Yep, when retina was announce i believe it needed to be 300ppi, but the Mini is below that.
I also believe its to do with the distance you must hold it from your eyes for it to be acceptable. As long as you follow these Apple guidelines in using your device the Mini is perfect.
:sigh:
It has nothing to do with following Apple guidelines.
The closer you are to a display, the higher the PPI needs to be in order for the individual pixels to be indistinguishable.
I feel like Ted explaining to Dougal the difference between small cows, and cows that are far away.
Its more like when people say 4:3 is best like on the mini now, then they bring out a wide screen version (like iphone 5), then suddenly thats the best.
I'm not reiterating what apple say here, but what has happened in the past where posters have changed their POV aligned entirely with Apple.
Choice? Choice is great. I love choice. Upgrades are great and happen all the time. But you dont care about upgrades do you? I didn't think you cared about spec, you only care about the end user exp?
So, you don't think that the 4.3 aspect is better, i feel I've explained why i think it is better, maybe you could explain why you think it isn't?
I would care for upgrades, I assume that as the OS is updated it will require more power. Do I think the spec of the iPad mini makes it a lesser machine than the nexus, well having tried both (side by side) I cannot see the difference, again maybe you can tell me different.
Non of us here know the real truth about why Apple stopped using Google Maps, it is all conjecture. There are rumours that their license was coming to an end, or that Google were making unreasonable demands in terms of ownership of data etc. However, the truth is we don't know, and to say they are big babies has no basis in fact. What we do know though is that Google's own offering on IOS was becoming woefully uncompetitive with their own Android version, and as a result Apple had to do something. We can debate whether they introduced their own product too soon but without knowing the facts behind the scenes none of us can pontificate on the matter.
What I'd heard, and is more plausible after looking at google's terms and conditions is that Apple wanted to offer their own app with turn-by-turn navigation.
Google's terms and conditions for third party use of their mapping data expressly forbids using google maps to provide this sort of navigation (though, of course, they themselves are allowed to!). So Apple had no choice but to come up with their own mapping solution.
It has nothing to do with following Apple guidelines.
The closer you are to a display, the higher the PPI needs to be in order for the individual pixels to be indistinguishable.
I feel like Ted explaining to Dougal the difference between small cows, and cows that are far away.
I say guidelines because it IS a grey area. No need to be so damn patronising with father ted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When the Apple marketing "retina" display came out i put a jaggy image on it with contrasting colours, none of this anti aliased crap and could see the bloody pixels! So its hardly black and white is it?! :rolleyes:
I say guidelines because it IS a grey area. No need to be so damn patronising with father ted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When the Apple marketing "retina" display came out i put a jaggy image on it with contrasting colours, none of this anti aliased crap and could see the bloody pixels! So its hardly black and white is it?! :rolleyes:
I guess sometimes you reap what you sow.
I think your line:
"I also believe its to do with the distance you must hold it from your eyes for it to be acceptable. As long as you follow these Apple guidelines in using your device the Mini is perfect."
Seemed pretty patronising to me.
I thought it was fairly black and white - the human eye typically cannot see individual pixels at a PPI of over 300 or so, at whatever the distance is.
Obviously the exact PPI and exact distance will depend on the individual, and if you go out of your way to create graphics to catch it out and look at it closely, then sure, you might see a pixel.
But for most regular people, not obsessed with finding fault with Apple will just use it, and not notice pixels.
A lot to do with removing some layer or other on the touch screen itself, and using full sRGB.
Turns out it can actually be measured, and I'm not imagining things just because I saw it on the Apple website.
Screen quality has never been about ppi until apple "invented" the retina display.
Now all you hear is "yeah just bought the new macbook with retina display" it's comical never once heard that they have bought said device with TFT screen
Obviously the exact PPI and exact distance will depend on the individual, and if you go out of your way to create graphics to catch it out and look at it closely, then sure, you might see a pixel.
But for most regular people, not obsessed with finding fault with Apple will just use it, and not notice pixels.
But you will concede that the mini provides a less precise 'user experience' that previous iphones/pads lacking the retina display. Or is apple not telling the truth when it claims retina is the optimal viewing experience?
Having personally owning an iPhone 4 for a couple of years i clearly had no problem with the technical side of the display. Only the marketing bullshit surrounding "Retina" and the way the room all gets excited at the seminars, and people on forums got excited (including DS at the time), about retina.
Hence why i set the test up.
Now because the Mini doesn't have retina, but the Nexus devices do, suddently DS forum users aren't fussed about retina any more like they were before - albeit we do have different posters here now a days compared to a couple of years ago.
