I know what they are trying to say, that the pixels are no longer perceptible. What I hate is how they have co-opted a science term and made it into a buzz word. It really burns me.
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.
iPad 2 Screen Likely to Have 2048x1536 resolution
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I know what they are trying to say, that the pixels are no longer perceptible. What I hate is how they have co-opted a science term and made it into a buzz word. It really burns me.
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)
Twice the resolution at the same size, or twice the size at the same resolution.
The latter seems more probable since the camera app files for the iPad 2 is the same resolution As the original.
arn said:
Twice the resolution at the same size, or twice the size at the same resolution.
The latter seems more probable since the camera app files for the iPad 2 is the same resolution As the original.
Just want to point out to the person who said 260 DPI is only considered 'retina' at 14" away.
An eye isn't made out of pixels like a computer screen is. An eye has a range of focus depending on the angle your eye is looking at something. Not to mention the differences between 20:20, 20:30, or even 20:15 vision.
Instead of continually arguing about something that isn't even comparable, the point of calling it a 'retina' display is because you can't differentiate the pixels. That's it, nothing more.
An eye isn't made out of pixels like a computer screen is. An eye has a range of focus depending on the angle your eye is looking at something. Not to mention the differences between 20:20, 20:30, or even 20:15 vision.
Instead of continually arguing about something that isn't even comparable, the point of calling it a 'retina' display is because you can't differentiate the pixels. That's it, nothing more.
Nope. The iOS SDK added these hooks with the introduction of the Retina display. IE, when you have a retina version of a image which is double the pixel resolution of the standard original iphone screen, you add the suffix @2x to the image. The OS automatically selects the 2x version if the screen is a Retina one.
2≠4
I'm probably not the first to point this out, but the author wrote
"A more practical approach would simply be doubling the resolution of the current iPad (1024x768) to 2048x1536"
That would be quadrupling, not doubling, the resolution. [invective omitted]
I'm probably not the first to point this out, but the author wrote
"A more practical approach would simply be doubling the resolution of the current iPad (1024x768) to 2048x1536"
That would be quadrupling, not doubling, the resolution. [invective omitted]
Twice the resolution at the same size and twice the size at the same resolution at the same size are the same image.
Let's assume a square 2 pixels x 2 pixels vs a square 4 pixels x 4 pixels. If they're both displayed on a screen with pixels 1mm squared, the 4x4 square will be twice the size (at the same resolution). Alternatively, if the 4x4 square displayed on a screen with pixels 0.5mm squared, it would display at twice the resolution but at the same size.
You might already know all of this, but your post is a bit confusing. Also, with something like this it really isn't more probable that the image was made to display on the same resolution screen. Why would you need a bookmark image or a woodgrain image twice the size necessary, especially when the woodgrain already covers the whole width of the screen? It's possible it was just a designer making everything balanced (I know I would get annoyed at there being two iPhone images and one iPad image) but if an image is included in an app it's usually included for a reason, especially if it was included in an update.
What do you mean by the camera app files?
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/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)
I hold an iPad exactly the same distance as an iPod. Holding in my hand on a desk or in my lap. So retina my a...
I hold an iPad exactly the same distance as an iPod. Holding in my hand on a desk or in my lap. So retina my a...
Is this gonna be like the comma in the Second Amendment, or in this case, the lack thereof?
First off, let me say that "resolution" is about "resolving" and that's ultimately measured angularly, and therefore in one dimension with PPI. So the rumor here is about doubling it, not quadrupling it.
Having said that, the spec page is not helpful. If they had included a comma like this:
1024-by-768-pixel, resolution at 132 pixels per inch
that would clear, and support the linear dimension (as opposed to pixel count) argument. But they didn't -- and putting on a copy editor hat, I would agree -- because what they really meant is:
1024-by-768-pixel resolution, at 132 pixels per inch
The preposition "at" is sufficient to leave the comma out. What they really meant was the old school meaning of resolution -- pixel count -- which was popularized in the old days, when people would express "screen sizes" with three- to twelve- letter acronyms ending in "GA" (e.g. CGA, VGA, WQUXGA, OMGWTFBBQGA) and the word "resolution".
