On Oct 26, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Jim Saklad <jimdoc@me.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm disappointed in the iPad mini. Why did they leave off the retina display and price it so high? I can see paying $349 if it were retina but since its not, I can't justify the price since I have an iPad 3.
>>>> White Rabbit
>>>
>>> It costs $170 less than the iPad 2 did when it was released, and has the same pixel resolution, faster connectivity, and (I think) better cameras.
>>>
>>> What's not to like?
>>
>> Since the iPad Mini is smaller that the iPad wouldn't the pixels per inch be approaching the same number?
>
> The mini has the same number of pixels as the iPad 2. In a smaller format.
The iPad has a retina display (3.1 million pixels), unlike the iPad 2.
iPad - 2048-by-1536 resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi)
iPad 2 - 1024-by-768 resolution at 132 pixels per inch (ppi)
iPad Mini - 1024-by-768 resolution at 163 pixels per inch (ppi)
I guess 163 is less than 264, but better than 132.
> The pixel resolution is the same; the pixel density is greater.
>
>> How about one of you mathematicians crunch this for us.
>
> How about Apple?
> <http://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/specs/>
> 1024-by-768 resolution at 163 pixels per inch (ppi)
Robert Poland - Fort Collins, CO
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (38) |
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire