Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
An iPad 3 'Retina Display' Comparison Graphic
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
This just shows how pointless this screen resolution is on a small tablet. The only reason Apple is doing it is because of iOS deficiencies. It can only handle fixed screen sizes hence resolution always changes by 2x. What exactly is this resolution is going to be used for? iPad 3 owners won't even have access to 1080p movies because those only come on BluRay disks. Compressed 720p movies from iTunes are perfectly handled by Android tablets right now. Games will not be able to offer this resolutions either (well they can but only at 5 frames per second).
1080p, even 720p, movies are generally shot widescreen so yes they would look bad in fullscreen. which is why they will likely default to the same black bars style that is on the iPad now. So they keep the aspect ratio.
Because I don't have the imagination or intellect to foresee a better future I can't see how it could possibly exist.
Really? Android can play FairPlay DRMed movies from iTunes?
Anyway, I have an iPhone 3G and an 4th gen iPod touch and the difference is like night and day (and the iPod touch screen isn't very good). The only thing is that the iPad is going to need one beefy CPU to render 3d games on this display. Yes I realize that's not the focus of a hi-res dispaly, but Apple is going to want game developers to be able to take full advantage of the new res.
Honestly I do think we will see a hi-res display on the iPad 3 but will it be double? It just seems like that would be overkill.
Really? Android can play FairPlay DRMed movies from iTunes?
I was just talking resolution wise. One can get similar content elsewhere (for less) but not 1080p.
It's definitely coming, it is not unimaginable.
Samsung and LG already showed off tablet sized high resolution displays (at slightly higher resolution 2,560 x 1,600, not sure on dpi tho).
Samsung and LG already showed off tablet sized high resolution displays (at slightly higher resolution 2,560 x 1,600, not sure on dpi tho).
I think it was the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, so a slightly larger screen with roughly the same DPI.
EDIT: Here is some info on a 300DPI demo by Samsung. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tec...solution-screen-on-galaxy-tab-10-point-1.html
Already mentioned this earlier, seems someone didn't want to hear this. The screen is 11.6 inches. Will be unveiled at WMC.
Problem is that it's a Pentile display, which isn't as good, as I understand it. I'm assuming that the iPad's display won't be using that.
I'm also curious if we will see displays that rival the iPad's from the Android competitors. They were having trouble matching Apple when there wasn't such an expensive brand new component that will likely have some yield issues for a bit. Even if they can make it, can they price match Apple at all?
I'm also curious if we will see displays that rival the iPad's from the Android competitors. They were having trouble matching Apple when there wasn't such an expensive brand new component that will likely have some yield issues for a bit. Even if they can make it, can they price match Apple at all?
Well It completely makes sense considering HD is 720P or 1080P. So FULL HD obviously means 1080P. Retina Display sounds a heck of a lot more like a gimmicky marketing term. It follows no industry standard what so ever. It's Apple's own made up term.
Why would they have any problems matching Apple when Android vendors (Samsung, LG, Sharp) are the only ones who actually produce quality panels? It's not like Apple will be the one producing the panel for iPad 3. Just look at currently offered phones and tablets and will see that Android models offer better screens than either iPhone or iPad. That's not going to change.
No. Are you one of those people who were suckered into buying one of those plasma displays that had 1440X1080 while claiming to be 1080p?
I remember geeks on AV sites claiming that the early plasma displays were better than LCD even though they were falsely advertised as "1080p" while lacking a full 1920 horizontal resolution.
I think those crappy displays is part of the reason why that marketing term exists so that manufacturers of full resolution displays could differentiate from those that were cheating.
I think it's no coincidence that iPhone's landscape pixel count is exactly half that of HDTV's. 960 x 2 = 1920. That would make it trivial to make "universal" apps that include graphics for iPhone and HDTV. Same technique used for apps that run on both iPhone 3/3GS and iPhone 4/4S.
The question is what would Apple do with that extra 200 vertical pixels? Sure, 960x2 = 1920. But HDTV's vertical pixel count is 1080 and 640x2 = 1280. Would developers be forced to cut out that extra 200 pixels when apps are running on HDTV? (Or will the Apple television set have a special 1920x1280 screen instead of the standard HDTV 1920x1080?)
The question is what would Apple do with that extra 200 vertical pixels? Sure, 960x2 = 1920. But HDTV's vertical pixel count is 1080 and 640x2 = 1280. Would developers be forced to cut out that extra 200 pixels when apps are running on HDTV? (Or will the Apple television set have a special 1920x1280 screen instead of the standard HDTV 1920x1080?)
