Looking at the iPad's Retina Display Under a Microscope

[JMcEntegart]

The closest iPad 2 vs. iPad 3 side-by-side comparison so far.

Looking at the iPad's Retina Display Under a Microscope : Read more

 

[JeTJL]

Is there going to be any comparison between the new retina display in the Ipad 3 and the newer IPS panels that are going into Asus Transormer Infinity or Lenovo Ideatab K2?

 

[phamhlam]

[citation][nom]JeTJL[/nom]Is there going to be any comparison between the new retina display in the Ipad 3 and the newer IPS panels that are going into Asus Transormer Infinity or Lenovo Ideatab K2?[/citation]

Those are two totally different things. Retina Display refers to the densite of pixels on a display and IPS panels is the basically the type of panel that is used.

 

[nukemaster]

Mathis has got some great photos of a range of different displays under the scope. He's done everything from the PS Vita, to the 3DS, the iPod touch, and the Kindle. Check it out here.

Hell a camera can catch the regular DS lite pixels

 

[rantoc]

Yup, Samsung make excellent handheld displays!

 

[Guest]

Is this a big deal packing more res into a screen... it is not as if it was a new tech. VGA, XVGA, WVGA... and what have you... been there seen that.

 

[halcyon]

Why didn't someone besides Apple use this most excellent screen first? Heck, Samsung makes the screen...you'd think they put something as nice in their own tablets.

 

[Vladislaus]

My old phone with 3,5 inch 800x480 apparently also has a retina display long before Apple introduced it with the iPhone 4. Apparently all of a sudden, retina displays became much more common overnight.

 

[TheDane]

Apple's retina displays still uses IPS panels.

Much prefer lower resoution SuperAMO LED if image quality is important.

 

[halcyon]

Well, the new iPad's screen is (okay, very) nice to look at but you quickly get used to it and it doesn't seem so special after a bit. It just seems standard now. ...the iPad 2's screen wasn't bad and when you can get an Android based tablet that doesn't have pixel defects (Asus, I'm talking to you) the1280x800 certainly isn't bad either.

However, the new iPad's screen just set a new standard.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]My old phone with 3,5 inch 800x480 apparently also has a retina display long before Apple introduced it with the iPhone 4. Apparently all of a sudden, retina displays became much more common overnight.[/citation]

Which phone?

All that happened is people learned what the term 'Retina display' means overnight. Apple never claimed to have invented high resolution displays.

[citation][nom]Halcyon[/nom]Why didn't someone besides Apple use this most excellent screen first? Heck, Samsung makes the screen...you'd think they put something as nice in their own tablets.[/citation]

I think this is very telling. The bottom line is that while Samsung can manufacturer a screen to Apples design and specification, it can't yet manage to put the rest of the package together in the form a complete tablet with the necessary battery life and GPU performance. In other words, there's way more to the screen than the screen.

 

[icemunk]

That is a nice Samsung display there.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Which phone? All that happened is people learned what the term 'Retina display' means overnight. Apple never claimed to have invented high resolution displays.[/citation]
Yep, they learned that it's marketing ploy. Back in 2010 when Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone 4, he claimed that the human eye stooped discerning the individual pixels when the pixel density is 300ppi. Hence he called the display on the iPhone 4 the retina display, which has 326ppi. Now we go forward in time almost two years and after all the human eye stops discerning pixels at 260ppi not 300ppi as previously stated.

Also the phone I mentioned was a Nokia N900, at the time I also had a iPhone 3GS and a Xperia X1. Without knowing I had two phones with retina displays.

 

[watcha]

Essentially, retina display is not a 'marketing ploy' - it's basic scientific knowledge.

Your Nokia N900 isn't a retina display - it has a PPI of 267.

As Steve Jobs said, the scientifically accepted PPI required for a smartphone is 300 ppi. Your N900 doesn't match this criteria.

What you need to understand is that these PPI distances take into account the average distance that the users eyes are from their device.

If you're 10,000 miles away, 1 ppi would be good enough.

