Samsung 2560x1600 Tablet LCD Paves Way for iPad Retina Display

[rmbrown09]

iMac 27" Display = 2560 x 1440
iPad Display = 2560 x 1600

WTF!?!?!?!?!??!

So what does an iMac retina look like??

Does simple math...
well a 27" iMac is 278% bigger in screen size. Therefore
2560x1600 = 4,096,000 pixels in that screen, so we need one that is 278% bigger...

= 11,386,880 pixels... WTF kind of resolution is that.

 

[weespeed]

I found a post by dapsta that may answer your question why samsung doesn't use their components only for their gadgets.

"Theres a lot of back room considerations when looking at the tech market, I suspect the only reason a company like Samsung wouldn't just out spec everyone (including android competitors) by miles and do it cheaply is restraint. It needs to stay on par with everyone and not miss out on the ability to sell and incremental handset upgrade. "

Ding Ding Ding.. We have a winner!

All companies do this. Wonder how Samsung was able to completely re-design and build a completely new Galaxy Tab in 2 months? Then Give it out to 5000 developers to use, who will no doubt blog and review the hell out of it. It wasn't some engineering feat.

The answer is it was destined to come out in 2012 as their next iteration. But they released it early due to iPad 2.

Intel does this with their chips, all companies do this.

 

[Stetrain]

iMac 27" Display = 2560 x 1440
iPad Display = 2560 x 1600

WTF!?!?!?!?!??!

So what does an iMac retina look like??

Does simple math...
well a 27" iMac is 278% bigger in screen size. Therefore
2560x1600 = 4,096,000 pixels in that screen, so we need one that is 278% bigger...

= 11,386,880 pixels... WTF kind of resolution is that.

You forgot to factor in distance from the screen. An iPad needs a lower density to be a "retina" display than an iPhone does, and a 27" iMac requires significantly less density than an iPad to achieve the same effect.

Edit: The current 27" iMac achieves the retina display effect at around 31 inches from the screen: http://bhtooefr.ath.cx/displaycalc.htm

 

[OceanView]

I wonder if Apple could incorporate this screen in the next iPad 3 and keep the same current prices.
Seems like it may be more costly which may not be desirable by all.

 

[Vegasman]

FYI, my eye doctor told me such high DPI tires the eyes more quickly under heavy usage. So for health sake, iPad 2's resolution/DPI is just perfect for long term use.

Recommendation: Get a new eye doctor.

 

[toddybody]

well, an iPad with this kind of Retina display will GUARANTEED have a shorter battery life than the current iPad 2.

not sure i want that trade off..... especially since the vast majority of apps will need to run in pixel-doubled mode (which would look like an iPhone app on the current iPad) until the devs re-do their apps into super-HD resolution.

plus, would they do that for free? or would you need to buy an "upgraded" version of your current iPad apps?

Not necessarily man. The primary gobbler of battery life is the backlighing of a display, not the amount of pixels it has to push (other than requiring a more powerful GPU...which youre right, usually results in more power draw). As the screen isnt getting bigger, IDK there will be major battery disadvantages. That, combined with more efficient processing/battery tech/software/backlighting...I think the iPad 3 will be a champ in the battery dept. Apple wouldnt let it out the door otherwise Stay well yo!

 

[paul4339]

I'm not sure where people get their ideas about holding back technology to spite each other. Just like Intel advances CPU technology and has a CPU roadmap, Samsung advances display technology and has a display roadmap (with dates)...

They release the parts to their customers (like Apple) in advance, so that they can make prototypes. And they obvious want advance orders for their parts so that they can forecast and plan for mass production (they have to outfit their factories etc months ahead).

So it's in the best interest of Samsung to work with their customers... the more orders they get in advance, the more everyone benefits from economies of scale.

And it doesn't get better when a customer is so confident they give you $3 billion dollars in advance to outfit a giant factory for an order of
40 million displays (just saying). It doesn't make sense to outfit a factory to make 500,000 displays for yourself - your costs will skyrocket to point where it doesnt even make sense to go into production until you get enough orders.


