When even the Macbook pro doesn't, the Macbook Air doesn't, and those products are much more expensive and powerful than the $499 iPad. Just wondering, doesn't it seem weird?
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.
How will iPad 3 have a retina display...
- Thread starter kingofkings8183
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, the iPhone 4 and 4S already have retina displays while the notebook line doesn't -- so I would say there is already a precedent.
There is more of a case for the iPad to get a retina display, since one of its main features is as an e-reader. It will make reading much easier on the eyes. I expect everything with a screen that Apple sells will eventually come with a retina display however.
There is more of a case for the iPad to get a retina display, since one of its main features is as an e-reader. It will make reading much easier on the eyes. I expect everything with a screen that Apple sells will eventually come with a retina display however.
But the iPhone is a smaller device with a much smaller display. And it is MUCH more expensive than the iPad is. A 3.5 960x640 inch IPS display on a device that is $800 is not the same as a 10 inch 2048x1536 IPS display on a $499 device.
With the iPod touch they had to make it a non IPS screen, they can't do that with the iPad.
I think that the retina display is limited by panels possible. I thought that LG had already produced a 9 inch retina display not too long ago.
So do you think it's just going to be iPad 2S update? Maybe with a Quad core and 1 gb of ram? I think they go retina display, HD FaceTime camera and call it the iPad 3.
I think they will keep the same display for another generation. A quad-core tablet with a 2048x1536 display seems too far fetched to me. Nothing else out there can even match the iPad 2, why would they go so far overboard with the specs in the next one? Not to mention that even 1080p video will look pixelated on that thing. iTunes still carries 720p lol
Really? You can't imagine why a display technology like that would appear in smaller displays first? Because it's more economical, perhaps? You aren't just slapping a higher resolution display on a device, you're also powering it, both electronically and with a graphics processor. Going larger doesn't make it a more economical venture because you have to beef everything up accordingly, so that $1,200 MacBook will be more expensive. And we don't know that it will bw appearing in a $499 iPad anytime soon; people like to speculate about every feature under the sun appearing on the next whatever, but these expectations tend to be unrealistic.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)
Think people are misunderstanding the term tbh. A MacBook screen is really a 'retina' display if used at a normal distance. At 1-1.5 foot from your face no it's not!
Think people are misunderstanding the term tbh. A MacBook screen is really a 'retina' display if used at a normal distance. At 1-1.5 foot from your face no it's not!
Certainly possible -- but that would be dangerously disappointing after an "s" update to the iPhone. If the next iPad is released with just an updated processor and more RAM --ouch. I don't think there will be lines around the block for that one. If its an unexciting update, Apple better knock off at least $100 off the price of each model.
Spec wise at least, many Android tablets have now matched or even exceeded the iPad 2--its just that they are overpriced (like the HTC Jetstream and Galaxy Tab) and don't come with pre-paid data plans.
I believe youa re incorrect. It is called retina because it is a resolution greater than the eye itself can resolve. Distance from the screen absolutely matters in that equation. The further away you are, the lower the resolution will be that meets that requirements. Devices that are used close up need a higher DPI. Get close to your TV< you will see the pixels. Stand 10 feet back, and they disappear.
Apple has never said retina can only apply to a specific DPI. its a marketing term only, not a technical one.
By that logic my 3GS as a retina display if I hold it far enough away. RD is a marketing term for a high res display. The user's distance is irrelevant because in the case of the iPhone, 326ppi is 326ppi regardless of how close or farthe user is. Apple might use the term to describe 250ppi, but until they do we have to assume it needs to h ave a similar ppi to the iPhone.
Um, won't you have to beef up the iPad as well? to run at that res? I really don't get the point you were trying to make with the first part of your statement. Its well known that bigger displays get higher resolutions.
Ugh, these threads are so pointless and riddled with mis-information. The rationale that if an iphone has a "retina" display, than a tablet/laptop should easily be the same, is just udderly ridiculous. I don't know why I continue to venture into forms, only to read this non-sensical bull.
The term "retina" (made up BTW), is based upon the premise that the PPI, viewed at a particular distance, makes the pixels indistinguishable to the human eye. It is therefore, very easy to have a retina display on a smaller screen. Think about it for a second. The iPhone 4, and original iPad run on the very same hardware. The iPhone with its "retina" display, has a lower resolution (less pixels) than the "non-retina" iPad. While the iPhone 4 has these pixels in a much more constrained area, it is still less pixels (all the graphics hardware cares about). The hardware (graphics chip) is effectively working at closely the same rate (especially when you consider the iPad runs at a higher clock speed, that is consistent with the clock-rate difference that they have).
