Right, because 720 video sure doesn't look blurry when I full-screen it on my 27" Cinema Display. ????
Wow, you obviously don't get it. Your example is 720p material displayed on a 1080p 27" screen. Now would that 720p material look any less "blurry" on a 720p 27" screen viewed from the same distance?
Of course not.
It would look either the SAME or possibly WORSE given it would lack the benefits of that 720p material being upscaled to 1080p.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
So you're saying a 2048x1536 app would look "blurrier" (rather than sharper) on a 1536x1152 display than on a 1024x768 display???
I'm sorry, but that's just an utterly ridiculous and FALSE statement.
Plus, a 2048x1536 app isn't "SPECIFICALLY made" for a 1024x768 display either. There will be DOWN-SCALING involved whether the screen is 1536x1152 or 1024x768 resolution.
However, a 1536x1152 display will be able to retain over twice the amount of pixel information than a 1024x768 display, losing far less resolution in the down-conversion, and therefore showing a much sharper image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
So you're saying 1440p (2560x1440) material would look better in 720p (921,600 pixels total) than 1080p (2,073,600 pixels total)?
I'm sorry, but "logic, truth, and facts" would lead to exactly the OPPOSITE conclusion.
Your example is 720p material displayed on a 1080p 27" screen.
Nope. 2560x1440.
Now would that 720p material look any less "blurry" on a 720p 27" screen viewed from the same distance? Of course not.
Really? You're sure? What about on a 50" 720 screen? Or a 300" 720 screen? Pretty sure it wouldn't look as good.
It would look either the SAME or possibly WORSE given it would lack the benefits of that 720p material being upscaled to 1080p.
I don't think you understand upscaling. I say "don't think" generously, as it's basically a given that you don't.
So you're saying a 2048x1536 app would look "blurrier" (rather than sharper) on a 1536x1152 display than on a 1024x768 display???
Yes. The latter is a 4:1 pixel shrink. The former is not.
Plus, a 2048x1536 app isn't "SPECIFICALLY made" for a 1024x768 display either. There will be DOWN-SCALING involved whether the screen is 1536x1152 or 1024x768 resolution.
Okay. …and?
So you're saying 1440p (2560x1440) material would look better in 720p (921,600 pixels total) than 1080p (2,073,600 pixels total)?
Sorry, sorry, I meant to only quote the first sentence. That's my mistake.
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.)
They don't say about screen brightness settings but in the following video you can see the same effect and they are set to the same 50% brightness (skip to 5 mins for the display comparison):
[VIDEO]
That 16:9 aspect looks so weird next to the iPad Mini, I'm glad they stuck with 4:3.
They don't say about screen brightness settings but in the following video you can see the same effect and they are set to the same 50% brightness (skip to 5 mins for the display comparison):T
I'd assume that the settings were not the same, or perhaps the difference in angles to the camera made a difference since your link source also says:
Contrast: 783:1
We measured a respectable average contrast ratio of 783:1 for Apple's iPad Mini, which is on par with the first iPad and with Amazon's Kindle Fire HD. The Nexus 7, however, pushes up over 900:1. This, twinned with a maximum brightness of 330 cd/m2, keeps the (Nexus 7) onscreen image easy to read in most conditions, both indoors and outdoors.
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.
Are you serious - or just always having bad luck when thinking?
Hint: 50% increase or 25% decrease (i.e. 75%) can never be 100% scalable...
Just do the math (it is not that hard).
Text example: If you have 7 pixel (normal) and 14 (retina) pixel fonts you end up with 10,5 px ... and - as there are no half pixels - the text will either become distorted or blurry. Images will in many cases work fine - but fine lines etc. will definitely render strange (due to the lack of half pixels).
As a content developer I really appreciate the simple 1x and 2x way of making iOS layouts.
I would definitely have loved an über high res 2048x1536 screen - but until that is possible I do think Apple made the right decision..
So what else is new? Anyone that had a CLUE already knew the iPad Mini's display was dismal compared to the other 7" tablets on the market.
The really sad thing is that Apple purposely GIMPED the Mini's display with a low-resolution non-HD screen just so they could "introduce" Retina Display as a "new feature" for iPad Mini 2 in six months, compelling everyone to upgrade again.
Since all iPad apps since the introduction of iPad 3 have been optimized for Retina, the iPad Mini was already obsolete before it was even released.
I'm sorry to see that even in Apple Insider the BS reason of app compatibility as the excuse for the Mini's poor resolution is still being bandied about.
The fact is Apple could have given the Mini a 1536x1152 display, which would have offered 100% scalability to iPad apps developed for both the 1024x768 and 2048x1536 resolutions, thus eliminating the need for Apple to squeeze the full-sized iPad's resolution into the Mini's 7.9" display.
A 1536x1152 resolution 7.9" screen could be rightly considered "Retina", offering 244.5 PPI which slightly surpasses the 243 PPI of the 7" Nook HD and easily outclasses the 216 PPI of both the Kindle Fire HD 7" and the Nexus 7, and making it comparable to iPad 3 and 4's 264 PPI.
In fact, I suspect the "Retina Display" resolution for the iPad Mini 2 will BE 1536x1152 rather than the 2048x1536 resolution of the iPad 3 and 4.
By using a 1536x1152 screen resolution for the iPad Mini 2 and 3, Apple can then "introduce" the full-sized 2048x1536 iPad resolution as a "new feature" for iPad Mini 4.
Smart business move by Apple. But are we dumb enough as consumers to fall for it (again)?
