iPad 2 resolution will stay the same

[Nishi100]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

The only way I'll upgrade is if it has a retina display... otherwise I'll way until iPad 3.

I couldnt have said it better. If they up the resolution high enough ill buy one the first day. The only part of my current ipad i can see as mediocre with the coming android tablets is the resolution.

If apple really wants to shutdown any other tablets coming down the pipe, the resolution bump is the quickest way.

Or
A 3D no glasses display - I know I would go for the ipad no glasses 3D, rather than the 3DS.

 

[Nishi100]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Double post, sorry.

 

[neutrino23]

If they release an iPad Pro or iPad HD, they will have my money.

Even if it's £150/$200 more than the top-end current iPad?

In a heartbeat. I'm in line the night before with cash in hand when this goes on sale.

There have been various comments about how this high resolution is not needed. Maybe so for some, but it is extraordinarily useful in many ways.

For sales, Apple will clearly stake out the high ground. Every device is dominated by some aspect of its features. Intel sold processors mainly on clock speed. Consumer digital cameras are sold on numbers of pixels. The iPad is the display, all else is secondary. If the display is more beautiful it wins all other arguments. You can talk about cut-and-paste or multi-tasking but the monster display will win.

In real use this high resolution would be amazing. It makes the electronic version of a document nearly as high resolution as a printed book, text is crisp, images are stunning. This allows for useful viewing of all sorts of technical drawings, diagrams, plotted data, medical x-rays, geological maps, electron microscope images, x-ray spectra, element distribution maps, crystallography pole figures. The list is endless. A high resolution, portable device like this would sweep through the universities and technical laboratories around the world.

 

[shazzam]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Looks like Apple is inviting [their] competitors to the party. Shame.

 

[URFloorMatt]

One of the bigger reasons for me, is that Apple didn't spend years getting the iPad ready for market and planning to only use the original screen one year. Apple plans long term. Part of creating a custom screen for the iPad, would have had them planning to use it at least 2 years (if not three). It is long term thinking that lets them custom order these parts in the first place.

I disagree and can think of plenty reasons why the iPad 1.0 might have a lower resolution than the iPad 2.0. Obvious ones being:

1) Quality control
2) Production capacity
3) Cost

All of these problems would need reevaluating after a year of production.

Anyway, it seems like the battle between Gruber and Engadget is on. If the iPad doesn't have a higher resolution screen, I'll sit out until rev.3. Buying a non-HD panel in 2011 makes zero sense.

 

[aberrero]

The iPad 1 is basically just a giant last-gen iPod Touch on the outside with iPhone 4 internals. I expect Apple to use many of the same design cues as the iPhone 4 for the iPad 2 (hopefully without the antennagate) and give it iPhone 5 internals. This means a fairly major redesign on the exterior, and could include a change of display.

A Retina display is not out of the question at all, although I think that 1440x1050 is still the most likely resolution for it.

If they do go with 1440x1050, the new graphics chip will more than be able to handle it. If they use 2048x 1536, they can continue to run 3D applications at 1024x768 and just pixel double them. 3D games looked decent on the iPad even when pixel doubled at 320x480, there really is no need to render games at such a high resolution. The high res is basically only useful for reading text, and that doesn't require very much horsepower at all. The 2048 is also useful for 1080p videos, and again the internal hardware will have no problem playing those back.

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

Honestly, I don't really think I would care one way or another regarding the retina display

Pros-
-looks pretty

Cons-
-significant display cost could cause iPad to cost $100 more
-so many pixels needs more power, RAM. causes to run slower
-causes significant battery drain


IMO the screen difference wouldn't really be that noticeable/important. all the fuss about the iPhone retina display.. I upgraded from the 3G to the 4 and honestly after I got the screen I realized I really didn't care...

 

[asleep]

No higher resolution display, none of my coin to simple as that. I can wait for a rev.3 no rush.

Agree.

My wallet is closed to same resolution iPad.

 

[d Fusion b]

The only way I'll be buying an iPad 2 is if there is a resolution bump. Otherwise what selling point is there for the 1st gen adopters to upgrade? A few cameras, and a spec bump which no one would have noticed if it was not mentioned..

High res display, or I'm waiting for the 3rd, or even 4th gen.

 

[Eso]

I'm sure they have iPad prototypes with a 2048 × 1536 screen resolution, but it's not ready for primetime. There's just too much to upgrade while maintaining certain price points. A retina display just doesn't make the cut yet.

It's really doesn't have to be twice the resolution, however - it could just as easily be 1.5x. It's the same process to scale apps either way; twice the resolution just looks nicer for non-optimized apps. Considering how iPhone apps run on the iPad, I really don't think Apple is very concerned about having apps look slightly off due to scaling. Developers could update their apps with graphics that are appropriately sized and they would look just fine at native resolution.

