Thinner iPad 3 Coming with Low-Power Retina Display?

[gatortpk]

as "retina" is a function of both distance and resolution, your point is? unless you plan on sitting 1-2 feet away from your 85" display, you don't need that res for retina.

p.s.

why would that standard be likely? in a time when were moving towards digital distribution, how the hell would we cram that through the pipes?

I did point out in an earlier post that a 50" 1080p TV is retina starting around 6 feet, as an example.

I suppose my point about a 326 dpi 27" iMac that it would be exactly the same resolution as Super Hi-Vision, just a coincidence, though I suppose not meaningful. Are coincidences meaningful often anyway?

I say Super Hi-Vision is likely the next standard because it's the only large scale project working on higher than 1080p video (broadcast). The technology will be there to do 16 times Full HD Video. We were broadcasting 1080i Video back in 1998. Surely we can do 16 times (actually 64 times information, with 60 fps and progressive) resolution 20 years later when most technology has increased 100-1000 times.

As for digital distribution, Super Hi-Vision (even with H.264, but more likely more efficient codec like HEVC) can easily use less than 500 Mbps. Even a lowly Full spec 4G cell phone network technology can do 1 Gbps for stationary devices. Large TV's aren't usually mobile anyway.

I'm using my 5 year old MacBook Pro, it has 1 Gbps ethernet. 10 Gbps Thunderbolt is standard on all Macs now, and will be on PCs next year. The bandwidth is nothing new.

Technology increases is very predictable. (Though the applications of the technology isn't always, just as fashion isn't predicable) So I do see at least broadcast of the technology, then distribution of the video for large TV's only. Why have that kind of resolution for video on something as small as 27 inches anyway, much less a 15" laptop.

QuadHD would be just fine on my laptop. QuadHD video easily fits in less than 100 Mbps (compressed as usual) for mobile 4G networks. This will happen hopefully as soon as 2013. (I have to admit though, 100 Mbps on my cell phone and laptop in 2 years? I will believe it when I see it, but technology predictions are usually accurate. I did have to see my iPhone 4S do 1080p video recording to believe it. It was only 2.5 years ago that no iPhone recorded video!)

 

[MythicFrost]

I've already considered this. But the iOS community already has apps written for both iPhone/iPod Touch and iPad's different resolutions. Remember, the iPad run's iPhone only apps at native resolution of 320x480 or 640x960 on the iPad and window boxing it (making black bars on each side).

Even iPhone's have two different resolutions (I know it's exactly doubled the linear resolution, quad the pixels), though I imagine the higher resolution bitmapped images work and are used in the older iPhones anyway, so I suppose that all iPhone Apps are developed for 640x960 resolution anyway?

Would it be such a stretch to develop apps for more than quad resolution? Remember the 4:3 ratio isn't changing. If the 4:3 ratio were to change in the iPad, then I would completely agree that app compatibility would break.

That's not really fragmentation. You've got two different devices, each with separate apps designed specifically for that device to maximize functionality. Once you've got iPhone's and iPad's each with two different resolutions each, then developers now have to support both.

Actually, no. When you develop an app you supply SD and HD images, although you could supply the latter and have it shrunk down but I don't believe that is the proper way to do it. Some apps developed today still don't use HD images, although I think they are few. (I've certainly not counted them.)

The reason app compatibility breaks is because you simply can't scale the application up if it isn't incremented by the original (or i.e base) resolution. For example, the iPhone's resolution is 480x320 which means you can do 960x640, 1440x960, etc.

So, in other words, the type of upscaling that is done on the iPhone 4 can't be done with a resolution that isn't in 480x320 increments and the same is true of the iPad. They're not going to stretch the app either, like an image might be stretched, since it'll result in every app looking really bad and graphical anomalies on top of that.

The only option is to do it as Android does it, that is, so it's resolution independent and that isn't the direction I believe Apple wants to go. They didn't just slap a 480x320 or 1024x768 on their respective devices, they carefully considered it and then decided on that resolution. Apple doesn't make a new completely different iPad, and iPhone, each year, they release an improved and updated model, so there's no need to change the resolution except in the way they did with the iPhone 4.

 

[prestomusic]

Regarding Sharp setting up their production line for an Apple TV, I'm really interested to know what the pricing of these units will be.

It's one matter to pioneer mobile devices and charge a premium for it, but essentially retrospectively getting into the TV game and charging, what one can only expect will have to be a premium is a different proposition.

 

[russell2]

I dont see a screen with greater than 1080p resolution hitting the iPad in at least 2012......

 

[MythicFrost]

I dont see a screen with greater than 1080p resolution hitting the iPad in at least 2012......

It's not possible to go with any other resolution other than 2048x1536.

 

[whooleytoo]

I think if it were to go back to half an inch thick, it could very well double the battery's thickness? Hence give a 20 hour battery life. Though this would also increase the weight by about 16%-33% though.

I don't hold the iPad in my hand continuously anyway, so I wouldn't mind a 20 hour battery life, what's another 1/6th of an inch thicker? In my opinion not much, unless you look at it being a good 33% thicker.

No need to make it thicker, IMO, just keep it the same size as the existing iPad 3, while improving the battery size/life by availing of the space left by the thinner display. They probably wouldn't double the battery life, but - as with any mobile device - any improvement is welcome.