I hold my phone and tablet the same distance from my eyes though. Dont most people?
exactly. I *could* hold my Nexus 7 further away, but if I was to do that, I might as well use my phone. It was just an excuse to give ipad the fabled Retina label.
exactly. I *could* hold my Nexus 7 further away, but if I was to do that, I might as well use my phone. It was just an excuse to give ipad the fabled Retina label.
That's a 7" tablet though. Remember the iPhone 5 has a 4" screen and the iPad has a 9.7" screen. That's quite a big difference. I definitely use my iPad further away than my iPhone. Having said that, I may well naturally use my iPad for things that are better suited to the bigger screen - I don't know.
It really isn't though. 2048x1536 is hardly low resolution. Yes, it's less than the Nexus 10, but it's still high. Professional reviews generally conclude that the iPad 3/4 and the Nexus 10 both have exceptional displays.
For a 9.7 inch display claiming to be "retina", it's not enough. The Nexus 10 is 2560×1600, so quite a difference.
For a 9.7 inch display claiming to be "retina", it's not enough. The Nexus 10 is 2560×1600, so quite a difference.
It's still well above what you would find on a standard laptop, for example. Yes, it's bettered by the Nexus 10, but it's still a very high resolution display that tends to receive excellent reviews and looks fantastic.
It's still well above what you would find on a standard laptop, for example. Yes, it's bettered by the Nexus 10, but it's still a very high resolution display that tends to receive excellent reviews and looks fantastic.
I'm not saying that it isn't an above average display. I am saying however, that it's still not good enough to be considered "retina".
I'm not saying that it isn't an above average display. I am saying however, that it's still not good enough to be considered "retina".
Well, originally you said it was low resolution for the screen size, which is the point I was contesting.
Interesting expert review here which, as well as giving the iPad 3's screen a very, very good rating (iPad 4 has the same screen, I think), discusses some of the marketing vs science around Apple's 'Retina' terminology.
If you consider the word dope rude, stay off the internet.
You over analyse things to be honest.
WHICH YOU CAN CHANGE!!!!
Learn to read.
'Isn't that over saturated' means it still is like most other peoples!
Your hard work
It was rude, but I won't lose any sleep over it.
Noting the contradiction there required virtually no analysis.
Plus it's a bit rich, considering all the over analysis and demand for mathematical exactness over the whole PPI / viewing distance / ability to see pixels thing.
Yes, you can change it, but that rather misses the point if you are saying talking about people preferring a vibrant over saturated screen.
The point is that vibrant = over saturated.
And not as you have suggested that not over saturated = washed out.
I was covering my bases, because I figured if I said it wasn't over saturated, you'd ask for specific figures to verify that.
To my eyes it doesn't look over saturated, but if you were to analyse the colour gamut, it may be slightly over saturated.
This article applies some maths to the retina-ness if different displays, and disagrees with you.
Look at an ipad 2 and ipad 3 side by side and you can clearly see the difference.
An interesting article but somewhat undone by its suggested viewing distances when referring to MacBooks. If you sit 26 inches away from a laptop, you're not going to be doing very much on it!
Again, you're relying on a completely extreme atypical example that is in no way representative of typical real world use to make your point.
It speaks volumes that you had to do that, rather than just say you could see the pixels during regular use.
well pixels are either invisible or they're not. If they're 'sort of invisible as long as you don't try too hard', it kinda defeats the marketing message doesn't it?
Surely they would just to say iPad/Pod/Phone aren't the only retina?
They cant though because Apple would sue them.
This is basically what pisses me off with the entire thing.
I think there's some middle ground here. My thoughts are basically this:
- Is Apple's 'Retina display' terminology based on something? Yes, it is. It's based on viewing distances and whether pixels are discernible, Obviously we can argue about typical viewing distances for different devices, but there is a basis for calling something Retina.
- Is Retina a marketing term? Absolutely. It isn't a cross-platform standard like HD, so other companies can't claim to have Retina displays. Of course, the term has become more and more common, so much so that review sites often talk about whether a rival company's display is Retina, even though it could never actually be called Retina.
- Is it utterly meaningless for Apple to say that only its devices have Retina displays? Yes and no. It's technically true, but only because the term is theirs! There are other devices that have equal or higher resolutions and PPI counts, and they are Retina in everything but name.
So, Retina isn't just made up, in that there is something behind it. But it's meaningless to say that only Apple devices have it and suggest that others don't measure up (as Apple are doing on their product page). The reason others don't have it is because it's an Apple term!
Surely they would just to say iPad/Pod/Phone aren't the only retina?
They cant though because Apple would sue them.
This is basically what pisses me off with the entire thing.
I don't think it's that big a deal.
There is nothing stopping them quoting the PPI, and saying the exact same thing that Apple says about what that PPI means for the sharpness of their screens.
Unless you actually think that people are that stupid not to figure that out for themselves.
I think there's some middle ground here. My thoughts are basically this:
- Is Apple's 'Retina display' terminology based on something? Yes, it is. It's based on viewing distances and whether pixels are discernible, Obviously we can argue about typical viewing distances for different devices, but there is a basis for calling something Retina.
- Is Retina a marketing term? Absolutely. It isn't a cross-platform standard like HD, so other companies can't claim to have Retina displays. Of course, the term has become more and more common, so much so that review sites often talk about whether a rival company's display is Retina, even though it could never actually be called Retina.
- Is it utterly meaningless for Apple to say that only its devices have Retina displays? Yes and no. It's technically true, but only because the term is theirs! There are other devices that have equal or higher resolutions and PPI counts, and they are Retina in everything but name.
