, or perhaps an aspheric mirror, and you can further focus the light. It's certainly doable. I've had various pieces of equipment that worked that way. But it's expensive, and would take more room in the phone.

Depends on how serious Apple is about this. They keep hiring more engineers in optics, sensors and processors, so it seems they are very serious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Whoa!

Reading up on DLP now...

If I understand what you're saying: By dedicating some space for electronics, mirrors and lenses within a case as narrow as an iPhone or iPad... you could have a camera with entirely internal optical zoom... Verdad?


Sigh... too bad that everything worth inventing has already been invented \

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Sure. In fact, many modern lenses even use internal focussing, so that the lens unit as a whole doesn't move much, or at all. And a zoom section moves internally as well. So a lens could have a 90 degree shape, using internally moving portions. The whole thing could be made as one rectangular part. I guess it could be maybe .25" thick, by .315" wide, by about 1" long. The extra width is for the sensor width. The sensor could also be flat against the back, as another mirror could bend the light to that. That way, the sensor needn't be perpendicular to the front and back, making the camera thinner.

We,re talking microscope sized optics, certainly doable, as the optics we have now proves.

I read up on DLP...

Looks great...

But, I got this uneasy feeling that they were "doing it wrong" by physically repositioning thousands of micro-mirrors to reflect the light -- why not just sense the points of light and do some math?

Anyway, that lead me to LCoS -- which, apparently, does the same thing with no moving parts.

Most of the work in DLP and LCoS seems to have been directed at TVs and Projectors -- as opposed to camera optics... bigger market, I suppose!

But now with post-pc mobile devices there is much greater market potential -- several devices per individual as opposed to several devices per home.

Sounds like an opportunity to me!

P.S. Looks like it might be time to upgrade that old Muntz TV



Edit: Looks like the Kefauver Hearings on the TV
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #272 of 304
3/18/12 at 12:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Pictured are the third new iPad that I've tried/purchased, along with my Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, just as they were taken by the camera, and the new iPad exhibits almost the exact same 'screen bleeding' as the previous two did.

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/3876/p1000564m.jpg

That shot is ridiculous. That looks like a blue screen of death. You must have terrible luck with iPads.

I took a shot of my new iPad (link below). By manually adjusting camera exposure settings you come up with completely different results. The photo shows that everything is black except the logo however if you open it in photoshop and adjust the levels you will see the bezel and the screen WITH NO LIGHT BLEED WHATSOEVER! There is sufficient shadow detail but it doesn't show up until you adjust the levels, but I didn't change anything so you can check it it out for yourself. This, opposed to your first image that I suspected was bogus, the entire Tab image is one continuous color black including the background so it was, at the very least, under exposed if not a complete fake. In my shot, check out the exif data and you will see that it is a 15 sec exposure so if there was going to be any light leaking it would definitely show with that long of an exposure. I guarantee there is has been no color adjustments made and this is the actual image from the camera. I did crop it.

(image too large to post in message)
http://i.imgur.com/SXHmi.jpg

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #273 of 304
3/18/12 at 12:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post

To add to sunilraman's post.


While it's nice to have a higher resolution for crisper Latin character texts, I find that especiallly with non-Latin texts this is actually vital.


Here's a mockup I had done for the iPad 2 and new iPad (it did look exactly like that in my real-world test). It uses 132 and 264 dpi with a zoom factor chosen so that the US Letter sized PDF fills the screen.


While the iPad 2's English text is still somewhat readable, the Chinese characters are reduced to a pixel mush. Pretty much unreadable.

On the new iPad the very same text, at the very same zoom level is completely readable, including the Chinese characters.
What a change!


Or in other words:
On the iPad 2 I was forced constantly to zoom in / zoom out to read the text.
On the new iPad zooming is no longer necessary at all.


Fonts do not display as images so this comparison image is misleading. The new iPad has smoother rendering text but iPad 2 would never appear pixellated like you have shown. The only way to accurately compare is as sunilraman has done where it is zoomed in to the point where the there is only one pixel of antialiasing on the edge. Your screen capture was too small which completely obliterated the the text vectors when it rasterized it at 72 dpi.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #274 of 304
3/18/12 at 12:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

You Know... All of the pathetic, rude, and hostile Apple apologists on this site you two two truly take the prize for the worst.

