Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPad mini Received iPad Mini. One reviewer is spot on

L

lianlua

macrumors 6502
Jun 13, 2008
370
3
hugesaggyboobs said:
No. There are multiple variables that are factored into determining the quality of a screen.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you're continuing to talk around your statements.
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.
Click to expand...
It is lower, yes. But it is incremental broadly to the same degree that the iPad mini is to the iPad 2, and you're making contradictory arguments about them. If the iPad mini's characters are too small to be legible, the N7's added density does not do anything to solve that with your statements on physical size. That's the point. The Nexus 7 is sharper to broadly the same level that the iPad mini is sharper than the iPad 2. It can't be good on one and bad on the other.
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.
Click to expand...
No, there's nothing fancy about them, but you're not talking about anything in which a logarithmic curve applies. You're just repeatedly speaking in generalities to dodge that you have no actual facts to support your assertions, peppered with terms and phrases that you think make it sound like you're offering facts.
The problem is the hit areas, the buttons, search fields, etc. get both smaller and closer together. This presents serious usability problems.
Click to expand...
The targets are the same physical size as on the iPhone.
It's even worse because the resolution isn't good, so at a smaller size things are predictably grainy but less clear
Click to expand...
Clarity is a function of pixel density until the physical size of characters drops below the resolvable threshold. Things are "grainy but less clear" only where size reduces but pixel density does not. That is not happening here. If you were versed in this conversation, you'd know that 0.05" is considered the minimum threshold to present legible text (6px at 100ppi). Apple's UI presents nothing smaller than 12pt (16px) Helvetica at 132ppi, which is roughly 0.12". The iPad mini's labels, with the same level of clarity, are 0.10" in size, still double the physical size threshold and offering curves of the exact same smoothness as the iPad 2. They are smaller to the exact degree that they are sharper.

Meanwhile, at the same physical size as the iPad 2, the iPad mini provides 20px, a 25% increase in smoothness over the iPad 2.

You continue to exhibit a flawed understanding of all of this, and you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for an evaluation by "hugesaggyboobs" given the repeated misstatements in this thread.
 
H

hugesaggyboobs

macrumors member
Nov 3, 2012
44
0
lianlua said:
Yes, but you're continuing to talk around your statements.

It is lower, yes. But it is incremental broadly to the same degree that the iPad mini is to the iPad 2, and you're making contradictory arguments about them. If the iPad mini's characters are too small to be legible, the N7's added density does not do anything to solve that with your statements on physical size. That's the point. The Nexus 7 is sharper to broadly the same level that the iPad mini is sharper than the iPad 2. It can't be good on one and bad on the other.

No, there's nothing fancy about them, but you're not talking about anything in which a logarithmic curve applies. You're just repeatedly speaking in generalities to dodge that you have no actual facts to support your assertions, peppered with terms and phrases that you think make it sound like you're offering facts.

The targets are the same physical size as on the iPhone.

Clarity is a function of pixel density until the physical size of characters drops below the resolvable threshold. Things are "grainy but less clear" only where size reduces but pixel density does not. That is not happening here. If you were versed in this conversation, you'd know that 0.05" is considered the minimum threshold to present legible text (6px at 100ppi). Apple's UI presents nothing smaller than 12pt (16px) Helvetica at 132ppi, which is roughly 0.12". The iPad mini's labels, with the same level of clarity, are 0.10" in size, still double the physical size threshold and offering curves of the exact same smoothness as the iPad 2. They are smaller to the exact degree that they are sharper.

Meanwhile, at the same physical size as the iPad 2, the iPad mini provides 20px, a 25% increase in smoothness over the iPad 2.

You continue to exhibit a flawed understanding of all of this, and you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for an evaluation by "hugesaggyboobs" given the repeated misstatements in this thread.
Click to expand...

Alright let's finish this off once and for all.

One important correlation coefficient has already been established: distance-to-ppi. The farther away you are, the less pixels you need to have in terms of someone being able to see pixelation. Apple did a lot of research on this and it's set at around 11', 300 ppi. At that distance, the average human eye (20/20) cannot discern individual pixels. That's what "Retina display" means. This correlation coefficient is the basis of Apple's Retina screens in terms of ppi.

The iPhone 4+ has: 326 ppi
The iPad 3/4: 264 ppi
iPhone 1/3: 165 ppi
iPad 1/2: 132 ppi

Let's take the iPhone 4+ and the iPad 3/4: both are Retina screens in spite of the fact that the iPad 3/4 has a much lower ppi count. The reason the iPad can have less than the iPhone, even less than the benchmark of 300 ppi is because the user will tend to hold the device farther away relative to the benchmark distance... so you need less ppi and still maintain Retina status.

