... leaving users no reason to buy a dedicated e-reader instead.
The Kindle, Nook, and Sony eBooks have gorgeous eInk screens that are as easy on the eyes as paper for long-term reading. That is one very compelling reason to consider them over an iPad if you're a reader.
Incidentally, I've heard no one from the Church of Jobs call out The Great One's hypocrisy. I thought "nobody reads anymore"?
You are correct from a strict technical sense that the iPad is not displaying true HD resolution.
But you are pushing your point too far. Movies are not shot in 1.78 (16x9) aspect ratio, movies are shot in 1.85 or 2.39. When you see a movie in 1.78 that means it was cropped. Are you saying if the movie is viewed in its true aspect ratio on an HD monitor that means its not true HD?
People make too big a deal about resolution. Resolution is important, but there are many techniques to trick the eye with resolution. Whats far more important is color depth and contrast. They are much more noticeable than resolution.
I'm not saying it's going to look bad. I'm sure with the quality of screen that the iPad has, that even SD movies will look great. I was merely combating the statement that the iPad displays video in HD
Did you even read the text in the link you provided? Starting with the first line "720p refers to a progrssive HDTV signal with 720 horizontal lines and an Aspect Ratio (AR) of 16:9 (1.78:1)"
1024x768 is NOT HD because it is NOT the widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9
You said, "Just like a 720p plasma has a 16x9 of 1024 x 768" - Yeah, those TV's aren't running a native HD resolution - they're ACCEPTING an HD signal and converting it to something that isn't truely HD. Oh and "16x9 of 1024 x 768" ummm you might want to recheck the math on that!
You also said, "Except the standard for 720p HD only counts the horizontal scan lines" which is also not true. Your link even proves otherwise. For something to be considered to be HD, it MUST have an aspect ratio of 16:9. The iPad may be able to play HD content, but it won't be displaying it in true HD
You're going to be looking at 132 (lines) pixels per inch which is very high res. Although the iPad lines of HD 1920x1080p will only be 1024 x 576, they will be so close together that it will still have the appearance of HD - very crisp detail. So while the display is technically not HD, from a practical standpoint because the lines are so close together 16x9 HD source material interpolated down to 1024 x 576 will still look great and not like SD at all.
I dont' think it's anything to worry about. You have to appreciate how much new high tech is making the iPad work and forget about the HD numbers. It's gonna be great. When you look at HD on your iPhone or iPod Touch it looks fantastic even though it's not "HD" res. Same will hold true for what you see on the iPad
There will be 96 pixels or .72 inches of letterbox black above and below when playing 16x9 HD full screen Landscape - 7.75" x 4.36".
The 4x3 iPad screen is 7.75" x 5.8" vs. 3" x 2" on the iPhone & iPod Touch. The iPad's smaller brothers are not the iPad aspect ratio. They are closer to the widescreen ratio so they have smaller letterbox HD video bars than the iPad will have. An iPad is boxier than the vertically slimmer iPhone & iPod Touches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustFrozen
why are you arguing with me when i clearly stated i think it will still look great in just 1 post above yours lol
No argument was intended. I can't read all these posts. Sorry if it read like an argument. I hadn't seen anyone post the exact pixel dimensions of downward interpolated HD video on an iPad. That was my main reason for posting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Assuming 1024 horizontal and a 1 ft viewing distance it comes out to:
23.97 pixels per degree for 2.39:1 movies
25.13 pixels per degree for 1.85:1 movies
25.37 pixels per degree for 1.78:1 (16:9) movies.
HD is defined to be 60 PPD with 30 degrees of horizontal viewing angle. This is where the 1080p spec comes from. 30 PPD is where you stop seeing the grid effect (aka screen door effect). 60 PPD is what humans with 20/20 vision can resolve. Obviously some folks can see better than that and some worse.
To get 60 PPD (aka full HD) density you need to sit 2.37 feet away (16:9)
To get the 30 degrees HVA you need to sit no more than 1.31 feet away.
At 1.31 feet you get 33.23 pixels per degree which is "HD enough" to qualify as HD since it meets the 30 PPD number. 720p would be 39.95 PPD which is clearly better but still in that mid range between "good enough" and "optimal".
