Please enlighten me how a 1536x1152 display for the iPad Mini would create "more problems", if any?
Sure thing: That's, what, about halfway between the first and second resolutions? All text needs redone. That can be easy if it's done with fonts, but if it's images, they need redone. All images need redone, in fact. So does all formatting of everything, since it's not a 4:1 size increase.
It's amazing how appealing the iPad mini is to about 89% of the population. Us nerds here on AI think we represent most users. We don't. Most of us (ie., our parents) could give a shit about 'color gamut'.
So things look right? Yes. That's all 99% of folks care about.
It's funny watching Apple reps have to talk about cores and RAM and gamut; it makes them cringe, as it doesn't define the experience nor the way their products are intended to be used.
They don't really talk about it, they rush over the features to harp on the way more important benefits. The only reason the mention the pecs is that they are presenting to media who give a crap and will flood them with repeated questions if they don't
Unfortunately, Apple is starting to earn a reputation of stinging 1st generation early adopters. The first iPhone had no 3G, despite virtually every other phone having this at the time, the first generation iPad had only 256MB of RAM, something that would be a significant issue with the release of iOS 4.0 later the same year.
Check the battery life of the iPhone 3G that came out a year later then come back and tell us how the original iPhone was going to fair with the 3G chips of the day.
The iPad Mini's biggest appeal is you get into the iOS ecosystem at the lowest price possible so far. Mini2 will almost certainly get an A6 and Retina, but by then, you'd expect the competition to be a lot better too.
That won't happen. 100% guaranteed.
Having said all that... you have to spare some sympathy for Surface owners... seems like the RT browser is even slower than on an iPhone 4.
Because Safari on iOS is such a horrible experience¡
It goes from 1x to 4x or 9x. It is double the width and double the length. Also, I think that Apple wants to conform the same screen size. In the iPhone5 comes out with an extra row of icon, it happens that most of the apps are conformed to the iPhone4 standard. So a lot of apps do not take advantage of the extra row.
Apple wants to keep the choices low but the iPhone 5 shows that they aren't scared of mixing it up a little. As someone that is working with app development for some custom stuff for work I get the notion of not making an update just for this new size since the old one does work. Bring in '5' compatibility with the net bug fix or feature pack
Please enlighten me how a 1536x1152 display for the iPad Mini would create "more problems", if any?
786,432 v. 1,769,472 pixels which means you'l need a lot more power to push to that display which means a thicker and heavier battery and the inability to use the A5 as at least a triple core A%x would be needed. It should be clear by now that weight is key to the iPad mini's design.
Then you have a wonky resolution (and who knows what size you are projecting on this device) that now doesn't show any App Store apps pixel perfect without being windowed, so you have a new SDK and users have to wait for devs to adjust their apps for a new resolution. It should be clear to you why Apple is doubling the resolution instead of just pulling a number out of a hat like you did.
Let's not sugar coat things. The iPad mini made some compromises because Apple figured, probably quite correctly, that it could get away with it for now. My guess is that it gets a Retina Display in a year or two once yields improve. At that point, it might well supplant the 9.7" iPad as Apple's most popular tablet. For now, I see this product having lots of appeal with women (because of the size), children, schools, and budget conscious people who want access to the Apple ecosystem
Your sexism aside, you are perhaps right about the kids etc. These are not folks that need high power and such. Especially not at the risk of battery life. If we couldn't get a guaranteed 6 hours minimum with near constant use for anything it would be a no go on set. Because that's the time between meals and that's the only time we can really charge or change out gear
The retinas of the human eye do not "automatically form an image in the mind". Sensory information becomes perceptual information as it is further processed in the optic ganglia, LGN, SCN, midbrain, occipital and temporal lobes, and many other CNS structures.
Not what he said. You might want to read it again.
Sure thing: That's, what, about halfway between the first and second resolutions? All text needs redone. That can be easy if it's done with fonts, but if it's images, they need redone. All images need redone, in fact. So does all formatting of everything, since it's not a 4:1 size increase.
It would look terrible.
Good. Force them to stop bloating up app sizes by using images for text etc
Notice they look at specs and still shots. So no one notices the jerky video or the shifty battery life
I've only watched a couple of movies on my Nexus7, but "jerkyness" wasn't an issue at all (nor has battery life been problematic). Frame rates have been fine.
I ask this question out of simple ignorance. What exactly does a 62 versus 86 percent color gamut mean to me, the user? Does it mean colors aren't as bright? Or that each color has a smaller range of shades? Or something completely different? In what applications would the ostensibly "better" number show a significant difference to me?
for me the greater the color gamat, the greater the Ability to be able to reproduce the color of a flower in the picture you've taken of it...
Basically it means that it only shows 62% of all visible colors versus 86% of all visible colors... or the shades of colors...
i.e. off topic... i have noticed that the colors of the "polo" brand shirts are more Vibrant or "jewel" like than the "knock-off" shirts that have the same color.