Since the iPad Mini is smaller than the iPad 2... a user will tend to hold it closer to their face meaning it needs more ppi than the iPad 2 just to "break even".

So now you're at parity between the two: one is held closer than the other requiring more ppi just to keep the same "pixelation" in terms of what an average human eye can see.

BUT... the big, big problem is this: everything is shrunk down on the iPad Mini's screen by about 20%. So you are effectively in a 20% deficit... it's like shrinking everything down right now on the iPad 2's screen. Usability goes down, things are harder to see and MORE pixelated, particularly text.

Remember, this screen is much, much larger than the iPhone's and this device will be held farther from the face. It's optics. The eyes have a narrow range of focus. The phone is held much closer to the face. This device needs UIs that make sense for it.

There is so much wrong with what Apple's doing here I don't know where to begin or end.

Reading posts just a few nudges up from mine here... you can see people saying EXACTLY what I'm explaining in the real world. The Internet is getting flooded with people complaining about it. Whether you choose to ignore the science is up to you. But choosing to ignore all of the people having issues with the screen is another matter that makes little sense.

I just saw an article that might convince you, because I sure can't seem to be able to do that.

Here's a quote:

According to Repair Labs, however, the difference between the iPad 2 and the iPad mini’s pixel density is “negligible” to the naked eye.

The iPad mini has 162 ppi, which (fellow ppi freaks may remember) is very close to the original iPhone’s display, which had 165ppi. With the iPad mini being smaller than the original iPad, you probably won’t hold it quite so far from your face (meaning ppi is slightly more important), and I personally don’t want to go back to using a device that has the almost the same ppi as the original iPhone. The iPhone 4 was (and is) a sweet release of invisible-pixel goodness, and I sold my iPad 2 after a few months because the screen just looked like garbage compared to my iPhone.

http://www.todaysiphone.com/2012/11...er-the-microscope-compared-with-ipad-2-and-3/
 
Last edited:
M

mrdm

macrumors regular
Jul 21, 2010
158
10
Defender2010 said:
It's amazing how long these Mini screen arguments go on for....
Today I viewed a mini at an Apple Store - if you used any retina device you will be disappointed. It looks terrible by comparison. If you are an iPad 3 user, for heavens sake don't sell it for a Mini because you are lured by the new form factor, it is slower and the screen is not only worse, but smaller obviously. Weight and heat are better than a fuzzy screen. This iPad Mini should be for people who can't afford a 9.7 inch iPad. It's a way for customers on a lower budget to get into the Ecosystem, but a disgrace of a product compared to every other current Apple product. Personally I feel they should have waited to next year to release it when the tech is available to make it retina and just left the iPad 4 available....full sized iPads seemed to be selling ok, this is greed at the expense of the customer. 2012 has not been Apples finest year with regard to customer satisfaction. Shame.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Compromise after comprise. What happened to "think different"?
 
L

lianlua

macrumors 6502
Jun 13, 2008
370
3
hugesaggyboobs said:
Since the iPad Mini is smaller than the iPad 2... a user will tend to hold it closer to their face meaning it needs more ppi than the iPad 2 just to "break even".

So now you're at parity between the two: one is held closer than the other requiring more ppi just to keep the same "pixelation" in terms of what an average human eye can see.

BUT... the big, big problem is this: everything is shrunk down on the iPad Mini's screen by about 20%. So you are effectively in a 20% deficit... it's like shrinking everything down right now on the iPad 2's screen. Usability goes down, things are harder to see and MORE pixelated, particularly text.
Click to expand...
Here's the part you're not connecting: by holding the iPad closer, you are negating the physical size reduction. There is literally no difference in pixelation. The same number of pixels provide the same level of sharpness. They're just smaller. If you hold the smaller iPad closer to your face, it stops being smaller.

You are saying that you need a higher ppi to break even when the screen is closer. That is true. But that means that if you are moving the 163ppi display closer to your face to move to parity with the farther away 132ppi display, then by definition you are also compensating for physical size. The angular size of the display in your field of vision increases by the same amount. They're directly linked. The screen is only smaller in view if it's at the same distance. If you're holding it closer, then it's not perceptually smaller.

Either you are looking at a smaller, sharper image or you're looking at an image of the same size and sharpness within your FOV. You're trying to tell people that it's smaller and less sharp, which is flat out wrong.

