iPad 2 Screen Likely to Have 2048x1536 resolution

[jealousguy86]

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.

this post makes me doubt the validity of the ipad's resolution being increased

 

[yettie2]

This is my first post but after reading through this thread I decided to do a little research. It turns out that the iPhone 3gS screen cost Apple approximately $19.25 and the "retina" display on the iPhone 4 cost Apple $28.50 representing a 48% increase in screen cost to double the screen's linear resolution. These numbers aren't exact but I have my sources below (found from iSuppli, a company that does a lot of this stuff). The screen on the current iPad is estimated to cost around $80. Using the 48% as a guess for the price increase that would put the proposed 2048x1536 iPad 2 screen at around $118.44 . Considering that it is estimated the iPad costs as little as $219 for apple to actually make, a $40 cut in profits doesn't seem too bad, especially considering that it will badly hurt the competition. As for the A4 chip, since Apple makes it in house it is only estimated to cost $10.75 . Given Moore's law and a small price increase, the A5 might be more powerful than we thing although power draw will be interesting to manage.


iPhone 3gS: http://www.cellular-news.com/story/38186.php
iPhone 4: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/isuppli_iphone_4_costs_187.51_in_materials/
iPad: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-10/apple-ipad-parts-cost-as-little-as-219-isuppli-says-update1-.html

 

[acslater017]

As much as I would love one, it doesn't seem feasible. The cost of the screen alone (if they can even make one at that size with that pixel density) can't be cheap. Combine that with the power requirements to display it idling. I can't imagine how much power it would require for gaming. Especially since this is beyond 1080p which no console even supports and they got a damn power cord! I think Apple will have to bite the bullet and offer something completely different and force developers to adjust their apps accordingly.

If they surprise us all and pull it off. I think its pretty obvious I'll be getting one. So much for the iPhone 4's retina setting the standard for years, this screen would trump it in 6-7 months.

Maybe they'll up it to ____ x 1080 (sorry, too lazy to do the math), and call it the iPad HD.

The iPad's display is OK. But after using the iPhone 4, it's really not nearly as sharp or smooth. Upping it to 320 dpi seems infeasible, but it could definitely use an upgrade. If they increase it sqrt 2 in each direction, then it will be a doubling of the pixels. Once again, too lazy to do the math, but that would still be a decent upgrade.

 

[A Macbook Pro]

this post makes me doubt the validity of the ipad's resolution being increased

Only reason TV's have low resolution is because it doesn't need to be any higher, but computers with small text need higher resolutions. Try hooking up your Macbook to a full HD TV at 1920x1080. It looks like ****.

 

[xeoh85]

Maybe they'll up it to ____ x 1080 (sorry, too lazy to do the math), and call it the iPad HD.

The iPad's display is OK. But after using the iPhone 4, it's really not nearly as sharp or smooth. Upping it to 320 dpi seems infeasible, but it could definitely use an upgrade. If they increase it sqrt 2 in each direction, then it will be a doubling of the pixels. Once again, too lazy to do the math, but that would still be a decent upgrade.

The iPad is a 4X3 aspect ratio device. If you wanted to display 16X9 pictures at 1080P, you would need a screen size of 1920X1440. This would be the wisest resolution in my opinion, because then you could watch 1080P video at 1:to:1 native resolution (no upscaling), and you would simply have the black bars above and below the picture (due to the aspect ratio).

The only problem is that this ratio would be an increase factor of 1.875 from the iPad version 1, which would give developers fits.

