Retina Display iPad addresses two 'major weak points' of iPad 2 screen - report

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    The resolution of the new screen is nice but I think the other things mentioned are are equally significant. Accurate grayscale and color saturation are more important to me. I can't read really small text no matter how crisp it is. I used to have perfect vision. Not so much anymore.



    I can see why Apple wanted to go double resolution now instead of 2013 but I wonder if these other factors were a strong focus for them or just a happy accident. I'm guessing that it was also important, while not the most important, to get the display to be visually accurate so that it can get more traction in medical imagining and other fields were accurate photo reproductions are important.
  • Reply 22 of 36
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    You and Soneira are getting hung up with the word retina as if using a medical term means it can no longer be a marketing term and you have to go with what is deemed the best possible vision every recorded. Which by the way appears to be 20/8 as i found while trying to locate, unsuccessfully, the percentages of the population that have visual acuity at various levels.



    The whole notion of 20/x is based on distance of 20 ft which is not the normal reading distance for a mobile device. There is a certain point where the display is high enough resolution to satisfy the vast majority of the users, even those with excellent vision. The current iPad screen should be close to that range.
  • Reply 23 of 36
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post






    The analysis discovered that the new iPad has "a virtually perfect 99 percent of the Standard Color Gamut." By comparison, the iPad 2 has just 61 percent of the gamut.



    "The colors are beautiful and accurate due to very good factory calibration ? they are also ?more vibrant? but not excessively so or gaudy like some existing OLED displays," he said.



    The reviewer delivered his results in a very odd way here. He didn't mention his testing methods. Was it a colorimeter? spectrophotometer radiometer? Assuming the device is within spec, the tolerance levels between such devices can be massive. How is he defining "standard color gamut"? sRGB and Adobe 1998 are the most common reference points in display gamuts. Displays that approximate Adobe 1998 are often referred to as wide gamut. They're harder to control than sRGB. It's easy to end up with overly saturated colors in the ui. sRGB is closer to that of the thunderbolt display, but I think the thunderbolt display uses a hardware native color temperature rather than a D65 target.



    The historic problem with LED color related to stability and once again a shift in color temperature. I don't know if that's the issue with OLED, but calling it gaudy is just massively dumbing down the explanation. I don't blame appleinsider on this one. I think it's just that the reviewer is overly simplifying his explanation, not that I was expecting a white paper on it. I just find find the look and feel explanation kind of odd on a highly technical subject, especially given that unrealistic saturation can make other things look really weird. The visual comparison doesn't take into account the exposure of the image or the real color of the flower.
  • Reply 24 of 36
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    There are likely a lot of people like you {who find the Kindle Fire to meet all their media consumption needs}.



    Yep. A very tiny fraction of the market - most of whom would actually prefer the iPad, but bought the Kindle solely on the basis of price.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    That's like saying Foot Locker is a scam unless it has shoes for every possible sized foot.



    Good analogy.
  • Reply 25 of 36
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    The reviewer delivered his results in a very odd way here. He didn't mention his testing methods. Was it a colorimeter? spectrophotometer radiometer? Assuming the device is within spec, the tolerance levels between such devices can be massive. How is he defining "standard color gamut"? sRGB and Adobe 1998 are the most common reference points in display gamuts. Displays that approximate Adobe 1998 are often referred to as wide gamut. They're harder to control than sRGB. It's easy to end up with overly saturated colors in the ui. sRGB is closer to that of the thunderbolt display, but I think the thunderbolt display uses a hardware native color temperature rather than a D65 target.



    The historic problem with LED color related to stability and once again a shift in color temperature. I don't know if that's the issue with OLED, but calling it gaudy is just massively dumbing down the explanation. I don't blame appleinsider on this one. I think it's just that the reviewer is overly simplifying his explanation, not that I was expecting a white paper on it. I just find find the look and feel explanation kind of odd on a highly technical subject, especially given that unrealistic saturation can make other things look really weird. The visual comparison doesn't take into account the exposure of the image or the real color of the flower.



    AnandTech's preliminary results of the display might have a little more meat for you.
  • Reply 26 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    You are countering with a different argument. 4K does not exist to make small devices higher resolution. 4K exists to make HUGE displays (theater sized) not have HUGE individually visible pixels. Different purposes, different cost strata.



    Regular consumers didn't go out and buy 70mm cameras and projectors because they could get higher resolution images. They stuck with 8mm and 16mm because that gave roughly the same screen resolution as 70mm when projected on a small screen at home and watched from only a few feet away.



    Also don't confuse major capability with luxury. Text sharpness is FAR better, which will have a significant effect in reducing eyestrain and reader comfort. Just because that made other graphics better too does not make it a luxury.