Hold up a quarter and a nickel. Now move the nickel closer to your eyes. The nickel appears the same size as the quarter at a proportional distance to how much smaller it is than the quarter.
Here's a quote:
Click to expand...
The "article" is a worthless blog post that misquotes the original. See for yourself:

"The iPad mini is where things get interesting. Its smaller size necessitates a few sacrifices, and the Retina Display (at this point) simply cannot be made to fit the new small chassis, so to speak. But lo! The difference between the 4th Gen and the mini is not that huge when examined under the microscope. In fact, the pixels of the Retina Display are only 2/3 the size of the iPad mini. In the older iterations, the pixels of the 4th Gen are ½ the size of the older versions, or .50. Here, they’re a full 16% (.16, since the 4th Gen’s pixels are 1/3 or .66 of the size of the mini) larger in comparison. This means the difference between the two, is less noticeable. In fact, to the naked eye, it’s negligible. Why is this? Since it’s a smaller screen, the pixels are packed much more densely." -- http://www.repairlabs.com/blog/retina-display-test-under-the-microscope

The conclusion you just offered to me was one that says the difference between the iPad 4 and the iPad mini is negligible--something I disagree with, so you definitely don't want to use that to support your claims.
 
A

AlvinNguyen

macrumors 6502a
Jun 23, 2010
820
3
What's hilarious is when people pick up the retina version next year and the entire forum will say: This is what the mini should have been a year ago! This is what it's been missing. :rolleyes:

If you like the mini that's fine but don't make up an excuse for apples short coming. I love the company with the most passion but the disappointment with the retina 13" and iPad mini is there and it's real. My mini is going back tomorrow - and I really wanted to like this thing. The iPad three just became the best iPad for your $$$.

I was going to replace all the iPad 1, 2 in our family with the mini but new I'm looking for used iPad 3 instead.
 
L

lianlua

macrumors 6502
Jun 13, 2008
370
3
AlvinNguyen said:
What's hilarious is when people pick up the retina version next year and the entire forum will say: This is what the mini should have been a year ago! This is what it's been missing.
Click to expand...
Only idiots and trolls will say that. Everyone else will say, correctly, that they're happy that technology and prices have improved to allow for a retina display that works for the iPad mini form factor.
If you like the mini that's fine but don't make up an excuse for apples short coming.
Click to expand...
If you don't like the resolution of the mini, that's fine, but don't make up fake problems and pretend that the current model is running wild killing babies.
 
A

AlvinNguyen

macrumors 6502a
Jun 23, 2010
820
3
lianlua said:
Only idiots and trolls will say that. Everyone else will say, correctly, that they're happy that technology and prices have improved to allow for a retina display that works for the iPad mini form factor.

If you don't like the resolution of the mini, that's fine, but don't make up fake problems and pretend that the current model is running wild killing babies.
Click to expand...

Haha that's funny, considering I own one so I know how crappy the screen is.

I am supporting apple every day using a TBD, 15" 2.6 retina MacBook Pro, iPhone 5, iPad 3 and 4. And pretty much every iterations of those products in the last 3 years. So when I went to buy an iPad mini it was the first product I've ever bought that I felt I was being ripped off.

I like how in this forum if you complain about apple you're a troll or an idiot :rolleyes: the true idiots are the ones kindly buying products that are shortcomings and go bash other people for speaking it against it.

Think about it, everyone who is here to complain is complaining about the SAME thing - the screen. Everyone who is defending it does it by bashing the complainer. That speaks highly of your character.
 
H

hugesaggyboobs

macrumors member
Nov 3, 2012
44
0
lianlua said:
Here's the part you're not connecting: by holding the iPad closer, you are negating the physical size reduction. There is literally no difference in pixelation. The same number of pixels provide the same level of sharpness. They're just smaller. If you hold the smaller iPad closer to your face, it stops being smaller.

You are saying that you need a higher ppi to break even when the screen is closer. That is true. But that means that if you are moving the 163ppi display closer to your face to move to parity with the farther away 132ppi display, then by definition you are also compensating for physical size. The angular size of the display in your field of vision increases by the same amount. They're directly linked. The screen is only smaller in view if it's at the same distance. If you're holding it closer, then it's not perceptually smaller.

Either you are looking at a smaller, sharper image or you're looking at an image of the same size and sharpness within your FOV. You're trying to tell people that it's smaller and less sharp, which is flat out wrong.

Hold up a quarter and a nickel. Now move the nickel closer to your eyes. The nickel appears the same size as the quarter at a proportional distance to how much smaller it is than the quarter.

