Retina display is a moniker, not a scientific term. Retina on iPad hasn't got the same DPI as retina on iPhone (or MBP). It is also below 300dpi which, I think, is claimed to be resolving limit of human eye.
Regardless, iPad's Retina display was - to my knowledge - made by Samsung (among other manufacturers). Why is it so hard to believe that Samsung can make the same or better display for their products..?
Originally Posted by igriv
Samsung fabs the iPad display, which is designed by apple and protected by a bazillion apple patents, so no, Samsung cannot make it for anyone else.
igriv - read and understand what is written before posting.
Nikon DIDN'T say that Samsung would make the "Retina Display" for someone else.
Nikon said that Samsung can make display of the same quality as "Retina Display" or better if necessary, since they manufactured that thing.
Retina display is a moniker, not a scientific term. Retina on iPad hasn't got the same DPI as retina on iPhone (or MBP). It is also below 300dpi which, I think, is claimed to be resolving limit of human eye.
Nope. The resolving limit is what defines a retina display. If the pixel size is smaller than the resolving limit of the human eye, then it's a retina display. The point that you're missing is that the resolving limit depends on viewing distance. You tend to view a phone closer than a 10" tablet. So if 300 ppi is the resolving limit for a phone, the resolving limit for a 10" tablet would be a good bit lower (probably around 225-250, but I haven't calculated it). So you can't arbitrarily use 300 ppi as 'retina'. It depends on viewing distance. A TV would be retina with much lower resolution.
No, it's not. You're comparing the Nexus' fake resolution to Apple's real resolution. Their resolution figures are significantly overstated because of the way they calculate them. Try putting the iPad 4 next to a Nexus 10 if you want to compare screens. Oh, wait. you can't - the Nexus 10 is vapor.
LOL. So now we have fake and real resolution?
Wow every day there is something new to learn on AI forums.
The way they calculate them?
Hilarious. So you want me to guess that you are talking about Pentile display. Well let me ease your pain. Nexus 10 is not Pentile and both (Nexus and iPad) resolution are measured in 'real' values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar
Except if it's a pentile display... and then you need to count subpixels ...if So then the effective resolution is less than the apparent resolution...
a pentile display has approximately 2 1/2 pixels per pixel because the red subpixel is shared with two pixels Thus 5 subpixels in total per 2 pixels. (blue-green-red-blue-green or is it green-blue-red-green-blue for 2 pixels)
Thus is the color resolution is lower or. Possibly blurry... might be moot point at this Resolution... but It does mean it is not a true 2560 screen resolution.
Furthermore Apple had a real problem getting 2048 pixels on their screen which equates to three times the number of sub pixels which means it's approximately 6144 sub pixels across... so Long story short the effective resolution of the Nexus 10 looks higher but it's the same
So Samsung by going to a Pentel display gets to play a numbers game and makes to screen resolution superior when in fact they gimped sorry they reduced the number of subpixels in order to increase the resolution...
so samsung has increased the number of subpixels by 4.167 percent...
Yes, thank you for explaining the Pentile display to me. Much appreciate it.
Retina display is a moniker, not a scientific term. Retina on iPad hasn't got the same DPI as retina on iPhone (or MBP). It is also below 300dpi which, I think, is claimed to be resolving limit of human eye.
Quote:
Nope. The resolving limit is what defines a retina display. If the pixel size is smaller than the resolving limit of the human eye, then it's a retina display. The point that you're missing is that the resolving limit depends on viewing distance. You tend to view a phone closer than a 10" tablet. So if 300 ppi is the resolving limit for a phone, the resolving limit for a 10" tablet would be a good bit lower (probably around 225-250, but I haven't calculated it). So you can't arbitrarily use 300 ppi as 'retina'. It depends on viewing distance. A TV would be retina with much lower resolution.
You both are correct in a sense with slightly different viewing position.
"Retina Display" is just a brand name Apple is using (probably patent too ) and true it is not a scientific term - meaning - if you compare two screens with the same 'real' PPI; one "Retina Display" and the other NOT branded as "Retina Display" then the "Retina" branded display will not necessary give you better viewing pleasure compared to a display not branded as "Retina".
Before you all jump; let me rephrase:
It MIGHT give you better viewing pleasure but it's NOT necessary so, and certainly it's not necessary so solely on "Retina Display" brand. It would depend on other more important display feature/properties...
"Resolving Limit" defining a "Retina Display". hmmm - yes and no.
By jragosta's definition ANY display would fall into retina display definition (note that here i didn't use quotes) because, true, resolving limit does depend on the (eye-display) distance. And he states that fact; "A TV would be retina with much lower resolution" which is true if the TV is far enough.
So why any other displays are not "Retina Display" even if they all could be viewed as retina display? Because they are not BRANDED as "Retina Display" (note the quotes).
On one hand you CAN define certain scientific term of retina display by calculating pixels, (eye-display) distance, pixel per angle degree etc. but the brand "Retina Display" itself is not a scientific term - it's just a brand name for a display.
I know exactly what he said. They cannot necessarily make a display of the same quality because doing so may infringe on Apple IP, so their fabbing of the retina display is irrelevant. Think before trying to lecture me (or anyone else).
It's always funny that he just conveniently doesn't reply to the posts that he is proven dead-wrong and the troll he is. lol
Yet he KEEPS posting! It's unbelievable how people interpret themselves sometimes.... He truly thinks he is right... even when he's proven wrong.... thats the crazy part.
Yep. They give us the fastest tablet ever made with the best screen on a tablet and the most versatile port on a tablet…
And all people can do is whine.
My question is what Apple will have next spring. While the iPad unquestionably has an advantage in the number and maturity of available applications, the form factor is now dated compared to the ones being offered by a number of others. Sure, you can buy a keyboard from Apple that works OK, but it is clunky and inconvenient to carry around. Some of the third party keyboard solutions are a bit better, but still no where nearly as well integrated as those offered by Asus, among others, or even the new Surface.
One has to hope that Apple is hard at work with something competitive in that regard, but one must also wonder because Apple are spending more on patents and patent litigation than R&D. Even with Apple increasing the amount of funding for R&D for next year, the percentage of revenue devoted to R&D is quite small when compared to some others. That said, Apple have benefited greatly from their association with Intel, not only in the availability of CPUs and retated chip sets, but engineering services that have enabled Apple to better field an array of products. Still, one should be concerned about the company's commitment to R&D. We have seen products which have been "late to market" for reasons that are not abundantly apparent.
Oh, "and one more thing"...Apple continue to not include an SD card slot with the iPad or other iOS devices. I've been advised that an SD card slot is a problem for some corporate and governmental entities. Can't Apple manage to figure out a way to have an option to delete it? It simply can not be that hard to do.
You both are correct in a sense with slightly different viewing position.
"Retina Display" is just a brand name Apple is using (probably patent too ) and true it is not a scientific term - meaning - if you compare two screens with the same 'real' PPI; one "Retina Display" and the other NOT branded as "Retina Display" then the "Retina" branded display will not necessary give you better viewing pleasure compared to a display not branded as "Retina".
Before you all jump; let me rephrase:
It MIGHT give you better viewing pleasure but it's NOT necessary so, and certainly it's not necessary so solely on "Retina Display" brand. It would depend on other more important display feature/properties...
"Resolving Limit" defining a "Retina Display". hmmm - yes and no.
By jragosta's definition ANY display would fall into retina display definition (note that here i didn't use quotes) because, true, resolving limit does depend on the (eye-display) distance. And he states that fact; "A TV would be retina with much lower resolution" which is true if the TV is far enough.
So why any other displays are not "Retina Display" even if they all could be viewed as retina display? Because they are not BRANDED as "Retina Display" (note the quotes).
On one hand you CAN define certain scientific term of retina display by calculating pixels, (eye-display) distance, pixel per angle degree etc. but the brand "Retina Display" itself is not a scientific term - it's just a brand name for a display.
