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.
Did Apple just define Retina Screen?
- Thread starter PracticalMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is more high definition than an HDTV. HDTVs are only 1080p (some are only 720p), which is 1920x1080. This 'new iPad' is 2048x1536, let alone being on a 9.7in screen. I'm pretty sure it'll pass your expectations 
No, it's not a definition.
Is just a bad designed graphic showing nothing but a useless formula giving a value we don't relate to nothing scientifically speaking.
All it's saying is that if you look from 15 inches it looks the same as the iPhone from 10 inches.
"Don't relate to nothing scientifically speaking" and Apple is the foolish one here?
It's okay if you don't understand how dumb that is.
Apple isn't foolishing anyone, no one has technically defined a Retina display.
Apple just said: based on distance (d) and height (h) you obtain the same value. Which relates to a certain level what you see, nothing more. Nothing to do with quality or quantity (prome ve wrong and show me a scientific source
).Of course, that requires a minimum of education in math.
Retina display = marketing term. Apple can define it however they want, obviously they'll only put that term on a high quality display to not dilute the brand name, but it is just that, and name given by apple to their high density displays. A true retina screen would have to be something like 600+ dpi, as that is the true limit of the human eye.
This might seem a silly question to some and I have done some reading but I'm not sure I fully understand. One of my main reason for possibly wanting to upgrade from my iP2 to the new iP is a better camera for facetime. Not sure if I'm understanding the technical terms. How significant will the change is the new camera be for facetime?
Thanks
Foxy
Thanks
Foxy
Highest res HDTV: 1920x1080 (AKA 1080p AKA "Full HD)
3rd Gen iPad: 2048x1536. More physical pixels in both dimensions than a 1080p TV.
Another factor is DPI. A 1080p 50" TV has 44 DPI. The 3rd gen iPad has 264 DPI.
In all possible measures the new iPad has higher resolution and better definition than an HDTV.
A full HD 1080p video played on the new iPad at native resolution would have black bars on all sides because of the extra pixels.
As far as I know the front facing camera wasn't updated.
I'm not very informed on the subject, so feel free to correct me, but I don't think a direct comparison is fair. People view their TVs at a far greater distance than an iPad (at least I hope people do). Therefore, TVs don't need as many pixels to achieve the same quality to the viewer because at a farther distance, it's harder to spot the pixels.
It seems a better comparison would be which one registered as more HD to the average person's eye when viewed at their respective normal viewing distances.
So yes, Apple is right. But I don't feel like their comparison has any relevance.
That sucks!!!! I suppose they didn't feel the need to do that since a better screen and back camera would help anyway.
Foxy
If it were irrelevant, they wouldn't need to define retina at different distances and they would use the old definition of 300dpi.
Grab your 50" plasma 49 in. diagonal in size. Use your arm strength and squeeze it down to 9 in. diagonal in size.
Hold it 15" from your face.
Tell me what you see.
here :
Panasonic 50" Plasma = Native resolution (1,024 x 768)
That's on a 49 in diagonal screen.
The iPad is 2048-by-1536-pixel resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi) on a 9 in. screen
Now. Do the math.
Hold it 15" from your face.
Tell me what you see.
here :
Panasonic 50" Plasma = Native resolution (1,024 x 768)
That's on a 49 in diagonal screen.
The iPad is 2048-by-1536-pixel resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi) on a 9 in. screen
Now. Do the math.
which is exactly the definition of retina display. That's the mathematics (I'm sure just a small part of it) behind determining what density is needed to achieve a retina affect from a given distance.
In practical terms, "looking the same as the iPhone" IS retina. If you can't see the pixels, its a retina display
A retina display has always been about distinguishing individual pixels, and that has all to do with distance, a 50" 1080p plasma can be a retina display if you stand away enough that you can't discern individual pixels.
If you use the iPad at the same distance as an iPhone then perhaps it won't be a true retina display, but it has always been based on distance.
And that's if you have 20/20 vision, if it's worse you could use it at 10 inches which is around the closest without strain and it'll be a retina display.
To quote someone more knowledgeable talking about the iPhone
You're not wrong, but man, Plasma has come a long way since having that resolution...
Yes I know this. I was telling the guy who forgot that the "new" definition of retina display takes into account for viewing distance and was explaining to me basically how simply, "more pixels equals better.. duh."
You and I both know that more pixels equals AMAZING at a close distance, as do HD televisions if viewing at an appropriate distance. The other guy didn't. Go tell him.