The "article" is a worthless blog post that misquotes the original. See for yourself:

"The iPad mini is where things get interesting. Its smaller size necessitates a few sacrifices, and the Retina Display (at this point) simply cannot be made to fit the new small chassis, so to speak. But lo! The difference between the 4th Gen and the mini is not that huge when examined under the microscope. In fact, the pixels of the Retina Display are only 2/3 the size of the iPad mini. In the older iterations, the pixels of the 4th Gen are ½ the size of the older versions, or .50. Here, they’re a full 16% (.16, since the 4th Gen’s pixels are 1/3 or .66 of the size of the mini) larger in comparison. This means the difference between the two, is less noticeable. In fact, to the naked eye, it’s negligible. Why is this? Since it’s a smaller screen, the pixels are packed much more densely." -- http://www.repairlabs.com/blog/retina-display-test-under-the-microscope

The conclusion you just offered to me was one that says the difference between the iPad 4 and the iPad mini is negligible--something I disagree with, so you definitely don't want to use that to support your claims.
Click to expand...

No, no, no. You're not getting it.

By holding the device closer you are not negating the physical size reduction. The problem is Apple shrinking down the size of everything by 20% on the Mini. With the iPhone going from 165 ppi to 326 ppi, everything STAYED THE EXACT SAME SIZE, INCLUDING THE DEVICE. But everything is filled with many more pixels making them sharper. With the iPad 1/2 going from 132 ppi to 264 ppi, EVERYTHING STAYED THE EXACT SAME SIZE, INCLUDING THE DEVICE. Again, everything became much sharper because the same size elements filled up with many more pixels. The iPad Mini with a smaller screen than the iPad 1/2 needs more ppi to stay at pixelation parity because it's held closer to the face, and needs more ppi than the 264 ppi on the iPad 3/4 to be Retina. But it's forced to display things at 20% smaller.

It does NOT have the pixel density to fill in the details it needs to at 20% shrunk down. No other iDevice has suffered from this shrinking. It's always been the same physical size UIs, just more pixels packed in 2x.png. This is part of Apple's fatal mistake, and one that Steve Jobs talked about sanding his fingers down to about a quarter of their size.

A simple experiment that anyone can do. Pinch and zoom out, out, out... of this page on the Mini or iPad 1/2 and watch the pixelation happen. When you let go the text snaps back and it looks less pixelated. Zoom in, in, in... and the text gets crisper. Right off the top Apple has stuck everyone at a 20% ZOOM OUT position on the Mini because they shrunk everything down. This is part of the problem. I'm explaining the science behind it to you, and Mini owners are telling you they hate the screen and think it sucks.

Your response is one of incredulity, and that my friend is your problem.

And the article is not misquoted. The author tried to explain what I'm explaining. The difference will be negligible because of the closer distance that the Mini will be held to the eye. This is all a fact and one that Apple follows: more ppi on smaller screens, less on larger ones.

Not only do you ignore science and are misguided, you ignore reality:

Post after post complaining about pixelation and small elements:

"The mini reminds me of those hot chicks you see with bad teeth, you don't know they have bad teeth till they open their mouths, total put off lol."

"Everything is great...BUT (you all knew this was coming) my eyes (for the first time in a long time) are sore. I'm 23 years old with 20/20 vision so I'm not some old man...but man this screen is killing my eyes."

"OP, don't feel bad. I feel exactly like you. I returned my Mini today."

There are countless posts on Macrumors of people complaining about a grainy, pixelated screen where everything is pixelated and too small.
 
Last edited:
L

lianlua

macrumors 6502
Jun 13, 2008
370
3
AlvinNguyen said:
I like how in this forum if you complain about apple you're a troll or an idiot
Click to expand...
There are plenty of ways to be critical of Apple without making things up or engaging in histrionics. It's those behaviors that are trolling and idiotic.
Think about it, everyone who is here to complain is complaining about the SAME thing - the screen. Everyone who is defending it does it by bashing the complainer. That speaks highly of your character.
Click to expand...
The complaints are about every possible aspect of the device. You exaggerate.

And no one's bashing you, any more than you are bashing people by calling an entire group hypocritical:

"What's hilarious is when people pick up the retina version next year and the entire forum will say: This is what the mini should have been a year ago! This is what it's been missing."

Or are you the only person allowed to address the unidentified masses?
 
H

hugesaggyboobs

macrumors member
Nov 3, 2012
44
0
lianlua said:
There are plenty of ways to be critical of Apple without making things up or engaging in histrionics. It's those behaviors that are trolling and idiotic.

The complaints are about every possible aspect of the device. You exaggerate.

And no one's bashing you, any more than you are bashing people by calling an entire group hypocritical:

"What's hilarious is when people pick up the retina version next year and the entire forum will say: This is what the mini should have been a year ago! This is what it's been missing."

Or are you the only person allowed to address the unidentified masses?
Click to expand...

You need to cool it dude. And he's not exaggerating, the amount of screen "bashing" threads and posts is very high.

