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

IPD'S PPI

P

pr0230

Suspended
Original poster
Feb 7, 2013
197
47
  • iPad Pro: 12.9‑inch (diagonal) LED‑backlit Multi‑Touch display, 2732‑by‑2048 resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi), oleophobic coating
  • iPad Air 2: 9.7‑inch (diagonal) LED‑backlit Multi‑Touch display, 2048‑by‑1536 resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi), oleophobic coating
  • 7.9‑inch (diagonal) LED‑backlit Multi‑Touch display, 2048‑by‑1536 resolution at 326 pixels per inch (ppi), oleo phobic coating
The above are specs for the IPAD PRO , AIR2 and Mini-4....

From the presentation by Tim Cook, I believe he said that the iPad PRO has the MOST pixels on any iPad Device. I see that from the above specs, but the PPI is no greater than the others and less than the Mini-4...

I was hoping that the RESOLUTION would be even greater with the PRO, but sadly appears not to be....Just a bigger screen...
Am I correct in that? ... BTW I have an IPAD ? 128GB.... I believe it has the Retinal Display... BTW what is the PPI for Retinal display...
 
The overall resolution is greater than an iPad with a retina screen. The PPI is exactly the same as an iPad with retina display.

PPI is a fancy way of measuring real world performance between displays
 
Fancy?
No. Just arithmetic. I suppose there are fancy ways of associating ppi with "quality", but it's just a density measurement, nothing more.
 
Yeah it's a little disappointing they didn't gain any more ppi, but it's still pretty insane that they can squeeze that many pixels onto such a massive display
 
Cayden said:
Yeah it's a little disappointing they didn't gain any more ppi, but it's still pretty insane that they can squeeze that many pixels onto such a massive display
Click to expand...

To me it's pretty ridiculous. The screen is so large that it makes more sense to me to put a 4K resolution screen on it. Although to be fair the rMBP 15" falls pretty far short of 4K itself.

Apple probably feels that iOS devices aren't ready yet for a giant leap in resolution....
 
1080p hype caused PC monitors to stagnate. Better to use what's best for the device, rather than standardize on something that requires Radeon Fury levels of graphics computation.

Besides, the iPod is a 4:3 device-- a 3840x2160 screen just wouldn't make sense.
 
masotime said:
Apple probably feels that iOS devices aren't ready yet for a giant leap in resolution....
Click to expand...

This thing has a display that has more pixels than the 15" rMBP and the battery of a 12" MacBook. The fact that it holds its own is honestly impressive to me.
 
Krevnik said:
This thing has a display that has more pixels than the 15" rMBP and the battery of a 12" MacBook. The fact that it holds its own is honestly impressive to me.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I guess it does beat it, but barely... 3.3%. Granted for a mobile device that's pretty impressive compared to the rMBP's dedicated graphics hardware.
 
jerwin said:
1080p hype caused PC monitors to stagnate. Better to use what's best for the device, rather than standardize on something that requires Radeon Fury levels of graphics computation.

Besides, the iPod is a 4:3 device-- a 3840x2160 screen just wouldn't make sense.
Click to expand...

I'll assume you meant iPad. I was actually thinking of 4096 x 3072, i.e. Exactly twice the dimensions / 4 times the resolution of the retina iPad. A 4K display on a smartphone is pretty silly, but imagine if you could get 4K sharp video on an 13" screen! At 396.9 PPI, it would effectively be the "iPhone 6+" (401 PPI) of iPads.
 
pr0230 said:
From the presentation by Tim Cook, I believe he said that the iPad PRO has the MOST pixels on any iPad Device. I see that from the above specs, but the PPI is no greater than the others and less than the Mini-4...
Click to expand...

More pixels as in resolution and not pixel density as in PPI.
 
jerwin said:
I think you'd get tired of holding your ipad pro so close to your face.
Click to expand...

Yes that's true, a phone is normally held closer to your eyes than a tablet. Still, I can make out individual pixels on the current 260 PPI iPads. I guess I'd settle for 320 PPI ala iPhone.

But really, you have to admit it's a bit odd that Apple only has one device in their entire lineup - the 27" riMac (possibly 21" riMac later) that can play the 4k video that the iPhone 6S / 6S+ can record. Frankly it would have been great to have the iPad Pro be able to play it at native 4k resolution.
 
masotime said:
Yes that's true, a phone is normally held closer to your eyes than a tablet. Still, I can make out individual pixels on the current 260 PPI iPads. I guess I'd settle for 320 PPI ala iPhone.

But really, you have to admit it's a bit odd that Apple only has one device in their entire lineup - the 27" riMac (possibly 21" riMac later) that can play the 4k video that the iPhone 6S / 6S+ can record. Frankly it would have been great to have the iPad Pro be able to play it at native 4k resolution.
Click to expand...

It's not that odd. Video is shot for a variety of different of reasons, of which one is viewing on larger tv's or monitors. The MacBook Pro and Mac Pro can also drive 4K monitors.
 
masotime said:
To me it's pretty ridiculous. The screen is so large that it makes more sense to me to put a 4K resolution screen on it. Although to be fair the rMBP 15" falls pretty far short of 4K itself.

Apple probably feels that iOS devices aren't ready yet for a giant leap in resolution....
Click to expand...

i agree; I was really hoping for 400+ PPI, a la iPhone 6+ & 6S+.
 
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