Whats the big deal with retina display on iPad?

martinmsj said:
The amount of e-book reading I did on the kindle would me gouge my eyes out with a spoon if I did it on an iPad.
Click to expand...
Assuming you used black-on-white text, probably. Assuming you used the inverse, the difference is probably negligible with respect to eye fatigue. The iPad's backlight can be advantageous over an e-ink reader, too, if you do a good deal of reading in bed with a spouse. An e-ink reader requires that you use an external light; the iPad emits a very minimal amount of light if you use light-grey-on-black text, and won't disturb your spouse.

The difference in terms of which device makes for a more capable e-reader is mostly a matter of opinion.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Not when it's beyond what you can even see on such a small screen. The resolution isn't "better", it's outright ridiculous to where it has no functional benefit and actually is a detriment overall due to the increased requirements to render. I guess things need to be spelled out for some people, despite already having been stated clearly.
Click to expand...

Someone made a post in the main news thread about how "now they can have so much more shown on the screen" with this iPad and it's resolution. How the flying F would someone have the balls to say that. I can't imagine Visual Studio with all my code files showing at that resolution on a damn 9" screen.

wonderfield said:
Assuming you used black-on-white text, probably. Assuming you used the inverse, the difference is probably negligible with respect to eye fatigue. The iPad's backlight can be advantageous over an e-ink reader, too, if you do a good deal of reading in bed with a spouse. An e-ink reader requires that you use an external light; the iPad emits a very minimal amount of light if you use light-grey-on-black text, and won't disturb your spouse.

The difference in terms of which device makes for a more capable e-reader is mostly a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...


I don't buy it. Not with that shiny, relfective screen. The bane of my Macbook Pro 13" is that damn shiny, reflective screen. The lighting issue is trivial. I strain my eyes e-ink reader or lit iPad if I read it with no additional lighting such as a night lamp. (Especially from my WoW addict days playing in the dark.)
 
martinmsj said:
Someone made a post in the main news thread about how "now they can have so much more shown on the screen" with this iPad and it's resolution. How the flying F would someone have the balls to say that. I can't imagine Visual Studio with all my code files showing at that resolution on a damn 9" screen.
Click to expand...

There wont be more UI elements on screen than the old iPad. It will only make the images/text sharper.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Not when it's beyond what you can even see on such a small screen. The resolution isn't "better", it's outright ridiculous to where it has no functional benefit and actually is a detriment overall due to the increased requirements to render. I guess things need to be spelled out for some people, despite already having been stated clearly.
Click to expand...

An epic amount of sour grapes seems to burst forth when Apple makes a technology advance. Have you seen the devices you are attacking?

It is funny this started out by someone saying why are people praising it without seeing it.

So it is OK bash it with ridiculous and erroneous opinion without seeing it??

Read what people who actually did see/try it, say:
GDGT:
"So how IS the Retina Display on the new iPad?
Amazing. Seriously amazing.

The resolution is what brings it home though. Let me put it this way: when I pulled up a nice, high resolution photograph on the iPad 3rd-gen, I genuinely could not tell the difference between what I was seeing onscreen, and a nice, beautifully shot, well-printed, glossy photograph. It was seriously to that level.

It's the best display I've ever seen. Anywhere, period. And it makes a meaningful difference to the experience -- it's not just a spec."

What Mobile:
The screen upgrade is the biggest (and most useful) upgrade. As a first impression, this feels like a step up from VHS to DVD or Blu-ray – in fact, for some people, it will feel like you’ve put on a much needed pair of glasses.
Click to expand...

As far as performance:
Wired: ‘As for the new A5x processor -- which boasts dual-core CPU functionality, but a with quad-core graphics engine -- we found performance in Safari web browsing and Infinity Blade Dungeons to be blissfully zippy.’

Tech-Radar: ‘We spent a little time with the dreadfully named, but beautifully visual, Sky Gamblers Air Supremacy. You can swoop through the air in stunning visuals and the processor is powerful enough to manage it with not even a hint of stutter.’


What Mobile:
The A5X processor offers a massive speed boost to image editing and any scrolling functions, much like the iPhone 4S above the iPhone 3GS. Photos and galleries now load faster than and flicking between images to compare and edit the best one is instant. If you’re used to hanging around while big images re-size or take time to process effects, this is a revelation – we couldn’t see any pause in any editing process.
Click to expand...


So how about some real complaints instead of demonstrably false ones given what people who actually tried one are reporting.
 