FACT: In no way, shape or form were either of those photos 'doctored', and I challenge you to scientifically PROVE that they were.

Anyway... The truth is, the new iPad(s) that I've now tried each have very obvious 'screen bleeding' issues, something I find completely unacceptable in an 'allegedly' state-of-the-art modern tablet device costing almost US 900.00.

Pictured are the third new iPad that I've tried/purchased, along with my Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, just as they were taken by the camera, and the new iPad exhibits almost the exact same 'screen bleeding' as the previous two did.



So the screen doesn't go near as dark as the Samsung model when all lights turned off and set to completely black, and there is some faint light coming in from the corners. That is a largely unnoticeable trade-off that I can make for the experience of the iPad, which cannot be paralleled.
Reply
Reply
post #275 of 304
3/18/12 at 1:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

You Know... All of the pathetic, rude, and hostile Apple apologists on this site you two two truly take the prize for the worst.

FACT: In no way, shape or form were either of those photos 'doctored', and I challenge you to scientifically PROVE that they were.

Anyway... The truth is, the new iPad(s) that I've now tried each have very obvious 'screen bleeding' issues, something I find completely unacceptable in an 'allegedly' state-of-the-art modern tablet device costing almost US 900.00.

Pictured are the third new iPad that I've tried/purchased, along with my Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, just as they were taken by the camera, and the new iPad exhibits almost the exact same 'screen bleeding' as the previous two did.


Ya' know... you come to an Apple-oriented site, you enter the forums and you make a preponderance of challenging, negative, anti-Apple or ridiculous posts...

Then you call veterans here, with a history of reasoned posts, rude -- you're being rude?


BTW The text display on the Sammy in your picture is really great -- I can almost make out what it says...

Not only are your Photoshop, judgement and interpersonal communication skills in question -- so are your camera skills.


Anyone can take a better picture than that with an iPad 2!
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #276 of 304
3/18/12 at 1:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I read up on DLP...

Looks great...

But, I got this uneasy feeling that they were "doing it wrong" by physically repositioning thousands of micro-mirrors to reflect the light -- why not just sense the points of light and do some math?

Anyway, that lead me to LCoS -- which, apparently, does the same thing with no moving parts.

Most of the work in DLP and LCoS seems to have been directed at TVs and Projectors -- as opposed to camera optics... bigger market, I suppose!

But now with post-pc mobile devices there is much greater market potential -- several devices per individual as opposed to several devices per home.

Sounds like an opportunity to me!

P.S. Looks like it might be time to upgrade that old Muntz TV



Edit: Looks like the Kefauver Hearings on the TV

For a camera phone you don't need a moving mirror. It would need to be fixed. But the other optical elements would move. A bunch of years ago, Phillips demo'd a tiny lens that could have its shape, and therefor it's focus, varied by applying a small voltage. The element wouldn't have to move at all, which is even better. There are also plastics in use now that will compress or expand depending on voltage. They could be used for purposes of focus or zoom. None of this would need a very high precision moving part, as the parts would simply resize themselves with very high precision.

There are also lenses used for cataract operations that will focus using the same muscles in the eye that the natural lens uses. Unfortunately, my doctor thought I wouldn't be a good candidate for them. But they can be focussed by pressure around the edges.

There are a lot of technologies around. The question is whether they are too expensive for this use.
Reply
Reply
post #277 of 304
3/18/12 at 1:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Fonts do not display as images so this comparison image is misleading. The new iPad has smoother rendering text but iPad 2 would never appear pixellated like you have shown. The only way to accurately compare is as sunilraman has done where it is zoomed in to the point where the there is only one pixel of antialiasing on the edge. Your screen capture was too small which completely obliterated the the text vectors when it rasterized it at 72 dpi.

Honest questions:

1) How, exactly do you compare text (or images) on 2 different DPI displays -- Would you use an image taken on the lower DPI display? the higher DPI display?

2) Won't a rasterized image always show antialias pixillation at some magnification -- regardless of the screen resolution?

3) With today's technology, wouldn't it be possible to generate text characters as vector graphics -- where each character could scale infinitely with no apparent pixillation?


