Looking at the iPad's Retina Display Under a Microscope

[watcha]

[citation][nom]icemunk[/nom]lol lol yup, Watcha is unforuntetly lacking in real knowledge, and lost in the vast marketing machine produced by Apple. He reads his "science" from websites such as http://www.tuaw.com which talks about nothing but Apple.. I feel for people like him, they don't realize they are being manipulated by marketing.[/citation]

I picked that site because the science was dumbed down, for people like you. I got it via Google, I have no idea whether it is an Apple site or not. I certainly don't frequent that site often, and you making claims about where I read science simply exaggerates your already quite evident stupidity,

ROFL @ you being a 'me too' man to any insults people make to me just because I have proved you wrong.

The very article I posted linked had many scientific sources if you actually cared to read it properly.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]@watcha"Retina display" is a marketing thing. No one else uses it, and to be honest i haven't even heard the term before apple started going on about it.And if you think about it, the eye doesn't even use pixels.Anyway, since you guys are referencing Wikipedia so much: This claim has been disputed. Raymond Soneira, president of DisplayMate Technologies, said in an interview with Wired magazine, that the claims by Jobs are something of an exaggeration: "It is reasonably close to being a perfect display, but Steve pushed it a little too far". Soneira stated that the resolution of the human retina is higher than claimed by Apple, working out to 477 ppi at 12 inches (305 mm) from the eyes, or 36 arcseconds per pixel.[/citation]

Of course, this claim you post has already been disproven, retracted and amended, all linked to in the article which I linked you to in the first place. Again, if you want to be 'scientific' and accuse people like me of not being scientific, please be thorough next time.

To quote the link from the link I posted first:

There have been some comments that my analysis is for perfect vision. Jobs' statement is for the *Retina* not the *Eye* with 20/20 or other vision. For 20/20 vision the accepted value is to resolve two lines that are separated by 1.0 arc minute. In that case a 20/20 vision display needs a resolution of 286 dpi or higher at 12 inches and 344 dpi at 10 inches. The iPhone 4 has 326 dpi, so at 12 inches it is a 20/20 Vision Display but not a Retina Display.

That quote, by the way, is the same guy who you quoted too - backtracking faster than a point guard with Blake Griffin coming down the lane.

In essence, even he admits that scientifically, for a person with 20/20 vision, they will not be able to distinguish pixels on an iPhone 4S phone. Which is exactly what Steve Jobs described. What he objects to, essentially, is the semantics of the marketing label, ie the 'retina' label. His arguments were disproved by other renown scientists and all he ended up saying was that it should be called a 20/20 vision device - guess what, that's what it was defined as by Steve Jobs too.

His ridiculous, and extremely weak argument, is that some exceptional retinas can distinguish more pixels, even if the overall eye can't then transport that distinction to the brain.

 

[shaod]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]How ironic you accuse me of not being scientific, when you have no idea at all on my background, or what I have a degree and a doctorate in. Not very scientific of you, wouldn't you say?A link which is linked from the article I posted:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/ [...] ms_upheld/The basic thing you need to understand is that 1 arcminute, (1/60th of a degree) is the WIDELY ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC angle at which a person with 20/20 (average vision) can discern, with the human eye.Since this is an angle, the resolution which is necessary to have pixels separated by less than this angle varies by distance. Given any one distance, this means scientists can calculate the necessary DPI.If we consider a device which is held 12 inches away. Extrapolate the 1 arcminute angle over 12 inches and you get a 0.00349066 inches (to 8 dp).A one inch device would therefore need 1/0.00349066 PPI which is 286.48 (to 2 dp)[/citation]
That is not a scientific article...

 

[bystander]

There seems to be more watcha comments than everyone else combined.

 

[ojas]

lol all i'm (and probably the others too are) saying is that "retina display" is a marketing term, and deciding what exactly a "retina display" should be is kind of vague. Apple can effectively bend the definition any which way it pleases, because it's not a defined industry standard/term.

I refuse to give any more importance to this topic.

 

[halcyon]

I've recently heard that Asus has been using a 'Sphincter' display in its Transformer Prime but I'm not sure I really understand exactly what that is. Can you guys clarify that as well?

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]lol all i'm (and probably the others too are) saying is that "retina display" is a marketing term, and deciding what exactly a "retina display" should be is kind of vague. Apple can effectively bend the definition any which way it pleases, because it's not a defined industry standard/term.I refuse to give any more importance to this topic.[/citation]

Retina display as a term is something Apple made up.

