iPad Mini - Needs a damn retina display

[jpeyton]

Originally Posted by stlc8tr

The Nook HD is 1,440x900 while iPad retina is 2048x1536.

You do realize "retina" is just a made up trade name for a display of sufficient ppi that you can't resolve individual pixels?

On an iPhone, it's 324ppi on a 4" display. On an iPad 3, it's 264ppi on a 10" display. On a Nexus 10, it's 300ppi on a 10" display. On a Nook HD, it's 243ppi on a 7" display.

In all cases, it's a higher quality display than what Apple offered in the iPad Mini.

[TuxDave]

Originally Posted by sygyzy

What label? That you are a massive fan of Apple products? How is that a bad thing? You act as if it's not true. I don't know what to say.

You and I both know there's a unique meaning associated with calling someone a fanboy. Let's leave it at that and not try to play innocent.

[stlc8tr]

Originally Posted by jpeyton

You do realize "retina" is just a made up trade name for a display of sufficient ppi that you can't resolve individual pixels?

You do realize that a 7.85" 4:3AR 2048x1536 panel costs more than a 7" 16:10AR 1440x900 panel?

[MrX8503]

The problem is that if it gets retina, apple would have to upgrade everything. The battery would have to be bigger and the SoC would need to be an A6 or better.

With that in mind, the device would be thick as hell. I don't think we'll see retina mini until the next revision or so.

I would agree with you that it's hard going back to non retina.

[vshah]

Originally Posted by stlc8tr

You do realize that a 7.85" 4:3AR 2048x1536 panel costs more than a 7" 16:10AR 1440x900 panel?

you're missing the point. it wouldn't be 2048x1536. it would be something much lower than that, but closer to the range other 7" tablets are in.

[Zink]

Originally Posted by vshah

you're missing the point. it wouldn't be 2048x1536. it would be something much lower than that, but closer to the range other 7" tablets are in.

Apple has always used 2x pixel doubling when updating to Retina. Would the iOS and applications scale properly to an intermediate resolution?

[jiffylube1024]

I was salivating throughout the ipad mini announcement - 30%+ bigger display area than a nexus 7. As thin as a 4th gen ipod touch! Lighter than the nexus 7. I wanted one badly!

Them the two bombs dropped - 1024x768 display, $329 starting price.

To those people saying they're not sure why they've gotten so resolution snobby... Hmmmm.. Ya think Apple driving it in with marketing campaigns and demos of the new ipad and the Iphone since the 4 might have something to do with it? Apple spends 2 years convincing consumers that they "need" these high resolution displays, and then they release the mini with the resolution from the original ipad.

I know why they did it (it would add some weight and the resolution would require an A5x or a6, but nonetheless its an un-Apple move at an Apple price.

-----

The thickness/weight argument for the ipad mini is totally blown out proportion. "it would have to be twice as thick and way heavier" you say.

Here's what the retina display did to the ipad:

Ipad 2: 601g weight, 8.8mm thick.
Ipad 3: 652g weight, 9.4mm thick.


A retina display ipad mini is an inevitability; the question is: will it come in 6 months, 12 months or 18 months? When it comes out, doubtless, Apple will talk about how revolutionary it is, how we all need it, and "how did we ever live without it".

I really wanted an ipad mini, but Apple basically convinced me (successfully, I might add) that I want and need a high resolution display.

[Mopetar]

Originally Posted by vshah

you're missing the point. it wouldn't be 2048x1536. it would be something much lower than that, but closer to the range other 7" tablets are in.

No it wouldn't. How can you look at all of the products Apple has released and say that they wouldn't double the resolution?

Seriously, try to explain your reasoning.

[brian0831]

Originally Posted by Zink

Apple has always used 2x pixel doubling when updating to Retina. Would the iOS and applications scale properly to an intermediate resolution?

As long as the aspect ratio is the same then it should scale. The retina MacBook pro is not a 2x scaling I believe


They could've done something like 1600*1200 or similar IMO


But hey, if they gave people everything they want the first time around why would people buy their next iteration of the same product?

[TheStu]

Originally Posted by brian0831

As long as the aspect ratio is the same then it should scale. The retina MacBook pro is not a 2x scaling I believe


They could've done something like 1600*1200 or similar IMO


But hey, if they gave people everything they want the first time around why would people buy their next iteration of the same product?

The regular MBP is 1440*900, the rMBP is 2880*1800. If you switch to another effective resolution, it is first scaling it up to 2x and then scaling it down.

