Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; 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)
+ 100. Thank you for explaining how I feel.
You are welcome!!
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
You are welcome!!
Why does everyone seem to think that producing a screen at such a high resolution would be so much more expensive.
If as suggested you cannot identify individual pixels at such a high resolution what does it matter if some of the pixels are defective. You wouldn't even notice the dead pixels, where you would on a lower resolution screen.
Providing there aren't too many dead pixels adjacent to each other there is no reason a high res screen should be any more expensive than a lower res one.
I can see them keeping the iPad 1 (16GB) priced at $499; introducing the iPad 2 (32GB) at $599, replacing the equivalent iPad 1 (32gb) as you've mentioned.
P.
Last edited:
Four Possibilities:
1) They're preparing for the iPad 3 / 4.
2) It's for the iMac Touch at a resolution of 2048x1536 (24 inch)
3) It's for the iBooks for the mac.
4) The iPad 2 will have a "retina" display
However, the camera shutter has a size of 1024 x 768; which, I think, confirms that, unfortunately, the iPad 2 has a resolution of 1024 x 768.
iPad 2 cameras confirmed by iOS 4.3 SDK? But no Retina display?
1) They're preparing for the iPad 3 / 4.
2) It's for the iMac Touch at a resolution of 2048x1536 (24 inch)
3) It's for the iBooks for the mac.
4) The iPad 2 will have a "retina" display
However, the camera shutter has a size of 1024 x 768; which, I think, confirms that, unfortunately, the iPad 2 has a resolution of 1024 x 768.
iPad 2 cameras confirmed by iOS 4.3 SDK? But no Retina display?
That might be a very good point if the functioning yield was always 100% (that is, you don't care if "some of the pixels are defective"). While accepting a few bad pixels could reduce costs the problem is that some panels just won't work and others will have rather catastrophic failure, like a complete row or column that is non-functional. The yield issues given area in semi-conductor and LCD panel production are well known. All things else being equal, you can't simply make a substrate larger and expect the same yields (that being, the percentage of acceptable or good parts). This is one of the reasons why CPU chips don't simply get larger and larger in area (to include more transistors and functions). Going larger is not simply a matter of materials cost, because catastrophic defects can be a function of area you soon reach a point where your yield will approach zero.
I'm not saying that it would be anything like impossible to produce a retina-like display for the iPad (since a 9.7" panel isn't really that huge), it's just that such a panel would likely be more expensive than you might expect (that is, if you simply try to scale up from the Retina display costs on the iPhone). There is also the problem of supply, the iPad is growing to be a true mass-market item and such products usually don't include cutting-edge technology. However, I'd admit that there might be scenarios where Apple could include a retina-like display on the next iPad while still holding costs to today's levels. The problem is, I think it would be pretty difficult for Apple to do that while also making significant upgrades in other areas (some of which could be critical for the next iPad). If your argument then turns to, "Well, just increase the price" then maybe I could accept that but I'm not certain that the market would. So, yes, we could see a 2048x1536 display on the next iPad but what are you going to sacrifice to get there? Cost, competitive performance, or some other features, you be the judge.
Very expensive, but last I read, Apple was purchasing screens in bulk - 40million (or was it 65 million) for 2011.
If the graphics processor is the faster SGX model, in addition to a faster memory bus, there's your bandwidth.
i would like to add that i still find this unbelievable.
what if this has something to do with the mac's app store's ibooks?
however, if this is true on the second gen ipad, i am already convinced i want it. no matter what other stuff has been added. this is good enough to get me to buy the newer ipad.
someone wants a 32gb ipad 3g?
what if this has something to do with the mac's app store's ibooks?
however, if this is true on the second gen ipad, i am already convinced i want it. no matter what other stuff has been added. this is good enough to get me to buy the newer ipad.
someone wants a 32gb ipad 3g?
The suggested resolution is about 5 times that of the iPhone 4 if the cost of that display is $28.5, another optimistic estimate would be five times that at $142.5. You can still see damaged pixels in the matrix as people have been doing with the iPhone 4. Pixel count does cost money, 16:10 displays are substantially more expensive than 16:9 although also because the latter apect ratio dominates TVs and low cost displays.
If the rumor turned out to be true it would change our idea of the mobile display and push the limits of what current technology can do.
I think a smaller bump in resolution sounds more realistic and maybe add subpixel rendering of fonts, that would be a big a improvement. Pixel quadroupling as a means to simplify scaling seems overrated, you don't do 2K (4:3) to simplify things.
you have no idea how easy it is to chance a name. it could be to fool us.
But how do you know for certain that thats the name in the SDK or firmware?
source link? i have seen ipad2x but maby they called it that way because they wanted to spice up the rumours.
It's always nice to have such strong opinions from people who have no idea what talking about. This post is a mirror image of the entire first page.