I really think Apple shot themselves in the foot from the beginning. 1024x768 is a terrible resolution. They should have used a better resolution from the start.

 

[Piggie]

It's really doesn't have to be twice the resolution, however - it could just as easily be 1.5x. It's the same process to scale apps either way

You really don't understand do you

 

[Eso]

You really don't understand do you

Care to explain?

 

[JPanther]

9to5mac (courtesy of digitimes) has some new info that screens will be 2048x1536. Not sure I believe it myself, but it makes a good point saying that with the Mac Appstore open and Lion on its way, makes total sense for developers to be able to create apps that are compatible across all Apple products!!

Or maybe this is just wishful thinking....

Source: http://www.9to5mac.com/48248/ipad-2...ac-MacAllDay+(9+to+5+Mac+-+Apple+Intelligence)

 

[Piggie]

Care to explain?

I suppose the simplest way is to say, "You can't have half a pixel"

If you imagine some paper with a grid drawn onto it and a image is drawn on the grid, filling in the squares.

So, you have drawn a detailed image using this grid that uses 10x10 squares of the grid.

If we say, we are going to make your picture 20x20 squares, then it's easy, as you just take your current dot, and fill in one to the side of it, one to the left of it, and one diagonal to it. so your 1 dot is now 4 dots in total. Twice and wide and twice as high.

You now have a perfect copy of your original dot.

But, let's say I said to you, we are going to take your 10x10 grid image and stretch it to cover 13 x 13 blocks.

Remember you can't partially fill a block, it has to be full of colour or empty.

How are you going to make a dot perfect picture that is 10x10 dots, cover perfectly an area of 13x13 dots?

what are you going to do?

Leave the 1st one normal size, make the next one double size, then perhaps the next 3 normal size, then the next one double size. etc etc.

It will look a mess, as you can't partially fill a dot with a colour.

Is that any clearer?

 

[Eso]

I suppose the simplest way is to say, "You can't have half a pixel"

It's actually quite easy. It's not limited to just copying one pixel exactly once and another pixel exactly twice. There are actually standard algorithms to adjust images when they are scaled. Here's a demonstration of your example of scaling a 10x10 image to 13x13 using a section of my avatar:

Actual size:


Detail:


As you can see, while the quality is degraded slightly (looks "fuzzy"), it works just fine. It looks even better for images with larger dimensions.

So, yes, it really is just as easy for apps to be scaled up by 1.5x as it is to scale them 2x.

 

[Pro31]

no retina....no care....Ill buy a ps3 instead.

 

[WLS]

There are way too many rumors. My head is in danger of exploding.

I hope for a higher resolution display but a Retina type solution seems unlikely - hope I am wrong on that. The new A5 is equally exciting and I am hoping for that too. But with expectations being raised so high unless Apple includes at least one of the above there may be a backlash. I bought the first gen iPad and have had the pleasure of using it for most of a year. I did however decide to sell it before the new one comes out based on the strength of these rumors. I got a good price for it and am positioned to preorder the next one depending on what the rollout reveals. If it turns out to be a minimal upgrade with the rumored stuff actually destined for the Gen 3 then I'll be pissed and just may sit it out till then so I really hope there is some good stuff to come this spring.

 

[gloss]

I suppose the simplest way is to say, "You can't have half a pixel"

If you imagine some paper with a grid drawn onto it and a image is drawn on the grid, filling in the squares.

So, you have drawn a detailed image using this grid that uses 10x10 squares of the grid.

If we say, we are going to make your picture 20x20 squares, then it's easy, as you just take your current dot, and fill in one to the side of it, one to the left of it, and one diagonal to it. so your 1 dot is now 4 dots in total. Twice and wide and twice as high.

You now have a perfect copy of your original dot.

But, let's say I said to you, we are going to take your 10x10 grid image and stretch it to cover 13 x 13 blocks.

Remember you can't partially fill a block, it has to be full of colour or empty.

How are you going to make a dot perfect picture that is 10x10 dots, cover perfectly an area of 13x13 dots?

what are you going to do?

Leave the 1st one normal size, make the next one double size, then perhaps the next 3 normal size, then the next one double size. etc etc.

It will look a mess, as you can't partially fill a dot with a colour.

Is that any clearer?

If only mathematics allowed for some way to interpolate the new pixels with averaged color values.

Oh, wait.

They could easily use a non-doubled resolution, it just wouldn't be as 'neat'. It might take more CPU/GPU cycles to handle the scaling, but otherwise there's not a whole lot of downside.

 

[colmaclean]

The latest front page rumour... Given delivery is 2012, think you can say bye-bye to a hi-res iPad in 2011...

