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

iPad, iPad Mini, and iPhone 5 Cases Compared to an iPhone 4S

gregwyattjr said:
I agree. Making the iPad mini's screen less than retina quality will ruin the whole thing for me. Plus, retina quality is more important on smaller screens since you're holding them closer to your face. ... ...
Click to expand...

I can appreciate the first sentence, but the second does not make total sense. Closer to your face with smaller ppi = can see bulky pixels...fine. But, retina on a small screen is frustrating simply because it's a small screen.

There are folks with the new retina MBP who are complaining about it (some because of app/program compatibility too, which was expected). 15" is not big enough...fine, more real estate...but, again, on a 15" screen.

Unfortunately, the 17" MBP with retina would be more expensive...and they cite 17" MBP's are 1% of the market of MBP's (or something along those lines). I love the 17" MBP bc it suits my need to have a portable studio -with largest screen size that makes sense for a laptop- when I travel and when i'm home it's a desktop, so I want the large screen for that as well.

But, retina is just a transitional resolution anyway, from what I've heard from the rumor mill. Perhaps, that is why some developers aren't moving to quickly to accommodate it?
 
sineplex said:
didn't everybody notice the difference on the iphone 4 when they released retina for the first time? obviously it's very noticable! :p
Click to expand...

Yes, we did, but only because they doubled the resolution from the 3GS display. Cramming the iPad 2's pixel density (which was pretty good IMHO) into a smaller screen will only make it look that much better on the Mini. It may not be twice the resolution, but trust me, you will not be able to tell the difference between the Mini and the Fire 2.
 
1152x648 what do you think?

Hi, I've been making some calculations. Im a fanboy and a bit too obsessed.
the thing is, iphones until now have not had an exact 3.5 inch screen but about 3.5392 inches. (ppi is 326 of iphone4s)
what i mean with this is that an exact 4 inch with 1136x640 resolution we'll get a ppi of 325.97.... and its unlikely to make an exact 4.00 inch screen.
So if apple only didnt make an exact screen size just like it has been doing until now, making, say for example, a 4.0544 inch screen, the ppi would be 322 ppi with a 1136x640 resolution, and i think it is very possible that they wont make and exact 4.00 inch screen.
Apple wouldnt let the ppi go down for marketing reasons. so i've found a possible solution to this.
a 1152x648 screen resolution is a perfect 16:9 not like 1136x640 (16:9.014) and that makes a difference... actually the 16:9.014 just feels wrong.
a 4.0544 inch screen at 1152x648 would result in a perfect 326 ppi.
and 4.0544 inches is almost exactly 0.5 or more inches larger than the current 3.5392 iphone 4s screen.

why to choose it:
So to have a better 16:9 aspect ratio i think apple would choose the 1152x648 resolution. This also would make the ppi a perfect 326 with a 4.0544 inch screen which is more than 0.5 inches bigger than the iphone 4s.

Why wouldnt they choose 1152x648? Well the only reason is that they'd have to increase 8 pixels horizontally, but i dont think thats a big problem because 8 pixels are almost insignificant at that ppi, and all that apple would need to do is zoom in the apps that werent yet optimized, this zoom wont be noticed with this pixel density, so just like what happened with the transition from the 3gs to the 4, developers will start doing apps in the newer 1152x648 and they can take their time because in the meantime the 640width app will fill the screen being insignificant the pixelation created with the zoom.

After all this make your own conclusion. 1152x648 is a perfect 16:9
everything makes much more sense... just 8 pixels cant justify changing the aspect ratio of a really respected 16:9...

--- Tell me what you think and make me any questions. And please could someone tell me what source said it will be 1136x640 and how truth or secure this is? was it just a rummor? is there any chance of a change?

By the way this is my bet, i bet they introduce a perfect 16:9 1152x648 4 inch screen (4.0544... or so) with a ppi of 326. This is one of the surprises apple is preparing for us and im shure its the best choice of screen to do for them.

--- I calculated the ppi's in this website http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html
--- iphone's screen measurements have been done with my own methods.

sorry if i didnt explain very well but english isnt my first language, again any questions or comments theyll really be appreciated.
 
Looking at these three together, the ratio of the normal full-sized iPad looks off. I wouldn't be surprised if iPad 4 (or iPad 5) would have a taller screen in a similar manner to the iPhone 5. Apps such as iBooks may seem strange at that ratio on the full-sized iPad though, which could be an argument against.
 
troop231 said:
Seems like Apple only increased the size of the iPhone 4S to make the battery longer. They obviously could've fitted a larger (longer) screen in the same physical dimensions of the 4S, meaning reduce the sizes of the top and bottom bezels.
Click to expand...

ah yes, it's obvious they could have "fitted" the screen in there! where is your EE degree from, again?

