So what benefit the ipad over a 1080p tablet ? Surely someone will make some content that shows of the ipad to the full .. even if magazine or books ?
So what benefit the ipad over a 1080p tablet ? Surely someone will make some content that shows of the ipad to the full .. even if magazine or books ?
Photos are a good answer.
1080p looks the same (if not better) on a native 1080p display.
Surely Apple will be generating / supporting some itunes video content.
what would the "p" resolution be for the new iPad?
what would the "p" resolution be for the new iPad?
what would the "p" resolution be for the new iPad?
The "i" stands for interlaced and is an analog technology where all even lines are shown and then all odd and vice versa.
1426.5 is the maximum 16:9 aspect ratio content. So 1426.5p , for argument sake 1420p
So what benefit the ipad over a 1080p tablet ? Surely someone will make some content that shows of the ipad to the full .. even if magazine or books ?
This is mostly correct, except for that "analog technology" part.
Not entirely true. Maybe "technology" was the wrong term, but interlaced scanning was derived from analog televisions using CRT's. This is why you no longer see flat panel TV's supporting "i" formats. They are using 720p or 1080p. It has nothing to do with the blu-ray formatting being at 1920x1080 (which is a common argument I hear). If that was true, 720p TV's would no longer be made.
You saw the intent of my question without be a douche. Thanks. 1426.5p is significantly more than 1080p.
Actually all hdtv's support 1080i still. And calling it analog is not correct. Progressive and Interlaced really have nada to do with analog and digital. D15/Component all support p resolutions and they are analog signals.
Which is kinda my point; 40% of the screen goodness is going to waste.
So to be specific - is 1080p really retina display at the viewing distances Apple are claiming ? Otherwise you are just (... although it admitedly looks pretty good) seeing normal Full HD content when watching movies. The extra resolution of the retina display is wasted in this case.
Why Apple had to use a better display then HD? I mean, couldn't they just make the retina display to be equal to HD? It would use less cpu power and heat. And I think having that high resolution is pretty useless on a 10" display and because no other devices are using that high resolution so if someone wants to create content for that resolution, they explicitely have to create it exclusively for the ipad 3-users. And I think it's a waste of time and even traffic for companies to make a custom website for only ipad 3-users
Which is kinda my point; 40% of the screen goodness is going to waste.
So to be specific - is 1080p really retina display at the viewing distances Apple are claiming ? Otherwise you are just (... although it admitedly looks pretty good) seeing normal Full HD content when watching movies. The extra resolution of the retina display is wasted in this case.
Why Apple had to use a better display then HD? I mean, couldn't they just make the retina display to be equal to HD? It would use less cpu power and heat. And I think having that high resolution is pretty useless on a 10" display and because no other devices are using that high resolution so if someone wants to create content for that resolution, they explicitely have to create it exclusively for the ipad 3-users. And I think it's a waste of time and even traffic for companies to make a custom website for only ipad 3-users
They may accept the interlaced signal but do not display an interlaced image. They are converted to progressive scan images with their video processor.
I am not familiar with the D15 standard. I'll have to look into it.