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.
Front page please
- Thread starter iBryton
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Man, that resolution would be insane.
5-6 times the current iPad.
They must have santa's elves working on these if they can:
a) Affordably make displays that insanely great
b) Believe they will be able to matche demand in September, considering that it's June and they still can't match demand for the "mere mortal" iPad 2.
5-6 times the current iPad.
They must have santa's elves working on these if they can:
a) Affordably make displays that insanely great
b) Believe they will be able to matche demand in September, considering that it's June and they still can't match demand for the "mere mortal" iPad 2.
Is it just me, that resolution doesn't even seem necessary? I'd take iPhone resolution and save the battery life. I don't believe it.
Has anybody bought or rented Movies from the iTunes store? If so, then maybe you'll ask yourself this question:
How long do you think it will take before a "Retina density" movie starts playing after you click the "Rent" button?
Currently, movies on iTunes (720p HD) run between 1.5 and 2 gigabytes for a two hour movie. If you choose to Rent, using AppleTV or iPad, it takes about ten minutes to buffer enough of the movie data before you can start playing it. Not too bad - enough to make some popcorn, go to the bathroom, draw the drapes, and get comfortable.
What happens to the file size if they double the pixel density, from the 1280 x 720 now used in iTunes HD format? There aren't twice as many pixels, there's FOUR TIMES as many. Its possible that compression will bring the file size down some, and the audio portion won't increase. But from a practical standpoint, its going to at least double the file size.
Which means that people renting movies to watch on the iPad 3 are going to have to wait an hour or more before the movie starts playing.
If you made it through that thought exercise, ask yourself this: Do you think NetFlix is going to start offering streaming movies in 2560x1920 format? If they did, how long would THEY take to buffer? What would it do to the Internet usage caps many people now are dealing with?
Ask yourself those questions. And then ask yourself how probable it is that Apple is going to start selling an iPad with 2560x1920 resolution anytime soon.
How long do you think it will take before a "Retina density" movie starts playing after you click the "Rent" button?
Currently, movies on iTunes (720p HD) run between 1.5 and 2 gigabytes for a two hour movie. If you choose to Rent, using AppleTV or iPad, it takes about ten minutes to buffer enough of the movie data before you can start playing it. Not too bad - enough to make some popcorn, go to the bathroom, draw the drapes, and get comfortable.
What happens to the file size if they double the pixel density, from the 1280 x 720 now used in iTunes HD format? There aren't twice as many pixels, there's FOUR TIMES as many. Its possible that compression will bring the file size down some, and the audio portion won't increase. But from a practical standpoint, its going to at least double the file size.
Which means that people renting movies to watch on the iPad 3 are going to have to wait an hour or more before the movie starts playing.
If you made it through that thought exercise, ask yourself this: Do you think NetFlix is going to start offering streaming movies in 2560x1920 format? If they did, how long would THEY take to buffer? What would it do to the Internet usage caps many people now are dealing with?
Ask yourself those questions. And then ask yourself how probable it is that Apple is going to start selling an iPad with 2560x1920 resolution anytime soon.
Like the spec war, resolution war is going to kick off. Personally, I don;t really see the need to increase the resolution of the ipad very much at all. It is perfectly fine to watch a movie on, read a book, browse the web, and so on. People are so transfixed with HD nowadays, they don;t seem to realise that you don;t really need ultra HD on a tablet. 720p is fine, and is all it need sto be on a device that is only 10 inches wide. it will eat through battery life like a fat man at an all you can eat buffet.
I totally agree that we're not going to be able to download Retina resolution video anytime soon. However higher DPI isn't exclusively useful for video display. Personally I want a Retina iPad because it will render text better and make the display more like printed words on paper. Higher resolution for video and games is pretty unimportant to me.
I think that Apple's decision about including a Retina display in the iPad 3 will be mostly down to whether displays are available cheaply enough. There definitely seems to be a demand for a higher res display.
Well, when you go from using an iPhone 4 to an iPad, you notice a definite difference in display quality. I would like a higher resolution iPad, if for nothing else, for the reading text. The video/picture quality on the current iPad is fine for me.
I totally don't get this argument, a good 75% of my books (Granted I do have a lot of older books) have text that I would call slightly 'fuzzy'. I find my iPad more than adequate to read on in comparison.
Yeah, but have you used a phone with a high resolution screen? My guess is no. I get what you're saying, but it's like my grandmother not understanding the difference between a cassette tape and CD. "They both sound the same to me."
Have you tried reading a book, or more than a couple of newspaper stories, on the iPhone 4?
If my homework assignment was to read five chapters of Wuthering Heights or get caught up on my Calculus - I'd choose my iPad over the Retina display on the iPhone any day.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I didn't say I want to read on a 3.5" screen. Obviously that's unbearable for anything longer than an email. My point was I would prefer the size of the iPad with the resolution of the iPhone 4.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Don't get me wrong; reading web pages, RSS feeds and emails account for most of my iPad use. The iPad's current display is definitely adequate for the task.
However when I compare letters on the iPad to similar sized letters printed on paper, I find the letter-forms on paper to be almost universally clearer and more distinct. An obvious example to me is the horizontal stroke of the letter "e" which looks particularly ugly. This might be a limitation of iPad font rendering or it might be the resolution of the display, I don't know. In any case I'd like them to improve it so the iPad looks more like a well-printed magazine.
I also think that the blurriness of old books is different. My eyes at least find this sort of analogue blurriness easier to deal with than the pixelated blurriness of a LCD.