 

[acslater017]

This is my first post but after reading through this thread I decided to do a little research. It turns out that the iPhone 3gS screen cost Apple approximately $19.25 and the "retina" display on the iPhone 4 cost Apple $28.50 representing a 48% increase in screen cost to double the screen's linear resolution. These numbers aren't exact but I have my sources below (found from iSuppli, a company that does a lot of this stuff). The screen on the current iPad is estimated to cost around $80. Using the 48% as a guess for the price increase that would put the proposed 2048x1536 iPad 2 screen at around $118.44 . Considering that it is estimated the iPad costs as little as $219 for apple to actually make, a $40 cut in profits doesn't seem too bad, especially considering that it will badly hurt the competition. As for the A4 chip, since Apple makes it in house it is only estimated to cost $10.75 . Given Moore's law and a small price increase, the A5 might be more powerful than we thing although power draw will be interesting to manage.


iPhone 3gS: http://www.cellular-news.com/story/38186.php
iPhone 4: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/isuppli_iphone_4_costs_187.51_in_materials/
iPad: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-10/apple-ipad-parts-cost-as-little-as-219-isuppli-says-update1-.html

Good research, but I doubt that it scales like that. I'll admit that I'm sort of pulling these numbers out of you-know-where, but it seems like once you get into resolutions >1080 on mobile devices, the power consumption, cost, etc. just becomes unmanageable.

I have a high-res MBP and it only runs at 1050 pixels. That's with a 2.4 GHz dualcore processor, discrete graphics card, and a 5 pound mahcine.

 

[tdream]

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.

It's called resolution independence. Text will be rendered the same size and not the same number of pixels, resulting in higher quality text which is what the iphone 4 is all about.

 

[MRU]

All the talks of 'not possible' I'm surprised no one has posted this yet...


Has nobody seen the demonstration of Motorola's Atrix smartphone?

It can run dual screens (phone + monitor) without hassle.

1920x1080. &. 960x540

That's driving nearly as many pixels as the proposed retina display for the iPad 2. Mobile GPU's have come a long way.... In a short time.

 

[Abbaspoor]

there is only 2 possible:

1- 1024*768
2- 2048*1536

and i think the first one is more likely to see.

maybe in iPad 3 or 4 we can see retina on iPad finally
but now no WAY

 

[Maagus]

All the talks of 'not possible' I'm surprised no one has posted this yet...


Has nobody seen the demonstration of Motorola's Atrix smartphone?

It can run dual screens (phone + monitor) without hassle.

1920x1080. &. 960x540

That's driving nearly as many pixels as the proposed retina display for the iPad 2. Mobile GPU's have come a long way.... In a short time.

That is right. However if I am not mistaken (didn't read much about Atrix, only watched one video), it runs the resolution 1920 x 1080 when plugged in (i.e. when charging).

 

[ibosie]

P.S. as some may have already noted.. the CURRENT iPad's resolution is already wasted when using HSDPA networks in UK (save for Network 3 i believe).. due to their enforced compression of images at the server level. There are work arounds but Apple should really put some muscle behind changing these policies with the networks first.

I switched to Three for exactly this reason - it's just ridiculous to compress images for delivery on a display this size.

 

[FoxMcCloud]

Such high resolutions on all things apple yet no high resolution video from apple. Strange

 

[adnoh]

I think this of for when iBooks goes "Back to the Mac".

Amazon & Zinio allow you to read content that can be purchased online on your laptop and mobile device.

Why should apple be left out?

 

[iPhoneCollector]

Nice for those who got the ipad a month ago.

 

[gnasher729]

This is my first post but after reading through this thread I decided to do a little research. It turns out that the iPhone 3gS screen cost Apple approximately $19.25 and the "retina" display on the iPhone 4 cost Apple $28.50 representing a 48% increase in screen cost to double the screen's linear resolution. These numbers aren't exact but I have my sources below (found from iSuppli, a company that does a lot of this stuff). The screen on the current iPad is estimated to cost around $80. Using the 48% as a guess for the price increase that would put the proposed 2048x1536 iPad 2 screen at around $118.44 . Considering that it is estimated the iPad costs as little as $219 for apple to actually make, a $40 cut in profits doesn't seem too bad, especially considering that it will badly hurt the competition. As for the A4 chip, since Apple makes it in house it is only estimated to cost $10.75 . Given Moore's law and a small price increase, the A5 might be more powerful than we thing although power draw will be interesting to manage.

