[SOLVED] More resolution?

I own an iPad1.
Whereas I can identify some shortcomings towards later models, I have
no issues with the resolution of the screen.

When I observe the iPad from a normal viewing distance (30 ..40 cm?),
I cannot resolve the individual pixels.
This prompts me to postulate the theory that -at least for me- more
pixels would yield no visible improvement.

Questions:

- Is my theory sound?
- Is my vision substandard?
- Is full HD on an iPad (iPad3?) actually useful? Or just hype?

Blarp <> wrote:

> When I observe the iPad from a normal viewing distance (30 ..40 cm?),
> I cannot resolve the individual pixels.
> This prompts me to postulate the theory that -at least for me- more
> pixels would yield no visible improvement.
>
> Questions:
> - Is my theory sound?

Yes and no.
All depend usage and needs.
To read lot of documents a better resolution would be more comfortable.

> - Is my vision substandard?

Send your medical report so we can answer ;-)

> - Is full HD on an iPad (iPad3?) actually useful? Or just hype?

FullHD useful ? not really, but if you (when you could) compare, the
double density is a real improvment on readibility (specially with small
text or books app).
You can do the test with an iPhone 3 en 4 on the same internet page for
example.

Useful is not the right description. Even an iPad is not "useful" for
some people...

If you think you don't need high resolution, just do not switch to iPad
3 (if HD is confirm).
For my part, i got an iPad é and i'm very happy with it. I do not plan
to buy an iPad 3 or nothing else, until it fail (not before 2 years i
hope).

--
Pierre-Alain Dorange <http://microwar.sourceforge.net/>

Ce message est sous licence Creative Commons "by-nc-sa-2.0"
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/fr/>

Blarp:

> I own an iPad1.
> Whereas I can identify some shortcomings towards later models, I have
> no issues with the resolution of the screen.
>
> When I observe the iPad from a normal viewing distance (30 ..40 cm?),
> I cannot resolve the individual pixels.
> This prompts me to postulate the theory that -at least for me- more
> pixels would yield no visible improvement.
>
> Questions:
>
> - Is my theory sound?

Yes, for you your assertions are sound.

> - Is my vision substandard?

I have no way of knowing that.

> - Is full HD on an iPad (iPad3?) actually useful? Or just hype?

I have no way of knowing that; I have not seen iPad 3. Furthermore, my
definition of "useful" may apply only to me. Example: I have
telescope-mount control software on my iPad. I find it very useful.
Would that software be useful to you?

As for hype, this is capitalism, and furthermore, it's Apple. Will
there be hype? Is Rick Santorum a raving lunatic?

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:45:19 -0500, Davoud <> wrote:

>> - Is full HD on an iPad (iPad3?) actually useful? Or just hype?
>
>I have no way of knowing that; I have not seen iPad 3. Furthermore, my
>definition of "useful" may apply only to me. Example: I have
>telescope-mount control software on my iPad. I find it very useful.
>Would that software be useful to you?
>
>As for hype, this is capitalism, and furthermore, it's Apple. Will
>there be hype? Is Rick Santorum a raving lunatic?

Perhaps I need to elaborate on my thoughts.

Lets assume that my eyesight is indeed average, and that the average
human cannot resolve individual pixels at 30cm distance while
observing an iPad1/2.

Hence the enlarging of the amount of pixels brings no actual visible
improvement, as the human retina is the limiting factor. (at sensible
reading distance)

Yet the full HD screen (iPad3, other new tablets?) will require a much
more powerful processing unit to serve all those pixels, and consume
more current to do so.

Question: what is the use of HD resolution on a tabled sized object
other that marketing hype?

In the photography world, the realisation is slowly sinking in that it
is futile to add more pixels than even a quality lens can resolve.

In article <>,
Blarp <> wrote:

> Question: what is the use of HD resolution on a tabled sized object
> other that marketing hype?

30 cm is approximately one foot. I find it more comfortable to hold the
iPad closer than that in many instances, especially when the type is small.
Therefore, HD resolution is useful to me. And I am not unique.