I see "Retina Display" as more of a trademark than a patent. Except for it being a higher resolution display than what Apple had previously offered, there does not appear to be anything patentable about it. I see nothing to prevent anyone from manufacturing a display with X + some number of pixels which might equal or exceed that of a "Retina Display".
I'd think processor (or major chip) change = non-incremental.
I see your point, but from the perspective of a user, the iPad 3 actually performed poorer than the iPad 2 in some respects because of the inability of the CPU to process the (larger) image files as quickly. The iPad 4, on the other hand, does improve performance which is the normal expectation of consumers when purchasing a next generation product or "next year's model".
Sure, the "next year's model" is not always better, take, for example, automobiles in the '70s. Engine performance declined dramatically, but that is more the exception than the rule. It is, perhaps, the exception that proves the rule.
From the outside, the iPad 4th Generation does not really present itself as anything particularly new, but it is most assuredly "better" than its predecessor.
Oh, "and one more thing"...Apple continue to not include an SD card slot with the iPad or other iOS devices. I've been advised that an SD card slot is a problem for some corporate and governmental entities. Can't Apple manage to figure out a way to have an option to delete it? It simply can not be that hard to do.
The SD slot is not in the iPad (or iPhone) because of corporate or governmental agency restrictions. That may be a consideration, but it's not the main issue. The main issue is, who really needs it? I've seen studies that show that most (not all, but most) people never swap out the SD card in their camera or phone. They either use the original, or when they first get it, buy one and stick it in and it never gets removed again. With that kind of usage, why add in complexity and cost (and bulk) when the feature would not be used as the feature it is. Just add in the extra storage up front in the device. That is lighter, allows thinner devices, costs less from a manufacturing standpoint, and is more "user friendly." You will notice that most Android devices have smaller amounts of in-built flash memory. Even today, though they are starting to get larger amounts to rival Apple's devices.
Comments
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
Retina display is a moniker, not a scientific term. Retina on iPad hasn't got the same DPI as retina on iPhone (or MBP). It is also below 300dpi which, I think, is claimed to be resolving limit of human eye.
Regardless, iPad's Retina display was - to my knowledge - made by Samsung (among other manufacturers). Why is it so hard to believe that Samsung can make the same or better display for their products..?
Originally Posted by igriv
Samsung fabs the iPad display, which is designed by apple and protected by a bazillion apple patents, so no, Samsung cannot make it for anyone else.
igriv - read and understand what is written before posting.
Nikon DIDN'T say that Samsung would make the "Retina Display" for someone else.
Nikon said that Samsung can make display of the same quality as "Retina Display" or better if necessary, since they manufactured that thing.
Nope. The resolving limit is what defines a retina display. If the pixel size is smaller than the resolving limit of the human eye, then it's a retina display. The point that you're missing is that the resolving limit depends on viewing distance. You tend to view a phone closer than a 10" tablet. So if 300 ppi is the resolving limit for a phone, the resolving limit for a 10" tablet would be a good bit lower (probably around 225-250, but I haven't calculated it). So you can't arbitrarily use 300 ppi as 'retina'. It depends on viewing distance. A TV would be retina with much lower resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
No, it's not. You're comparing the Nexus' fake resolution to Apple's real resolution. Their resolution figures are significantly overstated because of the way they calculate them. Try putting the iPad 4 next to a Nexus 10 if you want to compare screens. Oh, wait. you can't - the Nexus 10 is vapor.
LOL. So now we have fake and real resolution?
Wow every day there is something new to learn on AI forums.
The way they calculate them?