Apple's $3.9 Billion Investment Was in LCD Displays?

 

[colmaclean]

So, yes, it really is just as easy for apps to be scaled up by 1.5x as it is to scale them 2x.

It's not as easy. It would take more computation cycles to generate the in-between pixels than to perform a plain old double.

 

[Piggie]

It's actually quite easy. It's not limited to just copying one pixel exactly once and another pixel exactly twice. There are actually standard algorithms to adjust images when they are scaled. Here's a demonstration of your example of scaling a 10x10 image to 13x13 using a section of my avatar:

Actual size:
View attachment 268105

Detail:
View attachment 268106

As you can see, while the quality is degraded slightly (looks "fuzzy"), it works just fine. It looks even better for images with larger dimensions.

So, yes, it really is just as easy for apps to be scaled up by 1.5x as it is to scale them 2x.

Indeed, most art programs, Photoshop ect can use maths to scale an image to any size. However we are not talking about applying a filter to a photo, waiting a few seconds and seeing the result, we are talking about full speed, however many frames a second to get smooth animation scaling.

 

[MRU]

At this point the majority of rumor sites seem to point indeed to a high res screen, compared to the minority who are sticking to their guns at 1024x768.

If the rumor mill was reversed, with the minority saying it would be high res then I would certainly be skeptical, but surely when the majority are are coming down on the retina display side there has to be some smoke to this fire.

That being said, like many - for me a higher res screen will be the only thing that will tempt me this gen.

 

[MRU]

+ this update will probably be modest; 512 gb ram, cameras and gyroscope.

512gb of ram = modest!!!!

 

[mosx]

People are going to be disappointed when the new iPad doesn't sport a "Retina Display".

People mention "doubling" the pixels by going to 2048x1536. I'm sorry, but thats not doubling pixels. Thats a 4.4x increase in pixels. You're going from 786,432 pixels to 3,145,728. Thats more than 50% more pixels than displayed by a blu-ray disc.

Wheres the GPU power going to come from for that? Fill-rate will be a HUGE issue. And the rumored GPU Apple is going to be using is only capable of twice the fill-rate of the current iPad.

Not only that, but the frame-buffer is going to require more RAM. And that RAM will have to be faster than previous generation as well, to be able to keep up with the new fill-rate requirements.

I think this is a combination of people not knowing how GPUs/computer hardware in general work, as well as forgetting the fact that the iPhone 4 screen is only 960x640. Theres nothing impressive about 960x640. It only looks so good because its so small. You blow that up to iPad size and you end up with a screen that looks like the iPad, where you can see each and every individual pixel.

The GPU horsepower just isn't there in mobile devices yet. You're asking a mobile GPU to increase in speed by 4.4x while retaining the same battery life. That just hasn't happened yet. Next year, maybe. But this year? Nope. Especially not when the signs in the iPad SDK point towards Apple using a GPU that only has double the fill-rate of the current iPad, not 4.4x. You'd also need an internal scaler for it to be able to scale 1080p video up from 1080p.

 

[toke lahti]

Also, component suppliers are unable to provide enough of the current part. To expect them to double the resolution and increase yield is not very realistic at this time. Apple isn't even finished with their international rollout, according to yesterday's conference call.

If there would be multiple different display's in iPad2, they wouldn't need so many of just one display model.

Even if they are still in rollout, they can't postpone the new model.
For example here in Finland the rollout was in December, but many people didn't buy, because they are expecting new model next month.

Looking at competitors, Apple could postpone new model at least to next summer, but then they should clearly inform potential buyers that there will be no new model next month. But because Apple don't talk about future products, they can't do this and their sales are dropping, because people are waiting for new model.

As for 2k-rez, that would halve the battery life and quadruple the need for memory. But if people would accept higher price and shorter battery life, it could be done.

Also somebody said that selling low-rez & hi-rez at the same time would mean too many models. But they could offer only 2 different memory capacities and low-rez could be wifi-only and hi-rez 3g+wifi-only. So they could actually narrow the amount of different models.

But so far battery has been king in Apple's features, so I'm not betting for the hi-rez before better battery tech and Moore's law handling the power consumption and memory price.

What I don't get is why higher rez should be 2x.
So far there is already 3 different resolutions in iOS devices.
It wouldn't be big jump to have 4.
Also iP/iPT has different aspect ratio than iPad.
For those apps that really need that 1:1 pixels, developers would just make 4th version and those that don't need it, can keep scaling like they are doing already.

Anyway, Apple don't have to think about will owners of iPad1 buy new model. There are enough people who does not own iPad yet, that can buy all iPads Apple can manufacture.
At least till summer, when competitors may have their products fully in markets.