Talk to an app developer before you make a bunch of assumptions about how things work. For text-based apps (and, admittedly there are lots of those) the OS could scale the app nicely just like you assume. The same is true for apps that just use vector graphics. But every custom button, icon, or graphic that's included in an iOS app today (unless the developer doesn't bother and doesn't care) has two versions. The developer has to produce a non-retina image and one with twice the resolution and include both in the app. For example, if I have a icon called editPencilIcon.png, I have to include a second higher-resolution one called editPencilIcon@2x.png, and iOS automagically displays the right one based on what device is being used. An iPad mini would use the original and most other devices will use the @2x ones. The hack your suggesting would either require developers to create and include "@1.5" version of all their art, or have iOS scale up and scale down one of the two available images. The former would be a ton of work for developers (nuisance effort that could be instead spend on making the app better) and the latter would look bad--worse than showing the lower resolution version at its intended resolution. Going to 1.5x resolution would be solving a problem that doesn't exist, and create lots more. Developers already have to upload 5 different splash screen images for their apps; it's getting a bit ridiculous.
I agree to a certain extent that most potential users of the mini won't care about any of this (unless - maybe if they compared the look of these tablet screens in a shop for themselves). But Apple has a reputation for excellence and the mini's screen is definitely not that! I know it would of cost more money, but the margins on this device seem to be very high according to what I've read, so I think they could of afforded to provide a screen up to Apple's usual high standards without going Retina in resolution. Especially as pertains to screen reflectivity, which is a bit of an iPad bugbear.
Also need to submit different screen shots to the App Store for each of the *ed ones.
These provide an optimal user experience, but are a pain for developers. Apple did developers a big favor by NOT creating any new requirements for the iPad mini.
Having varying resolutions would be an issue for devs and therefore users. If you are suggesting they could go with 2048x1536 (double the resolution) I
I am not sure why it has to be double. When you zoom on a webpage with an iPad it zooms smoothly with pixel interpolation. Sure it is better to not interpolate but when you have such high density it really shouldn't matter. Consider when devs layout their app UI, they place buttons where they look good without any real concern for the pixel alignment. Apple already wrote some software for the retina MBP that scaled the elements and the text in five different preset resolutions. They could do something similar for iPad and then run whatever custom slightly higher resolution screen was compatible with their battery and heat dissipation requirements. Some dev choose to write specific Retina version but other did not (yet) but they still look good.
I am not sure why it has to be double. When you zoom on a webpage with an iPad it zooms smoothly with pixel interpolation. Sure it is better to not interpolate but when you have such high density it really shouldn't matter. Consider when devs layout their app UI, they place buttons where they look good. Apple already wrote some software for the retina MBP that scaled the elements and the text in five different preset resolutions. They could do something similar for iPad and then run whatever custom slightly higher resolution screen was compatible with their battery and heat dissipation requirements. Some dev choose to write specific Retina version but other did not (yet) but they still look good.
The options in the RMBPs are a great example because 1) it doesn't look as crisp as with a pixel-perfect representation, and 2) it reduces the power usage from what I hear. If the latter is true then we have not just a desktop UI, which is designed to be scalable, but a windowless UI that is now using more power to process an unnatural UI on a native display with a relatively small battery.
I say the best option is to just wait for the technology to catch up instead of shoehorning a poor solution just to get another checkbox on a spec sheet. They didn't add '3G' right away or add LTE immediately and yet Apple has a huge lead amongst all vendors. I full expect they'll do the same with Retina on the iPad mini when they can get Rogue 6 and other components that will also the entire package to be less than 400g (if not lighter) and still get at least 10 hours of battery life.
... Some dev choose to write specific Retina version but other did not (yet) but they still look good.
Because doubling pixels is easy and looks fine. Non-integer interpolation doesn't look as good.
Fonts are defined in terms of curves using mathematical formula, so they can be scaled very well. That's not how (for the most part) icons and UI elements are defined.
Assuming you're on a MacBook or have a Magic Trackpad, do the pinch-to-zoom on this page, You'll immediately see what elements are vector based (and therefore scale well and always look sharp) and those that don't.
That makes it EXTREMELY ironic that you would find 720p content "blurry" on a 2560x1440 display because 2560x1440 is exactly DOUBLE in multiple the resolution of 720p which is 1280x720.
That's exactly the SAME relationship between the full-sized iPad's Retina Display of 2048x1536 with the iPad Mini's 1024x768. Or as you call it, a "4:1 pixel shrink".
Therefore you are actually arguing AGAINST YOURSELF and YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.
Enough said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Really? You're sure? What about on a 50" 720 screen? Or a 300" 720 screen? Pretty sure it wouldn't look as good.
I don't think you understand upscaling. I say "don't think" generously, as it's basically a given that you don't.
Now you're misunderstanding TWO different things.
FIRST of all, my example was comparing 720p content displayed on a 1080p display compared to 720p content displayed on a 720p display, with both displays being the same size and viewed from the same distance.
With both things equal, the 720p content viewed on a 1080p display could not look WORSE than on the 720p display, and in fact could look BETTER, if proper upscaling algorithms and techniques were used, given the advantage in potential resolution that 1080p provides over 720p.
The advantages of upscaling is a well-known concept in AV circles, I suggest you Google it if you wish to educate yourself. While standard-definition material upscaled to HD (480i to 1080p for example) will NEVER look as good as native 1080p material, 480i material upscaled to 1080p CAN looking CONSIDERABLY BETTER than 480i content on a 480i display.
Now SECONDLY, you are introducing the issue of resolution versus screen size into the discussion. Screen size was NEVER an issue in our discussion since it was never mentioned that the iPad Mini would ever be a size other than it's current 7.9".
However, since you brought it up, let me address your questions. You're asking whether 720p content can "look as good" on a 50" screen as it does on a 25" screen.
Now you're thinking "no way, it will look TWICE as bad!" Now that would only be true if you were viewing it at the same viewing distance. But it would actually look EXACTLY the same if you doubled the viewing distance, say from five feet to 10 feet.
Again, this doesn't pertain at all to our discussion, but I am just answering your question. Personally, I use a 1080p projector in my living room that throws a 140" image. I sit 15 feet away and it looks AMAZING!
Quote:
Yes. The latter is a 4:1 pixel shrink. The former is not.
Again, you disproved this yourself when you said 720p looks "blurry" on your 2560x1440 display as 720p is a "4:1 pixel shrink" from 2560x1440.
And again, enough said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Okay. …and?
Sorry, sorry, I meant to only quote the first sentence. That's my mistake.
