tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949395247207969446.post591176140008994478..comments2023-12-12T15:01:35.809+01:00Comments on Nelso Blog: The Problem with a "Retina" Display on the iPad 2: Lack of ContentJack DeNeuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05057575136952227938noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949395247207969446.post-65700061796718761262011-01-22T21:34:27.224+01:002011-01-22T21:34:27.224+01:00> The next update of my Prague guide
> will ...> The next update of my Prague guide<br />> will contain more than 10,000 images<br />> (at 300x200). Can I use these in a <br />> universal app that runs on an iPad 2?<br />> Sure, but the result won't be very<br />> satisfactory - blurry, massively upscaled<br />> images<br /><br />The images will look IDENTICAL on all iPads, whether they have original or Retina Display. That is the key feature of doubling the resolution. What is shown in 1 pixel on the original display will be shown in 4 pixels that are each 25% of the size on the Retina Display. Because the Retina Display has exactly 4x the pixels in the same space, it can emulate the previous display by using 4 pixels in place of every 1.<br /><br />If you run an iPhone app that has not been updated for Retina Display side-by-side on iPhone 3GS and 4, the app looks the same. Every 1 pixel of the app is rendered by 1 pixel of the iPhone 3GS, and every 1 pixel of the app is rendered by 4 pixels of the iPhone 4, but because the iPhone 4 pixels are 25% of the size of iPhone 3GS pixels, the result looks the same. So the additional sharpness is an optional feature for developers. That is why the bigger display on iPhone did not break apps.<br /><br />In the future, you may switch to vector maps, and your storage would go down, and yet you could render at full resolution on iPad with Retina Display. CPU usage would go up, but it might be worth it for razor sharp maps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949395247207969446.post-28945586774187989472011-01-22T21:21:12.677+01:002011-01-22T21:21:12.677+01:00> But almost no content (forget about
> vide...> But almost no content (forget about<br />> video for a second) is currently created<br />> with a 3 megapixel, 260 dpi display in mind<br /><br />That is fundamentally untrue. Other than video, ALL content is made for that display. We just think of it as "print" content. Books, magazines, business correspondence, photographic prints, and anything that comes out of a printer match that resolution. Even a lowly business letter has more and smaller dots on it than an iPad with Retina Display. Safari/WebKit will happily render the Web at that resolution.<br /><br />When a screen gets up into 300 dpi territory, you stop treating it like a screen device (authoring in pixels) and start treating it like a print device (authoring in inches). iOS devices encourage this because they have fixed screen sizes in inches, so they are akin to a paper size:<br /><br />• "Letter" 8.5x11 300 dpi<br />• "Tabloid" 11x17 300 dpi<br />• "iPhone" 2x3 160/320 dpi<br />• "iPad" 6x8 130/260 dpi<br /><br />The truth is, if we were to conceptualize an electronic device to replace print, we would start with a 300 dpi display as the fundamental feature, because that is a fundamental "magic number" in print. Most artwork is made at that resolution, the resolution ruler is marked at multiples of 300, and it fools a 20/20 eye at typical reading distance into not being able to see the dots. The lower-resolution displays in iPhone original/3G/3GS and iPad 3G (and any future iPads with low-res display) are hacks … stepping stones to the Retina Displays that the devices are "supposed" to have to fulfill their function as paper replacements. It's a very elegant compromise because it is short-term and there is almost no pain to transition from the low-res to high-res screen, either for users or developers. The high-res screen emulates the low-res screen (4 pixels in place of 1) from day one and then apps gradually take advantage of the enhanced sharpness that has been made available to them. Soon, the low-res devices are retired as part of the regular product life cycle.<br /><br />So an iPad with Retina Display is REQUIRED by book, magazine, and other "print" content. It's required for photography, where people are commonly making 12 megapixel or 18 megapixel images that have way more dots than an iPad with Retina Display. And even for video, always the lowest-res content, HD is now old hat. The next size up is "4K" (4000 pixels horizontally), and it is commonly made now, and is even supported by YouTube already. That has to be downscaled for iPad with Retina Display.<br /><br />The only question on this is what year it will arrive. Can they get it done in the 2011 iPad, or 2012? Whenever it arrives, the content will exploit it immediately.Hamranhansenhansennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949395247207969446.post-45613026378611295032011-01-17T19:00:25.137+01:002011-01-17T19:00:25.137+01:00Great post. Also, have you ever downloaded a movie...Great post. Also, have you ever downloaded a movie to the iPad? It would take an eternity to download a movie of this resolution to the iPad. Most movies are 3-4gb, and you would be very lucky over WiFi to get a DVD quality movie in 2 hours. In most cases it takes me >4 hours which is why I haven't done it very often. It might take less time to shoot the film than download if the resolution was at 2048x1536.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12909486014215092004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949395247207969446.post-52656710972653388502011-01-17T18:53:30.394+01:002011-01-17T18:53:30.394+01:00720p video on a 9.7" 2048x1536 display will l...720p video on a 9.7" 2048x1536 display will look identical to 720p video on a 9.7" 1024x768 display. Because both displays are 9.7".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com