Okay, I was determined to maintain the HDTV Almanac as an iPad-Free Zone, but Steve Jobs has forced me to break my resolution. There are many amazing points to pick out of Wednesday’s announcement, but I’m just going to focus on the video part. First, consider these quotes from the iPad promotional video on the [...]

Read Column

Alfred - I agree they're overhyping, but you have to understand they're coming from a world of iPhones and iPods so this is a huge improvement over that.

However I just noticed you can get a Dell Mini netbook with a 1366x768 widescreen display.

I just don't think the iPad will be a runaway hit. It's too big to replace a smart phone/iPhone and it's too small to replace a full sized laptop. It's great as a portable movie viewer but how often do you need one of those?

[quote]Am I all wrong on this?[quote]

Not hardly! Any new display with the potential for viewing just about anything that can't support high-def widescreen these days is old technology. Let's get with the program, Apple.

Alfred, Alfred, Alfred.

> Am I all wrong on this? <

First off, no, I don't think you got it wrong on the hype angle at all. It's totally bloated beyond all believability. But that's what PR people seem to be paid to spin these days. The only slack I'll cut them is the point that akirby made: they're coming from a reference base that's quite anemic. The size and resolution of the new iPad is a big win over the iPhone and iPod Touch. So if that's what you're using for comparison, sure.

> A more stunning fact is that the iPad does not have a widescreen display. It is the same 4:3 aspect ratio as your grandmother’s Zenith picture tube TV had. Just about every netbook computer on the market has a 16:9 aspect ratio screen, but not the iPad. <

I had the same reaction initially myself, but decided it wasn't really all that relevant in the context of a tablet. Why? Because it gets used in both portrait AND landscape modes, unlike our HDTVs. I.e., it has to work for both. What's the aspect ratio of a sheet of paper, or page in an 8.5x11" magazine? The content is about 7.5x10". Surprise! The AR is 4x3 (or more properly, 3x4). If they had made the screen 1280x720p, which is what you're espousing, I'd complain that was too narrow for vertical oriented usage. And I'd prefer it to be 1280x960 for that reason. Back to Grandma's antique tube TV again.

> To make matters worse, however, the panel only has XGA resolution, which is 1024 by768 pixels. Guess what? That’s not enough to even show 720p high definition images without scaling them down. <

While that is true, the important tech detail you left out is that the screen is 132-dpi. That's a lot of resolution, regardless of your complaint that it's not even a full 720p. While it's easy to jump on a bandwagon, the fact is that it doesn't really make sense to criticize this, without looking at the viewing distance/angles. Just as a 720p image is completely indistinguishable from a 1080p image (or even 480i!!), once you reach a critical distance, the diff between a 1024 panel or a 1280 panel is irrelevant when you're viewing it from a foot or more away. And unless you're planning on using it as a HUD, with a harness to attach to your head and hold it right in front of your eyes, it's not an issue.

> And because the panel is not a widescreen, the result will be letterboxed. The best it can do is 1024 by 576, which is barely better than a widescreen standard definition format. And when letterboxed, the image size shrinks from 10 inches diagonal (actually, it’s just 9.7 inches) to a mere 8.9 inches. <

So what? Are we still at the stage that we're going to cry about everything that's letterboxed? Even if it were 16:9, as you're lamenting, you'd still need letterboxing on Scope films. If so, and this is the "ultimate display", then they should have made the screen with an AR of 2.35, because that's what all the best films are at. Which, of course, would be ludicrous for portrait-mode use. There's smart, and there's dumb. And that would be dumb.

> How does watching a less-than-high definition 8.9 inch diagonal video image rate as “the best movie-watching experience ever“? <

Hype alert, again. However, I will grant them one more point. It may well be the best ever, as they claimed, that you've ever had in bed. Or on a plane, or a train. Or while waiting for a meeting to start. So, as the old saying goes... location, location, location. If you take their claims to mean it's actually better than an IMAX presentation on a 100' tall screen, then you'd have to conclude they're committing fraud.

> Somehow, I would have picked a 1080p projector with a 100-inch screen and a 7.1 surround sound system in a home theater installation, or at least a 50-inch LCD or plasma flat screen HDTV. I don’t think a device like the iPad would ever occur to me. <

Yep.

