iPad IGZO Screen question

[smileyface]

Just to clear up the confusion. Retina is a rather diffuse term. iPad 3 and 4 has 264 PPI, compared to 326 PPI on the iPhone/iPods.

Retina just means where the eye cannot see individual pixels at normal viewing distances.Most people have the iphone about 6 inches away from their face but the ipad a bit further away so the iphone needs more ppi to be retina.

A 1920x1080 50in tv needs to be viewed at least 6 feet away otherwise you can see the pixels because the ppi is only 41.

 

[Whoakapi]

Retina just means where the eye cannot see individual pixels at normal viewing distances.Most people have the iphone about 6 inches away from their face but the ipad a bit further away so the iphone needs more ppi to be retina.

A 1920x1080 50in tv needs to be viewed at least 6 feet away otherwise you can see the pixels because the ppi is only 41.

Indeed. But Retina is still a lame term. What is normal viewing distance? I'd argue that's quite individual. Anyway I don't disagree with you. Just wanted to hint to OP that the iPad 3/4 was not 326 PPI

 

[Zerilos]

Since Sharp was the only company affected by the reduction in 9.7" screens, i'm going to assume that this has something to do with IGZO. Apple would be crazy not to pursue this tech for future devices and they'll be just as crazy to alienate Sharp by exclusively dropping screen orders from them. My theory is that Sharp is now re-tooling to produce 9.7" IGZO screens (possibly 4" screens as well) for future iDevices. I have no sources "in the know" this is just my take on the reports we've all been reading.

 

[Che Castro]

H to the igzo

 

[frosse]

Since Sharp was the only company affected by the reduction in 9.7" screens, i'm going to assume that this has something to do with IGZO. Apple would be crazy not to pursue this tech for future devices and they'll be just as crazy to alienate Sharp by exclusively dropping screen orders from them. My theory is that Sharp is now re-tooling to produce 9.7" IGZO screens (possibly 4" screens as well) for future iDevices. I have no sources "in the know" this is just my take on the reports we've all been reading.

Seems plausible. If they're preparing a shift now I think we'll see an iPad in March.

 

[Zerilos]

Seems plausible. If they're preparing a shift now I think we'll see an iPad in March.

Also, you would think that if they were going to cut orders from anyone it would have been Samsung. Why are they picking on Sharp? IGZO is the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

[frosse]

Also, you would think that if they were going to cut orders from anyone it would have been Samsung. Why are they picking on Sharp? IGZO is the only thing that makes sense to me.

Very true indeed.

 

[SR71]

Since Sharp was the only company affected by the reduction in 9.7" screens, i'm going to assume that this has something to do with IGZO. Apple would be crazy not to pursue this tech for future devices and they'll be just as crazy to alienate Sharp by exclusively dropping screen orders from them. My theory is that Sharp is now re-tooling to produce 9.7" IGZO screens (possibly 4" screens as well) for future iDevices. I have no sources "in the know" this is just my take on the reports we've all been reading.

Completely agree. It's the only logical explanation. Especially when you consider how Apple just bailed out Sharp with 2 billion dollars a few months back. They're definitely re-tooling for IGZO display production, no doubt about it.

 

[Samtb]

Well, CES checks by analysts did suggest a mid March Launch for ipad 5. Last year they also correctly predicted that there would be an ipad launch in March and another towards the end of the year. So it would make sense.

 

[frosse]

Well, CES checks by analysts did suggest a mid March Launch for ipad 5. Last year they also correctly predicted that there would be an ipad launch in March and another towards the end of the year. So it would make sense.

In this case I agree but one should be careful in trusting analysts in general.

 

[Samtb]

In this case I agree but one should be careful in trusting analysts in general.

I agree, analysts have been wrong as well. There have been other sources who have claimed the same thing but I guess well just have to wait and see. Tim Cook did say he was "doubling down on product secrecy" so it is possible well see less leaks in the future, although I'm sure Apple deliberately let some information leak to keep people's attention.

