Interesting. And a little disappointing- as indeed it nearly defeats the purpose of the enhanced display. Nevertheless, I think that the new screen will still make images look significantly better than the iPad 1/2, because the finer pixel pitch means less "screen door effect".
mobius32 wrote:
Tom's Hardware has an interesting review (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ipad-3-benchmark-review,3156.html) which talks about how the mobile version of the Safari web browser downsamples any image that "hits the 1024 pixel limit" and what this means for photgraphers.
I hit this in the morning and was wondering what was going on. So, I had to copy/paste the URL into Terra (my favorite browser) and that took care of downloading the original image.
Ruahrc wrote:
Interesting. And a little disappointing- as indeed it nearly defeats the purpose of the enhanced display. Nevertheless, I think that the new screen will still make images look significantly better than the iPad 1/2, because the finer pixel pitch means less "screen door effect".
Ruahrc wrote:
Interesting. And a little disappointing- as indeed it nearly defeats the purpose of the enhanced display. Nevertheless, I think that the new screen will still make images look significantly better than the iPad 1/2, because the finer pixel pitch means less "screen door effect".
I'd contend that part of the reason the new iPad screen looks so great in contrast is because the original screen was just so-so to begin with. My Toshiba Thrive has a more dense pattern to its IPS matrix so seems like a smaller quality leap to the new iPad than the old iPad does, if that makes any sense.
mobius32 wrote:
Tom's Hardware has an interesting review (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ipad-3-benchmark-review,3156.html) which talks about how the mobile version of the Safari web browser downsamples any image that "hits the 1024 pixel limit" and what this means for photgraphers.
very absurd, they really need to make that a toggle, totally absurd
I ran into this while building an HTML driven app.
There are 2 workarounds currently if any photogs are using these for mobile web portfolios -
1. Use Progressive JPGs
2. it's actually a 1024x1024x2 limit
Or if you want a portfolio - just load the images onto the ipad instead of using safari to view them...
While I seriously considered the Retina Macbook Pro for a while, I'm no longer nearly as interested now that some of the effects being done behind the scenes come to light. I especially found that websized JPEGs are simply not accurate in terms of perceived sharpness vs other screens, which makes it extremely hard to judge when preparing output for the web. It seems that it's mostly due to the graphics processing everything at full res in the background but then downsampling for output.
Greg - As a fulltime developer - retina displays do pose an issue for us - we have to stage 2 versions of photos if we want to support a retina display... JPGs aren't resolution independent - not much can be done there. For it to be shown at "normal size" compared to a non-retina monitor - the image needs to be scaled 2x.
