Thread: iPad vs. a Stone

roflcopter.

Not accurate though. The screen is definitely HD, and it does have a camera.

EDIT: My bad, it isn't HD. But only coz it's not big enough.

Originally Posted by tommo

roflcopter.

Not accurate though. The screen is definitely HD, and it does have a camera.

EDIT: My bad, it isn't HD. But only coz it's not big enough.

Or you know, they could just make it higher DPI. But no.

Posted this to my facebook wall.

har har...

I want an ipad.

Yeah they are actually quite cool nina.
I didn't think so at first. But my mum got one and it's pretty amazing.
I wouldn't want to use it a lot, but for some things it is perfect.
It's also just strange when you first see it. I probably sound like an advertisement here but
it seems like magic in a way. Sort of how people say someone who has never seen a computer and saw someone with a phone would
think it is magic. That's probably close to what I felt when I saw one.
Obviously not as amazing, but something like that.

I sound like a fucking douche now lol Can't think of a good way to describe it though.
Maybe it would just be better to say it's so strange seeing this small thing be able to do what it does.

lol

apple =

Originally Posted by nina

har har...

I want an ipad.

Get one, i have the first gen ipad. Its really nice no matter what people say. They just cant afford it

On a side note this made me laugh. Although ive heard the jokes many times ive never actually seen it get compared to a rock. They should add an "ways 10 pounds". And put a checkmark on both of them. lol

I'm getting one when my laptop dies.

Originally Posted by tommo

roflcopter.

Not accurate though. The screen is definitely HD, and it does have a camera.

EDIT: My bad, it isn't HD. But only coz it's not big enough.

My Zune is HD and it's like not even a quarter of the size :O

Originally Posted by Rhyan420

My Zune is HD and it's like not even a quarter of the size :O

The iPhone is HD too, it's over 1080p.

"Apple: The light indicates that it's off"

I love my iPad. I do wish I had the new one which actually *FINALLY* has a camera, but I digress.

I haven't bought an iPad or anything similar. I just don't get how it doesn't have at least 1 USB port. I'm not sure, is it because they want us to start using this thing called Cloud?

And there's no Flash, but I've heard more than 1 story as to why. Either Apple is trying to push people away from something that eats your battery or Adobe and Apple just couldn't come to some kind of business agreement. If it's simply because Apple wants to rid the world of Flash, then it seems unfair IMO. I'd rather spend my money on a different tab that doesn't cost as much, yet has the features the iPad doesn't.

I'm not trying to be an ass. That's just how I feel.

No it's because flash is unstable crap that needs to be dumped.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

No it's because flash is unstable crap that needs to be dumped.

Some of my favorite games were made in flash though :/

Originally Posted by tommo

it's so strange seeing this small thing be able to do what it does.

Ha! That's what she said!






















:[

Originally Posted by tommo

The iPhone is HD too, it's over 1080p.

iPhone 4 (which is the one with the highest resolution yet) has 640×960. That's not even 720p. I also very much doubt there's a Zune with full HD.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

Ha! That's what she said!

:[

Ha! Well, at least she said she was surprised at what you can do with it.
That's all that matters

khh - It's the same thing as the iPad. It's only not classified as HD because of the size.
The iPhone 4 is 326 ppi which would be HD if the screen was 1,920 by 1,080.

Originally Posted by tommo

khh - It's the same thing as the iPad. It's only not classified as HD because of the size.
The iPhone 4 is 326 ppi which would be HD if the screen was 1,920 by 1,080.

HD is a standard for resolution, not pixel density.

How do you not know that I know that from my post? It's a stupid standard.
Because the screen has enough pixels to be high quality. Just coz it's not big enough, doesn't mean it's not high definition.
High definition, as a phrase, just means highly defined. High, in that phrase, has just been stupidly defined as a minimum of 720 pixels across (usually at 16:9 ratio).
But if you have a smaller screen, than it obviously needs less pixels to be highly defined. If it still had 720 pixels across, it would be hyper definition or something.

Originally Posted by tommo

How do you not know that I know that from my post?

When you say "The iPhone is HD too, it's over 1080p.", thus specifically referring to the standard, I've got to assume that you don't have a clue.

Originally Posted by tommo

It's a stupid standard.

No, it's a very logical standard. For video files it's a good indicator of the quality of the picture. For screens it indicates how much there's "room for" on the screen. The fact that it's not indeded for mobile devices doesn't make it a stupid standard.

Originally Posted by tommo

Because the screen has enough pixels to be high quality. Just coz it's not big enough, doesn't mean it's not high definition.

Yes it does! That's the point. "High definition" is a clearly defined standard. If Apple markeded the iPhone or iPad as having "HD", they could be sued for wrongful marketing. So say that it's got a "High quality screen and a good pixel density yielding an excellent picture". But don't say it's got HD.

edit: Besides, what you said in that post was like saying "MP3 would be a lossless codec if it weren't for the fact that it was lossy".

Originally Posted by khh

When you say "The iPhone is HD too, it's over 1080p.", thus specifically referring to the standard, I've got to assume that you don't have a clue.

I meant the second post.

It's the same thing as the iPad. It's only not classified as HD because of the size.
The iPhone 4 is 326 ppi which would be HD if the screen was 1,920 by 1,080.

Which I actually realise now I said wrong. I should have said if the screen was bigger lol
"If the screen was the same size as the average HD 1920 by 1080 TV".
Like a normal HD TV screen doesn't have 326ppi.

Originally Posted by khh

No, it's a very logical standard. For video files it's a good indicator of the quality of the picture. For screens it indicates how much there's "room for" on the screen. The fact that it's not indeded for mobile devices doesn't make it a stupid standard.

And with the current standard, you could just have a shitty quality screen, but make it huge and call it HD.

Originally Posted by khh

Yes it does! That's the point. "High definition" is a clearly defined standard.

And you just ignored this.

High definition, as a phrase, just means highly defined.

As an industry term, it means what you said. And I'm saying why it's a stupid definition of the term high definition.

Originally Posted by tommo

And with the current standard, you could just have a shitty quality screen, but make it huge and call it HD.

Yes, but the standard wasn't made to measure the quality of the screen. That's not it's purpose. The purpose is to have an easy way of knowing that devices will communicate well, and so you can publish content (like blu-rays) that works well on most TVs. Can't blame the standard for consumers being ignorant and only caring about whether the product has "HD".

It's possible there should be an unrelated standard for screen quality, but that's a whole other issue.

Originally Posted by tommo

And you just ignored this.

I didn't see a point to reply. You're right that HD is short for "High definition", but when used in this context it is a clearly defined industry term (as you also said). So for better or for worse, you can't use it as meaning "high quality".

And why get so involved anyhow? I was simply correcting a factual error.

Originally Posted by khh

And why get so involved anyhow? I was simply correcting a factual error.

Coz I wanted to clarify what I said.