Is iPad 3 truly "retina"?

[cclloyd]

If the iPad 3 will have "retina" display with 2048x1536 display, and keep the 9.7" diagonal screen, that would give it only 264ppi. Yet I read somewhere (already forgot where though ) that the human eye stops distinguishing between pixels at 300ppi. Nearly 40ppi short, will the iPad 3 display truly look "retina", or will we still see the pixels, albeit a bit hard to see?

PS: I am not in any way "dissing" the the iPad 3 display. I am sure it will still look amazing, especially compared to the current iPad display.

 

[bTaryag]

If the iPad 3 will have "retina" display with 2048x1536 display, and keep the 9.7" diagonal screen, that would give it only 264ppi. Yet I read somewhere (already forgot where though ) that the human eye stops distinguishing between pixels at 300ppi. Nearly 40ppi short, will the iPad 3 display truly look "retina", or will we still see the pixels, albeit a bit hard to see?

PS: I am not in any way "dissing" the the iPad 3 display. I am sure it will still look amazing, especially compared to the current iPad display.

If I'm not mistake, when SJ announced the retina display he said that the human eye stops distinguishing at 270 ppi. If so, this is pretty close, and you probably will only notice if you are trying to.

 

[basesloaded190]

If the iPad 3 will have "retina" display with 2048x1536 display, and keep the 9.7" diagonal screen, that would give it only 264ppi. Yet I read somewhere (already forgot where though ) that the human eye stops distinguishing between pixels at 300ppi. Nearly 40ppi short, will the iPad 3 display truly look "retina", or will we still see the pixels, albeit a bit hard to see?

PS: I am not in any way "dissing" the the iPad 3 display. I am sure it will still look amazing, especially compared to the current iPad display.

Ugh. When Apple introduced the Iphone 4, they claimed that with the screen size and looking at the phone from a certain distance they came up with the term "retina"

You have to consider you don't hold the iPad as close to your eyes as you would an iPhone.

 

[applefanDrew]

If the iPad 3 will have "retina" display with 2048x1536 display, and keep the 9.7" diagonal screen, that would give it only 264ppi. Yet I read somewhere (already forgot where though ) that the human eye stops distinguishing between pixels at 300ppi. Nearly 40ppi short, will the iPad 3 display truly look "retina", or will we still see the pixels, albeit a bit hard to see?

PS: I am not in any way "dissing" the the iPad 3 display. I am sure it will still look amazing, especially compared to the current iPad display.

Retina means indistinguishable pixels at 10-12 inches (thus > 300 PPI). iPad is held further away. So 264 PPI will still count as Retina b/c you won't distinguish the pixels when holding the iPad at 18-24 inches (or more).

 

[mattraehl]

Retina is an Apple marketing term, they can make it whatever they want to be. In reality many of us can still see the pixels on iPhones, particularly in the letters W and V.

Anyways I don't care what they call it, if it is 2048x1536 on a 9.7" screen it is going to look incredible.

 

[Tinmania]

I think the display will be fantastic. But that said I don't think I hold my iPad any further away than I do my iPhone 4S--except for videos and some games (well I guess that would mean I do hold it further away lol).




Michael

 

[mouthster]

Retina is an Apple marketing term, they can make it whatever they want to be. In reality many of us can still see the pixels on iPhones, particularly in the letters W and V.

Anyways I don't care what they call it, if it is 2048x1536 on a 9.7" screen it is going to look incredible.

I think this thread is done!

 

[fertilized-egg]

I think this thread is done!

It wouldn't even have started if people go back and read what Jobs actually said:

It turns out there's a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch, that when you hold something around to 10 to 12 inches away from your eyes, is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels

I don't know why so many keep saying "it's marketing buzzword so it's meaningless" when Steve Jobs himself very clearly defined the meaning of the term. But just like teh "You're holding it wrong" fiasco, this proves people do not read or listen to the actual source.

