Physical size does not require a lot of calculus. The number of characters that fit into a space is quite straightforward, as is the size of a given grid of pixels.
No. There are multiple variables that are factored into determining the quality of a screen. Regardless, the ppi is much lower on the Mini than it is on devices like the Nexus 7 and it shows in real world usage. There is no argument on this. It is a fact.
Now you're just trying to drop long words. There's no one "logarithmic curve" that "determines the quality" of a display.
It's a long word to you because you don't know what you're talking about. Go to Google like you most probably have been frantically doing and research it. Then, predictably, you'll come back here after reading Wikipedia and some other stuff and pretend to be an expert on the subject.
There's nothing "fancy" about a logarithmic curve. People both create them and use them all the time for a variety of things. It's simply a way to incorporate a number of known variables/correlation coefficients to determine optimization ranges.
We being my partner and me. We own an audio/visual company. We test and calibrate displays for OEMs.
Again, your misuse of basic terminology gives you away. The OS isn't scaling anything down. The fact that elements are smaller is not in dispute. You lose quality when objects shrink disproportionately with the number of pixels used to display them. You cannot simultaneously complain that the iPad mini's resolution is too low and also that the pixels are too small.
My point is more specifically related to what happens to all of the Apps and the OS as they are shrunk down 20% in size. Yes, it is because of the ppi that this is happening so everything can fit on the screen. The problem is the hit areas, the buttons, search fields, etc. get both smaller
and closer together. This presents serious usability problems. It's even worse because the resolution isn't good, so at a smaller size things are predictably grainy but less clear (you need to study optics to learn how the eye focuses on things and how elements that are really small, like on the Mini screen, present major problems for humans with 20/20 vision). There are cases where there is not enough pixel density at this
lower size to render things like text in enough detail to be acceptable without zooming.
This is jarring. It's one thing to stand at x distance from lines of differently sized letters on paper in an eye test. You're basically seeing a "Retina" version of the letters in real life: high fidelity with no pixelation. Put the iPad 2 and the iPad Mini, both with crap resolution, next to each other with digital eye charts and conduct the same eye test. The smaller size is a serious problem which is obvious because everything will be ~20% smaller so you'll have to move closer to it to see the letters than you would looking at the iPad 2. But it's bad because the resolution is terrible. This is why you see people posting on here thinking the Mini screen is worse than the iPad 2. Even though the resolutions relatively are roughly the same, the fact that the iPad 2... everything is larger is what makes people think it's better because it's easier to see everything. In this respect, it is a better screen because everything is much more visible and easier to read.
The solution would have been to forget using iPad 2 Apps... to not shrink everything down and look at this device as unique. As something that itself needs unique UIs for the size of its display.
The rambling posts you keep making still avoid any support for the statements you put forward. Again, I ask:
How are smaller pixels worse but even smaller pixels better? How does a directly proportional shift size and physical scale result in disproportional clarity? In what way is the iPad mini display worse, as you claim, than the iPad 2?
No generalities. No blanket decrees of washed out colors. Support your argument.
You will without question read our review next week and you will: either completely disappear or continue to post rambling rants.
