Looking at the iPad's Retina Display Under a Microscope

[bystander]

[citation][nom]del35[/nom]Testerguy = Watcha[/citation]
I wasn't going to believe that until he posted the last 5 out of 6 comments.

 

[husker]

After reading the posts for this article, I have to say that watcha, despite being voted down many times, actually has the better argument. He has been derided for being an apple fanboy and possibly even an apple employee but that is irrelevant to the logic of his arguments. Whether you like a person or his personal choices or politics or whatever should not cloud your judgement of the logic of something like 1 + 1 = 2. In fact it makes his detractors look like fanboys (the very thing they accuse him of being) because their arguments are based on emotional response to him personally rather than logical arguments. His detractors here have tried to shift the argument several times to topics other than the basics of what constitutes a "retina display", whether it is called that or not. We get it, OLED and AMOLED, are better, go find an article on these topics and post something there. Don't like my argument here? Why don't you expose me of being a communist or something and therefore "disprove" my point.

By the way, I have an HTC Android phone, an iPhone 4s, and an AMD based Windows 7 PC that I put together myself, and an intel based Windows XP laptop, so please don't insult your own intelligence by accusing me of being a fanboy of anything.

 

[rantoc]

[citation][nom]del35[/nom]Testerguy = Watcha[/citation]

So it would seem, imo persons who needs to answer to their own posts on forums to gain credibility is pathetic or perhaps even borderline schizophrenic.

 

[testerguy]

[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]So it would seem, imo persons who needs to answer to their own posts on forums to gain credibility is pathetic or perhaps even borderline schizophrenic.[/citation]

Watcha has been banned, I'm his friend and so I will make his points for him. It so happens that I completely agree with him.

If you don't like that, take it up with the admins who banned him for saying 'I can't believe people are this stupid'.

 

[eddieroolz]

It's very cool. Regardless of what brand the product is from the display is definitely an improvement.

 

[walter87]

[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]Watcha has been banned, I'm his friend and so I will make his points for him. It so happens that I completely agree with him.If you don't like that, take it up with the admins who banned him for saying 'I can't believe people are this stupid'.[/citation]

Sorry, but that is lame that a friend needs to log into Toms just to post comments to prove his
point.

Why go through all that effort? Just move on...

 

[icemunk]

[citation][nom]husker[/nom]After reading the posts for this article, I have to say that watcha, despite being voted down many times, actually has the better argument. He has been derided for being an apple fanboy and possibly even an apple employee but that is irrelevant to the logic of his arguments. Whether you like a person or his personal choices or politics or whatever should not cloud your judgement of the logic of something like 1 + 1 = 2. In fact it makes his detractors look like fanboys (the very thing they accuse him of being) because their arguments are based on emotional response to him personally rather than logical arguments. His detractors here have tried to shift the argument several times to topics other than the basics of what constitutes a "retina display", whether it is called that or not. We get it, OLED and AMOLED, are better, go find an article on these topics and post something there. Don't like my argument here? Why don't you expose me of being a communist or something and therefore "disprove" my point.By the way, I have an HTC Android phone, an iPhone 4s, and an AMD based Windows 7 PC that I put together myself, and an intel based Windows XP laptop, so please don't insult your own intelligence by accusing me of being a fanboy of anything.[/citation]

Fact is iPhone has a nice display. The iPad 2 has a nice display. The iPad 3 has a nice display. The Samsung Galaxy Nexus/S2/Note have nice displays. Most super phones have nice displays. The term "Retina" IS a marketing ploy, and it is shown when people try to compare what consittutes a pixel when comparing super AMOLED and LCD. Either way, they're all nice displays. Some people like OLED, some people like Apple. Either way, they're all excellent technology and arguing over the pixel's per square inch is just silly. Go outdoors! Make some friends! Yeesh,

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]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 [...] l2011.aspxI 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.[/citation]
In my country and the other countries I visited in Europe, people usually have the phone a lot closer. But if the average distance that people use their smartphones around the globe is indeed 13 inches then the Nokia N900 I mentioned has a retina display as do tons of other smartphones, because you only need a 264 dpi display at that distance.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]http/www.pcworld.com/article/188 [...] ained.html[/citation]
The Super AMOLED Plus on the Galaxy S II has a viewing angle of 180º and the Super AMOLED Plus on the Galaxy Tab 7.7 has a viewing angle even higher than that.

But I did find this quote funny from the article:

"Typical casual-use devices, namely netbooks, use a twisted nematic (TN) display technology. TN although cheaper, offers inferior color reproduction (only 6-bit color, while IPS supports richer 8-bit color), and lower viewing angles, so Apple's use of a higher quality display techology (IPS) for such a casual device is welcomed."

