Daniel Hruska In a few days, the iPad mini will go on sale, which takes over the hardware from its little brother Air with the same specifications, including the display resolution. The display of the larger iPad reaches a density of 264 PPI (10 pixels/cm2), but by shrinking the display, the pixels themselves must shrink, increasing their pixel density. The density of the iPad mini with Retina display therefore stopped at 324 PPI (16 points/cm2), as it has been since the iPhone 4.
Now you will say that there is no need to further increase the resolution of such small displays. However, one may argue that competing companies offer higher density displays in their mobile devices. And I personally agree with them. I would even venture to say that even the competition does not offer what I would imagine for a perfect display. Now don't get me wrong. The displays on my iPhone 5 and iPad 3rd generation are a joy to look at, but that's not it.
Even though I'm blind as hell at a distance, up close they can focus my eyes perfectly. When I bring the iPhone to a distance of 30 cm from my eyes, the rounded edges of objects or fonts are not smooth, they are slightly jagged. When I zoom in a little more, about 20 cm, I see a grid between the pixels. I don't buy the marketing talk that from a normal distance the display will appear as a solid surface. That's not the case. I'll remind you again that the iPhone's display is great, but far from perfect.
Although it sounds incredible, the limit of the perfect human eye is 2190 PPI from a distance of 10 centimeters, when the extreme points of the pixel form an angle of 0,4 minutes on the cornea. Generally, however, an angle of one minute is recognized as the limit, which means a density of 876 PPI from 10 centimeters. In practice, we look at the device from a little more distance, so the "perfect" resolution will be 600 or more PPI. Marketing will certainly push the 528 PPI on the iPad Air as well.
Now we get to why 4k displays will play an important role. Whoever is the first to successfully manufacture and deliver such a display to mass-market devices will have a huge advantage over the competition. Pixels will be over for good. And how does this apply to the iPad, more specifically the iPad mini? Simply doubling the resolution to 4096 x 3112 pixels will be enough (it will actually be difficult), giving Apple a density of 648 PPI. Today it seems unreal, but three years ago could you imagine 2048 × 1536 pixels on a seven-inch display?
In the attached image, you can see a relative comparison of the 4k resolution compared to other currently used resolutions:
... it will be enough to double the resolution to 4096 × 3112... somehow I don't like this sentence, it must quadruple the current resolution :)
The number of pixels on individual pages (generally used here - resolution) will be doubled, the number of pixels overall will be quadrupled, right? :)
This is discussed all the time and everywhere. What is important is what is hidden behind the term resolution and in which units it is given. One thing is the general resolution, given in DPI or PPI - there it is not an area, but the number of points or pixels per unit of length - then we can talk about doubling the resolution. The second thing is the so-called resolution of the display (or something else), where the goal is to show how many points can be distinguished on the entire surface. Then we can talk about a fourfold increase in resolution. What is right? We could argue about this for a long time, so it is necessary to catch it in reverse - what is wrong and why? Both concepts of distinction have their justification, the only problem is that they are not sufficiently distinguishable in communication.
Twice. I'll follow Apple here, who renamed all graphics to "neco@2x.png" when switching to retina displays.
I'm still waiting for the retina iPod Classic. I probably won't make it :(
In my opinion, the solution is a bit different - you don't even have to increase the resolution (which can't be skipped with technological progress anyway) - but it would be ok if there was a solution to reduce the gaps between individual pixels - simply cram them together as much as possible. If this is not solved, then you can reduce the pixels to hallelujah.
See projectors not using LCD, but DLP. Even an 800×600 image is instantly viewable
It's definitely better to have a higher resolution, but I think it's mostly marketing, I have a 1k resolution on my iPad mini and I'm at ease, I know it's rough, but it doesn't cause me any wrinkles. If I want, I can look at 2k resolution on iPad air or iPhone 5. The problem is that it eats 50% more battery than 1k. Regardless of the fact that I don't have to have 12W on the battery, but only 5W and it says I can't charge from the PC USB. Simply, the 4k display is great, but at what price, the battery weighs more. So far, batteries have not made as much progress as displays. :((
A newer and finer display may not have a significantly higher consumption, even if it does - the important thing is how long the entire device lasts for its size - see the record life of the iPad Air. None of the users are interested in the consumption of the display itself. As for the charger – it doesn't matter what device I have, I always have just one charger. Only the limitation of charging from other sources is noticeable, but it may not even bother many users.
It is true that by optimizing the entire HW, lower consumption can be achieved. Not only the display but also the CPU. 64 bit was a well chosen path. Applications are much faster, the difference between A6 32 and A7 64 is visible, but it must be supported by applications and that will take some time, however, how else to increase the speed without increasing energy consumption, which is crucial for mobile devices, so you have to rewrite the SW at 64.