It's meaning isn't subjective.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/

(for shaod - again linked to from the link I posted)

 

[Lewis57]

[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.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.[/citation]

While this is true, I'd wager a bet that it's also down to risk. Apple can guarantee that their product will sell, at the end of the day, they could sell a brick as long as they say it has a Retina Sand Display. While Samsung lacks a true cult following.

 

[vic20]

How many of you have actually seen the new iPad screen at all, and also sitting beside another tablet? It doesn't matter if what Apple says is marketing or science if you don't like the screen. I put it next to an the original ASUS Transformer and the iPad screen looked worse overall. Its ever so slightly sharper when you zoom in on text, but its softer, less vibrant and bluish. The whites are very great and neither are the blacks. I cannot say enough how underwelmed I was after hearing about the resolution.

I had a small room of people compare them, and everyone preferred the Transformer's screen. Even the guy who bought the new iPad and brought it in was suddenly dissappointed.

Also keep in mind Samsung did not make the first iPad 3 screens. They were LG and the imperfections convinced Apple to switch vendors. There are also some Phillips screens in them too. So good luck buying one, you'll never know who made it unless you rip it apart 😀

 

[Vladislaus]

[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]
I know that it depends on the distance, the problem is that most people use the tablet around the same distance as a phone because if you have to stretch your arms, very quickly the tablet becomes uncomfortable to hold because of the height.

So the post you mentioned states that the viewing distance of a tablet is 16 inches? I would like to see what's the amount time someone can hold it that far comfortably.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]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.[/citation]
PPI on a printer???? Does a LCD screen comes out of the printer?

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]shaod[/nom]Of course it has 316 ppi "strictly speaking" - ppi being simply the number of pixels it has per inch. That's ignoring that PenTile actually looks (subjectively) better than a regular display of the same resolution, while using less power because it has few subpixels.And sorry but 'retina display' is a marketing term. Like you point out it is completely subjective upon other factors such as where the screen is held and how good the eyesight of the user is.[/citation]
Actually the Galaxy S 2 reproduces colors better than the Galaxy Nexus because the latter has a PenTile Screen.

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]vic20[/nom]How many of you have actually seen the new iPad screen at all, and also sitting beside another tablet? It doesn't matter if what Apple says is marketing or science if you don't like the screen. I put it next to an the original ASUS Transformer and the iPad screen looked worse overall. Its ever so slightly sharper when you zoom in on text, but its softer, less vibrant and bluish. The whites are very great and neither are the blacks. I cannot say enough how underwelmed I was after hearing about the resolution.I had a small room of people compare them, and everyone preferred the Transformer's screen. Even the guy who bought the new iPad and brought it in was suddenly dissappointed.Also keep in mind Samsung did not make the first iPad 3 screens. They were LG and the imperfections convinced Apple to switch vendors. There are also some Phillips screens in them too. So good luck buying one, you'll never know who made it unless you rip it apart[/citation]

I'm typing this on my new iPad. No way no how anyone who can see would prefer the Transformer Prime's screen unless they are just used to seeing pixels. I'd almost venture to say you may be telling an untruth or trolling.

 

[jamie_1318]

[citation][nom]nukemaster[/nom]Hell a camera can catch the regular DS lite pixels[/citation]
I can see the sub pixel layout with the naked eye from about 4 inches away.

About Watcha last time I got him to admit.....Ghasp....that the Ipad isn't perfect in every way.

He as usual listed workarounds for the problem, that were self admittedly sub-optimal

 

[halcyon]

The new iPad is not perfect. To me, selecting text is still easier in android...every time I have to do it in iOS it annoys me. ...every time I have to re-position the cursor in iOS I miss android a little.

 

[descendency]

[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]

Phones don't have retina displays at 800x480. For a phone, you need 300+ppi. For a tablet, you need 260ish.

 

[walter87]

watcha:
Please stop trying to defend Apple here.

Apple is among the top companies out there for manipulating facts to their advantage. And apple fanboys like yourself buy into everything they say.
(I will admit apple does make good products in terms of functionality, but in terms of how they spin words, meanings and specs in comparison to the competition, I find it funny when someone is gullible and believes word for word what Apple states in their press releases).

'Retina' display simply means that the pixel density is so great, that the human eye can't distinguish individual pixels. If the scientific defintion is 300PPI then so have it, that means once again Apple has manipulated the facts yet again and called the new iPad.