Apple should just remove the ambiguous term and change it to, "1024x768 pixels at 132 pixels per inch"
I would speculate that one main reason is that things were/are just too small. Resolution independence just hasn't worked well enough on desktops, and ten years ago it was worse. Mac OS X made a push some years back, but it never took. Doubling is one solution, and maybe it's only recently become practical. But on the desktop/laptop, you would have the complication of mixing old and new content, with "chunky" windows side-by-side with "smooth" ones; something you don't get with iOS devices. Would that bother most people? Would it bother Steve?
No way...
Think about this for a minute people.
That HDTV in your living room...the one running "FULL HD" 1080p... Yea, that thing has 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels.
If this rumor is true, the iPad 2 would have 2048x1536 = 3,145,728 pixels!
You are telling me that an iPad ... with a 9.7inch screen ... could have (3,145,728 - 2,073,600) = 1,072,128 MORE pixels than the 52inch HDTV in my living room?
OVER ONE MILLION MORE PIXELS than a 1080p BlueRay movie?
Over a 50% higher pixel count than "full HD"...all in a 9.7inch screen that you can hold in your hands?
Mindblowing wouldn't come close to describing such a device. All of the tablets shown at CES would never even see the light of day. If true, my hat's off to Apple. Glad I own their stock.
Think about this for a minute people.
That HDTV in your living room...the one running "FULL HD" 1080p... Yea, that thing has 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels.
If this rumor is true, the iPad 2 would have 2048x1536 = 3,145,728 pixels!
You are telling me that an iPad ... with a 9.7inch screen ... could have (3,145,728 - 2,073,600) = 1,072,128 MORE pixels than the 52inch HDTV in my living room?
OVER ONE MILLION MORE PIXELS than a 1080p BlueRay movie?
Over a 50% higher pixel count than "full HD"...all in a 9.7inch screen that you can hold in your hands?
Mindblowing wouldn't come close to describing such a device. All of the tablets shown at CES would never even see the light of day. If true, my hat's off to Apple. Glad I own their stock.
I've been saying that it can't be 300+ppi and if they made it "Retina" it would merely be higher res, but termed "Retina" for marketing. So this makes sense.
PLEASE BE TRUE!!!
P.S. Is Apple going to up the res for FaceTime??? Cause if the iPad 2 has this high res of a screen and they just stretch it, it is probably going to look like crap!
Apple is all about THINNER, LIGHTER, AND LONGER BATTERY LIFE! I don't see them decreasing battery life. But how they would do all this while still making it lighter will be interesting to see. They are making the bezel thinner which will shave size and weight. Maybe the back will not be metal. Maybe it will be carbon fiber after all!
I hope the price doesn't go up too! Those BestBuy prices make me a big nervous. Apple would be STUPID to raise the price $100. Seems that Steve understands that the price needs to be low as he made that so apparent in his keynote when Apple introduced the first iPad. They also made a couple comments alluding to them being able to go even lower in price if they needed to with competition. So PLEASE don't jack the price up Apple!!! Don't give the competition a leg to stand on!
Last edited:
iPad Classic to $399
With all the increased component prices it's hard to see where Apple could keep the $499 model. The cameras and new screen ain't cheap.
They may keep the $499 model and lower the price to $399 for those who want cheap and classic. iPad Classic = Android killer.
With all the increased component prices it's hard to see where Apple could keep the $499 model. The cameras and new screen ain't cheap.
They may keep the $499 model and lower the price to $399 for those who want cheap and classic. iPad Classic = Android killer.
No, youre completely off. First of all, when you increase the number of pixels, it requires more backlight in order to push light through the added pixels. So that right there in itself requires more energy than before, because of requiring a brighter backlight. In fact, when Apple introduced the 27" iMac they even mentioned this in the promo video. Using an LED is part of what makes the Retina display possible, being far brighter and less power intensive than standard LCD backlighting.
