|
|
iPad 2: Retina Display? (Page 2)
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
It'll be much easier if you just comply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
My gut feeling is that not only is Gruber right, he's being intentionally used by Apple as damage control.
Gruber might also be trying to get in a pissing match with Engadget, but I think that's a risky ploy with this sort of thing unless you know the outcome beforehand.
It's pretty clear that Gruber has done both before and at the same time, so who knows? Personally my argument would be that there really aren't any super-high res 9.7" screens, but then again there weren't such high res 3.5" screens when the iPhone 4 came out on the open market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ajprice
Some say it depends on the distance from your eyes, so you hold a tablet further away than a phone, and the new iPad would be a Retina Display standard.
Those people are correct.
At the WWDC 2010 keynote, Steve said that the limit was "about 300dpi" at the 8-to-10" people usually hold their iPhones. It's simply not comfortable to hold an iPad that close for any length of time. I keep mine about two feet away most of the time.
The farther away the pixels are from your eyes, the bigger they need to be before you can see them as distinct objects. To argue otherwise is to argue against math.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|