Sure, no problem. So you believe 720p material would look better on a 720p display than on a 1080p screen. As I mentioned before, it could look the same or BETTER given the application of proper upscaling algorithms and techniques. Again, the advantages and benefits of upscaling are fairly well-known, I suggest you do a quick Google search to understand it more.
Now let's address the issue of the "second sentence", which was "And if there was HD material that was 1440p (2560x1440), would you rather view it on a 1080p screen or a 720p display?"
This is a relevant question because it address whether a 2048x1536 app would look better on a 2048x1536 with the iPad Mini's 1024x768 display.
Now it seems you are agreeing that the resolution of 1080p (2,073,600 pixels total) would be preferable to the resolution of 720p (921,600 pixels total) when displaying material in 1440p (2560x1440).
In that case, by virtue you are also agreeing in theory that the resolution of 1536x1152 (1,769,472 pixels total) would be preferable to the iPad Mini's resolution of 1024x768 (786,432 pixels total) when displaying material in 2048x1536 given the IDENTICAL relationship between 720p and 1080p, and 1024x768 and 1536x1152.
Despite your statements to the contrary, your answers show that you are actually in AGREEMENT with me, whether you realize it or not.
Are you serious - or just always having bad luck when thinking?
Hint: 50% increase or 25% decrease (i.e. 75%) can never be 100% scalable...
Just do the math (it is not that hard).
Text example: If you have 7 pixel (normal) and 14 (retina) pixel fonts you end up with 10,5 px ... and - as there are no half pixels - the text will either become distorted or blurry. Images will in many cases work fine - but fine lines etc. will definitely render strange (due to the lack of half pixels).
Give me a break! Just by your reply I find it doubtful that you work with graphics as a "content developer", or did you mean you are a "content manager" or "database programmer"?
First of all, it's not reasonable to expect users to view a "7 pixel" font on a 7.9" 1024x768 display, unless you provided them with magnifying glasses. Even then it would be a stretch.
The fact that you even chose this as an example shows either you weren't aware of this fact OR you were deliberately trying to introduce a non-real world argument.
The more LIKELY scenario would be that font text would display closer to 70 pixels, which upscaled to a 1536x1152 display would be 105 pixels.
Secondly, apps are ALWAYS being SCALED in IOS. How do you think "pinch-to-zoom" works?
To claim that upscaling by 50% or downscaling by 25% will cause images to be "distorted or blurry" and "definitely render strange" in IOS is just not true considering images are upscaled and downscaled by those percentages (and everything in between) by users ALL THE TIME.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kendoka
As a content developer I really appreciate the simple 1x and 2x way of making iOS layouts.
I would definitely have loved an über high res 2048x1536 screen - but until that is possible I do think Apple made the right decision..
Like I said, developers wouldn't have to change A THING in their apps. The up or down-scaling could be done completely on the hardware side or in IOS. The whole point for the scaling is to make it compatible for apps developed for BOTH the 1024x768 and 2048x1536 displays. Requiring developers to cater to a THIRD resolution of 1536x1152 for their apps to work with the iPad Mini would defeat the whole purpose.
Nobody has pointed out that competitor's have managed to squeak out higher ppi's in their 7" tablets (Google Nexus, Amazon Kindle Fire HD). How did they manage to accomplish this, while Apple could not?
With all the manufacturing partnerships that Apple has, why is it that Google/Asus and amazon were able to produce their higher ppi screens, while Apple could not?
Perhaps the question really is, was this a question of production capability, or a purposeful choice?
I highly doubt the former. It seems that Apple purposely chose to use previous generation screen technology from the iPad 2 to save production costs, therefore increasing the profit margin on the iPad mini.
That's fine, but then they should have priced the mini accordingly (say, $50 cheaper).
For the price points the mini is selling at, I would expect at least to *match* the competition's ppi (which are noticeably better for displaying text).
Not only is the screen clearly inferior to anyone (power user or casual user) that uses Retina Display devices, but this apparent purposeful choice to use a previous generation screen is a bit of an insult that I have never experienced in my 12 years of purchasing Apple products...these are the reasons why I won't be replacing my iPad 3 with an iPad mini any time soon.
I believe Apple got a great marketing strategy. Inferior screen but sells millions and millions of them just because it's an ipad. Comes next Feb., the updated Retina ipad mini will sell another millions and millions of them to at least 50% of people who bought the first gen ipad mini. Talking about double milking the consumers. If they rolled out the retina ipad mini this time, what kind of upgrade the next Feb. will have? faster cpu, more mem? I doubt many first gen buyer will buy again just for the cpu and mem which are mostly for geeks anyway.
That makes it EXTREMELY ironic that you would find 720p content "blurry" on a 2560x1440 display because 2560x1440 is exactly DOUBLE in multiple the resolution of 720p which is 1280x720.
Does it? Do you have any idea what video is? Do you have any idea what a UI is?
That's exactly the SAME relationship between the full-sized iPad's Retina Display of 2048x1536 with the iPad Mini's 1024x768. Or as you call it, a "4:1 pixel shrink".
Therefore you are actually arguing AGAINST YOURSELF and YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.
Enough said.
Despite it being impossible for you to have answered the above questions, I can conclude an answer. You have no idea what the difference is between a video and a UI.
FIRST of all, my example was comparing 720p content displayed on a 1080p display compared to 720p content displayed on a 720p display, with both displays being the same size and viewed from the same distance. With both things equal, the 720p content viewed on a 1080p display could not look WORSE than on the 720p display…
Except it does.
…and in fact could look BETTER, if proper upscaling algorithms and techniques were used…
None of which need to apply to the iPad, nor should they, and nor would they. 4:1 pixels doesn't need it. 2:1 does, and it steals from performance and, yeah, isn't as good as a true quadrupling.
Now SECONDLY, you are introducing the issue of resolution versus screen size into the discussion. Screen size was NEVER an issue in our discussion…
Other than where you were talking about it, yeah, I guess.
