iPad 2's hi res display - ramifications

[ovrlrd]

I can't really understand way Techcrunch reposted that blog; upscaling standard def content happens all the time. Whenever anyone plays back a DVD or watches a SD programme on a HD TV the video is being scaled up. As far as I can see it's a complete non-issue.

Completely agree, Techcrunch is actually a pretty terrible site in general, only slightly better than Gizmodo. They clearly have no idea what image scalers are capable of. I mean I have a 2560x1440 display on my Mac right now, and it plays back SD video just fine. With the kind of software techniques that can be used these days there is no issues at all. On a display of a smaller size, but high pixel density, it is even better at this kind of scaling. If you took an SD video playing on the current iPad, and then played it on the rumored iPad "2x" the video would actually look better one the newer one.

 

[smiddlehurst]

Thought this might be a good place to put this but I have a pet theory (okay, crazy rambling) on the subject of no-one having done a display of this resolution at this size before. It's never been needed before now.

Okay, let me explain that. Most PC technology (i.e. monitors) has been developed around Windows. Windows isn't (AFAIK) resolution independent. You put a high resolution on there and text shrinks down accordingly. Same with OS X. Sure there's things you can do to avoid that by setting bigger fonts etc but it's still only a halfway house at best. Certainly that's how the general user population was thinking, a higher res = more desktop real estate, the mere suggestion that a high res monitor could be used to give the same size desktop but with much better clarity would have been roundly mocked.

Now along comes Apple with the iPad (and the wave of other tablets hitting last year and this). Suddenly there's a really good reason to focus on high PPI figures, giving a print-like experience in a magazine-size device. But in 2009 (when the iPad was being designed) the limiting factor wasn't necessarily the screen, it was the processor and GPU. Dual core simply wasn't an option, mobile graphics are developing at a hell of a pace but weren't quite there. So the best technology available at the time from the mobile space tops out somewhere around the iPad's resolution, at least for the user experience Apple wants to provide.

Now fast forward a year. Dual core CPU designs are available. Multi-core GPU's are not only available but come with OpenCL so might be able to help out the CPU under certain specalist tasks. Suddenly the horsepower available for these sorts of devices has taken a massive jump forward and everyone's scrambling to make use of it. Android seems to be using dual core to power a more desktop-like environment and is probably necessary for Android's way of multi-tasking on a tablet. Apple, who have gone a different way with their multi-tasking, could very well choose to use that power to run iOS at high resolution instead. The only remaining question then is can Apple produce a screen at that resolution that won't cost a small fortune. If it were anyone else I'd say no but Apple has such huge purchasing power there's at least a chance that they've cracked it. Heck, look at the first iPad screen, that was such a big jump over what we'd expected at that size (albeit more in terms of being an IPS panel than resolution) and they're STILL grabbing every example than can be churned out.

Do I believe that the iPad 2 will have a 2,048 by 1,536 display? No... not yet anyway. But I do think that it's at least within the realms of possibility. And when the main selling point of a tablet is the screen if Apple CAN leapfrog everyone else in that area they'd be in an even stronger position for 2011.

 

[davidjearly]

Eye strain has nothing to do with resolution. If you need glasses, you should wear them.

Eye strain is almost always to do with lighting conditions.

 

[MythicFrost]

As the front page of MR is reporting a number of rumors regarding the possible 2048x1536 resolution of the iPad 2, I'm curious to know what people here think of the ramifications of making this change.

First, there's the increased fragmentation of iOS. Now developers will be need to contend with 2 different resolution types.

Second is the image size on a 10" display, that is how useful will 2048x1536 be the ipad, i.e., eye strain.

Third is the processing power needed to drive the increased number of pixels, especially if you couple the increased res along with a retina display.

Fourth is battery life because of issues #3 and of course the higher res display will need more power.

I'm wondering if apple will offer this as an upgrade, that is, offer "standard" resolution and then a high resolution 2048x1536 display.

Personally, I find the iPad 1 strikes a nice balance between display size and readability (for my 40+ old eyes). I'd be very concerned about how well the iPad 2 could fit my needs given this rumor.

Opinions and concerns?

1) No, they don't. Like with the iPhone 4, the developers will just need to provide HD images.

2) Everything will be scaled up like on the iPhone 4, there shouldn't be any more or less eye train.

3) The SGX543MP2 should be sufficient to handle it, and it shouldn't consume too much more power.

4) It shouldn't be an issue, this is Apple we're talking about -- they'll never trade poor battery life for high performance, it may offer an hour or two less battery life, but I doubt they'd let it drop much more than that.

I doubt they'll do that, they may choose to offer the old iPad and then the new one, but they won't offer a new one with a standard / retina resolution.