Your post is a bunch of crap snowdog. The fact of the matter is that the iPad 3 could be running games of an entirely different graphical class if it weren't for the ultra-resolution display. I don't give a damn if it's Apple introducing the display or not--in fact, I applaud Apple for at least bringing IPS into the public eye. But resolution isn't the only display parameter people should be paying attention to, not by a long shot.

Keep throwing out "stunning visuals", "not a hint of stutter", and other anecdotal nonsense though.
 
wabbitseason said:
Keep throwing out "stunning visuals", "not a hint of stutter", and other anecdotal nonsense though.
Click to expand...

So actual first hand reports, from those who used it, that universally proclaim that this is the most amazing display they have seen, and that this is also the fastest iPad yet are "anecdotal nonsense".

But claims, from those who haven't seen it, that say the resolution is pointless and useless, and that it will be slower, are reliable?

What kind of fracked up nonsense is that?
 
I'll get a chub on when this resolution starts appearing in non Apple laptops, pads are nothing but expensive facebook machines. In an age when everything is becoming consolidated, this handicapped toy just seems silly to me.
 
wabbitseason said:
Your post is a bunch of crap snowdog. The fact of the matter is that the iPad 3 could be running games of an entirely different graphical class if it weren't for the ultra-resolution display. I don't give a damn if it's Apple introducing the display or not--in fact, I applaud Apple for at least bringing IPS into the public eye. But resolution isn't the only display parameter people should be paying attention to, not by a long shot.

Keep throwing out "stunning visuals", "not a hint of stutter", and other anecdotal nonsense though.
Click to expand...

So your basic point here is that you would rather see game running at low resolution with more detail, than see those same games running at a higher resolution and possibly less detail? If this is going to be an issue, the developers can develop for 1024x768 and still use higher detail. Scaling that up to fill the display should use almost 0 overhead (presuming they designed it properly, which Apple usually does).
 
Ticker305 said:
I'll get a chub on when this resolution starts appearing in non Apple laptops, pads are nothing but expensive facebook machines. In an age when everything is becoming consolidated, this handicapped toy just seems silly to me.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately PC laptop purchasers have done little but try to prove that they don't care about screen resolution and only care about the side. And Windows apps generally don't scale very well at all to high DPI displays.
 
ocellaris said:
So your basic point here is that you would rather see game running at low resolution with more detail, than see those same games running at a higher resolution and possibly less detail? If this is going to be an issue, the developers can develop for 1024x768 and still use higher detail. Scaling that up to fill the display should use almost 0 overhead (presuming they designed it properly, which Apple usually does).
Click to expand...

It isn't a simple matter of detail, turning up shadows, texture resolution, or some such minor gain. The hardware jump from iPad 2 to iPad 3 is gigantic. You could run an entirely better ENGINE on the iPad 3 if they'd kept the same resolution.

As to your point about scaling: non-native, full-screen content on an LCD is categorically awful. The only possible exception is running at 1/4 native resolution with the proper pixel mapping (4-->1)
 
martinmsj said:
I don't buy it.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a sales pitch. Both technologies have pros and cons — you pick the one that works best for your usage habits.

In my opinion, when you stack up the chips and compare, the iPad makes for as good an e-book reader as a Kindle.
 
wabbitseason said:
As to your point about scaling: non-native, full-screen content on an LCD is categorically awful. The only possible exception is running at 1/4 native resolution with the proper pixel mapping (4-->1)
Click to expand...

Which is oddly enough, EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.
 
quick question for all you naysayers on the screen:

what cell phones are you using? it's the same damn concept. more ppi, sharper text, sharper photos, sharper everything. All it is is rendering the image at a higher resolution without reducing the size. I don't here anyone bitching about the 1280X720 resolution on a Galaxy II, in fact you all lawd it. WTF. Seriously, set aside your hatred for apple and embrace higher quality screens. In 6 months Samsung will release theres with an even denser PPI and you'll be on the band wagon saying how much better the screen is.

Please get off you damn high horses. Tired of the ignorance
 
CrazyCuz2k said:
quick question for all you naysayers on the screen:

what cell phones are you using? it's the same damn concept. more ppi, sharper text, sharper photos, sharper everything. All it is is rendering the image at a higher resolution without reducing the size. I don't here anyone bitching about the 1280X720 resolution on a Galaxy II, in fact you all lawd it. WTF. Seriously, set aside your hatred for apple and embrace higher quality screens. In 6 months Samsung will release theres with an even denser PPI and you'll be on the band wagon saying how much better the screen is.

Please get off you damn high horses. Tired of the ignorance
Click to expand...