 

[Defender2010]

Great IGZO video, not sure if it has been posted already...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnUUXoFsjoY

 

[lianlua]

Indeed. But Retina is still a lame term. What is normal viewing distance? I'd argue that's quite individual. Anyway I don't disagree with you. Just wanted to hint to OP that the iPad 3/4 was not 326 PPI

Normal viewing distance is 30-35 degrees in the field of vision or less. Distance isn't your personal normal viewing distance, just as the size variable is not based on any individual visual acuity.

These are established principles, underlying everything from office ergonomics to THX theater certification. Whether "retina" is a lame name for it or not, people don't seem able to comprehend what "it" is, which is precisely why they needed a name.

 

[chleuasme]

Normal viewing distance is 30-35 degrees in the field of vision or less.

Yes, but it makes sense only if what can be viewed can also be used. This is not suffisant to define normal viewing distance, you also need to decide how you'll use the screen and what it will display.

For example, another poster said before:

A 1920x1080 50in tv needs to be viewed at least 6.5 feet away otherwise you can see the pixels because the ppi is only 44.

It all works until you display on that screen, for example, text in a font size forcing the user to be at less than 6.5 feet to be legible. And then pixels appear visible.

The way you use the screen (what it will display) will also define the normal distance.
And it doesn't contradict the maximal angle of field vision axiom: the small text appears visible at 6.5 feet or more, but not legible, not usable.


The 'retina' qualificative guaranty you that you'll be able to use it at the distance you're expected to view it.
It's not only a relation between angle of vision and pixel size.


Used as a 960x540 pts screen (for example. 2x is only more convenient), with all the right technics to use all the pixels, an HDTV will probably display content (other than a movie/TV show. Text in particular) allowing the user to be at a distance suffisant to qualify it as retina. Not if it's used as a 1920x1080 display, as well as the 21.5" iMac isn't retina (simple application of the intercept theorem, for the distance of use). And as well, the iPad mini screen isn't better than the iPad 2 screen, although it has a higher pixel density screen: it's used the same, just hold it 19% closer.



Yes, we already had discussion on this subject

 

[lianlua]

Yes, but it makes sense only if what can be viewed can also be used. This is not suffisant to define normal viewing distance, you also need to decide how you'll use the screen and what it will display.

Don't start up with that nonsense again. Viewing distance for display design is content-independent. What you display on the screen has no bearing on the technical side.

Content size is a UI concern that should take viewing distance into account but it has zero bearing on ergonomics or pixel size. You don't alter a theater layout or equipment every time a movie producer selects a different font size for subtitles, and the minimum distance doesn't change with font size on a tablet screen.

Stop conflating two separate discussions into a single parameter. It's a waste of everyone's time.

It all works until you display on that screen, for example, text in a font size forcing the user to be at less than 6.5 feet to be legible. And then pixels appear visible.

The distance at which pixels become visible is not dependent on text size, nor does it alter the intended working distance.

If the minimum working distance for a display is 6.5 feet to maintain pixel size under 1 arcmin, that's constant regardless of how close you choose to sit or how close you need to sit to read content. That's the whole point of an objective metric. As I said, the distance variable isn't your personal normal viewing distance, just as the size variable is not based on any individual visual acuity.

Edit: and yes, there was a previous discussion on the topic, from which you appear to have learned nothing.

 

[chleuasme]

Viewing distance for display design is content-independent.

What does that even mean?
I'm talking about either using a screen with right specs for a given usage (you'll never see in the state of OS X a 1920x1080 11" MBA, the UI wasn't designed to be usable at the distance you're supposed to use this category of devices for this resolution at such size), or adapt content/software to the screen tech specs.

You don't alter a theater layout or equipment every time a movie producer selects a different font size for subtitles

Who said that?
I just say that, once is fixed the resolution on HDTVs (and then what would be the ideal distance to not see pixels for a given size), you then constrain movie producer to use a decent font size to not force their audience to move their sit closer to the screen or have a bad experience. It doesn't mean HDTVs are always used to display such content: I surf on the web everyday on my TV.