I would say a foot and a half a good ballpark of where I hold my iPhone watching movies on a flight (resting in my hand on my lap). There's no way to hold the thing at less than a foot comfortably for a whole movie. 2 feet is reasonable if I stick it up on the tray...at that distance, you miss the 30 degrees HVA but the pixel density is there.
Yes, it's worse than 720p because you're short the horizontal resolution of 1280 pixels but for 16:9 it is 1024x576 not 410.
1024x768 isn't great but I prefer it over 1024x600. I assume some future iPad will be 1366 x 768 or better.
Thanks for that correction on the vertical amount. I was calculating 1920 to 1024 instead of 1280 to 1024. Corrections above.
Bottom line is we get 80% of a 720p HD display. 1024 x 576 Not bad at all. In future, a 1280x800 display like what's in the 13" MacBooks will make it a real HD iPad.
No, I'm saying with vivid color saturation and deep contrast, people will not be able to see the difference between 1280x720 and 1024x410 on a 9.7" screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius
Are you really saying that SD looks just like HD? If not, then what the heck ARE you saying?
I'm not saying it's going to look bad. I'm sure with the quality of screen that the iPad has, that even SD movies will look great. I was merely combating the statement that the iPad displays video in HD
Assuming 1024 horizontal and a 1 ft viewing distance it comes out to:
23.97 pixels per degree for 2.39:1 movies
25.13 pixels per degree for 1.85:1 movies
25.37 pixels per degree for 1.78:1 (16:9) movies.
HD is defined to be 60 PPD with 30 degrees of horizontal viewing angle. This is where the 1080p spec comes from. 30 PPD is where you stop seeing the grid effect (aka screen door effect). 60 PPD is what humans with 20/20 vision can resolve. Obviously some folks can see better than that and some worse.
To get 60 PPD (aka full HD) density you need to sit 2.37 feet away (16:9)
To get the 30 degrees HVA you need to sit no more than 1.31 feet away.
At 1.31 feet you get 33.23 pixels per degree which is "HD enough" to qualify as HD since it meets the 30 PPD number. 720p would be 39.95 PPD which is clearly better but still in that mid range between "good enough" and "optimal".
I would say a foot and a half a good ballpark of where I hold my iPhone watching movies on a flight (resting in my hand on my lap). There's no way to hold the thing at less than a foot comfortably for a whole movie. 2 feet is reasonable if I stick it up on the tray...at that distance, you miss the 30 degrees HVA but the pixel density is there.
Yes, it's worse than 720p because you're short the horizontal resolution of 1280 pixels but for 16:9 it is 1024x576 not 410.
1024x768 isn't great but I prefer it over 1024x600. I assume some future iPad will be 1366 x 768 or better.
Oh...for reference...most folks sit about 8+ feet from a 50" 1080p TV which results in a 14.55 degree HVA. At 2.37 feet the iPad is 16.91 degrees. Which means it's larger than your typical HDTV at normal TV viewing distances but at 60PPD vs 73PPD for the 50". You can't really see that pixel density difference so...pretty much it's the same viewing experience. Not HD but neither is the 50" HDTV at that distance...most folks sit too far away to get the HD effect (called induction and occurs at 30 HVA or higher)
i have a 2 year old that know how to use my iphone. he loves it. too bad he will hate the iPad since there is no Flash support. that means websites like Playhouse Disney and Thomas and Friends won't work.
and it would suck for school. no multitasking means no Pandora and doing homework at the same time
Idiotic response... "He loves it" (the iphone). But will hate the iPad?!? Iphone can't do flash either moron...
Look, all websites will be utilizing HTML5 soon... FLASH will soon be outdated tech for building websites. Who wants to download FLASH plugins anyway.. annoying.
Multi-tasking will come eventually... I think it's Apple's way of wanting you to BUY 99cent songs instead of using borderline illegal PANDORA apps to listen to popular music for free.
