Retina Display Already Planned for iPad Mini 2

[dxwarlock]

I wasn't pointing out that the PPI didn't match, I was pointing out that he wanted a 'retina display' monitor.

Which by its definition of what they say falls into a 'retina display qualifications' most monitors over $250 meets it.
HE should have asked "when can I get a monitor with that PPI?" not "when can I get one that meets what is needed to be called a retina display.

So I was answering the question solely based on the requirements for it to qualify as retina.
My main screen is 27" at 2560 x 1440 (CROSSOVER 27Q LED)
And unless I get close enough to almost touch the screen with my nose, I cant see individual pixels..so that falls into what could be branded as 'retina' by apple. and it was only $300.

 

[maestintaolius]

[citation][nom]anonymous_user[/nom]Would you mind sharing a link to the so called "decent monitor"? I don't think there's any displays that have such a high PPI. Heres some examples from Newegg:27" monitor, 2560 x 1440, PPI approx. 109. 21.5" monitor, 1920 x 1080, PPI approx. 102.8.9" monitor, 1024 x 600, PPI approx. 133.None of them even reach half the PPI of the display on Apple's iPad mini.[/citation]
You also don't hold a monitor as close to your face as you do a tablet. Unless you sit way too close or have abnormally long arms, of course.

 

[senupe]

[citation][nom]dxwarlock[/nom]You can buy one now..its called a "decent monitor". Just because apple slaps a loose buzzword term they made up onto a display doesn't mean they are the only one that make things at that PPI.Retina display literally means "to have a high enough pixel density that the human eye is unable to notice pixelation at a typical viewing distance."They have no 'minimum DPI or PPI it must meet, or pixel size or gapping..its all based on a "vague assumption of 'I think its good enough to call it that'I fail to see how they can classify anything as 'retina' display using such an arbitrary definition, or at least boast about it as if its a 'technically definable and measurable standard'. Its like trying to say a CPU cooler is 'silent' because it doesn't put out enough sound for the human ear to hear in an average noise filled room. Its not silent, its quiet. Only way its any form of silent is someone goes "I cant hear it its silent' when someone else can go "no no, I can hear the hiss of it a bit on mine at home". So the seconds guys HOUSE isnt quiet enough for it to be labeled silent? So with retina display, its the same. Maybe my viewing distance is different, and my eyes better..does that mean if I can see a pixel, MY eyes are faulty, and not the label they put on it? Why retina is nothing more than a buzzword that means squat for technical specs.[/citation]

You Mr. Genious should read more, this it's why it's called "Retina" wich it's a pretty clever thing once you understand the physics behind it: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/

 

[eddieroolz]

Er, 493ppi...

 

[dxwarlock]

[citation][nom]senupe[/nom]You Mr. Genious should read more, this it's why it's called "Retina" wich it's a pretty clever thing once you understand the physics behind it: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ [...] esolution/[/citation]
Thanks for pointing to an article that has 1 paragraph talking about retina, then 6 explaining what a pixel and resolution is vs what steve jobs claims...I read the whole thing, and still failed to see some hard specs of what makes something a retina, as a matter of fact all it did was prove that in the article itself without hard specs, it turns into 2 guys arguing over what 'a human eye can see'.

I was basing my original argument off that very idea that its the distance away vs PPI that makes monitors needs lower pixel density to still be called 'retina'.

IF you can point me to a specification where the list what the minimum actual specs required for retina is, I will change my mind.
But lets use this arbitrary and useless 'gauge' to figure out the PPI a monitor needs to be 'retina'.....if you want to go that route.

They state pixels cant be more than 0.0021 inches at 12", this is going off a 'handheld device distance'.

So convert that to desktop monitor distance, and then the equation is different..since double distance needed, quads the area needed to be covered by the pixel, to qualify. And the angle arc between a set distance is doubled both ways per doubled distance (like how a 2x2 sheet needs 4 1x1 sheets to cover it..so powers of 4.

So at 2 feet, it would be 0.0081.. 2 1/2 feet would be 0.0126. So again...using terms like 'retina' is totally objective to how far you are from it.

To claim a monitor needs to be 300+ PPI is erroneous using the SAME formula that apple uses to back up it's fluff claim. it would only need to be a PPI 80 or higher(that's 0.0125 by the math) to fit the 2 1/2 feet distance. or around 110 to be a 'retina' from 2 feet. So a 24" 1920x1080 monitor is MORE than high enough to be "retina" from 2 feet away.

Im only using the very math put forth by jobs himself claiming the '300 PPI at a distance of one foot" trying to explain what retina was...to show a monitor can be one with lower PPI than a hand device and still be 'retina' quality.

NOW do you see why I say its a useless gauge of quality? its labeling hardware 'specs' based on how far away a person is, and if they have average eyesight. Its literally going "yep looks smooth from this distance to me"

 

[Camikazi]

[citation][nom]anonymous_user[/nom]Would you mind sharing a link to the so called "decent monitor"? I don't think there's any displays that have such a high PPI. Heres some examples from Newegg:27" monitor, 2560 x 1440, PPI approx. 109. 21.5" monitor, 1920 x 1080, PPI approx. 102.8.9" monitor, 1024 x 600, PPI approx. 133.None of them even reach half the PPI of the display on Apple's iPad mini.[/citation]
You don't seem to understand what Apple means by Retina, it isn't a set number but it is a number based on the size of the screen and the average distance you are likely to be from the screen when looking at it. A larger screen that is farther away (monitor or TV) doesn't need as high a density to be considered retina (or the point at which you can't see the pixels) like a smaller screen that is always closer to your face would.

