Sidebar Sidebar
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

GnillGnoll said:
Actually they do not look exactly the same, for two reasons:
1. Some iPhone apps get scaled using a bilinear filter, not pixel doubling. I'm not 100% sure what determines which scaling gets used, but I suspect it's related to whether an app uses the standard UI elements and/or hides the status bar.
Examples: Game Dev Story, Bookworm, Dungeon Scroll, Critter Crunch, Angry Birds before the Retina update. In fact, if you look closely you can sometimes even see the switch between the two modes during the app splash screen.

2. The subpixel structure is different. When pixel doubling, you basically get pixels with 12 subpixels instead of 3. Their shape and spatial arrangement is different, not to mention the gaps between them. On the 3GS display our eyes are actually able to "see" the red, green, and blue subpixels, but they see each color as a dot. With four subpixels of each color distributed over a larger area, however, our eyes actually perceive the (upscaled) pixel as having an area. This is due to the way our eyes/brain filter the signal they receive from the millions of rods and cones on your retina.

On the one hand, this makes the iPhone 4 display look much more uniform and "paper-like" than the 3GS display, especially when showing large areas of flat color. On the other hand, it gives upscaled pixels a much more square-ish look where the 3GS pixels appear more like a rounded dot.

The microscopic structure of a pixel can make quite a difference on how we perceive an image on the screen. See this for a somewhat related example: http://www.tested.com/news/up-close-and-personal-with-the-kindle-and-ipad-displays/717/
Click to expand...

either-way, 720p media will look the same on a 2048X1536 ipad, as it would on another tablet with a 1280x720 or osmeting
 
fpnc said:
But the difficulty in producing high-pixel-density displays at larger sizes is a fact not a simple speculation. Look, it would be possible to produce a retina-like display for the iPad but the question is would it be worth the cost? Those who are saying that when you manufacture at volume the cost can go down are partly correct, but if the manufacturing yield is low the final cost will still be high. Such arguments or statements remind me of that old joke about a person who says that their company is losing money on every item sold, but don't worry, they'll make it up on volume.

No one but Apple and their partners in LCD manufacturing probably know exactly what the overall yield is on the iPhone's Retina display. If it is approaching 100% then maybe they could produce a larger LCD panel at a cost that is only marginally higher than the current display. The reason I find that somewhat unlikely is that if it were true we probably would have seen higher pixel density displays introduced at this year's CES. Note that the iPad's main competition at this time appears to be the Motorola Xoom and the display on the Xoom offers only a 13% increase in pixel density over the current iPad (Xoom has a 10.1" display at 1280x800 pixels which is a 149 ppi, while the current iPad has a 132 ppi display).

I still haven't seen anyone attempt to answer my earlier challenge. If you're going to put a more expensive display in the next iPad what are you going to do to compensate for that increase in cost? Just saying that it will have a 2048x1536 display isn't venturing much when you offer nothing about what other changes might be included. Is it going to add $100 to the base price? Are they going to stay with a single-core CPU, a slightly tweaked ARM9 with the SGX543 graphics processor? Note that the latter would be as much or even more of an improvement than they did during the transition from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4 with its Retina display. Frankly, if I had to pick between a dual-core ARM9 with twice the current iPad's DRAM versus a single core with a Retina display I'd pick the dual core every single time.
Click to expand...

IPS monitor prices:
HP ZR30w 30" 2560 x 1600 : $1,100 best street price
HP ZR24w 24" 1920 x 1200 : $400 best street price

The HP monitor sells to a niche market. Apple is expected to sell something like 50 million iPads this year.

Smaller screens have higher yields. Extrapolating from this data it is clear a 10" screen should be under $200. This is retail pricing and it is monitor only, not all the other electronics that go into an iPad.

Given all that I'd say that the high resolution iPad screen is in the realm of possibility.

As has been discussed elsewhere, Apple could sell this one for a little higher price and sell the current iPad for a little lower price.

The upside for Apple is huge. If they could do this it would completely set the competition back on their heels. Apple would clearly be the leader in tablets. If they are dominant for a couple of years it will be very difficult to unseat them. There may be niche markets that will prefer another tablet, but the general public will see the iPad as a de facto standard as happened with the iPod.
 
gnasher729 said:
What kind of experience would show that? The performance killers in 3d graphics are texture lookups and pixelshaders. Texture lookups get worse when you need higher resolution source and run into caching problems. And pixelshaders use four times more time with four times more pixels.
Click to expand...