So if you want mass produced iPads and Galaxy tabs with this new display for fall/winter, it wouldn't surprise me that dates are probably set and contracts negotiated.

 

[toddybody]

Recommendation: Get a new eye doctor.

Ha ha! On the note above though...how would sharper images result in more eye strain? If anything, I get eye strain from focusing on individual pixels and blocky text. Now, I know some folks complain about reading on 1440p monitors because the "text looks too small". Uhh, just increase the font size ya'll

 

[dba7dba]

All companies do this. Wonder how Samsung was able to completely re-design and build a completely new Galaxy Tab in 2 months? Then Give it out to 5000 developers to use, who will no doubt blog and review the hell out of it. It wasn't some engineering feat.

The answer is it was destined to come out in 2012 as their next iteration. But they released it early due to iPad 2.

Intel does this with their chips, all companies do this.

My post was to grindcor who was asking why samsung bothered to sell components to other competitors. Yes I know all companies do it. thx for reminding me.

Btw galaxy tab 10.1 (v2) is an engineering feat. if ipad2 is magical and changes everything, i think galaxy tab v2 deserves some of that praise (at least on hw side even for iOS followers) no?

 

[KingCrimson]

Ding Ding Ding.. We have a winner!

All companies do this. Wonder how Samsung was able to completely re-design and build a completely new Galaxy Tab in 2 months? Then Give it out to 5000 developers to use, who will no doubt blog and review the hell out of it. It wasn't some engineering feat.

The answer is it was destined to come out in 2012 as their next iteration. But they released it early due to iPad 2.

Intel does this with their chips, all companies do this.

All hail competition. Apple raised the bar and now the rest of the industry is scrambling to innovate! It all benefits the consumer in the end!

 

[winterspan]

I really truly don't understand everyone's obsession with such high resolution displays... I have never once looked at my iPad screen and wished it were a higher resolution.... It's perfect.

Compare text on the iPad to text on the iPhone 4 (or Kindle/printed book). the iPad text is pixelated and blurry and makes it difficult to read on it for any length of time. the iPhone 4 is far sharper and easier on the eyes...

 

[maclaptop]

Well, I bet Apple wishes they bumped the resolution on the iPad 2 instead of waiting for the 3.

Not really, they are laughing all the way to the bank with OUR money

iPad 2 is selling as well as can be expected due to shortages of parts which has been covered in another thread.

 

[ciTiger]

Give me retina on my MBP first... I still use it a whole lot more than the iPad....

 

[thedarkhorse]

I doubt this screen will be in an ipad because it's the wrong aspect ratio, it's 16:10. That doesn't mean this won't pave way for a 2048x1536 4:3 aspect ratio screen for the next ipad though.

 

[winterspan]

FYI, my eye doctor told me such high DPI tires the eyes more quickly under heavy usage. So for health sake, iPad 2's resolution/DPI is just perfect for long term use....

I'm not an Ophthalmologist, but that seems like total horse****. Text on the current iPad display is blurry and pixelated compared to a device like the iPhone 4 with a high-DPI/PPI display (or a Kindle/printed book). My eyes feel fatigued after a short while reading on the iPad, and I don't feel the same way with the iPhone 4. Although my opinion is based on anecdotal experience with myself and others, it's hard to believe otherwise based on common sense.

 

[winterspan]

You shouldn't even own a MacBook Pro of an sort then as clearly, it is over-spec'd for your needs.

A 2560x1600 iPad is NOT ideal - graphical power required to run such a display is not around at the moment in an energy efficient form.

For gaming it would be tough to see the iPad2 GPU pushing that many pixels with a decent framerate. However, technology moves quick and even the current generation PowerVR SGX543 scales to 16 cores, and it's not hard to see a retina-display iPad after another transistor-shrink or two....

Exactly what I've been saying. Samsung are true innovators. Super Amoled Plus, PLS, 64 gigabit flash chips using 20nm processes with 400Mbps transfer rate, and the list of truly devastating innovation goes on. Apple can only dream of such true innovations. And Apple is suing Samsung for copying? How pitiful. Samsung has more important things to do like working on the next great innovation that Apple will beg to use in one of their so called "magical" and "innovative" idevices.