I didn't knew that a laptops were a casual-use device.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]Watcha has been banned, I'm his friend and so I will make his points for him. It so happens that I completely agree with him.If you don't like that, take it up with the admins who banned him for saying 'I can't believe people are this stupid'.[/citation]
Perhaps you can talk to a admin on his behalf, I didn't saw him do anything deserving the ban hammer.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]The Super AMOLED Plus on the Galaxy S II has a viewing angle of 180º and the Super AMOLED Plus on the Galaxy Tab 7.7 has a viewing angle even higher than that.But I did find this quote funny from the article:"Typical casual-use devices, namely netbooks, use a twisted nematic (TN) display technology. TN although cheaper, offers inferior color reproduction (only 6-bit color, while IPS supports richer 8-bit color), and lower viewing angles, so Apple's use of a higher quality display techology (IPS) for such a casual device is welcomed."I didn't knew that a laptops were a casual-use device.[/citation]

I will say I usually hold it about 12" away, maybe more, I'm just guessing, but that does seem pretty reasonable to me.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]In my country and the other countries I visited in Europe, people usually have the phone a lot closer. But if the average distance that people use their smartphones around the globe is indeed 13 inches then the Nokia N900 I mentioned has a retina display as do tons of other smartphones, because you only need a 264 dpi display at that distance.[/citation]
I meant to quote this message. I'm sorry for the confusion.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]del35[/nom]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 soundinglike a derogatory term is actually replete with meaning and is one that can be ported easily intoall 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 capturesthe essence of what lies behind the Apple craze currently gripping a rather large swath of the technoligically-prerational segment of the population.[/citation]

I was just saying that using these terms hurts your argument.

I like the term iZealot better than iCrap. While I don't use any Apple products, their stuff isn't crap, maybe over priced and too focused on appearance than substance, not to say they don't have substance, just that they charge a lot in many cases (I'm not sure iPhones and iTabs are actually overpriced, but their PC's sure seem so).

If you want to convert people, you do have to treat them with respect, though I'm not sure that's your intentions with watcha. I'm guessing you just want to make him squirm, which I guess you are succeeding there.

 

[v1ze]

[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]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-s [...] ision.html[/citation]
"For example, researchers found that the average working distance for text messages was 14.2 inches (36 centimeters)"
Looks to me like 2 distances were referenced with one of them being mine and neither being the distance Apple mentions. You were saying?

Of course you can say a higher PPI is not necessarily noticeable. A jumbo-tron can have be 300 PPI but it wouldn't matter because of the distance you're viewing it at. There is a theoretical maximum at which PPI no longer makes a difference. The maximum is determined by your eye sight and the distance at which you're viewing the screen. Apple is trying to convince you otherwise and that's EXACTLY why it's a marketing ploy. A retina display isn't always better because it scientifically isn't better based on the studies YOU referenced.

Besides, it was nearly 1 am when I wrote that. But if I had to drink it wouldn't be your Appletini.

 

[testerguy]

[citation][nom]icemunk[/nom]The term "Retina" IS a marketing ploy, and it is shown when people try to compare what consittutes a pixel when comparing super AMOLED and LCD. Either way, they're all nice displays. Some people like OLED, some people like Apple.[/citation]

It is not AMOLED specifically which has the issue. It's Pentile displays. It has nothing to do with the discussion over retina display, but Pentile actually doesn't have full pixels. Every other device does.

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]But if the average distance that people use their smartphones around the globe is indeed 13 inches then the Nokia N900 I mentioned has a retina display as do tons of other smartphones, because you only need a 264 dpi display at that distance.[/citation]

The average is 12 inches, according to the study I linked and backed up by the scientific quote I posted. The 13 inches you quoted was in reference to tablets, and was not me or Watcha saying that devices were held at that distance. It was mentioned because you disagreed with the accepted 15 inches plus viewing distance, and the point being made was that the iPad would qualify for the 'retina' label even if it was held as close as 13 inches.

At the 12 inches, the PPI required is 286 PPI.

[citation][nom]v1ze[/nom]"For example, researchers found that the average working distance for text messages was 14.2 inches (36 centimeters)"Looks to me like 2 distances were referenced with one of them being mine and neither being the distance Apple mentions[/citation]

The article provided two different averages. The average when text messaging was 14 inches, the average when web browsing was 12 inches. You necessarily must take the smaller of the two distances because users on an iPhone do use it for web browsing, thus the screen must be suitable at that distance. That distance of 12 inches giving a necessary ppi of 284 is the correct number, going by the study I referenced, and it is not the number you gave. You incorrectly took the larger of two numbers to try and prove your point, which you shouldn't have. If a lorry has to drive under two bridges of different heights, when working out whether it can or not you need to take the lower bridge, not the higher one.