 

[Cons29]

retina is just a buzzword, sure it has a principle behind it but nothing special, it's not like they are the only one that can do it. just pop in some high pixel density screen, high enough for the naked eye not to see jaggies and things like that.

 

[john_4]

[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]Where is my Retina LCD for my desktop?[/citation]
The Macbook Pro(s) have it, buy an Apple.

 

[jacobdrj]

[citation][nom]john_4[/nom]The Macbook Pro(s) have it, buy an Apple.[/citation]
Since when are MacBook Pros(s) desktops? they are laptops with screen sizes never bigger than 17"...

I am talking a nice 200ppi 24" LCD to replace my 1920x1200 27" LCD...

 

[rosen380]

A 200ppi 24" 16:10 monitor would have a 4070x2544 resolution-- I hope you have a very good graphics card to push >10M pixels [for comparison, the 1920x1200 is at 2.3M pixels]

 

[army_ant7]

Higher PPI = more detailed text, icons, etc.

Do you know why we can't see individual atoms with the naked eye? There is a limit to what people can see (at least with the average person). (Hey, for all I know, Superman could be real and, if I'm not mistaken, had molecular vision or something. On a more serious note, we could biologically engineer people in the future to have such great visual acuity or maybe even replace/enhance our eyes with cybernetics. Just some thoughts. )

"And what is the purpose of 497 ppi? Sure it gives some level of "ours is bigger" claim, but people have enough of an issue seeing pixels at 300 ppi. So you end up with an ultra-dense screen, where all the icons and graphics have to be scaled to ridiculous degrees just to be functional parts of the UI."

The biggest reason is that exactly doubling the resolution [or quadrupling if you are looking at pixel counts, I guess] makes for easy scaling. The 497 appears to be a typo or math error anyways as the real number for a 7.9" screen at 2048x1536 is 324.

I was supposed to comment something similar to the person you quoted even though your statement in your 1st sentence is sound (but I still didn't think, justified by a 497PPI). Though you did point out that the actual PPI is 324, which I confirmed myself by my own calculations. I hope it gets fixed in the article. It's nice how you pointed that out because I pretty much just took in what the article said. So thank you for sharing it with us.

Where is my Retina LCD for my desktop?

In due time... :lol: (If All-In-Ones will get more PPI, then I'm thinking normal monitors as well. )

You can buy one now..its called a "decent monitor".
Just because apple slaps a loose buzzword term they made up onto a display doesn't mean they are the only one that make things at that PPI.
Retina display literally means "to have a high enough pixel density that the human eye is unable to notice pixelation at a typical viewing distance."
They have no 'minimum DPI or PPI it must meet, or pixel size or gapping..its all based on a "vague assumption of 'I think its good enough to call it that'
I fail to see how they can classify anything as 'retina' display using such an arbitrary definition, or at least boast about it as if its a 'technically definable and measurable standard'. Its like trying to say a CPU cooler is 'silent' because it doesn't put out enough sound for the human ear to hear in an average noise filled room. Its not silent, its quiet. Only way its any form of silent is someone goes "I cant hear it its silent' when someone else can go "no no, I can hear the hiss of it a bit on mine at home". So the seconds guys HOUSE isnt quiet enough for it to be labeled silent?
So with retina display, its the same. Maybe my viewing distance is different, and my eyes better..does that mean if I can see a pixel, MY eyes are faulty, and not the label they put on it?
Why retina is nothing more than a buzzword that means squat for technical specs.

Well, since it is a marketing term, it's meant for its taget market, i.e. us. Now, it may not satisfy everyone, but it may at least attempt to satisfy the majority of us, i.e. average person. And how else do you get that? Statistical research I believe e.g. how far the average user views the device's screen from, how acute the average user's vision is, etc., and maybe they can go a bit over what satisfies the average user so that it would also satisfy a bit of the "above-average" user. More info in the article shared here (which you said you already read):

You Mr. Genious should read more, this it's why it's called "Retina" wich it's a pretty clever thing once you understand the physics behind it: Thanks]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/

Thanks for sharing this! I read this a while back but didn't have a bookmark. Same thing I wanted to point out to the person you were addressing.

A 200ppi 24" 16:10 monitor would have a 4070x2544 resolution-- I hope you have a very good graphics card to push >10M pixels [for comparison, the 1920x1200 is at 2.3M pixels]

Though I get what you're saying, needing a "very good" graphics card would still depend on the what software the person uses, what settings, etc. My brother said that he saw a video at Newegg showing Torchlight 2 running in 3x landscape Eyefinity setup just using a Trinity APU (I think the A10-5800K) which has a very modest GPU. I'm not sure what resolution it was running on, but even if the aggregate resolution of that setup might be substantially less than that theoretical monitor, we're still talking about a pretty low-end GPU. That's already assuming that gaming is involved (though TL2 is pretty light on GPU's I believe). Just something to support my point.