You're asking whether 720p content can "look as good" on a 50" screen as it does on a 25" screen. Now you're thinking "no way, it will look TWICE as bad!" Now that would only be true if you were viewing it at the same viewing distance.
Which you specifically stated in a previous post.
And again, enough said.
So you're Bernie Mac, back from the dead, with no argument?
As I mentioned before, it could look the same or BETTER given the application of proper upscaling algorithms and techniques. Again, the advantages and benefits of upscaling are fairly well-known, I suggest you do a quick Google search to understand it more.
I suggest just telling me how you expect to create something from nothing. I'll wait.
…"And if there was HD material that was 1440p (2560x1440), would you rather view it on a 1080p screen or a 720p display?"
720.
Now it seems you are agreeing that the resolution of 1080p (2,073,600 pixels total) would be preferable to the resolution of 720p (921,600 pixels total) when displaying material in 1440p (2560x1440).
No, 720.
In that case, by virtue you are also agreeing in theory that the resolution of 1536x1152 (1,769,472 pixels total) would be preferable to the iPad Mini's resolution of 1024x768 (786,432 pixels total) when displaying material in 2048x1536 given the IDENTICAL relationship between 720p and 1080p, and 1024x768 and 1536x1152.
No, I'm sticking with the best thing for UI and development being 4:1 expansion instead of fiddling with "upscaling" or "downscaling".
Despite your statements to the contrary, your answers show that you are actually in AGREEMENT with me, whether you realize it or not.
Well, I guess if you just make up whatever you want, you can make up that I agree with you.
Does it? Do you have any idea what video is? Do you have any idea what a UI is?
Despite it being impossible for you to have answered the above questions, I can conclude an answer. You have no idea what the difference is between a video and a UI.
Except it does.
None of which need to apply to the iPad, nor should they, and nor would they. 4:1 pixels doesn't need it. 2:1 does, and it steals from performance and, yeah, isn't as good as a true quadrupling.
Other than where you were talking about it, yeah, I guess.
Which you specifically stated in a previous post.
So you're Bernie Mac, back from the dead, with no argument?
I suggest just telling me how you expect to create something from nothing. I'll wait.
720.
No, 720.
No, I'm sticking with the best thing for UI and development being 4:1 expansion instead of fiddling with "upscaling" or "downscaling".
Well, I guess if you just make up whatever you want, you can make up that I agree with you.
Wow, you need to just stop and quit embarrassing yourself. It's getting ridiculous now.
So now you're claiming 720p "video" upscaled from 1280x720 to 2560x1440 would look "blurry", but user interfaces upscaled from 1280x720 to 2560x1440 would look great???
And because of this "distinction", that lets you off the hook when you claimed 720p video looks "blurry" on your 2560x1440 display?
Because then it wouldn't COMPLETELY UNDERMINE your argument for "4:1 pixel shrink" given that 2560x1440 to 1280x720 IS a "4:1 pixel shrink" and which you called "blurry"?
As is 2048x1536 to 1024x768, which is the iPad 3/4 Retina Display's resolution compared to the iPad Mini's?
You know it would be pretty funny that you would even ATTEMPT to make such an argument if if wasn't so downright SAD.
Let's look back at the CONTEXT of our conversation:
I said - "Any 1024x768 app could look no worse on a 1536x1152 display and in fact would probably look better due to the benefits of upscaling."
You replied - "Right, because 720 video sure doesn't look blurry when I full-screen it on my 27" Cinema Display."
So while I was directly referring to apps (or their "UI" as you might put it), your direct reply was about "video". So who's the one that has "no idea what the difference is between a video and a UI"?
And really? This is your attempt to not only back-track from your previous statements, but actually to launch a new "argument"? And one that immediately blows up in your face?
Let's also keep it in context that I NEVER argued AGAINST the 2048x1536 resolution (or "4:1 expansion" as you would say) for the iPad Mini, only that if it wasn't possible that a 1536x1152 display would be a suitable ALTERNATIVE, and BETTER than the Mini's CURRENT 1024x768 screen.
The rest of your reply is more back-tracking, claiming again you meant one thing when previously when I called you out on it you actually said, "Sorry, sorry, I meant to only quote the first sentence. That's my mistake."
There's no point for us to even continue this discussion if you're not going to stick by your points or if you're going to start making retorts to arguments that I never made to begin with.
So now you're claiming 720p "video" upscaled from 1280x720 to 2560x1440 would look "blurry", but user interfaces upscaled from 1280x720 to 2560x1440 would look great???
Note that it's not "upscaling" for the user interface. Video and static UI are completely different.
And because of this "distinction", that lets you off the hook when you claimed 720p video looks "blurry" on your 2560x1440 display?
It's not a claim, it's fact. Just make video bigger and it will look worse.
I said - "Any 1024x768 app could look no worse on a 1536x1152 display and in fact would probably look better due to the benefits of upscaling."
You replied - "Right, because 720 video sure doesn't look blurry when I full-screen it on my 27" Cinema Display."
So while I was directly referring to apps (or their "UI" as you might put it), your direct reply was about "video". So who's the one that has "no idea what the difference is between a video and a UI"?
You. Look, whatever 1536x1152 is, it's not 4:1. Text won't be crisp unless the thing is reformatted. Same with images. You can't blow up an image and expect it to look "better", like you pretend. Blow up an image by 4:1 and it won't look "better" than it used to. It has to be made specifically at that resolution.
…a 1536x1152 display would be a suitable ALTERNATIVE, and BETTER than the Mini's CURRENT 1024x768 screen.
With which. I dis. agree. Look, if everything was already made for it, yeah, it would look better than 1024x768. NOTHING is made for it. They would be starting from SCRATCH. For that reason it's not a better decision. Blowing up 1024x768 to that doesn't work like it does for 2048x1536. It looks bad, and to actually make it look good, formatting would need redone. Not so with 4:1.
The rest of your reply is more back-tracking, claiming again you meant one thing when previously when I called you out on it you actually said, "Sorry, sorry, I meant to only quote the first sentence. That's my mistake."