So, Retina isn't just made up, in that there is something behind it. But it's meaningless to say that only Apple devices have it and suggest that others don't measure up (as Apple are doing on their product page). The reason others don't have it is because it's an Apple term!
Unless you actually think that people are that stupid not to figure that out for themselves.
Apple obviously think there are plenty of people too stupid to figure it out. (And to be fair, I agree, there probably are plenty
that will take their new marketing page at face value)
Comments
If you consider the word dope rude, stay off the internet.
You over analyse things to be honest.
WHICH YOU CAN CHANGE!!!!
Learn to read.
'Isn't that over saturated' means it still is like most other peoples!
Your hard work
exactly. I *could* hold my Nexus 7 further away, but if I was to do that, I might as well use my phone. It was just an excuse to give ipad the fabled Retina label.
What, like the worlds most popular camera....
Yeah, they don't ever make things up do they
That's a 7" tablet though. Remember the iPhone 5 has a 4" screen and the iPad has a 9.7" screen. That's quite a big difference. I definitely use my iPad further away than my iPhone. Having said that, I may well naturally use my iPad for things that are better suited to the bigger screen - I don't know.
For a 9.7 inch display claiming to be "retina", it's not enough. The Nexus 10 is 2560×1600, so quite a difference.
It's still well above what you would find on a standard laptop, for example. Yes, it's bettered by the Nexus 10, but it's still a very high resolution display that tends to receive excellent reviews and looks fantastic.
I'm not saying that it isn't an above average display. I am saying however, that it's still not good enough to be considered "retina".
Well, originally you said it was low resolution for the screen size, which is the point I was contesting.
Interesting expert review here which, as well as giving the iPad 3's screen a very, very good rating (iPad 4 has the same screen, I think), discusses some of the marketing vs science around Apple's 'Retina' terminology.
http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_ShootOut_1.htm
It was rude, but I won't lose any sleep over it.
Noting the contradiction there required virtually no analysis.
Plus it's a bit rich, considering all the over analysis and demand for mathematical exactness over the whole PPI / viewing distance / ability to see pixels thing.
Yes, you can change it, but that rather misses the point if you are saying talking about people preferring a vibrant over saturated screen.
The point is that vibrant = over saturated.
And not as you have suggested that not over saturated = washed out.
I was covering my bases, because I figured if I said it wasn't over saturated, you'd ask for specific figures to verify that.
To my eyes it doesn't look over saturated, but if you were to analyse the colour gamut, it may be slightly over saturated.
They didn't "just make up" the fact that a sufficiently high PPI will render individual pixels invisible.
This article applies some maths to the retina-ness if different displays, and disagrees with you.
Look at an ipad 2 and ipad 3 side by side and you can clearly see the difference.
Can another company claim they have retina displays? If not its a load of pointless marketing.
I don't know why they'd want to use the same monicker as Apple.
But obviously anyone can say the same as Apple say about their displays if the pixel density is sufficiently high.
An interesting article but somewhat undone by its suggested viewing distances when referring to MacBooks. If you sit 26 inches away from a laptop, you're not going to be doing very much on it!
Surely they would just to say iPad/Pod/Phone aren't the only retina?
They cant though because Apple would sue them.
This is basically what pisses me off with the entire thing.
I didn't think it had changed.
Or do you mean a different figure figure for the iPhone and iPad?
In which case it's been covered by the typical viewing distance of each device.
I really do feel like Ted trying to explaining to Dougal the difference between little cows, and cows that are far away.
Again, you're relying on a completely extreme atypical example that is in no way representative of typical real world use to make your point.
It speaks volumes that you had to do that, rather than just say you could see the pixels during regular use.
Yeah theres that rude thing again. :rolleyes:
Dont be so bloody patronising. I understand all the maths behind the entire argument. I disagree with the premise of it though.
well pixels are either invisible or they're not. If they're 'sort of invisible as long as you don't try too hard', it kinda defeats the marketing message doesn't it?
I think there's some middle ground here. My thoughts are basically this:
- Is Apple's 'Retina display' terminology based on something? Yes, it is. It's based on viewing distances and whether pixels are discernible, Obviously we can argue about typical viewing distances for different devices, but there is a basis for calling something Retina.
- Is Retina a marketing term? Absolutely. It isn't a cross-platform standard like HD, so other companies can't claim to have Retina displays. Of course, the term has become more and more common, so much so that review sites often talk about whether a rival company's display is Retina, even though it could never actually be called Retina.
- Is it utterly meaningless for Apple to say that only its devices have Retina displays? Yes and no. It's technically true, but only because the term is theirs! There are other devices that have equal or higher resolutions and PPI counts, and they are Retina in everything but name.
So, Retina isn't just made up, in that there is something behind it. But it's meaningless to say that only Apple devices have it and suggest that others don't measure up (as Apple are doing on their product page). The reason others don't have it is because it's an Apple term!
Who determines what the 'typical viewing distance' is? Ah right, that'd be Apple.
So the pixels aren't visible as long as they are close in colour to neighbouring ones?
I don't think it's that big a deal.
There is nothing stopping them quoting the PPI, and saying the exact same thing that Apple says about what that PPI means for the sharpness of their screens.
Unless you actually think that people are that stupid not to figure that out for themselves.
I agree with that entirely :eek:.
Lets call that middle ground
Apple obviously think there are plenty of people too stupid to figure it out. (And to be fair, I agree, there probably are plenty
that will take their new marketing page at face value)