You should find iPad 2 even better on your eyes, maybe not easier to read but the text'll be much crisper.

 

[redman042]

Suddenly there's a really good reason to focus on high PPI figures, giving a print-like experience in a magazine-size device.

This is an important distinction. The purpose of pumping up the resolution on the iPad is very different from a traditional computer. For the iPad, it's all about improving the user experience... as you say, making the displayed image "magazine like", and turning the iPad more into a "window" than a computing device.

The iPhone 4 did not "need" a retina display to be great. Apple went the extra mile because it drastically improved the user experience. It's the same reason why Apple spends several times more than other device manufacturers on the build quality, such as custom-machined aluminum casings and such. They do relatively ridiculous things like this because it makes the experience so much better.

The only remaining question then is can Apple produce a screen at that resolution that won't cost a small fortune. If it were anyone else I'd say no but Apple has such huge purchasing power there's at least a chance that they've cracked it.

I completely agree. Apple is the only one that can do this. They are sitting on MASSIVE piles of cash and have buying clout like no other.

I was a huge skeptic on the possibility of a retina display in the iPad. That skepticism is now melting away quickly. It all makes so much sense. Apple really wants the iPad to be the next digital newspaper and magazine, and a retina display would make all the difference in the world on this aspect.

 

[fertilized-egg]

Apple really wants the iPad to be the next digital newspaper and magazine, and a retina display would make all the difference in the world on this aspect.

It's almost like Apple is saying "So you think the iPad is just a media consumption device? Fine, we'll make it the best damn media consumption device you can get anywhere, take it or leave it" and if it gets the high resolution screen it'll probably be the best one.

Even then I still chuckle at the internet people who love to claim Honeycomb and Playbook are real tablets unlike the iPad, which is the overblown iPhone that's no good for productivity. When I ask them what you can actually DO with Honeycomb and Playbook tablets, they mumble something about OS architecture(true multitasking) or something about more modern UI like widgets but never really what you can actually DO with those tablets. So a tablet "magically" becomes a productivity device when it can play a movie in the background while displaying widgets?

 

[Michael CM1]

Go to any place with the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 or newest iPod touch on display. You will probably instantly see the benefits of more pixels. It's especially useful for reading. Even when text is tiny on my iPhone, it's not distorted. I can tell the difference between my dad's iPad and my iPhone 4 easily. The iPad display isn't bad at all, but the iPhone 4 screen is just frickin' awesome.

I think AppleInsider had an article this weekend on the importance of extra pixels on portable devices but not on computers. Pixels per inch makes a huge difference if you're close up, but not much of one if you're far away. A 60-inch 1080p TV has about 35 ppi. The iPhone 4 has about 325. But nobody thinks the 60-inch TV looks bad because it's not in your face.

This is one reason I held out on an iPad. One theory I have seen is the original iPad will drop to $399 and the higher-res new iPad will start at $599. This is just speculation based on the Best Buy SKUs, but it wouldn't be different from the evolution of iPhone pricing.

 

[Ungibbed]

If this new high resolution screen does come out to be the real deal, how are iPad game developers going to name their products now?

Example: Rage HD "plus"

Let's not forget the double price gouge as well just to play Angry Birds over the "low resolution" of Angry Birds HD on the current model iPad.

 

[ovrlrd]

If this new high resolution screen does come out to be the real deal, how are iPad game developers going to name their products now?

Example: Rage HD "plus"

Let's not forget the double price gouge as well just to play Angry Birds over the "low resolution" of Angry Birds HD on the current model iPad.

The vast majority of developers didn't charge extra for the retina display updates on the iPhone. Come to think of it I can't think of any developers that did. Rage is about the only one that did something like that, and it was a bit odd to begin with. I don't see why it would be different on the iPad.

Though, it definitely would be a lot more work than the iPhone updates because of the higher resolution involved.

 

[sammich]

I don't see why people are complaining about these things. Apple hasn't really taken a wrong step in any of the iPhone/iPod/iPad lines in terms of processing power, graphics power or even battery life. The ramifications are that people (read, people who follow rumours) are worried that Apple is going to release a half-assed, spec-heavy device just to please consumers.

The solution: Fear not! If it comes as rumoured, every reviewer from every techblog site and newspaper is going to love it to bits. People everywhere will buy it and, oh wait there's a problem...

"Ships: 4-5 weeks"

 

[Ungibbed]

The vast majority of developers didn't charge extra for the retina display updates on the iPhone. Come to think of it I can't think of any developers that did. Rage is about the only one that did something like that, and it was a bit odd to begin with. I don't see why it would be different on the iPad.

Though, it definitely would be a lot more work than the iPhone updates because of the higher resolution involved.