Comments
Originally Posted by Russell
Did you forget three days ago you said since just saying things without any evidence is usually considered idiotic. So prove to us…
You've made a claim. Think you ought to prove it as well. So far you fall under that umbrella.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Right, because 720 video sure doesn't look blurry when I full-screen it on my 27" Cinema Display. ????
Wow, you obviously don't get it. Your example is 720p material displayed on a 1080p 27" screen. Now would that 720p material look any less "blurry" on a 720p 27" screen viewed from the same distance?
Of course not.
It would look either the SAME or possibly WORSE given it would lack the benefits of that 720p material being upscaled to 1080p.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
So you're saying a 2048x1536 app would look "blurrier" (rather than sharper) on a 1536x1152 display than on a 1024x768 display???
I'm sorry, but that's just an utterly ridiculous and FALSE statement.
Plus, a 2048x1536 app isn't "SPECIFICALLY made" for a 1024x768 display either. There will be DOWN-SCALING involved whether the screen is 1536x1152 or 1024x768 resolution.
However, a 1536x1152 display will be able to retain over twice the amount of pixel information than a 1024x768 display, losing far less resolution in the down-conversion, and therefore showing a much sharper image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
So you're saying 1440p (2560x1440) material would look better in 720p (921,600 pixels total) than 1080p (2,073,600 pixels total)?
I'm sorry, but "logic, truth, and facts" would lead to exactly the OPPOSITE conclusion.
Originally Posted by Buckus Toothnai
Your example is 720p material displayed on a 1080p 27" screen.
Nope. 2560x1440.
Now would that 720p material look any less "blurry" on a 720p 27" screen viewed from the same distance? Of course not.
Really? You're sure? What about on a 50" 720 screen? Or a 300" 720 screen? Pretty sure it wouldn't look as good.
It would look either the SAME or possibly WORSE given it would lack the benefits of that 720p material being upscaled to 1080p.
I don't think you understand upscaling. I say "don't think" generously, as it's basically a given that you don't.
So you're saying a 2048x1536 app would look "blurrier" (rather than sharper) on a 1536x1152 display than on a 1024x768 display???
Yes. The latter is a 4:1 pixel shrink. The former is not.
Plus, a 2048x1536 app isn't "SPECIFICALLY made" for a 1024x768 display either. There will be DOWN-SCALING involved whether the screen is 1536x1152 or 1024x768 resolution.
Okay. …and?
So you're saying 1440p (2560x1440) material would look better in 720p (921,600 pixels total) than 1080p (2,073,600 pixels total)?
Sorry, sorry, I meant to only quote the first sentence. That's my mistake.
Those images came from here:
http://www.digitalversus.com/tablet/apple-ipad-mini-p13790/apple-ipad-mini-screen-test-results-now-n26838.html
They don't say about screen brightness settings but in the following video you can see the same effect and they are set to the same 50% brightness (skip to 5 mins for the display comparison):
[VIDEO]
That 16:9 aspect looks so weird next to the iPad Mini, I'm glad they stuck with 4:3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Those images came from here:
http://www.digitalversus.com/tablet/apple-ipad-mini-p13790/apple-ipad-mini-screen-test-results-now-n26838.html
They don't say about screen brightness settings but in the following video you can see the same effect and they are set to the same 50% brightness (skip to 5 mins for the display comparison):T
I'd assume that the settings were not the same, or perhaps the difference in angles to the camera made a difference since your link source also says:
Contrast: 783:1
We measured a respectable average contrast ratio of 783:1 for Apple's iPad Mini, which is on par with the first iPad and with Amazon's Kindle Fire HD. The Nexus 7, however, pushes up over 900:1. This, twinned with a maximum brightness of 330 cd/m2, keeps the (Nexus 7) onscreen image easy to read in most conditions, both indoors and outdoors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckus Toothnai
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.
Are you serious - or just always having bad luck when thinking?
Hint: 50% increase or 25% decrease (i.e. 75%) can never be 100% scalable...
Just do the math (it is not that hard).
Text example: If you have 7 pixel (normal) and 14 (retina) pixel fonts you end up with 10,5 px ... and - as there are no half pixels - the text will either become distorted or blurry. Images will in many cases work fine - but fine lines etc. will definitely render strange (due to the lack of half pixels).
As a content developer I really appreciate the simple 1x and 2x way of making iOS layouts.
I would definitely have loved an über high res 2048x1536 screen - but until that is possible I do think Apple made the right decision..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckus Toothnai
So what else is new? Anyone that had a CLUE already knew the iPad Mini's display was dismal compared to the other 7" tablets on the market.
The really sad thing is that Apple purposely GIMPED the Mini's display with a low-resolution non-HD screen just so they could "introduce" Retina Display as a "new feature" for iPad Mini 2 in six months, compelling everyone to upgrade again.
Since all iPad apps since the introduction of iPad 3 have been optimized for Retina, the iPad Mini was already obsolete before it was even released.
I'm sorry to see that even in Apple Insider the BS reason of app compatibility as the excuse for the Mini's poor resolution is still being bandied about.
The fact is Apple could have given the Mini a 1536x1152 display, which would have offered 100% scalability to iPad apps developed for both the 1024x768 and 2048x1536 resolutions, thus eliminating the need for Apple to squeeze the full-sized iPad's resolution into the Mini's 7.9" display.
A 1536x1152 resolution 7.9" screen could be rightly considered "Retina", offering 244.5 PPI which slightly surpasses the 243 PPI of the 7" Nook HD and easily outclasses the 216 PPI of both the Kindle Fire HD 7" and the Nexus 7, and making it comparable to iPad 3 and 4's 264 PPI.
In fact, I suspect the "Retina Display" resolution for the iPad Mini 2 will BE 1536x1152 rather than the 2048x1536 resolution of the iPad 3 and 4.
By using a 1536x1152 screen resolution for the iPad Mini 2 and 3, Apple can then "introduce" the full-sized 2048x1536 iPad resolution as a "new feature" for iPad Mini 4.
