Awesome, thanks for posting that. Do you mind sharing where you came across those numbers?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad mini Think the mini has a low PPI? Calculate your Desktop here.
- Thread starter expy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Awesome, thanks for posting that. Do you mind sharing where you came across those numbers?
Only if "retina" status is the only thing in your life that matters.
In comparison, typical viewing distances are 12-15 inches for smartphones, 15-18 inches for tablets, 20-28 inches for laptops, and 24-32 inches for desktop computers.
Basically, the bigger the screen, the further away you use it. A 7" tablet you'd hold a bit closer than a 10" one. What that means is that you need less and less ppi the bigger the screen gets to have the same effect.
For example, if you have a 7" display that's 200ppi, an 8" display at 180ppi provides roughly the same level of detail because you're naturally going to hold it about an inch further back in most cases.
226.
But you know what's interesting? The 4" retina devices have more pixels than the ipad mini. Yep. Personally, I'd rather squeeze those pixels so that whatever I am reading will be razer-sharp, rather than get the real estate of an ipad with 1/4 the detail.
It's funny how Jony defended the mini as not a reduction of the original ipad, but as a concentration. This is true. But if you follow that line of logic further, the ipod touch is even more concentrated, no?
The mini will be a more interesting device when it gets a retina display. Until then, I can't help but see it as a less convenient ipod touch.
I don't doubt at all that it has a market, but it's not for me (will be returning mine on Monday).
I really think this is a device that has too many tradeoffs. Portable, but the ipod touch is even more portable and uses roughly the same pixels in a more pleasing way. Expansive, but the bigger ipad is 4x more expansive and detailed, and you don't really need to hold it with one hand in the air all the time, do you? Having used the mini for a couple of days, I can say it's a teasing prospect. I do like the form factor a lot, but not so much I can give up all of that glorious retina detail.
I'm sure that's a super common gripe, and I'm sure there are just as many people or more that really don't mind. It is what it is.
But you know what's interesting? The 4" retina devices have more pixels than the ipad mini. Yep. Personally, I'd rather squeeze those pixels so that whatever I am reading will be razer-sharp, rather than get the real estate of an ipad with 1/4 the detail.
It's funny how Jony defended the mini as not a reduction of the original ipad, but as a concentration. This is true. But if you follow that line of logic further, the ipod touch is even more concentrated, no?
The mini will be a more interesting device when it gets a retina display. Until then, I can't help but see it as a less convenient ipod touch.
I don't doubt at all that it has a market, but it's not for me (will be returning mine on Monday).
I really think this is a device that has too many tradeoffs. Portable, but the ipod touch is even more portable and uses roughly the same pixels in a more pleasing way. Expansive, but the bigger ipad is 4x more expansive and detailed, and you don't really need to hold it with one hand in the air all the time, do you? Having used the mini for a couple of days, I can say it's a teasing prospect. I do like the form factor a lot, but not so much I can give up all of that glorious retina detail.
I'm sure that's a super common gripe, and I'm sure there are just as many people or more that really don't mind. It is what it is.
Not at all. Based on Apple's definition of "retina", it's essentially the distance at which the size of a pixel drops below the resolution threshold of someone with 20/20 vision (i.e., 1 arcmin of angular size). 1 arcmin is 0.01667 degrees, give or take.
So if you know the size of a pixel (and if you have the ppi figure, you do, as it's simply 1/ppi), you can solve for distance, which is explained better than I can type out formulas on the forum by Wikipedia.
220 ppi, for example, puts pixel size at 0.00455", and solving for d gets you 15.71" or so.
You can also plug the numbers into a calculator if you don't want to do the math yourself:
http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm
That sets the "retina" distance (I rounded to the nearest inch). However, because people tend to sit further away from larger screens as a matter of personal comfort, you have to factor that in as well.
Only if "retina" status is the only thing in your life that matters.
In comparison, typical viewing distances are 12-15 inches for smartphones, 15-18 inches for tablets, 20-28 inches for laptops, and 24-32 inches for desktop computers.
Basically, the bigger the screen, the further away you use it. A 7" tablet you'd hold a bit closer than a 10" one. What that means is that you need less and less ppi the bigger the screen gets to have the same effect.
For example, if you have a 7" display that's 200ppi, an 8" display at 180ppi provides roughly the same level of detail because you're naturally going to hold it about an inch further back in most cases.
It totally matters.
The Nexus 7 is at 220, and the mini is at 160, so there is still an effective gap there. Even so, not even the N7 screen is "retina", at least not to my eyes.
My computer has a ppi of 220
----------
----------
The iPod touch is in a completely different class. I think a more apt comparison would be iPad-iPad mini and iPod touch-iPod nano. The nano is clearly a reduction. The iPad mini is a concentration.
My computer has a ppi of 220
Thanks for getting back to the basics fizz!
I would like a 220 ppi monitor, what model?Edit to say: I bet it's the 15" Macbook Pro, right?
Last edited:
Yup! The mini is the perfect size between a 14" mbpr and iPhone 5. I'll love a retina mini when it comes out, but I'm not sacrificing the size and weight just for that.
Right. The Nexus 7 is not retina unless you hold it at 16-17" away.
There is a gap between the two--163.1ppi to 215.5ppi--that makes a 29% difference in pixel density. (Edit: not 31%! It was pointed out to me that I actually overstated the size of the iPad mini display. Thanks for the correction.)
There is also roughly a 4-5" difference in retina distance. However, this is where screen size comes into play. Assume you are reading an article, holding the Nexus 7 at 15 inches from your eyes and the font size is something comfortable for you. Now, pick up an iPad mini. At the same font size, you've got blockier text that's less pleasant to look at, because you've got that 29% pixel density gap. But you've also got 28% more physical width. By zooming the iPad's text so that you get the same content fit as the N7, the text now has essentially the same number of pixels in each letter as the N7--equal smoothness. But each letter is also physically larger than your ideal, so you hold the iPad mini a little further away--about 17".
Now the N7 and the iPad mini have letters with the same number of pixels in them (and therefore the same smoothness and clarity) and the same physical size, just by altering the distance. That's why pixel density differences really only matter once you start to approach 50% or more (because the focal length you'd need to use them at goes beyond the comfort range of the device).
So when you hear people say "The Nexus is soooo much clearer!" or "I can't tell the difference between the Nexus and the iPad mini!"...they can both be right without either one of them having subpar or superhuman vision. If Nexus guy is most comfortable at a closer distance to the screen, the difference will be pronounced. If iPad girl likes to be further away, the density benefit is blunted considerably. On a small device, a few inches makes a big deal.
No problem!
Psychological issue likely. The ipad mini screen looks better than the ipad 2 screen. This is a fact not an opinion either. The problem you have is likely with your brain and not your eyes or the mini.
D'oh. Same ballpark figure though.
----------
My computer has a ppi of 220
----------
The iPod touch is in a completely different class. I think a more apt comparison would be iPad-iPad mini and iPod touch-iPod nano. The nano is clearly a reduction. The iPad mini is a concentration.
Fair.
----------
I experienced satisfactory reading at at distance, as you say. It's true, it's a bit of a crapshoot comparing the N7 and the mini.
That being said, the retina ipad is leagues ahead of either, and I'm willing to prop it up or lay it down on a surface to enjoy it.