The icons are displayed on a pixel-for-pixel basis, so if those docs you point to are implying "x2" that would be double the current resolution, not "x1.2" or "x1.3" the current res, which is what a "slight" bump would seem to imply, yes?
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
The icons are displayed on a pixel-for-pixel basis, so if those docs you point to are implying "x2" that would be double the current resolution, not "x1.2" or "x1.3" the current res, which is what a "slight" bump would seem to imply, yes?
The iPad is magical. iPad 2 will be even more magical.
I'm sure Apple can find a way/
Two topics here:
Where does this leave developers? Another (even higher) resolution. I'd be surprised if developers were even less responsive to modifying artwork again.
The technology isn't possible* (affordable?). The fewer inches you've got the easier it is to generate the 326ppi. NEC is charging $8000 for medical monitors with 3000 x 2000 pixels.
*Price, battery life, thickness, graphics card, RAM
Where does this leave developers? Another (even higher) resolution. I'd be surprised if developers were even less responsive to modifying artwork again.
The technology isn't possible* (affordable?). The fewer inches you've got the easier it is to generate the 326ppi. NEC is charging $8000 for medical monitors with 3000 x 2000 pixels.
*Price, battery life, thickness, graphics card, RAM
The only reason the iPhone got a "retina display" was necessity.
Apple employee #1: All new smart phones are getting higher resolution displays. We can't stay at 480x320 and stay competitive.
Apple employee #2: Going higher would break all apps, which people paid a lot of money for. Unless we double the resolution both vertically and horizontally and go 960x640.
Apple employee #1: That makes no sense. The resolution would be far higher than what a human retina could discern.
Steve Jobs: Then that's how we'll market it!
There's no reason for the iPad to increase resolution AT ALL, since:
1. No competing tablets are announcing a higher resolution display (most will be using 1024x600, same as netbooks)
2. Most websites are designed with 1024x768 resolutions in mind.
3. 768 is around the same vertical resolution as a MacBook (which has 800). They will not make an iPad with a higher resolution than their $1000+ notebooks.
4. Unlike the MacBook, the iPad can't display more than one window at the same time, so it makes no sense to increase horizontal resolution.
5. Unless they double the pixel density, they will run into the same problem as the iPhone, breaking all current apps.
6. Only when the 13" MacBook gets a resolution higher than 2048x1536 will Apple allow it on the iPad. Be prepared to wait six or seven years. Five at the absolute least.
EDIT: BTW, the MacBook has had the same 1280x800 display since it's launch 4 1/2 years ago.
Apple employee #1: All new smart phones are getting higher resolution displays. We can't stay at 480x320 and stay competitive.
Apple employee #2: Going higher would break all apps, which people paid a lot of money for. Unless we double the resolution both vertically and horizontally and go 960x640.
Apple employee #1: That makes no sense. The resolution would be far higher than what a human retina could discern.
Steve Jobs: Then that's how we'll market it!
There's no reason for the iPad to increase resolution AT ALL, since:
1. No competing tablets are announcing a higher resolution display (most will be using 1024x600, same as netbooks)
2. Most websites are designed with 1024x768 resolutions in mind.
3. 768 is around the same vertical resolution as a MacBook (which has 800). They will not make an iPad with a higher resolution than their $1000+ notebooks.
4. Unlike the MacBook, the iPad can't display more than one window at the same time, so it makes no sense to increase horizontal resolution.
5. Unless they double the pixel density, they will run into the same problem as the iPhone, breaking all current apps.
6. Only when the 13" MacBook gets a resolution higher than 2048x1536 will Apple allow it on the iPad. Be prepared to wait six or seven years. Five at the absolute least.
EDIT: BTW, the MacBook has had the same 1280x800 display since it's launch 4 1/2 years ago.
It would be nice though.
Funnily enough just the other night I was in bed and fired up the built in book reading app and was messing with the sepie/white setting and trying out the fonts.
It did strike me just how low res the typeface actually looked.
Readable yes of course, but certainly quite pixely and blocky especially when you choose the lower sizes of typeface.
I know this is also to do the sub pixels rendering issues which cannot be done that well, but there's no doubt a higher pixel density (if we ignore practicalities) would make the typeface more rounded, less block and very much nicer for the eye.
I think the iPad would've been a much different product if it were designed as a premium product.
Keep in mind that Apple had a very aggressive price goal and the iPad is actually cheaper than an iPhone despite a bigger display, bigger battery, bigger chassis. It is a value product, not a premium one.
I would've preferred a more high-end iPad starting at $699 with 512mb ram and front camera. It doesn't have to be retina but my perfect resolution would be 1365x1024. As I mentioned, websites are designed for 1024 pixels horizontally, which is why they look perfect on the current iPad horizontally without zooming. At 1365x1024, websites would look perfect in portrait mode, plus you get full resolution playing 720p movies, fitting perfectly in the iTunes ecosystem of HD rentals.
If that's not possible, 1280x960 would be my second choice, still getting full 720p.
As it stands now, since Apple has already millions of iPads sold and thousands of apps built for 1024x768, it is too late to change.
Indeed that's the saddest part of it all.
Because of this choice of res and price point, we could literally be stuck with suffering it for a whole decade.
I'd of happily paid another $100 or $150 for the res you mention.