After reading this thread, I expect they are all using 320x480 display phones (for better battery life and higher detail graphics of course). If they have a phone with a better screen than that, i am sure they were super pissed about whatever ~800x480 display then ended up with, what a waste! You can't even tell the difference!

Also I've come to learn that a lot of people on this forum just hate tablets. No matter what companies do, they can easily find a way to bash any particular tablet as poorly designed and wasteful. Aside from that, a lot of people hate Apple *anything*, so it didn't matter what Apple did with the new iPad, people would be slamming on it. This new iPad is basically the perfect storm for people to flex their ignorance by declaring that Apple has now innovated TOO MUCH and did it wrong. This might be the first time I can think of where a company has gotten slammed for raising the bar and pushing technology forward.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I'll trust Anand when he says the new screen looks amazing. It sounds like it runs plenty fast too so I don't care if the extra pixels cost processing power.

The more important trade off to me is the necessary bigger battery and slightly increased weight to power the new screen. I wish they could have got the weight under a pound.
 
walkman said:
I'll trust Anand when he says the new screen looks amazing. It sounds like it runs plenty fast too so I don't care if the extra pixels cost processing power.

The more important trade off to me is the necessary bigger battery and slightly increased weight to power the new screen. I wish they could have got the weight under a pound.
Click to expand...

I love my kindle fire! Only was under 200 too.
 
ocellaris said:
So there is not functional benefit to having a high resolution phone either, since you hold those about the same distance from your eyes as most people hold tablets. Right?!?

Higher PPI displays clearly look better, I can't believe some people have a problem with this.
Click to expand...

the question is how is apple going to handle driving that display when it comes to games?

2D does not take miuch but 3d you nee a fairly powerful card to drive any type of quality 3d graphics

That display is 3,145,728 pixels each with 32bit color for a bandwidth of 100,663,296 bits just to draw the screen once multiply that by 60 to get 60fps and you are looking at a 754,974,730 bits a second to draw the display (32bit color is 24bit +8bit alpha).

Total bandwidth needed to just DRAW the display is 94,371,840 bytes (90MB) a second @ 60fps.....

I am sure one of you whom is more mathamatically inclined can figure out what the numbers are to drive a 3d game at that res but looking at the specs it seems unlikely that the power vr can really drive that display at it's native res when running 3D

The power VR chip used in the ipad 3is stuck on a 64bit bus so you have to take that bandwidth out of whatever it has available to do 3d....... even with GDDR5 you do not have a lot of bandwidth to start with
 
Last edited:
everything also depends on what you do with a tablet. My original ipad 1 has been used for email, pdfs, books, web browsing and watching movies during the times when taking out and using a laptop would be awkward or inconvenient. All of these things would work better with a nicer screen.

As for games, as an old PC gamer I consider the touchscreen interface to be terrible, so I simply have not played any games on the ipad.
 
I game on both my iPad and my pc. iPad for casual gaming, mostly tower defense. It's easier for me as I've gotten older for a 1 hour session on my iPad vs dedicating 3-4 hours on the pc. Especially after coming home from work where I've spent 8 hours in front of my work comp.

As for implementation, I imagine most developers will just render at 1024x768 and upscale to the higher res. for the angry birds type games, simple puzzle games, I don't imagine the higher res to be too taxing on the system. Very intrested in infinity blade dungeons. Hell it might come out before diablo iii
 
CrazyCuz2k said:
I game on both my iPad and my pc. iPad for casual gaming, mostly tower defense. It's easier for me as I've gotten older for a 1 hour session on my iPad vs dedicating 3-4 hours on the pc. Especially after coming home from work where I've spent 8 hours in front of my work comp.
Click to expand...

I know how exactly how you feel. That's the only reason I play this free game on my iPhone (Popcap Bejeweled) during the week. I can take it out quickly, play it quickly for a minute break, then put it away. Playing a game on my PC requires me to sit in front of it, and it already feels like work. I had a nintendo DS which I loved but can't take it out at work as often.

Besides Web Viewing in bed without taking out the notebook, I really can't see myself buying an iPad. Don't get me wrong, I like that it looks much sharper, I just can't justify it's price for the limited casual media consumption. I tried rationalizing it for work but can't come up with a good enough reason.
 
The iPad is one of those things you paradoxically have to own to understand why you'd want to own it.

Much of it is just that it's more convenient a lot of the time. If I want to curl up on the couch to browse the web or play a quick game, the iPad does that faster. It's easier for checking the weather. I have a Sonos audio system, and it's a lot easier to flip open the iPad and start playing than to wake a computer, load the app, and steer that way.

