Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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"
- Thread starter walie
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
I disagree with the decision. People have attacked androI'd claiming such and such aren't retina because of ppi. I don't like that Apple did this. Then again Tim doesn't seem as strict
I disagree with the decision. People have attacked androI'd claiming such and such aren't retina because of ppi. I don't like that Apple did this. Then again Tim doesn't seem as strict
I'm ok with calling the iPhone 4 & 4S "Retina Displays" because I can't discern individual pixels no matter how close I get. Saying the new iPad has a Retina Display kind of diminishes the significance of the term, even if it is all just marketing anyway.
yeah, this is totally why I am not buying it😕, the screen won't look any better than the previous one.
ooh shiny! I guess I will have to pre order 2! 😱
If you have a good laser printer with configurable resolution, print some black text at 264dpi and some at 300 dpi. Blind test your co-workers and ask them which one is superior and which one is inferior. Don't be surprised when they look at you like a loon.
300dpi would require greater than 2328x1746 or 4,064,688 pixels vs the 2048x1536 at 3,145,728 pixels. That's a 30% difference. Can you imagine the graphics required to push _that_ at 1:1 pixel mapping?
If you have a good laser printer with configurable resolution, print some black text at 264dpi and some at 300 dpi. Blind test your co-workers and ask them which one is superior and which one is inferior. Don't be surprised when they look at you like a loon.
300dpi would require greater than 2328x1746 or 4,064,688 pixels vs the 2048x1536 at 3,145,728 pixels. That's a 30% difference. Can you imagine the graphics required to push _that_ at 1:1 pixel mapping?
phpmaven
macrumors 68040
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
But it's the point they are changing it for their convience is the problem and now everyone is justifying it. I know it's marketing bs but lets not forget the bias against other devices with the same ppi as the new iPad.
GearDriven said:yeah, this is totally why I am not buying it😕, the screen won't look any better than the previous one.
ooh shiny! I guess I will have to pre order 2! 😱
If you have a good laser printer with configurable resolution, print some black text at 264dpi and some at 300 dpi. Blind test your co-workers and ask them which one is superior and which one is inferior. Don't be surprised when they look at you like a loon.
300dpi would require greater than 2328x1746 or 4,064,688 pixels vs the 2048x1536 at 3,145,728 pixels. That's a 30% difference. Can you imagine the graphics required to push _that_ at 1:1 pixel mapping?
But it's the point they are changing it for their convience is the problem and now everyone is justifying it. I know it's marketing bs but lets not forget the bias against other devices with the same ppi as the new iPad.
Phil A.
Moderator emeritus
They haven't changed anything. Apple's definition of a retina display has always been a display where individual pixels are indistinguishable at normal viewing distances.
For a phone, that's 10-12".
For a larger device like an iPad they've set it at 15" as you hold it further away.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
This made me lol
scootaru said:
This made me lol
More Retina than the iPhone 4
When held at 15" instead of 10", the new Ipad needs only 220ppi to attain the same visual resolution. It has 264ppi, thus is much more retaina than the iPhone 4.
When held at 15" instead of 10", the new Ipad needs only 220ppi to attain the same visual resolution. It has 264ppi, thus is much more retaina than the iPhone 4.
Apple invented the term, Apple gets to decide what it means. Yes, it is retina because they say it is.
Yes it will be. Rumor is that the Apple TV would be about 42". For that size from 5 feet away the resolution needs to be about 1920 across to be retina, which is stardand HDTV resolution.
----------
Retina according to Apple the inventor of the term means a higher resolution that what the human eye can perceive, for someone who has 20/20 vision.
MH01
Suspended
pfffft Retina display is just Apple Marketing. Always has been.
Do not worry it will look awesome.
Everytime i here these buzz words from apple I keep thinking back to the onion take off http://www.theonion.com/video/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-laptop-with-no,14299/ and the hummingbird batter, 2:01 in.
Do not worry it will look awesome.
Everytime i here these buzz words from apple I keep thinking back to the onion take off http://www.theonion.com/video/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-laptop-with-no,14299/ and the hummingbird batter, 2:01 in.
gibbz
macrumors 68030
Here's the math:
If the display is 264 pixels per inch, then each pixel is ~ 1/264 = 0.00378 in. To be retina, we need to hold it far enough back that we cannot distinguish that particular pixel size.
20/20 vision is roughly one arcmin. The scale factor for 1 arcmin is 3438. The distance away from the eye where we begin to see the pixel is D = 3438*.00378 inches ~ 13 inches.
