Sidebar Sidebar
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

Status
Not open for further replies.
charlituna said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh for the love of... not Pan&San movies again... I though we were rid of these... :(

Hell, even modern widescreen HDTV have black bars (top and bottom) because there are a lot of movie aspect ratios. Just learn to ignore the black bars on your tv, people! :)
 
I'd love to know how this wonderdevice will handle UE3 games at that resolution, when desktop versions need very large and powerful graphics cards and then the battery power to power such a card.

Mobile graphics cards can't handle that.
 
gkpm said:
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.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons is that top of the line Android phones stopped using 3.5" screens two years ago. Many of them do offer higher resolution than iPhone 4S. And some of them still top iPhone 4S in pixel density too: HTC Resound (342 ppi), LG Optimus LTE (329 ppi), LG LU1400 (333 ppi), Sony Xperia S (342 ppi)
 
gorskiegangsta said:
Either that or he has really bad vision.
I remember after the iPhone 4 keynote, not a single person (the ones that actually did the hands-on) had anything negative to say about the display because it was so amazing and blew away everything else on the market.

----------



Coming from a person who is either extremely ignorant or has not used smartphones much. For conversation's sake, I'm going to assume the latter.

If you go to full version of wikipedia (any article) on an iPhone 3Gs and try to read text in portrait, without zooming in, it will be virtually impossible. On an iPhone 4, the same text is sharp and clear. There's your difference.
Click to expand...

Its funny that you make fun of my eyesight (which is perfect btw) and then demonstrate that you can't even read properly. I said I can see the difference. I just don't care. I can read a wikipedia entry on full page view on my titan, and that's only 200 dpi. Maybe you're the one who needs their eyes checked buddy. And as for your little quip about my aparent inexperience with smartphones, should that really matter? If it was so amazing I wouldn't need to have used a thousand phones to realise it. Bottom line is: my wants are different to yours, there's no need to get your panties in a bunch about it. Try be civil next time.
 
And the pessimist in me says that while it might be a great experience to have such a screen on the iPad - if you're going to be renting movies and tv shows via iTunes - much of that killer screen will be wasted because while you might get 1080p content - the compression won't be nearly as great as blu-ray. I'm sure fine for some/many - but the screen (as indicated) will have specs that far outweigh the content being displayed on it.
 
Samskeyti said:
Not really to each their own. The screen was a definite "wow" feature when compared to the iPhone 3GS.
Image
Image

Maybe you never had an iPhone 3GS before you bought the 4, or maybe you don't even have an iPhone? :confused:
Click to expand...

I had a 3gs, but I now have an HTC titan, as explained by my sig. Why is everyone so up in arms over the fact that I don't love the retina display as much as them. I know its a good feature, I just don't care about it personally. Can everyone relax now?
 
neiltc13 said:
Do people honestly think this is going to happen :confused:

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?
Click to expand...

The imagination chip used in A6 for iPad3 is something like 8x more powerful than the version of PowerVr in iPad 2. What does this mean? Not only is iPad 3 capable of running existing iPad 2 apps at the Retina resolution, it'll OUTPERFORM iPad 2 in everything (because if the chip was only 4x faster, they'd have roughly the same performance since iPad 3 has 4x the number of pixels than iPad 2).

While people like you sit around saying it can't be done, there are a select few of the human race pushing the boundaries of our abilities and improving our lives. Think positive my friend! _Impossible_ is just a state of mind :)
 
OpenGL fragment shaders

Think about running a fragment shader 2048x1536x60 times a second.
Now consider that you actually overdraw a lot of pixels in OpenGL.

I cannot really imagine that this will be possible.
Think about the fill-rate alone, without actually doing something useful.

Maybe, or unfortunately, they will limit OpenGL resolution.
 
I don't see why people are coming out AGAINST the value of having a higher resolution display. I'm visually impaired, so I often have to hold things right at my eyeball for them to focus, and I noticed the difference between the Retina and non Retina displays immediately. If you build it they will come. Once devs have more pixels to play with they will find a use for it.

This is pushing the standard. I can remember when 640X480 8bpp seemed all anyone would ever want , it looked as real as it could get.

Also, why are people always railing about MacRumors catering to fanboys. Wouldn't it seem logical that if you are at a site that discusses rumored Apple stuff that you are likely a fan, and not say someone who hates them blindly.

There is a difference between hype and putting your best foot forward as the saying goes. Also anyone who has taken a course on marketing knows it is not referring to how most people use the term, i.e. spinning, or simply promotion and advertising. Marketing begins at product design and targeting. That to me is why Apple excels at marketing. They think about the end user form the start and that is why they are known as a company that leverages marketing. Marketing != advertising.

//climbs off soap box
 
boss.king said:
Its funny that you make fun of my eyesight (which is perfect btw) and then demonstrate that you can't even read properly. I said I can see the difference. I just don't care. I can read a wikipedia entry on full page view on my titan, and that's only 200 dpi. Maybe you're the one who needs their eyes checked buddy. And as for your little quip about my aparent inexperience with smartphones, should that really matter? If it was so amazing I wouldn't need to have used a thousand phones to realise it. Bottom line is: my wants are different to yours, there's no need to get your panties in a bunch about it. Try be civil next time.
Click to expand...