    Nope, sorry, you missed my point entirely. I argued that Apples benchmark for a TV, if they make one, would not simply be 1080p at current resolution based on the previous posters statement that "apple only does things that are 'useful'". (I paraphrase)



    My argument is simple, with regards to a TV there is no other real purpose or utility than the screen and it's resolution. You look at a TV, that is really all you do with it. And the best achievable screen that is suitable for the typical demands of a TV had better be more than just "useful" if Apple is going to claim it is better than what is out currently.



    But I'm glad I gave you an opportunity to show that you are clever, but you over analyzed my comment. Especially, when I had admitted to a benchmark of a 55 inch retina display to be mostly a joke.



    A Ferrari has a "major capability" too, but yet it is a luxury.
  • Reply 27 of 36
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    I'm guessing that it was also important, while not the most important, to get the display to be visually accurate so that it can get more traction in medical imagining and other fields were accurate photo reproductions are important.



    Accurate grayscale, surprisingly, is not that important in medical imaging because with digital x-rays it is all about being able to adjust the histogram to accentuate the contrast in the particular region of interest. Accurate color is a nice thing to have for medical photography though, for publishing papers or CE documentation, but there is no governing standards based criteria for that.
  • Reply 28 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post


    I think the point being made is clear. If you are going to define/market a devices capabilities relative to the capabilities of the user based on the overall limits of human abilities then the retina display is simply "normal" in it's capabilities.



    It would be like Nike marketing a shoe for marathon running realizing that "normal" people usually just run in 5ks therefor making the shoe capable of just simple 5k races comfortably.



    So yes, Apple defined their screens to match the capabilities of the human retina but the true capabilities of the screen fail to match the highest extreme. Is it nit picking considering how many people have 20/10 and would notice? Yes, but it doesn't invalidate the point either. It just sets a higher benchmark for the Apple TV to hit.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cloud30000 View Post


    A more accurate marketing situation would be advertising a router as a "whole house" router, when it only had a 1000' range. Many mansions are larger then 1000' long, so it would not be an accurate term.



    If you think we will ever see a TV with over 450 ppi, then you have very high expectations for a company that doesn't provide consumers with technology that isn't useful or cost effective.



    Actually all products are marketed based on some recognized public figure of normal. The range advertised on a router is in fact based on open air scenarios most of the time, 5GHz is actually lower signal strength inside a house even though it is often advertised as further range. Higher frequencies have more trouble penetrating walls, the advertised range of 5GHz is usually based on open air statistics.



    There is nothing wrong with Apple's claim, it's far less controversial than the vast majority of claims out there. It's advertising, how would it sound if Apple instead of calling it a retina display called it, "almost retina" or "so close to retina most people won't notice".



    At least Apple's advertisements are all about showing how the device actually works & looks, unlike most Android products that use flashy graphics & overhyped claims to try & fool consumers into buying their products.
  • Reply 29 of 36
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post


    Nope, sorry, you missed my point entirely. I argued that Apples benchmark for a TV, if they make one, would not simply be 1080p at current resolution based on the previous posters statement that "apple only does things that are 'useful'". (I paraphrase)



    My argument is simple, with regards to a TV there is no other real purpose or utility than the screen and it's resolution. You look at a TV, that is really all you do with it. And the best achievable screen that is suitable for the typical demands of a TV had better be more than just "useful" if Apple is going to claim it is better than what is out currently.



    But I'm glad I gave you an opportunity to show that you are clever, but you over analyzed my comment. Especially, when I had admitted to a benchmark of a 55 inch retina display to be mostly a joke.



    A Ferrari has a "major capability" too, but yet it is a luxury.



    In trying to say I missed your point you seem to have ignored mine, and forgot you were talking about the iPad at the time:



    Quote:

    That said, 4k Super OLED is being made now. Necessary? Nope. Is there anything to watch at 4k? Nope. But it will designate the floor of what resolution numbers people will hear and expect. The iPad 2's screen is usefull. The new iPad screen is a luxury in relation. But considering that most of your activity with the device is staring at it, the resolution becomes pretty important.



    Even if you just really munged your sentences, 4K is not meant for TV. I was pretty specific there too. The fact you want to make it something it is not is your issue to deal with, the rest of the world will get along just fine for the next decade or three. And I wasn't answering your joke, it was trite and not worth repeating, I was VERY specific in what I quoted and responded to, maybe you should be paying more attention.



    now... Have you ever done realtime bandwidth on 4K video? I have worked with projects that have. We had a TEAM of researchers and tech support personnel setting up access and configurations on a custom internet trunk to push 4K video realtime. TV is realtime video, it is synchronous and hard time dependent to all destinations. YouTube/Hulu/streams are not realtime video, they are asynchronous streams, very useful, but not TV.



    As for your retort on major capability, you are the individual with context and comprehension issues. Since when is an improvement from coarse to just fine enough resolution (equivalent to course magazine print) considered luxury? You are just full of misguided hyperbole and poorly mixed metaphors.