Quit trolling... Apple is not a component manufacturing company, so clearly they are not going to be making flash chips and display technology. Their innovation lies in combining and perfecting existing technologies (industrial design and manufacturing innovations like Unibody design/MB Air/iMac, user interface innovations, things like capacitive multi-touch, etc)

And, best of all with upscaling, you can keep everything the same size as far as gestures goes. You really gotta love mathematics, something the computer was designed to do!
This screen can definitely go in the ipad as is.

This screen is 16:10, not 4:3 like the current iPad

 

[dba7dba]

Quit trolling... Apple is not a component manufacturing company, so clearly they are not going to be making flash chips and display technology. Their innovation lies in combining and perfecting existing technologies (industrial design and manufacturing innovations like Unibody design/MB Air/iMac, user interface innovations, things like capacitive multi-touch, etc)

Well the point is apple really can't accuse samsung of copying/only-copying. Samsung makes components AND makes complete gadgets.

 

[LightSpeed1]

This is exactly what I need.

 

[E.Lizardo]

So, you think that if Samsung starts selling tablets with 4x the resolution of iPad (and do not forget that their tablets also have better specs in all other respects) people will still be buying iPads and not Tabs? I am not so sure.

As long as Samsung's don't come with iOS4,and soon 5,I am.

 

[alhedges]

WRONG. Apple popularized these technologies, and more:

GUI
Mouse

Yes

USB

No

Firewire

Yes, for what it's worth

CD / DVD standard computer equipment (dropped floppy)

Not at all. CD drives were already standard when Apple dropped the floppy and most programs came on CDs. No computers came without CD drives at that time.

Apple dropped the floppy *in favor of zip drives*, which were not entirely successful.

Instant wake from sleep computers / laptops

I'm not sure about this

Flat screen (dropped CRT)

No

Touch screen
Multi-touch

No to resistive, yes to capacitive (I mean, they realized its full potential).

Usable mobile software store

No generally - Palm/Handspring had very functional stores. Yes for phones, though.

and many many more.

Color graphics on the Apple II (although rare). Lighted keyboards. 3.5" floppy. Incorporating industrial design as a fundamental component of computers. (Although there were a few expensive niche manufacturers who did this, they were extremely niche)

 

[OrangeSVTguy]

2560x1600 is 16:10 where as the iPads are 4:3.

Is Apple going to switch the iPads to a widescreen format? How is scaling going to affect the older apps? And will the next CPU/GPU be able to handle such a high resolution?

 

[winterspan]

Well the point is apple really can't accuse samsung of copying/only-copying. Samsung makes components AND makes complete gadgets.

Apple utilizing components in their iPhone that were purchased from Samsung's manufacturing arm is totally unrelated to Samsung ripping off the look and the feel of the iPhone hardware and iOS user interface..

 

[LarryC]

Pardon me if this has already been mentioned. Remember something called WYSIWYG? Apple computers had this and PC's did not and it gave apple a huge edge in the field of design and print media.

Yes

No

Yes, for what it's worth

Not at all. CD drives were already standard when Apple dropped the floppy and most programs came on CDs. No computers came without CD drives at that time.

Apple dropped the floppy *in favor of zip drives*, which were not entirely successful.

I'm not sure about this

No

No to resistive, yes to capacitive (I mean, they realized its full potential).

No generally - Palm/Handspring had very functional stores. Yes for phones, though.

Color graphics on the Apple II (although rare). Lighted keyboards. 3.5" floppy. Incorporating industrial design as a fundamental component of computers. (Although there were a few expensive niche manufacturers who did this, they were extremely niche)

 

[FearNo1]

Of course not...or else there would be no reason to "upgrade" from ipad 2. I can't believe you guys fall for this crap every year with apple

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Well, I bet Apple wishes they bumped the resolution on the iPad 2 instead of waiting for the 3.

 

[mxh5210]

thanks a lot