If you're 1 metre away, it wouldn't. Thus, the necessary PPI required for a device to constitute a 'retina' device depends on the distance a typical user holds the device.

It is widely accepted, both scientifically and logically, that tablets are held further away (on average) than smartphones are. Thus, the necessary PPI to achieve a retina display is reduced. When Steve Jobs stated the 300 ppi he specifically referred to smartphones and the distance users hold them from their eyes. The PPI required for a tablet is lower than this, hence the iPad 3 also qualifies as 'Retina'.

Nobody changed any definition - you just didn't understand what retina meant.

Here is an article which may enlighten you:

http/www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/

 

[icemunk]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Essentially, retina display is not a 'marketing ploy' - it's basic scientific knowledge. Your Nokia N900 isn't a retina display - it has a PPI of 267.As Steve Jobs said, the scientifically accepted PPI required for a smartphone is 300 ppi. Your N900 doesn't match this criteria.What you need to understand is that these PPI distances take into account the average distance that the users eyes are from their device.If you're 10,000 miles away, 1 ppi would be good enough.If you're 1 metre away, it wouldn't. Thus, the necessary PPI required for a device to constitute a 'retina' device depends on the distance a typical user holds the device.It is widely accepted, both scientifically and logically, that tablets are held further away (on average) than smartphones are. Thus, the necessary PPI to achieve a retina display is reduced. When Steve Jobs stated the 300 ppi he specifically referred to smartphones and the distance users hold them from their eyes. The PPI required for a tablet is lower than this, hence the iPad 3 also qualifies as 'Retina'.Nobody changed any definition - you just didn't understand what retina meant.Here is an article which may enlighten you:http/www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/ret [...] -the-math/[/citation]

Except that it is a marketing ploy. There are plenty of phones with "Retina" display (above 300 ppi). For example, the Samsung Galaxy Nexus has a 4.65" OLED screen with 316 ppi, however it is not advertised as "Retina" display, because that is a marketing gimick which Apple has a copyright for. OLED beats LCD hands down by the way.

 

[watcha]

Edit: Steve Jobs said 'around' 300 PPI - the actual figure is slightly higher.

 

[watcha]

The Samsung Galaxy Nexus doesn't, strictly speaking, have a full 316 ppi.

Device uses PenTile technology. Its pixels consist of only two sub-pixels instead of three and the claimed pixel density is only achieved using subpixel rendering. In any case, the ppi numbers are not directly comparable.

http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density

 

[watcha]

Furthermore - the 'Retina' term itself, while maybe copyrighted by Apple, is not a marketing 'ploy' because it is backed up by scientific understanding. For example, in the print industry, 300 ppi is regarded as the quality required for the detail to look perfect.

So, the word 'retina' may be Apple specific, but the underlying scientific reality was not anything created by Apple.

That they use their high resolution to market their devices is something I don't see any reason to have a problem with.

 

[icemunk]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]The Samsung Galaxy Nexus doesn't, strictly speaking, have a full 316 ppi.http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ [...] el_density[/citation]

Take a look at it, it's screen looks much nicer than my Iphone 4s. Looks sharper, more vibrant, brighter, and just plain nice. I like my Iphone 4s but the OLED is a generation ahead in technology in my opinion.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]icemunk[/nom]Take a look at it, it's screen looks much nicer than my Iphone 4s. Looks sharper, more vibrant, brighter, and just plain nice. I like my Iphone 4s but the OLED is a generation ahead in technology in my opinion.[/citation]

We're trying to have a scientific discussion about what Retina means. We're not having an argument about OLED vs LCD. Brightness and colours are not relevant to this discussion which is about resolution.

OLED vs LCD is a different argument. For me personally, I prefer the higher DPI of the iPhone screen. I also like the fact that, unlike OLED, it looks just as good if you look at it from an angle. This is a widely documented drawback of OLED. In terms of brightness and colour, having looked at them both side by side I see no difference.

You probably just prefer the screen size. Either way - this discussion isn't about which screen looks the best. It's about what Retina means.