I could see this being even more important for intricate Asian character words... I read somewhere that:

-- the Chinese character for 'happiness" is a drawing of a house with a woman...

-- the Chinese character for 'chaos' was the same as above... except a second woman was added to the house
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #278 of 304
3/18/12 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

For a camera phone you don't need a moving mirror. It would need to be fixed. But the other optical elements would move. A bunch of years ago, Phillips demo'd a tiny lens that could have its shape, and therefor it's focus, varied by applying a small voltage. The element wouldn't have to move at all, which is even better. There are also plastics in use now that will compress or expand depending on voltage. They could be used for purposes of focus or zoom. None of this would need a very high precision moving part, as the parts would simply resize themselves with very high precision.

There are also lenses used for cataract operations that will focus using the same muscles in the eye that the natural lens uses. Unfortunately, my doctor thought I wouldn't be a good candidate for them. But they can be focussed by pressure around the edges.

There are a lot of technologies around. The question is whether they are too expensive for this use.

Thanks, Mel!


That is encouraging... especially your last sentence!

With, what, 150 million iPhones in use and the potential for billions within years...

And 45 million iPads in use and the potential for 60-80 million more this year...

It seems like there could be great incentive to reduce the costs through economies of scale -- where every iPhone and iPad has a camera of acceptable quality for most uses.

It wasn't too long ago that multitouch was an expensive technology looking for a broad application...
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #279 of 304
3/18/12 at 2:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Honest questions:

1) How, exactly do you compare text (or images) on 2 different DPI displays -- Would you use an image taken on the lower DPI display? the higher DPI display?

2) Won't a rasterized image always show antialias pixillation at some magnification -- regardless of the screen resolution?

3) With today's technology, wouldn't it be possible to generate text characters as vector graphics -- where each character could scale infinitely with no apparent pixillation?


You would compare the images by making them the same dimension on each display. You can measure them with a ruler if necessary.

Images have built in antialiasing and unsharp masking which is always the same number of pixels so if you zoom you see the exaggeration of the pixillation. If you zoom a 72 dpi image 200%, on a traditional monitor, four screen pixels will represent one image pixel but since that original image pixel was only a single color all four device pixels will be that same color with interpolation and resampling having almost no effect.

Text on the other hand is rendered as curves prior to the antialiasing being applied. In this case, you can zoom on text infinitely and it will always be sharp, never showing pixillation except for the very slight antialiasing on the edges. The advantage that the new iPad has is that much less antialiasing is required due to higher resolution, resulting in sharper smoother curves.

Text is not really vectors in the sense that SVG is. Text has metrics which predefine the shape for many point sizes, where as true vectors are interpreting actual mathematical geometry on the fly which tends to be much more hardware demanding compared to rendering text. It might be likened to the difference between searching a database and searching an index. The speed is night and day difference.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #280 of 304
3/18/12 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Images have built in antialiasing and unsharp masking which is always the same number of pixels so if you zoom you see the exaggeration of the pixillation. If you zoom a 72 dpi image 200%, on a traditional monitor, four screen pixels will represent one image pixel but since that original image pixel was only a single color all four device pixels will be that same color with interpolation and resampling having almost no effect.

Text on the other hand is rendered as curves prior to the antialiasing being applied. In this case, you can zoom on text infinitely and it will always be sharp, never showing pixillation except for the very slight antialiasing on the edges. The advantage that the new iPad has is that much less antialiasing is required due to higher resolution, resulting in sharper smoother curves.

Text is not really vectors in the sense that SVG is. Text has metrics which predefine the shape for many point sizes, where as true vectors are interpreting actual mathematical geometry on the fly which tends to be much more hardware demanding compared to rendering text. It might be likened to the difference between searching a database and searching an index. The speed is night and day difference.

Ahh... Understand!

Thanks!

Edit: So, the text rendering is done on the target device by the OS or App?

There are some iPhone apps, Koi Pond for example, that render graphics perfectly on iPad 2 at 2x, and new iPad at 2x -- but the text in the menus is blocky -- I suppose that they used rasterized images of text, as opposed to text.
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • First look: Apple's new third-generation iPad with Retina display
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › First look: Apple's new third-generation iPad with Retina display