1. iSuppli publishes a lot of stuff, that doesn't mean they have any clue what they are talking about. 2. iSuppli publishes guesstimates for "Bill of Material", that means their numbers, if they are correct, buy you a bunch of parts. That is _not_ what it costs Apple to build a device, not what it costs Apple to put it in a shop, not what it costs Apple to sell them. 3. If you really think that a $40 cut in profits is "not too bad", you should stay out of business. $40 added in parts cost means $100 more in end user price if you run any kind of business.

 

[Saladinos]

Wirelessly posted (iPod touch 2nd gen: Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; fr-fr) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)



Erm, doesn't it take more energy to power higher-rez screens?

First you have four times more transistors and liquid crystals, which dissipate heat as electricity goes trough them.

Also, you have more "gaps" between pixels that do not transmit light as well. The backlight has to be higher in order for the same light quantity to go trough.

Yes, but the transistors are smaller, and so can operate at a lower voltage and with less leakage. Also, Apple uses LG Enhanced IPS, which counters the backlight problem.

 

[Lessi72]

Just a small detail...

A more practical approach would simply be doubling the resolution of the current iPad (1024x768) to 2048x1536 at a 260 DPI.

Just to point out a small detail: 1024x768 to 2048x1536 isn't doubling - it's quadrupling.

1024x768 = 786,432 pixels
2048x1536 = 3,145,728 pixels

Since the resolution is doubled both horizontally and vertically, you'd be able to put the current iPad's screen on the new one 4 times...

Interesting concept, but I cannot see Apple going to that type of a resolution on the iPad just yet... this would put the iPad inbetween the 21" and 27" iMac.

 

[vixducis]

It's been said before: these pixel densities are only affordable at small displays. These resolutions would mean the ipad has 85% of the pixels of the 27" apple displays, which are also led and ips, but very expensive. Also: the graphics processor in the ipad would have to be a whole lot better to support all those pixels.

 

[sniffies]

Awww, guys, you're in for some massive disappointment come April: the leaked graphics are for the iBooks app for Mac App Store.

Kill your excitement ASAP (for your own good)!!!

 

[Pigumon]

And for everyone saying "overkill" and "better than my 50" HDTV, HAVE YOU SEEN THE IPHONE 4???? It's not OVERKILL, it's just getting rid of the "pixelated" look of a computer screen. IT'S WONDERFUL!

Bring on the double res iPad!!!

 

[fpnc]

I would like to ask everyone who is arguing that a 2048x1536 display is a "done deal" to consider trying to design such a product at current iPad price points. Given the competition shown at CES the next iPad will need a dual-core ARM9 and a significantly improved GPU. Add into that increased memory (because I really can't see the iPad remaining at 256MB when some of the tablets/phones at CES were running with 1GB) and the FaceTime camera that we pretty much know will be included and I think you've already got a product that will be pushing the limits of the current price structures.

Personally, I'd like to see a doubling of the included flash memory since the entry-level 16GB is really inadequate and even the current top-end 64GB is a little restrictive for those who want the full-media experience on a large-screen mobile device (e.g., I just purchased the Life magazine guide to digital photography which occupied 0.5GB of space -- for a single multimedia "book" -- then consider that one HD movie runs almost 4GB). Of course, going to 32GB, 64GB, and 128GB models would be a little pricey so that too may be out of the question (the other "too" being the Retina display, which I would argue isn't price/benefit competitive in the 2011 tablet space).

Let's start with the Motorola Xoom specs since that was pretty much the tablet of choice at CES:

Tegra 2 CPU/GPU (1GHz, dual-core ARM9 with NVIDIA GPU that appears to significantly out perform today's iPhone/iPad SGX535 graphics processor)
1GB DDR2 RAM (standard)
32GB flash storage (standard) with additional storage via built-in SD card slot
10.1-inch widescreen 1280×800 display
Front and rear facing cameras
Built-in gyroscope, barometer, e-compass, and accelerometer
micro USB2 port, HDMI output, and a few other extras

Now consider that Apple very seldom offers really cutting-edge hardware (if you exclude the form factor and industrial design). However, they do offer well designed products that tend to hit the market sweet spots on performance, features, and usability. Of course, they also charge somewhat elevated prices for any given hardware spec, something that should not be overlooked in any proposed redesign on the iPad. Next consider that the iPad needs to be a high-volume product, one or two million units shipped next quarter won't be acceptable and here we're getting into the very definition of what makes cutting-edge hardware so rare -- you can't produce a lot of it because the technology is new and supplies are going to be limited.