The distance at which pixels become visible is not dependent on text size

Of course not, obviously. Who could say that?
But it will affect the distance I will sit and use it. And then, will affect the fact I will be able to qualify or not this screen as a 'retina' screen. Again the iMac 21.5" example.

nor [text size] alter the intended working distance.

In the case of HDTV screens, the distance at which pixels become visible alter the intended working distance. The resolution is fixed for any size of screen, you are expected to sit not too close to not see pixels and have a good experience, and with a large portion of your viewing angle occupied by the screen. And content is supposed to be produced accordingly.
If text is drawn with an x-height of 8 pixels, as it is for example in every menu of OS X, I swear you're gonna move closer to the screen to use it. The distance of use for any 1920x1080 screen is not defined by pixel size, but it is true for the particular case of HDTVs used as TVs: content was created on that basis.
The HDTV case is like the two iPad sizes sharing the same resolution. It's a bit a chicken and egg question, but once resolution was set and UI built on this basis, their respective distance of use was fixed, and it works unless you don't follow simple logic and make poor decision when designing software.

If the minimum working distance for a display is 6.5 feet to maintain pixel size under 1 arcmin, that's constant regardless of how close you choose to sit or how close you need to sit to read content.

Yes, stating the obvious. What are you supposed to contradict with this?
I'm talking about how pixels are used.

the distance variable isn't your personal normal viewing distance, just as the size variable is not based on any individual visual acuity.

No indeed, both are defined before the user interact with the screen.

and yes, there was a previous discussion on the topic, from which you appear to have learned nothing.

You seem to think we disagree a lot. That's funny.
Call me stupid too if you want, it won't make you look smarter.

 

[lianlua]

But it will affect the distance I will sit and use it.

Who cares? If you individually happen to be red-green colorblind, that doesn't change the objective number of colors in the display. We are talking about objective measurements that are used in the industry, and you keep insisting on bringing in your personal, subjective use preferences. They're of no consequence.

Same as for other industry references--such as engineers in some cases defining a "person" as 2 meters and 100kg (even though most people are not). It doesn't matter that you're 1.78 meters and 73kg. It's shorthand.

The same is true here. Whether you prefer a different distance or have sharper or weaker eyes doesn't matter. The assumptions are designed for consistency. Pixels smaller than 1arcmin at the distance the display is less than 1800-2000arcmin is the short version. That's it. Nothing about how you use it or what you put on it.

And then, will affect the fact I will be able to qualify or not this screen as a 'retina' screen.

No, because that metric is not based on YOUR EYES or YOUR USE. I'm not sure what you stand to gain by refusing to recognize this basic fact.

The distance of use for any 1920x1080 screen is not defined by pixel size, but it is true for the particular case of HDTVs used as TVs: content was created on that basis.

No, the reference distance for a display is based on its physical size, not its content or its pixel size. It is, depending on which model you use, somewhere between 30 and 35 degrees or roughly 1800-2000arcmin of width at the inside and typically 120-150% of that distance on the outside of the range before it's recommended that you move to a bigger display.

Your personal preferences, visual acuity, and what you're putting on the screen are wholly irrelevant.

The display is exactly what it is--for determining angular resolution, which is the only measure that is relevant, all that matters is the pixel. You can treat the screen as simply a checkerboard of alternating black and white pixels for that purpose. Text, video, computer UI, HDTV, none of it matters. Repeatedly trying to start an argument otherwise will not change that.

 

[lianlua]

The bottom line is that there are industry-standard conventions for reference distances based on the screen size. These are based on ergonomics, including psychosocial cues (mainly the idea that people are overwhelmed by things that are too large or too close) and physiological constraints/ideals for muscle extension and eye strain and so on. Call this Dmin.

Every display has a retina distance as well. Call this Dret.

