Does iPad Have an HD Screen?

[drjsway]

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.

IPS = twice the amount of transistors as TN = twice the amount of power.

Although LED uses less power, IPS requires a stronger backlight so the LED backlight will still be require more power than if used on a TN display.

Let's say e-IPS eliminates the stronger backlight issue. It will still use more power because it has twice the amount of transistors.

 

[mrgreen4242]

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.

I was also surprised at first but then I got to thinking that it was probably because a virtual keyboard in landscape mode would take up to much screen space of a widescreen display. It's still a little odd, and I, too, would have preferred the iPhone 3:2 screen.

 

[calderone]

IPS = twice the amount of transistors as TN = twice the amount of power.

Although LED uses less power, IPS requires a stronger backlight so the LED backlight will still be require more power than if used on a TN display.

Let's say e-IPS eliminates the stronger backlight issue. It will still use more power because it has twice the amount of transistors.

Would you mind posting factual data for the bolded item? There are hints of more power usage on wikipedia, but there is no mention of "twice the power." It is a bit of a leap to suggest that the power usage is twice as much because there a more transistors. I love to see actual figures of the power usage.

My issue is with the claim that IPS requires/uses twice as much power.

 

[klknoles]

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.

I certainly don't hate 1024 x 768 resolution, just feel it was likely chosen as the best combination of current cost and availability. Sure, it works out that for a full screen web browser, 1024 x 768 provides a good balance of text size and screen space while 1280 x 960 would result in slightly smaller text. But web browsing is only one of many applications for the iPad.

Video resolution is what concerns me. I strongly disagree that 16:10 was only picked for viewing two web pages side-by-side. Video compatibility was a huge factor and for a device that boasts 720p compatibility it would be better to have resolution that could contain a 1280 x 720 image without cropping or scaling. And besides, if 1024 x 768 were somehow ideal (and not just a cost & availability compromise), then it stands to reason someday when future iPads have several times the storage, memory, and processing speed, they'll still have 1024 x 768 resolution. Doubtful.

For the time being there certainly can be drawbacks to higher resolution - like microscopic text - but eventually resolution independence will make this a moot point. For applications that are already independent of resolution - text in PDF's for instance - the more PPI, the better. If something ridiculous like 600ppi were somehow possible and affordable now, they'd use it.

As with all displays, the iPad's will eventually increase in resolution, and for me, the next step should be 1280 x 960 with the holy grail at 1920 x 1280.

 

[Julien]

....Video resolution is what concerns me. I strongly disagree that 16:10 was only picked for viewing two web pages side-by-side.....

1024x768 iPad isn't 1.6 (16x10). 1.6 would be 1024x616 so it's 1.33 (4x3) ratio. This is the same aspect ratio as a 35mm frame of film (aka Academy) or SD TV's. In order to maintain the current aspect ratio while delivering real HD playback it would have to be 1280x962. Overall 1.33 is a compromise with all things considered (including the importance of ergonomics). 1.78 probably just doesn't "feel" right in the hands. Although 1.6 at 1280x800 could show HD and might not be too bad (ergonomics) but likely too expensive at this time.

 

[klknoles]

1024x768 iPad isn't 1.6 (16x10). 1.6 would be 1024x616 so it's 1.33 (4x3) ratio.

I know and I didn't say it was. Reread the posts. I was quoting drjsway's earlier post in reference to displays moving over to 16:10 after mostly being 4:3.

 

[lordhamster]

Is it just me or is the label "HD" more of a marketing gimmick nowadays? Seems like idiots will buy anything so long as its HD.

 

[anthonymoody]

Sorry I'm too lazy to read all 4 pages of this thread to see if this notion has already been posted, but I think the reason a 4:3 AR was chosen is that with a 10" screen size (or thereabouts) holding a 16:10 or 16:9 or gulp a 2:1 AR screen in portrait mode would be...a little silly feeling. Too tall and skinny and not great for things like reading books.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Sorry I'm too lazy to read all 4 pages of this thread to see if this notion has already been posted, but I think the reason a 4:3 AR was chosen is that with a 10" screen size (or thereabouts) holding a 16:10 or 16:9 or gulp a 2:1 AR screen in portrait mode would be...a little silly feeling. Too tall and skinny and not great for things like reading books.

It was probably a combination of several factors but I agree that a 16:9/10 tablet would be uncomfortable to hold. Still not sure that a 3:2 device would have been bad though. The iPad is very close to the same aspect ratio of a printed photograph or a sheet of standard paper (A4 or letter depending where you are from) which is a natural, common, comfortable thing to hold and look at.