In fact, a poll on here has some 30% of people either returning the Mini or not sure if they'll keep it. Many, both returning it and who are undecided reference the screen. Here's an example:

Undecided. I love the form factor/weight=portability, ease of use, etc. I dislike the resolution strongly.

Personally I don't want to argue because either you're really dense or you're just wanting to argue. I'm genuinely concerned in that Apple may be getting lost without Steve. None of this is funny. I think this Mini is a huge mistake and it's going to show in a few months.
 
L

lianlua

macrumors 6502
Jun 13, 2008
370
3
hugesaggyboobs said:
No, no, no. You're not getting it.

By holding the device closer you are not negating the physical size reduction.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is exactly what you are doing. If the image you're looking at is 20% smaller than the one presented by an iPad 2, they must be at the same distance to your eye.

Your eye does not see in inches or pixels. It sees in degrees. A coke can 5 feet away occupies twice the angular size as one 10 feet away, even though they're the same physical size.

Same with the iPad. If you take an iPad mini and stand it on a table 10 feet away, and then take an iPad 2 and stand it on the same table, 2 feet behind it, they'll look the same size to your eye. That's why moving things closer to your eye does anything.
The iPad Mini with a smaller screen than the iPad 1/2 needs more ppi to stay at pixelation parity because it's held closer to the face
Click to expand...
Yes. How do you not get that "pixel parity" means pixels of the same effective size on your eye? If you move the iPad 20% closer, it occupies 20% more of your FOV.

You cannot complain that you have to hold it closer to get the same effect and simultaneously say that everything appears smaller to your eye at that closer distance. It's mathematically impossible.
 
A

AlvinNguyen

macrumors 6502a
Jun 23, 2010
820
3
lianlua said:
There are plenty of ways to be critical of Apple without making things up or engaging in histrionics. It's those behaviors that are trolling and idiotic.

The complaints are about every possible aspect of the device. You exaggerate.

And no one's bashing you, any more than you are bashing people by calling an entire group hypocritical:

"What's hilarious is when people pick up the retina version next year and the entire forum will say: This is what the mini should have been a year ago! This is what it's been missing."

Or are you the only person allowed to address the unidentified masses?
Click to expand...

Haha yes because I'm making things up when I say that the screen falls short :rolleyes: I guess the hundreds of others returning their iPad minis are also making it up. It's almost like we want to hate this product :confused::rolleyes:

And I was not bashing anyone when I say that in a year people will be raving on and on about the retina and that it will be the reason alone to upgrade. This happened with the iPad 3, the retina MacBook Pro and the iPhone 4. We know this and yet we are all of a sudden falling backwards and saying this is ok?

You're obviously too blind and biased in justifying your decision to buy a product that you feel the need to trash everyone else voicing their concerns about the product. I'm glad you're enjoying your iPad mini - no really I am happy for everyone who does. For the rest of us we'll drop the £ when the screen is updated.

You need to relax dude - seriously. Peace out.

----------
hugesaggyboobs said:
You need to cool it dude. And he's not exaggerating, the amount of screen "bashing" threads and posts is very high.

In fact, a poll on here has some 30% of people either returning the Mini or not sure if they'll keep it. Many, both returning it and who are undecided reference the screen. Here's an example:

Undecided. I love the form factor/weight=portability, ease of use, etc. I dislike the resolution strongly.

Personally I don't want to argue because either you're really dense or you're just wanting to argue. I'm genuinely concerned in that Apple may be getting lost without Steve. None of this is funny. I think this Mini is a huge mistake and it's going to show in a few months.
Click to expand...

Haha I think you nailed it bro. Seem people are just too blind to see beyond their own thoughts. Stop wasting your time, he'll never understand. Next year I'm sure we will see his post about how amazing the new screen is :rolleyes: God I hope no one in his household is bashing the iPad mini LOL
 
L

lianlua

macrumors 6502
Jun 13, 2008
370
3
hugesaggyboobs said:
And he's not exaggerating, the amount of screen "bashing" threads and posts is very high.
Click to expand...
At the risk of having to explain something else 60 times that should be eminently obvious:

The statements, "everyone who is here to complain is complaining about the SAME thing" and "Everyone who is defending it does it by bashing the complainer" are both untrue. Even if the majority of people were doing those things, it would still remain, incontrovertibly, an exaggeration.