If Dret < Dmin, that is, if the retina distance is less than the minimum reference working distance, then it's a "retina display" or whatever else you want to call it.

That's true regardless of whether you personally want to sit two feet from a 60" monitor or if some idiot UI engineer has printed 300 lines of quarter-inch text on it so that you need a magnifying lens to read it.

 

[TyroneShoes2]

I've heard that beyond 300 ppi the human eye can't notice differences...

That is only part of the story. It depends on the distance as well. Whether you can distinguish the pixels, whether it increases perceived resolution, are dependent on two things, PPI and distance together.

That second variable is of paramount importance. If you hold an iPad mini closer to your face than an iPad because the screen is smaller, then PPI is somewhat offset by the shorter distance, implying it needs a higher PPI to have an equivalent perceived effect, which makes the single measurement of PPI mostly not very useful except in direct comparison with screens that are the same size and that are viewed at the same distance.

The real question is what can the human vision system resolve? The answer is 1/60th of a degree of arc, for 20/20 vision. You have to factor in both PPI and distance to get the true answer of whether the PPI and distance together put that under, or over, that resolution perception threshold. Over, we can distinguish individual pixels; under, we can't. But PPI alone can't answer that.

 

[TyroneShoes2]

...A 1920x1080 50in tv needs to be viewed at least 6 feet away otherwise you can see the pixels...

Not necessarily.

Whether you can "see" the pixels or not is dependent mostly on their size and your viewing distance, yes, but it is also dependent on the pixel fill factor, which takes into account the amount of black frame area around each pixel. Some TVs have a better PFF than others (less black frame area around each pixel), meaning you can view them from a closer distance and still not see the pixels, than you can others.

So it is not so much about whether you can resolve the pixels; to get full benefit of HD you have to be able to resolve them. It is about whether you can see that black dividing edge between them, because that is the factor that either allows or ruins the suspension of disbelief that you are viewing a solid image rather than an array of separate pixels.

A good example is Vizio. They make good sets, possibly not as good as a couple of top brands, but otherwise pretty acceptable. But you can watch them from a closer viewing distance because the PFF is greater (less black frame area) on a Vizio TV than on many other TVs, including most top brands.

According to this really handy Java app calculator:

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

If you view a 50" TV at more than 6.5 feet, you begin to lose the advantage of full HD resolution (the resolution of your eyes becomes correspondingly less at increasing distances, and this is the threshold and maximum distance for fully-resolved HD for a 50" TV). That means that the minimum viewing angle (a line from the left edge of the screen intersecting with a line from the right edge of the screen, at your retinas) is 31.2 degrees. THX recommends 36 degrees, which would be a screen distance of about 5.6 feet.

And I like to view from as close as possible; I view a 32" set from 28", which is an extreme viewing angle of 53 degrees. That is functionally equivalent to viewing a 50" set from 3.6 ft away, or a 100" set from 7.2 feet away. And, I do not see any pixels at that viewing angle. I can fill nearly my entire field of vision and see no pixel artifacts. To get that viewing angle on an iPad you have to hold it about 8.5 inches from your retinas. To get that same angle on a mini you have to hold it less than 7 inches away.

But most people over 35 can't focus any closer than about 15 inches, which is why I will never watch video on an iPad if I can help it. For full 1080 resolution, you need the iPad at a about that distance, and for a mini it needs to be about a foot away. Holding them any further away compromises HD resolution, which means unless our noses are near enough to fog up the glass none of us are probably seeing full HD very often on any of our tablets, regardless what the delivered resolution is. Which is why we need a 16:9 11-inch iPad to come out.

I have also tested this extensively, by going to numerous showrooms and standing at an approximate distance that will give a 53 degree viewing angle or even more extreme than that. What I found is that some 1080p TVs require a little less-extreme angle, such as about 45 degrees, for the pixels to "disappear", while others, such as the Vizio, allow getting as close as a 53 degree angle and pixels are still not visible.

