Ι think they should have fused the glass to the screen. This display is good in terms of comparing to the non existent (let's be frank) competition, but it does leave a lot to be desired, esp. to those like myself who can't read a book comfortably on the ipad. For the time being to me the only way to go is an ereader and an ipad.
Shame about not fusing it to the glass at least, but I am sure that with the money apple have invested in screen tec in years time (seems long don't it?) we will very much like what we, er, see, and in a couple or so years they ll blow our minds with the quality of these screens, but so far, that's all we got.
I must respetfully disagree with the notion that the screens are relativly the same. I truly enjoy the iPad 2 but the iPhone 4 display is far superior.
Soneira is talking out of his ass. Software tricks like anti-aliasing are used to make up for a lack of sufficient resolution to display text clearly at all sizes. I, for one, am looking forward to the day that the iPad has a razor sharp display like the iPhone 4.
This is not a bug and is the intended usage of the automatic brightness controls.
I think in the original iPhone Keynote, from back in 2007, Steve Jobs said something about it being weird for your phone's display to constantly go in and out, so it only changes in high brightness to remain readable.
Whether it's a bug or not is semantics to some degree.
It's enough of a bug for me (and for most folks I know with iPhones), that we turn off automatic brightness altogether. Let's face it, if it doesn't actually work, it's a bug, irrespective of whether the developers think it's a "feature," instead.
Once again, to all those out there wanting an iPad Retina Display... please look up how huge that pixel and rendering demand is first.
Google this: 2048 × 1536 ... and find out that there is not even a desktop display under 24" with that resolution, let alone coming to an iPad any time soon. You want a 1gb overclocked card with twin fans to go with that too?
Retina display is: a perception of display in regards to a printed page, at a size relative to "normal" reading conditions based upon the device and how far or close that device is to the eyes.
Considering that a sub 4" screen showing a web page, book, or data... while it's fantastic for the iPhone, you just don't need it on the 10" size of an iPad.
Although in due time, it certainly will be simply "amazing and magical" when it gets here
They wouldn't get the Ipad2 even if it did have retina display. That crap about "I'm waiting for retina display" is a crock. What they really mean is "I don't want the Ipad2 and nothing is going to change that".
More like "I can't afford the iPad 2 and my Mum won't buy me one either, so I'm going to find some picky reason to justify to myself why I don't really want it anyway."
Soneira also notes that a "bug" in Apple's automatic brightness controls locks brightness based on "the brightest ambient light sensor value that has been measured at any point starting from the time unit was awakened," even after a substantial decrease in ambient light. This issue, however, occurs across all iOS devices, and could be a simple software fix.
It didn't take an expert to see this. It's been around since iOS 1.0
A retina display isn?t practical now (for many reasons, I?d guess; cost, manufacturing quantities, and RAM/GPU burden) but when it finally is?2012??it WILL make a difference. It may not be as noticeable on the iPad as much as the iPhone, since you don?t always hold it as close, but it WILL be noticeable and it will be great!
That?s not to say the iPad screen isn?t nice already. I?m still getting an iPad 2. There?s always something new coming, and I can?t wait forever...
Prof. Peabody, you just took the words out of my mouth!
What I wonder is how the iPad 2's display compares to the original. Have seen a number of videos comparing the graphics power of the two, but no mention was made of the optical quality. However it appeared to me that the new model was noticeably sharper, the older iPads looking a bit more yellowish and dimmer. Could that be attributed just to their being about a year older? Or has the manufacturing process been significantly changed?
But even though the iPad still has only 1024x768 resolution, that is still more information than the iPhone can display, so there is at least some advantage. On the other hand, it seems a lot of iOS publications are not making very good use of the screen real estate on the iPad, and are delivering text in fonts so small and spindly that they are barely legible and look just terrible. MNSHO.
Whether it's a bug or not is semantics to some degree.
It's enough of a bug for me (and for most folks I know with iPhones), that we turn off automatic brightness altogether. Let's face it, if it doesn't actually work, it's a bug, irrespective of whether the developers think it's a "feature," instead.
Yes, it is a matter of semantics, entirely. It's a 'bug', by the definition of the word in this context, only if it doesn't work as intended. If it works as intended but you don't like the way it's designed to work, it's simply something you don't like, or, at most, a poorly designed feature. While this may seem a bit pedantic, it's also not useful to dilute the meaning of words so that they in fact lose all useful meaning.
Personally, I think the brightness controls work fine in most situations.