----------
AlvinNguyen said:
Haha yes because I'm making things up when I say that the screen falls short
Click to expand...
No, you're making things up when you make overdramatic claims about what "everyone" does or playing a fake victim card about your character being bashed. In fact your next statement is a prime example:
:rolleyes: I guess the hundreds of others returning their iPad minis are also making it up. It's almost like we want to hate this product :confused::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If the resolution isn't something you're happy with, by all means, pick something else. But don't roll up in and announce that the screen is "terrible" or "unusable" or "worse than the iPad 2" unless you're prepared to back it up.
You're obviously too blind and biased in justifying your decision to buy a product that you feel the need to trash everyone else voicing their concerns about the product.
Click to expand...
Plenty of people have voiced their concerns without incident, and as stated multiple times, I myself own and use a Kindle Fire HD. Not an iPad of any kind. I personally can't stand iTunes and prefer Android tablets. But I don't feel the need to extend that preference to misguided attacks on competing products.
Next year I'm sure we will see his post about how amazing the new screen is
Click to expand...
And again, you attempt to paint me with the same brush you're complaining of. The retina display coming to the iPad mini will doubtlessly be a welcome upgrade, and there is nothing hypocritical of saying so.
 
H

hugesaggyboobs

macrumors member
Nov 3, 2012
44
0
lianlua said:
Yes, that is exactly what you are doing. If the image you're looking at is 20% smaller than the one presented by an iPad 2, they must be at the same distance to your eye.

Your eye does not see in inches or pixels. It sees in degrees. A coke can 5 feet away occupies twice the angular size as one 10 feet away, even though they're the same physical size.

Same with the iPad. If you take an iPad mini and stand it on a table 10 feet away, and then take an iPad 2 and stand it on the same table, 2 feet behind it, they'll look the same size to your eye. That's why moving things closer to your eye does anything.

Yes. How do you not get that "pixel parity" means pixels of the same effective size on your eye? If you move the iPad 20% closer, it occupies 20% more of your FOV.

You cannot complain that you have to hold it closer to get the same effect and simultaneously say that everything appears smaller to your eye at that closer distance. It's mathematically impossible.
Click to expand...

You're not going to stop are you? You don't get it that's clear and your understanding of this is flawed. You're like that kid in school who took the longest to figure things out.

This is my last reply to you.

THE IPAD MINI DOES NOT HAVE THE PIXEL DENSITY TO APPROPRIATELY DISPLAY ELEMENTS SHRUNK DOWN 20% SMALLER THAN THE IPAD 2. THE ONLY THING THE EXTRA 30 PPI ACCOUNTS FOR IS HOLDING IT CLOSER TO YOUR FACE. THE IPAD MINI'S SMALLER PIXELS OFFER NO EFFECTIVE RESOLUTION BENEFIT TO THE USER BECAUSE OF THIS. IN FACT, THE DEVICE IS WORSE THAN THE IPAD 2 BECAUSE THINGS ARE MUCH SMALLER ON SCREEN AND REQUIRE ZOOMING, EVEN WHEN HELD CLOSE TO THE FACE BECAUSE OF HOW SMALL AND PIXELATED THINGS LIKE TEXT IS.
 
M

mobutt

macrumors 6502
Jun 22, 2010
477
67
I bought it, first reaction screen sucks ass, then I used it for video, didn't notice. Starting zooming in on web pages, didn't notice. Starting making font bigger in books, didn't notice. It takes getting used to and then it's fine. Besides that I can see myself not carrying a laptop to school anymore and that's a big plus. I love the size and will definitely buy the ipad mini 2 which will have a retina display probably. Until then it seems like this one will be my go to device. Actually considering returning this one and holding out for a cellular one.

It really is amazing once you get used to the screen.
 
L

lianlua

macrumors 6502
Jun 13, 2008
370
3
hugesaggyboobs said:
You're not going to stop are you?
Click to expand...
Nope. Not until you figure it out.
THE IPAD MINI DOES NOT HAVE THE PIXEL DENSITY TO APPROPRIATELY DISPLAY ELEMENTS SHRUNK DOWN 20% SMALLER THAN THE IPAD 2. THE ONLY THING THE EXTRA 30 PPI ACCOUNTS FOR IS HOLDING IT CLOSER TO YOUR FACE.
Click to expand...
The only thing that bringing it closer to your face does is compensate for the fact that it is 20% smaller. You bring things closer to your eyes so that they appear larger. It's either 20% smaller and 20% sharper at the same distance or it's 20% closer and 0% smaller and 0% sharper.

If you are creating "pixel parity", then you are by definition making adjustments so that the pixels are the same effective size. The pixel density is 20% higher and the area 20% smaller. If you are moving the iPad closer to your eye such that the density is 0% higher, it is then 0% smaller in angular size.
 
M

MacPod

macrumors member
Sep 13, 2012
54
0
nStyle said:
After receiving the Mini and playing with it for the better part of the evening, the screen is definitely leaving something to be desired.

