Before June '13:
$299 16 GB A5 (current), $399 32 GB A6, $499 64 GB A6
and iPad 2 out
And before next autumn, a redesigned 9.7" iPad, lighter and thinner, IGZO screen, 28nm:
$499 32 GB A6X, $599 64 GB A6X
Last edited:
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.
iPad mini There will be a Mini Retina next year
- Thread starter Anti-Lucifer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
$299 16 GB A5 (current), $399 32 GB A6, $499 64 GB A6
and iPad 2 out
And before next autumn, a redesigned 9.7" iPad, lighter and thinner, IGZO screen, 28nm:
$499 32 GB A6X, $599 64 GB A6X
So I do this: get a mini now, courtesy of parental Xmas gift.
Use it until the retina version appears.
Give it to parental unit. Buy retina for self.
Use it until the retina version appears.
Give it to parental unit. Buy retina for self.
The next mini will be retina for sure. Apple purposely baited people by leaving off retina on this one. It's all part of Apples very clever marketing scheme. No one is better at selling that Apple. That's why the death of their very best salesman leaves some wondering what the long term impact will be.
They'll still have to work in multiple resolutions. You can't split pixels. That's the fundamental scaling problem that HiDPI mode addresses. Whether it's 1.13 or 1.5 isn't all that big of a factor if it's not an integer multiple.
Also, mobile GPUs just aren't able to do what you're describing. Rendering offscreen at 3072x2304 is beyond the power even of the A6X, so you're just introducing another major engineering problem.
And your evidence of that is...where?
Some future mini will be retina. It may or may not be the next revision, it may or may not be 2048x1536, and it may or may not replace the non-retina mini. It won't "for sure" be anything at all.
Yeah, leaving all those millions of retina LCDs on the table to go into that other...Oh wait.
No, you're not doing it right on this.
If you want to make an analogy with the highest (and non-native) resolution on the rMBP,
taking a 1536x1152 screen for an hypothetical retina mini, you then have 75% of the retina iPad apps resolution,
exactly as the physical 2880x1800 pixels of the rMBP15 screen represent 75% of 3840x2400.
So you'd only have to scale down from 2048x1536 on the physical pixels of this screen.
Last edited:
No, you're just not understanding.
That wouldn't technically be retina, but let's roll with it.
Offscreen rendering would still be 3072x2304, still beyond the GPU's ability.
Which would still be non-integer scaling and still look awful. The retina MBP's non-native resolutions are offered as a choice compromise with significant performance and aesthetic tradeoffs. Apple would never release a product that defaulted to that kind of arrangement.
Have we defined the pixel density of such an hypothetical screen? or its diagonal size?
Now, yes, in apple terms, 'retina' is the conjunction of integer scaling of a lower resolution AND high enough pixel density of the screen.
We already had some discussion related to the subject here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1484324/
why?
I'm not saying this has to be the lousy solution Apple would chose for a retina mini. I simply don't get your upscale to 3072x2304 if you compare to the highest and non-native resolution on the rMBP.
Last edited:
You'd need 1600x1200 to be "retina" on the iPad mini at its current size.Have we defined the pixel density of such an hypothetical screen? or its diagonal size?
No, the former is actually totally distinct from "retina" qualifications. The definition of retina is purely based on pixel density dropping below the angular size threshold. "HiDPI" mode is a separate function of scaling.
In what way is that related to this subject?
Because that's how the rMBP works with non-native resolutions. The GPU renders at double resolution offscreen and then cuts that in half. This produces better results but obviously at a strong performance penalty, and it's still a vastly subpar experience.
rMBP highest non-native resolution: 1920x1200 (offscreen rendering @2x: 3840x2400).
Your proposed iPad mini resolution: 1536x1152. To achieve the "same solution" as the retina MacBook, that would be offscreen rendering @2x (3072x2304).
So by retina, you mean 'small enough pixels undistinguishable at the average distance use'.
That would be a lower pixel density at 7.9" than the retina 9.7" iPad.
I did not calculated but that's probably still in the good range for a smaller device as the mini.
Ok but that's a mistake to consider the only pixel density quality as suffisant.
The whole point of having retina screens is to use it with HiDPI mode.
retina discussion/definition, now answered
also, the sub-pixel rendering probably is the reason why the non-native resolutions work not so bad on the rMBPs, compared to how it would work on iOS without.
yes but no ... 1920x1200 x 2 -> 3840x2400
scaled down on a 2880x1800 pixel grid (75%)
1024x768 x 2 -> 2048x1536
scaled down on ... a 1536x1152 pixel grid (75%)
no, no, no. It was shortcut3d's proposed resolution.
