I wish people would stop diluting the "retina" term. Retina requires a density of 300 or higher, per the great Steve himself. I don't care if the distance is greater for the iPad. Guess what, my viewing distance to my TV is about 6 feet and I can't see those individual pixels from that distance. Does that make it a "retina" display?
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.
iFixit Takes a Closer Look at the 'iPad 3 Retina Display'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Jury-rigged or Jerry-built - mean similar things but have different origins.
Retina display is a combination of pixel density and viewing distance.
An iPad is hold further away than the iPhone by most people, so the pixel density is allowed to be lower (as mentioned in the video: about 240 ppi).
I'm more curious about the processor benchmarks, now. Always curious about that stuff. Can't wait for the new iMac/Mini benchmarks, too.
The iPad2 is already about 7x faster than my 1999 orange iBook, which is just a curio of a word processor anymore.
The iPad2 is already about 7x faster than my 1999 orange iBook, which is just a curio of a word processor anymore.
Thanks you. It's called a Retina Display because its purpose is to create a pixel density such that your eyes (more specifically your retina) can't discern individual pixels at the standard viewing distance.
Even if the original idea was to make it 300ppi+ you can bet that Apple will call this a Retina Display for the sake of continuity and the fact that it's a catchy term that is familiar to iOS users. Much better than your standard "Hi-Res".
As far as retina displays go, I find my iPad 2 fine for reading and so forth. However, I reserve judgement until I can look at both side by side.
Last edited by a moderator:
They should be able to rig up some kind of display signal, I mean, it’s just an LCD panel, and I’d suspect the pinouts are pretty close (RGB, power, ground). Just get an iPad ribbon cable, and attach some wire “jumpers” into the assumed signal positions. Of course, I’ve also shorted out stacks of electronics playing around ... so maybe they’re just playing it safe 
Also interesting the display panel is slightly lighter. That’s a big question in my mind, is the weight vs. the iPad 2. The external dimension increase to me means less than keeping or even losing weight. Thickness (obviously up to a point) never bothers me - the comfort level of holding up a reading device is way more driven by weight.
~14 days and we’ll know ...
Also interesting the display panel is slightly lighter. That’s a big question in my mind, is the weight vs. the iPad 2. The external dimension increase to me means less than keeping or even losing weight. Thickness (obviously up to a point) never bothers me - the comfort level of holding up a reading device is way more driven by weight.
~14 days and we’ll know ...
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know it is just me or what but ipads get boring after a couple weeks of use. I had the ipad 2 the same day it came out and took it back a month later because I got bored with it. I bought it again 2 months ago to see if I'll like it once more and after 2 weeks I returned it because its boring and just sat on top of the dresser collecting dust. I just don't get what the big deal is about them. I was looking forward to the ipad 3, but I am not so certain now, my iphone and android phones plus laptop seem to be all the tech that I need.
Do you have any actual confirmation that this part is destined for the iPad 3, or is it just conjecture based on the being the same physical size and rumors of the iPad 3 having a "Retina Display"?
Because if you don't have confirmation that this part is going to be in the next iPad, then all that has been confirmed is the existence of an appropriate high-res display for the iPad 3. I'm tired of "confirmed" when it's really "rumored by someone else" or "hardware confirmed to exist that matches the rumors". Neither is actual confirmation that this is actually an iPad 3 display.
Because if you don't have confirmation that this part is going to be in the next iPad, then all that has been confirmed is the existence of an appropriate high-res display for the iPad 3. I'm tired of "confirmed" when it's really "rumored by someone else" or "hardware confirmed to exist that matches the rumors". Neither is actual confirmation that this is actually an iPad 3 display.
ALL notebook and tablet display cables are made of a paper like thing. probably desktop monitor too, but I haven't taken one of them away in a while.
Steve Jobs said nothing about viewing distance, to my knowledge. It was an absolute number of 300, because most people can't discern the actual pixels at any distance (considering you can't focus closer than a certain distance).
Anyway, so I guess that answers my question. My vanilla 55" 1080p television, which has a density of less than 50, is in fact a retina display! Cool!
Yes! You were listening! Now I won't feel so badly when people continue to insist that it's not a "true" retina display, blahblahblah.
Last edited by a moderator:
Um, except the term "jury rig" has been used like this for over 200 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_rig
TL;DW?
That's the running "joke" in the video: that nothing is confirmed, and that the entire thing is "one giant well-educated guess."
The general consensus is that jerry-rigged (also jerry-built) means poorly constructed and jury-rigged means fabricated with things on hand as a temporary solution.
Sorry, didnt mean to derailed this thread [even more] into a etymological discussion
Congratulations, you've figured out why Retina Display is a marketing term rather than a definitive standard. Also, if your eyes can't focus on objects closer than a foot you really should see an ophthalmologist.
Are you telling me you can discern the individual pixels of an iPhone 4/4s from a foot away? If so, that's pretty impressive and hat's off to you sir!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcnKi7GxZ2k&t=1m40s
According to Jobs, 10-12 inches is the distance for the "magical" 300ppi number
Here's what I take away from the video:
1. New screen is lighter + presumed larger, heavier battery = overall same weight as iPad 2.
2. Apple/iPad h8trs are going to mitch and boan that Apple is changing the definition of "Retina" for marketing purposes...even though the whole Retina name is only a marketing moniker and not a technical term. Realistically, HD is HD so who cares if it's 240 or 300. It reminds me of the nitpicking "audiophiles" do when your stereo can't reproduce frequencies a dog can dance to.
3. My belief is reconfirmed that if there were more adorkable "geek girls" instead of plastic look-at-me Kim Kardashian types the world be a better place to live in.
1. New screen is lighter + presumed larger, heavier battery = overall same weight as iPad 2.
2. Apple/iPad h8trs are going to mitch and boan that Apple is changing the definition of "Retina" for marketing purposes...even though the whole Retina name is only a marketing moniker and not a technical term. Realistically, HD is HD so who cares if it's 240 or 300. It reminds me of the nitpicking "audiophiles" do when your stereo can't reproduce frequencies a dog can dance to.
3. My belief is reconfirmed that if there were more adorkable "geek girls" instead of plastic look-at-me Kim Kardashian types the world be a better place to live in.