For the iPad to have a retina display, it needs to have a PPI similar to the iPhone. This translates to a higher resolution than your 1080p monitor or tv that you have. More pixels = more required graphics hardware. The is a reason you do not see this high of a resolution on laptops. It requires a very high powered graphics chip. This translates into expensive/inefficient/power consuming/heat. Retina display is coming, but people need to realize why this is hard to accomplish on a larger screen.
If you do not understand what was just explained, simply stop posting any more non-sense. It makes you look ignorant.
End rant/
The term "retina" (made up BTW), is based upon the premise that the PPI, viewed at a particular distance, makes the pixels indistinguishable to the human eye. It is therefore, very easy to have a retina display on a smaller screen. Think about it for a second. The iPhone 4, and original iPad run on the very same hardware. The iPhone with its "retina" display, has a lower resolution (less pixels) than the "non-retina" iPad. While the iPhone 4 has these pixels in a much more constrained area, it is still less pixels (all the graphics hardware cares about). The hardware (graphics chip) is effectively working at closely the same rate (especially when you consider the iPad runs at a higher clock speed, that is consistent with the clock-rate difference that they have).
For the iPad to have a retina display, it needs to have a PPI similar to the iPhone. This translates to a higher resolution than your 1080p monitor or tv that you have. More pixels = more required graphics hardware. The is a reason you do not see this high of a resolution on laptops. It requires a very high powered graphics chip. This translates into expensive/inefficient/power consuming/heat. Retina display is coming, but people need to realize why this is hard to accomplish on a larger screen.
If you do not understand what was just explained, simply stop posting any more non-sense. It makes you look ignorant.
End rant/
The point is that in trying to achieve a pixel density similar to that found in the iPhone, scaling up to a notebook/desktop display is much more expensive (relative expense) than to do it for a 7" or 10" display. I'm not suggesting that it's economically feasible to do it for the iPad yet, but it would be more feasible to do it at that size than a notebook or desktop size.
Whoa man, who pi$$ed in your cereal? By retina, I meant a really high resolution (2048x1536) not that pixel-distinguishing nonsense. The point I am making is the same one that you are. It requires too much power to run a display of that resolution in a device and it's not possible to do that while keeping the device as thin and as cheap as the iPad is.
But the screen being larger has nothing to do with the processing power required to render that many pixels. The Macbooks are more expensive and have more space to accomodate the chip to run a high resolution compared to the iPad. Macbooks even have the luxury of being allowed to give off some heat as well as having lower battery life. iPad does not have any of that.
So if we take the resolution being rumored, 2048x1536, it would be easier to accommodate that resolution in a laptop than an iPad. But even the Macbook has a 1280x800(pro) or 1366x768(Air) display, what leads people to believe that the less powerful and less expensive iPad will have a resolution so much higher? The actual resolution, not pixel density.
This is the point I am trying to make.
Last edited:
You're missing the point, and you don't seem to have a handle on what the Retina Display is because that "logic" is considerably accurate. The 326 ppi alone isn't some arbitrary number from Apple that determines the "Retina Display" term (which is notedly not official per se). The 326 ppi AND the distance those pixels are from the user's eyes together determine the Retina Display term. There's a reason why the iPhone 4's display looks so good, and it's not just because it's 326 ppi.
At 326 ppi with users considered to hold their iPhone 4's a particular distance from their faces (about 12 inches), it is indicated that the eye cannot recognize the individual pixels. This is why it is considered a "Retina Display" (or just a very HD display). The iPhone 4 happens to be 26 ppi above the value of 300 ppi (which is what is widely considered to be the lower limit for Retina Display capability). The 3GS doesn't have a RD because holding it far enough away doesn't comply with even remotely regular usage. The 12-inch distance (with the iPhone 4) is actually a reasonable number.
And if you actually look closely enough at the iPhone 4's screen (practically with your face right on it) you can see the small pixels.
I see it more of as the laptop not needing one. People are more likely to be typing documents on it than play games, and so retina display would be of limited benefit for the cost.