This distance of 12 inches backs up Apples claim of 'around 300 ppi' and it also rules out the Nokia N900, which is entirely consistent with all the points which have been made. While I personally always thought Apple had claimed that people hold the phone 'a foot' away, or so, whether you believe it is 11 or 12 inches doesn't change anything here, and I'm not sure they ever specifically said 11 inches. Watcha provided values for 10 inches, 12 inches, etc, so all bases were covered. The N900 is still not a retina display by any definition, and the iPad at 264 still is.

The PPI is noticeable up to the point the device qualifies as a 'retina' display - for most users. This is the very definition of retina, and the reason why it came into being - scientific. It's not a plot because it's backed up by logic - Apple boasting effectively that they have reached as many pixels per inch as an average user will ever need. 'Retina' as a term is a marketing term, but it's not cunning or misleading at all. This is why the N900 has a visibly lower quality screen.

 

[testerguy]

[citation][nom]walter87[/nom]Sorry, but that is lame that a friend needs to log into Toms just to post comments to prove his point.Why go through all that effort? Just move on...[/citation]

It's no big deal, we work together. Not really any more effort than posting under his normal account. At least we're making relevant comments to the discussion.

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]Perhaps you can talk to a admin on his behalf, I didn't saw him do anything deserving the ban hammer.[/citation]

Thanks

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]The average is 12 inches, according to the study I linked and backed up by the scientific quote I posted. The 13 inches you quoted was in reference to tablets, and was not me or Watcha saying that devices were held at that distance. It was mentioned because you disagreed with the accepted 15 inches plus viewing distance, and the point being made was that the iPad would qualify for the 'retina' label even if it was held as close as 13 inches.At the 12 inches, the PPI required is 286 PPI.[/citation]
No according to the study you posted from Wolters Kluwer the average is 12,6 inches for web pages and 14,2 inches for texting.

 

[Guest]

"...you have no idea at all on my background, or what I have a degree and a doctorate in"

what a waste of title....lesson learned:A title dos not make you smart...at all....

P.S Hey im a mac!, am i cool or what?...brainwash..neeeext...

 

[testerguy]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]No according to the study you posted from Wolters Kluwer the average is 12,6 inches for web pages and 14,2 inches for texting.[/citation]

Exactly, and since some people use the phone for viewing web pages, that gives us 12.6 inches (you have to select the lower of the two because the device has to be suitable for both). Apple erred on the side of caution in ensuring their screen is retina at 11 inches, but it's widely accepted that people can hold the phone, on average, as close as 12 inches away. Had Apple chosen 13 inches as the benchmark, they would have been slated for being inaccurate, so they chose the nearest inch which would still be a legitimate scientific test, 12 inches.

This is backed up by the quotation I provided by a leading display calibrator, who also agrees that tablets are held further away.

In essence, whether you believe the iPhone is held 11 inches, 12 inches, 12.6 inches, 40 inches, it doesn't matter because it would qualify as a 'Retina' display at any of those distances.

In addition, if you believe the new iPad is held anywhere between 13 inches and a mile away, that also qualifies as a 'Retina display', in the scientific sense (to be clear - by this I mean pixels not discernible by a person with 20/20 vision). If you don't believe it is then you are going against the expert consensus

[citation][nom]imatard[/nom]"...you have no idea at all on my background, or what I have a degree and a doctorate in"what a waste of title....lesson learned:A title dos not make you smart...at all....P.S Hey im a mac!, am i cool or what?...brainwash..neeeext...[/citation]

1 - Firstly, look at your name. Apt.
2 - He didn't actually make any claim to any title. He just said the original poster didn't know. Which is true.
3 - How have you proved that he isn't smart? You're accusing him of being brainwashed but as far as I know he's only ever bought 1 Apple device and has said nothing here which isn't true. Saying 'Hey im a mac' doesn't really make any kind of point.

 

[del35]

I love people who can count from 1-4.

Hey Watcha, I mean Testguy,

I am providing an increasing sequence of facts. I omitted #2 but assumed the reader would be sophisticated enough to realize he could advance to 3 from 1. Rather than making snide remarks like the above, you should work on honing your skills at logic, because you are clearly a rather logically deprived individual assuming that you are Watcha.