Typical macrumors. Nothing but users, with zero technical knowledge.
Link
The link was posted in the article: http://www.macstories.net/ipad/evidence-of-ipad-retina-display/
Should be pretty easy to confirm.
The link was posted in the article: http://www.macstories.net/ipad/evidence-of-ipad-retina-display/
Should be pretty easy to confirm.
I can't imagine it being that high. That amount of pixels on a mobile device would be insane. How much battery would you have to have to power a GPU to display that!! You'd be charging the iPad every couple of hours, unless apple has some new amazing battery up their sleeve. which i don't doubt really.
when it due out? about april time i am guessing.
when it due out? about april time i am guessing.
Quick Calculations
2048x1536 = 3,145,728 pixels
Arn mentioned that the "SGX543 is said to deliver performance of 35 million polygons per second and a filtrate of 1 billion pixels per second when running at 200 MHz"
Thats 1 Billion pixels per second. Event at a 30 frames a second, we've only filled 94,371,840 pixels. Thats about a 10th of the GPU's capacity. You can bet Apple has room to underclock this puppy and keep the power draw low.
2048x1536 = 3,145,728 pixels
Arn mentioned that the "SGX543 is said to deliver performance of 35 million polygons per second and a filtrate of 1 billion pixels per second when running at 200 MHz"
Thats 1 Billion pixels per second. Event at a 30 frames a second, we've only filled 94,371,840 pixels. Thats about a 10th of the GPU's capacity. You can bet Apple has room to underclock this puppy and keep the power draw low.
1920x1600 has been available on 13" notebook screens for the past 4 years or so. Apple's own macbook air can drive an 11.6 inch screen at 1366x768 with ease and that is with a relatively power hungry Core 2 Duo/Nvidia 320 package. The A4 iphone 4 can handle driving 960x480 with ease on a 3.5 inch screen. We can yet only guess what an "A5" processor could do in terms of performance and battery life and doing so on a 9.7 inch display @ 2048x1536 is possible. The Cost of having a 2048x1536 display is high but hey an extra $100 or $200 on the price of an ipad will hardly deter those seeking the best. Apple could still offer the current ipad at rock bottom prices while having a high resolution model at the $700-$1000 price range.
Meh.... but this is just my own relatively naive and uninformed layman's perspective on the issue. I suppose my faith in this happening is based on Apple's track record of never ceasing to amaze.
Meh.... but this is just my own relatively naive and uninformed layman's perspective on the issue. I suppose my faith in this happening is based on Apple's track record of never ceasing to amaze.
Mac app version?
If I may guess I would say this could refer to a Mac version of the iBook App, the resolution is close to that of the new iMac.They just disguise it in an iPad name.
You know Apple and secrecy.
Edit:
Lok like some other people have the same idea, it's hard to go through 15 page.
If I may guess I would say this could refer to a Mac version of the iBook App, the resolution is close to that of the new iMac.They just disguise it in an iPad name.
You know Apple and secrecy.
Edit:
Lok like some other people have the same idea, it's hard to go through 15 page.
exactly the same idea. there is simply no way that 9,7inch screen will have a bigger resolution of our full HD 1 meter TV.
Well as a photographer and a pixel snob, I would be happy as heck to look at my photos on a screen with this pixel density, after having the iPhone 4 since it was released, it is hard to look at the resolution of the current iPads. I for one say bring on the pixels, the more the merrier...
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
Why, exactly? There are 22-inch monitors with twice the resolution of your full HD one-meter TV.
borgqueenx said:
Why, exactly? There are 22-inch monitors with twice the resolution of your full HD one-meter TV.
There is marketing BS, and there is reality. The billion pixels is under the best possible circumstances, like filling the complete screen in white color. Try copying an image, slightly scaled, with a bit of gamma correction, and your pixel rate drops so far you wouldn't believe it. That is before we get into what 3D games do, like running pixelshaders. And your calculation assumes that each pixel is only drawn once, which isn't true either.
I have to admit that I was a non-believer about the resolution doubling (4x pixel count) for ipad2.
This tells me that the screen component cost is not nearly as high as I thought it was (and/or that Apple is willing to accept further compressed margins), AND that the horsepower of whatever CPU/GPU will live inside the iPad2 is much more powerful than I otherwise expected.
I CAN'T RECALL EVER BEFORE HAVING BEEN SO HAPPY TO BE WRONG!!
This tells me that the screen component cost is not nearly as high as I thought it was (and/or that Apple is willing to accept further compressed margins), AND that the horsepower of whatever CPU/GPU will live inside the iPad2 is much more powerful than I otherwise expected.
I CAN'T RECALL EVER BEFORE HAVING BEEN SO HAPPY TO BE WRONG!!