The new iPad will be retina if you have 20/20 vision and hold it farther back than 13" from your eyes. Of course, if you have greater than 20/20 vision, then you will have to hold it farther back.
For instance, perfect vision is ~0.6 arcmin, which gives a scale factor of 5730. In that case, D = 5730*.00378 inches ~ 21-22 inches.
For most people, 264 pixels per inch qualifies as retina at > 13" distance from the eyes. That is a pretty normal use-case for the average iPad user.
The important thing is that the screen will be amazing, regardless of what people call it.
If the display is 264 pixels per inch, then each pixel is ~ 1/264 = 0.00378 in. To be retina, we need to hold it far enough back that we cannot distinguish that particular pixel size.
20/20 vision is roughly one arcmin. The scale factor for 1 arcmin is 3438. The distance away from the eye where we begin to see the pixel is D = 3438*.00378 inches ~ 13 inches.
The new iPad will be retina if you have 20/20 vision and hold it farther back than 13" from your eyes. Of course, if you have greater than 20/20 vision, then you will have to hold it farther back.
For instance, perfect vision is ~0.6 arcmin, which gives a scale factor of 5730. In that case, D = 5730*.00378 inches ~ 21-22 inches.
For most people, 264 pixels per inch qualifies as retina at > 13" distance from the eyes. That is a pretty normal use-case for the average iPad user.
The important thing is that the screen will be amazing, regardless of what people call it.
So I assume a galaxy note has a retina display? No way you could justify a 10" distance on a phone (sarcasm) that is almost 2" bigger. I don't know that you would get all the way to 15", but it should be close to a retina display I would guess.
----------
So just over 12" for the Galaxy note. that seems reasonable. I don't even hold my iphone 4 closer than that to my face in normal circumstances.
----------
So just over 12" for the Galaxy note. that seems reasonable. I don't even hold my iphone 4 closer than that to my face in normal circumstances.
ucfgrad93
macrumors Core
Agreed. It is a nice marketing term, but it not just a simple one size fits all.
We wouldn't be having this discussion if Steve was still around. His Reality Distortion Field (RDF) would have made this thread pointless. 😛
So what part of the iP3 did YOU predict? Lackluster? To what standards? It's cool if you don't like it but to call it a lackluster upgrade is just nuts IMHO.
Moonjumper
macrumors 68030
Even funnier that people are claiming they have manipulated it when they haven't, as proved by the video link provided Phil A. It still means the same as when Apple first used the term.
RetiredInFl
macrumors 68020
NOTHING "qualifies" as "retina" because it's an advertising/marketing term. Nowhere is it listed as any type of "standard" other than by the marketing folks at Apple. They can make it whatever they want it to be to sell more stuff.
Diversion
macrumors 6502a
Is the OP complaining about the res of the iPad3? Seriously? Apple just did what the others couldn't do.. provide a ridiculously high resolution panel on the iPad. Asus claims their IPS panel is Super.. but i'd like to dispute the fact of it being Super because it doesn't seem very Super to me. Does that make sense? No.
If you're complaining about the marketing hoopla of "Retina display" you should have problems with a lot of other things companies do, such as quoting dynamic contrast instead of native contrast for a display to name one.
It's marketing, get over it.
If you're complaining about the marketing hoopla of "Retina display" you should have problems with a lot of other things companies do, such as quoting dynamic contrast instead of native contrast for a display to name one.
It's marketing, get over it.
Just for fun, think of it this way, if Apple invented a mega huge display that was fixed to the Moon, maybe permanently showing the Apple logo 🙂 The ppi density could be even less than 1ppi and it would easily be a retina display, in fact the resolution would be unfathomably high.
(nobody can see a square inch from the proper viewing distance on the earth🙂)
(nobody can see a square inch from the proper viewing distance on the earth🙂)
gibbz
macrumors 68030
You can qualify a definition, regardless of its source. For instance, I can state my coffee is "hot as hell" - defining "hot as hell" to be greater than 160˚F. If the coffee meets the criteria, then it qualifies as my definition of "hot as hell" even though "hot as hell" isn't a scientific standard.
Apple states that a screen is retina when pixels are indistinguishable while the device is held at a normal distance from the eye. That hasn't changed since the iPhone 4. They aren't moving any goal posts or deceiving anyone. They were very clear that the new iPad qualified as their definition of retina when held at ~15" from the face. I simply showed for 20/20, the distance is ~13".
You are right, though. Apple's definition is used for marketing purposes (they are a company after all). And that definition is dependent on your own eyesight and the distance it is held from the eye. The important thing should be how awesome the display will look and not what it is called.