Surface Display Quality Bests iPad, Says Microsoft

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]alexthager[/nom]This is a bold statement from Microsoft, and I don't think it's too valid. While light reflection is a factor, I think resolution means a good bit more. I'd take a glossy 2560x1600 monitor over a less glossy 1920x1080 monitor any day.[/citation]
I would agree if that were a desktop monitor, however for a tablet that I am walking around with perhaps in the daytime with sunlight, etc, a very reflective screen is not a prefered option

 

[marcusmurphy]

I don't understand why so many people think a Retina Display makes that much difference... most professional displays around 24" size hover around 100ppi, far cry from what would be required for a Retina Display, yet professionals use them every day to do High Quality Color Intensive Art. The Surface is 139ppi, around which 180ppi would make it "Retina". That's a resolution of 1558 x 876 or better... oh look they make a 1920 x 1080 version with a "Retina" display.

 

[jacobdrj]

[citation][nom]marcusmurphy[/nom]I don't understand why so many people think a Retina Display makes that much difference... most professional displays around 24" size hover around 100ppi, far cry from what would be required for a Retina Display, yet professionals use them every day to do High Quality Color Intensive Art. The Surface is 139ppi, around which 180ppi would make it "Retina". That's a resolution of 1558 x 876 or better... oh look they make a 1920 x 1080 version with a "Retina" display.[/citation]

Depends on how you use your display. Most 24" displays and 30" displays are at more than arm's distance away. Tablets are almost ALWAYS within 2/3 an arm's distance away.

If you are looking at photos, there is really no difference between Retina iPad and iPad 1. I was just looking at both of these last night for comparison at my in-laws... HOWEVER, when READING, it made a HUGE difference, as the resolution made text just so much more crisp. In the short run, no big deal. But if you read on your iPad all day it makes a HUGE difference.

TBH, I have a 1366x768 15" Laptop at work that I use at just a little more than arm's length away. I can't stand the pixelation. Compared to the 1080p screen right next to it, it is just horrible.

But at home, I have a 1366x768 11.6" laptop, and the screen couldn't be crisper. I love it.

 

[marcusmurphy]

[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]Depends on how you use your display. Most 24" displays and 30" displays are at more than arm's distance away. Tablets are almost ALWAYS within 2/3 an arm's distance away. If you are looking at photos, there is really no difference between Retina iPad and iPad 1. I was just looking at both of these last night for comparison at my in-laws... HOWEVER, when READING, it made a HUGE difference, as the resolution made text just so much more crisp. In the short run, no big deal. But if you read on your iPad all day it makes a HUGE difference. TBH, I have a 1366x768 15" Laptop at work that I use at just a little more than arm's length away. I can't stand the pixelation. Compared to the 1080p screen right next to it, it is just horrible.But at home, I have a 1366x768 11.6" laptop, and the screen couldn't be crisper. I love it.[/citation]

Trust me, I know all about how distance etc plays a role discerning pixelation. But what you don't understand is the quality of the screen also plays a role in that perception. A 24" screen at over an arms length away is not a "Retina" screen at 100ppi. How do they display with no perceived pixelation?
BTW, the Surface is 1366x768 @ 10.6", so your argument here is moot, since your 11.6" laptop is also not "Retina" quality and it is larger than the Surface. 139ppi on a 10.6" tablet is fine, especially with the high quality screen that Microsoft put in it.

 

[jacobdrj]

I was never suggesting that my laptops was over 200 ppi. I was merely pointing out that there are differences in usage patterns.

From my experience, at 1366, on screens smaller than 12", this resolution is fine. I didn't say that it couldn't be better, but it is good enough.

 

[d_kuhn]

Trust me, I know all about how distance etc plays a role discerning pixelation. But what you don't understand is the quality of the screen also plays a role in that perception. A 24" screen at over an arms length away is not a "Retina" screen at 100ppi. How do they display with no perceived pixelation?
BTW, the Surface is 1366x768 @ 10.6", so your argument here is moot, since your 11.6" laptop is also not "Retina" quality and it is larger than the Surface. 139ppi on a 10.6" tablet is fine, especially with the high quality screen that Microsoft put in it.

For you that may be the case... for me it is not. Not liking the performance of lower resolution displays is why I ditched the iPad1, it's why all my laptops are at least 1920x1080, and why my desktop displays are higher than that.

I like being able to read an entire web page on my phone... it comes in very handy, I hate 'mobile' versions of web sites... I find them borderline useless. I suppose if you're too old to take advantage of the resolution then your argument is perfectly valid... but that doesn't mean a blanket '139ppi is fine' holds water .