Once again, to all those out there wanting an iPad Retina Display...
In 12 months from now we're probably going to be hearing a lot of moaning and whining.
Bahwawawa..........I'm not getting an iPad3, I'm waiting for the iPad4 and the retina display.
As I said on a previous thread, I'd love to be proven wrong, but I just don't see it happening.
The iPhone 4 resolution is nothing amazing, it's only 960 x 640. The thing that makes it special is that they managed to pack that into a little 3.5" midget screen.
As for the "display expert", he doesn't sound like much of an expert. I think that the iPad2 display is pretty good, but to claim that there's little difference between 132 PPI and 326 PPI is just insane.
Text with sharp edges on the iPad is more about achieving technical parity with analog technology. As with music, compromises were made in the transition to digital. Some compromises have since been made up.
It's not just a "nit-picky", "hater" detail and if I'm not mistaken Apple helped make great strides in font rendering. If it was important for them years ago, I'm sure it's important now.
I'm not a big fan of losing "analog niceties", but it's reality. I know plenty of people who obsess over the quality of their movie and music files. Apple has made their fair share of compromises when it's come to that sort of thing, so it's really not a surprise that the current screen is sufficient, especially for a market that hasn't even seen one. Until they could compare it to something better, most people would never notice. The ipad screen is pretty amazing, except for one detail.
I have my own selfish and wishful desires for a "2K" ipad display as well.
The addition of "1080 support" on ipad2 is promising for ipad3's possible native screen rez bump however. Who's voting for iPad Pro? Anyone?
Once again AI puts out the bait and so many people are quick to get on the hook. Do they not teach reading comprehension in school anymore?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga
He couldn't be more wrong about this. The iPhone 4's pixel density is probably one of its best qualities and what really sets it apart from everything else on the market. Anti-aliasing can make things a little better, but it can also wash out detail. I don't think the iPhone 4 would be nearly as usable at 132ppi.
Let's be a bit more objective about the statement he made. He said 326 ppi was overkill, but that doesn't mean he said it wasn't better than 132. Could Apple have made it 250 ppi and achieved the same great display qualities. Would you notice the difference between 250 and 326? (I'm just using 250 as an example. Maybe we use 280 or 300.)
So he said 326 was "overkill" but used for "app compatibility". So Apple could have used 280 ppi or 300 ppi and achieved the same stunning results, but they went to 326 because it scales better to the iPad dimensions to make scaling iPhone apps to iPad screen easier.
Your assumption that he is saying 132 = 326 is just plain wrong. And his assessment is likely correct. There is a good chance that scaling the iPhone's screen resolution to the iPad size was a consideration for Apple when determining what ppi to use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
As for the "display expert", he doesn't sound like much of an expert. I think that the iPad2 display is pretty good, but to claim that there's little difference between 132 PPI and 326 PPI is just insane.
Did you miss the part where he said "except for the ppi"? There are many display characteristics. Brightness, color accuracy, viewing angle. PPI is just one thing, and he qualified his statement in that regard.
In 12 months from now we're probably going to be hearing a lot of moaning and whining.
Bahwawawa..........I'm not getting an iPad3, I'm waiting for the iPad4 and the retina display.
As I said on a previous thread, I'd love to be proven wrong, but I just don't see it happening.
The iPhone 4 resolution is nothing amazing, it's only 960 x 640. The thing that makes it special is that they managed to pack that into a little 3.5" midget screen.
As for the "display expert", he doesn't sound like much of an expert. I think that the iPad2 display is pretty good, but to claim that there's little difference between 132 PPI and 326 PPI is just insane.
Well yes, your right about that the 132 vs 326 PPI is a noticeable difference.. as well as there will always be assorted moans & groans why people will not get an iPad, for whatever reason they pull out of ...their..um..hat(?)
I think it was a brilliant marketing and tech ploy by Apple to do the Retina Dance on the iPhone. However... what other tech advances are around the corner that could supersede it, and be more useful and profitable for the iPad?
AMOLED possibly, or a screen with a finer dot-pitch, or maybe shake it all up and get true Resolution Independence out the door with OSX and iOS. That's really what I've been waiting for, considering some of the frameworks are already in Snow Leopard, but just aren't being utilized yet.
As we've been witnessing for quite a while now, Apple will be the first to use and implement new-tech in their devices... WHEN... the opportunity and the ROI price-to-performance issue is to their advantage to do so. Not before... and rarely after, unless they're waiting for the next big thing around the corner.
