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.
Retina Display for iPad 2?
- Thread starter ibanana
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1012466/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/932208/
https://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-957494.html
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/931044/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/957494/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/985289/
Anyway, it would mean doubling the resolution (if one ignores ppi), which results in 2048 x 1536 pixel on a 10" display. That might be a bit hefty in price.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/932208/
https://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-957494.html
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/931044/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/957494/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/985289/
Anyway, it would mean doubling the resolution (if one ignores ppi), which results in 2048 x 1536 pixel on a 10" display. That might be a bit hefty in price.
I think its almost a sure thing that the next iPad will have a retina display and a front facing camera.
They are both things that apple seem to really be pushing at the moment, and with great success.
They are both things that apple seem to really be pushing at the moment, and with great success.
Not quite. Retina, is 326 PPI, otherwise they'd have announced that the new iPod Nano also has a retina display at 240 PPI. Doubling the iPad's res would make it only 264 PPI.
They'd have to do 2.5x or so to get close enough to that PPI, keeping the aspect ratio of course. Otherwise, a 7" iPad with exactly double the res of the iPhone 4 would have exactly 326 PPI too, retina
Not quite. Retina, is 326 PPI, otherwise they'd have announced that the new iPod Nano also has a retina display at 240 PPI. Doubling the iPad's res would make it only 264 PPI.
They'd have to do 2.5x or so to get close enough to that PPI, keeping the aspect ratio of course. Otherwise, a 7" iPad with exactly double the res of the iPhone 4 would have exactly 326 PPI too, retina
That's why I wrote "if one ignores the ppi", as I didn't had the un-lazyness to calculate the proper numbers. As the PPI calculation would result in an even bigger resolution, it becomes more expensive. Anyway, there might be a thread or two somewhere here in this board. Let me take a look.
Retina is nothing but a made up market term by apple. Although it is quite true that it has a high enough ppi viewed from a 12" distance.
If you can hit up steve to make you your custom made iPad with such a high resolution display for a couple of ten thousands of bucks i think it should be no problem thou.
But anyways you shall not feed the trolls.
If you can hit up steve to make you your custom made iPad with such a high resolution display for a couple of ten thousands of bucks i think it should be no problem thou.
But anyways you shall not feed the trolls.
Imagine the resolution on that though! The graphics chip would struggle to handle the lock screen let alone some game a company wants to make for it.
Ah, I completely missed that.
Is that some kind of sarcastic insult? If so, don't be rude. If not, what do you mean?
Yes, I know it is a made up term by Apple, but it still means 326 PPI.
Talking to the OP?
I'm not a troll...
It was not meant as an insult, but it was sarcastic as I linked to several threads discussing the "retina" display and the iPad.
"Retina" is not a static term. It refers to a ppi at which the human eye cannot distinguish pixels individually. That value varies depending on the distance from the user. If the average distance at which an iPad is viewed is greater than that of an iPhone, it does not require a ppi above 300 to be considered "Retina". The iPhone simply required such a high ppi because it is held much closer to the user.
Various calculations put the ppi needed to make an ipad display "Retina" around at least 220 ppi, which is well in excess of 1080p on the current display dimensions.
That simply is not feasible with the current SGX 535 found in the ipad and it is likely not feasible for the SGX 540 found in the galaxy s phones and tablet. The sheer hardware that would be needed to drive a display with that high a resolution and at 10" is not practical with the current crop of processors. And even if you did manage early access to an SGX 545, it's questionable if it would be able to drive the display smoothly. And you could forget about games at the native resolution. Then consider all the ipad apps that would have to be updated or face looking like crap. And we all know how fantastic the old iphone apps look on the new iphone4 display.
As expected, Apple marketing throws out Retina and the vapid masses stick to it like flies on ***** without even understanding what it means.
How many more time is this going to come up !!!!
I don't think Apple will change the iPad's screen res till perhaps v3 or v4 or v5 even.
Not till they can double the current screen res and keep the games speed up.
That will be 4x the pixels to shift about then.
Anything other than a double will break almost every app and game out there.
