iPad Pro "Retina" Display...

[DynamicSausage]

Apologies if this has been discussed at length already, my first time venturing on this forum...

Anyway, I was browsing over the iPad Pro specs and I'm sure it's not great secret that 3D/Force Touch is missing and many people are upset about it, perhaps it will be on the next model, perhaps not but what's not quite so obvious is the slacking resolution.

Sure 2732x2048 sounds great and Apple even boast about it being the most on an iOS device but that actually translates to only 264ppi. Again, great but this is a very expensive flagship device and the current iPhones are 326ppi and 401ppi for the 6(S) and 6(S) Plus respectively.

Yes, you could argue that those devices also have 3D touch and are perhaps a generation or two ahead of the iPad, something which was shown when Touch ID waited another year for it's iPad debut. So... I scrolled back another few years and took another look at the iPhone 4 when we first saw Retina display; 326ppi.

Again, I apologise if I've already missed this discussion at length but if not... discuss. For me I could see past 3D Touch but I'll certainly be waiting for at LEAST a 2nd generation iPad Pro.

 

[Skylitfly]

What kind of expectations do you have? You expect something like 5K display on iPad just to surpass 300ppi? Thats crazy.

Retina is qualified by the ppi compared to the average distance of your eyes from the display. In short, larger the display the less ppi it needs. You wont be able to identify separete pixels on iPad Pro.

 

[DynamicSausage]

That's a reasonable point that you would need a fairly high resolution display to reach 300ppi but in all honesty I can see it coming, perhaps in a few years time. This is their "pro" model and in my eyes should have all the bells and whistles.

I'm glad you mentioned that though because you made me look towards the new retina iMacs that are barely over 200ppi. I'm starting to think that Apple are just putting the word "Retina" on everything, even if it's not by their original definition, although as you say, the further away you are, the less density you need.

 

[profets]

Isnt' the 9.7" iPad (since 3rd gen) also 264ppi?

 

[masotime]

"Retina" is Apple's subjective terminology to refer to any pixel density that, at a given viewing distance as determined by them, you can barely make out the pixels. The only exception to this has been the marketing terminology Retina HD, which really just means the iPhone 6/S+ has a display that can play 1080p (i.e. Full HD).

Having said that, I still wish the iPad Pro had a 4K class display, or 4096 x 3072 at a 4:3 ratio. This would effectively be 397 PPI, i.e. iPhone 6/6S+ class pixel density. 4K video is becoming more and more mainstream, and I'd really like an iPad that can play 4K video at the full resolution as recorded by my iPhone 6S/6S+.....

That's a reasonable point that you would need a fairly high resolution display to reach 300ppi but in all honesty I can see it coming, perhaps in a few years time. This is their "pro" model and in my eyes should have all the bells and whistles.

I'm glad you mentioned that though because you made me look towards the new retina iMacs that are barely over 200ppi. I'm starting to think that Apple are just putting the word "Retina" on everything, even if it's not by their original definition, although as you say, the further away you are, the less density you need.

 

[mtneer]

You are also looking at a first generation device. Apple has a good track record of making big jumps with second or third generation devices - think of the original iPhone, the first iPad and the first iPad Mini.

If I were considering an iPad Pro for my workflow, I would start looking at it maybe in 2017. Until then I will watch the early adopters spend their cash on what Apple gives them today.

 

[UltimateSyn]

I don't see where you're coming from on this one. 264ppi has been considered Retina on iPads since March 2012.

 

[Skylitfly]

That's a reasonable point that you would need a fairly high resolution display to reach 300ppi but in all honesty I can see it coming, perhaps in a few years time. This is their "pro" model and in my eyes should have all the bells and whistles.

I'm glad you mentioned that though because you made me look towards the new retina iMacs that are barely over 200ppi. I'm starting to think that Apple are just putting the word "Retina" on everything, even if it's not by their original definition, although as you say, the further away you are, the less density you need.

All the MacBooks and iMacs does indeed fill the requirements for being retina. Just like all the iPads and iPhones.

The original definition of Retina is that you won't be able to identify separate pixels from normal viewing distance. And I doubt you could do that. I can't see pixels in my 15" rMBP even thought it "only" has about 220ppi. And to be honest, the display looks sharper than my iPhone display despite having lower ppi. I just look at it further away.

 

[Kal-037]

For some reason Apple does it where the smaller display = more PPI, larger display = less PPI.
Unless you take a microscope or have good/great vision you will not notice the difference in pixel density for iPhone vs iPad. I myself can see the pixels on both but it's very, very subtle and hard, and kind of pointless. Sure it would be cool I guess if Apple upped the pixel count or made them closer somehow... to give the iPad a 4 or 5k display, but will it make the picture 100X better, or just a little? In my experience with 3k, 4k, and 5k... only large displays benefit from those higher resolutions. The smaller ones all look the same, I've looked at Samsung's, LG's and Apple's phones, and they all look just about the same to me, except some color differences.


let's say Apple makes a "Retina HD Plus" kind of display for the iPad Pro... aside from being able to watch some 4k content will you REALLY notice the difference. I think the color and black and whites may improve but the general picture quality will be negligible.

*note: I am not an expert on this particular subject, just giving my humble opinion.


Kal.

 

[masotime]

let's say Apple makes a "Retina HD Plus" kind of display for the iPad Pro... aside from being able to watch some 4k content will you REALLY notice the difference. I think the color and black and whites may improve but the general picture quality will be negligible.

This is very subjective, but for me I definitely notice the pixels on my iPad Air 2, and I can detect the increase in sharpness when I look at my iPad mini 4. I can also feel the difference in sharpness when contrasting my iPhone 6S with my iPhone 6S+.