Perhaps I used a bit of poor words on my behalf. What my point was the vast majority of games using "HD" already in the title of the game. Now if a higher resolution display is brought into the arena so to speak, what would app developers call their ultra high resolution games?

Another issue would be app size itself. Textures and other elements would increase app size and such.

Not that I'm against a bump in screen resolution, there are just a lot of scenarios where such a display may never be used to it's full potential without a boost in storage space, and a larger power demand for "native" games etc. to make the benefit worthwhile.

My photos would look great though.

 

[Code.Red]

Perhaps I used a bit of poor words on my behalf. What my point was the vast majority of games using "HD" already in the title of the game. Now if a higher resolution display is brought into the arena so to speak, what would app developers call their ultra high resolution games?

Another issue would be app size itself. Textures and other elements would increase app size and such.

Not that I'm against a bump in screen resolution, there are just a lot of scenarios where such a display may never be used to it's full potential without a boost in storage space, and a larger power demand for "native" games etc. to make the benefit worthwhile.

My photos would look great though.

As far as I can tell, apps that have "HD" in their names are just iPad versions. So they would keep the same name. For example, iPhone apps didn't change their names when the apps were updated for the Retina Display - they just worked with the Retina Display. The same would happen with the iPad's new display.

Also, textures wouldn't necessarily have to be increased. They could be the same size as they are now, and I would argue that they would have to stay the same size, as there are still RAM (and storage, as you bring up) issues with huge textures. Also, 3D games will probably be rendered not at the full resolution of the new display, but probably at 1024x768, and then simply upscaled to fit the new display. This way, it would look exactly the same as if it were on the first iPad. But if it runs well enough, the app developer could make it run the native resolution and take advantage of the crispness that the new display would provide.

Just keep in mind the transition apps made from the original iPhone display to the Retina Display. With a 2x resolution display, apps will look exactly the same as they do now until they are updated to support it. When they support the new display, they will will still be nearly exactly the same, except for being much clearer and sharper. Also, everything is going to keep the same physical size. Text, buttons, and other UI elements are not going to get smaller.

Also, I believe it was replied to already, but someone mentioned how a SD video from DVD would be the size of a postage stamp or something. Well, besides from being a huge exaggeration, we already deal with this by scaling the video to be full-screen. SD video will look exactly the same. HD video will also look nearly exactly the same. 1080p content would be able to be viewed closer to the real deal instead of being squished to "768p" on the current iPad.

Only good can come from a new screen. The only bad that may come from a 2x resolution display are the increased price, and battery consumption. And i doubt it would affect battery life much, as the way I understand it (and I could be wrong on this point), it is the backlight of the screen that sucks up the most battery, and not the actual pixels themselves. With a 2x resolution display, we are still using the same physical space, so the same amount of backlight is needed, even though there are 4x more pixels. Of course, changing more pixels = more power needed, but I feel like that is negligible compared to the power needed to shine the backlight.

In my mind, the only question is whether Apple wants to do it. They are going to do it at some point, but is it with the iPad 2? Apple damn well knows that the iPad, even with the same old display, will most likely hold its ground to the numerous tablets being released this year. Will the iPad survive if they hold out the 2x display for the iPad 3? Yes, of course. But having a higher resolution display will greatly widen the gap between the iPad 2 and the other tablets being released.

The decision depends on how much Apple wants to save the 2x resolution display for the iPad 3. The iPad 2 with the same old display is still going to sell millions. Apple knows that. So why not save the display for the iPad 3? Arguably, it's in Apple's best interest to hold off, but we the consumers want to get it now.

 

[Michael CM1]

Perhaps I used a bit of poor words on my behalf. What my point was the vast majority of games using "HD" already in the title of the game. Now if a higher resolution display is brought into the arena so to speak, what would app developers call their ultra high resolution games?

Another issue would be app size itself. Textures and other elements would increase app size and such.

Not that I'm against a bump in screen resolution, there are just a lot of scenarios where such a display may never be used to it's full potential without a boost in storage space, and a larger power demand for "native" games etc. to make the benefit worthwhile.

My photos would look great though.

HD is pretty much a meaningless marketing term akin to "natural." Apple and many other sellers of digital video label such videos as "HD." Most of these offerings are 720p, which is HD but not as good as 1080p. It's also compressed, unlike video on BD. Same deal goes with TV channels. But then you get into HD Radio, which is just named that for marketing purposes. You'll see countless people selling stuff like cheap cameras talking about high-definition images. Well if you go by the 720p standard, the crappiest of digital cameras should take "HD" images.

Anyway, the art and graphics will just be updated for the better screen like iPhone apps. I haven't come across an app that charged for that change, although there are some that need to get with the program and update their artwork (hello Shopper, TweetDeck). The devs will just list the app as "optimized for iPad 2" just like they do for "optimized for Retina display."