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

"Its retina because we said it is"

W

walie

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Nov 15, 2010
676
2
This part from the Verge is concerning:

"Apple's brand new iPad has just launched with a Retina Display! The resolution is 2048 x 1536, quadrupling that of the first and second generation iPads. The new 9.7-inch iOS tablet keeps the same screen size as its predecessors, but now comes with just over 3.1 million pixels, resulting in an impressive 264ppi density. You might not think that's quite enough to merit Apple's designation of a Retina Display — one dense enough to make individual pixels indistiguishable — however Phil Schiller explained that the iPad is expected to be held at a distance of 15 inches away from the user's eyes, qualifying it for that title."

Before Retina was said to represent anything with a screen that had a higher than 300ppi, now its something that Apple says is subjective to the user.

if it wasn't marketing before, it reeks of marketing now
 
Apple always talked about it as being a display where you cannot see individual pixels from your normal viewing distance. Doesn't really matter, it's a marketing buzzword, but Apple didn't change their stance.
 
apple further defined it in the keynote, there is some math involved and something about 1 pixel per arc minute of your retina or something.
 
I agree that this isn't a true retina display but still an improvement. Hopefully the ipad 4 will be and a whole lot more because the ipad 3 seems a little too predictable and lackluster.
 
walie said:
This part from the Verge is concerning:

"Apple's brand new iPad has just launched with a Retina Display! The resolution is 2048 x 1536, quadrupling that of the first and second generation iPads. The new 9.7-inch iOS tablet keeps the same screen size as its predecessors, but now comes with just over 3.1 million pixels, resulting in an impressive 264ppi density. You might not think that's quite enough to merit Apple's designation of a Retina Display — one dense enough to make individual pixels indistiguishable — however Phil Schiller explained that the iPad is expected to be held at a distance of 15 inches away from the user's eyes, qualifying it for that title."

Before Retina was said to represent anything with a screen that had a higher than 300ppi, now its something that Apple says is subjective to the user.

if it wasn't marketing before, it reeks of marketing now
Click to expand...

If you watch the original presentation of the iPhone 4, Apple explains what the retina term means. They clearly explain that it is the point where the density of pixels on a screen hits a point where the human eye can no longer discern individual pixels. They also explain what affects this number...SPECIFICALLY pointing out it is a combination of screen size and viewing distance (screen size affecting density). They mention what viewing distance they use on the iPhone to calculate the number needed for a retina display (I don't remember the number).

So, it makes sense then. The viewing distance for an iPad is further than for an iPhone, resulting in a lower required pixel density necessary for "retina" level screen quality.

In theory, HDTVs of a certain size are also retina displays. Since they are viewed from so far away, you can't tell the difference between individual pixels. Yet, HDTVs have pixel densities that are far from the iPhone/iPad

Retina display isn't some magical quantity...its based on a number of factors, and depends on the device
 
I also hate how they call the camera an iSight camera when its clearly not.

Thats not an iSight camera.

They defined iSight as something you want to take photos with, and I don't.

Thats not true iSight. They just made that term up. They pretty much consider it iSight because they said it was.

I call bs.
 
Peace said:
walie can you please give us a link to the definition of a retina display from Scientific America ?

;)
Click to expand...
Scientific American is a general interest magazine, not an authority. The Buzzword Police might should check with the Optical Society of America. However, it is well-understood that the phrase "retina display" means that the pixel structure of the displayed image cannot be discerned. It has been long established that this condition is satisfied when two light sources have an angular separation less than 1' of arc or 2.909E-4 radians. For a 264 dpi display, this condition is satisfied when the display is 13 inches or more from the viewer. Apple's statement that it expects the iPad 3 to be held at a distance of 15 inches is conservative. Viewed from 15 inches away, a 264 dpi display comfortable meets the criteria implied by the "Retina Display" catch phrase.
 
How dare you make a thread like this? the fanboys are going to kill you watch this turn to pages and pages of you being blasted :rolleyes:
 
Bobby Corwen said:
I also hate how they call the camera an iSight camera when its clearly not.

Thats not an iSight camera.

They defined iSight as something you want to take photos with, and I don't.

Thats not true iSight. They just made that term up. They pretty much consider it iSight because they said it was.

I call bs.
Click to expand...

Do you know what the resolution was on the original iSight camera ?

640X480
 
lmao :D Yea that's pretty screwed up and just marketing anyway. The point is Apple is marketing! Otherwise they could have referred to it as a HiDPI screen, but when would they do that?
 
There's a slide in the video that explains the math behind it. At a viewing distance of 15" instead of 10", your eye is unable to discern individual pixels on the new iPad's screen. Related, the screen has quadrupled in resolution compared to a previous generation product, but it doesn't use that to display more content, only to make current content sharper.

I think they can use the Retina moniker because pixel doubling/quadrupling is a terrible name.
 
