iPad 3rd Generation and photo size question

[Jeff Phillips]

Any iPad 3 early adopters?  What size are you going to size your images?  I converted a test image three times to fit 1024x768, 2048x1536 and 4096x3072. Each file size is (obviously) double the previous size.  The biggest file zooms in tack sharp but looks the same as the middle size at the default view (makes sense).  What are your thoughts on the trade off between file size and zoom sharpness? I figure sRGB for color space although I have not tested other embedding options yet.  Thoughts/comments/suggestions???     

[jamesn]

I never bothered to resize my photos for carrying on my iPad 2.  With a 64 gig iPad I had thousands of photos on the pad and still had about 25 gigabytes of open space available.  When I updated to the iPad 3 I only had about 5 Gigabytes still available after iTunes re-processed those exact same photos.

I love the look of the photos on the new iPad, but 64 gigs is just not enough to allow being sloppy in weeding out no longer needed photos.  I guess that when I finally get tired of getting floored by all the detail visible when surfing around in a virtual 24 inch wide photo, I'll probably resample the images down to the native resolution of the new iPad screen.  But I'm just an amateur.  If I was trying to impress a client I'd stick with the maximum size 4 to 7 megabyte jpegs that iTunes is turning out fom my Canon 7D files.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Any iPad 3 early adopters?  What size are you going to size your images?  I converted a test image three times to fit 1024x768, 2048x1536 and 4096x3072. Each file size is (obviously) double the previous size.

Four times, actually. Two times two.

Jeremy

[Alan Klein]

Do you actually see more detail with the Ipad 3?  I mean, the eye can only resolve to a certain level.  What is the advantage of having more pixels per inch than the eye can resolve?

[VeloDramatic]

On the iPad 2 I was sizing all my images to 2048 x 1536 so I'd have a 200% zoom capability. I liked that and made use of the affordance regularly with clients.

My iPad3 arrived last week and while I'm impressed with the retina display when closely inspecting images, from normal viewing distance IMO most images aren't miraculously improved by the higher resolution display. I'm not disappointed, but I'm not as impressed as I thought I'd be. That said the 15% improvement (my guess) is worth it if it helps your business or art.

If I followed the same 200% zoom philosophy, I'd be going with 4096 x 3072 on the new iPad, but I'm a little concerned that might be overkill in terms of storage.

I'll probably be more selective about sizing portfolio images to 4096 x 3072, doing it only when there's some really nice detail or critical sharpness I'd like to demonstrate to clients.

[pfigen]

Don't have a 3 yet, but on the 2, 2048 pixel length files absolutely display more smoothly and sharper when viewed normally without zooming as compared to files exactly to native screen res. Also, there are some files that show posterization in subtle gradations on the 2 that make me wonder if the display is actually less than 8 bits per channel or if something else is going on under the hood in image display. I'm using Foliobook for portfolio display, and am only mentioning my own observations wondering if any of these factors seems to have been improved on. I have seen one website that suggests that the new display gamut is considerably larger, and that would be welcome as reds on the iPad 2 screen are noticeably lacking in saturation. Would love to hear anyone else's comparison along these lines.

[mac_paolo]

Do you actually see more detail with the Ipad 3?  I mean, the eye can only resolve to a certain level.  What is the advantage of having more pixels per inch than the eye can resolve?

The pixel density for the new ipad is lesser than the standard 360ppi with aim in good prints and -way- lesser than the 720ppi we can get with smaller print sizes or MF.
So no, my eyes can (and will) outperform the iPad display, even if now you can really use it as a digital portfolio (4x the resolution and almost sRGB gamut).

[AFairley]

The pixel density for the new ipad is lesser than the standard 360ppi with aim in good prints and -way- lesser than the 720ppi we can get with smaller print sizes or MF.
So no, my eyes can (and will) outperform the iPad display, even if now you can really use it as a digital portfolio (4x the resolution and almost sRGB gamut).

Not sure what this response is saying, the answer is yes, you can see a difference (I have done side by side comparisons) but it is not a stunning difference, but clearly there if you look at edges or high frequency detail.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... So no, my eyes can (and will) outperform the iPad display...

ROTFL!!!

99.9 % of general population can not possibly see a difference between 264 ppi and 360 ppi.

99 % of photographers can not do it either (at the expected viewing distance of 15"-18")

Jeff Schewe is in the other 1 % (no sarcasm here, rather a compliment)

And 100 % of new iPad users (non-photographers) could not care less.

[mac_paolo]

ROTFL!!!

99.9 % of general population can not possibly see a difference between 264 ppi and 360 ppi.

99 % of photographers can not do it either (at the expected viewing distance of 15"-18")

Jeff Schewe is in the other 1 % (no sarcasm here, rather a compliment)

And 100 % of new iPad users (non-photographers) could not care less.

ROTFL what?
I can distinguish pixel on iPhone 4/4s pixel, which have a better density. Can't you? Sad for you. 
I used to be a 25mm-scale modeller: my concept of fine detail may be different from yours.
I think it should be better to leave those 99,9% percentages alone, unless you're an oculist, of course.
Beside that, as for the most of "amateur experts", the viewing distance (as Bruce used to say) is limited by the length of my nose, much less than your 15-18" estimates!

[johnbeebe]

I am still  hoping that someone will answer the original question.

I use Lightroom to process my images  and have my first iPad - the new iPad.

I would like to optimize my images to allow maximum zooming but I am unclear what iTunes does to them when it imports them. Should I resize to 72dpi and maximize pixel count?

I would like to set-up presets in Lightroom.

I am mostly shooting with a D3.

Thanks!

[sandymc]

I am still  hoping that someone will answer the original question.

I use Lightroom to process my images  and have my first iPad - the new iPad.

I would like to optimize my images to allow maximum zooming but I am unclear what iTunes does to them when it imports them. Should I resize to 72dpi and maximize pixel count?

I would like to set-up presets in Lightroom.

I am mostly shooting with a D3.

Thanks!

Presuming that you are going to use the iTunes Sync function, don't worry about it - iTunes will automatically resize images if it thinks they are too large for the iPad. If you want to avoid the automatic resize, or at least minimize any negative effects from it, I'd suggest going resizing your images to twice the size of your device's screen. If you image's aspect ratio is different to the device screen, then resize such that the side of the image that is the largest relative to the device aspect ratio (aka the side you want there to be no gap on) to be twice the corresponding side of the device screen.

If you're not using iTunes sync, then the answer may be different depending on what route you're using to go to the device, and what app will first see the image.

Sandy

[davidahn]

As someone with 20/15 vision, I will say that at an 18" distance, I don't believe there is further need for additional sharpness. But I do see some stair stepping. I could be wrong, but the iPad 3 does NOT appear to do any type antialiasing. I vote for antialiasing rather than more pixels. Remember, we can see jaggies on 300 dpi monochrome prints, but we don't at 200 dpi on continuous tone prints.

As to the original question, it depends on what you want to do. Do you want to zoom in 2x and still see more detail most people can't resolve, or do you want to blow up the already incredible detail in the native panel display resolution (3 MP; remember when cameras were 2 MP?)? There's no wrong answer. One is awesome, the other is overkill for most people, but if you have 64GB, I say, why not?

David

[hjulenissen]

I can distinguish pixel on iPhone 4/4s pixel...

What do you mean?

No matter what some users may be able to benefit from in narrow corner cases with their nose pressed up against the display/paper, I think that it makes sense to draw some kind of line where "practically", resolution is high enough.

Image scaling and optimal sharpening is still interesting. Should you sharpen your images differently for the iPad3 vs iPad2?

-h

[mac_paolo]

I own the new iPad too, and owned a 1st generation iPad.
At that resolution you just don't need anymore to provide higher resolution images for display.

Beside the fact I don't use the vanilla App to show my photos (I use Portfolio for iPad instead), just export 2048x1536 max resolution with medium/high sharpening settings, depending on your taste.
The picture will look gorgeous no matter what, trust me;)

Don't worry to export under the standard sRGB color space: the new iPad's gamut is almost exactly the same as sRGB.

[francois]

For those publishing photos on an iPad 3:

http://duncandavidson.com/blog/2012/03/webkit_retina_bug

("trick": use progressive JPEG)

[shotworldwide]

I saw my images (775px - the longer side) on the new screen.
The screen is really nice but if your image is smaller it looks blurred. And the proper resolution for this screen is already a printable A4 (approx.) image at 300 Dpi …

It means you could write all of your images on a DVD discs and give them for free to anybody who walks around as everyone is aware of how to take a screenshot today ...

One thing is to have them already stored on your device and use them for your face to face presentation and the other thing is to let people download them from the internet. Not everywhere is a fast internet connection.

Also older devices will have a problem with dealing with such a big files ...

To be honest, I really don't know, what to do

I will perhaps wait and keep my current images (775px) couple of months as not many people own new high resolution screens yet.

------------------------------
http://shotworldwide.com

[mac_paolo]

I'm not speaking about web galleries, but local portfolio.
Nobody will ever take a screenshot from my device nor steal in any way.
It's just a gorgeous way to show photos in public. It totally replaced 5x7" prints for casual moments.