iPad 2 Screen Likely to Have 2048x1536 resolution

[kdarling]

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.

What was the science term? Not "retina", because they made that up

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.

That's the point. There is more. You can't differentiate ONLY past a certain distance, which depends on the DPI.

That was Apple's definition of their new marketing term.

They used a value that's commonly associated with an average person's ability to discern individual lines, which depends on the angle subtended by the lines. IIRC, the angle works out to be about 2 arc minute. (No time to check my notes right now.)

They used that value, because it was also used way back to decide that 300DPI laser printers were "print quality" at 12" from your face.

It all boils down to this:

Apple could not say they were the first "print quality" screen, because a couple of Windows Mobile phones had already used that term with their 311DPI screens years before, in 2007 and 2008.

So Apple had to come up with a different catch-phrase. Thus, "retina".

 

[Kauai]

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.

It seems to me like Apple would be trying to throw us off from such a large increase in the iPad's resolution...not a relatively expected iBooks application for Mac.

 

[DotCom2]

All I can say is...

HOLY *****!!!!

An iPad with a resolution greater than 1080p? Holy damn, that might just make the thing closer to being worth $500+!

LOL
this really made me laugh!

 

[oTaRu]

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.

ya... i think NEC has some high resolution LCD...

 

[MRU]

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).

Docking only has the benefit of Charging the device while docked, it does not suddenly boost the graphical prowess of the phone, that is already present within the device.

If the Atrix Smartphone can run screens like that, plus custom webtop interface on the new monitor, whilst simultaneously displaying the mobile interface either on the device or in a window on the desktop of the monitor, without handicaping the device, then the iPad 2 should be able to do the resolution without issues.

Being able to run at the resolution however does not mean that we are suddenly going to see xbox360/ps3 graphics. The chip may be powerful but it doesn't have all the functionality to run those fancy effects, nor the memory.
But it should be more than capable of running current gen iPad games at the higher resolution, which in itself will automatically make the games look better anyway.

 

[DotCom2]

This is what I've been posting for months. Give devs the option to run at 1024 X 768 for games, but have the higher res as an OPTION, such as for reading books or looking at pictures.

Your game cannot run at full res? fine, run it at a lower res, no problem.

I think this is the logical solution.

 

[Reed Rothchild]

A doubling of pixels across horiz and vert is the only way Apple can increase the resolution and still keep old apps (sort of) compatible. Just like they did with the iPhone with pixel doubling.

Slogan for the new iPad: This makes me buy my apps. Again!

It would be a brilliant technical achievement by Apple, and certainly the current iPad resolution is very poor, but I'll be amazed if they can actually do it in the next iteration.

 

[lewis82]

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)

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)!!!

Are you kidding? Why would devs put an image of a Mac version of an app in there? It's totally not the same version, it doesn't run on the same hardware (different CPU architectures).

And by the way, have you forgotten that Books are readable on iTunes?

 

[blackpond]

This new iPad will be a dream! Fairies and unicorns unite! It will be beyond magical. It will be fantastical!

 

[Maagus]

BTW: Have a look at price of IPS LED monitors at this resolution (they often cost more than the iPad itself). And you have to add that forcing that resolution to 9,7" is much more challenging. And the price of iPad starts at 499 USD. Impossible.

 

[fortunecookie]

I doubt anyone has the technology(yet) to do this and keep it cheap.

 

[nokq]

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 understand your skepticism. Imagination Technologies has been touting the performance of this chip for well over a year as a real advance in their graphics offerings. In one press release, they called those numbers real-world. I'm saying believe whatever you want, companies tend to overstate their marketing claims but I think this company (Imagination) is a real innovator. Apple has their vote of confidence in them, they invested. The rumored PSP 2 is to use this chip. In multi core variants it begins to compete with current desktop offerings at clockspeeds that are a half or third of whats out there.

Some talk from well over a year ago...

http://www.tgdaily.com/hardware-features/40899-ces-2009-iphone-may-get-gpgpu-acceleration

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=51601

Note they call it real world below.
http://imgtec.com/News/Release/index.asp?NewsID=428

Interestingly, they note that the fill rate figures assume a scene depth complexity of x2.5. I couldn't find a definition for that. I'm by no means a hardware expert.

 

[Maagus]

Docking only has the benefit of Charging the device while docked, it does not suddenly boost the graphical prowess of the phone, that is already present within the device.

If the Atrix Smartphone can run screens like that, plus custom webtop interface on the new monitor, whilst simultaneously displaying the mobile interface either on the device or in a window on the desktop of the monitor, without handicaping the device, then the iPad 2 should be able to do the resolution without issues.

Being able to run at the resolution however does not mean that we are suddenly going to see xbox360/ps3 graphics. The chip may be powerful but it doesn't have all the functionality to run those fancy effects, nor the memory.
But it should be more than capable of running current gen iPad games at the higher resolution, which in itself will automatically make the games look better anyway.