 

[gan6660]

I guess I just answered my own question, on Apples website it says the iPad will play hi-def video. http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/

 

[klknoles]

More Future Resolutions

I guess I just answered my own question, on Apples website it says the iPad will play hi-def video. http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/

As many have pointed out, it may be possible to playback HD content even if the screen isn't HD. An extreme example would be the Zune HD, which plays back 720p content on a 480x272/272x480 screen.

Anyway, this thread has slowed to a crawl and I figured I'd toss out some other predictions for possible (and in some cases likely?) future iPad resolutions:

The next resolution will likely be 1280x960, thereby allowing 720p in landscape mode, though an intermediate upgrade to 1152x768 would provide an early upgrade to 3:2 ratio. (though unlikely since it would have little benefit.) After that I imagine 1440x1080 (or even something odd like 1366x910, or the old PowerBook resolution of 1440x960) would be a step 'on the path' to widescreen 1080p, and even allow 1080p for non-widescreen. (Like older 4:3 movies such as The Wizard of Oz, and I recall once seeing a 1080p Apple HD trailer that wasn't widescreen.) 1600x1200 comes next, though tweaks to 1600x1280 (an early upgrade to 720p in portrait, though at the sacrifice of 4:3 ratio), or 1680x1120 are possible. At that point the upgrade to 1920 horizontal resolution seems like the next logical choice, and I feel (as I stated earlier) the move to 3:2 should come so 1920x1280 would allow 1080p and 720p in landscape and portrait. After that for computer monitors 2560 is typically the next step in horizontal resolution, but 2560x1920, while allowing 1080p in portrait mode, would be a step back from 3:2 to 4:3, and once the iPad moves to 3:2, it should stay there, so 2880x1920 seems best. By this point display technology might be far enough along that huge jumps like doubling resolution with the next resolution might be possible (and extremely high-end uses like quad-full-HD displays allowing for 4 or 5-person full-HD video chats), though of course any display increases by then would be diminishing returns. It gets truly ridiculous at the extreme high end, and displays only equal to current high-resolution printing resolution and beyond are decades off, if they will even be possible or used (Why not just paint the image directly onto the retina?), but just for the heck of it, I'd say 3840x2560, 5760x3840, 7680x5120, and 11,520x7680 would allow for Quad-HD in landscape, portrait, and Ultra-HD res. in landscape and portrait. (...you can stop laughing now.)

All of this is assuming that the iPad is, in some form, here to stay, playback of 1080p and eventually multiple 1080p streams comes along with more powerful processors, resolution independent OS's are standardized, and the highest resolutions I list might not be possible for decades if ever. The display technologies involved might be not only LCD, but OLED, IMOD, various kind of color e-paper, hybrid techs like 3Qi, other technologies, and some that haven't even been invented yet.

And since I know some folks might not read all that I wrote above. Here's a synopsis:

1280x960 Likely next resolution
1440x1080 possible
1600x1200 possible
1920x1280 the move to 3:2 allowing 1080p landscape and 720p portrait
2880x1920 the minimum resolution that allows 3:2 ratio for 1080p in portrait
3840x2560 Quad-HD in landscape
5760x3840 Quad-HD in portrait
7680x5120 Ultra-HD landscape compatibility
11,520x7680 Ultra-HD portrait compatibility

There! I'm satiated.

 

[ftaok]

It was probably a combination of several factors but I agree that a 16:9/10 tablet would be uncomfortable to hold. Still not sure that a 3:2 device would have been bad though. The iPad is very close to the same aspect ratio of a printed photograph or a sheet of standard paper (A4 or letter depending where you are from) which is a natural, common, comfortable thing to hold and look at.

This has been opined elsewhere, but for me, the reason Apple chose 4:3 really boils down to the resolution they chose.

I think Reason #1 for 1024x768 was to maintain full compatibility with the millions of VGA projectors out there. If they chose a 16:9 ratio, then presentations (with Keynote) would have required some sort of resolution switching (or perhaps a 4:3 section of the iPad being sent via VGA and the remaining 4:9 section for keynote controls ... that would actually be pretty cool, but I dont know if it's feasible.

The second reason I think they went with 4:3 is that it's a comfortable ratio for reading books and newspapers. It's a natural ratio (as is 3:2 ... but I digress) for reading.

#3 would be battery life. Running a 1024x768 screen is probably easier on the batterys than a 1280x720, 1280x960, or 1280x854 screen. And I think we'd all complain if they used a 1024x682 screen.

ft

 

[applesupergeek]

That's not correct.

As noted by spinnerlys, 720p has a resolution of 1280x720 with progressive scan. The iPad has a lesser resolution at a different aspect ratio of 1024x768 which would result in the edges of the video being cut off by 200 pixels.

The iPad, like many other devices, can scale the HD video to the correct aspect ratio but it won't be HD quality.