Besides being a joke, the word "blind" was also meant in more of a figurative, rather than literal, way. I do not know you and therefore cannot make serious assumptions about you. When you said that you were "never WOW'ed" by iPhone 4's retina display, I implied that you are "blind" (i.e. ignorant) because you fail to recognize the importance of high ppi displays in devices that are used at much closer range than laptops/desktops.
 
lilo777 said:
One of the reasons is that top of the line Android phones stopped using 3.5" screens two years ago. Many of them do offer higher resolution than iPhone 4S. And some of them still top iPhone 4S in pixel density too: HTC Resound (342 ppi), LG Optimus LTE (329 ppi), LG LU1400 (333 ppi), Sony Xperia S (342 ppi)
Click to expand...

None of which are available in the UK...

The LU1400 is a Korean only phone, with a 2.8" display.
 
Do you ppl even know what the "retina display" is?

As Steve Jobs said in the iPhone 4 keynote, it is a screen that if you increase its PPI you won't notice any improvement.

He said the threshold is around 300 PPI.

You're saying the new iPad display will have 2048x1536 resolution keeping the 9.7in diagonal size, which means 263 PPI, not 300 PPI required to be a retina display.

So this would NOT be retina display.
 
seyss said:
Do you ppl even know what the "retina display" is?

As Steve Jobs said in the iPhone 4 keynote, it is a screen that if you increase its PPI you won't notice any improvement.

He said the threshold is around 300 PPI.

You're saying the new iPad display will have 2048x1536 resolution keeping the 9.7in diagonal size, which means 263 PPI, not 300 PPI required to be a retina display.

So this would NOT be retina display.
Click to expand...

You've missed a key point: the distance at which one holds the device.
 
mrxak said:
What's with all the negativity? It doesn't even make sense on the most basic of levels. [...]
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?
Click to expand...

There is something about the marketing term "Retina" that makes some people crazy. When the iPhone 4 was announced the internet was immediately filled to the brim with people arguing about pixel sizes, circle of confusion, etc. You really have to hand it to Apple for being able to create a buzz about their products.

Certain people are incapable of giving Apple credit for anything, so they're stuck having to come up with any reason, sensible or not, to discredit or discount them. It's somewhat hilarious if you think about it. Once again, Apple is dragging them kicking and screaming into the future and they don't like it one bit.
 
pmau said:
Think about running a fragment shader 2048x1536x60 times a second.
Now consider that you actually overdraw a lot of pixels in OpenGL.

I cannot really imagine that this will be possible.
Think about the fill-rate alone, without actually doing something useful.

Maybe, or unfortunately, they will limit OpenGL resolution.
Click to expand...

One person voted this down, likely because he/she was too stupid to understand anything you just said. "I'm confused! Aaaarghhh!' - votes down.

----------
boss.king said:
I had a 3gs, but I now have an HTC titan, as explained by my sig. Why is everyone so up in arms over the fact that I don't love the retina display as much as them. I know its a good feature, I just don't care about it personally. Can everyone relax now?
Click to expand...

This is a forum. That means people only care what you have to say if you share their point of view. :rolleyes: Does this really need explanation?
 
boss.king said:
I know its a good feature, I just don't care about it personally. Can everyone relax now?
Click to expand...

Wait until Windows Phone starts to support higher resolution and you compare the new WP phones with higher resolution against your Titan side by side. You'll likely to care then ;-)
 
fertilized-egg said:
Wait until Windows Phone starts to support higher resolution and you compare the new WP phones with higher resolution against your Titan side by side. You'll likely to care then ;-)
Click to expand...

Nah. I have no issue with buying a high DPI phone, so long as that isn't it's biggest selling point of the phone. I bought the Titan because it has a big display, if there was a Titan with a 720p display I'd probably have bought that instead, but I would still be buying it for the big display.
 
blow45 said:
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? :rolleyes:

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 )
Click to expand...

Author of the graphic in question here.

You're right, showing the dpi differences/improvements would have perhaps enabled me to make a better comparison as to how the supposed new screen will look. However, i't nearly impossible unless I took a photo of the two side-by-side. (or something similar). Saying something is going to be ~300ppi is hard to visualize. Showing just how large that resolution will be is something easy to do visually. Especially as every person who views the idiotic graphic has varying pixel density and resolution.

I wasn't trying to say one screen size at one resolution is better. More like, "Holy crap, isn't technology great? Look how many freaking pixels they're going to pack into this thing!" After upgrading from a 3GS to a 4s there is no way I can not be excited to see a similar pixel density in the iPad.

And to others. Yeah calling something "Full HD" is lame. I didn't want to assume confusion for those who don't realize the difference between 720 and 1080. My bad for emphasizing the far end of what we currently call HD as being 'full'.
 
FrankieTDouglas said:
Ummm.... I believe my 27" iMac already has that screen resolution. Also, don't forget that Macs have notoriously always been behind PC computers in screen resolution. The Powerbooks were very small compared to the laptops of their day. The Macbooks still have small resolutions.
Click to expand...

rofl what am i saying >< sorry i wasnt thinking right. I mean 300dpi mode instead of 72

----------
jacobtaylor1987 said:
Using that phrase pretty much proves you're a virgin. Hahaha.
Click to expand...

and bringing up a sex subject in this thread just proves that you only just lost yours and still partying about it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back