There's also something nice about having a computing device that has a screen that large but is still much more portable and longer-lasting than a netbook. Especially now that it has a display that may well be higher resolution than that on your desktop.
 
martinmsj said:
Playing a game on my PC requires me to sit in front of it, and it already feels like work.
Click to expand...
i can't watch tv because i have to sit in front of it and it feels like work
i can't get out of bed because i have to get up and it feels like work
i don't think you belong to this forum any longer :<
 
Last edited:
PeeWeePee said:
i can't watch tv because i have to sit in front of it and it feels like work
i can't get out of bed because i have to get up and it feels like work
i don't think you belong to this forum any longer :<
Click to expand...

Woosh, there goes the point sailing far over your head.

Form factor drastically changes usage and enables activities you wouldn't otherwise do, despite them being technically possible.

I don't have a tablet, but I had an Palm Pilot years ago and a couple of months ago, I picked up an e-reader.

I read lots of novels on my Palm Pilot, then it broke, and I read ZERO novels on my PC in the 10 years without a small device.

Now I have an e-reader and again I am reading novels, about 1/week. (10 so far in two months).

I would never read a novel sitting at my desk on my PC because it isn't that comfortable and it does feel like work.

But with a PDA/ereader/Tablet I can crash on the couch, or fully reclined easy chair, and relax and read. It is a totally different experience that changes reading from a chore, to a joy.

The same can apply to playing a casual game and it really shouldn't be hard to figure that out.
 
CrazyCuz2k said:
quick question for all you naysayers on the screen:

what cell phones are you using? it's the same damn concept. more ppi, sharper text, sharper photos, sharper everything. All it is is rendering the image at a higher resolution without reducing the size. I don't here anyone bitching about the 1280X720 resolution on a Galaxy II, in fact you all lawd it. WTF. Seriously, set aside your hatred for apple and embrace higher quality screens. In 6 months Samsung will release theres with an even denser PPI and you'll be on the band wagon saying how much better the screen is.

Please get off you damn high horses. Tired of the ignorance
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a minus (and the types of games for iOS still aren't stressing it enough for the performance hit to be noticeable), but I don't think it's a particularly big plus. Tech journalists rave, but tech journalists are also mostly sheep.

It's similar to the situation for audiophiles. There is a difference, but it's not something you'll notice or care about until you see the better version. Just as they did for the iPad 1, 3, iPhone 3 and 4, when the iPad 4 comes out we'll hear about how it has perfect readability and how you can't see the pixels. Some people, especially graphic designers, can but I think most people are just talking out of their ass, or they can only see the difference. If you took away their iPads for a week and at the end of the week, gave them an iPad 2 in an iPad 3 box, they'd believe it.

Like I said originally, it's not a negative but there's many other areas they could've improved, which they didn't. I just got a TP and the fact that I can read it outdoors is a much bigger plus than a resolution change would be.
 
So, effectively, what you're saying is that, in a blind test, users would be unable to tell the difference between the display in the new iPad versus the display in the iPad 2? Is this your assertion?
 
Snowdog said:
An epic amount of sour grapes seems to burst forth when Apple makes a technology advance. Have you seen the devices you are attacking?

It is funny this started out by someone saying why are people praising it without seeing it.

So it is OK bash it with ridiculous and erroneous opinion without seeing it??

Read what people who actually did see/try it, say:


As far as performance:



So how about some real complaints instead of demonstrably false ones given what people who actually tried one are reporting.
Click to expand...

Your quotes mean nothing. None of them say that the new iPad is faster than the iPad 2. Just that the iPad 3 is fast.
You can't double the resolution without adding the power to drive that resolution. The new chip, battery, ram is all there to make up for the higher resolution.

I don't expect the 3 at it's native resolution to run any faster than the 2. I'm sure it's just as fast as the 2 though.

I have one on order so i'll be able to compare myself and let you know.
 
What's the big deal with the ipad? Ihave to give Apple marketing credit, they really know how to make their fans think they need something they probably don't in reality, but that's the magic of Apple marketing at work. You gotta love how they announced the new A5X processor with quad core graphics to confuze the less intelligent shoppers. it's the same processor with upgraded graphics.
 
Did you "need" any of the consumer products listed in your signature, or did you just want them?
 
wonderfield said:
Did you "need" any of the consumer products listed in your signature, or did you just want them?
Click to expand...