> Will you be trading your HDTV for an iPad as soon as you can? <

Nope. Not as soon as I can, and not ever. The smallest HD display I use is a 24" widescreen Sony, with 2304x1440 resolution. And that from a foot or two away. Next smallest is my 61" DLP RPTV (someday to be 3D-HD... maybe). And then my 90" wide HD front projector (I never bother with diagonals there, but it's 100+").

I think this is largely a "tempest in a teapot" here, but I'm willing to let you spin a little of your own hyperbole as well.

- Tim

Videograbber - the case couldn't be made any better. I will add that as an iPhone user, I too will be slow to add this to my tool set, simply because I am hooked into the case where I can put a laptop into my pocket. Yeah, the iphone screen is low res and small, but it is one heck of a beautiful image 15" from my eyes.

One context where I do see the iPad, is for my bed bound elderly mother. I wanted to get an iPhone but elderly or not, she still has nails and had trouble with the touch display. I can see the bigger keypad being better for her. She then can take a mountain of paper notes and address books, DVD's, books, etc. and have them all at hand. If she can handle the weight.

For me, I see it as the kitchen dinette table conversation web engine, that I can travel with. Since the iphone, we are constantly looking everything up. There was alot of advertiseing of web during TV, but that really blows the concentration on and flow of the show. But in a conversation where a few facts can add to the subject, it is just really cool to have that access.

And back to the subject, for travel, this will be one heck of a convienent, easy to carry, video media, web (if wifi/3G is near), notetaking, game playing etc. tool. Does any other similar device have 10 hours available?

One thing I left out of my previous response was your claim that,
> The best it can do is 1024 by 576, which is barely better than a widescreen standard definition format. <

I'll contradict you on technical grounds here. That's 71% better than the very best SD format (SuperBit DVD), and I wouldn't consider almost twice as many pixels to be "barely better". If that were the case, then I guess 1080p, which has "only" twice as many pixels, is barely better than 720p?

Plasma panels, which showed 850x480p (ED displays), were barely better than widescreen SD, but they sure looked a lot better. Especially at a distance. The lowly iPad kicks them in the pants. Plus, they're less likely to cause hernias when carried around.

- Tim

I am in agreement with Alfred.

I should clarify first that I love Apple's products, being the proud owner of a MacBook Pro, an Apple TV, 2 iPhone's, an iPod Touch and numerous iPods over the years.

I won't be buying an iPad, but that shouldn't come as a surprise given my geek/tech nature. I really don't need a device in between my laptop (which I always have with me) and my iPhone.

Sure, it's very cool. And perhaps even innovative, especially given the price. It has some very interesting applications and good potential in certain areas ... but with respect to video? I'll pass. That shouldn't come as a surprise either. And I don't expect many on this particular forum will disagree.

- Shane Sturgeon

Tim, we agree on the facts; it's just the interpretation of where we differ. And even then we're not far apart.

I will say that EDTV -- 850 by 480 -- is in fact wide standard definition TV. It looked much better because it used physical pixels (as opposed to the virtual pixels on a CRT) and with a digital source like a DVD, it was much sharper than any broadcast CRT could achieve.

However, the widescreen format of the iPad has a pixel count that is 144% of EDTV. Half empty or half full? Reasonable people can take either side. But I can't accept that it's as good as high definition, or that scaling down a high def image to fit it is good for the image quality.

Alfred

> when letterboxed, the image size shrinks from 10 inches diagonal (actually, it’s just 9.7 inches) to a mere 8.9 inches. <

> ...at least a 50-inch LCD or plasma flat screen HDTV <

One last thing I need to point out, Alfred, is that as ridiculous as it may seem, it is entirely possible that a 9" diagonal display, that you're holding in your hands, could actually provide a more detailed and higher resolution experience than the 50-inch diagonal plasma screen you postulated... if it were located a fairly typical 12' away.

If you're holding the iPad a foot away, the plasma would have to be no more than 5.5' away, for it to subtend the same viewing angle. And most aren't watched from that close. Even accounting for the 'terrible impairment' of the limited 1024x576 rez for widescreen on the iPad, if your 50" full 1280x720p plasma is 7' away or more, the visible resolution is worse! Shocking, but true.

Just an FYI.

- Tim

Alfred,
> ...with a digital source like a DVD, it was much sharper than any broadcast CRT could achieve. However, the widescreen format of the iPad has a pixel count that is 144% of EDTV. <

I thought that EDTV was a display technology. I wasn't aware there was a transport mechanism that recorded consumer content in that format. The DVD sources you refer to were actually 720x480, and frankly that 720 h-rez was an exaggeration, because all DVDs were spatially filtered to reduce detail, so that temporal compression didn't result in excessive MPEG artifacting. That's why people bought Superbit-DVDs, because they had less horizontal filtering applied, and thus a more detailed image. To achieve that (higher bit budgets) they sacrificed the Extras on a disc. That's all that Superbit did.

So scaling the source 720 rez up to 850 in a display buys you nothing at all in terms of actual resolution gain. And that's why the accurate number is 71%, and not 44%.

> Half empty or half full? Reasonable people can take either side. <

OK.

> But I can't accept that it's as good as high definition, or that scaling down a high def image to fit it is good for the image quality. <

Scaling is never a good thing, if you can avoid it, but people watching 1080 content on 720p displays do it every day. And I can assure you that 1280x720 scaled down to 1024x576 will look radically better than 720x480 scaled up to 850x480... no matter what you're displaying it on. And even with only 64% of the pixels, the iPad can provide more detailed viewing than your full 720p-HD set... at some distances.

Anyway, I don't want to be the "defender of the iPad" here, may never buy one myself, and if I do, like Shane it WON'T be to watch video on it (HD or otherwise). However, I did want to try and balance out your commentary, that I honestly felt went too far in trying to neutralize hype with anti-hype.

- Tim

Taking a different tack... One must remember the audience! These are the same folks that willingly listen to MP3 on their iPods (and why I don’t own one). Apple figures if they’re already willing to accept dumbed down audio, whatever they give them for video will suffice. After all, they’ve already sold how many iPods and iPhones? None of which has anything to do with high-fidelity/high-definition. I’ve never been willing to spend lots and lots of money on my AV systems, but have usually ended up with something much better than the “all right.” Apple doesn’t even aim for “all right”, and they’ll get away with it. Obviously, I don’t plan to buy an iPad either.

Needless to say, if you want to have high quality reproduction in both audio and video, you’re in a small minority any more. The best you can hope for is the fact that minority doesn’t shrink to the point the makers of equipment can no longer stay in business. ...and I wonder about that.

I have to take exception to the complaint that the screen is 4:3 when everyone else is 16:9. You're not the first one to complain about this, but it's clearly wrong-headed. If this were a movie-watching device, I'd agree with you, but it's clearly not. It's a new type of device that supports many uses, only one of which is watching 16:9 movies. Watching a movie on the iPad is only a convenience, not the primary function of the iPad.

What we have here is a new, breakthrough concept that can't be compared with anything else on the market so reviewers are stuck with judging it on the merits of the device from first principles. Judging from the web reviews I've been reading, that is beyond many people's skill set.

Since this is an HD site, I'll refrain from commenting further, except to say that in my opinion this is another one of Job's brilliant strokes, brilliant because he has conceptualized a device to provide a solution in a case where most people haven't realized there could be one. He's that far ahead of the curve.

hharris4@earthlink.net wrote:I have to take exception to the complaint that the screen is 4:3 when everyone else is 16:9. You're not the first one to complain about this, but it's clearly wrong-headed. If this were a movie-watching device, I'd agree with you, but it's clearly not. It's a new type of device that supports many uses, only one of which is watching 16:9 movies. Watching a movie on the iPad is only a convenience, not the primary function of the iPad.

True, but Alfred's article is focused just on the claims regarding the "video experience".

- S

You’re right, of course, but it seems bizarre to me to criticize a design decision out of context of its primary objective. The site below illustrates this concept rather nicely:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/30/ipad-v-a-rock/

I have three iMacs and a Mac mini at home. Neither of them are the newest model. I tried a friend's 21.5" iMac for a little while and did not like it. I work with computers all day and I felt that it was very distracting to have such a wide field of view. I felt that my eyes were moving from left to right too often and too far. My poor eyesight may be a factor, but I am not sure I could get used to it.

The iPad will be a "convenient" way to watch video that you have ripped into your iTunes library from those free digital copies included with your Bluray discs, but it will not be the "best" way for sure. Even for a plane ride, there are stand-alone DVD players and widescreen laptops that would be better. But the iPad is what I will use on my next plane trip because of all the options that I will have at my fingertips - music, photos, games, video, and work. Admit it - we all have ADD!

Check out my Facebook fan page: http://theIPADisAwesome.com