Only one reviewer so far has hit the nail on the head: Cult of Mac.

They basically sum it up by saying this is the most frustrating Apple device EVER. It is not worth a penny more than $329 and it will potentially be the best Apple product ever if it gets a retina upgrade next year.

I like it a lot so I don't think I will return it since what is available is simply reality, but man am I noticing the screen difference.
Click to expand...

This **** is lame. The display is fantastic, and it's something that only a small percentage of you pansies who jump at the sight of actually seeing a pixel are really going to care much about.

Apple still sells iPads without retina displays. They sell computers without retina displays. They sold, until very recently, iPhones and iPods touches without retina displays.

And all of these non-retina displays are equal or lesser resolution than the iPad mini.

In other words: no one cares, aside from a few drama queens who think their own little criteria applies to everyone else. Here's a clue: it doesn't. Everyone has their own preferences, and most people, while sure, they'd prefer a retina display, aren't going to piss themselves if they have a device that doesn't have one.

I'd rather have the real iPad mini that exists right now than an imaginary iPad mini that would be thicker, heavier, much more expensive, and in much more constrained supplies, that doesn't even exist at all. Retina will come to the mini eventually (but not necessarily next year, like so many dweebs seem to think), and when it does it'll be great. But slow down and enjoy what you have right in front of you, and don't count something out for such a trivial difference. Or buy a Nexus 7. I don't give a ****, just quit trying to convince me that I'm supposed to care about something more than I do.
 
S

Spungoflex

macrumors 6502
Oct 30, 2012
388
488
hugesaggyboobs said:
Sorry, but you are simply wrong.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are dead wrong. End of discussion.

hugesaggyboobs said:
Posts like this, even from long-term members here, flooding the forums:

"Today I viewed a mini at an Apple Store - if you used any retina device you will be disappointed."
Click to expand...

Everyone knows it isn't comparable to a retina screen. I even stated that fact specifically, yet here you are comparing it (yet again) to a retina screen instead of comparing it to similar tablet devices. Epic fail on your part.

hugesaggyboobs said:
In other words, I'm not alone in my assessment of the Mini. And it's not my assessment, it's science. It just has a really low res screen with crappy calibration.
Click to expand...

It's science? Bwahahahahaha. You make ludicrous statement like "the text is fuzzy" and "it gave me a headache" and you claim these are scientific statements? Wow. Just wow. That's not science. It's nonsense.

The nexus 7's aspect ratio makes for a longer screen. That is simple fact. Regardless of whether is it 16:10 or 16:9. If the mini was 16:10, it would have a 1280x800. Seeing as it is 4:3, it has a 1024x768 resolution. It's pretty straight forward stuff here. You can't fit 1280x800 into a 4:3 aspect ratio. You just can't. Period. Bottom line.

So stop your whining and moaning and enjoy a retina ipad or a nexus product.

----------
jsw said:
Screen size has nothing to do with ppi.
Click to expand...

Sorry to break it to you, but you are wrong. Screen size has everything to do with PPI. The mini has a higher PPI than the ipad 2 even though both devices have the exact same resolution. Why? Screen size.

Pretty difficult to measure "pixels per inch" without considering screen size.
 
M

MacDarcy

macrumors 65816
Jul 21, 2011
1,011
819
AlvinNguyen said:
What's hilarious is when people pick up the retina version next year and the entire forum will say: This is what the mini should have been a year ago! This is what it's been missing. :rolleyes:

If you like the mini that's fine but don't make up an excuse for apples short coming. I love the company with the most passion but the disappointment with the retina 13" and iPad mini is there and it's real. My mini is going back tomorrow - and I really wanted to like this thing. The iPad three just became the best iPad for your $$$.

I was going to replace all the iPad 1, 2 in our family with the mini but new I'm looking for used iPad 3 instead.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and when the "Super-Retina" iPad 5 comes out next year, they will all say regular retina SUCKS. LOL.Some people will always complain.

I tested out the iPad mini at the apple store yesterday, and the screen is GREAT. I compared it side by side with a retina iPad, and saw NO difference. Seriously. It is a great great screen. But hey...that's me. And my opinion is good enough for me. Lol. I am getting one. :)
 
W

Wokis

macrumors 6502a
Jul 3, 2012
931
1,276
Stockholm, Sweden
I'll buy that getting a 2048x1536 (the only viable alternative in resolution dependent ios world) 8 inch panel would probably have made the price higher and the device thicker and heavier. That it wasn't a viable option this year and maybe not even the next one.

