4 ms·

I just unpacked mine. Looks gorgeous. Although, I can still perceive the individual pixels if I look close enough. This is what I expected, because I often hol

by Gring 15y ago

I just unpacked mine. Looks gorgeous. Although, I can still perceive the individual pixels if I look close enough. This is what I expected, because I often hold the iPad at about the same distance as an iPhone, and the iPad has still lower res (326 vs 264 ppi). It's not yet this "device that hides its technology in plain sight beyond any human capability and therefore appears magical". But it's very, very beautiful anyway. Here's hoping that Apple will someday produce a 3x display with 396ppi :-D

gauravk92 15y ago
They won't, because you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
- nodata 15y ago
  From ten inches (or less) away you can tell the difference.
- fdkz 15y ago
  A lot of people will be able to tell the difference. For example I routinely try to read pdf books on my iphone 4 ibooks (without zoom), but it's hard because there are not enough pixels! http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_ShootOut_1.htm http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_ShootOut_1.htm .. Apple’s definition of a “Retina Display” is actually for 20/20 Vision (defined as 1 arc-minute visual acuity). However, 20/20 Vision is just the legal definition of “Normal Vision,” which is at the lower end of true normal vision. There are in fact lots of people with much better than 20/20 Vision, and for almost everyone visual acuity is actually limited by blurring due to imperfections of the lens in the eye. The best human vision is about 20/10 Vision, twice as good as 20/20 Vision, and that is what corresponds to the true acuity of the Retina. So to be an actual “True Retina Display” a screen needs at least 573 ppi at 12 inches viewing distance or 458 ppi at 15 inches. The 326 ppi iPhone 4 is a 20/20 Vision display if it is viewed from 10.5 inches or more. ..
  - ugh 15y ago
    Apple doesn't do that kind of stuff. Most people will not be able to see the pixels (at their comfortable viewing distances). That’s good enough for them (also considering they are streets ahead of everyone else in the pixels department).
  - tedmiston 15y ago
    It's a marketing term. That's just being pedantic.
- Gring 15y ago
  Didn't I just say I can tell the difference? What's your point? This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!
  - ddlatham 15y ago
    No it isn't.
    - bronson 15y ago
      Downvoters need to watch Monty Python's Argument Clinic.
chi_h 15y ago
3x would cause antialiasing artifacts for apps with images optimized for 2x retina displays. Apple decided to wait for pixels to be 4x smaller before jumping to a higher resolution, so they must think these artifacts are unacceptable. Therefore, the logical next step is 4x displays with 528ppi :)
hahainternet 15y ago
I find this so impossible to believe. I have a 1280x800 tablet and even from a short distance I am unable to perceive individual pixels. I can see some element of jagged rendering on fonts and icons, but it is barely noticable even from up close. Could you please describe to us exactly what you perceive? I doubt very much that the rows between pixels are visible even with pixel bloom.
- ajross 15y ago
  There's a big spread to visual accuity. There are two big factors: receptor density on the retina and near-field focus ability. The former doesn't vary too much I'm told, but the latter can be 3-4x better in some people than others. I can focus reliably on a high contrast object at about 6" or so. Some people can apparently do it at 3-4". And of course it gets worse as we age. Far sighted adults have trouble reading at arms length, even.
  - hahainternet 15y ago
    I can certainly believe that. I'm a long way from perfect sighted, but I am apparently close to the average once corrected. The fact remains though that the pixel density is comparable to phones released a couple of years ago, and the distance between 'retina' and 'non-retina' is mere inches. It is the old audiophile argument I guess, we'll never know for sure without double blind testing. I would like to give that a trial, sit people at 10" from a black mask screen with a small rectangle in it, display a pure white image at the lowest brightness and see what people report.
    - vibrunazo 15y ago
      Gizmodo just made a simple blind test. Not a fully controlled double blind test, but still interesting: http://gizmodo.com/5894094/we-people-an-ipad-2-told-them-it-was-the-new-ipad-and-they-loved-it http://gizmodo.com/5894094/we-people-an-ipad-2-told-them-it-...
- ChuckMcM 15y ago
  So I've been comparing my ipad3 to my ipad1 (I didn't get an ipad2 because I only wanted the higher density screen) Back in 1999 I saw a technology demonstrator at IBM's Almaden facility in San Jose where they showed a 200 ppi LCD display. It blew me away. The scientist who worked on it talked about eye strain and how 200 ppi was the 'magic' spot where more thank 75% of the people stopped noticing the strain of making lines out of pixels. So after unpacking my ipad3 one of the first things I did was to download the Economist app (my favorite btw) and bring up the latest issue on both the ipad1 and ipad3. Side by side the difference is very visible, absolutely can distinguish between the ipad1 and 3 with p < 0.01 :-) More interestingly comparing the ipad3 version to the print magazine its clear that the ipad3 is pretty much identical from my eyes perspective (disclaimer I do wear glasses, no 20/10 vision here). Now if I could convince folks that send me catalogs to offer an ipad version I'll be in good shape.