People forget.. You can still multi-task and listen to the IPOD app and surf the web at the same time...
lol the html5 argument is hilarious, its not going to become a standard until "the year 2022 or later"
sure, they'll have some of it working before then, even now some parts work a little bit, but it will likely be many years until we have html5 delivering media-rich content in a way that rivals flash
face it, the lack of flash is by far the #1 reason against owning an ipad, because 95% of its use is going to be browsing. there's no candy coating it. it just comes down to whether the other features, such as the app store, are enough to counter it... which i might ad, comes down to personal preference - surely not something worth fighting about
lol the html5 argument is hilarious, its not going to become a standard until "the year 2022 or later"
sure, they'll have some of it working before then, even now some parts work a little bit, but it will likely be many years until we have html5 delivering media-rich content in a way that rivals flash
face it, the lack of flash is by far the #1 reason against owning an ipad, because 95% of its use is going to be browsing. there's no candy coating it. it just comes down to whether the other features, such as the app store, are enough to counter it... which i might ad, comes down to personal preference - surely not something worth fighting about
I was saying it 10 years ago and I'll say it again now... to hell with flash. Oh... and did you know that CSS2 is not a standard yet either?
HTML 5 won't be pervasive for a long time, but I have Flash disabled on my Mac and rarely miss it. The iPad would work fine for most of my browsing.
I'm glad Apple has taken a stand against Flash even if the motivation is to sell 99 cent apps instead of letting people play online Flash games for free.
The Kindle, Nook, and Sony eBooks have gorgeous eInk screens that are as easy on the eyes as paper for long-term reading. That is one very compelling reason to consider them over an iPad if you're a reader.
Incidentally, I've heard no one from the Church of Jobs call out The Great One's hypocrisy. I thought "nobody reads anymore"?
He always does that before he releases a product. And frankly, given the dire straits of the print media companies it's not far from the truth.
eInk and gorgeous is a stretch. The contrast is kinda meh. It's a helluva lot better than my old ebook killed a couple years ago but not "gorgeous". Refresh rate still sucks.
The typography is likely to be superior on the iPad than most eBooks. We'll see. In any case, for indoor reading I prefer the LCD screen. 99% of my reading is done indoors and most likely on an airplane.
Idiotic response... "He loves it" (the iphone). But will hate the iPad?!? Iphone can't do flash either moron...
Look, all websites will be utilizing HTML5 soon... FLASH will soon be outdated tech for building websites. Who wants to download FLASH plugins anyway.. annoying.
Flash will be with us in one form or another for a long time to come. But I can agree that many creative web developers are finding HTML5 the new hotness and Flash old and busted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustFrozen
lol the html5 argument is hilarious, its not going to become a standard until "the year 2022 or later"
sure, they'll have some of it working before then, even now some parts work a little bit, but it will likely be many years until we have html5 delivering media-rich content in a way that rivals flash.
It will take some years before HTML5 is fully ratified, but no one is waiting for that. Web developers are using parts of HTML5 as soon as they become available. No it won't take that long for HTML5 to be able to replace Flash. The technology is already available its just not quite yet ready to be widely used, but its almost here.
Quote:
face it, the lack of flash is by far the #1 reason against owning an ipad, because 95% of its use is going to be browsing. there's no candy coating it. it just comes down to whether the other features, such as the app store, are enough to counter it... which i might ad, comes down to personal preference - surely not something worth fighting about
You act as though everyone is dedicated to using Flash. That is not true at all. As has been show by YouTube everyone will adapt their delivery technology so that it will work on any device. No one is going to stop with Flash.
Why do people keep saying this, Apple does nothing to stop free games. There are many free games in the app store. Apple has to pay for the bandwidth and billing costs of free apps the same as paid apps.
Apple is actively contributing to the development of WebGL and CSS3 Visual Effects. Both of which can be used to make free games. The difference being these games would play right in the browser without the need for a plug in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
.I'm glad Apple has taken a stand against Flash even if the motivation is to sell 99 cent apps instead of letting people play online Flash games for free.
Oh...for reference...most folks sit about 8+ feet from a 50" 1080p TV which results in a 14.55 degree HVA. At 2.37 feet the iPad is 16.91 degrees. Which means it's larger than your typical HDTV at normal TV viewing distances but at 60PPD vs 73PPD for the 50". You can't really see that pixel density difference so...pretty much it's the same viewing experience. Not HD but neither is the 50" HDTV at that distance...most folks sit too far away to get the HD effect (called induction and occurs at 30 HVA or higher)
Comments
He is correct in every sense. The iPad will not display HD. Deal with it.