It is probably not hard to guess which TV I own. But from extensive research I can say with great confidence that you can get a whole lot closer than 6.5 feet away from a 50" HDTV and still not see pixels, and that seems to apply to all manufacturers. Depending upon the manufacturer, you can get as close as about 3.5 feet before pixels become visible.

And this is an important factor never mentioned by tablet manufacturers. What that implies is that one tablet manufacturer can have a better PPI, and still have a worse apparent resolution. Surprisingly, you could potentially have a higher PPI with less viewability, which means it is important not to rely strictly on PPI, but to audition potential tablet buys yourself, side-by-side if possible. Which is why I picked up the iPad mini, looked at the screen, and immediately put it down and walked out of the Apple store.

 

[Eadfrith]

Is there even any IGZO screen technology in production, especially on the scale that Apple would require for iPad Mini/full size iPad? I don't think we will see this for a couple of years - maybe lol Is there even a retina resolution screen available for a possible retina iPad Mini - not heard of anything at all.

 

[Samtb]

Is there even any IGZO screen technology in production, especially on the scale that Apple would require for iPad Mini/full size iPad? I don't think we will see this for a couple of years - maybe lol Is there even a retina resolution screen available for a possible retina iPad Mini - not heard of anything at all.

Not yet, Sharp themselves have said that were not likely to see widespread use of the igzo display in devices until at least 2014.

 

[frosse]

Not yet, Sharp themselves have said that were not likely to see widespread use of the igzo display in devices until at least 2014.

Source?

 

[daywiz]

Not yet, Sharp themselves have said that were not likely to see widespread use of the igzo display in devices until at least 2014.

Widespread usage in 2014, would definitely mean, they would have to start in 2013.

By the looks of it, Apple's tablet range is definitely picking up the IGZO, while the iPhone 5S will continue with same physical design, expect the iphone 6 to get the IGZO.

Ipad 5th gen will definitely take the ipad mini design cues, but will sport a retina display utilizing IGZO display tech. The mini will also pick up the same display tech. The important bit to note here, is that apple will in all probability increase the ipad 5th gen's resolution to hit 326 ppi, so as to unify the resolution.

Don't expect remarkable battery life improvements, rather watch out for a max increase to around 12h (from the 10hour claim). The battery may be reduced from 42.5Whr to a pack around 21-25Whr pack, thereby having a thinner battery profile, and creating a breathing space for proper heat dissipation. IGZO with claims to reduce upto 90% of power consumption cannot be completely taken into consideration in this case. Expect a 50-60% reduction in real life, and with the host of new higher performance internals with reduced battery consumption, expect a battery capacity reduction of roughly around 40-50%

 

[Samtb]

Source?

Actually, was late 2013 I think. It was on one of the sharp interviews from ces on you tube.

----------

Widespread usage in 2014, would definitely mean, they would have to start in 2013.

By the looks of it, Apple's tablet range is definitely picking up the IGZO, while the iPhone 5S will continue with same physical design, expect the iphone 6 to get the IGZO.

Ipad 5th gen will definitely take the ipad mini design cues, but will sport a retina display utilizing IGZO display tech. The mini will also pick up the same display tech. The important bit to note here, is that apple will in all probability increase the ipad 5th gen's resolution to hit 326 ppi, so as to unify the resolution.

Don't expect remarkable battery life improvements, rather watch out for a max increase to around 12h (from the 10hour claim). The battery may be reduced from 42.5Whr to a pack around 21-25Whr pack, thereby having a thinner battery profile, and creating a breathing space for proper heat dissipation. IGZO with claims to reduce upto 90% of power consumption cannot be completely taken into consideration in this case. Expect a 50-60% reduction in real life, and with the host of new higher performance internals with reduced battery consumption, expect a battery capacity reduction of roughly around 40-50%

If the next idevices do use igzo, do you think apple will market it as such or do you think they'll just market the reduced thickness etc.