I sold that stuff in my sig because I didn't need them. Hardware from 7 years ago is more than adequate for my needs. I ended up buying guns since I enjoy them more and they hold their value better. looking to buy an AR next or maybe a mini 14 if I find one cheap enough.
 
Harry1969 said:
I sold that stuff in my sig because I didn't need them. Hardware from 7 years ago is more than adequate for my needs. I ended up buying guns since I enjoy them more and they hold their value better. looking to buy an AR next or maybe a mini 14 if I find one cheap enough.
Click to expand...

Your preference is different than mine, therefore you are right?
 
Harry1969 said:
What's the big deal with the ipad? Ihave to give Apple marketing credit, they really know how to make their fans think they need something they probably don't in reality, but that's the magic of Apple marketing at work. You gotta love how they announced the new A5X processor with quad core graphics to confuze the less intelligent shoppers. it's the same processor with upgraded graphics.
Click to expand...

Harry1969 said:
I sold that stuff in my sig because I didn't need them. Hardware from 7 years ago is more than adequate for my needs. I ended up buying guns since I enjoy them more and they hold their value better. looking to buy an AR next or maybe a mini 14 if I find one cheap enough.
Click to expand...

What's the big deal with the guns? I have to give gun makers marketing credit, they really know how to make their fans think they need something they probably don't in reality, but that's the magic of fire arms marketing at work. You gotta love how they announced another new purely cosmetic AR-15 addon that no one needs to confuse the less intelligent shoppers. It's the same gun design and they just keep selling it over and over.
 
I spent 4 years in the army. I hate rifles. I've spent way too many hours cleaning it, making sure it would pass inspection. I think I still have nightmares of being sent back because the white q-tip had a bit of carbon residue in the chamber.
 
To all those who are asserting that the difference is barely noticeable (or anything along those lines)... have you had your eyes checked recently? To me there's a night and day difference between the pixel densities of the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 - and everyone else I know who's made the switch feels the same way. I expect the iPad 3's display to have a similarly dramatic improvement. As it stands now, I can barely stand using an iPad 2 because the text rendition looks so crappy compared to the iPhone 4 and 4S.

Sure there are other factors that are important in a display- contrast ratio, response time, refresh rate, etc... but resolution/pixel density has been neglected for a while. I don't really understand why you guys are so set against improvements. I personally am really hoping that 200+ ppi desktop monitors come out soon.
 
wonderfield said:
So, effectively, what you're saying is that, in a blind test, users would be unable to tell the difference between the display in the new iPad versus the display in the iPad 2? Is this your assertion?
Click to expand...

As long as they're not compared side by side, yes. The larger point is that the resolution, when seen alone, is only a marginal upgrade for most people. It only becomes an important upgrade to them when they see it in comparison to something inferior.

That's why I compared it to the audiophile situation. Ignorance is often bliss, and while the screen is indeed better, it may not be discernibly better for most of the things that most people do with it. The knowledge that it's better may actually be the most important part. I don't think anyone seriously has trouble reading the NYTimes or watching videos on an iPad 2 because of the PPI, especially when the font portion is already exceeding what most newspapers use.

Case in point, http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011...en-is-as-good-as-iphones-despite-lower-specs/
 
Last edited:
TerraPhantm said:
To me there's a night and day difference between the pixel densities of the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 - and everyone else I know who's made the switch feels the same way. I expect the iPad 3's display to have a similarly dramatic improvement.
Click to expand...

Actually I expect for most, the difference will be more dramatic than 3GS vs iPhone 4.

Playing around with an older iPhone/Touch, I really didn't notice pixel visibility from it's 160dpi. But I admit I wasn't looking for it. Under the same conditions, I easily notice the pixels in a 132dpi iPad. The iPad simply needs the improvement more, so it will be more dramatic.
 
Jaerb4 said:
I don't think anyone seriously has trouble reading the NYTimes or watching videos on an iPad 2 because of the PPI
Click to expand...
"Trouble"? No, probably not. It's not always one's goal with a product to merely eliminate "troubles", however. Improvements can be witnessed that are simply "nicer". They make the product better, but not because they necessarily eliminate problems.

Few would have "trouble" eating a plain, unadorned hot dog, but most would prefer it to have a few condiments. The Retina display is mostly ketchup to the iPad 2's plain, ordinary display.
 
No, it's a gourmet ketchup from Whole Foods instead of Heinz.

It's a very marginal improvement in functionality for most of the things that most people do, but it carries status as well. I think they could've done other things to make even more substantial improvements. Which goes along with the topic of this thread. It's an improvement, not a big deal though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top