I was only answering on a point of your answer to him.
Last edited:
I was not suggesting the exact same method Apple uses on the rMBP. I meant a similar method using the max retina resolution available and scaling down as you mention 75%.
No, it would be the same or higher, but definitely not lower.
15" rMBP = 220ppi
13" rMBP = 226
9.7" iPad = 264
4" iPhone = 326
1600x1200 (255ppi) is the lowest possible "retina" resolution for a 7.85" tablet, because the 264ppi @ 9.7" is actually overkill. Realistically though, I doubt they'd release a retina mini below 280ppi.
It's not a mistake. Pixel density and viewing distance are the only factors that make a display "retina". They happen to coincide with HiDPI modes of prior products, but they don't have to.
They could release a TV with exactly 4000x2500 resolution, which would be retina, but not a HiDPI mode of a resolution from a non-retina product, and it could be free to have an interface designed specifically for it. It would not necessarily need to use a 2000x1250 canvas. Retina displays tend to pixel-double for convenience, but that's not part of the definition.
Maybe I'm missing something, but that's not what you linked. That thread is about antialiasing and text rendering. But whatever, it's not really important.
Okay. Look closely at what you're doing.
You are doing a bunch of upscaling and offscreen rendering in order to wind up with a 1024x768 canvas. Your example is just upscaling a 1024x768 resolution onto a bigger canvas, which not only doesn't improve anything over the current mini, but actually adds scaling artifacts to it.
You are doing (canvas size) x2, scaled to fit (physical size). In your iPad example, you're only giving it a 1024x768 workspace.
my english might not be good enough,
but 255 ppi is a lower density of pixels for me compared to 264 ppi.
That's Apple, to my knowledge, that first used that term (at least, in their marketing, in 2010 for the iPhone 4, and it became a standard from that point)
As they defined it, it was 1. "pixels so small that you can't see them" 2. "each pixel is now subdivized in 4 pixels"
I agree 'retina', with its direct reference to the eyes, logically can be related to only the distance use and pixel size, and how human eyes interact with that. How you use it in software could be seen as distinct.
of course
I'm not saying it would give very good results as a final goal. Don't you read? I'm not saying this should be the way to go. You still don't seem to want to see the mistake you make in your analogy with the rMBP non-native resolution.
I send you to another topic where I tried to discuss on what I expect a retina mini in the future could/should be (back in august): https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1426836/
of course
just as you give only a 1920x1200 workspace on a 2880x1800 screen on the rMBP15.
I think your English is fine.
255 is lower than 264, yes...but 1536x1152 is only 244. It's not enough to be retina. 255 is the absolute lowest you could mathematically go at the iPad mini's size. As I said, I don't see anything below 280 realistically being in the picture from Apple's perspective. They would almost certainly not release a smaller screen with a lower pixel density and still call it retina.
The sole determinant of "retina" from their presentation is as follows:
Where "a" is 1 arcmin, "d" is the viewing distance, and "h" is the pixel size.
Right. How you use it in software is definitely distinct.
Because there isn't one. Running a 1536x1152 in the manner you describe gives you the exact same 1024x768 points that you currently have. The added pixels in your example are unused except to introduce scaling artifacts.
What is the point of having a 1024x768 workspace on a 1536x1152 display?
The only reason that 1920x1200 is desirable on the rMBP is because it is much more workspace than the 1440x900 normally available. In your example, you are creating gargantuan GPU requirements to achieve no increase in workspace and a decrease in sharpness and image fidelity.
err, I was only answering to your sentence: <You'd need 1600x1200 to be "retina" on the iPad mini at its current size.>
I might have been more clear by not saying 'that' and rather '1600x1200 [would] give'
Too lazy to make a screenshot, but I also remember Jobs showing some slides on the letter 'a' curves. With pixel doubling.
But yes ok, you are giving the right definition.
I just consider it has to be linked to how software use the screen to really qualify a screen as ‘retina' (the 1536x1152 screen would only be considered retina if used as 2x 768x576 - and definitely not at 75% of 2x 1024x768 –let alone the scaling artefacts– not more than 1024x768 as it is now)
None if that's all you do. Of course, i can only agree with that
But it ensures a lousy compatibility with old iPad apps (as iPhone apps could run at the iPad launch), if Apple first of all also offer to devs the possibility to adapt their UI for the new resolution (say, 2x 800x600).
Auto Layout in iOS 6 is for me a first step to this direction (see the just linked topic).
