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
Text could be rendered in this retina-format, and thus avoiding any interpolation artifacts. Only images will be affected.
I doubt the truth of this one as well. Duo-core and pushing all those pixels. Back to a 4 hour battery life for a portable device?
I'm still having a hard time believing this. Pretty shocking to think that the iPad will go from its current useful but underpowered form to having: (1) a beyond bleeding-edge custom built ultra high-def screen, (2) at least double the RAM, (3) a faster dual-core out-of-order CPU, (4) a much faster dual core GPU and (5) cameras coming out the wazoo. Can Apple really maintain the same price point with all that?
No, my guess is that it goes like this
"We looked at which models were selling and it turns out no one bought the $499 model. So, we're packing all of this great new technology in an already revolutionary device and still giving you the amazing starting price point of $599."
Update 2 is exactly right
Another way to think of this affects other technologies. The digital camera megapixel race, for one.
Resolution and perception aren't a function of absolute pixels except in a roundabout way. What is of greater importance is the number of details per degree of viewing angle.
Humans can pick out about 50 line pairs (b & w alternating stripes, for instance) per 1 degree of view. That makes the Moon, on your retina about 50 x 50 pixels of detail, since it is about half of one degree across.
What helps a lot is the trick of calibrating your own hand span at full arm's extension. At widest, my own is almost a perfect 18° with pinky and thumb extended to the max. I use this to find an "ideal" viewing distance for HDTV and movie theater viewing. About 36° (two spans) seems best for me.
The iPad at normal book-reading distance is about 1.35 x my hand span, or about 24 degrees of view in the long dimension. That would make the "ideal" number of pixels around 2400 for maximum resolution on one's retina.
The new screen, at 2048 pixels is very close to this in a practical sense. Movies will grow into this measure ergonomically over the next decade. 4K resolution electronic cameras are a tad overkill, but for IMAX where the best seat in the house is about 2.7 hand-spans, that would be a good measure.
Since much of current HD broadcast and cable is delivered in 720p form, a bit less than two hand-span viewing distance is quite comfortable.
Another way to think of this affects other technologies. The digital camera megapixel race, for one.
Resolution and perception aren't a function of absolute pixels except in a roundabout way. What is of greater importance is the number of details per degree of viewing angle.
Humans can pick out about 50 line pairs (b & w alternating stripes, for instance) per 1 degree of view. That makes the Moon, on your retina about 50 x 50 pixels of detail, since it is about half of one degree across.
What helps a lot is the trick of calibrating your own hand span at full arm's extension. At widest, my own is almost a perfect 18° with pinky and thumb extended to the max. I use this to find an "ideal" viewing distance for HDTV and movie theater viewing. About 36° (two spans) seems best for me.
The iPad at normal book-reading distance is about 1.35 x my hand span, or about 24 degrees of view in the long dimension. That would make the "ideal" number of pixels around 2400 for maximum resolution on one's retina.
The new screen, at 2048 pixels is very close to this in a practical sense. Movies will grow into this measure ergonomically over the next decade. 4K resolution electronic cameras are a tad overkill, but for IMAX where the best seat in the house is about 2.7 hand-spans, that would be a good measure.
Since much of current HD broadcast and cable is delivered in 720p form, a bit less than two hand-span viewing distance is quite comfortable.
Well, competition has been creeping up (though nobody has really challenged iPad yet).
Maybe Apple is preparing a sick move, a total knockout.
This is really exciting.
Neither of those bumped the performance times 4 and upped every spec by 4 .
Design choices not internal hardware
No increase in GPU, small increase in CPU/camera . Double RAM
VS double/quadrouple of everything, better sound, add some camera's , removable flash storage,...
So everyone would be happier if Apple simply made tiny incremental improvements, instead of trying to keep ahead of the competition?
Buffoons.
that emulator exists, it's been in use longer than the iPhone ONE !
how else do you think developers make their applications ?
of course apps that run on the emulator are compiled to intel code, but that's just one click, it would not take longer than a day to have all 400 000+ iOS apps run on the macs, without emulating the processor, full speed !
i use this all the time, i always watch movies in full screen (Youtube or other), it looks OK ! i actually watch TV on my mac, i'm not complaining !
i don't see the difference between still images and movies anyway, if anything, movies actually require a lower resolution to look good.
and (like someone else already said) the text will be scaled perfectly, because it's vector based.
but still, why doesn't anybody believe that this larger resolution screen is actually for a larger iPad ??
ok that's a good example
oh and i think there are no rules at all, i just want good products
i want an iPad that is the size of my macbook screen, OR an iPad that is easy to hold with one hand, with some rubber at the back, and not tapered.
the original iPad is just not usable for me, my hands are not one foot in diameter !
ok that's a good example
oh and i think there are no rules at all, i just want good products
i want an iPad that is the size of my macbook screen, OR an iPad that is easy to hold with one hand, with some rubber at the back, and not tapered.
the original iPad is just not usable for me, my hands are not one foot in diameter !
