iPad With Retina Display Needed?

Discussion in 'iPad' started by Collin789, Apr 18, 2011.

  1. Collin789 macrumors regular

    Collin789

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #1
    I recently got an iPad 2 and one of the first things I relized was the screen and how much different it is from my iPhone 4. Do you think it would be necessary for an iPad to have a retina display? Or at least a higher resolution display. My guess is if Apple was going to do this, they would have done it on the iPad 2, only because this is how they've done things in the past. Ie. retina display came out on iPhone 4 and then the iPod touch go it. Do I just need to back away from my iPad or do any of you feel the same way?
     
  2. Kupp macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #3
    I don't view it as nessisary. The higher res on that smaller screen makes it incredible, but functionally I think the screen on the is fine, and am quite happy with it.
     
  3. Collin789 thread starter macrumors regular

    Collin789

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #4
  4. Collin789 thread starter macrumors regular

    Collin789

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #5
    Yeah, I don't think it's bad as long as you're not looking at it closely.
     
  5. gdeputy macrumors 6502a

    gdeputy

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Location:
    New York
    #6
    ipad would need to do 2048x2048, which is like ridiculous.


    Let me put it like this, if a 2560x1440 27" monitor cost 1k$ how much you think a 2048x2048 screen thats 10" is going to cost?
     
  6. Gunny011 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    #7
    I don't think iPad 3 will have a retina display...improved may be...but not 300 + pixels
     
  7. Collin789 thread starter macrumors regular

    Collin789

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #8
    Yeah, that's why I also said maybe just an upgraded resolution would be good. Because just like you said, that would cost a lot...
     
  8. MultiMediaWill macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2010
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    #9
    Then why does my phone have a retina display?
     
  9. Kupp macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #11
    Perhaps it much easier and finacially viable to make much smaller. Perhaps the cost vs size graph is exponential and not linear.
     
  10. gadget123 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #12
    In what way has the Ipad 2 screen improved over the 1st can anybody confirm I'm sure I read the res was improved? :confused:
     
  11. Don Kosak macrumors 6502a

    Don Kosak

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    #13
    The big difference is viewing angle. It's noticeable when gathered around watching a video etc.

    There are other minor differences (thinner glass, supposed to be a bit brighter, etc) but it's hard to notice these...

    The resolution has stayed at 1024 x 768 pixels.

    The iOS API's are resolution independent - so it ~is~ possible that Apple could come out with a resolution that is less than "quadruple" and most Apps would just need minor tweaks to support it. Even 3D games generally use a rendering engine that can scale to various view ports (like 320x480 for iPod 1,2,3 and iPhone 1, 3G, 3Gs, or 640x960 for iPod 4 and iPhone 4...)
     
  12. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #14
    Because producing a 3.5" 960x540 display with no errors is much easier than producing a 9.7" 2048x1536 screen.

    It's a matter of yield rates mostly. I'm sure that right now it's technically possible to produce a few iPad sized retina displays, but producing them in volume would probably have a such a high failure percentage that it wouldn't be worth it. I would bet a lot of money though that Apple has iPad prototypes with retina displays up and running right now. Again that's different than being able to produce millions of them. They're already having a hard enough time producing enough of them as it is.

    Also there will probably be no intermediate resolution. Apple didn't increase the resolution on the iPhone/iPod touch until they could double it, it makes everything easier for themselves and developers.

    Expect the iPad to be 1024x768 until it's economically/technically feasible to go to 2048x1536, which I'm guessing will be iPad 3, or at the latest iPad 4.
     
  13. LightSpeed1 macrumors 6502a

    LightSpeed1

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    #15
    agreed. Moving along now.
     
  14. TheWheelMan macrumors 6502a

    TheWheelMan

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #16
    If Apple ever pulls that off while keeping the current price point, all the other tablets will commit mass suicide.
     
  15. GnillGnoll macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    #17
    Ultra high resolution tablets will arrive earlier than most people think. I'd expect full HD tablets in the 10" range before the end of next year.
     
  16. Hackint0sh814 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Location:
    Upstate NY
    #19
    I'd take that bet. I don't think we'll see anything like that until Apple releases it which won't happen until 2012 with the iPad 3 at the earliest. All the other manufacturers are too busy paying catch up and reducing costs to under cut the Ipad's price tag so we won't see anything from them as well.
     
  17. Moonjumper macrumors 68000

    Moonjumper

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    Lincoln, UK
    #20
    I got an iPad because I need one for iOS development. I would have held off until there was a higher resolution screen otherwise.

    The resolution is most noticeable on text. Compare the rendering of the app names on the home screen between a retina display and the iPad to see what I mean. iBooks and Safari are 2 more cases where it makes a difference.
     
  18. GnillGnoll macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    #21
    That's an odd thing to say given that several other tablets already exceed the iPad's pixel density (especially the Galaxy Tab 8.9, Galaxy Tab 7" and BlackBerry Playbook at 170 ppi).

    Samsung Display are planning to produce >400 ppi tablet displays in 2015.
    http://www.engadget.com/photos/samsung-display-strategy-2011/#3996004

    10", 1920x1080 is "just" 220 ppi. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw that level of pixel density in 7" Android tablets this year (The typical Honeycomb resolution 1280x800 is 216 ppi in 7"), 10" will take a bit longer.
     
  19. darngooddesign macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #22
    Because small high res displays were available.
     
  20. spiderman0616 macrumors 68040

    spiderman0616

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2010
    #23
    I have been using an iphone 4 since last August and LOVE the display, but in messing around with an iPad 2, I think the display is perfectly fine.
     
  21. duction macrumors 6502a

    duction

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Location:
    U to the K
    #24
    im sure some people out there would pay £2000+ for a high res ipad lol
     
  22. Mattstkc macrumors 6502a

    Mattstkc

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #25
    NO. simply.... NO.

    iPad would NOT need to do 2048..

    iPad is 130ishdpi, but to technically be considered a retina display (which is RELATIVE to the avg distance from the user's face) it would only need to be about 200dpi, minimum resolution of 1482x1112 if the iPad is an average of 18 inches from the face.
    (in blue would be considered a "retina display")
    [​IMG]
    A resolution of 1600x1200 would be 206dpi MORE than qualifying it as a retina display.

    Doubling the current resolution is a bogus and overly expensive notion
     

Share This Page