... leaving users no reason to buy a dedicated e-reader instead.
The Kindle, Nook, and Sony eBooks have gorgeous eInk screens that are as easy on the eyes as paper for long-term reading. That is one very compelling reason to consider them over an iPad if you're a reader.
Incidentally, I've heard no one from the Church of Jobs call out The Great One's hypocrisy. I thought "nobody reads anymore"?
Your eyes cannot see lines of resolution. As long as the picture looks good, ultimately no one will care about its HD status.
Are you really saying that SD looks just like HD? If not, then what the heck ARE you saying?
You are correct from a strict technical sense that the iPad is not displaying true HD resolution.
But you are pushing your point too far. Movies are not shot in 1.78 (16x9) aspect ratio, movies are shot in 1.85 or 2.39. When you see a movie in 1.78 that means it was cropped. Are you saying if the movie is viewed in its true aspect ratio on an HD monitor that means its not true HD?
People make too big a deal about resolution. Resolution is important, but there are many techniques to trick the eye with resolution. Whats far more important is color depth and contrast. They are much more noticeable than resolution.
I'm not saying it's going to look bad. I'm sure with the quality of screen that the iPad has, that even SD movies will look great. I was merely combating the statement that the iPad displays video in HD
Did you even read the text in the link you provided? Starting with the first line "720p refers to a progrssive HDTV signal with 720 horizontal lines and an Aspect Ratio (AR) of 16:9 (1.78:1)"
1024x768 is NOT HD because it is NOT the widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9
You said, "Just like a 720p plasma has a 16x9 of 1024 x 768" - Yeah, those TV's aren't running a native HD resolution - they're ACCEPTING an HD signal and converting it to something that isn't truely HD. Oh and "16x9 of 1024 x 768" ummm you might want to recheck the math on that!
You also said, "Except the standard for 720p HD only counts the horizontal scan lines" which is also not true. Your link even proves otherwise. For something to be considered to be HD, it MUST have an aspect ratio of 16:9. The iPad may be able to play HD content, but it won't be displaying it in true HD
You're going to be looking at 132 (lines) pixels per inch which is very high res. Although the iPad lines of HD 1920x1080p will only be 1024 x 576, they will be so close together that it will still have the appearance of HD - very crisp detail. So while the display is technically not HD, from a practical standpoint because the lines are so close together 16x9 HD source material interpolated down to 1024 x 576 will still look great and not like SD at all.
I dont' think it's anything to worry about. You have to appreciate how much new high tech is making the iPad work and forget about the HD numbers. It's gonna be great. When you look at HD on your iPhone or iPod Touch it looks fantastic even though it's not "HD" res. Same will hold true for what you see on the iPad
There will be 96 pixels or .72 inches of letterbox black above and below when playing 16x9 HD full screen Landscape - 7.75" x 4.36".
The 4x3 iPad screen is 7.75" x 5.8" vs. 3" x 2" on the iPhone & iPod Touch. The iPad's smaller brothers are not the iPad aspect ratio. They are closer to the widescreen ratio so they have smaller letterbox HD video bars than the iPad will have. An iPad is boxier than the vertically slimmer iPhone & iPod Touches.
why are you arguing with me when i clearly stated i think it will still look great in just 1 post above yours lol
No argument was intended. I can't read all these posts. Sorry if it read like an argument. I hadn't seen anyone post the exact pixel dimensions of downward interpolated HD video on an iPad. That was my main reason for posting.
Assuming 1024 horizontal and a 1 ft viewing distance it comes out to:
23.97 pixels per degree for 2.39:1 movies
25.13 pixels per degree for 1.85:1 movies
25.37 pixels per degree for 1.78:1 (16:9) movies.
HD is defined to be 60 PPD with 30 degrees of horizontal viewing angle. This is where the 1080p spec comes from. 30 PPD is where you stop seeing the grid effect (aka screen door effect). 60 PPD is what humans with 20/20 vision can resolve. Obviously some folks can see better than that and some worse.
