How big a deal would a retina iPad display be?

[GoSharks]

While I'll grant you that the coating matters, the differences between IPSes and TNs are far greater than just pixel sharpness at the film level and all of which contribute to picture definition. The difference between an iPod Touch and iPhone 4, for example, is striking and I have myself observed the difference by viewing medical images on both.

I was the one who explained the different technologies to the radiologist after he mentioned it but to him it acted completely as a blind test. He preferred the IPS-based iPad to his workstation TN despite the lower resolution and without any knowledge of LCD technologies.

Edit: To clarify, I am not talking about the dedicated medical workstations. Medical-grade displays are all IPS-based and for a very good reason. I am talking about the personal workstation TNs that doctors have on their desks.

So all you're saying is that a better screen technology is better... No news here, although I wouldn't classify TN as "fuzzy".

 

[PrayForDeath]

The resolution is doubled in each direction. The pixels are quadrupled.

I know this is all semantics, but I always thought resolution refers to the total number of pixels, ie 800x600, not just 800, or 600. So going from iPad 2 to retina would be quadrupling the resolution.

I mean, why do they call 960x540 qHD (quarter HD)? I know it's just a marketing term, but it would make more sense to call it half/semi HD if what you're saying is true.

 

[TheStu]

I know this is all semantics, but I always thought resolution refers to the total number of pixels, ie 800x600, not just 800, or 600. So going from iPad 2 to retina would be quadrupling the resolution.

I mean, why do they call 960x540 qHD (quarter HD)? I know it's just a marketing term, but it would make more sense to call it half/semi HD if what you're saying is true.

I hadn't really looked at it like that... i mean regardless, it is a stupidly high resolution display at that size (or really almost any size).

 

[Mr. President]

So all you're saying is that a better screen technology is better... No news here, although I wouldn't classify TN as "fuzzy".

Well, yes. Better screen technology is better and therefore more likely to benefit from a higher DPI. It's what I said in my post that you first quoted.

TNs may not be fuzzy like old TVs are fuzzy but they are fuzzier than IPSes in terms of grayscale and color reproduction. Dithering and FRC further add to a muddier image and is why I said that TNs may not benefit as much.

I'm otherwise not entirely sure what you're disagreeing with.

 

[GoSharks]

Well, yes. Better screen technology is better and therefore more likely to benefit from a higher DPI. It's what I said in my post that you first quoted.

TNs may not be fuzzy like old TVs are fuzzy but they are fuzzier than IPSes in terms of grayscale and color reproduction. Dithering and FRC further add to a muddier image and is why I said that TNs may not benefit as much.

I'm otherwise not entirely sure what you're disagreeing with.

I guess I just don't consider color reproduction to be associated with fuzzy-ness. Its always been a term for solely sharpness IME.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I know this is all semantics, but I always thought resolution refers to the total number of pixels, ie 800x600, not just 800, or 600. So going from iPad 2 to retina would be quadrupling the resolution.

I mean, why do they call 960x540 qHD (quarter HD)? I know it's just a marketing term, but it would make more sense to call it half/semi HD if what you're saying is true.

"Resolution" in the broad general sense, as I understand it, refers to the number of pixels in any given dimension, thus you get horizontal resolution and vertical resolution. It's usually written as "800x600" because it'd be a mouthful to say "width 800 by height 600". The way I understand it, "resolution" means both width and height, but not necessarily a multiplication of the both of them. Just like you pronounce 800x600 as "eight hundred by six hundred".

Just like when you ask about the dimensions of a box, it'd be 2' x 2' x 2'. Dimension by itself also ambiguously refers to either the width or height or depth of any object in 3D space.

As for why the naming convention says "quarter" instead of "half", that's because it's referring to a "standard", not a "resolution". Just like "VGA" as a term refers to a "standard" and not a resolution.

As a "standard", that means it can refer to either the pixel count, or the pixels in either dimensions, and many more.

But technically, when people say "double the resolution", it usually means "double each resolution" or "double the width and height", because "resolution" as a term still ambiguously refers to both the width and height of a particular "mode" or "standard".

QVGA vs VGA is more like "it's a quarter the size of this mode/standard". It doesn't necessarily mean "it's a quarter the resolution of this mode/standard".