Last edited:
I think we will have the same choice next year.. i.e. Google Nexus device will continue to be sold below cost. Ipad mini will look over price by comparison. So you either value the ecosystem and buy an Ipad mini or buy one of the Nexus device. I don't see the competitive dynamic will change much. Google quest to drive Android device price as low as possible by selling Nexus device at a loss and Apple will continue to price their device at a level that will make them decent profit until user start walking enmass. Given the recent launch result of Iphone 5, Ipad 4, Ipad mini, Ipod touch etc. it seems Apple user are willing to pay higher price for Apple product but not too high. So Apple has a fine line to walk in pricing their product in the future. The only question is what will the rest of Android makers do. Will they leave the business because the price point of the Nexus device is too low? If we have only 2 to 3 Android device makers left, they may follow Amazon lead to develop their own store and stop calling their OS as Android and make money by selling the right to the search engine and other default services..
----------
And Android tablet apps is a good preview of what will happen to IOS apps if Apple adapt what you proposed. When Apple announce Ipad 3, they discussed in detail of the rational behind why the pick 2x resolution rather than some decimal multiple resolution. It does not look pretty If Apple pick 1.5x or 1.4x. Search for some old McRumor thread and you can find those dicussion.
Okay, now you've lost me. 1600x1200 is the absolute lowest possible resolution to call a 7.85" mini "retina". 1536x1152 falls short of that and technically cannot be "retina". That was the only point I was making with regard to the proposed resolution. In other words, even if there were no GPU or scaling artifact problems to contend with, that particular resolution is not high enough.
That's where the definition of "retina" disagrees. It does not care about canvas size at all. A 32" 720p HDTV is "retina" in most living rooms. No pixel doubling involved.
There would be no benefit to providing an 800x600 point canvas, either. The current mini works fine at 1024x768 points and it's not going to go backwards. With a 1536x1152 (or 1600x1200, or any other non-integer multiple), you'd have to give up a pixel-doubled HiDPI mode altogether and instead work directly with the native resolution. You'd still be able to have smooth text and finer image detail, you'd just have to go about it differently.
you said: <You'd need 1600x1200 to be "retina" on the iPad mini at its current size.>
I answered: <That would be a lower pixel density at 7.9" than the retina 9.7" iPad. >
I maybe should have been more clear: <[1600x1200] would [give] a lower pixel density at 7.9" than the retina 9.7" iPad>
Nothing more. Do not interpret more than i [tried to] say.
Well, nothing important. There is no contention at all on that part.
As well as an iPad mini is 'retina' if watched at a far enough distance.
Now, the OS and apps UIs are designed for a given [range of] distance.
If you're far enough from an iPad mini, the screen become 'retina' ... but you can't read/distinguish much on it (and well, of course, no more touch interaction too, but that's not the subject - just for the example).
But at the distance the software was designed for the user to interact with the hardware it's not 'retina'.
You can't separate the hardware from the software that will drive it.
Similarly, for example the nexus 7 can be only marginally better than the iPad mini (although the screen is 216 ppi): its resolution 800 px width imply any fixed width content displayed on its screen won't look better on it.
For example (in Portrait), a PDF will use almost as many pixels per character as on a mini. The line of text are constrained and have fixed length, you can't zoom in to use more pixels (or you'd cut lines). Then, holding at the same distance a mini and a N7 displaying a same PDF won't make things better on the N7: the higher pixel density made the screen smaller, and then, the text appear physically smaller. Holding the N7 closer such that it's a similar visual experience as with a mini, and pixels appears at the same size, you don't get any benefit of the higher pixel density.
Its screen is smaller in width, the only way to benefit of its higher pixel density over the iPad mini is to display less of the same datas on its screen (well, same thing can also be done on the mini, but its lower pixel density won't help much to make things appear as crisp, as pixels are larger and more visible ... unless you hold it farther).
Do you have a mini?
I received mine this monday. With all I knew or said about it, I still bought it. No regret at all, and I have strictly no plan to send it back. The 9.7" never made it for me, I always felt it awkward to use. The size of the mini is better for the kind of usage I will make of it.
Still, I can definitely say and maintain what I 'predicted' in the other thread. Text, though legible are not always comfortable, especially in Safari. My eyesight is good enough, i can live with the non-retina display but would gladly appreciate it, but that wouldn't be enough: text is too often too small. The concentration needed to close a tab, or tap the cross target to delete a search, and similar precise touch interactions, is distracting. And it's sometimes more miss than hit.
A UI for 132 ppi screen can't translate so perfectly on a 163 ppi screen, even more when it's a touch interaction with less precision than a trackpad/mouse cursor.
