
Most people will find that the Retina display delivers more spectacular colors, as it renders nearly 66% of the Adobe RGB1998 color gamut—nearly a 35% improvement over the iPad 2. Just by looking at the 2D LUV color map, we can see that the improvement is most noticeable in images containing rich reds and blues. (Updated: Here's a more detailed gamut map including Galaxy Tab 10.1.)


The iPad 3’s Retina display matches the brightness of other spectacular screens, such as the Transfomer Prime's SuperIPS, but is capable of rendering more colors. Apple clearly puts the iPad 3’s image quality on center stage, and the results speak for themselves.
The 2.4 gamma is remarkably close to the ideal 2.2, which means photographers should be pleased that mid-tones appear “just right” (not too pale, not too bright).
| iPad 2 | iPad 3 | Galaxy Tab 10.1 | Transformer Prime (SuperIPS Off) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gamut of Adobe RGB 1998 | 49.9% | 66% | 62.8% | 40.2% |
| Gamma | 2.34 | 2.4 | 1.82 | 1.76 |
| Max. Brightness (nits) | 379.1 | 403.6 | 360.4 | 409.9 |
| Color Temperature | 7100 K | 6800 K | 8900 K | 6500 K |
| Resolution | 1024x768 | 2048x1536 | 1280x800 | 1280x800 |
| Pixels per inch | 132 | 264 | 149 | 149 |
| Contrast Ratio | 758.2 | 1009.5 | 1122.9 | 819.8 |
Fail troll.
My thoughts exactly. I don't care that it outputs 3x FPS over Transformer Prime; the latter can actually integrate into my devices' ecosystem and that's what matters. I'm not buying any tablet or phone without inbuilt memory card reader.
When comparing the three iPads, the iPad 2 and iPad 3 are both said to be using PowerVR SGX545 GPUs (core-count is correct) while the table below it comparing SoCs the models are completely different and listed as SGX543.
I smell something fishy, dinner must almost be ready!
Fail troll.
My thoughts exactly. I don't care that it outputs 3x FPS over Transformer Prime; the latter can actually integrate into my devices' ecosystem and that's what matters. I'm not buying any tablet or phone without inbuilt memory card reader.
After playing around with most hi-end Android devices AND iPhone 4S/iPad 2, I happen to believe this "nonsense". Everything looks so much more hi-res... but that's only Android's fault. When are they going to fix the menu animation lag and make everything more hi-res? ICS kind of did a good job on it, though, and now it actually looks NOTHING like iOS and is beautiful.
Of course, the menu animation lag and low-res icons can't make me shift to Apple, especially now that I run ICS on my netbook (try that, Apple... oh wait, your toy MacOS IS already like a tablet OS, lol) - same way that MacOS's ability to take screenshots of a selected area of the screen can't make me shift from Windows/Ubuntu. It's just not nearly enough to compensate for the important features I'll lose. Sure enough, there're tons of people to whom all of them don't matter and they'll just go with the most hyped thing out there, but I prefer to know what I'm paying for. It's a habit that pays off on the long run.
The author comments it is suitable for watching movies. Which movie is even available in such a resolution??? For watching movies in your lap on 10", 720p is more than enough.
Typo, fixed.
Cheers,
Andrew Ku
This would rule out the galaxy tab 10.1, as it also uses adapters.
Agreed, I was NOT happy when I noticed that Samsung decided to follow that stupid trend.
But all of us have different needs so I am not saying it's bad with memory slots and USB ports, but personally I can do just fine without them, so for me iPad "3" is a win-win. I skipped iPad 2 since I felt it wasn't a good enough upgrade from iPad 1 (don't need camera, and speed was decent enough). But with this excellent screen AND better performance (compared to iPad 1) and the reduced weight and thickness (again, compared to my iPad 1) I feel I get enough good new stuff to warrant the expense.
And personally I don't like the current messy state of Android so iOS works just fine for me. Again, my personal opinion so you trolls and haters can go back under the rock where you came from.
And I wrote this using my Galaxy Tab.
I recommend them spend their $100 bil. USD for example developing more power efficient and powerful technologies, because this is going nowhere. What's next? Battery the size of a truck?
I had the idea of setting up a local DNS and web-server. With some simple HTML5 pages I could then serve all my media library to the device (HD videos, images, music etc). This would be one way round the ipad storage and connectivity limitations.
(Not sure if Safari can go 'full screen' on the ipad that would help with this though?)
I was shocked then to read "Safari, does not display high-resolution pictures in their native format."
I wonder if then if this has been done intentionally to cripple media access to the device through the browser? I wonder if this applies to hd video too? If so I really hope that apple are not that anal and do make a fix for upcoming releases. Then I could have the best of both worlds
Don't use the "scores" though, they're Apple biased. Tell us the actual numbers, they seemed to be fair.
i had fun seeing my iPod's A4 doing 66 MFLOPS...and then thinking that my Core 2 Quad does 40 GFLOPS