First look: Apple's new third-generation iPad with Retina display

11011121416

Comments

  • Reply 261 of 307
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Relic View Post


    A little off subject here but do you think Apple is slowly converging iOS with OSX like what Microsoft is doing with their desktop and mobile OS. If so do you think that is a good thing? Will we see a smarter phone/tablet OS and a dumber desktop OS, well not dumber just more iOSified, so yea dumber.



    I am the oldest person in my office. Yet I am the only person there capable of dealing with multiple types of OS (various versions of Win7 and XP - don't ask) installed across many different devices and a great age range of both genders.



    In short, I spend way too much of my time attempting to explain the most basic computer functions to people who, for the most part, do not wish to learn how it really works, then just want it to work THEIR way.



    Now if this office consisted of Apple products only, my "job" would be incredibly easy. Instead it is more of a dreaded nightmare. I would much rather be spending all my time on my "real" job of helping clients.



    There are days when I just feel like retirement is the only answer where I will find some peace/
  • Reply 262 of 307
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I used the camera on the 2 exactly once. Haven't tried it on this one yet. Still happy with the one on the 4S. If Apple can come up with a 3:1 optical zoom that fits, it will definitely kill everything up to $200 in the camera market.



    I don't know anything about camera optics, but is it possible to increase the zoom with lenses and mirrors within the case -- nothing protruding from the back of the iPad?
  • Reply 263 of 307
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,280member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post


    To add to sunilraman's post.





    While it's nice to have a higher resolution for crisper Latin character texts, I find that especiallly with non-Latin texts this is actually vital.





    Here's a mockup I had done for the iPad 2 and new iPad (it did look exactly like that in my real-world test). It uses 132 and 264 dpi with a zoom factor chosen so that the US Letter sized PDF fills the screen.





    While the iPad 2's English text is still somewhat readable, the Chinese characters are reduced to a pixel mush. Pretty much unreadable.



    On the new iPad the very same text, at the very same zoom level is completely readable, including the Chinese characters.

    What a change!





    Or in other words:

    On the iPad 2 I was forced constantly to zoom in / zoom out to read the text.

    On the new iPad zooming is no longer necessary at all.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    That makes me wonder if one of Apple's primary focus for the Retina Display ASAP was geared toward non-Western markets.



    I'm finding the screen to be so good, that I can actually forget it's a computer screen. The smallest type that I could ever hope to read just based on the size is now not only legible, meaning, for those who don't know what that really means, that it can be read, but uncomfortably, but readable, meaning can be done with little effort for a long while.



    I noticed that first on my iPhone 4, where reading 4 point type became, amazingly, easy to read, whereas in a well printed magazine, it would be almost impossible. I would say that 5 point type is about equal on the new iPad. That's better than life.
  • Reply 264 of 307
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I'm finding the screen to be so good, that I can actually forget it's a computer screen. The smallest type that I could ever hope to read just based on the size is now not only legible, meaning, for those who don't know what that really means, that it can be read, but uncomfortably, but readable, meaning can be done with little effort for a long while.



    I noticed the first on my iPhone 4, where reading 4 point type became, amazingly, easy to read, whereas in a well printed magazine, it would be almost impossible. I would say that 5 point type is about equal on the new iPad. That's better than life.



    ?
  • Reply 265 of 307
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    That makes me wonder if one of Apple's primary focus for the Retina Display ASAP was geared toward non-Western markets.



    Wow! Being an "ugly American", I hadn't even considered that...



    AFAICT, this puts the iPad in a class apart from any other device -- think of the potential for education or medical uses, alone...



    Also, you may have uncovered the major justification of a low price 16 GB retina iPad...
  • Reply 266 of 307
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,280member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    I don't know anything about camera optics, but is it possible to increase the zoom with lenses and mirrors within the case -- nothing protruding from the back of the iPad?



    There is such a thing as "folded optics". Just like in magic acts, it's done with mirrors. Have you ever wondered how DLP sets could be thin? My 61" Samsing is only 12" thick in the middle, at the bottom, thinning out to about 1.5" at the edges.



    So optics could have a component that faces out, as it does now, and using a mirror or two, bend the light 90 degrees to the sensor, or to even more optics. Use a parabolic, or perhaps an aspheric mirror, and you can further focus the light. It's certainly doable. I've had various pieces of equipment that worked that way. But it's expensive, and would take more room in the phone.



    Depends on how serious Apple is about this. They keep hiring more engineers in optics, sensors and processors, so it seems they are very serious.
  • Reply 267 of 307
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,280member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post




    Wow! Being an "ugly American", I hadn't even considered that...



