My head is not in the sand, I just don't care that much. I felt the iPad 1 and 2 had a nice screen and were good tablets... The iPad mini will be slightly better. If you don't like it, or must have retina then it should be an easy decision.
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 iPad mini reviews: screen leaves something to be desired
- Thread starter 53x12
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My head is not in the sand, I just don't care that much. I felt the iPad 1 and 2 had a nice screen and were good tablets... The iPad mini will be slightly better. If you don't like it, or must have retina then it should be an easy decision.
let see you going to the bathroom with a 15" tablet
Not a good image. Regardless of tablet size.
Apple is stuck with two resolutions; 1024x768 and 2048x1536. If they gave the Mini the latter it would end up with a higher PPI then the "flagship" full sized iPad. Not to mention, cpu, weight, temperature and price concerns.
We all want a retina Mini but at this time its simply not doable when your stuck with 2 resolution choices.
We all want a retina Mini but at this time its simply not doable when your stuck with 2 resolution choices.
Exactly.
Agreed. Rush to market after stating there was no market for a 7in tablet. Now they have to double back and enter the market they said didn't exist.
But if someone has their head in the sand, you really can't tell them much that they will understand.
Steve Jobs was a showman and he prone to both exaggeration and hyperbole. And it doesn't matter what he said about 7" tablets because he's gone and times have changed.
And comparing the 9.7" retina iPad to the iPad Mini isn't comparing Apples to Apples (pun intended) as far as screen resolution goes. I'm not even sure it really matters, given people are still buying the iPad 2 with its "inferior" screen resolution.
For those with an iPad 3 or 4, who also buy a Mini, sure, you'll notice the difference, but if you're getting a mini as your first iPad, I'm guessing most people will be absolutely happy with their purchase - in part because the iPad (mini or otherwise) and iPhone and most Macs, are not just rated on only their screen.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I don't know enough about Android resolutions & densities to write with confidence about what they say in that story but scaling down without actually changing aspect ratio should yield excellent results. Does Nexus scale down from something created for different aspect ratios?
My suggestion is based on not making any change to aspect ratio (so there's not minor stretching in either width or height). Instead it is much like sizing a higher resolution photograph to a lower resolution frame (but maintaining aspect ratio). It will still look very sharp). It's also like watching 1080p on a screen with a resolution smaller than 1920 x 1080. It too will look very sharp. In both cases, the picture or moving picture is just smaller, which we should expect when using a "mini" instead of a "maxi".
A scenario where something could get lost would be one in which very fine detail is applied to the retina graphic. For example, if something used a 1-pixel thick line as a crucial part of the graphic, that line might get lost by the downscaling algorithm. But the whole concept of anything at 1-pixel is lost in the concept of "retina": we're not supposed to be able to discern individual pixels.
Take it for what it's worth: I'm guessing the Nexus issue is because they are not only scaling down from higher resolution graphics but actually also changing the aspect ratio (thus adding a little horizontal or vertical stretch). Such a move would also be noticeable if Apple did that too. But my suggestion is to only scale down from iPad retina graphics with no change to aspect ratio. Then, the developers could just code for iPad Maxi and it will "just work" on iPad Mini too. If iOS managed the downscaling, the developers wouldn't have to do anything to make a resolution less than iPad Maxi look good/great. I'm pretty sure this would work well, and seem to fit into an idea of a mini having a resolution somewhat less than a full-size iPad, keeping pricing & battery issues manageable, and not creating another resolution for developers to target.
The thing you need to remember is that these buttons are blown up significantly. Zoom them down to the size on screen, and then see if you notice the difference.
Tell me if you notice it on this photo:
The reality is that is hardly noticeable.
---
Sorry here is the photo fixed.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Exactly! If someone wants a HD screen, then pay the premium and get the top of the line iPad 3/4, not the MINI. That's just like someone complaining about all the features not being the the S3 Mini compared to the S3. Pay the extra, if you want high definition.
As noted, your link doesn't work, but yes, of course if you zoom them out and then look at them on a typical computer monitor of under 100 ppi you can't tell the difference. (That's why they have to be zoomed) Look at that picture on a high resolution display, and so long as your eyesight is good, the difference will be obvious.
You brought up a good point, so people don't care about 100ppi monitors at work all day, but they get bent out of shape about 264ppi vs. 164ppi vs. 132 ppi? Put it in perspective a bit.
And, you can tell the difference, because pixel density is based on the screen shot. Your monitor for work should be able to portray the differences just fine, even scaled down somewhat.
People do care - but until Apple starting driving this issue none of the other big manufacturers were listening as they are driven primarily by price. Now that Apple is putting high resolution screens in their laptops the rest of the industry will follow.
I have always chosen computer monitors based on the highest pixel density I can get in a given size range - ie. my work monitors are 1920x1200 in 23" rather than the far more common 1920x1080 in 24 or 27".