by Gring 15y ago

gauravk92 15y ago

They won't, because you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

nodata 15y ago
From ten inches (or less) away you can tell the difference.
fdkz 15y ago
A lot of people will be able to tell the difference. For example I routinely try to read pdf books on my iphone 4 ibooks (without zoom), but it's hard because there are not enough pixels! http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_ShootOut_1.htm http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_ShootOut_1.htm .. Apple’s definition of a “Retina Display” is actually for 20/20 Vision (defined as 1 arc-minute visual acuity). However, 20/20 Vision is just the legal definition of “Normal Vision,” which is at the lower end of true normal vision. There are in fact lots of people with much better than 20/20 Vision, and for almost everyone visual acuity is actually limited by blurring due to imperfections of the lens in the eye. The best human vision is about 20/10 Vision, twice as good as 20/20 Vision, and that is what corresponds to the true acuity of the Retina. So to be an actual “True Retina Display” a screen needs at least 573 ppi at 12 inches viewing distance or 458 ppi at 15 inches. The 326 ppi iPhone 4 is a 20/20 Vision display if it is viewed from 10.5 inches or more. ..
- ugh 15y ago
  Apple doesn't do that kind of stuff. Most people will not be able to see the pixels (at their comfortable viewing distances). That’s good enough for them (also considering they are streets ahead of everyone else in the pixels department).
- tedmiston 15y ago
  It's a marketing term. That's just being pedantic.
Gring 15y ago
Didn't I just say I can tell the difference? What's your point? This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!
- ddlatham 15y ago
  No it isn't.
  - bronson 15y ago
    Downvoters need to watch Monty Python's Argument Clinic.

chi_h 15y ago

3x would cause antialiasing artifacts for apps with images optimized for 2x retina displays. Apple decided to wait for pixels to be 4x smaller before jumping to a higher resolution, so they must think these artifacts are unacceptable. Therefore, the logical next step is 4x displays with 528ppi :)

hahainternet 15y ago

I find this so impossible to believe. I have a 1280x800 tablet and even from a short distance I am unable to perceive individual pixels. I can see some element of jagged rendering on fonts and icons, but it is barely noticable even from up close. Could you please describe to us exactly what you perceive? I doubt very much that the rows between pixels are visible even with pixel bloom.

ajross 15y ago
There's a big spread to visual accuity. There are two big factors: receptor density on the retina and near-field focus ability. The former doesn't vary too much I'm told, but the latter can be 3-4x better in some people than others. I can focus reliably on a high contrast object at about 6" or so. Some people can apparently do it at 3-4". And of course it gets worse as we age. Far sighted adults have trouble reading at arms length, even.
- hahainternet 15y ago
  I can certainly believe that. I'm a long way from perfect sighted, but I am apparently close to the average once corrected. The fact remains though that the pixel density is comparable to phones released a couple of years ago, and the distance between 'retina' and 'non-retina' is mere inches. It is the old audiophile argument I guess, we'll never know for sure without double blind testing. I would like to give that a trial, sit people at 10" from a black mask screen with a small rectangle in it, display a pure white image at the lowest brightness and see what people report.
  - vibrunazo 15y ago
    Gizmodo just made a simple blind test. Not a fully controlled double blind test, but still interesting: http://gizmodo.com/5894094/we-people-an-ipad-2-told-them-it-was-the-new-ipad-and-they-loved-it http://gizmodo.com/5894094/we-people-an-ipad-2-told-them-it-...
ChuckMcM 15y ago
So I've been comparing my ipad3 to my ipad1 (I didn't get an ipad2 because I only wanted the higher density screen) Back in 1999 I saw a technology demonstrator at IBM's Almaden facility in San Jose where they showed a 200 ppi LCD display. It blew me away. The scientist who worked on it talked about eye strain and how 200 ppi was the 'magic' spot where more thank 75% of the people stopped noticing the strain of making lines out of pixels. So after unpacking my ipad3 one of the first things I did was to download the Economist app (my favorite btw) and bring up the latest issue on both the ipad1 and ipad3. Side by side the difference is very visible, absolutely can distinguish between the ipad1 and 3 with p < 0.01 :-) More interestingly comparing the ipad3 version to the print magazine its clear that the ipad3 is pretty much identical from my eyes perspective (disclaimer I do wear glasses, no 20/10 vision here). Now if I could convince folks that send me catalogs to offer an ipad version I'll be in good shape.