Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

jamesrick80

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Sep 12, 2014
2,665
2,217
By looking at just the resolution and not the ppi, aren't iPad Airs considered quad HD. For those wanting retina hd on iPad Air 2, the air is already retina HD without the gimmicky terminology. I prefer that the screen remains the same with improved battery life. Extra ppi would only reduce battery life. ;)
 
Technically, they are 1536p with a 4:3 aspect ratio.

4k is 2160p along the shortest side or a horizontal resolution of 4000 pixels, so a quad hd iPad would have a LOT more pixels.

I agree with you-the resolution is high enough. Lets get 3GB of ram in there plus a huge battery and leave the display alone.
 
Technically, they are 1536p with a 4:3 aspect ratio.



4k is 2160p along the shortest side or a horizontal resolution of 4000 pixels, so a quad hd iPad would have a LOT more pixels.



I agree with you-the resolution is high enough. Lets get 3GB of ram in there plus a huge battery and leave the display alone.


Preach
 
Technically, they are 1536p with a 4:3 aspect ratio.

4k is 2160p along the shortest side or a horizontal resolution of 4000 pixels, so a quad hd iPad would have a LOT more pixels.

I agree with you-the resolution is high enough. Lets get 3GB of ram in there plus a huge battery and leave the display alone.

QHD is quad 720p, not 4K. What a lot of people call "4K" is actually UHD (2160p), which is quadrupled FHD (Full HD or 1080p). It's the same resolution as 27" iMacs: 2560 x 1440. iPads slightly exceed the vertical resolution, but at 4:3 they're ~500 pixels short in horizontal resolution.
 
What do you think about an ipad with 16x9 aspect ratio?
The 16:9 ratio is what's used in the Google Nexus tablets, isn't it? I think it looks pretty bad. No doubt the people who have devices with it are used to it and probably happy with it, but I prefer the aspect ratio used in the iPads far more.
 
By looking at just the resolution and not the ppi, aren't iPad Airs considered quad HD. For those wanting retina hd on iPad Air 2, the air is already retina HD without the gimmicky terminology. I prefer that the screen remains the same with improved battery life. Extra ppi would only reduce battery life. ;)

Agree. Plenty of pixels to work with.
 
What do you think about an ipad with 16x9 aspect ratio?

It would be wise to go 16:9 next iPad air redesign or even iPad pro.

You will enjoy movies much better, hell, even youtube videos suck on the current iPad 4:3 screens.

On a large device such as the iPad air, being 16:9 won't be that bad for web. On smaller screen sizes, 4:3 would be more sensible. 16:9 on smaller devices for web page viewing just sucks.
 
It would be wise to go 16:9 next iPad air redesign or even iPad pro.

You will enjoy movies much better, hell, even youtube videos suck on the current iPad 4:3 screens.

On a large device such as the iPad air, being 16:9 won't be that bad for web. On smaller screen sizes, 4:3 would be more sensible. 16:9 on smaller devices for web page viewing just sucks.

...not going to happen. Even Microsoft realized the 16x9 tablet is awkward to most people, which is why they switched to 3:2.
 
It would be wise to go 16:9 next iPad air redesign or even iPad pro.

You will enjoy movies much better, hell, even youtube videos suck on the current iPad 4:3 screens.

On a large device such as the iPad air, being 16:9 won't be that bad for web. On smaller screen sizes, 4:3 would be more sensible. 16:9 on smaller devices for web page viewing just sucks.

I think iPad Air 2 will remain 4:3, but the iPad Pro will go with 3:2 as it gives you 2 4:3 screens for split screen multitasking.
 
Interesting debate about aspect ratios, 16x9 or 16x10 is the way to go for vídeos and movies, but maybe not for web surfing and other apps.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.