The other thing is that I sit approximately 3' from my desktop monitors, vs. 12-18" from my tablet. That distance is part of the equation.
Is this any of a surprise? Were reviewers actually thinking that the screen on the mini would rival that of HD devices?
Most of the reviews I saw indicate the mini has flaws but it's still a winner. If you're getting rid of a 3 or 4 and switching to a mini, then you may be disappointed. If you're coming from an iPad 1 or 2 or don't have an HD tablet, you'll probably love it.
Overall, the iPad mini is attractive to many people vs any other "small" tablet on the market, regardless of price and screen.
Most of the reviews I saw indicate the mini has flaws but it's still a winner. If you're getting rid of a 3 or 4 and switching to a mini, then you may be disappointed. If you're coming from an iPad 1 or 2 or don't have an HD tablet, you'll probably love it.
Overall, the iPad mini is attractive to many people vs any other "small" tablet on the market, regardless of price and screen.
What a ridiculous statement. It wasn't a deal breaker on the 1 or 2 because there weren't tablet alternatives that were cheaper and had infinitely better screens. It sure as heck is a deal breaker when all the competition has better resolutions, faster processors, and ARE CHEAPER.
They sure as hell aren't iOS devices. I like the apps I own and I'm greatly looking forward to a better form factor compared to my 3rd Gen iPad.
Is the iPad mini using the IGZO display? I know they said it was thinner but I wasn't sure if it was using IGZO. If its not then there maybe a chance they could make a retina IGZO display next year and keep the iPad mini the same size and weight. I know the IGZO is more efficient than the regular LCD panels. It seems like the next iPad and iPad mini will have one assuming the iPad min doesn't already.
Is the IGZO display the same as the GF2 structure and DITO film sensor that is in the iPad mini?
To a degree you're right. I don't think the issue is that Apple is "stuck" with two resolutions. But what they wanted to be able to say was that every iPad app would work on the mini right out of the gate. Considering the iOS ecosystem is one of the biggest differentiators between the iPad and the Android and Windows 8 tablets, why would Apple throw all of that away by introducing a new resolution now? They're going to bash Microsoft and Google over the head with that 27,000 apps number until they are established and clearly dominating the small tablet market. Only then will they consider introducing a new resolution.
For me personally, I'll be upgrading to a mini from an iPad 1. I'll be quite happy, as I'll actually be getting something more portable that also has higher ppi.
Totally awesome how you just snipped out the piles of praise in the reviews you quoted.
I don't understand the particulars of it terribly well either, but I am going by what people who do seem to know have to say, and the fact that Apple doesn't want to do this has to be for good reason.
I think the reason is because starting in iOS 4, (released with the retina iPhone 4), dimensions began being measured in points rather than pixels. This is what allowed for a seamless transition from the older iPhones at 320x480 to the new phones as 640x960 - the phone screen remained 320x480 points on both phones; the dimensions of all elements of older apps remained exactly the same size (but displayed fuzzily on the retina screen). On the retina phone, each point became exactly two pixels in size (in each dimension, 4 pixels total); and this is the crux of the matter - if they were to create an in-between size even while keeping the same aspect ratio - let's say 1.5 or 480x720, each point would need to occupy 1.5 pixels in each dimension. In other words, big problem...
I wouldn't be surprised if they introduced the mini 2 next year with a new resolution. They probably just didn't want 2 new resolutions in the same year (iPhone 5).
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Again, I'm not sure about this: I think 2048 x 1536 is pixels. I believe the concept of points is coming up in a "points-per-inch" number. For example in iPad retina, it's 2048 x 1536 pixels on a 9.7" screen or 264 points per inch. Take a well defined 2048 x 1536 at a high dpi like 264 picture and scale it down to any smaller size above 1024 x 768. It will look great- just as sharp, only smaller.
Just try it. Take a detailed iPhoto image you have and crop it at 2048 x 1536. Then scale it down to- say- 82% of size without changing the aspect ratio. I get 82% by dividing 7.9/9.7 (mini diagonal by maxi diagonal). Print both the original and the smaller version of the photo so that you can see the very fine detail at the tiny dot size of a good color printer vs. a display screen. Does things look blurred or does detail look lost?
Yes, the second image is smaller but so is the mini's screen dimensions. Yes, very fine detail may be scaled away by shrinking the image, but the shrink is only about 19%, so it's not a huge change.
I continue to believe that Apple could do this. They just chose not to for this first generation. Maybe to hit a margin target or maybe it is the "hold back" curse. Thus, I bet they don't pitch a new resolution target for developers. Instead, they'll just encourage them to develop for full-size retina and let iOS 7 scale it down to the Mini 2's compromise somewhere in the middle. For the public, they may just say "now with our incredible retina display" and not even talk pixel resolutions.