Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Would a mod make a sticky about retina display on ipad

harry*333

harry*333

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jul 24, 2009
505
28
I know I am and are sure others are too, tired of people posting about how there should be a retina display on the iPad and then people like me have to tell them about how having a retina display would give you the resolution of a 27" iMac and in order to run a screen like that you would need a lot of ram, CPU, and gpu
It would be very nice if a moderator would make a sticky about this, including the info about how it won't work
 
They should release a free software update that converts my iPad display into a retina display and also upgrades the RAM, CPU and GPU!
 
harry*333 said:
I know I am and are sure others are too, tired of people posting about how there should be a retina display on the iPad and then people like me have to tell them about how having a retina display would give you the resolution of a 27" iMac and in order to run a screen like that you would need a lot of ram, CPU, and gpu
It would be very nice if a moderator would make a sticky about this, including the info about how it won't work
Click to expand...

Also it would be extremely expensive. The costs of making a near 10" high density (Retina) display would likely drive the base price of the iPad to several 1000 dollars.
 
Julien said:
Also it would be extremely expensive. The costs of making a near 10" high density (Retina) display would likely drive the base price of the iPad to several 1000 dollars.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I forgot about that part
 
BergerFan said:
An IPS, 1280x1024 display would be more than sufficient, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
How about 1280x800 - just like the 13" MacBook? Not as dorky (can you say JooJoo) as a 16x9 aspect ratio - would work well for books and video.
 
jasg49 said:
How about 1280x800 - just like the 13" MacBook? Not as dorky (can you say JooJoo) as a 16x9 aspect ratio - would work well for books and video.
Click to expand...
Is 1280x800 a 16:10 ratio? I think that'll still be too narrow in portrait and too wide in landscape. I was incorrect with the 1280x1024 ratio, thinking it was 4:3. I meant 1280x960. :cool:
 
Hellhammer said:
iPad would need a display with 2560x1920 resolution to have the same ppi as iPhone 4...
Click to expand...

3289x2569 to make the 344dpi of the iPhone 4 on the iPads display. Which means a plain white background image would take up 24MB of space. And a single high detailed icon could be over 100MB each.

And just for giggies a iMac 27 inch with the same DPi would be 8084x4558. Which would make normal sized internet streaming videos look like dock icons.
 
babyjenniferLB said:
3289x2569 to make the 344dpi of the iPhone 4 on the iPads display. Which means a plain white background image would take up 24MB of space. And a single high detailed icon could be over 100MB each.

And just for giggies a iMac 27 inch with the same DPi would be 8084x4558. Which would make normal sized internet streaming videos look like dock icons.
Click to expand...

I used this to count the ppi, 329.65 ppi for the iPhone 4 (960x640, 3.5") and 329.9 ppi for the hi res iPad (2560x1920, 9.7")

For 27" iMac, that would mean 7680x4320 as that would result a 326.36 ppi

You're talking about dpi, does that make a difference?
 
Doctor Q said:
Is there a suitable Mac Guide we might put in the iPad forum header to address the issue?
Click to expand...

Does it even matter? People don't read the Mac Guides at the tops of the forums any more than they read the stickies. The best way to go about it is to pick a thread to merge all of the repetitive "Retina Display" threads into and then start reporting those that post astray.
 
Hellhammer said:
I used this to count the ppi, 329.65 ppi for the iPhone 4 (960x640, 3.5") and 329.9 ppi for the hi res iPad (2560x1920, 9.7")

For 27" iMac, that would mean 7680x4320 as that would result a 326.36 ppi

You're talking about dpi, does that make a difference?
Click to expand...

Good calculations. That's a nice coincidence that a 27" iMac at 326 ppi would show exactly Super Hi-Vision resolutions. (16xFull HD)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision

The iPad at 2560x1920 resolution would show nicely two Full HD videos top to bottom in portrait mode with 400 extra lines. (2560 - 1080p*2 = 400)

These resolutions actually seem reasonable in the future, since they already fit standard linear resolutions and ratios of today. (2560, 1920, 4:3, 16:9, etc.) Why not make all screens around 326 ppi instead of around 100-130 ppi of today! Remember when 72 ppi was standard?
 
gatortpk said:
Good calculations. That's a nice coincidence that a 27" iMac at 326 ppi would show exactly Super Hi-Vision resolutions. (16xFull HD)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision

The iPad at 2560x1920 resolution would show nicely two Full HD videos top to bottom in portrait mode with 400 extra lines. (2560 - 1080p*2 = 400)

These resolutions actually seem reasonable in the future, since they already fit standard linear resolutions and ratios of today. (2560, 1920, 4:3, 16:9, etc.) Why not make all screens around 326 ppi instead of around 100-130 ppi of today! Remember when 72 ppi was standard?
Click to expand...

Well, Sammich made an excellent graph about PPI and viewing distances. That 300PPI is from one foot but it halved to 150PPI at 2 feet so we are pretty close of achieving "retina" display in Macs as well because normal viewing distance is two feet.

Anyway, in future, we will see those resolutions but first of all, it needs resolution independence in OS X, otherwise it's useless
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back