"Its retina because we said it is"

Discussion in 'iPad' started by walie, Mar 7, 2012.

  1. walie macrumors 6502a

    Nov 15, 2010
    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
  2. Sir Ruben macrumors 65816

    Sir Ruben

    Jul 3, 2010
    Will it look gorgeous?


    So then, who really cares about marketing spiel?
  3. unlimitedx macrumors 6502a

    Jun 15, 2010
    it's all about the marketing from the very beginning...
  4. miles01110 macrumors Core


    Jul 24, 2006
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    The whole retina vs. non-retina vs. "it depends on how far away you hold it!" debate has been beaten to death. It's always been dependent on distance and how good one's eyesight is.
  5. DreamPod macrumors 65816


    Mar 15, 2008
    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.
  6. Peace macrumors Core


    Apr 1, 2005
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    walie can you please give us a link to the definition of a retina display from Scientific America ?

  7. falcora macrumors 6502

    Oct 8, 2011
    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.
  8. sinitesh macrumors newbie

    Feb 20, 2012
    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.
  9. dccorona macrumors 68020


    Jun 12, 2008
    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
  10. Bobby Corwen macrumors 68030

    Jul 16, 2010
    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.
  11. MisterMe macrumors G4


    Jul 17, 2002
    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.
  12. bobright macrumors 601

    Jun 29, 2010
    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:
  13. Peace macrumors Core


    Apr 1, 2005
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    Do you know what the resolution was on the original iSight camera ?

  14. Bobby Corwen macrumors 68030

    Jul 16, 2010
    Thats not TRUE iSight. Im sick of that term anyway...
  15. JoeG4 macrumors 68030


    Jan 11, 2002
    Bay Area, Ca.
    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?
  16. Peace macrumors Core


    Apr 1, 2005
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    What is "true iSight" ? It was Apple's camera that connected to the top of the old displays.
  17. ExnomenDei macrumors regular

    Mar 2, 2010
    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.
  18. Peace macrumors Core


    Apr 1, 2005
    Space--The ONLY Frontier

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

  19. Buildbright macrumors 6502a

    Aug 25, 2011
    Did you see the Verge's coverage? It was horrible, the worst I have ever seen. There live blog was a joke.
  20. jsolares macrumors 6502a

    Aug 8, 2011
    Land of eternal Spring
    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
  21. walie thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Nov 15, 2010
    WWCD 2010


    Uploaded with ImageShack.us
  22. thobie macrumors member

    Oct 21, 2009
    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.
  23. Phil A. Moderator

    Phil A.

    Staff Member

    Apr 2, 2006
    Shropshire, UK
    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...
  24. ThatsMeRight macrumors 68020

    Sep 12, 2009
    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.
  25. Lukeyy19 macrumors 6502a


    Feb 16, 2010
    England, UK
    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.

Share This Page