Smart business move by Apple. But are we dumb enough as consumers to fall for it (again)?
Talk to an app developer before you make a bunch of assumptions about how things work. For text-based apps (and, admittedly there are lots of those) the OS could scale the app nicely just like you assume. The same is true for apps that just use vector graphics. But every custom button, icon, or graphic that's included in an iOS app today (unless the developer doesn't bother and doesn't care) has two versions. The developer has to produce a non-retina image and one with twice the resolution and include both in the app. For example, if I have a icon called editPencilIcon.png, I have to include a second higher-resolution one called editPencilIcon@2x.png, and iOS automagically displays the right one based on what device is being used. An iPad mini would use the original and most other devices will use the @2x ones. The hack your suggesting would either require developers to create and include "@1.5" version of all their art, or have iOS scale up and scale down one of the two available images. The former would be a ton of work for developers (nuisance effort that could be instead spend on making the app better) and the latter would look bad--worse than showing the lower resolution version at its intended resolution. Going to 1.5x resolution would be solving a problem that doesn't exist, and create lots more. Developers already have to upload 5 different splash screen images for their apps; it's getting a bit ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Five different ones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Five different ones?
Five different splash screens:
iPhone/iPod touch
iPhone/iPod touch retina*
iPhone 5*
iPad
iPad retina*
Also need to submit different screen shots to the App Store for each of the *ed ones.
These provide an optimal user experience, but are a pain for developers. Apple did developers a big favor by NOT creating any new requirements for the iPad mini.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Having varying resolutions would be an issue for devs and therefore users. If you are suggesting they could go with 2048x1536 (double the resolution) I
I am not sure why it has to be double. When you zoom on a webpage with an iPad it zooms smoothly with pixel interpolation. Sure it is better to not interpolate but when you have such high density it really shouldn't matter. Consider when devs layout their app UI, they place buttons where they look good without any real concern for the pixel alignment. Apple already wrote some software for the retina MBP that scaled the elements and the text in five different preset resolutions. They could do something similar for iPad and then run whatever custom slightly higher resolution screen was compatible with their battery and heat dissipation requirements. Some dev choose to write specific Retina version but other did not (yet) but they still look good.
The options in the RMBPs are a great example because 1) it doesn't look as crisp as with a pixel-perfect representation, and 2) it reduces the power usage from what I hear. If the latter is true then we have not just a desktop UI, which is designed to be scalable, but a windowless UI that is now using more power to process an unnatural UI on a native display with a relatively small battery.
I say the best option is to just wait for the technology to catch up instead of shoehorning a poor solution just to get another checkbox on a spec sheet. They didn't add '3G' right away or add LTE immediately and yet Apple has a huge lead amongst all vendors. I full expect they'll do the same with Retina on the iPad mini when they can get Rogue 6 and other components that will also the entire package to be less than 400g (if not lighter) and still get at least 10 hours of battery life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
... Some dev choose to write specific Retina version but other did not (yet) but they still look good.
Because doubling pixels is easy and looks fine. Non-integer interpolation doesn't look as good.
Fonts are defined in terms of curves using mathematical formula, so they can be scaled very well. That's not how (for the most part) icons and UI elements are defined.
Assuming you're on a MacBook or have a Magic Trackpad, do the pinch-to-zoom on this page, You'll immediately see what elements are vector based (and therefore scale well and always look sharp) and those that don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Nope. 2560x1440.
Your 27" display is 2560x1440?
That makes it EXTREMELY ironic that you would find 720p content "blurry" on a 2560x1440 display because 2560x1440 is exactly DOUBLE in multiple the resolution of 720p which is 1280x720.
That's exactly the SAME relationship between the full-sized iPad's Retina Display of 2048x1536 with the iPad Mini's 1024x768. Or as you call it, a "4:1 pixel shrink".
Therefore you are actually arguing AGAINST YOURSELF and YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.
Enough said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Really? You're sure? What about on a 50" 720 screen? Or a 300" 720 screen? Pretty sure it wouldn't look as good.
I don't think you understand upscaling. I say "don't think" generously, as it's basically a given that you don't.
Now you're misunderstanding TWO different things.
FIRST of all, my example was comparing 720p content displayed on a 1080p display compared to 720p content displayed on a 720p display, with both displays being the same size and viewed from the same distance.
With both things equal, the 720p content viewed on a 1080p display could not look WORSE than on the 720p display, and in fact could look BETTER, if proper upscaling algorithms and techniques were used, given the advantage in potential resolution that 1080p provides over 720p.
The advantages of upscaling is a well-known concept in AV circles, I suggest you Google it if you wish to educate yourself. While standard-definition material upscaled to HD (480i to 1080p for example) will NEVER look as good as native 1080p material, 480i material upscaled to 1080p CAN looking CONSIDERABLY BETTER than 480i content on a 480i display.
Now SECONDLY, you are introducing the issue of resolution versus screen size into the discussion. Screen size was NEVER an issue in our discussion since it was never mentioned that the iPad Mini would ever be a size other than it's current 7.9".
However, since you brought it up, let me address your questions. You're asking whether 720p content can "look as good" on a 50" screen as it does on a 25" screen.
Now you're thinking "no way, it will look TWICE as bad!" Now that would only be true if you were viewing it at the same viewing distance. But it would actually look EXACTLY the same if you doubled the viewing distance, say from five feet to 10 feet.
Again, this doesn't pertain at all to our discussion, but I am just answering your question. Personally, I use a 1080p projector in my living room that throws a 140" image. I sit 15 feet away and it looks AMAZING!
Quote:
Yes. The latter is a 4:1 pixel shrink. The former is not.
Again, you disproved this yourself when you said 720p looks "blurry" on your 2560x1440 display as 720p is a "4:1 pixel shrink" from 2560x1440.
And again, enough said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Okay. …and?
Sorry, sorry, I meant to only quote the first sentence. That's my mistake.
