The iPad Mini sits squarely between the 3GS and 4 in "closeness to retina"

Discussion in 'iPad' started by cperry2, Oct 26, 2012.

  1. cperry2 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    #1
    It is indeed exactly the same ppi as the 3GS, but the effect will be different because you're focusing on a wider array of pixels overall, from a greater average distance.

    Here's a pretty good article about it:

    http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retin...oing-the-math/

    And as a nice bonus, there's a spreadsheet link in that article that has a row dedicated to the iPad mini.

    What's the "closeness to retina display" for the mini?

    At a distance of 16 inches away, 76%. This is compared to 61% for the ipad 2, and 123% for the ipad 3/4.

    Spreadsheet:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...=0&output=html

    So accounting for average viewing distance, the ipad mini sits squarely between the 3GS and the 4/4S/5 for perceived sharpness.

    So I have some hope this this thing will be acceptable given the advantages in portability.
     
  2. mcdj macrumors 604

    mcdj

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Location:
    NYC
    #2
    Interesting. But how is the ipad 3/4 at 123% of retina, when it's defined as retina? Shouldn't it be 100%? Of course retina is just a random marketing name anyway...

    But this report does illuminate what I suspect about the mini. There are times when I look at my ipad 3 quite closely...shorter than arm's length. At that distance, I think the mini will show its pixely retro face.
     
  3. cperry2 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    #3
    I think you're right. I really don't know how it's going to look until it's in my hands. I preordered just the mini betting that if I want to return it and get a 4, the 4 will be widely available because of the 6 month upgrade cycle. I checked the ship date for the 4s and it seems that theory is holding up.
     
  4. dmelgar macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    #4
  5. Medic311 macrumors 68000

    Medic311

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    #5
    what?!??

    123% means that the iPad 3/4 actually goes above and beyond the minimum ppi required, by 23% at viewing distance "d" at angle "a" , for the human eye to be unable to see an individual pixel. 100% is the baseline
     
  6. dmelgar macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    #6
    Not sure if using 16" for the Mini makes sense. Its a smaller device, seems that you're likely to hold it closer. That would counteract the higher PPI making the % retinaness the same.

    I hope they've done something else to the screen to help. I don't normally see pixels but I've always thought the iPad1/2 looked extremely pixelated. The iPad3 was not a minor upgrade to me but a night and day difference.

    I have one on order. Will see if its any improved over an iPad1. There's something about the iPad1 that looks really bad to me. I can see the colors that compose each pixel. Looks very grainy. I don't notice it on my Macbook air.
     
  7. Yr Blues macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #7
    Makes sense, but we're going to get retina on it in the next version. You can count on it.
     
  8. cperry2 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    #8
  9. mcdj macrumors 604

    mcdj

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Location:
    NYC
    #9
    I didn't realize there was an actual spec behind the word.
     
  10. cperry2 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    #10
    Maybe. It was a night and day difference for me too... just trying to assuage my doubts here as I really, really prefer the form factor of the mini.

    There are indeed lots of other factors in display tech than pure pixel density. Josh Topolsky of the Verge made a note that the mini display looked brilliant despite its ppi; I trust his opinions.

    Only thing to do now is wait and see (literally)...
     

Share This Page