Destination pixel count is a separate issue from the resolution of texture sources. Pixel shaders will be a problem for some games... but remember, you'll always have the option of opting out of calculating 4x pixels. The improved GPU will do it for some situations and the rest can run at 1024x768. Ultimately, games will be able to look as good or better than they do on current iPads. Meanwhile, web browsers, book readers, productivity apps, and everything else not bottlenecked by destination pixels will look that much better.
 
msb3079 said:
Sorry, you're wrong. Compare them. The higher-res screen reveals how bad the low-res graphics really are.
Click to expand...

right, as would looking at a low res-screen.

so my statement remains the same
a non retina optimized app on an iphone 4 would look the same as an app on a previous iphone.

just one's perception is different because they are used to looking at the retina display.
 
Mattsasa said:
right, as would looking at a low res-screen.

so my statement remains the same
a non retina optimized app on an iphone 4 would look the same as an app on a previous iphone.

just one's perception is different because they are used to looking at the retina display.
Click to expand...

No... look at a low-res icon on an iPhone 4 and the same low res icon on an earlier iPhone. It's clearer on the older iPhones. The low-res graphics on the retina screen look washed out and out of focus. On the older screens they appear sharper and more in focus... just compare them.
 
msb3079 said:
No... look at a low-res icon on an iPhone 4 and the same low res icon on an earlier iPhone. It's clearer on the older iPhones. The low-res graphics on the retina screen look washed out and out of focus. On the older screens they appear sharper and more in focus... just compare them.
Click to expand...

I am looking at an ipod 4g, and an ipod 2g. it just looks that way because the background behind the icon on the retina display is crisper, which makes the icon look blurrier
 
Mattsasa said:
I am looking at an ipod 4g, and an ipod 2g. it just looks that way because the background behind the icon on the retina display is crisper, which makes the icon look blurrier
Click to expand...

On my iPhone 4... the Starbucks Card Mobile App icon... the words "STARBUCKS CARD" are borderline illegible. On my iPhone 3G, those two words are NOTICEABLY easier to read.

There's really nothing else I can say... even though I hate the phrase, we'll "have to agree to disagree".
 
lilcosco08 said:
Way to screw over the people who made the 2nd gen possible, apple.
Click to expand...

They don't owe you anything. They made a product and you bought. If you were disillusioned enough to think they owed you something, that's your fault. Their responsibility is to the shareholders. That means making a competitive product for the market. If the markets dictates a high res screen with dual core GPU, then so be it.
 
neutrino23 said:
IPS monitor prices:
HP ZR30w 30" 2560 x 1600 : $1,100 best street price
HP ZR24w 24" 1920 x 1200 : $400 best street price

The HP monitor sells to a niche market. Apple is expected to sell something like 50 million iPads this year.

Smaller screens have higher yields. Extrapolating from this data it is clear a 10" screen should be under $200. This is retail pricing and it is monitor only, not all the other electronics that go into an iPad.

Given all that I'd say that the high resolution iPad screen is in the realm of possibility.

As has been discussed elsewhere, Apple could sell this one for a little higher price and sell the current iPad for a little lower price.

The upside for Apple is huge. If they could do this it would completely set the competition back on their heels. Apple would clearly be the leader in tablets. If they are dominant for a couple of years it will be very difficult to unseat them. There may be niche markets that will prefer another tablet, but the general public will see the iPad as a de facto standard as happened with the iPod.
Click to expand...
I think you've just supported my argument (was that the reason for your post?). Thus, it seems likely based upon your own figures that Apple will have to increase the base price of the iPad by at least $100. I offered that possibility quite some time ago (i.e. higher prices if the iPad does transition to a Retina display). As far as keeping the current 16GB iPad at $499 or even lower price point, I've already mentioned that too.
 
anyone help?

could someone please answer me this, i've tried to find out, but can't find any other info..

there were rumors, i think a bunch from digitimes from foxconn, saying that the ipad 2 would ship in february. what exactly does this mean? source: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20101206PD224.html

if it's shipping from the factory in china then coming to the u.s., then where/why would it sit around for a couple months?

if it's not shipping until february, does that mean that's when it's coming out? i really don't understand what people mean when they say that. because i ordered the ipod touch 4g the day it was announced and it shipped later that week from china, and i got it about a week or so later. it shipped straight from china to the u.s. to my house.

can someone please explain? i don't know much about this stuff obviously...

also, how long does it normally take from the time a new version of iOS is seeded to developers until that version launches to consumers?
 
msb3079 said:
How is that "screwing you over"?? It's obvious they change things every year. You only bought the $500 base model anyway. If you think the new one is that much better when it's announced, then buy it.
Click to expand...