I think anyone who feels the iPhone 6/S+ is sharper than the iPhone 6/S will definitely feel the difference in sharpness between the current iPad Pro's 260 PPI and a theoretical 4K iPad Pro's ~400PPI.

Having said that, I believe that the ratio of resultant performance / battery life loss in a more pixel-dense iPad versus the sharpness gain is still large enough that Apple made the decision not to switch. This may change when OLED and more efficient mobile graphics finally matures sufficiently for Apple to include the tech.

 

[DynamicSausage]

I don't see where you're coming from on this one. 264ppi has been considered Retina on iPads since March 2012.

The only reason I really picked up on it to be honest is because this is the iPad *PRO* and it's not exactly cheap. Not only do you kind of expect cutting edge but also they brag about the resolution on the website.

Maybe it's just me but I feel like this device, if no other, should be really making everything as good as it possibly could. Personally I see it as a typical Gen 1 cut corner with plans to increase it in future, time will tell.

 

[lugworm]

I don't see where you're coming from on this one. 264ppi has been considered Retina on iPads since March 2012.

"Considered retina" by Apple. Not by others.
If Apple say it's good enough then it must be good enough...
Don't question Apple.

 

[Smeaton1724]

The term retina was based on 300PPI for iPhones as above that resolution at the typical holding distance from the eye it apparently can't see the pixels, hence it is 'retina'. The iPad has never been more than 264 PPI and nobody holds an iPad like they hold an iPhone, so it is not like the iPad Pro is going backwards, it is the same.

As far as I'm aware retina is defined as not being able to see pixels at a normal viewing distance for the device, not a blanket everything must be 300PPI, which is what you appear to be assuming.

When it comes to the iPad Pro screen color reproduction/saturation I hope is up to par.

 

[DavesIknow]

You are also looking at a first generation device. Apple has a good track record of making big jumps with second or third generation devices - think of the original iPhone, the first iPad and the first iPad Mini.

If I were considering an iPad Pro for my workflow, I would start looking at it maybe in 2017. Until then I will watch the early adopters spend their cash on what Apple gives them today.

You will also see the early adopters enjoy an awesome device for two years while you wait until 2017...i am good with that

 

[BrennerM]

The more pixels, the more CPU/GPU power and battery required. I would wager that Apple considered many options for the Pro and this was their current 2015 compromise between pixels, weight, and cost. Obviously subject to change in future generations as technology improves, just like with the regular iPads and iPhones.

 

[mtneer]

You will also see the early adopters enjoy an awesome device for two years while you wait until 2017...i am good with that

Power to the first adopters! First to raise their heads over the trenches!

 

[UltimateSyn]

Power to the first adopters! First to raise their heads over the trenches!

Really? You think purchasing tablets is equivalent to warfare?

"Considered retina" by Apple. Not by others.
If Apple say it's good enough then it must be good enough...
Don't question Apple.

Err.. well, in terms of considering something Retina I'd say that Apple's opinion is the only one that matters, as they coined the term and use it in their marketing. That being said, I hope you had fun taking my post and running with it.

My point was that if you couldn't discern between pixels on a 264ppi tablet in 2012, why would that have changed? Has your vision gotten better in the last three years?
Personally, I think an increase to 300-400ppi would provide only a negligible increase in visible quality, and significant downgrades in battery life, smoothness of on-screen graphics, etc.

 

[Nausicaa]

Everything is a trade off, given the device already weighs 1.5 lbs and a higher resolution display would further cut into battery life or add weight, I'm perfectly satisfied with the PPI.

 

[tillsbury]

Don't forget that "retina" as a term doesn't refer only to the resolution or pixel density. It also refers to the OS's ability to upscale those elements that should be and render text and graphics at a higher resolution than the developer planned. This is the critical difference between "retina" on OSX and ipad, and Windows/Android devices that are just high resolution displays -- often very disappointingly so when applications run on them.

 

[mtneer]

Really? You think purchasing tablets is equivalent to warfare?

Err.. Not everything is to be taken with a literal interpretation. There are figures of speech.

 

[masotime]

I'm pretty sure Android apps and devices handle high DPI just fine. Perhaps what you are referring to is how Android apps often don't have nice tablet versions of the apps, where there's a lot of white space without actually making use of the larger physical screen space available.

Don't forget that "retina" as a term doesn't refer only to the resolution or pixel density. It also refers to the OS's ability to upscale those elements that should be and render text and graphics at a higher resolution than the developer planned. This is the critical difference between "retina" on OSX and ipad, and Windows/Android devices that are just high resolution displays -- often very disappointingly so when applications run on them.

 

[Branskins]

I have no doubt a 4K/5K will appear in the future, but I think we are far away from that. Pushing that many pixels in that small form factor is probably asking too much. Especially on a screen that requires the tech for the apple pencil and 3D Touch if it's added

 

[ApfelKuchen]

The only reason I really picked up on it to be honest is because this is the iPad *PRO* and it's not exactly cheap. Not only do you kind of expect cutting edge but also they brag about the resolution on the website.

Maybe it's just me but I feel like this device, if no other, should be really making everything as good as it possibly could. Personally I see it as a typical Gen 1 cut corner with plans to increase it in future, time will tell.

There's no such thing as "as good as it possibly could." Despite being at the high end of the price scale for mass-market consumer products, Apple does not (with one or two exceptions) produce "cost is no object" products.

Of course there are compromises. Apple would have a hard time selling these if they cost more than a MacBook. Their goal is closer to, "The best at its price," or "the best in its category," rather than "the best of all possible worlds." One thing they won't compromise is profit margin. That's something Wall Street would not forgive.

 

[0928001]

Doge

 

[UltimateSyn]

Err.. Not everything is to be taken with a literal interpretation. There are figures of speech.

There are also 'good' and 'bad' figures of speech.