Mainly the display of the iPad Air is IGZO technology, which saved a lot of energy
I already have it at home, currently the best tablet on the market and with the best price, essentially a Note 3 tablet phone for 20. compared to this, it looks like a child's toy :))))
The author could probably work as a display tester, because his vision will most likely be brilliant (: I zoomed in on the iPhone and I almost got a headache and the grid didn't appear :)
Maybe you have the gridless model. :-) Only a few pieces were made, you're really lucky to have stumbled upon it. ;-)
if you are looking at the display from such a close distance, then I wonder how long your eyesight will last without glasses.. =D the grid can be seen if the contrast is more than half.. personally, I use a maximum of 1/4 and therefore nothing to observe it doesn't work.. this seems to me to have been made up.. and if he can't see the grid, then something else will be bothering him again..
And it's April already???
So someone who can see from 10 cm and clearly distinguish detail or even work in this way is a game of nature and an obvious compensation (defect) of vision in the distance.
This is absolute bullshit.
4K is not intended for such small displays at all, and if there are, it's really marketing nonsense. The resolution could be raised a little, but definitely not to 4K, even on an iPad 9,7
I completely agree with the author
I look forward to the time when apple doubles the resolution of its displays again
The discussion is not very surprising, but it was said that the higher resolution was pointless, as soon as the "retinas" were put on. So it just keeps repeating itself. The grid is still visible at a closer look (we can perceive the jaggedness even earlier), although one has to try and it is probably not used this close... But I ask, why can't we have displays where the grid is never visible at all? Maybe just because it simply works and it will mean absolute annihilation under all circumstances? Why does anyone see marketing behind everything? As part of progress, it's only logical that they have to ring off the "nets" once and for all, this now means getting them beyond the line of sight with the common eye, in all cases. As a bonus, you won't have to worry about defective pixels, because we simply won't see them anymore :)
And again, it's one thing with the other, because if we have finer displays in mobile phones, it means that we will also have finer displays in computers, as their production will become cheaper (they are still relatively expensive due to the surface area). So why pit opinions about useless things against each other?
So yeah, I'll put it in there. 99% of people don't see it, but it doesn't matter. I'll be the best and the numbers work wonders :) 5 out of 5 people I showed it to didn't even see a difference between iPad1 and iPad3 or didn't see a reason to change it. I was still rolling my eyes, but this is really bullshit or useless. Once you put it there, no one can do anything with it, just like with the retina.
I haven't posted a line in any internet discussion for several years. But your statement that 5 out of 5 people didn't know the difference between an ipad 1 and an ipad 3 became fatal for me and I simply have to respond to this nonsense: I am a long-term satisfied user of Apple and when the ipad 1 arrived and the majority of the modern population started buying it in droves, it left me cold, and that was precisely because of the resolution of the display, which did not seem to me the least bit suitable for reading text. Perhaps I don't have to emphasize that I thoroughly tried reading the text on the first generation iPad, I had it on loan for a few days... And then I returned it with "thanks, I don't want". Then the iPad 2 arrived, a lot of improvements, blah blah blah, but the display is still bad and that's why I kept resisting buying an iPad. Even at the introduction of the ipad 3, I considered it reasonable to buy a tablet from Apple, on which you can also clean.
I won't argue too much about whether the 5 people out of 5 to whom you showed iPads 1 and 3 didn't recognize them, whether the respondent sample was selected in a nursing home or in the queue at the ophthalmology department...
that's all
How can you claim it's nonsense when you weren't there? I assure you that they were not pensioners or people with glasses. Ordinary people don't care. You can read it anyway. It also bothers me where there are spots and dots and others don't know what I'm talking about. And I just wanted to point out that the difference they would discover there after a long time is not worth it for them to buy something new again. don't judge others by yourself. You could easily save such a long text :)
Well more stripes = more Adidas right? :-) A really ridiculous discussion - especially the man who wants to bring the pixels closer together...:-):-). The file gets me that everyone is chasing the resolution and at the same time totally dishonoring the backlight of the displays... You can't see it much on iPhones, but Samsung is really disgusting with new models - you can see it absolutely brutally on large televisions, where specifically Samsung over everything else that I even willing to accept it as good - he is able to make the backlight of the panel for 100k !!
And then what gets you? All manufacturers are trying to reduce the gaps between pixels. I'm sure you didn't think of that.
And we're going to connect it directly to the power plant, right? :D
First make a proper battery and then we can talk further.
I don't know, ... until now I thought my eyes were fine, but I guess not.. :-(
I have an iPhone 5 and despite all my efforts I could not see the jagged icons.. I put my phone 30cm from my eyes, then 20cm and nothing.. But the most interesting thing was when I tried to put it even closer.. Then I felt that the eyes would prefer to run somewhere behind the head... And besides, I couldn't focus them and I tried hard...
The only exception is the PDD SMS ticket application, which does not have it in a higher resolution.. Well, nothing, just my knowledge.. :-)
,,from 30 centimeters round edges of objects are slightly jagged,,
I actually laughed. You should probably see an eye doctor.