I was so freaked out by the conflicting reports here, that we never made it to Best Buy last night. The store still has every color and capacity in stock, so I'll probably go later this afternoon or tonight. I will report back.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
All iPads iPad Air vs iPad mini retina screen wash
- Thread starter mystikjoe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was so freaked out by the conflicting reports here, that we never made it to Best Buy last night. The store still has every color and capacity in stock, so I'll probably go later this afternoon or tonight. I will report back.
You are assuming Apple is just "getting by" and doing the bare minimum. My argument is that these displays are FIRST generation displays and we can't realistically expect them to be perfect. The engineering simply isn't there at this point in time.....
I fully expect kinks to be ironed out come the next mini release though.
Has anyone even considered that this could be an actually technical limitation of the screen technology and therefore unavoidable? Since the pixel density is so high is it even capable of producing truer colors let alone keep the same power consumption? I'm no expert but is there a 7 inch tablet on the market that has equal or higher PPI, produces better colors, same battery life, and similar form factor? I mean something has to give here and would any of you trade one of the other limitations for the more accurate colors?
If you answer yes then why didn't you buy the Air?
If you answer yes then why didn't you buy the Air?
I would agree with you, though I haven't seen tablets from other manufacturers (I quite like my iOS ecosystem) and someone else called me out saying that if I wasn't happy with the iPad Mini's gamut, I should get a Samsung or Kindle. I assume if those people can figure it out, so can Apple (and they're buying screens from competitive companies anyway).
I also think they should wait to release products unit they can make them to Apple standards, but apparently some people have lower tolerances for quality.
True - I'm not talking about anything but the displays at this point in time.
And you are correct - though the Fire HDX would still fall short in other areas to the rMini (size, battery life, power). I'm saying for the form factor and bars already set in a number of areas by Apple - the current rMini displays are the best that could be done at this point.
Unless they wanted to increase the thickness (ala iPad 2 > iPad 3 which wasn't a terribly popular decision), hit the battery life or change the form factor. IMO, the form factor is the main reason I prefer the mini to anything else. If it were thicker and heavier, the purpose of the mini would be defeated for me.
Again, as I've said. First generation display tech on the scale Apple needs to have them produced - we won't get perfection.
All this being said - I can't even really tell when I look at my rMini alone. Its in these comparisons where the distinction is made. And when I use my rMini, I'm not sitting there comparing it to something else.
----------
This is the point I've been trying to make.
If your rMini looks like your iPhone, hold onto it for dear life and never let go.
The iPad 3 had a first-gen retina display of it's size and it reproduced 99% of the sRGB gamut. The next gen of retina display in the iPhone 5 also showed excellent color reproduction.
It's not unreasonable to expect Apple to get it right.
I would agree with you, though I haven't seen tablets from other manufacturers (I quite like my iOS ecosystem) and someone else called me out saying that if I wasn't happy with the iPad Mini's gamut, I should get a Samsung or Kindle. I assume if those people can figure it out, so can Apple (and they're buying screens from competitive companies anyway).
I also think they should wait to release products unit they can make them to Apple standards, but apparently some people have lower tolerances for quality.
Ehh I had a big long explanation typed out but the site crashed or something....
Long story short - Apple has a MUCH lager consumer base and standards with regards to device size (thickness and weight) and battery life. At this point in time, it would seem that its just not possible to mass-produce the a perfect 100% sRGB retina mini display AND keep the battery life and thickness and weight of the device the same.
The battery life on the rMini does seem to be quite good, I will give you that.
I would still trade an hour of battery life for better color gamut though.
Ok? So creating a 2048x1536 9.7" display is the same as creating a 2048x1536 7.9" display?
We also experienced the unpopular choice of the iPad 3 being heavier, thicker and hotter than the iPad 2. Many would tell you the iPad 3 was rushed - hence the iPad 4 in November of that same year.
As for the 5 - all Apple needed to do was lengthen the screen and add pixels. Quite different than cramming infinitely more pixels in the same space. Really, the iPhone 5 retina displays were the same as the 4 and 4S - and of course we saw a huge boost in sRBG reproduction from the 4S to the 5.
Your two examples don't really compare because for the iPad, there were plenty of issues and complaints at the time and the iPhone change is, engineering-wise, not as complicated.
About the iPhone 4S vs 5 screens I would bet the laminated digitizer to the screen had more to do with the color reproduction than anything else.
The battery life on the rMini does seem to be quite good, I will give you that.
I would still trade an hour of battery life for better color gamut though.
I wouldn't.
Really - just look to the iPad 3's reception as a inkling why Apple did it this way. In the iPad 3, they went display first - did everything they wanted to with the display, but found they need to compromise in other places such as the form factor.