    Coarse to "retina" quality video is more like the difference between writing with fat crayon and .5mm lead and had absolutely nothing to do with cars since they all have the same capability to move things from A to B with exactly the same resolution. I don't see anyone calling my Pentel mechanical pencil a luxury, despite being far better matched to everyday life than the crayon. (Insert your own meaningless high end writing implement luxury argument here, it will match your poorly chosen Ferrari problem.)
  • Reply 30 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    In trying to say I missed your point you seem to have ignored mine, and forgot you were talking about the iPad at the time:



    Even if you just really munged your sentences, 4K is not meant for TV. I was pretty specific there too. The fact you want to make it something it is not is your issue to deal with, the rest of the world will get along just fine for the next decade or three. And I wasn't answering your joke, it was trite and not worth repeating, I was VERY specific in what I quoted and responded to, maybe you should be paying more attention.



    now... Have you ever done realtime bandwidth on 4K video? I have worked with projects that have. We had a TEAM of researchers and tech support personnel setting up access and configurations on a custom internet trunk to push 4K video realtime. TV is realtime video, it is synchronous and hard time dependent to all destinations. YouTube/Hulu/streams are not realtime video, they are asynchronous streams, very useful, but not TV.



    As for your retort on major capability, you are the individual with context and comprehension issues. Since when is an improvement from coarse to just fine enough resolution (equivalent to course magazine print) considered luxury? You are just full of misguided hyperbole and poorly mixed metaphors.



    Coarse to "retina" quality video is more like the difference between writing with fat crayon and .5mm lead and had absolutely nothing to do with cars since they all have the same capability to move things from A to B with exactly the same resolution. I don't see anyone calling my Pentel mechanical pencil a luxury, despite being far better matched to everyday life than the crayon. (Insert your own meaningless high end writing implement luxury argument here, it will match your poorly chosen Ferrari problem.)



    You know what, I made a couple of points. You don't agree with them. So here goes.



    You win.



    I don't really care what you think or say. Ok?



    Do me a favor and add me to your ignore list. We'll both be happier.
  • Reply 31 of 36
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Everytime I picked up an iPad 2 at the Apple Store it felt less solid than our original iPad. I'm one who is glad the new iPad is a bit thicker. Same battery life is great, love the screen and it feels like I'm holding something very solid. I've never understood the cries about it weighing much. Then again, I walk around reading hardback books frequently. I still need to load up a D&D pdf and check it out
  • Reply 32 of 36
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post


    Everytime I picked up an iPad 2 at the Apple Store it felt less solid than our original iPad. I'm one who is glad the new iPad is a bit thicker. Same battery life is great, love the screen and it feels like I'm holding something very solid. I've never understood the cries about it weighing much. Then again, I walk around reading hardback books frequently. I still need to load up a D&D pdf and check it out



    That's my view, as well. When I travel, I often have my 17" MacBook Pro and 3 or 4 hardback books - which often weigh at least a pound each. Even the 'heavy' iPad 3 weighs a lot less than the books it replaces - and saves even more weight on the trips where I don't carry the MBP.
  • Reply 33 of 36
    timmydaxtimmydax Posts: 284member
    The iPad has QXGA Resolution. This is the same horizontal as the old 30" cinema display, and very close (I haven't worked it out) to the Thunderbolt Display.



    The iPhone has DVGA Resolution, far less, but on a much smaller screen.



    The PPI of these displays is also quite different, considering.



    What links these is the perceived resolution at a nominal distance.



    Retina Display may not be the best choice of anatomical descriptor, but it does describe the required specification phenomenally better than the xxGA/PPI, dimensions etc. It's not a marketing term, it's an achievement.
  • Reply 34 of 36
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TimmyDax View Post


    The iPad has QXGA Resolution. This is the same horizontal as the old 30" cinema display, and very close (I haven't worked it out) to the Thunderbolt Display.



    iPad 3: 2048x1536

    30" CD: 2560x1600

    27" TD: 2560x1440



    Quote:

    What links these is the perceived resolution at a nominal distance.



    But yes, you're right there.
  • Reply 35 of 36
    timmydaxtimmydax Posts: 284member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    iPad 3: 2048x1536

    30" CD: 2560x1600

    27" TD: 2560x1440



    Good job, yeah. I was getting QWXGA mixed up with WQXGA! The Thunderbolt fits in quite nicely, despite afaik not being a QXGA family resolution. Really awesome range for a 10" device to be in. Cheers!
  • Reply 36 of 36
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post


    You know what, I made a couple of points. You don't agree with them. So here goes.



    You win.



    I don't really care what you think or say. Ok?



    Do me a favor and add me to your ignore list. We'll both be happier.



    Wow, somebody needs a hug.



    If you want to debate, don't get needlessly antagonistic as you did in post 27, and be ready to back up what you say with fact. Opinion is fine, but when it is directly contradicted by the evidence at hand don't be surprised when someone points out that contradiction.



    Now either decide to stop acting like a 3 year old, petulant asshat, and we can welcome you to the boards, or sulk away. I'm fine either way.
Sign In or Register to comment.