I feel you guys have been dragged into a bit of history on DS tbh with Apple users. I am NOT classing you as fanboys/girls, but there were some diehards here. You seem to have taken the mantle from them.
"They" used to swear by everything done by apple, like even Finder being perfect when its a pile of crap. Then iTunes being perfect when its a pile of crap on Windows. Then lots of us on DS started working with Apple hardware and found out first hand that it isn't actually all that that they told us to watch on the keynote speeches.
Screen quality has never been about ppi until apple "invented" the retina display.
Now all you hear is "yeah just bought the new macbook with retina display" it's comical never once heard that they have bought said device with TFT screen
I'm still not getting this. So is PPI not a good measure?
I assume that is what people would say as that is the name of the device.
What I'd heard, and is more plausible after looking at google's terms and conditions is that Apple wanted to offer their own app with turn-by-turn navigation.
Google's terms and conditions for third party use of their mapping data expressly forbids using google maps to provide this sort of navigation (though, of course, they themselves are allowed to!). So Apple had no choice but to come up with their own mapping solution.
But you will concede that the mini provides a less precise 'user experience' that previous iphones/pads lacking the retina display. Or is apple not telling the truth when it claims retina is the optimal viewing experience?
My wife's iPad has retina display. That is the only apple device we have (she use to have an iPad 1). So I assume that when/if I get my iPad mini I should be able to notice the difference. I'll let use know how much impact it has on my user experience but if thought it was going to be a major issue, I wouldn't have asked for it in the first place.
HD is just as much a marketing term than "retina" is.
the resolution can be HD but the quality can still be crap.
HD is not a marketing term what are you talking about HD has to be a specific resolution to be classed as HD .. retina means nothing and can be anything that is just purely apple marketing.
Not saying a HD screen can't be crap but a better place to start than retina which means nothing
HD ready granted was a fudge but I thought even that had to be minimum 720 horizontal?
So your issue is that apple give it a name "retina"? A bit like all tv companies give their display (both software and hardware) branding.
I'm not sure about using the term HD. I didn't think that had a clear definition.
Apple invented retina because they were unable to provide bigger screens so they used the squash more pixels into a smaller screen and call it retina claiming it was they way to go.
Screen quality has never been about ppi until apple "invented" the retina display.
Now all you hear is "yeah just bought the new macbook with retina display" it's comical never once heard that they have bought said device with TFT screen
Of course there are other factors. No-one has ever said anything different. I said myself earlier that the iPhone 5 has a much better screen than the iPhone 4. But the PPI is certainly the important factor in terms of sharpness.
Apple invented retina because they were unable to provide bigger screens so they used the squash more pixels into a smaller screen and call it retina claiming it was they way to go.
just nonsense
There was nothing wrong with the direction of higher pixel density!
My problem with it is just tagging it with a stupid marketing term like its something new, when in fact it just means hi-res! Like apple consumers wouldn't know what hi-res meant.
Of course there are other factors. No-one has ever said anything different. I said myself earlier that the iPhone 5 has a much better screen than the iPhone 4. But the PPI is certainly the important factor in terms of sharpness.
You can get a fantastic ppi on any screen if you reduce it to 1 inch but not so important then is it
HD ready granted was a fudge but I thought even that had to be minimum 720 horizontal?
way off topic now, but no that is not correct.
HD is anything about 576P.
HD doesn't guarantee anything other than what is stated above. It's a marketing term like retina, viera, trinitron, or any other marketing term than any company uses.
Comments
My iPhone 4 and the new iPhone both have the same PPI, but the screen in the 5 is noticeably better than the 4.
For the technically inclined, you can read all about it here.
A lot to do with removing some layer or other on the touch screen itself, and using full sRGB.
Turns out it can actually be measured, and I'm not imagining things just because I saw it on the Apple website.
:sigh:
It has nothing to do with following Apple guidelines.
The closer you are to a display, the higher the PPI needs to be in order for the individual pixels to be indistinguishable.
I feel like Ted explaining to Dougal the difference between small cows, and cows that are far away.
So, you don't think that the 4.3 aspect is better, i feel I've explained why i think it is better, maybe you could explain why you think it isn't?
I would care for upgrades, I assume that as the OS is updated it will require more power. Do I think the spec of the iPad mini makes it a lesser machine than the nexus, well having tried both (side by side) I cannot see the difference, again maybe you can tell me different.
What I'd heard, and is more plausible after looking at google's terms and conditions is that Apple wanted to offer their own app with turn-by-turn navigation.
