Compared with its rivals, iPad Mini is short on pixels

The iPad Mini may have a larger screen than its competitors, but it doesn't have the sharpest screen resolution.

Apple's new iPad Mini boasts a larger screen than Google's Nexus 7 or Barnes & Noble's Nook, but has lower screen resolution than both devices.

In the tech world, product specs can be tricky to parse. When Apple introduced its iPad mini yesterday (Oct. 23), it made much of the mini's bigger screen in a side-by-side comparison with the rival Google Nexus 7. What Apple didn't say is that the Nexus 7 (which starts at $199, compared with the iPad mini's starting price of $329) has 30 percent greater resolution.

And the New Nook HD (also starting at $199) offers the highest resolution of small tablets. Its 7-inch screen packs four times as many dots as the mini's.

If you want to watch HD video, it won't fit on the iPad mini (or, for that matter, the original iPad or iPad 2, which have the same resolution). But the Nexus 7 has a few more pixels than needed for basic "720p" HD, and the Nook has well more than needed for the best-level of HD, known as 1080p.

In fact, the iPad mini barely tops (by less than 60,000 pixels) the new iPhone 5, which has just a 5-inch screen (of a different — widescreen — shape).

But just as screen dimensions don't tell the full story, neither do just pixel counts. A larger screen can have larger virtual buttons and text entry fields, for example, making them easier (if less detailed) targets for fat fingers.

And true HD may not matter so much at this size, unless you have your nose pressed to the screen. TV makers, for example, generally say 720p is fine for screens below 42 inches (measured diagonally). It's noticeable only at 50 inches and larger.

Time will tell whether screen size or pixels make more of a difference for the iPad mini. But certainly one number doesn't tell the whole story.

Copyright 2012 TechNewsDaily, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.