where is the 2048x1536 content ?


jabingla2810

macrumors 68020
Oct 15, 2008
2,269
935
No.

And there won't be.

1080p is the standard for HD movies, it is very unlikely that they will start a new standard just for the new iPads display.

1080p will be the gold standard for the next few years, until 4K content and hardware picks up.

Don't worry too much though, 1080p looks great on the iPad.
 

Redjericho

macrumors 6502a
Sep 16, 2011
815
0
It's possible to get and make, but the hardware needed to produce it is insanely expensive and hard to come by, not to mention it would eat up about 4-5gigs a movie.
 

deaglecat

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Mar 9, 2012
430
178
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 ?
 

Benz63amg

macrumors 68030
Oct 17, 2010
2,952
448
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 ?
The benefit is that everything you see on the screen is at that resolution , doesn't matter what content you display, thats why some stuff looks better than others.
 

Magai

macrumors newbie
Mar 20, 2012
11
0
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 ?
Everything you do!
Apps are made for the retina display, photos in high res looks great taking advantage of the retina display and much more.
 

deaglecat

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Mar 9, 2012
430
178
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.
 

MacFanBoi

macrumors regular
Aug 29, 2009
129
78
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.
You will not get any video at the native res by anyone. 1080p is as high as any video will go until 4k becomes common place. Even blurays are only 1080p and its not like anyone is going to upscale that just so it can be viewed on the ipad. Also don't forget the ipad is a 4:3 ratio screen so its always going to have black bars since most video is 16:9.
 

Hammie

macrumors 65816
Mar 17, 2009
1,446
1
Wash, DC Metro
Most films are digitally scanned at 2K resolution (2048×1556) but are down sampled to fit the current blu-ray spec of 1920 x 1080. There are also some films that are scanned at 4K and 8K, but right now, 2K is standard. Mostly due to time and HDD space.

The movie Baraka was scanned at 8K resolution and I think took over 30 TB to store it.
 

Hammie

macrumors 65816
Mar 17, 2009
1,446
1
Wash, DC Metro
what would the "p" resolution be for the new iPad?
Are you referring to the example of 1080p versus 1080i?

The "p" stands for progressive scan which shows each line in sequence.

The "i" stands for interlaced and is an analog technology where all even lines are shown and then all odd and vice versa. This caused a flickering effect that many (of us old timers) may remember from our old TV sets.
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,547
17
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 ?
The biggest thing to me is text rendering. Reading books (both iBooks and the Kindle app render book text at full resolution) with sharper text should be more comfortable and produce less eye strain.

I've read full novels on my iPhone 4, but I couldn't really stand reading lots of text on an iPad 1/2.
 

Hammie

macrumors 65816
Mar 17, 2009
1,446
1
Wash, DC Metro
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.

Also, component cabling only supported a "max" of 1080i. Why? Because is was analog. ;)
 
Last edited:

iLukeJoseph

macrumors 6502
Dec 20, 2011
263
0
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.
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.
 

deaglecat

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Mar 9, 2012
430
178
You saw the intent of my question without be a douche. Thanks. 1426.5p is significantly more than 1080p.
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.
 
Last edited:

Hammie

macrumors 65816
Mar 17, 2009
1,446
1
Wash, DC Metro
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.
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.
 

pina

macrumors member
Aug 4, 2010
33
1
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
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,547
17
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.
The thing is that moving video content usually upscales quite well. The super fine resolution is more important I think in UI elements and text.

Many console games for example actually render at something like 540p and then upscale to 720p or 1080p. Yes some people can tell the difference I'm sure but it isn't as noticeable in motion graphics as it is in photos, text, and UI.


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
Because going from 1024x768 to 1920x1080 would have been a headache for app developers. Going in an even scale of 2x in each dimension is much better for compatibility.

I doubt Apple is expecting anyone to produce 2048x1536 video content specifically for iPads. 1080p looks decent and is already pushing the boundaries of being streamable anyway. Someday we might be able to watch downscaled 4k video, but I can already hear people complaining about bandwidth and storage space.

Also companies shouldn't have to make custom websites for the iPad 3. A good website design will scale to multiple resolutions just fine (they have to when dealing with PC displays anyway). The only extra steps will be in providing higher resolution images for devices that support them.
 

bwrairen

macrumors 6502
Jun 23, 2010
333
1
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.
Most people I know don't exclusively use their iPad 3s for watching movies. Try opening a webpage and look at the text. Or read a book in iBooks. Or open an eight megapixel image and zoom. Everything you do on the iPad 3 looks sharper.
 

NutsNGum

macrumors 68030
Jul 30, 2010
2,863
323
Glasgow, Scotland
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
There are many monitors that are higher than HD quality. The size is relevant in this case as it increases readability and accurateness of text and font rendering. It's a huge deal.

All computers will eventually be heading this way. Apple are, as with many other things, just getting in slightly ahead of the game.

Also, there is no requirement to create an entirely new website, it's only the images that need to be uploaded at a higher resolution. With the right meta tags, the Mobile Safari browser handles sites in such a way that they scale appropriate to the device rather than resolution of the screen.
 

Moonjumper

macrumors 68020
Jun 20, 2009
2,030
1,580
Lincoln, UK
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.
There are digital 1080i broadcasts, so it is not an analogue-only technology. In the UK most HD TV broadcasts are 1080i.