Looking at the iPad's Retina Display Under a Microscope

[house70]

[citation][nom]icemunk[/nom]It's obvious you live in a world of delusion Watcha. Keep dreaming.[/citation]
He is on quicksand, but keeps on flopping around... I really tried to see his POV, but I just can't shove my head up my ar$e that much. Sorry.

 

[del35]

nycteris: Seems like the airport really your bedroom and the guy on his iPad was a pillow you propped up on a chair. Lemme guess, were you also flying your toy airplanes around and making engine noises yourself?

I am willing to bet this actually happened. I photographed my boarding pass. If you lose the bet I want an unlocked Samsung Galaxy Note. If I lose it, you will get a free 16gig new iPad. Are you willing to bet? Also because I cant prove what I said about the guy, all I can provide as proof is the fact that I am reading "The emperor of all Maledies" by Siddhartha Mukherjee which I purchased in Amazon recently and also the Goldberg Variations. Want to give the bet a try?

 

[del35]

nycteris: Seems like the airport really your bedroom and the guy on his iPad was a pillow you propped up on a chair. Lemme guess, were you also flying your toy airplanes around and making engine noises yourself?

We can use a third party to verify this. I wont trust an iCrappie to be a disinterested 3rd party. So the iCrap zealot Watcha is out of the question.

 

[bystander]

You won't win many arguments using derogatory comments like you do. I'm not saying I disagree or agree with everything you write, just that you can't win an argument with all the "iCrap" and moron type comments.

 

[halcyon]

As always, it's entertaining to hear you young'uns cat-fighting over the unimportant". I was a teen once so I get it. What difference does it make whether or not someone uses an Android device or an iOS device? I'm glad I have both and don't have to choose. Why do you all care if someone selects a ginger bread device over an iOS device. If you feel Apple's competitors make a superior product buy and recommend it. Why do people you don't even know have to be less intelligent, etc. because they want an Apple product. It'll be funny when you get a bit older and your views become less arrogant and opionated.

 

[bigbaconeater]

[citation][nom]icemunk[/nom]I'm not going to argue about what a "Retina" display is, because that is a marketing device which Apple holds copyright. If you would like to argue facts, than I will present them to you: OLED is a superior display. Lower power, higher clairty, better viewing angles, true blacks and superior contrasts, higher resolutions, more advanced, higher quality, vibrant colors. LCD does not compare, even if you make up some marketing term about "Retina" display. OLED wins hands down, no matter how you spin it. And just so you know.. Apple won't be using LCD in their next Iphone, Samsung will make them a nice OLED display for it instead.[/citation]

I'll agree on all points. However, I believe that the BIGGEST advantage of the IPS LCD is the wider viewing angles.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]bigbaconeater[/nom]I'll agree on all points. However, I believe that the BIGGEST advantage of the IPS LCD is the wider viewing angles.[/citation]

I've never understood why anyone would care much about viewing angles on a PC, although it would be great for TV and maybe tablet use. With a PC, you always view the screen head on.

 

[testerguy]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]There's no dispute behind the math to determine if it's a retina display or not. Now the viewing distances are different story. Apple never provided a single study how it reached the 11 inches viewing distance for a phone. I've never seen anyone holding their phone that far away from their eyes.About the tablets viewing distance most people i've seen using tablets usually have them on top of a table. The second most common position is hold it in their hands. Only occasionally do i see it on the lap of someone and the reason it's simple. For the tablet to be on the lap we have to tilt our heads down and that's also uncomfortable, hence why most people I see using it usually have it on the table. So how did they achieved the 16 inches viewing distance?The most likely answer is simple, they've chosen a distance that suited them best without being ridiculously far.[/citation]

Hi. Sorry but I think Watcha is right.

I looked at your first post and it was clear that you were mistaken about retina display being dependant on distance. You seemed to think that retina display was a fixed number of 300 and that Apple had changed that number. You are now changing your argument.

Regarding viewing distance, 11 inches is very conservative. There are numerous studies but it is widely accepted to be above 11 inches for a phone:

http/www.wolterskluwer.com/Press/Latest-News/2011/Pages/pr12jul2011.aspx

I also think watcha is right that obviously tablets are held further away, because they are bigger. He did also explain to you that the device only has to be 13 inches away with a 264 PPI.

 

[testerguy]

[citation][nom]house70[/nom]He is on quicksand, but keeps on flopping around... I really tried to see his POV, but I just can't shove my head up my ar$e that much. Sorry.[/citation]

I don't think he is on quicksand. He has provided a wealth of links and evidence backing up his point.

It's clear that the logic of calculating the necessary PPI for a device to have non-discernible pixels existed long before the Retina marketing term did. The only problem I see on this thread is people not understanding the science behind it.

The argument is simple - the PPI values existed before Apple, and Apple is powerless to change/amend/fudge them.

Given a distance away from the eye, you could calculate the necessary PPI way before Apple came along. Obviously Apple exceeded this PPI at the normal viewing distance when they developed the high resolution iPhone screen, and decided that was a good selling point. They labelled it 'Retina' - but that label isn't the point. The point is the resolution of their device had actually crossed a scientific boundary at which the human eye can't perceive pixels.

 

[del35]

You won't win many arguments using derogatory comments like you do.