Just maybe, this is one of those times where they're waiting to "leap-frog" what they're using now on a completely different device.
The myth and stated claim of the haters, has always been "it's just a big iPhone or iPod touch". I would say that statement couldn't be farther from the truth, or the reality where Apple is truly pointing the iPad.
Comments
Shame about not fusing it to the glass at least, but I am sure that with the money apple have invested in screen tec in years time (seems long don't it?) we will very much like what we, er, see, and in a couple or so years they ll blow our minds with the quality of these screens, but so far, that's all we got.
Soniera was the guy who said the "retina display" was false marketing. I don't hold much stock in what he says.
good memory, so it's that idiot who was universally rebutted for the rubbish he was talking about the retina display.
This is not a bug and is the intended usage of the automatic brightness controls.
I think in the original iPhone Keynote, from back in 2007, Steve Jobs said something about it being weird for your phone's display to constantly go in and out, so it only changes in high brightness to remain readable.
Whether it's a bug or not is semantics to some degree.
It's enough of a bug for me (and for most folks I know with iPhones), that we turn off automatic brightness altogether. Let's face it, if it doesn't actually work, it's a bug, irrespective of whether the developers think it's a "feature," instead.
Google this: 2048 × 1536 ... and find out that there is not even a desktop display under 24" with that resolution, let alone coming to an iPad any time soon. You want a 1gb overclocked card with twin fans to go with that too?
Retina display is: a perception of display in regards to a printed page, at a size relative to "normal" reading conditions based upon the device and how far or close that device is to the eyes.
Considering that a sub 4" screen showing a web page, book, or data... while it's fantastic for the iPhone, you just don't need it on the 10" size of an iPad.
Although in due time, it certainly will be simply "amazing and magical" when it gets here
They wouldn't get the Ipad2 even if it did have retina display. That crap about "I'm waiting for retina display" is a crock. What they really mean is "I don't want the Ipad2 and nothing is going to change that".
More like "I can't afford the iPad 2 and my Mum won't buy me one either, so I'm going to find some picky reason to justify to myself why I don't really want it anyway."
See also: The Fox and the Grapes.
lol. You'll find another excuse not to buy next year.
Exactly. Because the person doesn't have the money to buy an iPad, he badmouths it. This is called "sour grapes".
Soneira also notes that a "bug" in Apple's automatic brightness controls locks brightness based on "the brightest ambient light sensor value that has been measured at any point starting from the time unit was awakened," even after a substantial decrease in ambient light. This issue, however, occurs across all iOS devices, and could be a simple software fix.
It didn't take an expert to see this. It's been around since iOS 1.0
That?s not to say the iPad screen isn?t nice already. I?m still getting an iPad 2. There?s always something new coming, and I can?t wait forever...
...differences in resolution are readily apparent and appreciatable.
Whatever works for you dude. Same song and dance. My point made.
What I wonder is how the iPad 2's display compares to the original. Have seen a number of videos comparing the graphics power of the two, but no mention was made of the optical quality. However it appeared to me that the new model was noticeably sharper, the older iPads looking a bit more yellowish and dimmer. Could that be attributed just to their being about a year older? Or has the manufacturing process been significantly changed?
But even though the iPad still has only 1024x768 resolution, that is still more information than the iPhone can display, so there is at least some advantage. On the other hand, it seems a lot of iOS publications are not making very good use of the screen real estate on the iPad, and are delivering text in fonts so small and spindly that they are barely legible and look just terrible. MNSHO.
...differences in resolution are readily apparent and appreciatable.
Whatever works for you dude. Same song and dance. My point made.
Whether it's a bug or not is semantics to some degree.
It's enough of a bug for me (and for most folks I know with iPhones), that we turn off automatic brightness altogether. Let's face it, if it doesn't actually work, it's a bug, irrespective of whether the developers think it's a "feature," instead.
Yes, it is a matter of semantics, entirely. It's a 'bug', by the definition of the word in this context, only if it doesn't work as intended. If it works as intended but you don't like the way it's designed to work, it's simply something you don't like, or, at most, a poorly designed feature. While this may seem a bit pedantic, it's also not useful to dilute the meaning of words so that they in fact lose all useful meaning.
Personally, I think the brightness controls work fine in most situations.
Once again, to all those out there wanting an iPad Retina Display...
In 12 months from now we're probably going to be hearing a lot of moaning and whining.
Bahwawawa..........I'm not getting an iPad3, I'm waiting for the iPad4 and the retina display.
