iPad 3 - a 2K monitor for your mac?

[Peter Majtan]

With the massive 2048x1536 resolution it would be awesome to use it as a 2K display on set (or wherever) with something like this...:

http://cleancutcode.com/displaypad/

What do you think?

Peter

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Unless you are looking at it from about 6 inches distance you won't be able to tell 2K res from XGA. That's math for you...

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

I already use my ipad 2 for this using this app:

http://avatron.com/apps/air-display

I would imagine that the Ipad 3 would work great in that regard.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm sure Air Display and similar apps will update to support the new iPad now... iOS 5.1 and XCode 4.3.1 (with iPad retina support) were released today as well. Shouldn't take long.

 

[Peter Majtan]

Unless you are looking at it from about 6 inches distance you won't be able to tell 2K res from XGA. That's math for you...

It's not about (over)analyzing pixels - it's about seeing your shots without graduated stepping due to excessive downscaling, or being able to see say a HD frame and still have plenty of space for tool palettes, etc...
And more importantly - it is about having a high-res monitor with me on set that does not need main's power. Priceless for docu work, etc...

I like my cup half full...

Peter

 

[Marc Wielage]

And don't forget: iPad 3 is still 8 bit. Stepping is a bit-depth problem. And we haven't even gotten into the issue of data compression. Plus there's the gamma curve, color temperature, and color gamut to consider.

I love the iPad for a lot of things, but too many people are stepping all over themselves thinking this is going to be an ideal onset monitor, and to me, that's foolhardy. There are 100 $500 monitors that are just as bad as the Ipad 3 -- just not as sexy. And those aren't reliable, either.

 

[michael zaletel]

Hmm....

iPad 3 + Mac Mini?

-Michael

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I think the biggest issue for the iPad 3 as a monitor like this will be the performance. Apps like Air Display already are a bit sluggish and will be even more so when dealing with 4X the number of pixels on the new iPad over the same data connections and with relatively the same CPU speed.

 

[PatrickW]

because we will soon have 4k displays on your mac...?

 

[Rob Ruffo]

And don't forget: iPad 3 is still 8 bit. Stepping is a bit-depth problem. And we haven't even gotten into the issue of data compression. Plus there's the gamma curve, color temperature, and color gamut to consider.

I love the iPad for a lot of things, but too many people are stepping all over themselves thinking this is going to be an ideal onset monitor, and to me, that's foolhardy. There are 100 $500 monitors that are just as bad as the Ipad 3 -- just not as sexy. And those aren't reliable, either.

This myth bugs me - a true 8 bit panel will show no stepping - it's grading 8 bit material that causes stepping, or using a panel that cannot really fully display 8 bit (most can't), or pushing the calibration controls too far on a panel that has low-bit internal processing (which is a lot like grading 8 bit video).

 

[Marc Wielage]

Funny: I can grade on a 10-bit display and not see stepping (or at least not see it nearly as much).

I do agree that 8-bit material looks a lot worse than 10-bit material, depending on how hard you tweak it. Either way, my opinion is that an iPad display is not useful for judging color or brightness. It's fine for certain things -- headroom, focus, framing, performance -- but you can buy a 1920x1200 computer display for about $150. And the panel itself in an iPad is actually fairly inexpensive. If you could calibrate it and set it up, you'd have a chance. But as far as I know, there's no way to do that.

I think the problem is, the iPad has sex appeal, and people get caught up in that. I've already dealt for years with a few very big-name directors who use iPod Touches and iPhones for judging dailies color and exposure, and some of those conversations have gotten very ugly. It's hard to deal with ignorance of this enormity, especially with large-budget projects. (In one memorable case, the conversation was immediately followed-up by the DP, apologizing profusely for the director's stupidity. At least he got it.)

 

[MichaelP]

Not to mention this little issue/solution?:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/5/26/datacoloriPad

Michael

 

[Peter Majtan]

I have never said this would be an "ideal" monitor. But there are many scenarios when it would help greatly - just as I have mentioned before - remote locations during documentary work, no access to main power on location without the need to carry yet another battery and charger set (which would be needed for a battery-powered monitor). Having 2K display that can run on its own power for 8 hours is nothing to sneeze at. You could also use the laptops calibrated display to see the image and use the iPad for all the tools, palettes, timelines, etc... Also the performance of these apps is sluggish because of the WiFi connection they use. I would much prefer to use it directly connected to the laptop. I have used other - much smaller - USB only external monitor before - like the "scopes" monitor with The Foundry's STORM development:

This is not that far-fetched...

Peter

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

It's hard to deal with ignorance of this enormity

Profound statement- society defined. It's great to be in a place that is so refreshing and outspoken...
Thank you!!!!

 

[Marc Wielage]

I have never said this would be an "ideal" monitor. But there are many scenarios when it would help greatly - just as I have mentioned before - remote locations during documentary work, no access to main power on location without the need to carry yet another battery and charger set (which would be needed for a battery-powered monitor). Having 2K display that can run on its own power for 8 hours is nothing to sneeze at. You could also use the laptops calibrated display to see the image and use the iPad for all the tools, palettes, timelines, etc... Also the performance of these apps is sluggish because of the WiFi connection they use.

Very, very sluggish.

I think when you're on location, especially under documentary conditions where power is an issue, worrying about whether or not you're seeing 2K is going to be the least of your problems. Just get something that looks reasonable, and move on.

I agree, having something like an iPad for histograms and/or a parade scope is not a terrible idea. But note again that it's not going to react instantly. One key problem is the iPad is not a monitor. It's just a tablet with no direct I/O. It's fine if you're watching a take playing back, just to check focus, performance, headroom, and camera movement. If you already have a laptop connected, do you really need to see an iPad as well just because of the resolution?

I personally would feel much more comfortable with a calibrated monitor that costs a little more, connected to the camera with an HDMI cable, reducing the latency by a considerable amount.

 

[Peter Majtan]

Marc - the issue is a screen realestate. My 17" MBP has properly calibrated screen and that is what I use to judge (and adjust) my images on. I just need an extra space for all the other tools and palettes. The problem with a "proper" monitor is the additional power requirement. I always carry my iPad no matter what. Having to carry an additional monitor and the batteries and charger for it simply is not an option for remote docu work. Right now I just use the 17" MBP, so adding the iPad (that I already have) as an extra realestate is a major bonus. Again - if you use the iPad via WiFi - it sure is sluggish as a monitor. It is however different story when the iPad is connected via it's USB cable...

 

[Marc Wielage]

Having to carry an additional monitor and the batteries and charger for it simply is not an option for remote docu work.

Well, look at the big picture: for the past 90 years or so, people shot documentaries with no monitors at all, and yet created some of the most enduring documentaries in history. Even the ones shot in video -- and I would offer Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 as an example of a commercially successful one -- was mostly shot with just viewfinders and good experienced camera operators and DPs. Trust me, the camera crews getting shot at in Iraq and Iran or braving the Congo or the North Pole are not carrying monitors either, but somehow, most of them make it back with decent pictures that tell the story.

The reality is that the histograms and on-screen readouts within the basic Red camera will tell you a lot of what you need to know. Get a good solid exposure, follow the rules, and you'll be able to make great pictures in post. Neither the iPad nor a $40,000 monitor next to it will change this fact. Shoot a lot of tests, get to know the camera, figure out how far you can push it (and when images can't be saved), and you'll be able to shoot under many different circumstances without monitors. At worst, you can always take along your laptop and check the footage every so often just to confirm that the results will be usable and there are no obvious problems.

Again, don't assume the iPad will work just because it has 2048x1536 resolution (which is still far from 4K). It's the greyscale, the color accuracy, the contrast range, the exposure range, and other factors that are actually more important in terms of getting usable pictures.