No you are wrong, scaled HD, or with cut edges is still HD.

The ipad is a fully hd capable device, the sole reason it's not considered bona fide HD, being the aspect ration that lends itself to reading more, and is not any standard HD aspect.

 

[applesupergeek]

Is it just me or is the label "HD" more of a marketing gimmick nowadays? Seems like idiots will buy anything so long as its HD.

Oh, you can say that again for sure....

 

[darngooddesign]

IPS isn't as good as OLED so I'm not sure you can say it will have the best picture when clearly that isn't true.

Unless you want to use your iPad outside and then IPS is superior to OLED.

 

[Julien]

No you are wrong, scaled HD, or with cut edges is still HD.

The ipad is a fully hd capable device, the sole reason it's not considered bona fide HD, being the aspect ration that lends itself to reading more, and is not any standard HD aspect.

Sorry but you are incorrect. In order to meet the ATSC specs for HD you must be able to fully resolve at least 720 lines with an aspect ratio of 1.78. The iPad can't do this. In order to qualify as an HD display the iPad would have to have non square pixies and a 1.78 aspect ratio screen. You must meet both criteria (lines of resolution and 1.78 aspect ratio) to be HDTV. HD must be displayed at a 1.78 aspect ratio per ATSC guidelines.

 

[flyguy206]

it does not matter the videos look good on the ipad. yall are acting like it is a hdtv. the smaller the screen is the better it looks

 

[4DThinker]

The 4:3 screen was chosen because most of the netbooks already out had 16:9 1024 x 600 screens. Any serious evaluation of them (which Apple surely did) reveals they are great for 16:9 video but suck for web browsing, full view of many apps, and so on. The reason most can "cheat" and display 1024 x 768 is so apps that expect that as a minimum will compress a little and fit on the smaller screen. Some of Windows own utility windows default to a 768 length.

Now consider that a tablet will usually use an on-screen keyboard to enter text. That keyboard cuts off half or more of a 600 pixel high screen. You're left with more remaining of the 1024 x 768 screen on the ipad.

All of this can be tweaked and optimized and poked and rubbed though. The on-screen keyboard in Windows can be re-sized to be flatter and remain usable. The toolbar can be moved to the side to leave a nice ratio of remaining screen. Internet Explorer can be set to any % of screen magnification/reduction so most pages will fit nicely in what is left.

It's a compromise either way. The ratio matters with these small screens. Bump up to a 23" screen with 1680 or more pixels width and it won't matter if the screen is 16:9 or 4:3. I think the iPad is better for it's 4:3 screen, and the competition should take notice.

 

[klknoles]

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.

Well, now the iPad has an HD screen.

Since I wrote that so long ago, I didn't understand the fact that the iOS's resolution wasn't like that of desktop OS's and that big jumps to double pixels/quad res. were necessary to allow a smooth transition. As much as I like the fact that the iPad 3 and beyond will be able to natively display full HD content with a sharpness that makes pixels difficult to see at normal viewing distances, I'm afraid the iPad may be "stuck" with an old resolution standard. 1024x768 was a necessary compromise that put the iPad beyond the resolution of the 960x640 iPhone/iPod touch, while at the same time not a prohibitively expensive higher resolution, but it gave the iOS two resolutions to support that weren't even multiples of each other, and not even the same ratio (3:2 vs. 4:3). As such there will continue to be resolution incompatibilities between iOS devices, forcing a rather awkward use of letterboxing and windowboxing, and in some cases ugly scaling.

So, while Apple might continue to have this incompatibility forever, my suggestions would be to someday "equalize" the resolutions. When technology allows it for a trivial extra cost, have the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad Mini, or whatever jump to 1920x1280 resolution and the full size iPad (or whatever has taken its place by then) go to...gulp...3840x2560(!) These resolutions would be minor upgrades from a usability standpoint as they would hardly be noticeable from a readability perspective, but would finally allow a full resolution parity and even compatibility. As high as the 200 and 300+ ppi displays are, some ever so slight blurring from uneven scaling can be noticeable, and super high resolutions that allowed even scaling and resolution compatibility would eliminate the last of these problems.

Of course, there's also another possible direction the iPad may take. As once proposed by MacLife magazine, Apple may someday takes the display right to the edge, makes the touchscreen ignore input in the iPad "bezel" area, and have the industry's first displays with "curved" corners (looking like stairstep patterns when the pixels are viewed closeup), the iPad would have two functional resolutions, an "inner" and "outer". The inner would be the crucial one and the outer would be what the inner would scale to when full screen (albeit corner-cropped) viewing is utilized. I'm not clear how such displays would be described, but for me the important stat would be the inner resolution and the additional outer would be a sometimes-utilized icing on the cake for maximizing screen space.