iPad screen resolution

Discussion in 'iPad' started by Tom71, May 31, 2010.

  1. Tom71 macrumors regular

    Tom71

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    #1
    HI Guys,

    just got an iPad (for my wife) and like it so far. In fact, of course, I play most of the time with it ;)

    But however, one thing I don't like is the screen resolution. I wonder why nobody wrote about this. With all hires screens and such, the pixelation of the iPad is really a bit retro.

    Nobody else noticed? Love it otherwise though, esp. the battery life.

    Tom
     
  2. p-rice macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #2
    Screen resolution does not bother me one bit. In fact the quality looks stunning to me and it looks a lot better than my MacBook that's for sure.
     
  3. Star56 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    #3
    The screen has received rave reviews from almost everyone. What are you talking about? Pixelization?
     
  4. pondie84 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #4
    I've noticed no pixelation other than in resized iPhone apps... but I'm not as fussy as a lot of people are.

    In what way is the pixelation effecting your use of the device?
     
  5. sheppy1 macrumors 6502a

    sheppy1

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    #5
    I would also like to know where you are getting pixelation, my iPad screen looks absolutely stunning, only pixelation I've seen is when you take a native iPhone app and maximize it to fit the iPad screen
     
  6. Tom71 thread starter macrumors regular

    Tom71

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    #6
    Oh OK. Odd. you must all have screens with much higher resolution ;)

    Well maybe I'm too fuzzy. See, for instance you go to moblle me website or even google maps or anywhere where you have small fonts, you can see they are rendered blurry. It's because of the resolution which is quite poor.

    iPad DPI = 130, iPhone DPI = 160 (and the iPhone has the lowest DPI for any recent smartphone, the new one will most likely double that). The DPI is about the same as my Hires 15in 2010 MBP but obviously that's held at more distance to the eyes.

    So I'm surprised that nobody else is bothered by this. I do like the screen itself, the colors and the viewing angle, but I just feel the resolution could be much better.
     
  7. Tom71 thread starter macrumors regular

    Tom71

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    #7
    It restricts the font size, and therefore amount of information being able to display on the screen.
     
  8. Axl Rose macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    #8
    ya, the res kinda seem dissapointin, i was hoping for maybe 1600, 1200, since your holding it close to your eyes
     
  9. tuxing macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    #9
    I don't understand how people tell "the screen looks stunning". The fonts look very ugly and blurry in portrait mode, the way Steve wanted us to hold it.
    For iPhone the low resolution was a boon as screen size was small. But for iPad it's a portrait killer for reading. Guess Steve wanted a low res to blow up iphoneapps and also he wants us to upgrade to iPad 2nd.

    Screen does stun you at night at fullbrightness if lights are off.:D
     
  10. brentsg macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    #10
    So then by your assessment the 17" Macbook Pros must be completely awful.
     
  11. Tom71 thread starter macrumors regular

    Tom71

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    #11
    No because its 133 DPI and you probably hold it farther away than an iPad. But we're not talking about the 17in MBP.

    I know that criticism to Apple products doesn't bode well in the MacRumors Forums.

    Anyway it's a let down on a device which is otherwise quite good.
     
  12. hazmatzak macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    #12
    It's a little more complicated than that. By default, in portrait mode, the browser will render the page as if the screen/window is 980 pixels wide. This is for maximum compatibility with web pages (column layouts, banner ads, navigation tabs, etc.) Then to actually fit on screen, it takes this rendering and shrinks it to 768 pixels wide. That's why text is fuzzier. (The same pages viewed landscape are slightly expanded to 1024 pixels wide.)

    Pages can declare that they can be rendered at a narrower width, possibly getting rendered pixel-for-pixel, making the text as good as possible (with the pros and cons of font smoothing).

    So the fuzziness is not a direct consequence of the resolution, but a compound effect of the desired function: web page fidelity and no horizontal scrolling. But yes, if the pixel dimensions were higher, it would be better all around. In fact, if the screen was 1920x1440, you could display 1080p pixel-for-pixel, and people would have to stop complaining about it "not being HD". But I imagine such screens will not be affordable for a while.
     
  13. colmaclean macrumors 68000

    colmaclean

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Berlin
    #13
    I guess they're holding back to give you another excuse to upgrade next year.

    Being a sucker, I must admit to being quite excited about the mooted res increase on the next iPhone (even though I've got a perfectly good 3GS).
     
  14. Tom71 thread starter macrumors regular

    Tom71

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    #14
    I wouldn't mind either :) One iPad per familiy is not enough anyway.
     
  15. spammerhamster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    #15
    wouldn't a higher resolution also means a decline in usage time? More pixels to feed.

    Could very well be a costeffictive/powereffective decision. If this density allows the magical numbers 10 and 499, it'd be a great strategic decision.

    (and tbh, I don't really mind. the ipad screen already looks better than all my laptops/netbooks/tfts and basically all the screens i've seen)
     
  16. brentsg macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    #16
    I could care less if you criticize Apple products.

    I'm making a comparison. The MBP 17's resolution is essentially the same as the iPad in terms of pixel pitch.

    You still need the 17" MBP right in front of you, if you plan to type on it and interact with it. It's not a desktop display that's 2-3' away. I guess everyone is different, but I don't believe I use my iPad any closer to my eyes than I do my MBP.
     
  17. martynmc7 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    #17
    No, you couldn't care less, if you could care less then it's meaningless because all you're telling us is that you do care, which I presume is the opposite of what is intended!

    Sorry, that misuse really grinds me! ;)
     
  18. macbwizard macrumors 6502

    macbwizard

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    #18
    I remember back in the 90s and early 2000s using 14/15 inch CRTs that were at 1024x768 without any complaints. The iPad is what, 9.8 inches? That pixel density is way more than adequate.
     
  19. Zazoh macrumors 6502a

    Zazoh

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Location:
    Mico, Texas
    #19
    I use my MB and iPad at same distance. No issues. I was an audiophile years back and would obsess over sound nuances, So, I get the concerns. This is one area where ignorance is bliss. To this dummy, all apps, except iPhone x2 are good with me.

    I've since given up my audiophile ways and can now even enjoy MP3s on my iPhone. ;-).
     
  20. WilliamG macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #20
    I find the resolution frustrating, too, but only for text. For games it's just fine.
     
  21. kurzz macrumors 6502

    kurzz

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #21
    [​IMG]
     
  22. HiRez macrumors 603

    HiRez

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Western US
    #22
    It's definitely on the low side, although the other aspects of the screen look great (backlight, viewing angles, saturation, etc). It bothers me the most in iBooks, I like to use a little smaller font than default and the screen's resolution is too low to do effective antialiasing, the text looks jaggy. It's not a deal-killer, but it's noticeable. 1600x1200 would be perfect but 1280x960 would be a big improvement.
     
  23. Mr. Gates macrumors 68020

    Mr. Gates

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Location:
    --Redmond --------- ----------------Washington---
    #23
    I second that.
     
  24. brentsg macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    #24
    Good God get a ****ing life.

    Oh no I screwed up you and your buddies favorite saying or something. You should probably point it out and make a deal of it so a couple of lackeys can come along and second, third it.

    I think tools that feel the need to correct everyone's grammar and language are every bit as annoying.
     
  25. pondie84 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #25
    You obviously haven't had the pleasure of seeing a particular member who gets a bee in her/his bonnet over people who use the phrase 'the best thing since sliced bread'. :p
     

Share This Page