Sure, no problem. So you believe 720p material would look better on a 720p display than on a 1080p screen. As I mentioned before, it could look the same or BETTER given the application of proper upscaling algorithms and techniques. Again, the advantages and benefits of upscaling are fairly well-known, I suggest you do a quick Google search to understand it more.
Now let's address the issue of the "second sentence", which was "And if there was HD material that was 1440p (2560x1440), would you rather view it on a 1080p screen or a 720p display?"
This is a relevant question because it address whether a 2048x1536 app would look better on a 2048x1536 with the iPad Mini's 1024x768 display.
Now it seems you are agreeing that the resolution of 1080p (2,073,600 pixels total) would be preferable to the resolution of 720p (921,600 pixels total) when displaying material in 1440p (2560x1440).
In that case, by virtue you are also agreeing in theory that the resolution of 1536x1152 (1,769,472 pixels total) would be preferable to the iPad Mini's resolution of 1024x768 (786,432 pixels total) when displaying material in 2048x1536 given the IDENTICAL relationship between 720p and 1080p, and 1024x768 and 1536x1152.
Despite your statements to the contrary, your answers show that you are actually in AGREEMENT with me, whether you realize it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kendoka
Are you serious - or just always having bad luck when thinking?
Hint: 50% increase or 25% decrease (i.e. 75%) can never be 100% scalable...
Just do the math (it is not that hard).
Text example: If you have 7 pixel (normal) and 14 (retina) pixel fonts you end up with 10,5 px ... and - as there are no half pixels - the text will either become distorted or blurry. Images will in many cases work fine - but fine lines etc. will definitely render strange (due to the lack of half pixels).
Give me a break! Just by your reply I find it doubtful that you work with graphics as a "content developer", or did you mean you are a "content manager" or "database programmer"?
First of all, it's not reasonable to expect users to view a "7 pixel" font on a 7.9" 1024x768 display, unless you provided them with magnifying glasses. Even then it would be a stretch.
The fact that you even chose this as an example shows either you weren't aware of this fact OR you were deliberately trying to introduce a non-real world argument.
The more LIKELY scenario would be that font text would display closer to 70 pixels, which upscaled to a 1536x1152 display would be 105 pixels.
Secondly, apps are ALWAYS being SCALED in IOS. How do you think "pinch-to-zoom" works?
To claim that upscaling by 50% or downscaling by 25% will cause images to be "distorted or blurry" and "definitely render strange" in IOS is just not true considering images are upscaled and downscaled by those percentages (and everything in between) by users ALL THE TIME.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kendoka
As a content developer I really appreciate the simple 1x and 2x way of making iOS layouts.
I would definitely have loved an über high res 2048x1536 screen - but until that is possible I do think Apple made the right decision..
Like I said, developers wouldn't have to change A THING in their apps. The up or down-scaling could be done completely on the hardware side or in IOS. The whole point for the scaling is to make it compatible for apps developed for BOTH the 1024x768 and 2048x1536 displays. Requiring developers to cater to a THIRD resolution of 1536x1152 for their apps to work with the iPad Mini would defeat the whole purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phat Bastard
Can someone explain this to me?
Nobody has pointed out that competitor's have managed to squeak out higher ppi's in their 7" tablets (Google Nexus, Amazon Kindle Fire HD). How did they manage to accomplish this, while Apple could not?
With all the manufacturing partnerships that Apple has, why is it that Google/Asus and amazon were able to produce their higher ppi screens, while Apple could not?
Perhaps the question really is, was this a question of production capability, or a purposeful choice?
I highly doubt the former. It seems that Apple purposely chose to use previous generation screen technology from the iPad 2 to save production costs, therefore increasing the profit margin on the iPad mini.
That's fine, but then they should have priced the mini accordingly (say, $50 cheaper).
For the price points the mini is selling at, I would expect at least to *match* the competition's ppi (which are noticeably better for displaying text).
Not only is the screen clearly inferior to anyone (power user or casual user) that uses Retina Display devices, but this apparent purposeful choice to use a previous generation screen is a bit of an insult that I have never experienced in my 12 years of purchasing Apple products...these are the reasons why I won't be replacing my iPad 3 with an iPad mini any time soon.
I believe Apple got a great marketing strategy. Inferior screen but sells millions and millions of them just because it's an ipad. Comes next Feb., the updated Retina ipad mini will sell another millions and millions of them to at least 50% of people who bought the first gen ipad mini. Talking about double milking the consumers. If they rolled out the retina ipad mini this time, what kind of upgrade the next Feb. will have? faster cpu, more mem? I doubt many first gen buyer will buy again just for the cpu and mem which are mostly for geeks anyway.
Originally Posted by Buckus Toothnai
That makes it EXTREMELY ironic that you would find 720p content "blurry" on a 2560x1440 display because 2560x1440 is exactly DOUBLE in multiple the resolution of 720p which is 1280x720.
Does it? Do you have any idea what video is? Do you have any idea what a UI is?
That's exactly the SAME relationship between the full-sized iPad's Retina Display of 2048x1536 with the iPad Mini's 1024x768. Or as you call it, a "4:1 pixel shrink".
Therefore you are actually arguing AGAINST YOURSELF and YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.
Enough said.
Despite it being impossible for you to have answered the above questions, I can conclude an answer. You have no idea what the difference is between a video and a UI.
FIRST of all, my example was comparing 720p content displayed on a 1080p display compared to 720p content displayed on a 720p display, with both displays being the same size and viewed from the same distance. With both things equal, the 720p content viewed on a 1080p display could not look WORSE than on the 720p display…
Except it does.
…and in fact could look BETTER, if proper upscaling algorithms and techniques were used…
None of which need to apply to the iPad, nor should they, and nor would they. 4:1 pixels doesn't need it. 2:1 does, and it steals from performance and, yeah, isn't as good as a true quadrupling.
Now SECONDLY, you are introducing the issue of resolution versus screen size into the discussion. Screen size was NEVER an issue in our discussion…
Other than where you were talking about it, yeah, I guess.