The ipad was designed primarily as a recreational device, and thus a higher resolution would definitely be more desirable.
Of course its a made up term.Coukos34 said:
I can't figure out why people have such a problem with that term. We've been happily using marketing terms like FireWire, LightPeak, FaceTime, Thunderbolt, DisplayPort, etc. and no one has had a problem with those. So what if Apple has a name for their high-res displays.
I understand what Retina is; my comment was directed at gav2k who said that the MacBook's screen is retina when viewed far enough away. Since its Apple's word, until they release a lower ppi screen and call it Retina, 326ppi is the threshold for a screen to be called that, but I do accept that the threshold is closer to 300ppi.ABernardoJr said:
Last edited:
fact #1) "retina display" is a marketing term. its used by apple to say that the eye, from 30-40cm (~12"?) away, cant distinguish the individual pixels. its tied to the pixel-per-inch ratio, and not distance;
fact #2) The iPhone 4 display is far from amazing. Its very good indeed (IPS), but it gets smoked by the new Super Amoled (LG/Samsung). Apple doesnt manufacture displays. it has to buy them from 3rd parties. Samsung does, and it does it better than noone. Considering they're at war with Apple, dont expect them to sell them their newer Super Amoled Plus display, which will be in the next LG Android Phone;
fact #3) the macbook doesnt need a bigger resolution, not because of the prohibitive price of a that kind of display, but because usually you're sitting away from your laptop, so why have a Full HD display that makes everything smaller? The ipad is used at a far shorter distance, so it would benefit from a "retina display". And its not prohibitively expensive as some here are trying to make believe (God knows why)... the problem is more in terms of power consumption;
fact #4) the ipad 3 will almost certainly have a "retina display", according to some well positioned inside sources, who have always provided correct information in the past. plus, the new "iBooks" has already artwork at a ~2000x1500 resolution... so... !
fact #2) The iPhone 4 display is far from amazing. Its very good indeed (IPS), but it gets smoked by the new Super Amoled (LG/Samsung). Apple doesnt manufacture displays. it has to buy them from 3rd parties. Samsung does, and it does it better than noone. Considering they're at war with Apple, dont expect them to sell them their newer Super Amoled Plus display, which will be in the next LG Android Phone;
fact #3) the macbook doesnt need a bigger resolution, not because of the prohibitive price of a that kind of display, but because usually you're sitting away from your laptop, so why have a Full HD display that makes everything smaller? The ipad is used at a far shorter distance, so it would benefit from a "retina display". And its not prohibitively expensive as some here are trying to make believe (God knows why)... the problem is more in terms of power consumption;
fact #4) the ipad 3 will almost certainly have a "retina display", according to some well positioned inside sources, who have always provided correct information in the past. plus, the new "iBooks" has already artwork at a ~2000x1500 resolution... so... !
As soon as LG yield rates are up, you will see it. If that happens before the next refresh cycle, it will be there as a 3.
They haven't started doing that to the iPad line and I hope they do not. They need to keep innovating in a young (but hungry) tablet market.
I'd say there's a better chance of an iPad Pro than an iPad 2s...
There will be an A6 chip to drive it...
Figuring out consumer prices is really hard. If you are going to hand make something one at a time it can be very expensive. If you can figure out how to automate the process and produce millions of them the price can be quite low.
Currently you can buy an ips display up through 30" in size. If you chart the size of the display by price it seems reasonable that Apple could put one in the iPad. The display itself is not difficult, after all they already produce much larger displays (30") and they produce displays with more density (iPhone 4 and 4S). It costs money to design the tools to make the size and density panel needed for the iPad. Considering that they'll produce something like 75 or 100 million per year that is not a big deal.
The harder part is probably designing the silicon to drive this many pixels. However, that too is becoming possible.
I'm not trying to pass this off as trivial or easy. If iPad 3 has a double resolution display it will be jaw dropping remarkable. Just pointing out that it is not impossible.
Thanks for the insight
Sounds quite complicated. Obviously i am no expert but any sort of resolution improvement of the iPad's screen would be irresistable to me. That alone would make me upgrade, and I am sure that I am not the only one.
again: Apple doesn't manufacture displays. It buys them. AFAIK, the only things Apple manufactures is the CPU. The displays, ram, etc... it has to buy them, and is heavily defendant from supply