To get 60 PPD (aka full HD) density you need to sit 2.37 feet away (16:9)
To get the 30 degrees HVA you need to sit no more than 1.31 feet away.
At 1.31 feet you get 33.23 pixels per degree which is "HD enough" to qualify as HD since it meets the 30 PPD number. 720p would be 39.95 PPD which is clearly better but still in that mid range between "good enough" and "optimal".
I would say a foot and a half a good ballpark of where I hold my iPhone watching movies on a flight (resting in my hand on my lap). There's no way to hold the thing at less than a foot comfortably for a whole movie. 2 feet is reasonable if I stick it up on the tray...at that distance, you miss the 30 degrees HVA but the pixel density is there.
Yes, it's worse than 720p because you're short the horizontal resolution of 1280 pixels but for 16:9 it is 1024x576 not 410.
1024x768 isn't great but I prefer it over 1024x600. I assume some future iPad will be 1366 x 768 or better.
Thanks for that correction on the vertical amount. I was calculating 1920 to 1024 instead of 1280 to 1024. Corrections above.
Bottom line is we get 80% of a 720p HD display. 1024 x 576 Not bad at all. In future, a 1280x800 display like what's in the 13" MacBooks will make it a real HD iPad.
Are you really saying that SD looks just like HD? If not, then what the heck ARE you saying?
I'm not saying it's going to look bad. I'm sure with the quality of screen that the iPad has, that even SD movies will look great. I was merely combating the statement that the iPad displays video in HD
Assuming 1024 horizontal and a 1 ft viewing distance it comes out to:
23.97 pixels per degree for 2.39:1 movies
25.13 pixels per degree for 1.85:1 movies
25.37 pixels per degree for 1.78:1 (16:9) movies.
HD is defined to be 60 PPD with 30 degrees of horizontal viewing angle. This is where the 1080p spec comes from. 30 PPD is where you stop seeing the grid effect (aka screen door effect). 60 PPD is what humans with 20/20 vision can resolve. Obviously some folks can see better than that and some worse.
To get 60 PPD (aka full HD) density you need to sit 2.37 feet away (16:9)
To get the 30 degrees HVA you need to sit no more than 1.31 feet away.
At 1.31 feet you get 33.23 pixels per degree which is "HD enough" to qualify as HD since it meets the 30 PPD number. 720p would be 39.95 PPD which is clearly better but still in that mid range between "good enough" and "optimal".
I would say a foot and a half a good ballpark of where I hold my iPhone watching movies on a flight (resting in my hand on my lap). There's no way to hold the thing at less than a foot comfortably for a whole movie. 2 feet is reasonable if I stick it up on the tray...at that distance, you miss the 30 degrees HVA but the pixel density is there.
Yes, it's worse than 720p because you're short the horizontal resolution of 1280 pixels but for 16:9 it is 1024x576 not 410.
1024x768 isn't great but I prefer it over 1024x600. I assume some future iPad will be 1366 x 768 or better.
i have a 2 year old that know how to use my iphone. he loves it. too bad he will hate the iPad since there is no Flash support. that means websites like Playhouse Disney and Thomas and Friends won't work.
and it would suck for school. no multitasking means no Pandora and doing homework at the same time
Idiotic response... "He loves it" (the iphone). But will hate the iPad?!? Iphone can't do flash either moron...
Look, all websites will be utilizing HTML5 soon... FLASH will soon be outdated tech for building websites. Who wants to download FLASH plugins anyway.. annoying.
Multi-tasking will come eventually... I think it's Apple's way of wanting you to BUY 99cent songs instead of using borderline illegal PANDORA apps to listen to popular music for free.
People forget.. You can still multi-task and listen to the IPOD app and surf the web at the same time...
sure, they'll have some of it working before then, even now some parts work a little bit, but it will likely be many years until we have html5 delivering media-rich content in a way that rivals flash
face it, the lack of flash is by far the #1 reason against owning an ipad, because 95% of its use is going to be browsing. there's no candy coating it. it just comes down to whether the other features, such as the app store, are enough to counter it... which i might ad, comes down to personal preference - surely not something worth fighting about
lol the html5 argument is hilarious, its not going to become a standard until "the year 2022 or later"
sure, they'll have some of it working before then, even now some parts work a little bit, but it will likely be many years until we have html5 delivering media-rich content in a way that rivals flash
face it, the lack of flash is by far the #1 reason against owning an ipad, because 95% of its use is going to be browsing. there's no candy coating it. it just comes down to whether the other features, such as the app store, are enough to counter it... which i might ad, comes down to personal preference - surely not something worth fighting about
I was saying it 10 years ago and I'll say it again now... to hell with flash. Oh... and did you know that CSS2 is not a standard yet either?