You're asking whether 720p content can "look as good" on a 50" screen as it does on a 25" screen. Now you're thinking "no way, it will look TWICE as bad!" Now that would only be true if you were viewing it at the same viewing distance.
Which you specifically stated in a previous post.
And again, enough said.
So you're Bernie Mac, back from the dead, with no argument?
As I mentioned before, it could look the same or BETTER given the application of proper upscaling algorithms and techniques. Again, the advantages and benefits of upscaling are fairly well-known, I suggest you do a quick Google search to understand it more.
I suggest just telling me how you expect to create something from nothing. I'll wait.
…"And if there was HD material that was 1440p (2560x1440), would you rather view it on a 1080p screen or a 720p display?"
720.
Now it seems you are agreeing that the resolution of 1080p (2,073,600 pixels total) would be preferable to the resolution of 720p (921,600 pixels total) when displaying material in 1440p (2560x1440).
No, 720.
In that case, by virtue you are also agreeing in theory that the resolution of 1536x1152 (1,769,472 pixels total) would be preferable to the iPad Mini's resolution of 1024x768 (786,432 pixels total) when displaying material in 2048x1536 given the IDENTICAL relationship between 720p and 1080p, and 1024x768 and 1536x1152.
No, I'm sticking with the best thing for UI and development being 4:1 expansion instead of fiddling with "upscaling" or "downscaling".
Despite your statements to the contrary, your answers show that you are actually in AGREEMENT with me, whether you realize it or not.
Well, I guess if you just make up whatever you want, you can make up that I agree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Does it? Do you have any idea what video is? Do you have any idea what a UI is?
Despite it being impossible for you to have answered the above questions, I can conclude an answer. You have no idea what the difference is between a video and a UI.
Except it does.
None of which need to apply to the iPad, nor should they, and nor would they. 4:1 pixels doesn't need it. 2:1 does, and it steals from performance and, yeah, isn't as good as a true quadrupling.
Other than where you were talking about it, yeah, I guess.
Which you specifically stated in a previous post.
So you're Bernie Mac, back from the dead, with no argument?
I suggest just telling me how you expect to create something from nothing. I'll wait.
720.
No, 720.
No, I'm sticking with the best thing for UI and development being 4:1 expansion instead of fiddling with "upscaling" or "downscaling".
Well, I guess if you just make up whatever you want, you can make up that I agree with you.
Wow, you need to just stop and quit embarrassing yourself. It's getting ridiculous now.
So now you're claiming 720p "video" upscaled from 1280x720 to 2560x1440 would look "blurry", but user interfaces upscaled from 1280x720 to 2560x1440 would look great???
And because of this "distinction", that lets you off the hook when you claimed 720p video looks "blurry" on your 2560x1440 display?
Because then it wouldn't COMPLETELY UNDERMINE your argument for "4:1 pixel shrink" given that 2560x1440 to 1280x720 IS a "4:1 pixel shrink" and which you called "blurry"?
As is 2048x1536 to 1024x768, which is the iPad 3/4 Retina Display's resolution compared to the iPad Mini's?
You know it would be pretty funny that you would even ATTEMPT to make such an argument if if wasn't so downright SAD.
Let's look back at the CONTEXT of our conversation:
I said - "Any 1024x768 app could look no worse on a 1536x1152 display and in fact would probably look better due to the benefits of upscaling."
You replied - "Right, because 720 video sure doesn't look blurry when I full-screen it on my 27" Cinema Display."
So while I was directly referring to apps (or their "UI" as you might put it), your direct reply was about "video". So who's the one that has "no idea what the difference is between a video and a UI"?
And really? This is your attempt to not only back-track from your previous statements, but actually to launch a new "argument"? And one that immediately blows up in your face?
Let's also keep it in context that I NEVER argued AGAINST the 2048x1536 resolution (or "4:1 expansion" as you would say) for the iPad Mini, only that if it wasn't possible that a 1536x1152 display would be a suitable ALTERNATIVE, and BETTER than the Mini's CURRENT 1024x768 screen.
The rest of your reply is more back-tracking, claiming again you meant one thing when previously when I called you out on it you actually said, "Sorry, sorry, I meant to only quote the first sentence. That's my mistake."
There's no point for us to even continue this discussion if you're not going to stick by your points or if you're going to start making retorts to arguments that I never made to begin with.
Originally Posted by Buckus Toothnai
So now you're claiming 720p "video" upscaled from 1280x720 to 2560x1440 would look "blurry", but user interfaces upscaled from 1280x720 to 2560x1440 would look great???
Note that it's not "upscaling" for the user interface. Video and static UI are completely different.
And because of this "distinction", that lets you off the hook when you claimed 720p video looks "blurry" on your 2560x1440 display?
It's not a claim, it's fact. Just make video bigger and it will look worse.
I said - "Any 1024x768 app could look no worse on a 1536x1152 display and in fact would probably look better due to the benefits of upscaling."
You replied - "Right, because 720 video sure doesn't look blurry when I full-screen it on my 27" Cinema Display."
So while I was directly referring to apps (or their "UI" as you might put it), your direct reply was about "video". So who's the one that has "no idea what the difference is between a video and a UI"?
You. Look, whatever 1536x1152 is, it's not 4:1. Text won't be crisp unless the thing is reformatted. Same with images. You can't blow up an image and expect it to look "better", like you pretend. Blow up an image by 4:1 and it won't look "better" than it used to. It has to be made specifically at that resolution.
…a 1536x1152 display would be a suitable ALTERNATIVE, and BETTER than the Mini's CURRENT 1024x768 screen.
With which. I dis. agree. Look, if everything was already made for it, yeah, it would look better than 1024x768. NOTHING is made for it. They would be starting from SCRATCH. For that reason it's not a better decision. Blowing up 1024x768 to that doesn't work like it does for 2048x1536. It looks bad, and to actually make it look good, formatting would need redone. Not so with 4:1.
The rest of your reply is more back-tracking, claiming again you meant one thing when previously when I called you out on it you actually said, "Sorry, sorry, I meant to only quote the first sentence. That's my mistake."
No, that was just a mistake.