As I said on a previous thread, I'd love to be proven wrong, but I just don't see it happening.
The iPhone 4 resolution is nothing amazing, it's only 960 x 640. The thing that makes it special is that they managed to pack that into a little 3.5" midget screen.
As for the "display expert", he doesn't sound like much of an expert. I think that the iPad2 display is pretty good, but to claim that there's little difference between 132 PPI and 326 PPI is just insane.
It's not just a "nit-picky", "hater" detail and if I'm not mistaken Apple helped make great strides in font rendering. If it was important for them years ago, I'm sure it's important now.
I'm not a big fan of losing "analog niceties", but it's reality. I know plenty of people who obsess over the quality of their movie and music files. Apple has made their fair share of compromises when it's come to that sort of thing, so it's really not a surprise that the current screen is sufficient, especially for a market that hasn't even seen one. Until they could compare it to something better, most people would never notice. The ipad screen is pretty amazing, except for one detail.
I have my own selfish and wishful desires for a "2K" ipad display as well.
The addition of "1080 support" on ipad2 is promising for ipad3's possible native screen rez bump however. Who's voting for iPad Pro? Anyone?
The addition of "1080 support" on ipad2 is promising for ipad3's possible native screen rez bump however.
If I'm not mistaken, Apple doesn't even offer 1080 movies to download on iTunes. Apple must not think that 1080 is all that important at the moment.
He couldn't be more wrong about this. The iPhone 4's pixel density is probably one of its best qualities and what really sets it apart from everything else on the market. Anti-aliasing can make things a little better, but it can also wash out detail. I don't think the iPhone 4 would be nearly as usable at 132ppi.
Let's be a bit more objective about the statement he made. He said 326 ppi was overkill, but that doesn't mean he said it wasn't better than 132. Could Apple have made it 250 ppi and achieved the same great display qualities. Would you notice the difference between 250 and 326? (I'm just using 250 as an example. Maybe we use 280 or 300.)
So he said 326 was "overkill" but used for "app compatibility". So Apple could have used 280 ppi or 300 ppi and achieved the same stunning results, but they went to 326 because it scales better to the iPad dimensions to make scaling iPhone apps to iPad screen easier.
Your assumption that he is saying 132 = 326 is just plain wrong. And his assessment is likely correct. There is a good chance that scaling the iPhone's screen resolution to the iPad size was a consideration for Apple when determining what ppi to use.
As for the "display expert", he doesn't sound like much of an expert. I think that the iPad2 display is pretty good, but to claim that there's little difference between 132 PPI and 326 PPI is just insane.
Did you miss the part where he said "except for the ppi"? There are many display characteristics. Brightness, color accuracy, viewing angle. PPI is just one thing, and he qualified his statement in that regard.
In 12 months from now we're probably going to be hearing a lot of moaning and whining.
Bahwawawa..........I'm not getting an iPad3, I'm waiting for the iPad4 and the retina display.
As I said on a previous thread, I'd love to be proven wrong, but I just don't see it happening.
The iPhone 4 resolution is nothing amazing, it's only 960 x 640. The thing that makes it special is that they managed to pack that into a little 3.5" midget screen.
As for the "display expert", he doesn't sound like much of an expert. I think that the iPad2 display is pretty good, but to claim that there's little difference between 132 PPI and 326 PPI is just insane.
Well yes, your right about that the 132 vs 326 PPI is a noticeable difference.. as well as there will always be assorted moans & groans why people will not get an iPad, for whatever reason they pull out of ...their..um..hat(?)
I think it was a brilliant marketing and tech ploy by Apple to do the Retina Dance on the iPhone. However... what other tech advances are around the corner that could supersede it, and be more useful and profitable for the iPad?
AMOLED possibly, or a screen with a finer dot-pitch, or maybe shake it all up and get true Resolution Independence out the door with OSX and iOS. That's really what I've been waiting for, considering some of the frameworks are already in Snow Leopard, but just aren't being utilized yet.
As we've been witnessing for quite a while now, Apple will be the first to use and implement new-tech in their devices... WHEN... the opportunity and the ROI price-to-performance issue is to their advantage to do so. Not before... and rarely after, unless they're waiting for the next big thing around the corner.
Just maybe, this is one of those times where they're waiting to "leap-frog" what they're using now on a completely different device.
The myth and stated claim of the haters, has always been "it's just a big iPhone or iPod touch". I would say that statement couldn't be farther from the truth, or the reality where Apple is truly pointing the iPad.