Resolution, accuracy and repeatability... color gamat refers to the accuracy of the color represented...
but it is moot point because Individuals have different color sensitivities... The old saw of women care more about colors then men....
ok, colour gamut referes to the "fancy" named colors in those paint chips... No the colors that are infinite variations on red blue green brown and purple.... um fushia isn't just a bright purple lol...
Sure thing: That's, what, about halfway between the first and second resolutions? All text needs redone. That can be easy if it's done with fonts, but if it's images, they need redone. All images need redone, in fact. So does all formatting of everything, since it's not a 4:1 size increase.
It would look terrible.
That's absolutely not true. In fact, NO app would need to be "redone". Rather, ALL apps will be scaled up or down appropriately on the HARDWARE side.
The 1536x1152 resolution being a 50% increase in multiple over the iPad Mini's 1024x768 display and a 25% decrease in multiple from the 2048x1536 display of the full-sized iPads means that it would offer 100% SCALABILTY for apps created for EITHER of the resolutions.
Look "terrible"? Please. Any 1024x768 app could look no worse on a 1536x1152 display and in fact would probably look better due to the benefits of upscaling.
Any 2048x1536 app would not look as good on a 1536x1152 screen as it would in its native resolution, but would look far BETTER than on the iPad Mini's 1024x768 screen.
In fact, a 1536x1152 screen is 225% the resolution of 1024x768 display and has two-and-a-quarter times the number of pixels, making it more than twice as sharp.
It's the exact difference between 1080p and 720p, with 1080p having 225% the resolution of 720p and two-and-a-quarter times the number of pixels.
Now using this analogy, would 720p material look any worse on a 1080p screen? And if there was HD material that was 1440p (2560x1440), would you rather view it on a 1080p screen or a 720p display?
Any 1024x768 app could look no worse on a 1536x1152 display and in fact would probably look better due to the benefits of upscaling.
Right, because 720 video sure doesn't look blurry when I full-screen it on my 27" Cinema Display. ????
In fact, a 1536x1152 screen is 225% the resolution of 1024x768 display and has two-and-a-quarter times the number of pixels, making it more than twice as sharp.
You really don't know how this works! It won't be "sharper". It will be blurrier! UNLESS the app is SPECIFICALLY made for this new, third resolution.
Now using this analogy, would 720p material look any worse on a 1080p screen? And if there was HD material that was 1440p (2560x1440), would you rather view it on a 1080p screen or a 720p display?
If you want to pretend your beliefs are correct, it would look better on the 1080 screen. If you want to go by logic, truth, and facts, put it on the 720.
I've had the mini since Friday and truly enjoy almost everything about it. If it were not for the screen I would keep it over my iPad 3. It's an amazing device but there is room for improvement.
As far as the colours go, the iPad Mini screen looks better:
The Nexus and Kindle have a yellowish tint. Apple also clearly made a better choice with the screen size.
That's an amazing comparison, assuming brightness levels are adjusted the same. Any info on that?
Afterthought: Did the higher pixel density on the others require more backlighting, which was not provided?
(To save on battery life, lack of design follow-through, not add thickness and weight, etc.)
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Not really. It would have created even more problems.
Please enlighten me how a 1536x1152 display for the iPad Mini would create "more problems", if any?
Originally Posted by Buckus Toothnai
Please enlighten me how a 1536x1152 display for the iPad Mini would create "more problems", if any?
Sure thing: That's, what, about halfway between the first and second resolutions? All text needs redone. That can be easy if it's done with fonts, but if it's images, they need redone. All images need redone, in fact. So does all formatting of everything, since it's not a 4:1 size increase.
It would look terrible.
So things look right? Yes. That's all 99% of folks care about.
They don't really talk about it, they rush over the features to harp on the way more important benefits. The only reason the mention the pecs is that they are presenting to media who give a crap and will flood them with repeated questions if they don't
Check the battery life of the iPhone 3G that came out a year later then come back and tell us how the original iPhone was going to fair with the 3G chips of the day.
That won't happen. 100% guaranteed.
Because Safari on iOS is such a horrible experience¡
Apple wants to keep the choices low but the iPhone 5 shows that they aren't scared of mixing it up a little. As someone that is working with app development for some custom stuff for work I get the notion of not making an update just for this new size since the old one does work. Bring in '5' compatibility with the net bug fix or feature pack
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckus Toothnai
Please enlighten me how a 1536x1152 display for the iPad Mini would create "more problems", if any?
786,432 v. 1,769,472 pixels which means you'l need a lot more power to push to that display which means a thicker and heavier battery and the inability to use the A5 as at least a triple core A%x would be needed. It should be clear by now that weight is key to the iPad mini's design.