Text. This kind of text quality, is what some people have been waiting their entire lives for. The quality of a printed page on their devices.
It is the true beginning of the era of the electronic book, when the text is rendered that well.
If so where are the Android phones with displays packing as many pixels per inch (ie Retina) as the 1.5 year old iPhone 4?
The closest is the recently launched Galaxy Nexus but even that is a PenTile display, so it's not a fair comparison as it has fewer subpixels by design.
Seems Apple does manage to keep some things for themselves, at least for markets outside of Japan.
As I recall, Apple apparently invested a couple billion in Sharp and Toshiba for each to setup an LCD factory. This allows them to set the terms and they're spending so much that they can bring the LCD costs down to a reasonable price, allowing Apple to keep their price points. Without the massive orders and cash investments, I'd imagine these LCD's are going to be expensive in the beginning.
I mean, competitors were pricing their tablets higher for quite some time after the iPad was released (and still many tablets are more expensive than the iPad now) and it was apparently due to the fact that they couldn't get it built as cheaply as Apple even though their materials weren't as expensive (e.g. aluminum backing). I can't imagine that many Android vendors are going to lose that much on their tablets by trying to price match the iPad if their screen is as high quality as it sounds like the iPad 3 will have. They can't make it up in bulk ordering because Android tablets aren't selling all that well.
Indeed.
"More clarity came to the situation in January when Apple announced as part of an earnings conference call that it had made $3.9 billion in long-term investments with three companies in order to secure components over a two-year period. We concluded that the investment was most likely related to displays, with the Sharp and Toshiba deals appearing to make up a significant share of the total investment."
This is how you get exclusive access to new displays...
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1213998/
"More clarity came to the situation in January when Apple announced as part of an earnings conference call that it had made $3.9 billion in long-term investments with three companies in order to secure components over a two-year period. We concluded that the investment was most likely related to displays, with the Sharp and Toshiba deals appearing to make up a significant share of the total investment."
This is how you get exclusive access to new displays...
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1213998/
Well, don't blame Apple. The standards for digital video are too vague, and don't define bitrates (well some of them do, but the FCC made those voluntary). In fact, there's no universal standard that defines what "HD" is. It's always been an umbrella marketing term. It's the same problem as cellular "4G" -- in the absence of clarity, marketing takes over.
The so-calked "Retina Display", or whatever you want to call it, is the one thing I actually do expect to see in the next iPad, if only for the reason that Android tablets will undoubtedly be released with similar hi-res displays at some point this year. If form holds, and there's no reason to believe it won't, Apple's next opportunity to add a hi-res display to the iPad won't cone until around this time next year. We all know Apple isn't as obsessed with specs as their competitors seem to be but can they really afford to hold off on this particular feature for another year at this point? Wouldn't it be playing with fire a little bit if they do?
Admittedly I have no clue how Apple is going to make this work effectively (battery, processor power, apps redesign, etc...) but I have faith that they wouldn't be releasing such a device if it didn't meet with their usual standards.
Fortunately we apparently don't have much longer to wait for the answer to this mystery.
-PN
Admittedly I have no clue how Apple is going to make this work effectively (battery, processor power, apps redesign, etc...) but I have faith that they wouldn't be releasing such a device if it didn't meet with their usual standards.
Fortunately we apparently don't have much longer to wait for the answer to this mystery.
-PN
I do wonder how Apple is going to work with scaling up existing movies, graphics, apps, images, let alone the web, to look decent on such a screen. For example, your average YouTube video, even if HD, is 720p. Is everything going to look pixelated unless it is built specifically for iPad 3? There aren't even consumer cameras that can record video at such a high resolution. Makes you wonder, but I sure look forward to seeing such a screen in person.
----------
Yes, as simple as it sounds, text is going to be a huge deal.
The difference from a 3GS to iPhone 4 was dramatic and made reading so much easier on the eyes. I expect a similar experience with the next iPad.
----------
Yes, as simple as it sounds, text is going to be a huge deal.
The difference from a 3GS to iPhone 4 was dramatic and made reading so much easier on the eyes. I expect a similar experience with the next iPad.
It wouldn't have to be used if the industry had been regulated to call only things with 1920x1080 resolution "HD." But instead HD was used as a marketing ploy for 1280x720 equipment (which I like to refer to as "half*** definition") as if to say "Customer X doesn't know what HD really is so let's open up a cheaper market of products that'll get him on board."
so you don't feel the need for the screen...yet you expect it to be so much better than what you have that you don't even want to look at the new version because it will make yours look like crap by comparison.
Sorry, your logic is beyond comprehension.
- Status