The result was an device that was considerably heavier, thicker, ran hotter and provided shorter battery life and was replaced only 8 months later. Hell, it wasn't until the iPad Air that Apple finally was able to offer a "no-compromise" device.
I'm just trying to temper expectations here - especially since the rMini is a beast of a device.
----------
Yup - most likely. Again, not really the same challenge the rMini presents. I mean good lord, the thing is so thin and light. To me, that's what makes the mini a mini. If they had gone all iPad 3 on the rMini, I'd have been extremely disappointed and likely would have bought an Air.
16:9 aspect tablets drive me nuts for two reasons.
Firstly, they're far too narrow when held in portrait orientation and just don't feel as natural as the 4:3 aspect of an iPad does when used this way. Everything just feels cramped and you find yourself always wanting to turn it into landscape orientation.
Secondly, it allows the manufacturers to make their screens sound bigger compared to a 4:3 display since the only figure ever quoted is the diagonal. A 9.7" diagonal 4:3 screen has a surface area of around 45.2 square inches. A 16:9 screen with the same 9.7" diagonal would have an area of around 40.2 square inches or only 89% of the area.
For a 16:9 screen to provide the same actual area as a 9.7" diagonal 4:3 screen, it would have to have a diagonal measurement of around 10.3".
The 8.9" Kindle Fire HDX will no doubt be marketed against the iPad Air as a "full size" tablet, yet its screen area of around 33.8" will be only 75% of the area of an iPad's, which is actually far closer to the area of an iPad Mini (30", 66% of the area of an iPad).
Last edited:
You are being very reasonable... unfortunately sometimes there isn't a perfect answer.
I work with high end digital cinema cameras and on those forums we have the same exact kinds of discussions. Some people want more resolution. Some people want faster frame rates. Some people want better dynamic range. Unfortunately, you kinda need a little of everything. The most resolution and dynamic range in the world is pointless if the camera only shoots 8fps. Conversely, a camera that has amazing dynamic range and 2000 fps is pointless if it can only shoot 480p (in my area of the industry, anyway). The problem with the iPad 3 was not that it made the screen the priority, but rather it really made the screen the ONLY focus. I feel like they've kinda done the opposite with the rMini.
The new Mini's resolution is awesome and the processor is a beast, but I can't even play basic games without being really annoyed by the way the screen looks. I realize most people probably aren't like that, and that's fine. But unlike monitors or televisions, there isn't the option between the "budget" screen or the model with exacting specs that cost more. Even more than giving up an hour of battery life, I would happily pay more for a model with better gamut. Give me an iPad Mini Pro with a $200 premium and a perfect screen and I would be first in line. I know that's not their target audience, though (although some people do spend over $800 on a 128GB iPad instead of just buying a MacBook Air
). But even you yourself said that you would prefer a poorer screen if it means maximum battery life and I can barely comprehend that, so clearly we all have different perspectives. The problem is that most of Apple's products these days take a "one model fits all" (aside from storage space) approach.----------
Oh, they drive me nuts too... I was just commenting because Oppressed was saying the screen size wasn't the same and I was just pointing out that the aspect ratio was different too.
I actually think my dream Apple tablet would be smack in the middle between the rMini and Air's size - a 4:3 retina tablet around 8.6" - but I know that is never going to happen.
And, yes, the gamut would have to be acceptable.
Well we are seeing folks leaning towards the Air instead. I don't think I would if I wanted the smaller device that weighs less and is more portable. Almost like some people cannot live without an upgrade (which the rMini undeniably is anyways) or go iPad-less until what they want is truly available.
I think the problem is that if one thing is better but another thing is worse, that doesn't automatically net you an overall "better" - at least in my book.Almost like some people cannot live without an upgrade (which the rMini undeniably is anyways) or go iPad-less until what they want is truly available.
Has anyone that has noticed this problem had theirs shipped directly from hong kong or were they picked up in store. Not that it will matter but just a thought.
In another thread someone posted a comparison in a game, and it hit me.
It's a contrast issue. And I'd argue it's more of an issue in the opposite direction. The retina mini screen has more mid-tone detail and isn't on the verge of channel clipping. In comparison, it appears the old screens have TOO MUCH contrast and saturation. The mini is actually more accurate.
It's a contrast issue. And I'd argue it's more of an issue in the opposite direction. The retina mini screen has more mid-tone detail and isn't on the verge of channel clipping. In comparison, it appears the old screens have TOO MUCH contrast and saturation. The mini is actually more accurate.
You have to consider whether the device as a whole is better for you. For people not that concerned with the gamut, lots of people happily use the Mini 1 despite is SD screen, its overwhelmingly a better device. For others the Air is a better device, and for those who want the Air's screen, in the Mini 2's body, well