[vshah]

Originally Posted by Mopetar

No it wouldn't. How can you look at all of the products Apple has released and say that they wouldn't double the resolution?

Seriously, try to explain your reasoning.

I just don't see such a high res screen available in the required quantities for an iPad by next spring. ( I was referring to that timeframe that someone mentioned earlier). I don't doubt we'll see it eventually. I'd prefer if apple made iOS res independent like android.

[badb0y]

I don't think it will be ready by Spring I think it might be ready by the end of next year.

[brian0831]

Originally Posted by TheStu

The regular MBP is 1440*900, the rMBP is 2880*1800. If you switch to another effective resolution, it is first scaling it up to 2x and then scaling it down.

Thanks, which I guess is what they could've done to achieve better resolution on the iPad mini I would think

[TheStu]

Originally Posted by brian0831

Thanks, which I guess is what they could've done to achieve better resolution on the iPad mini I would think

I was contradicting you. If the user of an rMBP sets their display to 1920*1200 effective, it first draws the image at 3840*2400 and then scales it down to fit the 1880*1800 display.

That trick doesn't work if it is taking a 2048*1536 and shrinking it down to 1/4 size, 1024*768. That is why they maintain aspect ratios.

[cmdrdredd]

After using a screen that is a high resolution for its size (4"+ 720p or 10" 1080p) it is hard to go look at another device and use it. There is a noticeable difference and indeed should be standard practice to offer a higher PPI these days as the text and overall experience is much better.

Maybe some people just can't tell.

Originally Posted by stlc8tr

You do realize that a 7.85" 4:3AR 2048x1536 panel costs more than a 7" 16:10AR 1440x900 panel?

Yes but it's not that much more. Look at Samsung/Google with the Nexus 10. They have a 10" tablet with 2560x1600 resolution for $400. So for only $70 more than Apple's iPad Mini and cheaper than the regular iPad you get a better screen than both (by specs).

[brian0831]

Originally Posted by TheStu

I was contradicting you. If the user of an rMBP sets their display to 1920*1200 effective, it first draws the image at 3840*2400 and then scales it down to fit the 1880*1800 display.

That trick doesn't work if it is taking a 2048*1536 and shrinking it down to 1/4 size, 1024*768. That is why they maintain aspect ratios.

sorry if i'm not understanding, but can you explain how it doesn't work by rendering at 2048*1536, then downscale the final image to fit the physical resolution of, let's say, 1600*1200, which is still a 4:3 aspect ratio?

the text below from anand's macbook retina display review

If you select the 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1200 scaling modes, Apple actually renders the desktop at 2x the selected resolution (3360 x 2100 or 3840 x 2400, respectively), scales up the text and UI elements accordingly so they aren’t super tiny (backing scale factor = 2.0), and downscales the final image to fit on the 2880 x 1800 panel. The end result is you get a 3360 x 2100 desktop, with text and UI elements the size they would be on a 1680 x 1050 desktop, all without sacrificing much sharpness/crispness thanks to the massive supersampling. The resulting image isn’t as perfect as it would be at the default setting because you have to perform a floating point filter down to 2880 x 1800, but it’s still incredibly good.

[TheStu]

Originally Posted by brian0831

sorry if i'm not understanding, but can you explain how it doesn't work by rendering at 2048*1536, then downscale the final image to fit the physical resolution of, let's say, 1600*1200, which is still a 4:3 aspect ratio?

the text below from anand's macbook retina display review

If you select the 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1200 scaling modes, Apple actually renders the desktop at 2x the selected resolution (3360 x 2100 or 3840 x 2400, respectively), scales up the text and UI elements accordingly so they aren’t super tiny (backing scale factor = 2.0), and downscales the final image to fit on the 2880 x 1800 panel. The end result is you get a 3360 x 2100 desktop, with text and UI elements the size they would be on a 1680 x 1050 desktop, all without sacrificing much sharpness/crispness thanks to the massive supersampling. The resulting image isn’t as perfect as it would be at the default setting because you have to perform a floating point filter down to 2880 x 1800, but it’s still incredibly good.

The larger issue is that just because that is how the rMBP work doesn't mean that is how an iPad would work.

My understanding is that when people are designing for the iPad they are targeting a resolution of 1024*768 points (not pixels) which then gets rendered at either 1024*768 or 2048*1536. The image assets are either fit for the 10*7 display, or @2x for the 20*15 resolution. They can't add an extra resolution target in there, certainly not without changing some underlying parts of iOS.

To the best of my knowledge iOS isn't geared up for different resolutions.