MisterMe said:
Scientific American is a general interest magazine, not an authority. The Buzzword Police might should check with the Optical Society of America. However, it is well-understood that the phrase "retina display" means that the pixel structure of the displayed image cannot be discerned. It has been long established that this condition is satisfied when two light sources have an angular separation less than 1' of arc or 2.909E-4 radians. For a 264 dpi display, this condition is satisfied when the display is 13 inches or more from the viewer. Apple's statement that it expects the iPad 3 to be held at a distance of 15 inches is conservative. Viewed from 15 inches away, a 264 dpi display comfortable meets the criteria implied by the "Retina Display" catch phrase.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The term "Retina Display" was invented by Apple,Inc. when they introduced the iPhone 4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retina_display&redirect=no
 
walie said:
This part from the Verge is concerning:

"Apple's brand new iPad has just launched with a Retina Display! The resolution is 2048 x 1536, quadrupling that of the first and second generation iPads. The new 9.7-inch iOS tablet keeps the same screen size as its predecessors, but now comes with just over 3.1 million pixels, resulting in an impressive 264ppi density. You might not think that's quite enough to merit Apple's designation of a Retina Display — one dense enough to make individual pixels indistiguishable — however Phil Schiller explained that the iPad is expected to be held at a distance of 15 inches away from the user's eyes, qualifying it for that title."

Before Retina was said to represent anything with a screen that had a higher than 300ppi, now its something that Apple says is subjective to the user.

if it wasn't marketing before, it reeks of marketing now
Click to expand...

Did you see the Verge's coverage? It was horrible, the worst I have ever seen. There live blog was a joke.
 
walie said:
This part from the Verge is concerning:

"Apple's brand new iPad has just launched with a Retina Display! The resolution is 2048 x 1536, quadrupling that of the first and second generation iPads. The new 9.7-inch iOS tablet keeps the same screen size as its predecessors, but now comes with just over 3.1 million pixels, resulting in an impressive 264ppi density. You might not think that's quite enough to merit Apple's designation of a Retina Display — one dense enough to make individual pixels indistiguishable — however Phil Schiller explained that the iPad is expected to be held at a distance of 15 inches away from the user's eyes, qualifying it for that title."

Before Retina was said to represent anything with a screen that had a higher than 300ppi, now its something that Apple says is subjective to the user.

if it wasn't marketing before, it reeks of marketing now
Click to expand...

It's never been about a ppi number set in stone, it always had to do with distance, it always had to do with not being able to discern two adjacent pixels
 
dccorona said:
If you watch the original presentation of the iPhone 4, Apple explains what the retina term means. They clearly explain that it is the point where the density of pixels on a screen hits a point where the human eye can no longer discern individual pixels. They also explain what affects this number...SPECIFICALLY pointing out it is a combination of screen size and viewing distance (screen size affecting density). They mention what viewing distance they use on the iPhone to calculate the number needed for a retina display (I don't remember the number).

So, it makes sense then. The viewing distance for an iPad is further than for an iPhone, resulting in a lower required pixel density necessary for "retina" level screen quality.

In theory, HDTVs of a certain size are also retina displays. Since they are viewed from so far away, you can't tell the difference between individual pixels. Yet, HDTVs have pixel densities that are far from the iPhone/iPad

Retina display isn't some magical quantity...its based on a number of factors, and depends on the device
Click to expand...

WWCD 2010



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
thobie said:
Yes, when speaking about iPhone 4 and FIXED VIEWING DISTANCE!

For iPhone the limit is 300, the number is something else with iPad, MacBook or TV.
Click to expand...

Exactly! In the keynote, Steve specifically says that 300ppi is the limit for devices held around 10 or 12 inches away from the eye

OP - if you don't believe me, have a look at this video of the keynote, from 7:20 onwards...
 
walie said:
This part from the Verge is concerning:

"Apple's brand new iPad has just launched with a Retina Display! The resolution is 2048 x 1536, quadrupling that of the first and second generation iPads. The new 9.7-inch iOS tablet keeps the same screen size as its predecessors, but now comes with just over 3.1 million pixels, resulting in an impressive 264ppi density. You might not think that's quite enough to merit Apple's designation of a Retina Display — one dense enough to make individual pixels indistiguishable — however Phil Schiller explained that the iPad is expected to be held at a distance of 15 inches away from the user's eyes, qualifying it for that title."

Before Retina was said to represent anything with a screen that had a higher than 300ppi, now its something that Apple says is subjective to the user.

if it wasn't marketing before, it reeks of marketing now
Click to expand...
You are absolutely incorrect. They never said anything above 300 pixels per inch is a retina display. They said a display with 300 ppi from a 10 inch is a retina display. The number of pixels per inch are lower when a display is hold further away.
 
as others have said, it was never defined as over 300ppi, it was defined as over 300dpi WHEN HELD ABOUT 10 - 12 INCHES FROM THE EYE.
 
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