    AFAICT, this puts the iPad in a class apart from any other device -- think of the potential for education or medical uses, alone...



    Also, you may have uncovered the major justification of a low price 16 GB retina iPad...



    Sol is right. I've been thinking about that as well, as I have dealings with some Korean sites for which I did some work for several years ago, but like keeping in touch with me. Asian characters are so complex, I've often wondered how they can read that in newspapers, as the ones I've seen have such small type. On web sites, the type can become unusable. This screen changes that, as does my 27" monitor. But this is better, because no one, unless they have impaired sight, wants to view a web page across an entire 24" or 27" screen width.
  • Reply 268 of 307
    [QUOTE=tyler82;2075186]
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post




    Have you used the new iPhoto app yet? It is so fun to use!



    The iPhoto app is unusably slow with a large library. It's horrid.
  • Reply 269 of 307
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,280member
    [QUOTE=tonton;2075374]
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post




    The iPhoto app is unusably slow with a large library. It's horrid.



    You keep a huge photo library on your iPad? Why? I find that if they're arranged in albums, the speed increases.
  • Reply 270 of 307
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    There is such a thing as "folded optics". Just like in magic acts, it's done with mirrors. Have you ever wondered how DLP sets could be thin? My 61" Samsing is only 12" thick in the middle, at the bottom, thinning out to about 1.5" at the edges.



    So optics could have a component that faces out, as it does now, and using a mirror or two, bend the light 90 degrees to the sensor, or to even more optics. Use a parabolic, or perhaps an aspheric mirror, and you can further focus the light. It's certainly doable. I've had various pieces of equipment that worked that way. But it's expensive, and would take more room in the phone.



    Depends on how serious Apple is about this. They keep hiring more engineers in optics, sensors and processors, so it seems they are very serious.



    Whoa!



    Reading up on DLP now...



    If I understand what you're saying: By dedicating some space for electronics, mirrors and lenses within a case as narrow as an iPhone or iPad... you could have a camera with entirely internal optical zoom... Verdad?





    Sigh... too bad that everything worth inventing has already been invented \



  • Reply 271 of 307
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,280member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Whoa!



    Reading up on DLP now...



    If I understand what you're saying: By dedicating some space for electronics, mirrors and lenses within a case as narrow as an iPhone or iPad... you could have a camera with entirely internal optical zoom... Verdad?





    Sigh... too bad that everything worth inventing has already been invented \




    Sure. In fact, many modern lenses even use internal focussing, so that the lens unit as a whole doesn't move much, or at all. And a zoom section moves internally as well. So a lens could have a 90 degree shape, using internally moving portions. The whole thing could be made as one rectangular part. I guess it could be maybe .25" thick, by .315" wide, by about 1" long. The extra width is for the sensor width. The sensor could also be flat against the back, as another mirror could bend the light to that. That way, the sensor needn't be perpendicular to the front and back, making the camera thinner.



    We,re talking microscope sized optics, certainly doable, as the optics we have now proves.
  • Reply 272 of 307
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Sol is right. I've been thinking about that as well, as I have dealings with some Korean sites for which I did some work for several years ago, but like keeping in touch with me. Asian characters are so complex, I've often wondered how they can read that in newspapers, as the ones I've seen have such small type. On web sites, the type can become unusable. This screen changes that, as does my 27" monitor. But this is better, because no one, unless they have impaired sight, wants to view a web page across an entire 24" or 27" screen width.



    I have an iMac 27" with a 2560 x 1440 display.



    I fiddled with the iPad 3 image from post #253...



    To my eyes, the characters are more readable at any zoom level on the iPad than on the iMac.



    I realize that I am looking at a rasterized image...



    If the characters are vector-based then they should be true at any image size...



    ...all on a $500 device that you can carry in combats, a backpack, satchel or man-purse...



    Wow... Just Wow!



  • Reply 273 of 307
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Sure. In fact, many modern lenses even use internal focussing, so that the lens unit as a whole doesn't move much, or at all. And a zoom section moves internally as well. So a lens could have a 90 degree shape, using internally moving portions. The whole thing could be made as one rectangular part. I guess it could be maybe .25" thick, by .315" wide, by about 1" long. The extra width is for the sensor width. The sensor could also be flat against the back, as another mirror could bend the light to that. That way, the sensor needn't be perpendicular to the front and back, making the camera thinner.



    We,re talking microscope sized optics, certainly doable, as the optics we have now proves.



    Mmmm... the new iPad and iPhone 4S are both 0.37 inch thick -- don't know the thickness of the glass front/back and the metal case back.