Google's terms and conditions for third party use of their mapping data expressly forbids using google maps to provide this sort of navigation (though, of course, they themselves are allowed to!). So Apple had no choice but to come up with their own mapping solution.
(Section 10.2(c) here: https://developers.google.com/maps/terms )
I say guidelines because it IS a grey area. No need to be so damn patronising with father ted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When the Apple marketing "retina" display came out i put a jaggy image on it with contrasting colours, none of this anti aliased crap and could see the bloody pixels! So its hardly black and white is it?! :rolleyes:
I guess sometimes you reap what you sow.
I think your line:
"I also believe its to do with the distance you must hold it from your eyes for it to be acceptable. As long as you follow these Apple guidelines in using your device the Mini is perfect."
Seemed pretty patronising to me.
I thought it was fairly black and white - the human eye typically cannot see individual pixels at a PPI of over 300 or so, at whatever the distance is.
Obviously the exact PPI and exact distance will depend on the individual, and if you go out of your way to create graphics to catch it out and look at it closely, then sure, you might see a pixel.
But for most regular people, not obsessed with finding fault with Apple will just use it, and not notice pixels.
Screen quality has never been about ppi until apple "invented" the retina display.
Now all you hear is "yeah just bought the new macbook with retina display" it's comical never once heard that they have bought said device with TFT screen
But you will concede that the mini provides a less precise 'user experience' that previous iphones/pads lacking the retina display. Or is apple not telling the truth when it claims retina is the optimal viewing experience?
Hence why i set the test up.
Now because the Mini doesn't have retina, but the Nexus devices do, suddently DS forum users aren't fussed about retina any more like they were before - albeit we do have different posters here now a days compared to a couple of years ago.
I feel you guys have been dragged into a bit of history on DS tbh with Apple users. I am NOT classing you as fanboys/girls, but there were some diehards here. You seem to have taken the mantle from them.
"They" used to swear by everything done by apple, like even Finder being perfect when its a pile of crap. Then iTunes being perfect when its a pile of crap on Windows. Then lots of us on DS started working with Apple hardware and found out first hand that it isn't actually all that that they told us to watch on the keynote speeches.
I'm still not getting this. So is PPI not a good measure?
I assume that is what people would say as that is the name of the device.
really is that so .... let's say it is then perhaps they could waited until it worked and given people a better 'user experience' perhaps
My wife's iPad has retina display. That is the only apple device we have (she use to have an iPad 1). So I assume that when/if I get my iPad mini I should be able to notice the difference. I'll let use know how much impact it has on my user experience but if thought it was going to be a major issue, I wouldn't have asked for it in the first place.
Do you not like answering questions? Is PPI a good measure (I assume it is as google use it)
Its a scientific measure of pixels in an area, and is actually a continuous measure unlike the meaningless "retina".
That's you get apple users to switch so they can understand
When apple switch to amoled which will happen they will stop bigging up ppi ... you heard it here first
My first judgement would always be resolution as in is it HD
HD is just as much a marketing term than "retina" is.
the resolution can be HD but the quality can still be crap.
So your issue is that apple give it a name "retina"? A bit like all tv companies give their display (both software and hardware) branding.
I'm not sure about using the term HD. I didn't think that had a clear definition.
Yep, especially a couple of years ago, when "HD ready" could mean anything above 576p, when you really needed 1080p to get the best out of blu-ray.
HD is not a marketing term what are you talking about HD has to be a specific resolution to be classed as HD .. retina means nothing and can be anything that is just purely apple marketing.
Not saying a HD screen can't be crap but a better place to start than retina which means nothing
HD ready granted was a fudge but I thought even that had to be minimum 720 horizontal?
Apple invented retina because they were unable to provide bigger screens so they used the squash more pixels into a smaller screen and call it retina claiming it was they way to go.
just nonsense
Of course there are other factors. No-one has ever said anything different. I said myself earlier that the iPhone 5 has a much better screen than the iPhone 4. But the PPI is certainly the important factor in terms of sharpness.
There was nothing wrong with the direction of higher pixel density!
My problem with it is just tagging it with a stupid marketing term like its something new, when in fact it just means hi-res! Like apple consumers wouldn't know what hi-res meant.
You can get a fantastic ppi on any screen if you reduce it to 1 inch but not so important then is it
way off topic now, but no that is not correct.
HD is anything about 576P.
HD doesn't guarantee anything other than what is stated above. It's a marketing term like retina, viera, trinitron, or any other marketing term than any company uses.