As far as using the iPhone 4 as a model for the iPad's evolution, let's start with the admission that the iPhone 4 is pretty much a repackaged iPhone 3GS with the addition of the Retina display and FaceTime camera (yes, I know, it's got the Apple A4 processor but that's just a tweaked version of the ARM8 that is in the 3GS -- along with double the DRAM). Is Apple going to do the same with the iPad? You might say they could -- add the Retina display, FaceTime, and double the DRAM and presto! -- the new iPad. But, frankly, this time around Apple needs to do more than that and besides with the iPhone 4 that is just about all they could have done (since dual-core ARM and faster graphics were largely unavailable or impractical when the iPhone 4 was introduced).

A further problem with the iPad-as-iPhone approach is that this largely ignores the competition's Tegra 2 CPU/GPU and it also tends to minimize the difficulty in producing a 2048x1536 9.7" LCD that could match the quality of the IPS display used in the current iPad. Making the jump to a 9.7" display at the so-called retina resolution (or near to that) is a lot more difficult than doing the same on the iPhone's 3.5" display (as someone said earlier, it's not simply the case of "gluing" together four or more iPhone screens to make one for the iPad). One of the reasons for this is that the manufacturing yield of LCDs is strongly influenced by the total square area of the display -- simply put, a larger display (by area) is more difficult to produce even if both products are at the same pixel density (pixels-per-inch).

Just try to compare the price on a 35" LCD HDTV to one at 97 inches (if you could find the latter, which I don't think you can) and note that a 97 inch, 1080p HDTV has a much lower pixel density than does the cheaper 35" set (I'm not trying to claim that the manufacturing problems and market dynamics are the same for HDTVs as they are for tablets, but this comparison should give you a hint as to why larger -- in area -- is not necessarily easy).

Lastly, let's look at the the Motorola Xoom's 10.1" 1280x800 display. If you do the math and assuming square pixels that works out to be a 149 pixels-per-inch (ppi) display. The current 9.7" iPad has a 132 ppi display which is a difference of 13% (in favor of the Xoom). Would that be visible? Perhaps with careful examination, but maybe not that significant given other factors (such as brightness, contrast, and viewing angles).

So here's the challenge, design the retina-display iPad and make the determination of what needs to be "cut" and what must stay. Realistically, you can't be equal to and/or better in every major hardware category than Apple's competition -- at least not given Apple's historically high profit margins. The baseline might be Apple's current iPad hardware with the addition of just the rumored 2048x1536 display (not a likely scenario, but you've got to start somewhere).

 

[Ed1024]

I think we are getting carried away over the requirements for a 2048x1536 display as we associate such resolutions with ultra-gaming rigs, using multiple powerful graphics cards in parallel to run the latest 3D games at high frame rates (and high power consumption).

Would the proposed SoC in the next iPad be able to render "retina" images, scroll smoothly and run complex graphical apps? Yes. Will it run CoD Black Ops. at 100fps? No.

I see no technical reason why an A9-derivative paired with the latest SGX GPU driving a QXGA display should be overloaded or chew through the battery when running *the sort of apps that the iPad is normally used for*.

 

[wikoogle]

I really wish the first iPad had a resolution of 1000 x 750 and the iPad 2 had a resolution of 2000 x 1500. It would be far more elegant as far as numbers go.

 

[meatballs]

...and not only that. Stevo promises to throw in a pair of these with each additional purchase!

 

[fpnc]

...and not only that. Stevo promises to throw in a pair of these with each additional purchase!

For those who haven't yet seen it, here is a link to the full story and video on the new glasses-free 3D: http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/15/man-discovers-glasses-free-3d-tech-in-the-blink-of-an-eye-video/