I wouldn't call going backwards having in the future a mini with a 264 ppi screen considered in software as a condensed 9.7" for UIs, displaying less content, but with everything displaying at the same size as on the 9.7".
You mean, you think Apple should treat the mini as a completely 3rd different device in its iOS line, and not more use iPad apps (adapted or not)?
Last edited:
I'm not going to lie, I didn't read a darn thing you typed, but Apple will not, and I'm willing to put all my money on this, release an ipad mini that REQUIRES scaling solutions
that is an utterly retarded technological and business decision.
that is an utterly retarded technological and business decision.
If 'you' is me, you indeed should have read, that is NOT what I'm saying. At all.
wasn't referring to you, but the fact that you guys are arguing about it is kind of shocking as well
Please, read better. That is not what I'm saying.
I'm talking about two iPad sizes, sharing screens of same pixel density, close enough in size/resolution, and apps UIs designed to adapt to the two different screen sizes. NO scaling involved at all (or only for compatibility with old iPad apps that would not be updated).
Only in response to your backing the assertion of a 1536x1152 "retina" mini. As I've said multiple times now, I expect a retina mini to carry a minimum of 280ppi. No matter, though, I'll just chalk it up to being lost in translation.
you said: <You'd need 1600x1200 to be "retina" on the iPad mini at its current size.>
Which is why the first sentence contradicts the second. An iPad mini is not retina at a normal viewing distance. A 32" HDTV is.
A retina MacBook is retina regardless of what effective resolution you run the display at. Whether you're running a 1440x900@2x mode, or 1920x1200, or 1680x1050, the retina distance range is exactly the same. The size of UI elements does not have any impact on the "retina" status.
Software has nothing to do with whether a display has a retina density or not. It just doesn't.
Every facet of the design is deliberate. The minimum touch target size is exactly the same as on the iPhone, which people use just fine. The iPad layout produces text and icons that are 20-25% larger than the on the iPhone 3GS (despite its identical density), which millions of people still use just fine. The UI is not "for" a 132ppi display or a 163ppi display. There are plenty of 1280x720 smartphones out there ranging in size from 4.3" to 5.5" using the exact same UI. There are plenty of tablets using the same 1280x800 resolution from 7" to 9" in size with the same UI. This is not a unique phenomenon.
It absolutely would be. You'd have half an iPad if everything were the same physical size as on the 9.7" model.
No. I think the retina iPad mini will be released when they can get a 2048x1536 display in the right package at the right price. I don't see the hurry to create some bizarre dead end product just to make the resolution queens happy. Any other resolution they would introduce would require it to be treated as a 3rd family.
Yes, iOS was designed to be retina on 2048x1536 screens at 264 ppi, not on a 1024x768@163ppi screen. And it defined the use distance.
And at the 2880x1800 native resolution, OS X would still be rendered in what you'd still consider as a retina screen?
You'd either have to use your rMBP with a magnifying lens à la Brazil to be able to read anything on screen, and then see no benefit with the higher pixel count other than more screen real-estate (but any bitmap or video would sure look as good as now at the actual normal use distance),
or you'd have your software to display everything larger to make it usable with naked eyes ... just as it has do now, in HiDPI mode or the other allowed resolutions.
'retina' is defined by pixel density and distance of use. It's the software that defines what is the distance of use.
The software lead to decide what would have to be the resolution, the size, and the distance of use. From that point, you have to find the way to build screens in the right range of pixel densities.
But you can't really compare TVs and retina screens on a computing device.
If I look at my HD TV at the distance of use of an iPhone, it's definitely not retina anymore. But the content for an HDTV is at a fixed size and designed to appear to the right size to the viewer. Then, indeed, the pixel density will define what is the right range of distance use to call it retina. But it supposes no data on screen will be displayed at a wrong size: a TV channel will not display text in too small font sizes, or you'd have to go closer to the screen to be able to read, and then see the pixels.
Well, it's all been debated, too much. My point of view about it is in the other thread linked before. I'm not gonna pollute this one more about it.
That's an opinion. Subjective.
I see no problem to trade quantity of datas displayed to gain comfort to use/read/interact with a mini tablet. Different sum of tradeoffs and benefits, as with every product.
And such a screen would be 61% of a 9.7" iPad, in term or screen surface, not 50 =)
yep ok, so you are in the 2048x1536 crowd.
mmh ... I'm still not convinced that in the actual state (and once/if 2048x1536) it is not already starting to create a 3rd family. Same apps sure work good enough on the iPad mini, but I maintain the difference in screen size necessarily imply two sets of different usages, with almost only inclusion today as apps were designed for 9.7" and are the same, and i guess only an intersection in the future.
Last edited: