iPad usefulness?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: R on 1 Apr 2010 11:18 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Sorry, thought you were talking about the iPad. Much higher resolution > than TV Only if you mean old-fashioned TV rather than HD TV.
From: Woody on 1 Apr 2010 11:32 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > At work, in electronic > > publications (hah), there are a lot of people that will routinely print > > everything out to read it. > > Not routinely, but the other day when I was starting out with our new > Epson V5000 scanner, and setting it up to print slides which I had never > done before, I printed out the three relevant pages from the pdf. It > really did make a difference. > > Now I've scanned 60 or so slides in an afternoon, I suspect I'll never > need to refer to the printed copy again. Well I hope not... > > > On the other hand, at work every time I print something I have to look > > through my book to remember which printer is which, as I so rarely do > > it. > > Ah, but you have the option. 'Spoilt for choice' would cover it. I can currently see 12. If I did a search I am sure there are another few hundred I could print to. Now, finding my printout could be a laugh though! -- Woody
From: Woody on 1 Apr 2010 11:32 R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Sorry, thought you were talking about the iPad. Much higher resolution > > than TV > > Only if you mean old-fashioned TV rather than HD TV. As I said, for most of the history of TV, so analogue TV. In fact, for VHS which was adaquate for many years, the iPod is higher resolution! Also most HD content isn't actually 1920x1200, it is far lower. -- Woody
From: David Kennedy on 1 Apr 2010 11:34 R wrote: > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >> Sorry, thought you were talking about the iPad. Much higher resolution >> than TV > > Only if you mean old-fashioned TV rather than HD TV. I strongly suspect that 70% of the population still have "old fashioned" TV -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com
From: R on 1 Apr 2010 12:08
Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Sorry, thought you were talking about the iPad. Much higher resolution > > > than TV > > > > Only if you mean old-fashioned TV rather than HD TV. > > As I said, for most of the history of TV, so analogue TV. In fact, for > VHS which was adaquate for many years, the iPod is higher resolution! But most of history is not relevant now. If you're going to compare a modern Apple appliance to a TV, surely it should be a modern TV? If you went into a shop today to buy a new TV, you'd find that all or nearly all of them would have a higher resolution than 1024x768. > Also most HD content isn't actually 1920x1200, it is far lower. On the net 1280x720 is exceedingly common. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that would be a better choice for the iPad, which has a 4:3 1024x768 screen (horizontal). Apple say on their website "The 9.7-inch high-resolution screen makes iPad perfect for watching HD movies". Well, yes, except that the resolution is too low for most HD content and the aspect ratio is wrong (meaning you will lose precious pixels through letterboxing, or you lose some of your video through cropping). |