--
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <>, Blarp
<> wrote:

> Perhaps I need to elaborate on my thoughts.
>
> Lets assume that my eyesight is indeed average, and that the average
> human cannot resolve individual pixels at 30cm distance while
> observing an iPad1/2.

your eyesight would have to be below average to not resolve pixels on
the current ipad.

> Hence the enlarging of the amount of pixels brings no actual visible
> improvement, as the human retina is the limiting factor. (at sensible
> reading distance)

it's a visible improvement.

> Yet the full HD screen (iPad3, other new tablets?) will require a much
> more powerful processing unit to serve all those pixels, and consume
> more current to do so.

more powerful yes. more current depends, and rumours are that the next
ipad is slightly thicker which suggests a higher capacity battery, so
any additional current demands are moot. another rumour is that it has
lte, which also consumes more battery.

> Question: what is the use of HD resolution on a tabled sized object
> other that marketing hype?

it's not hype.

> In the photography world, the realisation is slowly sinking in that it
> is futile to add more pixels than even a quality lens can resolve.

it's not futile at all.

On 02-29-2012 10:19, Blarp wrote:
> I own an iPad1.
> Whereas I can identify some shortcomings towards later models, I have
> no issues with the resolution of the screen.
>
> When I observe the iPad from a normal viewing distance (30 ..40 cm?),
> I cannot resolve the individual pixels.
> This prompts me to postulate the theory that -at least for me- more
> pixels would yield no visible improvement.
>
> Questions:
>
> - Is my theory sound?
> - Is my vision substandard?
> - Is full HD on an iPad (iPad3?) actually useful? Or just hype?

Suggestion: Read the discussions on this made back when the "retina" was
introduced. Discussions that lasted for months.

--
Wes Groleau

It seems a pity that psychology should have
destroyed all our knowledge of human nature.
— G. K. Chesterton

On 29/02/12 7:19 AM, Blarp wrote:
> I own an iPad1.
> Whereas I can identify some shortcomings towards later models, I have
> no issues with the resolution of the screen.
>
> When I observe the iPad from a normal viewing distance (30 ..40 cm?),
> I cannot resolve the individual pixels.

It's not just about resolving individual pixels, it's also about being
able to see the difference in a line (not a vertical or horizontal line)
being drawn by a collection of pixels. While you might not be able to
resolve a single pixel, you MAY be able to see if a diagonal line is
sharper when drawn on a screen with more pixels. This would lead to
improved sharpness in text (especially ornate text, such as cursive
fonts with fine serifs), photos, and videos when displayed on a screen
with more pixels.

jc

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 23:30:04 -0800, jcdill <>
wrote:

>It's not just about resolving individual pixels, it's also about being
>able to see the difference in a line (not a vertical or horizontal line)
>being drawn by a collection of pixels. While you might not be able to
>resolve a single pixel, you MAY be able to see if a diagonal line is
>sharper when drawn on a screen with more pixels. This would lead to
>improved sharpness in text (especially ornate text, such as cursive
>fonts with fine serifs), photos, and videos when displayed on a screen
>with more pixels.

You may have a point there, OTOH - if pixels are not resolved, how to
spot jagged edges and such.

It must also be considered that more pixels means less light from the
screen (backlight being equal), more pixels mean more boundaries.

So far I can only conclude that with my modest eyesight and preferred
reading distance - (due to my advanced age my autofocus function has
become defective - reading distance is not all that variable when
using optical aids :-)
...- more resolution is not something I would pay extra for.

Young eagle-eyes probably violently disagree :-)

In article <>,
Blarp <> wrote:

> So far I can only conclude that with my modest eyesight and preferred
> reading distance - (due to my advanced age my autofocus function has
> become defective - reading distance is not all that variable when
> using optical aids :-)
> ..- more resolution is not something I would pay extra for.

With my contacts, I have to hold something about a foot away in order for
it to be clear. Ignoring the fact that that's uncomfortable, I find that I
can see my iPhone's text more clearly than I can see my iPad's text
(assuming that the text is the same size). The more clear and precise the
letters are, the easier they are to read.

The greater pixel density does make for more easily read text, and for
finer detail in pictures.

--
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.