I don't think Apple will change the iPad's screen res till perhaps v3 or v4 or v5 even.
Not till they can double the current screen res and keep the games speed up.
That will be 4x the pixels to shift about then.
Anything other than a double will break almost every app and game out there.
Over and over, I read "slight resolution bump" in these threads...
It makes no sense. There's a reason why the iPhone display was exactly doubled, it's so the existing apps would play nice without modification and look identical (with the exception of system text) on the "retina" display.
If the iPad had an odd bump in resolution it would "break" all existing apps! You can't do anything less than a 200% increase if you want a smooth transition for existing apps, requiring no modification of the code and graphic elements.
So it'll be 2048x1536 or nothing. I predict nothing.
Get used to your iPad with 132 PPI, after all, it's good enough for the top of the line MBP, and better than all the iMacs and lesser MBP's...
It makes no sense. There's a reason why the iPhone display was exactly doubled, it's so the existing apps would play nice without modification and look identical (with the exception of system text) on the "retina" display.
If the iPad had an odd bump in resolution it would "break" all existing apps! You can't do anything less than a 200% increase if you want a smooth transition for existing apps, requiring no modification of the code and graphic elements.
So it'll be 2048x1536 or nothing. I predict nothing.
Get used to your iPad with 132 PPI, after all, it's good enough for the top of the line MBP, and better than all the iMacs and lesser MBP's...
Perhaps when Tegra 2 becomes an actual, shipping, deployable product instead of a paper launch that forum-fanboys love to crow about, well see something like a double-resolution screen for the iPad.
Agreed, why is it so hard for people to grasp this, they are not CRT's and you can't scale LCD images up a bit without looking horrid as you cannot like half a pixel.
the only thing the COULD do which no-one apart my myself will admit to wanting is to make it widescreen.
Keep the 768 pixel height exactly the same but add extra pixels onto the 1024 direction.
So normal (old) apps have a black border on either side and new widescreen apps, all video clips, web browsing and the iPad desktop can use the extra width.
That WOULD work fine and would not damage any compatibility, whilst allowing people to offer a widescreen mode to their apps if they wished.
Win Win really.
Ah ok, I don't know why you were posting the sarcastic remark to me though, this isn't my thread, I was just mentioning the PPI thing quickly -- I didn't notice what you said in brackets.
I know it isn't static, but the iPod Nano has 240 PPI and Apple didn't mention it having a retina display. So, I'm figuring they are using it to describe a PPI of 326, or around that mark.
I'm thinking Apple is going to produce a 7" iPad with a 1920x1280 res, that'd be exactly 326 PPI.
It should be able to do 1920x1280 though, Apple will find a way to make it work perfectly, if they can't, we won't see it, but I believe they will.
They'd look exactly the same as they do on the current iPad.
I hope you're not talking about me, I know exactly what it means. And, I explained why I said it means 326 PPI.
I'm wanting a 2048x1536 (264 PPI) or 3072x2304 (~340 PPI) resolution for the 9.7" iPad, and I'm expecting a 7" iPad with a 1920x1280 resolution will come out eventually, yeah I know they are massive resolutions (and many pixels) but I'm convinced they'll come out, and yes, they'll probably need a powerful GPU and CPU. I don't think I'll buy another iPad until it has a retina display
I don't know why they would to that. It wouldn't make sense to re-code the apps for the slight resolution increase.
Sense is hardly a prerequisite here in MR. This is seen by the repetitive threads that lead to no where such as this one.
When is my 27" iMac going to have a retina display. Next to my iP4 it looks like a crappy toy.
*face palm
*face palm
http://www.9to5mac.com/17896/Is-the-iPad-going-Retina
They have already told developers to include high res images - so YES they can have a SLIGHT res bump, then use the @x2 images for it so it will look OK.
They have already told developers to include high res images - so YES they can have a SLIGHT res bump, then use the @x2 images for it so it will look OK.
I did quote you and answered you and that remark was just coming from the flow, as that PPI thing has been discussed in those other threads too.
Anyway, another one to add anyway. Anyway is quite a good looking word. Hmm... I hope it comes to the iPad 3 at least.