Arguing with Apple fanboys is like arguing with a flatlander the fact that the earth is a sphere.
After a while you might give up and call the flatlander a moron. While it is an extreme assertion, it jolts the flatlander to the fact that he has failed at reason. The term iCrap while sounding
like a derogatory term is actually replete with meaning and is one that can be ported easily into
all kinds of discussions to puncture the hubris of iZealots like Watcha. Language is a living thing and fun to play with especially in informal discussions like those that go on in internet forums.
I would be pressed to find a word that says more about Apple products than iCrap.
Or a term that describes the Apple store better than "The church of iCrap". This term captures
the essence of what lies behind the Apple craze currently gripping a rather large swath of the technoligically-prerational segment of the population.

 

[v1ze]

testerguy, i mean watcha

the link you provided contradicts your support for watcha. the story linked says 14.2 inches is the average viewing distance for reading a smartphone. this makes plenty of other phones in the marketplace currently have retina displays, as Vladislaus stated by his claims on the nokia n900.

by very definition this makes the term retina display a marketing ploy because it's meant to deceive the consumer into thinking the display is providing a better experience. however at a distance of 14.2 inches it simply isn't doing that.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]bigbaconeater[/nom]I'll agree on all points. However, I believe that the BIGGEST advantage of the IPS LCD is the wider viewing angles.[/citation]
Actually the Super AMOLED Plus has a better viewing angle than a IPS screen, not that's really important on a phone or tablet unless you want to share what you're viewing.

 

[junixophobia]

Mr WACHA, you are clearly owned here so might as well STFU

 

[testerguy]

[citation][nom]v1ze[/nom]testerguy, i mean watchathe link you provided contradicts your support for watcha. the story linked says 14.2 inches is the average viewing distance for reading a smartphone. this makes plenty of other phones in the marketplace currently have retina displays, as Vladislaus stated by his claims on the nokia n900.by very definition this makes the term retina display a marketing ploy because it's meant to deceive the consumer into thinking the display is providing a better experience. however at a distance of 14.2 inches it simply isn't doing that.[/citation]


Wow, I can understand why Watcha posts a lot to you guys now.

Look at this article, which references the study I linked:

http/www.livescience.com/15009-smartphone-affects-vision.html

They found the average reading distance on a smartphone was about 12 inches, and with many patients viewing them as close as 8 inches away from their eyes.

This doesn't in any way contradict anything Watcha said. In fact, it confirms it. What have you been drinking?

You cannot say that the higher PPI of the phone is not advantage when it's clearly visible to the end users. It's clearly not a marketing ploy when it's a fact that your screen is higher resolution.

The argument Vladislaus made was that Apple has changed the definition to 260, which therefore made the phones fit within that definition. His argument was not that the other phones had retina displays all along.

 

[testerguy]

Dr. Raymond Soneira, creator of the DisplayMate screen calibration utility and a leading expert on display quality, aims to erase the confusion. On March 19, he’ll be publishing an “iPad Retina Display Shootout” that includes an in-depth analysis of the new iPad’s ultra-high-resolution display. Here are are some highlights we pulled from a brief preview of the analysis, which Soneira published Wednesday.

To start, Soneira addresses the fact that the iPhone 4/4S Retina display has a pixel density of 326 ppi (pixels per inch), whereas the new iPad comes in at just 264 ppi. “To qualify as an Apple retina display, the new iPad does not require the same ppi as the iPhone 4 Retina display because it is typically held further away from the eye,” Soneira writes. (In case you were wondering, the original iPad and iPad 2 have a pixel density of 132 ppi.)

Considering the distance an iPad is held from one’s face — 15 to 18 inches as opposed to 12 to 15 inches with the iPhone — the iPad could have a pixel density as low as 240 ppi, and still be considered a Retina display by Apple’s standards, Soneira writes

Basically he just confirmed everything Watcha said. Guys, leave it to the experts.

 

[del35]

Actually the Super AMOLED Plus has a better viewing angle than a IPS screen, not that's really important on a phone or tablet unless you want to share what you're viewing.

It matters for the following reasons:

1)
I use my android tablet to lecture using pictures of my handwritten notes. So it is nice to see the
lecture notes from a wider viewing angle.

3)
Sometimes I am working in lab or preparing some strange concoction in the kitchen and need to see a certain formula or recipe being displayed on an screen. Getting on top of the device to read it could risk it. So it is nice that a super AMOLED screen has a wider viewing angle.

4) My friend who is an artist says that when he is in his studio painting he sometimes uses a photo of the subject he is working on and if his screen has a wider viewing angle this keeps his
tablet safe from getting paint spilled all over it.



I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

 

[del35]

Testerguy = Watcha

 

[testerguy]

I love people who can count from 1-4.

 

[testerguy]

The IPS display used int he iPad is a 9.7-inch 1024-by-768 resolution LED-backlit LCD screen. IPS gives the iPad an impressive wide viewing-angle of up to 178 degrees

http/www.pcworld.com/article/188141/ipad_ips_screen_technology_explained.html

 

[testerguy]

In short, you'll enjoy the same wide viewing angles on the iPad 3 as its predecessor.

http/www.tomshardware.co.uk/ipad-3-benchmark-review,review-32402-3.html