Second of all, it takes more CPU and GPU processing in order to display those added pixels, and to interact with and render on-screen graphics and UI. 3D gaming especially take more CPU/GPU power rendering graphics with that pixel count. Rendering that many pixels is very processor intensive. The number one challenge Apple faces in making this a reality will be some pretty heavy tuning and optimization in the new A5 chip.
Seeing as how well the A4 manages power and how much higher the iPhone 4s battery life is despite quadrupling the resolution, I imagine that Apples engineering team will manage to do the impossible. I think if anyone can do this, it would be Apple. People felt the same way when John Gruber rumored that the iPhone 4 would have a 960x640 display, people thought it was nonsense.
I hope you're joking/trolling. The text won't become smaller, but rather more detailed. See: iPhone 4 and 4th generation iPod Touch.
Not joking nor trolling.
Change your screen resolution to the lowest on your computer, then look at text, change the monitor to the largest screen resolution then look at the text. Then come back and reply.
Actually, the naming convention is iphoneimage@2x.png. I would imagine the iPad would use the same convention as well, if it were going to work the same way.
I think people may overestimate the GPU power required to render at 2048x1536. For 2D things I think it's no problem. 2D performance has not been an issue in graphics processing for like a decade or more. When's the last time you saw 2D graphics benchmarks anywhere? I think there exist mobile/power efficient solutions that could handle 2D rendering at native resolution no problem.
3D obviously is where the strain comes in. A modern desktop GPU is needed to do full-res complex 3D rendering at 2048x1536. But, I don't think it's necessary to render an iPad game at the full native res. It would be overkill. You could just pixel double everything, run a 3D game at 1024x768, and there should be a mobile GPU that can handle that (as it does now). Heck you could do less than pixel double and render at 1600x1200 or something, the output would still look quite good due to the really high DPI of the screen.
ROFL, move along please. You are clearly clueless.
You cannot compare this to Windows and Windows webbrowsers that were designed for specific, static resolutions.
iOS will simply have fonts, icons, etc. that are designed for this resolution. Also, as far as web browsing is concerned, iOS / Safari uses vector graphics for text, so they are infinitely scalable. Don't believe me? Go to a webpage on your iPhone and zoom in on some text REALLY close, and you will notice it never becomes pixelated. That's vector graphics at work.
Interesting thought. It is unlikely that resolution would increase beyond this for many years, if ever. If Apple can partner up with someone and make this economically, even if it is a bit pricey they may be thinking of how prices will come down in the near future. Might as well make the jump now and reap the benefit. If they wait two years to do this they will be behind the curve.
You can get a 30" IPS display with similar resolution for about $1200. The iPad only has 1/9 the real estate of that display. The smaller area drives up yields reducing cost. Also, less material means less cost. Also, Apple will be selling these in insane volumes whereas large IPS displays are sold in tiny volumes for niche markets.
Given this simple comparison, it does seem possible for Apple to make this move. As others have pointed out, if they do it will totally blow the competition out of the water.
At the end of the day, there's only so much the human eye can see. Anything higher than this resolution on a sub-10-inch screen would be of almost no benefit to the viewer. Thus, this is likely the one and only resolution upgrade for the iPad Apple will ever have to make.
With that in mind, I agree that it would be smart business for Apple to take the plunge now and lower margins in the short term in order to absolutely pulverize the market. They want to do to the iPad market what they did to the iPod, which is force virtually all challengers to concede the market to Apple.
To get an idea how iOS handles 2x resolution, take a look at this, then come back. NOTHING is smaller, just crisper...
http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/retina-display.html#resolution
I'm probably not the first to point this out, but the author wrote
"A more practical approach would simply be doubling the resolution of the current iPad (1024x768) to 2048x1536"
That would be quadrupling, not doubling, the resolution. [invective omitted]
Depends on how you define it. As has been stated in this thread other times, screen resolution is often given in terms of DPI or PPI (Dots/Pixels Per Inch). In other words, how many pixels will be included in one inch in the X or Y axis. The current iPad screen is 132 Pixels using this measure. The new screen under discussion would have 264 pixels in one inch using the same measure. Hence 132 ---> 264 = doubled
