Yes, taken into account. I have mentioned sunlight several times earlier in the thread.
OLED Screen in Sunlight:
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.
Does iPad Have an HD Screen?
- Thread starter gan6660
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, taken into account. I have mentioned sunlight several times earlier in the thread.
OLED Screen in Sunlight:
Kept meaning to respond to this but kept forgetting. Lots of early, and even fairly recent, plasma HD TVs were 1024*768 with non-square pixels, making them widescreen 720p displays. They looked pretty darn good, although are outshone by the newer 1920*1080 sets. In any case, those sets were without any argument HDTVs and had the same resolution as the iPad - often in 42" and larger displays compared to the iPads <10" set (meaning the pixel density is much higher and as such will look much better).
The HD specification calls for video to be either 720p, 720i, 1080p, 1080i, at an aspect ratio of 16:9.
Therefore, if it's not 16:9 (1280x720 or 1920x1080) it doesn't qualify as HD.
Aspect ratio is only partly determined by resolution. The other factor in the equation is pixel shape. You can have non-square pixels, pretty common in fact. DVDs use non-square pixels pretty much 100% of the time, for example.
You'll not that I am not saying the iPad is HD, just that it has the same pixel count as many HDTVs. Also, there were 4:3 HD TVs loooong ago. Mostly rear-projection models from the late 90's, as I recall.
DVD's do, yes. However standard computer monitors, as well as HD resolutions, are designed with square pixels in mind. See http://www.afterdawn.com/glossary/terms/pixel_aspect_ratio.cfm
That may be the case, however those are HDTV's. Those HDTV's will convert the square pixels used in HD video formats to a different rectangular PAR which will make the video look normal on their displays.
The iPad, being that it will most probably be designed for square pixels just like the vide content being played on it, will not.
I was getting ready to post the same exact thing.
But we do not know for sure. It is all speculation at this point. I'm thinking it is more in line with what mrgreen mentioned above.
But we do know for sure. When Steve Jobs was on stage and showed Star Trek in HD (iTunes HD is 720p), it had black borders on the top and bottom. When he zoomed in so that the height of the video was the same as the screen, it cut off the left and right side of the picture. On Apple's own website it states that the screen is 4:3, and iTunes video content is 16:9.
The simple fact is that the iPad WILL play HD video content. However if played back at native resolution on the device part of the image will be cut off. The iPad downscales the 1280x720 iTunes HD content to fit onto the 1024x768 device, causing a black border across the top and bottom.
As others have said, video formats have a tendency to look better when downscaled, so HD video content will look just fine. However it won't be at native HD resolution.
FYI - - here's an article with pics comparing the Zune OLED and an iPod Touch in various sunlit conditions.
That makes sense. However, your last sentence (The iPad, being that it will most probably be designed for square pixels just like the vide content being played on it, will not.) made it sound like you felt that it will not be able to play HD content.
Carry on.
I simply meant that it won't convert the pixel aspect ratios. Poor choice of wording.
Ya, there's no doubt that the iPad's screen is 4:3 and if you watch 16:9 content on it you will only use a portion of the screen and have letter boxing, or you will only see part of the picture but use all the pixels. It's not an HDTV-compatible screen. It is HD in terms of pixel density and resolution, but fails to be "really HD" because if its aspect ratio. I have hopes that it will pass a 1024x768 anamorphic image over the VGA connector, though, as it would allow reasonable 720p video playback on an HDTV.
Below is what I posted early in the thread and what resolution's will be used. Since what is being used (1024x575) is all that counts it would not qualify as an HD screen by ATSC standards.
People are often confused by this and assume it will be HD. It will play 1280x720 HD content but it will be downscaled. The iPad is NOT HD (as well as most so called HD portable devices) because the display must be at least *1280x720 (about 1 million pixels) to meet HD's minimum requirements. Here is what will be shown on the iPad's 1024x768 screen.
iPad's display is 1.33 (3x4).................................1024x768
HDTV 1.78 (16x9) will be...................................1024x575 about 590,000 pixels (black bars=96 lines top & 96 lines bottom)
Scope (Panavision/Super 35) 2.35 movies will be..1024x436 about 450,000 pixels (black bars=166 lines top & 166 lines bottom)
*some 1st gen plasma's used 1024x720 (non square pixels for a 1.78 (16x9) aspect ratio) and were called HD
The screen isn't even HD by density or resolution.
We've already established the screen doesn't meet HD resolution. For a screen to adhere to HD standards, the screen must be at least 1280 pixels wide and at least 720 pixels high in order to prevent downscaling. While it meets the height requirement, it fails in width.
Pixel density (Or dots per inch, pixels per inch, or image resolution, all are interchangeable in this is context) in this case is irrelevant as it refers to the amount of pixels in relation to one inch of the screen. Sure, being a 9.7 inch screen with a 1024x768 resolution gives it a higher density than a lot of computer monitors, but it certainly doesn't when you start considering larger screens (Such as 40 and 50 inchers) which have a relatively low pixel density. Even when you're talking about the other way round, even the iPhone has a higher density (163 compared to the iPad's 132, see Apple's tech specs) than the iPad.
If you're talking about the sheer amount of pixels on screen, well, the lowest resolution in the HD spec, 1280x720, has 921600 pixels. The iPad's screen being 1024x768, only has 786432 pixels on the screen.