Hilarious. So you want me to guess that you are talking about Pentile display. Well let me ease your pain. Nexus 10 is not Pentile and both (Nexus and iPad) resolution are measured in 'real' values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar
Except if it's a pentile display... and then you need to count subpixels ...if So then the effective resolution is less than the apparent resolution...
a pentile display has approximately 2 1/2 pixels per pixel because the red subpixel is shared with two pixels Thus 5 subpixels in total per 2 pixels. (blue-green-red-blue-green or is it green-blue-red-green-blue for 2 pixels)
Thus is the color resolution is lower or. Possibly blurry... might be moot point at this Resolution... but It does mean it is not a true 2560 screen resolution.
Furthermore Apple had a real problem getting 2048 pixels on their screen which equates to three times the number of sub pixels which means it's approximately 6144 sub pixels across... so Long story short the effective resolution of the Nexus 10 looks higher but it's the same
So Samsung by going to a Pentel display gets to play a numbers game and makes to screen resolution superior when in fact they gimped sorry they reduced the number of subpixels in order to increase the resolution...
so samsung has increased the number of subpixels by 4.167 percent...
Yes, thank you for explaining the Pentile display to me. Much appreciate it.
But to make things short:
Nexus 10 is not Pentile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yep. They give us the fastest tablet ever made with the best screen on a tablet and the most versatile port on a tablet…
And all people can do is whine.
So what does it take to be a non-incremental upgrade? How many attributes does it take to NOT be an incremental upgrade?
Originally Posted by drblank
So what does it take to be a non-incremental upgrade? How many attributes does it take to NOT be an incremental upgrade?
I'd think processor (or major chip) change = non-incremental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
Retina display is a moniker, not a scientific term. Retina on iPad hasn't got the same DPI as retina on iPhone (or MBP). It is also below 300dpi which, I think, is claimed to be resolving limit of human eye.
Quote:
Nope. The resolving limit is what defines a retina display. If the pixel size is smaller than the resolving limit of the human eye, then it's a retina display. The point that you're missing is that the resolving limit depends on viewing distance. You tend to view a phone closer than a 10" tablet. So if 300 ppi is the resolving limit for a phone, the resolving limit for a 10" tablet would be a good bit lower (probably around 225-250, but I haven't calculated it). So you can't arbitrarily use 300 ppi as 'retina'. It depends on viewing distance. A TV would be retina with much lower resolution.
You both are correct in a sense with slightly different viewing position.
"Retina Display" is just a brand name Apple is using (probably patent too
Before you all jump; let me rephrase:
It MIGHT give you better viewing pleasure but it's NOT necessary so, and certainly it's not necessary so solely on "Retina Display" brand. It would depend on other more important display feature/properties...
"Resolving Limit" defining a "Retina Display". hmmm - yes and no.
By jragosta's definition ANY display would fall into retina display definition (note that here i didn't use quotes) because, true, resolving limit does depend on the (eye-display) distance. And he states that fact; "A TV would be retina with much lower resolution" which is true if the TV is far enough.
So why any other displays are not "Retina Display" even if they all could be viewed as retina display? Because they are not BRANDED as "Retina Display" (note the quotes).
On one hand you CAN define certain scientific term of retina display by calculating pixels, (eye-display) distance, pixel per angle degree etc. but the brand "Retina Display" itself is not a scientific term - it's just a brand name for a display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien
igriv - read and understand what is written before posting.
Nikon DIDN'T say that Samsung would make the "Retina Display" for someone else.
Nikon said that Samsung can make display of the same quality as "Retina Display" or better if necessary, since they manufactured that thing.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }I know exactly what he said. They cannot necessarily make a display of the same quality because doing so may infringe on Apple IP, so their fabbing of the retina display is irrelevant. Think before trying to lecture me (or anyone else).
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
'nuff said
It's always funny that he just conveniently doesn't reply to the posts that he is proven dead-wrong and the troll he is. lol
Yet he KEEPS posting! It's unbelievable how people interpret themselves sometimes.... He truly thinks he is right... even when he's proven wrong.... thats the crazy part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yep. They give us the fastest tablet ever made with the best screen on a tablet and the most versatile port on a tablet…
And all people can do is whine.