It's a killer that they cannot do anything about the resolution till they can double it, which will be great, but could take iPad v5 or v6 till they can do that.
Have you not been paying attention or at least read the other 20 gazillion, boring and repetitive threads regarding this subject? It's more than just a doubling of the resolution. It's a CPU upgrade to drive it, GPU upgrade, memory, other things already mentioned. This alone blows you $100 or $150 pricing out of the park. Your post is not reality based.
Work on your reading comprehension. The poster is saying $100-$150 if they had originally gone with a slightly higher resolution (like 1365x1024 or 1280x960) but because they didn't, we are stuck until technology catches up to the point where we can double (which he thinks won't be till v5 or v6).
Correct, I'm glad you actually read what I said
CPU and GPU speeds can increase a little (even if we say 25%) every year with each upgrade, but the screen will be stuck till they can at least double if not triple/quadruple the iPads power (which also means battery)
I'd even have accepted an iPad that was say 10% slower than it is now, if it had meant we'd of got a slightly higher screen res that would have done us for the next 5 or even 10 years.
but now we are stuck (we are all thinking) till they can quadruple it, which we are feeling is going to be a long time unless something "magical" happens
Is it so difficult to understand?
It's called Retina because the competitive smartphones smashed the iPhone 3GS screen and it's one of the main features advertised for the iPhone.
There will be NO other iPad resolution, NOT even a slight bump.
We might see a doubled RES in <5 years and hopefully with a fully developed display technology superior than lcd. It's just too glossy and too bright to use it as an eBook reader.
It's called Retina because the competitive smartphones smashed the iPhone 3GS screen and it's one of the main features advertised for the iPhone.
There will be NO other iPad resolution, NOT even a slight bump.
We might see a doubled RES in <5 years and hopefully with a fully developed display technology superior than lcd. It's just too glossy and too bright to use it as an eBook reader.
We could get widescreen and would not do any damage. I'd settle for that
Something like 1365x768 would be doable and not hurt or break anything.
But I don't see Apple doing it unless they are forced to.
Hmm ok, still, doesn't apply to me, I wasn't interested in those links, I was doing a quick post
Anyway, I don't think I'll buy another iPad until it goes retina, I think it is probable that a 7" iPad comes out with a (retina) 1920x1280 display, even though that is 4x more pixels than the iPhone 4 -- Apple can do it!
No. The price of the hardware would just make it unbelievable and would make it hard to gain sales.
I think the iPad's screen is pretty good now as it is.
I think the iPad's screen is pretty good now as it is.
Still the poster is wrong no matter as higher res requires components to drive them and 100 to 150 dollars ain't gonna get it. As have been pointed out in the other bazillion threads. It is just not feasible financially to double the resolution and still maintain current pricing.
LOL.
When are you people gonna understand this. There isn't a definite limit where the pixels just disappear. It happens gradually, and above else it depends on the distance you view a screen.
It's the reason why a 6 megapixel picture can be blown up on a billboard and still look good. Would you need 300 DPI? Of course not. Could it still be "Retina?". Absolutely. DUCY?
When I stated that limit, I meant to imply I was using Apple's claim of 12 inches away.....
Which was just an estimate of the typical viewing distance on smartphones.
Different screen sizes, different distances. You know what looks great? Motion pictures in a cinema. You know what they don't have? The iPhone 4's 326 ppi screen. But it's okay, since no seats are placed 12 inch from the screen.
No, that's simply not true and it's just plain ignorant to start talking about things you don't understand. If iPad was originally released with 1365x1024 resolution, the current hardware could've handled it fine.
I mentioned months back that the iPad screen was equivalent to a 720P HD television, and a subsequent poster shot me down. What then do the naysayers have to respond to this?
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Panasonic-TC-P42C2/14710589
It's a 42" Panasonic HD TV, the specs have it at 16:9 1024x768 for the display. FWIW, they also sell a 50" TV with the same resolution, and probably lots more, but you see my point.
Kudos to the previous handful of posters who called it correctly, as well.
And for the poster who says we will need to "suffer" with the current display for a while, if you feel using the iPad at 1024x768 is suffering, you must lead one helluva charmed life, I envy you.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Panasonic-TC-P42C2/14710589
It's a 42" Panasonic HD TV, the specs have it at 16:9 1024x768 for the display. FWIW, they also sell a 50" TV with the same resolution, and probably lots more, but you see my point.
Kudos to the previous handful of posters who called it correctly, as well.
And for the poster who says we will need to "suffer" with the current display for a while, if you feel using the iPad at 1024x768 is suffering, you must lead one helluva charmed life, I envy you.
First of all that type of tv is very rare. I don't know any tvs that have that much of a low res. Secondly a tv is used about 6-10 feet away vs the ipad which is used from about 2 feet away.I mentioned months back that the iPad screen was equivalent to a 720P HD television, and a subsequent poster shot me down. What then do the naysayers have to respond to this?
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Panasonic-TC-P42C2/14710589
It's a 42" Panasonic HD TV, the specs have it at 16:9 1024x768 for the display. FWIW, they also sell a 50" TV with the same resolution, and probably lots more, but you see my point.
Kudos to the previous handful of posters who called it correctly, as well.
And for the poster who says we will need to "suffer" with the current display for a while, if you
feel using the iPad at 1024x768 is suffering, you must lead one helluva charmed life, I envy you.