BTW, I did a arctan calculation earlier, and if I did it right, it means the display is "Retina" if one holds the screen about 14-15 inches away, which seems pretty reasonable.

 

[LostSoul80]

"Retina" is a name given to a key feature of a product, and its specifications do not exist.

It's just a LED backlit LCD screen, which of course has nothing to do with pixel density. If Apple decides "Retina" is the name of a puppy, then welcome the newcomer.

 

[fertilized-egg]

"Retina" is a name given to a key feature of a product, and its specifications do not exist.

Yes it does. 300DPI from 10-12 inches. They said it.

It's just a LED backlit LCD screen, which of course has nothing to do with pixel density.

I think you're completely wrong there. The iPod Touch display used a different LCD technology and was still called Retina because its pixel density was high.

 

[ThatsMeRight]

Yes it does. 300DPI from 10-12 inches. They said it.



I think you're completely wrong there. The iPod Touch display used a different LCD technology and was still called Retina because its pixel density was high.

Doesn't change his statement. LED backlight has nothing to do with pixel density.

 

[LostSoul80]

Yes it does. 300DPI from 10-12 inches. They said it.

They can say whatever they want, but I can't see any technical specification.

If you find one, link it please. Otherwise, that remains a name a company has given to a feature, and can adapt it as it wants with any product.

I think you're completely wrong there. The iPod Touch display used a different LCD technology and was still called Retina because its pixel density was high.

The technology the so called "Retina" display uses is just TFT LCD. It's LED backlit of course. I'm not aware of anything new on this side.

 

[fertilized-egg]

They can say whatever they want, but I can't see any technical specification.

Wait,so the company explained what they named it "Retina" with figures and you don't listen to the company's explanation?

The technology the so called "Retina" display uses is just TFT LCD. It's LED backlit of course. I'm not aware of anything new on this side.

No, you said it had "nothing to do with pixel density" when in fact it had everything to do with pixel density. Apple never specified anything about LCD technology, just the pixel density for the Retina display.

 

[DeusInvictus7]

No, you said it had "nothing to do with pixel density" when in fact it had everything to do with pixel density. Apple never specified anything about LCD technology, just the pixel density for the Retina display.

The backlight of a display has NOTHING to do with how many pixels are on the display itself. LED backlighting just allows lower power consumption, more uniform and thinner displays compared to CCFL backlights. The screen itself is still a TFT IPS LCD screen.

 

[LostSoul80]

Wait,so the company explained what they named it "Retina" with figures and you don't listen to the company's explanation?

I've replied before:

They can say whatever they want, but I can't see any technical specification.

If you find one, link it please. Otherwise, that remains a name a company has given to a feature, and can adapt it as it wants with any product.

("not seeing the pixels" doesn't count as technical specification).

No, you said it had "nothing to do with pixel density" when in fact it had everything to do with pixel density. Apple never specified anything about LCD technology, just the pixel density for the Retina display.

As ThatsMeRight reminds, I said

It's just a LED backlit LCD screen, which of course has nothing to do with pixel density.

An LCD screen is an LCD screen and this doesn't imply any pixel density per se.
I was clearly referring to the technology used. Apple didn't specify LCD technology because it's assumed to be obvious, I believe.

The absence of technical specifications gives Apple the power to use "Retina" wherever they feel, but probably always referring to some LCD-based panel (that's why I said "It's just a LED backlit LCD screen") with some relatively high pixel density. Get it?

 

[fertilized-egg]

The absence of technical specifications gives Apple the power to use "Retina" wherever they feel, but probably always referring to some LCD-based panel (that's why I said "It's just a LED backlit LCD screen") with some relatively high pixel density. Get it?

And I'm saying again that Apple has given the technical specification in a simple but clear wording. 300DPI at 10-12inches. Yes it's a marketing word, but Apple gave a definition for it. I don't know why you'd keep rejecting the words from the horse's mouth. You can keep arguing "it's not technical!" but the fact is you can easily calculate other distance vs. DPI by using arctan and there's a clear criteria laid out for you.