Quite simply, the iPad's screen is not high definition in ANY way.
There is a rumor that it is a relatively new type of IPS called enhanced IPS that drastically improves battery life amongst other things.
This would depend on who's specs you go by.
CEA = 720+ horizontal lines of resolution
ATSC = minimum 1280x720 resolution on a 16:9 aspect ratio
Personally I don't care if its HD or not HD. I'm still watching basic analog cable on my large screen projection TV at home
Really all I care about is that the image is big, smooth and looks pretty good. Furthermore I care that the content is cheap and plentiful more than how many lines of horizontal pixels it has.
Really all I care about is that the image is big, smooth and looks pretty good. Furthermore I care that the content is cheap and plentiful more than how many lines of horizontal pixels it has.
By CEA do you mean the Consumer Electronics Association? So you are saying that 72x720 (1x10
) would qualify? Could you please post a link?I'm afraid not. CEA-861 ("A DTV Profile for Uncompressed High Speed Digital Interfaces") defines 720p or 720i as being 1280x720, and 1080p and 1080i as being 1920x1080, as of April 2009.
http://www.ce.org/Standards/CEA-861-E_Errata_with_Cover_Letter.pdf
Also see here:
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5512&start=0
It's also worth noting that the CEA standard itself doesn't actually refer to the display of the image itself, merely the signal and timing information used by the component interfaces.
Indeed. The importance of screen resolution is determined largely by the size of screen you're going to be watching your media on. The only reason that an HD video standard was ever needed is that TV's were getting larger and larger, and as a result traditional standard definition no longer cut it.
On a device like this, with a 9.7" screen, 1024x768 is more than enough. You would be hard pressed to notice a difference between a video encoded at this resolution and a video encoded at 1080p what with the downscaling.
This question has only arisen as unfortunately due to marketing tactics, the average consumer believes that anything that isn't HD these days must be inferior.
Future iPad Resolutions
Something I was at first a bit surprised to see in the iPad was utilization of a 4:3 resolution, and an old one at that - 1024 x 768. Initially I was scratching my head at how they could give a new device a non-HD 4:3 ratio despite moving the rest of the product line over to HD widescreen, and then I realized the obvious: The iPad demands resolution that works both 'horizontally' and 'vertically' in landscape and portrait mode and 16:9 or 16:10 would probably be unacceptably skinny in portrait. And as for HD resolution, while it's possible, it would add to cost, and they likely had to go with what was currently available at a reasonable price. 1024 x 768 is a decent resolution for the time being.
But in time, Apple will inevitably update the res. and when they do what will it be? 1280 x 960 seems like the next logical resolution, preserving the 4:3 ratio while finally getting landscape mode to 720p widescreen without scaling or cropping. Beyond that, the next HD resolution is 1920 (and full HD playback will certainly be possible by then). By that time a slight widening would be acceptable, not to 16:9 (1920 x 1080) or 16:10 (1920 x 1200), but a compromise at 3:2 ratio with 1920 x 1280 resolution. 1920 x 1280 would be ideal as it would be just the right balance between widescreen, and an effectively 'rotatable' resolution, allowing full 1080p HD in landscape and 720p in portrait.
You heard it here first.
Something I was at first a bit surprised to see in the iPad was utilization of a 4:3 resolution, and an old one at that - 1024 x 768. Initially I was scratching my head at how they could give a new device a non-HD 4:3 ratio despite moving the rest of the product line over to HD widescreen, and then I realized the obvious: The iPad demands resolution that works both 'horizontally' and 'vertically' in landscape and portrait mode and 16:9 or 16:10 would probably be unacceptably skinny in portrait. And as for HD resolution, while it's possible, it would add to cost, and they likely had to go with what was currently available at a reasonable price. 1024 x 768 is a decent resolution for the time being.
But in time, Apple will inevitably update the res. and when they do what will it be? 1280 x 960 seems like the next logical resolution, preserving the 4:3 ratio while finally getting landscape mode to 720p widescreen without scaling or cropping. Beyond that, the next HD resolution is 1920 (and full HD playback will certainly be possible by then). By that time a slight widening would be acceptable, not to 16:9 (1920 x 1080) or 16:10 (1920 x 1200), but a compromise at 3:2 ratio with 1920 x 1280 resolution. 1920 x 1280 would be ideal as it would be just the right balance between widescreen, and an effectively 'rotatable' resolution, allowing full 1080p HD in landscape and 720p in portrait.
You heard it here first.
1024x768 is the most logical choice if your primary focus is web browsing. Most websites are designed for 1024x768. The only reason computer displays went to 16:10 is because it allows you to view two pages side by side.
I also think that a higher resolution is unnecessary. The pixel density of the iPad (132ppi) is already higher than the MacBooks (113ppi), 15" MacBook Pros (110ppi), and matches the 1920x1200 display of the 17" MacBook Pro.
Mobile phones (like the iPhone) have a higher pixel density but that's because the screen is so small, you're more likely to hold it closer to your face.
I have seen no evidence that suggests IPS uses anymore power than PVA, TN, etc. IPS is merely a way of making panels, which happens to be the best way to make panels with excellent viewing angles and color reproduction.
Also consider that this is LED backlight, which uses far less power than CCFL.