When have they introduced a product and then drastically changed it the next refresh?
Thought so.
 
lilcosco08 said:
When have they introduced a product and then drastically changed it the next refresh?
Thought so.
Click to expand...

So Apple should develop products at a slower pace so as to not upset early adopters? That's ridiculous. Your iPad does everything Apple claimed it did and you thought those features were worth the price you paid. You're not getting screwed over at all.
 
Feel sorry for the people who bought an iPad this past holiday.
Good thing that's not me or anyone I know. :D

Retina will definitely be in iPad 2. With so much more competition out there now in the last 12 months, Apple needs some features to grab people's attention back and tell the world they are the king and everyone is playing catch up. I can't imagine them to announce the iPad 2 in their next conference and simply say "it will have camera now. That's it, bye."
 
To anyone saying gaming is impossible on this screen. Running games at lower resolutions is pretty standard fare... Especially if apple were to put in a hardware scaler kinda like the 360 has.

Ever heard of Halo 3? That game ran at 1152×640 and then was scaled to 720p, still looked amazing on my tv...

Halo Reach runs at 1152 x 720, that looks great too...

Modern Warfare 2 runs at 1024x600...

Black Ops runs at 1040x608...

All it takes is a combination of multi sampling, anti-aliasing and upscaling.

With the right hardware games will still look great... and running iOS at that resolution wouldn't be that hard.
 
neutrino23 said:
IPS monitor prices:
HP ZR30w 30" 2560 x 1600 : $1,100 best street price
HP ZR24w 24" 1920 x 1200 : $400 best street price

The HP monitor sells to a niche market. Apple is expected to sell something like 50 million iPads this year.

Smaller screens have higher yields. Extrapolating from this data it is clear a 10" screen should be under $200. This is retail pricing and it is monitor only, not all the other electronics that go into an iPad.

Given all that I'd say that the high resolution iPad screen is in the realm of possibility.

As has been discussed elsewhere, Apple could sell this one for a little higher price and sell the current iPad for a little lower price.

The upside for Apple is huge. If they could do this it would completely set the competition back on their heels. Apple would clearly be the leader in tablets. If they are dominant for a couple of years it will be very difficult to unseat them. There may be niche markets that will prefer another tablet, but the general public will see the iPad as a de facto standard as happened with the iPod.
Click to expand...

Ipad breakdown showed the screen to be around 80$

Smaller AND with touchscreen makes it MORE expensive, so if its 2-300$ for a such high resolution screen its too expensive as it would add 4-500$ extra in price in the ipad .
 
jealousguy86 said:
could someone please answer me this, i've tried to find out, but can't find any other info..

there were rumors, i think a bunch from digitimes from foxconn, saying that the ipad 2 would ship in february. what exactly does this mean? source: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20101206PD224.html

if it's shipping from the factory in china then coming to the u.s., then where/why would it sit around for a couple months?
Click to expand...
That isnt a speedboat you know, usualy takes a couple of weeks to arrive. End of february-> mid march , stocking building up suplly , early april sale fits.

if it's not shipping until february, does that mean that's when it's coming out? i really don't understand what people mean when they say that. because i ordered the ipod touch 4g the day it was announced and it shipped later that week from china, and i got it about a week or so later. it shipped straight from china to the u.s. to my house.

can someone please explain? i don't know much about this stuff obviously...

also, how long does it normally take from the time a new version of iOS is seeded to developers until that version launches to consumers?
Click to expand...
Couple of months.

4.3 has been seeded already
 
msb3079 said:
I love how people so quickly dismiss things that have evidence right in front of their face ... "oh anyone could have changed that to say iPadx2" but then are even quicker to buy into things that have NO evidence, like "horoscopes" and "God" hahaha...

I'm not saying this is definite, it just cracks me up what people let themselves blindly believe while they so easily dismiss things that CAN be backed up.
Click to expand...

I laughed. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back