    So if they can find the internal real estate, it sounds quite doable...



    ...The camera you have with you...



  • Reply 274 of 307
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    There is such a thing as "folded optics". Just like in magic acts, it's done with mirrors. Have you ever wondered how DLP sets could be thin? My 61" Samsing is only 12" thick in the middle, at the bottom, thinning out to about 1.5" at the edges.



    So optics could have a component that faces out, as it does now, and using a mirror or two, bend the light 90 degrees to the sensor, or to even more optics. Use a parabolic, or perhaps an aspheric mirror, and you can further focus the light. It's certainly doable. I've had various pieces of equipment that worked that way. But it's expensive, and would take more room in the phone.



    Depends on how serious Apple is about this. They keep hiring more engineers in optics, sensors and processors, so it seems they are very serious.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Whoa!



    Reading up on DLP now...



    If I understand what you're saying: By dedicating some space for electronics, mirrors and lenses within a case as narrow as an iPhone or iPad... you could have a camera with entirely internal optical zoom... Verdad?





    Sigh... too bad that everything worth inventing has already been invented \




    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Sure. In fact, many modern lenses even use internal focussing, so that the lens unit as a whole doesn't move much, or at all. And a zoom section moves internally as well. So a lens could have a 90 degree shape, using internally moving portions. The whole thing could be made as one rectangular part. I guess it could be maybe .25" thick, by .315" wide, by about 1" long. The extra width is for the sensor width. The sensor could also be flat against the back, as another mirror could bend the light to that. That way, the sensor needn't be perpendicular to the front and back, making the camera thinner.



    We,re talking microscope sized optics, certainly doable, as the optics we have now proves.



    I read up on DLP...



    Looks great...



    But, I got this uneasy feeling that they were "doing it wrong" by physically repositioning thousands of micro-mirrors to reflect the light -- why not just sense the points of light and do some math?



    Anyway, that lead me to LCoS -- which, apparently, does the same thing with no moving parts.



    Most of the work in DLP and LCoS seems to have been directed at TVs and Projectors -- as opposed to camera optics... bigger market, I suppose!



    But now with post-pc mobile devices there is much greater market potential -- several devices per individual as opposed to several devices per home.



    Sounds like an opportunity to me!



    P.S. Looks like it might be time to upgrade that old Muntz TV







    Edit: Looks like the Kefauver Hearings on the TV

  • Reply 275 of 307
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    Pictured are the third new iPad that I've tried/purchased, along with my Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, just as they were taken by the camera, and the new iPad exhibits almost the exact same 'screen bleeding' as the previous two did.



    http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/3876/p1000564m.jpg



    That shot is ridiculous. That looks like a blue screen of death. You must have terrible luck with iPads.



    I took a shot of my new iPad (link below). By manually adjusting camera exposure settings you come up with completely different results. The photo shows that everything is black except the logo however if you open it in photoshop and adjust the levels you will see the bezel and the screen WITH NO LIGHT BLEED WHATSOEVER! There is sufficient shadow detail but it doesn't show up until you adjust the levels, but I didn't change anything so you can check it it out for yourself. This, opposed to your first image that I suspected was bogus, the entire Tab image is one continuous color black including the background so it was, at the very least, under exposed if not a complete fake. In my shot, check out the exif data and you will see that it is a 15 sec exposure so if there was going to be any light leaking it would definitely show with that long of an exposure. I guarantee there is has been no color adjustments made and this is the actual image from the camera. I did crop it.



    (image too large to post in message)

    http://i.imgur.com/SXHmi.jpg
  • Reply 276 of 307
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post


    To add to sunilraman's post.





    While it's nice to have a higher resolution for crisper Latin character texts, I find that especiallly with non-Latin texts this is actually vital.





    Here's a mockup I had done for the iPad 2 and new iPad (it did look exactly like that in my real-world test). It uses 132 and 264 dpi with a zoom factor chosen so that the US Letter sized PDF fills the screen.





    While the iPad 2's English text is still somewhat readable, the Chinese characters are reduced to a pixel mush. Pretty much unreadable.



    On the new iPad the very same text, at the very same zoom level is completely readable, including the Chinese characters.

    What a change!





    Or in other words:

    On the iPad 2 I was forced constantly to zoom in / zoom out to read the text.

    On the new iPad zooming is no longer necessary at all.







    Fonts do not display as images so this comparison image is misleading. The new iPad has smoother rendering text but iPad 2 would never appear pixellated like you have shown. The only way to accurately compare is as sunilraman has done where it is zoomed in to the point where the there is only one pixel of antialiasing on the edge. Your screen capture was too small which completely obliterated the the text vectors when it rasterized it at 72 dpi.
  • Reply 277 of 307
    tyler82tyler82 Posts: 999member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    You Know... All of the pathetic, rude, and hostile Apple apologists on this site you two two truly take the prize for the worst.