Then you have a wonky resolution (and who knows what size you are projecting on this device) that now doesn't show any App Store apps pixel perfect without being windowed, so you have a new SDK and users have to wait for devs to adjust their apps for a new resolution. It should be clear to you why Apple is doubling the resolution instead of just pulling a number out of a hat like you did.
Your sexism aside, you are perhaps right about the kids etc. These are not folks that need high power and such. Especially not at the risk of battery life. If we couldn't get a guaranteed 6 hours minimum with near constant use for anything it would be a no go on set. Because that's the time between meals and that's the only time we can really charge or change out gear
Self proclaimed display tech expert and gets press hits etc. he's about on par with analysts in my book
Who knows if they do. We know the BOM but not the full per unit costs
Not what he said. You might want to read it again.
Good. Force them to stop bloating up app sizes by using images for text etc
Notice they look at specs and still shots. So no one notices the jerky video or the shifty battery life
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Notice they look at specs and still shots. So no one notices the jerky video or the shifty battery life
I've only watched a couple of movies on my Nexus7, but "jerkyness" wasn't an issue at all (nor has battery life been problematic). Frame rates have been fine.
for me the greater the color gamat, the greater the Ability to be able to reproduce the color of a flower in the picture you've taken of it...
Basically it means that it only shows 62% of all visible colors versus 86% of all visible colors... or the shades of colors...
i.e. off topic... i have noticed that the colors of the "polo" brand shirts are more Vibrant or "jewel" like than the "knock-off" shirts that have the same color.
Resolution, accuracy and repeatability... color gamat refers to the accuracy of the color represented...
but it is moot point because Individuals have different color sensitivities... The old saw of women care more about colors then men....
ok, colour gamut referes to the "fancy" named colors in those paint chips... No the colors that are infinite variations on red blue green brown and purple.... um fushia isn't just a bright purple lol...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Sure thing: That's, what, about halfway between the first and second resolutions? All text needs redone. That can be easy if it's done with fonts, but if it's images, they need redone. All images need redone, in fact. So does all formatting of everything, since it's not a 4:1 size increase.
It would look terrible.
That's absolutely not true. In fact, NO app would need to be "redone". Rather, ALL apps will be scaled up or down appropriately on the HARDWARE side.
The 1536x1152 resolution being a 50% increase in multiple over the iPad Mini's 1024x768 display and a 25% decrease in multiple from the 2048x1536 display of the full-sized iPads means that it would offer 100% SCALABILTY for apps created for EITHER of the resolutions.
Look "terrible"? Please. Any 1024x768 app could look no worse on a 1536x1152 display and in fact would probably look better due to the benefits of upscaling.
Any 2048x1536 app would not look as good on a 1536x1152 screen as it would in its native resolution, but would look far BETTER than on the iPad Mini's 1024x768 screen.
In fact, a 1536x1152 screen is 225% the resolution of 1024x768 display and has two-and-a-quarter times the number of pixels, making it more than twice as sharp.
It's the exact difference between 1080p and 720p, with 1080p having 225% the resolution of 720p and two-and-a-quarter times the number of pixels.
Now using this analogy, would 720p material look any worse on a 1080p screen? And if there was HD material that was 1440p (2560x1440), would you rather view it on a 1080p screen or a 720p display?
Originally Posted by Buckus Toothnai
Any 1024x768 app could look no worse on a 1536x1152 display and in fact would probably look better due to the benefits of upscaling.
Right, because 720 video sure doesn't look blurry when I full-screen it on my 27" Cinema Display. ????
In fact, a 1536x1152 screen is 225% the resolution of 1024x768 display and has two-and-a-quarter times the number of pixels, making it more than twice as sharp.
You really don't know how this works! It won't be "sharper". It will be blurrier! UNLESS the app is SPECIFICALLY made for this new, third resolution.
Now using this analogy, would 720p material look any worse on a 1080p screen? And if there was HD material that was 1440p (2560x1440), would you rather view it on a 1080p screen or a 720p display?
If you want to pretend your beliefs are correct, it would look better on the 1080 screen. If you want to go by logic, truth, and facts, put it on the 720.
I've had the mini since Friday and truly enjoy almost everything about it. If it were not for the screen I would keep it over my iPad 3. It's an amazing device but there is room for improvement.
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/15822/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/15823/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
The Nexus and Kindle have a yellowish tint. Apple also clearly made a better choice with the screen size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell
Just in case some of you already forgot...
No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
We only "forgot" because it's a blatant lie.
Did you forget three days ago you said since just saying things without any evidence is usually considered idiotic. So prove to us which ipad looks better and sounds better than the Kindle Fire HD.
You're already looking idiotic.
That's an amazing comparison, assuming brightness levels are adjusted the same. Any info on that?
Afterthought: Did the higher pixel density on the others require more backlighting, which was not provided?
(To save on battery life, lack of design follow-through, not add thickness and weight, etc.)