The screen itself is still a TFT IPS LCD screen.

No, the iPod Touch Retina display used a TN panel, not an IPS LCD. And that's why I said it has little to do with technology but more to do with pixel density unlike what LostSoul has claimed.

 

[turbobass]

If this graphic is correct I think it should put to bed any qualms about the true resolution of this device being truly "retina" as I personally cannot fathom being able to distinguish anything "higher rez" than this (though I suppose folks said that back in the Newton/Palm days too ):

https://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/12/an-ipad-3-retina-display-comparison-graphic/

 

[LostSoul80]

And I'm saying again that Apple has given the technical specification in a simple but clear wording. 300DPI at 10-12inches. Yes it's a marketing word, but Apple gave a definition for it. I don't know why you'd keep rejecting the words from the horse's mouth. You can keep arguing "it's not technical!" but the fact is you can easily calculate other distance vs. DPI by using arctan and there's a clear criteria laid out for you.

Pixel density (PPI) doesn't change with distance.
Saying "I see no pixels" from a certain distance is by no means a technical specification.

It's funny you describe a screen basing on the distance one sees it.
So if I stare at it from 5 inches, then it wouldn't be a "Retina" display?

"I see no pixel" doesn't count as a technical specification, as I stated.

No, the iPod Touch Retina display used a TN panel, not an IPS LCD. And that's why I said it has little to do with technology but more to do with pixel density unlike what LostSoul has claimed.

TN is a type of LCD, which is pretty common nowadays.

 

[ejisfun]

Retina means that you are unable to distinguish pixels during normal use. Apple called normal use for an iPhone 10-12 inches away, and declared >300 dpi the needed specification for pixels to be indistinguishable.

For an iPad, normal use is generally further away; let's say 18-20 inches. Therefore, for an iPad to be "retina" the dpi doesn't need to be quite as high as an iPhone, and the upcoming screen could indeed be called "retina".

Note that even with an iPhone, if you look really close you can see individual pixels. So why is it called retina? Because when you're using it normally, you don't see pixels. Same with an iPad. If you look close, you'll be able to see pixels, but when you hold it normally (farther away than an iPhone) the pixels will be indistinguishable.

 

[Tinmania]

If this graphic is correct I think it should put to bed any qualms about the true resolution of this device being truly "retina" as I personally cannot fathom being able to distinguish anything "higher rez" than this (though I suppose folks said that back in the Newton/Palm days too ):

https://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/12/an-ipad-3-retina-display-comparison-graphic/

As someone who moved from a Newton to the original Palm Pilot I would have to say none of us said the Pilot had higher resolution than anything . Butt that little thing was the first PDA--to me--that actually delivered on what it promised and did it quickly.




Michael

----------

Retina means that you are unable to distinguish pixels during normal use. Apple called normal use for an iPhone 10-12 inches away, and declared >300 dpi the needed specification for pixels to be indistinguishable.

For an iPad, normal use is generally further away; let's say 18-20 inches. Therefore, for an iPad to be "retina" the dpi doesn't need to be quite as high as an iPhone, and the upcoming screen could indeed be called "retina".

Well my original Palm Pilot had a retina display too. You just had to hold it at the right distance (2,451 inches to be exact).




Michael

 

[DeusInvictus7]

No, the iPod Touch Retina display used a TN panel, not an IPS LCD. And that's why I said it has little to do with technology but more to do with pixel density unlike what LostSoul has claimed.

I never said the iPod Touch uses an IPS display...this thread is about the iPad, no?

 

[ejisfun]

well my original palm pilot had a retina display too. You just had to hold it at the right distance (2,451 inches to be exact).




Michael

"NORMAL use" would be the keyword you're looking for there.

 

[miles01110]

My TI-83 has a retina display. At 50 feet.

 

[eaf7s]

Who gives a ****? It's guaranteed to look great. Buy it or don't.

 

[rovex]

I think it being a Full HD (and more) display more than makes up for it.