My question is what Apple will have next spring. While the iPad unquestionably has an advantage in the number and maturity of available applications, the form factor is now dated compared to the ones being offered by a number of others. Sure, you can buy a keyboard from Apple that works OK, but it is clunky and inconvenient to carry around. Some of the third party keyboard solutions are a bit better, but still no where nearly as well integrated as those offered by Asus, among others, or even the new Surface.
One has to hope that Apple is hard at work with something competitive in that regard, but one must also wonder because Apple are spending more on patents and patent litigation than R&D. Even with Apple increasing the amount of funding for R&D for next year, the percentage of revenue devoted to R&D is quite small when compared to some others. That said, Apple have benefited greatly from their association with Intel, not only in the availability of CPUs and retated chip sets, but engineering services that have enabled Apple to better field an array of products. Still, one should be concerned about the company's commitment to R&D. We have seen products which have been "late to market" for reasons that are not abundantly apparent.
Oh, "and one more thing"...Apple continue to not include an SD card slot with the iPad or other iOS devices. I've been advised that an SD card slot is a problem for some corporate and governmental entities. Can't Apple manage to figure out a way to have an option to delete it? It simply can not be that hard to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien
You both are correct in a sense with slightly different viewing position.
"Retina Display" is just a brand name Apple is using (probably patent too
Before you all jump; let me rephrase:
It MIGHT give you better viewing pleasure but it's NOT necessary so, and certainly it's not necessary so solely on "Retina Display" brand. It would depend on other more important display feature/properties...
"Resolving Limit" defining a "Retina Display". hmmm - yes and no.
By jragosta's definition ANY display would fall into retina display definition (note that here i didn't use quotes) because, true, resolving limit does depend on the (eye-display) distance. And he states that fact; "A TV would be retina with much lower resolution" which is true if the TV is far enough.
So why any other displays are not "Retina Display" even if they all could be viewed as retina display? Because they are not BRANDED as "Retina Display" (note the quotes).
On one hand you CAN define certain scientific term of retina display by calculating pixels, (eye-display) distance, pixel per angle degree etc. but the brand "Retina Display" itself is not a scientific term - it's just a brand name for a display.
I see "Retina Display" as more of a trademark than a patent. Except for it being a higher resolution display than what Apple had previously offered, there does not appear to be anything patentable about it. I see nothing to prevent anyone from manufacturing a display with X + some number of pixels which might equal or exceed that of a "Retina Display".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'd think processor (or major chip) change = non-incremental.
I see your point, but from the perspective of a user, the iPad 3 actually performed poorer than the iPad 2 in some respects because of the inability of the CPU to process the (larger) image files as quickly. The iPad 4, on the other hand, does improve performance which is the normal expectation of consumers when purchasing a next generation product or "next year's model".
Sure, the "next year's model" is not always better, take, for example, automobiles in the '70s. Engine performance declined dramatically, but that is more the exception than the rule. It is, perhaps, the exception that proves the rule.
From the outside, the iPad 4th Generation does not really present itself as anything particularly new, but it is most assuredly "better" than its predecessor.
Cheers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
Oh, "and one more thing"...Apple continue to not include an SD card slot with the iPad or other iOS devices. I've been advised that an SD card slot is a problem for some corporate and governmental entities. Can't Apple manage to figure out a way to have an option to delete it? It simply can not be that hard to do.
The SD slot is not in the iPad (or iPhone) because of corporate or governmental agency restrictions. That may be a consideration, but it's not the main issue. The main issue is, who really needs it? I've seen studies that show that most (not all, but most) people never swap out the SD card in their camera or phone. They either use the original, or when they first get it, buy one and stick it in and it never gets removed again. With that kind of usage, why add in complexity and cost (and bulk) when the feature would not be used as the feature it is. Just add in the extra storage up front in the device. That is lighter, allows thinner devices, costs less from a manufacturing standpoint, and is more "user friendly." You will notice that most Android devices have smaller amounts of in-built flash memory. Even today, though they are starting to get larger amounts to rival Apple's devices.