I thought the same thing. Then I got an iPad case. So comfortable.
Close but I think it will mirror iPhone's pricing model.
Previous generation iPad will be available at $399 ($100 price reduction).
iPad 2 will start at $599. To make up for the price increase, Apple may offer 3G as a standard feature and/or offer 64GB as the base configuration.
The Apple case is grippy and I hold my iPad with one hand all the time. Plus, even without you can grip it with one hand as long as you have opposable thumbs. That's what the bezel is for. Don't have much experience with it without the case though, myself.
Awe≠Aww
Awe≠Aww
I've started to see this online just recently. Does that mean a new generation of users in the age 12 area?
Or is it one of those things where multiple people just start getting it wrong to further ruin English?
Or is this not as new as I imagine?
It's actually harder to type it wrong than the correct "aww," so it's not like the misguided laziness of people who type "ur" for both "your" and "you're." Inquiring minds want to know where this kind of trend starts. Maybe we can kill the source.
Steve Jobs-"Awe...my plan is working (Stroking his white cat) doubling the resolution would make everyone join the iPad bandwagon...Muhhaaaa...my World domination is complete"
Awe≠Aww
I've started to see this online just recently. Does that mean a new generation of users in the age 12 area?
Or is it one of those things where multiple people just start getting it wrong to further ruin English?
Or is this not as new as I imagine?
It's actually harder to type it wrong than the correct "aww," so it's not like the misguided laziness of people who type "ur" for both "your" and "you're." Inquiring minds want to know where this kind of trend starts. Maybe we can kill the source.
Not an emulator. It's a simulator, replacing Mac OS X's native UI. The apps running on it are actually made of code compiled for X86 processors. In order to run the app on the iPhone, you have to compile it once again for ARM processors.
So basically, devs couldn't buy an app from the App store and run it on their Mac.
It emulates IOS, therefore it's an emulator.
There's no requirement for an emulator to be an instruction set emulator, all it needs to do is emulate an environment.
(VMware presents an emulated environment - the virtual machine sees devices and hardware features that are not physically present on the host hardware. It's an emulator, even though most - but not all - instructions are not emulated.)
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)
Quoting from Wikipedia article iOS SDK:
Along with the Xcode toolchain, the SDK contains the iPhone Simulator, a program used to emulate the look and feel of the iPhone on the developer's desktop. Originally called the Aspen Simulator, it was renamed with the Beta 2 release of the SDK. Note that the iPhone Simulator is not an emulator and runs code generated for an x86 target.
VMWare can run Windows and most, if not all Windows compatible apps without any modification. The iPhone simulator can not, at least not in their readily available form. It also does not use iOS but rather the Mac OS X ressources, kernel, APIs, etc.
Quoting from Wikipedia article iOS SDK:
Along with the Xcode toolchain, the SDK contains the iPhone Simulator, a program used to emulate the look and feel of the iPhone on the developer's desktop. Originally called the Aspen Simulator, it was renamed with the Beta 2 release of the SDK. Note that the iPhone Simulator is not an emulator and runs code generated for an x86 target.
VMWare can run Windows and most, if not all Windows compatible apps without any modification. The iPhone simulator can not, at least not in their readily available form. It also does not use iOS but rather the Mac OS X ressources, kernel, APIs, etc.
I wouldn't count on it anytime soon. Apple is all about minimizing packaging to reduce shipping. Look at the original iPhone compared to the iPhone 4 and the original Apple TV compared to the second gen. Why would they make a 32" + TV when for the same production costs they can produce 50 (that's a guestimate) second generation
TV's and yield a much higher profit?And don't think for a second that Apple would license out their UI to a third party like Sony or Panasonic to be included with their TV's when Apple is all about ensuring customer satisfaction with their custom software intended with their own hardware.
I do like their new found interest in hi-res displays. That's the only cue from the company that they may actually double the resolution on iPad 2.