As far as quality goes... the quality of the screen is definitely important... but the iPad 2 screen is not a "bad" display, and since the MS screen is by all reports still based on LCD tech, I don't believe it's going to be possible for it to be of sufficiently higher quality to make up for the loss of valuable (to me) resolution. I'll of course have to reserve judgement until I can look at the Win8 version, but I'd rather have a 1080p display with a glossy glare inducing screen than a 1366 screen that looks great in direct sunlight.

 

[marcusmurphy]

[citation][nom]d_kuhn[/nom]For you that may be the case... for me it is not. Not liking the performance of lower resolution displays is why I ditched the iPad1, it's why all my laptops are at least 1920x1080, and why my desktop displays are higher than that. I like being able to read an entire web page on my phone... it comes in very handy, I hate 'mobile' versions of web sites... I find them borderline useless. I suppose if you're too old to take advantage of the resolution then your argument is perfectly valid... but that doesn't mean a blanket '139ppi is fine' holds water . As far as quality goes... the quality of the screen is definitely important... but the iPad 2 screen is not a "bad" display, and since the MS screen is by all reports still based on LCD tech, I don't believe it's going to be possible for it to be of sufficiently higher quality to make up for the loss of valuable (to me) resolution. I'll of course have to reserve judgement until I can look at the Win8 version, but I'd rather have a 1080p display with a glossy glare inducing screen than a 1366 screen that looks great in direct sunlight.[/citation]

I really don't think you understand the concept of pixelation in your retina (ie what your eye sees). When it comes to "jaggies", they don't appear without holding or moving the screen close enough for your retina to perceive the actual pixels throwing off light. If you think your desktops are "great" at over 1920 x 1080 resolution then you are mistaken. Unless you dropped 10K on a super res monitor, your monitor is only about 100ppi. The reason it looks fine is because it's far enough away for your eyes not to be able to discern the pixelation. I suppose if you are too old to hold the screen far enough away to not see this pixelation then you would agree that on a 10.6" screen when viewed at about 20" away on average would indeed have the visual clarity of a Retina display based up on pixelation alone. Throw in the fact that you don't have glare and other factors refracting the light in ways the expose perceived pixelation and you have a much better quality display. Please understand that resolution statistics are not the end all be all of monitor quality, just like processor GHz speed is not the end all be all of determing which CPU to use.

 

[d_kuhn]

I really don't think you understand the concept of pixelation in your retina (ie what your eye sees). When it comes to "jaggies", they don't appear without holding or moving the screen close enough for your retina to perceive the actual pixels throwing off light. If you think your desktops are "great" at over 1920 x 1080 resolution then you are mistaken. Unless you dropped 10K on a super res monitor, your monitor is only about 100ppi. The reason it looks fine is because it's far enough away for your eyes not to be able to discern the pixelation. I suppose if you are too old to hold the screen far enough away to not see this pixelation then you would agree that on a 10.6" screen when viewed at about 20" away on average would indeed have the visual clarity of a Retina display based up on pixelation alone. Throw in the fact that you don't have glare and other factors refracting the light in ways the expose perceived pixelation and you have a much better quality display. Please understand that resolution statistics are not the end all be all of monitor quality, just like processor GHz speed is not the end all be all of determing which CPU to use.

I think I understand imaging it pretty well... since my background prior to moving into management is Machine Vision. The perception of pixellation depends on a number of factors including resolution, viewing distance, display performance (things like contrast), user and content... which is exactly what I was saying. For me, I like the fact that I can display a lot of content on my handhelds when desired, and that's based on resolution and viewing distance primarily. I can focus pretty darn closely (benefit of being near sighted) and clearly read text on a 'retina' display that is not displayable on a lower res display at any viewing distance. For dense data displays I'm holding the display a lot closer than 20", in fact I hold it close enough that I can clearly read the content... so a lower resolution display will only have undistinguished performance if the pixels are at my minimum noticeable difference level... and I can make out individual pixels on an iphone. Hence when I say that a tablet with 1300x800 or so is not sufficient, it's because I know how 148ppi looks on a handheld - my 1st gen iPod touch had 160ppi or so and it is VERY noticeably pixellated at close to mid viewing distances. The 27" screen I'm typing on now has 109ppi and black text on white is noticeably pixellated at 15-17" and that's WITH cleartype. Optical tricks like cleartype can help with the apparent pixellation of lower resolution displays... but they do it by using adjacent pixels to smooth the black to white transition - and that doesn't work if the text your displaying is near the lower limit of the display.

148ppi is not going to work on a handheld for me... I'm hoping for closer to 200.

 

[marcusmurphy]

No one is telling you not to buy what you choose, but the fact is most people aren't going to use their electronics like you do. Based on screen size people will be using devices at different viewing distances and the Surface's screen resolution will be of "Retina" like quality for most of the average eyesight public. If you need a better resolution then buy the Surface Pro, which will give you over 200ppi density that you desire.