I'm glad Apple has taken a stand against Flash even if the motivation is to sell 99 cent apps instead of letting people play online Flash games for free.
My two cents on iPad:
6. Yes it has Maps. But does it have GPS? I guess NO.
Why guess? The specs are online (http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/). The 3G version has GPS.
The Kindle, Nook, and Sony eBooks have gorgeous eInk screens that are as easy on the eyes as paper for long-term reading. That is one very compelling reason to consider them over an iPad if you're a reader.
Incidentally, I've heard no one from the Church of Jobs call out The Great One's hypocrisy. I thought "nobody reads anymore"?
He always does that before he releases a product. And frankly, given the dire straits of the print media companies it's not far from the truth.
eInk and gorgeous is a stretch. The contrast is kinda meh. It's a helluva lot better than my old ebook killed a couple years ago but not "gorgeous". Refresh rate still sucks.
The typography is likely to be superior on the iPad than most eBooks. We'll see. In any case, for indoor reading I prefer the LCD screen. 99% of my reading is done indoors and most likely on an airplane.
Idiotic response... "He loves it" (the iphone). But will hate the iPad?!? Iphone can't do flash either moron...
Look, all websites will be utilizing HTML5 soon... FLASH will soon be outdated tech for building websites. Who wants to download FLASH plugins anyway.. annoying.
Flash will be with us in one form or another for a long time to come. But I can agree that many creative web developers are finding HTML5 the new hotness and Flash old and busted.
lol the html5 argument is hilarious, its not going to become a standard until "the year 2022 or later"
sure, they'll have some of it working before then, even now some parts work a little bit, but it will likely be many years until we have html5 delivering media-rich content in a way that rivals flash.
It will take some years before HTML5 is fully ratified, but no one is waiting for that. Web developers are using parts of HTML5 as soon as they become available. No it won't take that long for HTML5 to be able to replace Flash. The technology is already available its just not quite yet ready to be widely used, but its almost here.
face it, the lack of flash is by far the #1 reason against owning an ipad, because 95% of its use is going to be browsing. there's no candy coating it. it just comes down to whether the other features, such as the app store, are enough to counter it... which i might ad, comes down to personal preference - surely not something worth fighting about
You act as though everyone is dedicated to using Flash. That is not true at all. As has been show by YouTube everyone will adapt their delivery technology so that it will work on any device. No one is going to stop with Flash.
Apple is actively contributing to the development of WebGL and CSS3 Visual Effects. Both of which can be used to make free games. The difference being these games would play right in the browser without the need for a plug in.
.I'm glad Apple has taken a stand against Flash even if the motivation is to sell 99 cent apps instead of letting people play online Flash games for free.
Oh...for reference...most folks sit about 8+ feet from a 50" 1080p TV which results in a 14.55 degree HVA. At 2.37 feet the iPad is 16.91 degrees. Which means it's larger than your typical HDTV at normal TV viewing distances but at 60PPD vs 73PPD for the 50". You can't really see that pixel density difference so...pretty much it's the same viewing experience. Not HD but neither is the 50" HDTV at that distance...most folks sit too far away to get the HD effect (called induction and occurs at 30 HVA or higher)
I just wanted people to read this again.
C.
Sometimes I think Jobs secretly has shares in vision care companies...
Yes the iPad can let you read 'books', but let's face it, it's a horrible e-book reader. e-ink is far superior for what it's intended for.
So, you've seen the iPad and read books on it and your opinion is based on first hand, hands-on experience?
OR are you simply repeating the ill-informed talking points spewed by Apple-loathing mouthpieces?
I have no idea which is better or not until I can see them side by side viewing the SAME source material.