Yes but (and I have to note that I am not familiar with the power optimization of mobile GPUs) I meant that if it is docked and thus charged, then the battery drain is not the issue, i.e. the GPU then needs the power to display that resolution only when it is docked, not all the time, unlike the iPad predictions and especially future iPad 3D games that it would need to display at that resolution.

 

[ctyhntr]

Introducing the iPad 2 with double the screen resolution at its current price point would cannabalize MacBookAir sales.

 

[Full of Win]

BTW: Have a look at price of IPS LED monitors at this resolution (they often cost more than the iPad itself). And you have to add that forcing that resolution to 9,7" is much more challenging. And the price of iPad starts at 499 USD. Impossible.

The iPhone and iPod Touch are in the 300's in DPI already...so its not as big of a challenge as its made out to be. I don't think its easy, but its not impossible either.

Introducing the iPad 2 with double the screen resolution at its current price point would cannabalize MacBookAir sales.

And releasing a 999 MacBook Air could cannibalize 64 GB iPad sales.

 

[slicecom]

I doubt anyone has the technology(yet) to do this and keep it cheap.

That's what people said about the iPhone 4 screen yet somehow Apple found a way. The competition stil havent been able to pull it off.

 

[MRU]

Yes but (and I have to note that I am not familiar with the power optimization of mobile GPUs) I meant that if it is docked and thus charged, then the battery drain is not the issue, i.e. the GPU then needs the power to display that resolution only when it is docked, not all the time, unlike the iPad predictions and especially future iPad 3D games that it would need to display at that resolution.

Well the Atrix is meant to have a mother of a battery for a mobile device. If apple can increase it's capacity of the iPad 2 battery then whilst it may lose some battery life over the first gen, I'm sure the 8+ battery life would keep most folks happy given the screen & CPU boosts.

There is space in the iPad to accommodate more battery. Although by doing so it will of course increase weight which may be an issue...

 

[nokq]

Interestingly, they note that the fill rate figures assume a scene depth complexity of x2.5. I couldn't find a definition for that. I'm by no means a hardware expert.

I did some more Googleing. Check out this, particularly the section on Depth Complexity

http://www.altsoftware.com/embedded-products/supplements/PowerVR_MBX.pdf

Obviously this applied to the older MBX architecture but the complexity for the Quake 3 demo was 3.39. This means the pixels were redrawn on average 3.39 times.

I stand firm in my belief this company is a innovator. Look at what id software has been able to showcase at the current Quakecon this last year with the current generation stuff.

Just reading a bit about the render architecture and being familiar with the SDK myself, Core Graphics gives you all the hooks to squeeze this performance out, believe me.

 

[aaronsullivan]

And given the presence of these graphics in Apple software, I expect that means Apple has been at least testing this. I would expect it means they have hoped to accomplish it with the next iPad, even. But there's still the possibility that they may have decided against it during testing, or delayed it until the third revision of the iPad.

I hope they do it. It would make reading so much more enjoyable.

++

I personally want the retina display on the iPad and even more I'd like it to be this exact resolution. I'm excited by the possibility for sure. My pragmapessimitism(tm) says that Xian Zhu Zuande is spot on in the above quote OR that Apple will use the screen as a product differentiation between iPads.

Previously, I've thought an inbetween 1.5x resolution could work, and I still think it could (it would be just as much fragmentation as going to 2x, in my view) but this evidence points away from that possibility as does the lack of info for developers at the moment (as someone else pointed out.)

Holding out hope for it though. In my mind's eye it's great! And inexpensive too! And the battery lasts even longer! And it's in 3D! ahem.

 

[Maagus]

The iPhone and iPod Touch are in the 300's in DPI already...so its not as big of a challenge as its made out to be. I don't think its easy, but its not impossible either.

True but there is quite a price gap between 1024 x 768 IPS panel and for example 2560 x 1600 IPS panel. I am not sure why exactly, but I believe that it is because of the manufacturing process and the necessity to keep the 3+ million of pixels nearly flawless.

 

[cmaier]

Introducing the iPad 2 with double the screen resolution at its current price point would cannabalize MacBookAir sales.

Apple doesn't care about cannibalizing its own products.

 

[Mattsasa]

so will the macbooks get a resolution bump this spring?

 

[rdowty]

How is someone going to develop and app for that? Most people don't have desktop monitors that high-res

 

[Warbrain]

Apple doesn't care about cannibalizing its own products.

Yep. They didn't care that the MacBook Air could drop iPad sales.

so will the macbooks get a resolution bump this spring?

Not yet.

 

[borgqueenx]

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.

yes it IS possible, but i more ment "unlikely".
however like i said, if this resolution would be the fact on a new ipad, it would be a real insta-buy for me.