So the new iPad has a ppi of 264, lower than the Nokia N900's 267, yet that is called 'Retina' by Apple? So see where I'm going with this. It is this manipulation that I dislike very much from Apple, and therefore this is a 'marketing' ploy...

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]I know that it depends on the distance, the problem is that most people use the tablet around the same distance as a phone because if you have to stretch your arms, very quickly the tablet becomes uncomfortable to hold because of the height.So the post you mentioned states that the viewing distance of a tablet is 16 inches? I would like to see what's the amount time someone can hold it that far comfortably.[/citation]

People hold their phone closer than tablets. Often they rest them on their laps, for example. I don't think many people would dispute this.

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]PPI on a printer???? Does a LCD screen comes out of the printer?[/citation]

The equivalent on a printer is DPI. The principle is the same as pixels - blocks of colour.

[citation][nom]Jamie_1318[/nom]About Watcha last time I got him to admit.....Ghasp....that the Ipad isn't perfect in every way.He as usual listed workarounds for the problem, that were self admittedly sub-optimal[/citation]

Yes, this is accurate. I've never claimed anything is perfect. I'm not even an Apple fan, and don't own a tablet or an iPhone 4S. I am typing this on Windows. The thing is though, in my opinion, there aren't any better tablets than the new iPad right now. As soon as some other company produces a better tablet, I'll say so in an instant. I have no brand loyalty whatsoever, I'm just a logical guy making decisions based on what I see.

[citation][nom]walter87[/nom]watcha😛lease stop trying to defend Apple here.Apple is among the top companies out there for manipulating facts to their advantage. And apple fanboys like yourself buy into everything they say.(I will admit apple does make good products in terms of functionality, but in terms of how they spin words, meanings and specs in comparison to the competition, I find it funny when someone is gullible and believes word for word what Apple states in their press releases).'Retina' display simply means that the pixel density is so great, that the human eye can't distinguish individual pixels. If the scientific defintion is 300PPI then so have it, that means once again Apple has manipulated the facts yet again and called the new iPad.So the new iPad has a ppi of 264, lower than the Nokia N900's 267, yet that is called 'Retina' by Apple? So see where I'm going with this. It is this manipulation that I dislike very much from Apple, and therefore this is a 'marketing' ploy...[/citation]

I'm not defending Apple. I'm defending the science behind the 'retina' phrase. I'm not a fanboy and I haven't purchased the new iPad or iPhone 4S - I don't have to be a fanboy to apply logic which happens to support Apple.

Retina display does mean that the pixel density is so great that the human eye can't distinguish individual pixels, exactly as you say. What you forget to factor in, however, is the distance the device is from your eyes. The necessary PPI to constitute a 'Retina' display reduces with that distance. Since tablets are widely accepted to be held further away, the necessary PPI reduces. This is not a rule or a theory Apple invented, it's common scientific knowledge.

At 10 inches away, a device needs 344 DPI.
At 12 inches away, a device needs 286 DPI.

[source]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/25/retina_display_claims_upheld/

I believe Apple claims that the iPhone is held 11 inches away, on average, which is where their figure of 'around 300' came from. Note that the figure was derived from science, not made up by their marketing department. All they did was add the 'Retina' label, which I've repeatedly clarified is just a marketing term. Crucially, though, it isn't a 'ploy'.

Most discussions about tablets agree that they are held around 16 inches away, which gives a necessary 215 PPI, meaning the iPad satisfies this requirement.

Distance From Eye / Necessary PPI
13 inches: 264 PPI
14 inches: 246 PPI
15 inches: 229 PPI
16 inches: 215 PPI

(my own calculations)

Thus, the iPad screen can be described as a 'Retina' display if an average user holds it 13 inches away or more. Vladislaus, this also addresses your 16 inches dispute.

 

[zybch]

Sorry, but what the hell is an iPad 3?
For a tech site you guys seem to go out of your way to write for idiots than the tech literate people who visit here.

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]zybch[/nom]Sorry, but what the hell is an iPad 3?For a tech site you guys seem to go out of your way to write for idiots than the tech literate people who visit here.[/citation]

Don't be too hard on them. The term iPad 3 is being used everywhere. That's just the name that consumer associate with the device. I was in one of my usual forays into Best Buy yesterday (actually buying said 3rd gen iPad) and the amount of accessories with 'iPad 3' printed on them instead of '3rd gen iPad' really caters to the impression that most people still associate the device with the term 'iPad 3'.