----------
nickn said:
You all know the iPad Mini is just going to be a repackaged old iPad 2. I recently got a Nexus 7, and absolutely love it! The quad core plus 1GB RAM makes it lightning fast. I highly doubt Apple will be able to emulate its specs at anywhere near the price, so I suspect the Mini will not do as well as everyone is expecting. Consumers are realizing better alternatives are available, and really the only thing going for the iPad at this point is it great display, which is not on the iPad 2.
Click to expand...

funny thing about chasing specs....apple's products seem to do more with less. i bet your Nexus 7 still has a noticeable scroll lag. apple isnt in the spec-selling game.
 
The photo is the first post here is wrong. The is no such thing as an iPad 3. He has an iPad (3rd gen).
 
marcoogutierrez said:
Hi, I've been making some calculations. Im a fanboy and a bit too obsessed.
the thing is, iphones until now have not had an exact 3.5 inch screen but about 3.5392 inches. (ppi is 326 of iphone4s)
what i mean with this is that an exact 4 inch with 1136x640 resolution we'll get a ppi of 325.97.... and its unlikely to make an exact 4.00 inch screen.
So if apple only didnt make an exact screen size just like it has been doing until now, making, say for example, a 4.0544 inch screen, the ppi would be 322 ppi with a 1136x640 resolution, and i think it is very possible that they wont make and exact 4.00 inch screen.
Apple wouldnt let the ppi go down for marketing reasons. so i've found a possible solution to this.
a 1152x648 screen resolution is a perfect 16:9 not like 1136x640 (16:9.014) and that makes a difference... actually the 16:9.014 just feels wrong.
a 4.0544 inch screen at 1152x648 would result in a perfect 326 ppi.
and 4.0544 inches is almost exactly 0.5 or more inches larger than the current 3.5392 iphone 4s screen.

why to choose it:
So to have a better 16:9 aspect ratio i think apple would choose the 1152x648 resolution. This also would make the ppi a perfect 326 with a 4.0544 inch screen which is more than 0.5 inches bigger than the iphone 4s.

Why wouldnt they choose 1152x648? Well the only reason is that they'd have to increase 8 pixels horizontally, but i dont think thats a big problem because 8 pixels are almost insignificant at that ppi, and all that apple would need to do is zoom in the apps that werent yet optimized, this zoom wont be noticed with this pixel density, so just like what happened with the transition from the 3gs to the 4, developers will start doing apps in the newer 1152x648 and they can take their time because in the meantime the 640width app will fill the screen being insignificant the pixelation created with the zoom.

After all this make your own conclusion. 1152x648 is a perfect 16:9
everything makes much more sense... just 8 pixels cant justify changing the aspect ratio of a really respected 16:9...

--- Tell me what you think and make me any questions. And please could someone tell me what source said it will be 1136x640 and how truth or secure this is? was it just a rummor? is there any chance of a change?

By the way this is my bet, i bet they introduce a perfect 16:9 1152x648 4 inch screen (4.0544... or so) with a ppi of 326. This is one of the surprises apple is preparing for us and im shure its the best choice of screen to do for them.

--- I calculated the ppi's in this website http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html
--- iphone's screen measurements have been done with my own methods.

sorry if i didnt explain very well but english isnt my first language, again any questions or comments theyll really be appreciated.
Click to expand...



can anyone explain this in english? for us that dont know the terminology?


lol so is retina display possible or not? i heard there would be problems with it
 
mdelvecchio said:
funny thing about chasing specs....apple's products seem to do more with less. i bet your Nexus 7 still has a noticeable scroll lag. apple isnt in the spec-selling game.
Click to expand...

Of course they are - this is why you see a iPhone 4Stretch and the iPad Mini.
 
gregwyattjr said:
Transitional resolution? This is news to me. What do you mean by this?
Click to expand...

I guess technically all resolutions can be deemed to be in 'transition' to the next :)

However, it may have been done to appease/amaze/keep-Apple-'innovative' as they work on a far better graphics standard (such as 4000 X 4000) which is rumored to be developed by Apple and some partners. Building new GPU's and standardizing screen resolutions for monitors and drivers.

Perhaps, someone knows more about it and can give a better explanation as to what the plans may be.

When it will be...just rumors for now. Not anytime soon.
 
don't care for any of the arguments here.

if Apple wants to charge $399 entry level it better be have the 'Retina' screen.
and you know that's going to be that price if an entry level iPod touch is $299.

no Retina, no buy. - i can get a nexus7 for half the price and it will do most things. double the price without Retina isn't justifyable. it will be the downfall for Apple. I for one am sick of tiny incremental upgrades... consumers are catching on fast with all the other compeditors offereings.
 
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
Back