[brian0831]

Originally Posted by TheStu

The larger issue is that just because that is how the rMBP work doesn't mean that is how an iPad would work.

My understanding is that when people are designing for the iPad they are targeting a resolution of 1024*768 points (not pixels) which then gets rendered at either 1024*768 or 2048*1536. The image assets are either fit for the 10*7 display, or @2x for the 20*15 resolution. They can't add an extra resolution target in there, certainly not without changing some underlying parts of iOS.

To the best of my knowledge iOS isn't geared up for different resolutions.

Obviously I don't truly know the answer to this, but if they have the software algorithm in rMBP using OSX to downscale a higher resolution image to a slightly lower resolution screen, it is likely possible to apply the same (or similar) algorithm in iOS to make this work the same way or in a slightly different way to fit an intermediate screen with the same 4:3 aspect ratio, since adjusting for aspect ratio would no longer be an issue.

I'm sure there're other questions as well, such as whether there was enough time to complete the iOS development required for such a task to fit it into iOS6 release, how much more battery capacity would be required to power such a screen in a smaller device, whether they can currently manufacture the A5X chips in 32nm to minimize its power requirements (or use an A6 chip altogether), or whether it makes sense from a business standpoint for them to fit such a screen in the first iteration of of iPad mini

but it's doubtful that it can't be done from a technology standpoint since apple already has a similar algorithm for this, and from a consumer standpoint a retina display iPad mini would be much more appealing than one without, especially if you're jumping from an iPad 3rd gen or if you're used to the display quality of iPhone4 onwards. the fact that its 1024x768 resolution is even worse than other 7 inch tablets out today doesn't help either

[Subyman]

I have both the mini and the ipad 3. I use the mini on the go and the ipad 3 at home. I use them both to develop on. The screen isn't as good as the iPad 3, but it certainly isn't a deal breaker. You have to go back to compromises though. I wouldn't read long novels on the iPad mini, that's for sure, but for websurfing and doing typical things its not a big deal.

[s44]

Pretty sure the Macbook rescaling is done in the GPU... having something like that constantly on is a drop at the laptop level but a killer at the phone/tablet level.

I understand the OP's sentiment, though - my Nexus broke last weekend and I've been on my old phone all week. How the hell did we survive on 4" WVGA!? Need moar pixels and more screen size...

[wirednuts]

if jobs was still alive, there is no way the mini would have came out with an inferior screen. nothing short of retina at this point, and likely it would have been better then retina

[TheStu]

Originally Posted by wirednuts

if jobs was still alive, there is no way the mini would have came out with an inferior screen. nothing short of retina at this point, and likely it would have been better then retina

/sarcasm??

[grkM3]

I like how apple can market anything and then put out crap that they made fun of before.The screen in the mini ipad is JUNK and apple is using there mind controlling marketing to sell there loyal buyers anything they want.

in 6 months they will give us a higher res ipad mini and then a little smaller mini nano ipad and then another mega mini micro nano RETINA ipad lmfoa




Infraction for trolling
It's not just this post, there's been a series of these. I don't see that a post like this adds much to the conversation aside from annoying people.
Moderator PM


How am I trolling when everyone in this thread hates the display of the iPad mini?

Ohh and for the people that didn't get the fun I poked at apple here is the parody from conan making fun of it!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2YC...e_gdata_player


Reduced to a warning
As I try to always warn people, I have pretty much no sense of humor. I am humor challenged. Think Data on ST: TNG, think Sheldon Cooper on Big Bang Theory. Think Mr. Spock. If you want to make a joke, please make it clearly a joke.

Moderator PM

[Phokus]

It's really unconscionable that apple could put such inferior crap at such a high price out there and people will buy it because they're too non-technical to understand that the screen is inferior to what's available out there.

[stlc8tr]

Originally Posted by cmdrdredd

Yes but it's not that much more. Look at Samsung/Google with the Nexus 10. They have a 10" tablet with 2560x1600 resolution for $400. So for only $70 more than Apple's iPad Mini and cheaper than the regular iPad you get a better screen than both (by specs).

I'm willing to bet that Google's margin on the Nexus 10 is considerably lower than Apple's iPad margins.

Anyway, the original premise under debate was whether or not Apple could sell a retina iPad Mini for $329 while maintaining their margins. If they could actually do this today, why in the world wouldn't they?

Originally Posted by jpeyton

I'm not saying you should buy a Nook HD (get a Nexus if you want Android), but what I am saying is that B&N can sell a 243ppi 7" tablet for $199. So I'm sure Apple could sell a 2xxppi tablet for $329 and keep their margins.