    FACT: In no way, shape or form were either of those photos 'doctored', and I challenge you to scientifically PROVE that they were.



    Anyway... The truth is, the new iPad(s) that I've now tried each have very obvious 'screen bleeding' issues, something I find completely unacceptable in an 'allegedly' state-of-the-art modern tablet device costing almost US 900.00.



    Pictured are the third new iPad that I've tried/purchased, along with my Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, just as they were taken by the camera, and the new iPad exhibits almost the exact same 'screen bleeding' as the previous two did.









    So the screen doesn't go near as dark as the Samsung model when all lights turned off and set to completely black, and there is some faint light coming in from the corners. That is a largely unnoticeable trade-off that I can make for the experience of the iPad, which cannot be paralleled.
  • Reply 278 of 307
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    You Know... All of the pathetic, rude, and hostile Apple apologists on this site you two two truly take the prize for the worst.



    FACT: In no way, shape or form were either of those photos 'doctored', and I challenge you to scientifically PROVE that they were.



    Anyway... The truth is, the new iPad(s) that I've now tried each have very obvious 'screen bleeding' issues, something I find completely unacceptable in an 'allegedly' state-of-the-art modern tablet device costing almost US 900.00.



    Pictured are the third new iPad that I've tried/purchased, along with my Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, just as they were taken by the camera, and the new iPad exhibits almost the exact same 'screen bleeding' as the previous two did.







    Ya' know... you come to an Apple-oriented site, you enter the forums and you make a preponderance of challenging, negative, anti-Apple or ridiculous posts...



    Then you call veterans here, with a history of reasoned posts, rude -- you're being rude?





    BTW The text display on the Sammy in your picture is really great -- I can almost make out what it says...



    Not only are your Photoshop, judgement and interpersonal communication skills in question -- so are your camera skills.





    Anyone can take a better picture than that with an iPad 2!



  • Reply 279 of 307
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,280member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    I read up on DLP...



    Looks great...



    But, I got this uneasy feeling that they were "doing it wrong" by physically repositioning thousands of micro-mirrors to reflect the light -- why not just sense the points of light and do some math?



    Anyway, that lead me to LCoS -- which, apparently, does the same thing with no moving parts.



    Most of the work in DLP and LCoS seems to have been directed at TVs and Projectors -- as opposed to camera optics... bigger market, I suppose!



    But now with post-pc mobile devices there is much greater market potential -- several devices per individual as opposed to several devices per home.



    Sounds like an opportunity to me!



    P.S. Looks like it might be time to upgrade that old Muntz TV







    Edit: Looks like the Kefauver Hearings on the TV



    For a camera phone you don't need a moving mirror. It would need to be fixed. But the other optical elements would move. A bunch of years ago, Phillips demo'd a tiny lens that could have its shape, and therefor it's focus, varied by applying a small voltage. The element wouldn't have to move at all, which is even better. There are also plastics in use now that will compress or expand depending on voltage. They could be used for purposes of focus or zoom. None of this would need a very high precision moving part, as the parts would simply resize themselves with very high precision.



    There are also lenses used for cataract operations that will focus using the same muscles in the eye that the natural lens uses. Unfortunately, my doctor thought I wouldn't be a good candidate for them. But they can be focussed by pressure around the edges.



    There are a lot of technologies around. The question is whether they are too expensive for this use.
  • Reply 280 of 307
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Fonts do not display as images so this comparison image is misleading. The new iPad has smoother rendering text but iPad 2 would never appear pixellated like you have shown. The only way to accurately compare is as sunilraman has done where it is zoomed in to the point where the there is only one pixel of antialiasing on the edge. Your screen capture was too small which completely obliterated the the text vectors when it rasterized it at 72 dpi.



    Honest questions:



    1) How, exactly do you compare text (or images) on 2 different DPI displays -- Would you use an image taken on the lower DPI display? the higher DPI display?



    2) Won't a rasterized image always show antialias pixillation at some magnification -- regardless of the screen resolution?



    3) With today's technology, wouldn't it be possible to generate text characters as vector graphics -- where each character could scale infinitely with no apparent pixillation?





    I could see this being even more important for intricate Asian character words... I read somewhere that:



    -- the Chinese character for 'happiness" is a drawing of a house with a woman...



    -- the Chinese character for 'chaos' was the same as above... except a second woman was added to the house



Sign In or Register to comment.