What i am wondering about is if it this was really a move that quality-driven apple would've done, launching the mini until they could've made it with a "retina". Now when they've introduced it and taught people that high ppi is great. I mean, I bought the mini and it's not a deal breaker for me, but mine and apple's product quality philosophies usually don't coincide at all.

I'm on the mini right now and there is no denying that in portrait mode some text elements on many websites, including macrumors, look outright bad.

For video.. Pff I don't care about the res.. Few things are supposed to be razor sharp in what I watch. Text elements on the other hand.. Wouldn't hurt to have a few, say four times the pixels :)
 
kas23

kas23

macrumors 603
Oct 28, 2007
5,629
288
hugesaggyboobs said:
Alright let's finish this off once and for all.

One important correlation coefficient has already been established: distance-to-ppi. The farther away you are, the less pixels you need to have in terms of someone being able to see pixelation. Apple did a lot of research on this and it's set at around 11', 300 ppi. At that distance, the average human eye (20/20) cannot discern individual pixels. That's what "Retina display" means. This correlation coefficient is the basis of Apple's Retina screens in terms of ppi.

The iPhone 4+ has: 326 ppi
The iPad 3/4: 264 ppi
iPhone 1/3: 165 ppi
iPad 1/2: 132 ppi

Let's take the iPhone 4+ and the iPad 3/4: both are Retina screens in spite of the fact that the iPad 3/4 has a much lower ppi count. The reason the iPad can have less than the iPhone, even less than the benchmark of 300 ppi is because the user will tend to hold the device farther away relative to the benchmark distance... so you need less ppi and still maintain Retina status.

Since the iPad Mini is smaller than the iPad 2... a user will tend to hold it closer to their face meaning it needs more ppi than the iPad 2 just to "break even".

So now you're at parity between the two: one is held closer than the other requiring more ppi just to keep the same "pixelation" in terms of what an average human eye can see.

BUT... the big, big problem is this: everything is shrunk down on the iPad Mini's screen by about 20%. So you are effectively in a 20% deficit... it's like shrinking everything down right now on the iPad 2's screen. Usability goes down, things are harder to see and MORE pixelated, particularly text.

Remember, this screen is much, much larger than the iPhone's and this device will be held farther from the face. It's optics. The eyes have a narrow range of focus. The phone is held much closer to the face. This device needs UIs that make sense for it.

There is so much wrong with what Apple's doing here I don't know where to begin or end.

Reading posts just a few nudges up from mine here... you can see people saying EXACTLY what I'm explaining in the real world. The Internet is getting flooded with people complaining about it. Whether you choose to ignore the science is up to you. But choosing to ignore all of the people having issues with the screen is another matter that makes little sense.

I just saw an article that might convince you, because I sure can't seem to be able to do that.

Here's a quote:

According to Repair Labs, however, the difference between the iPad 2 and the iPad mini’s pixel density is “negligible” to the naked eye.

The iPad mini has 162 ppi, which (fellow ppi freaks may remember) is very close to the original iPhone’s display, which had 165ppi. With the iPad mini being smaller than the original iPad, you probably won’t hold it quite so far from your face (meaning ppi is slightly more important), and I personally don’t want to go back to using a device that has the almost the same ppi as the original iPhone. The iPhone 4 was (and is) a sweet release of invisible-pixel goodness, and I sold my iPad 2 after a few months because the screen just looked like garbage compared to my iPhone.

http://www.todaysiphone.com/2012/11...er-the-microscope-compared-with-ipad-2-and-3/
Click to expand...

Everything in this post is 110% correct. Finally a voice of reason.
 
L

Lend27

macrumors member
Feb 26, 2004
81
0
Coming from an iPad 1.....

I have a 1st gen iPad. I now have an iPad Mini.
I love the mini, no problem at all with the resolution. It looks great to me.
I guess it depends on what you are used to.
Now, I did go over to Best Buy to try out the IPad 3, and it looks great.
But unless I saw them side by side I don't see much of a difference.
When I got home both my iPad and mini looked great to me.
When the mini comes out with retina, I may upgrade. And I may even opt to get the next gen full size iPad, who knows.
But the mini looks wonderful. I am 59 and wear glasses. No issues with the display so far.
Just my $.02.

Len
 
kas23

kas23

macrumors 603
Oct 28, 2007
5,629
288
AlvinNguyen said:
What's hilarious is when people pick up the retina version next year and the entire forum will say: This is what the mini should have been a year ago! This is what it's been missing. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This will definitely happen. All the people that are saying shipping with a Retina Display was "impossible", or saying that it doesn't have a negative effect on user experience, will be singing Retina's praises come next year. Phrases such as "it feels just right" or "Retina and the mini were just meant for each other" will become rampant, said by the very same people who are defending the lack of Retina.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom