An iPad 3 'Retina Display' Comparison Graphic

[DESNOS]

Do people honestly think this is going to happen

If it did ship with a 2048x1546 display, then it would be capable of rendering images at a higher resolution than all video game consoles currently on the market.

However, game developers already struggle to produce games that run at 1920x1080 due to the power of the consoles - are people seriously saying that they think iPad 3 will have a better CPU and GPU than PlayStation 3 / Xbox 360?

Games aside, what content is there to take advantage of that display?

I seem to remember reading from this site that some new display tech that came out recently is the reason they're able to do resolution doubling... I forget its name.

 

[borgqueenx]

Retina like screen on laptop makes the pixels so close to each other that i can disable Anti Aliasing...so....AA+retina on ipad3 makes for a pretty impressive no-cornered 3d models

 

[blow45]

this graphic is idiotic (I hope someone already noticed this an commented btw).

What the heck is the graphic supposed to show and why are you reposting it?

HDPi displays are about high dpi, smaller pixels per set area in simple words, it's not about setting an x mm pixel size.

This way visually one who wouldn't know better (to no fault of their own of course) comes to the moronic conclusion that a blue ray screen and an ipad 1 screen are better than an iphone 4, 4s. They are not, they are worse, since their "grain" size is higher than the iphone 4,4s. Of course at a distance of a blue ray screen this difference with the iphone 4 or 4s hardly makes any difference, but from ipad 1's distance of usage to that of iphone 4's it makes a whole lot difference, and the ipad 1 screen is worse. So what does this graph represent? Nothing.

The comparison graphic would be to choose a set area then compare different pixel count on each one. Because it's the number AND size of pixels per area, and obviously higher no of pixels in the same area means smaller pixels which is the intention.

Anyway, I am very much looking forward to a retina display for the ipad seeing as my eye-sight is in dire need of one. Having said this two other points are also very important in screen quality: that they fuse the glass with the screen some way a la iphone 4,s so we don't have two surfaces of potential glare, and secondly that apple finally get's involved in good antireflective tech in their products by investing serious $$ on it and not merely sticking almost untreated glare inducing glass on everything.
(for more see here: http://www.pcmonitors.org/articles/matte-vs-glossy-monitors )

 

[KoolKid]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Stop complaining! You all act like you don't even want a 4k ipad. Probably the same people who will stand first inline for the 4k ipad later in march.

 

[doctor-don]

Let's see a side-by-side comparison of common displays and TVs along with their resolutions in pixels per square inch.

 

[blow45]

Wow. I'm actually impressed, that the tone on this side finally has abandoned journalistic objectivity and rather goes the AI fanboy mode. It's embarassing.

There is no need to use such a stupid and emotional line as to the iPad3's display "dwarfing everything". Basically Macrumors now chimes into the standard "We hype it for the fanboys"-style you once only got from AI. Sad part is that all Mac sites these day go down that route.

So jut as fun facts for you:
2004: Introduction of the Apple Cinema Display 30" with 2560x1600 p.

So basically the iPad3 is dwarfed by nearly every middle class computer display on the planet. Think about it.

Oh - on a side note - why is this giving the connotation that TV manufacturers are too incompetent to reach that high resoulutions? They are not, but those TVs are utterly expensive and there is nearly no material for it. Google UHDV if you like.

Good points. A few corrections AI might be more fanboish but they are also (sorry guys here I got to say this) more journalistic and more insightful in their articles. MR posts tweets in comparison to the length and breadth of AI's articles.

As for the rest I am with you, it's a stupid nonsensical comparison that the guys here reposted from elsewhere that makes one come to absurd conclusion as you said that nearly every run of the mill computer display is better than the ipad 3, because said "comparison" misunderstands the basics of dpi and screen tech.

Sundays are slow news days ok, but they are not meant to be days for the slow, lol.

 

[Liquinn]

But when the iPad 3 is released, everyone will start talking about the iPad 4. When the iPad 4 is out, everyone will be talking about the iPad 5 and so fourth :/

 

[RogerWhaley]

... Games aside, what content is there to take advantage of that display?

I think it would be an excellent way for a traveling photographer to leave the laptop at home. You can send your pictures to iCloud with this device after editing out the obvious out-takes on your iPad. That is a nice work flow.

It would be nice if the camera connection kit was faster to facilitate this. Something USB 3-ish or a card slot would be excellent.

I probably would put up with slow downloads just to lose the extra weight of a laptop.

 

[blackcrayon]

So basically the iPad3 is dwarfed by nearly every middle class computer display on the planet. Think about it.

Which of these middle class computer displays are 10" ones you can hold in your hand?

 

[mrxak]

What's with all the negativity? It doesn't even make sense on the most basic of levels. Obviously this will happen, and be a good thing. How do we know this? Because they already did it with the iPhone screen and the results were great. Also, we've had leaked parts and such for months now. And, well, simple logic would state that this is the direction Apple and every other tablet company is going in.

Apple's been wanting to drastically increase the DPI on all of their products for years now. Remember resolution independence on OS X? It's simply taken this long to start getting the manufacturing at the right place for large screens with tiny pixels to exist.

Are you all totally new to MacRumors, and Apple news in general, and tech news in general, that this is such a surprise? Are you really so astonished that the natural progression of technology has come so far? Are you so ignorant of Apple's past with the iPhone that you think Apple would not be interested in bringing "retina" displays to their other products, and how they would go about doing it?

I just don't understand how people can be seriously questioning the veracity of a retina display on an iPad, or saying it's a bad thing for Apple to have done this. Apple is capable of the feat, clearly, and it's been a success already. I don't understand how people can claim that video will actually look worse on four pixels in the place of one. They're square, you know, you can just put that one old pixel onto four new ones and it'll look exactly the same. I really don't understand how people can suggest that because seven year old game consoles can only output 720 or 1080p, a modern system can't handle more than that, even something so basic as mere text. Yes, a phone is smaller than an game console, but technology marches on, and things get faster and smaller.

None of the other iPad 3 rumors about the display have elicited such silly negative responses that I've seen, but this topic is filled to the brim. Did I slip into some bizarro world where people hate new, better technology?

 

[hvfsl]

Yep - and with the inclusion of 1080p the author clearly intended to state the impressing fact that the resolution surpasses "your average Joe consumer TV". Now isn't that magical?!? Isn't that amazing?!? Don't you want to buy into the hype immediately?!?

Oh - and if Samsung really is the manufacturer of this display - too bad that this will be a big GalaxyTab-show at MWC in two weeks.

The rumours so far seem to be suggesting that Philips is the manufacturer. But other manufacturers have already announced tablets with high res displays (Asus being one), but they won't be out for a long time yet. Probably because Apple has bought up all the initial supply.

 

[Xenc]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Does this mean that 1080p movies would look bad in fullscreen?

 

[i.mac]

Pretty impressive, but I feel it's kinda wasted on the iPad. Rather offer it on a laptop display where it will actually be of use to people.

Apparently, apple can do no good... Good grief...

 

[Samskeyti]

I still say it's a waste. I was never really "wow"ed by the iPhone 4 display, my 200 DPI Titan does the job just as well. Yes, it's a cool thing to boast, and show off, but at the end of the day I'd rather have a high-res desktop where the extra pixels actually go towards something useful. Although I guess my opinion is a bit slanted because I don't think the iPad is a particularly useful device in the first place. To each his own. I'd still love this resolution on my next laptop.

Not really to each their own. The screen was a definite "wow" feature when compared to the iPhone 3GS.

Maybe you never had an iPhone 3GS before you bought the 4, or maybe you don't even have an iPhone?

 

[iPhysicist]

All you sad, number obsessed, tech fanboys please feel free to vote down my post as I know you will; it won't help you to lose your virginity.

done

 

[Samskeyti]

So jut as fun facts for you:
2004: Introduction of the Apple Cinema Display 30" with 2560x1600 p.

So basically the iPad3 is dwarfed by nearly every middle class computer display on the planet. Think about it.

This is a piss-poor "fun fact" which wholly, is comprised of asininity. This makes absolutely no sense. None. Zilch. Nada.

Do people even think on here?

 

[syndalis]

I mean, really.

 

[slu]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

this graphic is idiotic (I hope someone already noticed this an commented btw).

What the heck is the graphic supposed to show and why are you reposting it?

HDPi displays are about high dpi, smaller pixels per set area in simple words, it's not about setting an x mm pixel size.

This way visually one who wouldn't know better (to no fault of their own of course) comes to the moronic conclusion that a blue ray screen and an ipad 1 screen are better than an iphone 4, 4s. They are not, they are worse, since their "grain" size is higher than the iphone 4,4s. Of course at a distance of a blue ray screen this difference with the iphone 4 or 4s hardly makes any difference, but from ipad 1's distance of usage to that of iphone 4's it makes a whole lot difference, and the ipad 1 screen is worse. So what does this graph represent? Nothing.

The comparison graphic would be to choose a set area then compare different pixel count on each one. Because it's the number AND size of pixels per area, and obviously higher no of pixels in the same area means smaller pixels which is the intention.

Anyway, I am very much looking forward to a retina display for the ipad seeing as my eye-sight is in dire need of one. Having said this two other points are also very important in screen quality: that they fuse the glass with the screen some way a la iphone 4,s so we don't have two surfaces of potential glare, and secondly that apple finally get's involved in good antireflective tech in their products by investing serious $$ on it and not merely sticking almost untreated glare inducing glass on everything.
(for more see here: http://www.pcmonitors.org/articles/matte-vs-glossy-monitors )

Thank you! The graphic is useless. I don't mind the discussion, but the article is pretty useless as well. We already have several articles about the iPad 3 display, and this one adds nothing new, except for a graphic which in no way represents anything relevant to the discussion. In fact, it is probably misleading a lot of people.

 

[Chazn]

They better put a Quad-core in if they're putting that many pixels on the screen!

 

[E.Lizardo]

For once MacRumors did not say "X unreleased Apple product will have X feature". MacRumors just said "assuming it has".

Well done. Hope this is not a one off. And all the future articles can be like this. I don't have any high hopes of this happening though. But hey we all could be pleasantly surprised with some better worded articles in the future. That'd be nice.

Citation needed

To my memory this article is worded the way they all have been.Examples
?

 

[craznar]

It is like displays are catching up with the past...

Several years ago I could get a 1900x1600 laptop, then it was 1900x1200, then it was 1900x1080 (or something).

Now the iPad is recreating the past, by introducing the same bloody resolution (roughly) we had 7 years ago.

Now if only desktops and laptops could catch up to old tech, we might be right again.

 

[Lesser Evets]

They better put a Quad-core in if they're putting that many pixels on the screen!

Although I believe there will be a quad-core, I think the best is that they have something that works--no matter what the cores--instead of some name that means close-to-nothing and doesn't do the work.

People are getting weird about cores the same way they used to get weird about system memory. What does it matter if the system doesn't need or use the extra memory? You could attach an automobile to the iPad and it won't compute faster. Likewise, 2 fast cores are better than 4 slow cores. It all depends on the engineering. Ultimately the complete machine needs to function and run fast, no matter what is in there.

 

[SPUY767]

YouTube 4k will actually have a use. 1080p wont be enough to use all the pixels.

 

[E.Lizardo]

I can see the difference, I just don't care about it on a mobile device. On a computer, sure, get that sucker as high as it'll go. On a phone or tablet, as long as I can read the text (for which 150-200 DPI is perfectly acceptable for to me) I don't really care.

On any device some features are a "waste"to someone somewhere.
I almost never use the front camera,have only used airplane mode once,never have used the compass app,etc.
I would never say they are a waste though.Just because I don't need them doesn't mean Apple should remove them.I'm not that self centered.

----------

Yep - and with the inclusion of 1080p the author clearly intended to state the impressing fact that the resolution surpasses "your average Joe consumer TV". Now isn't that magical?!? Isn't that amazing?!? Don't you want to buy into the hype immediately?!?

Oh - and if Samsung really is the manufacturer of this display - too bad that this will be a big GalaxyTab-show at MWC in two weeks.

Won't matter.
Doesn't run iOS5

 

[gorskiegangsta]

Pretty impressive, but I feel it's kinda wasted on the iPad. Rather offer it on a laptop display where it will actually be of use to people.

It would be of less use on the laptop because laptop displays are viewed at greater distances than tablets and thus need much lower ppi display to make them "retina" (i.e. truly seamless).