iBooks 2 still contains 2x image files hinting at high-resolution iPad
The continued presence of iPad-specific double-resolution images within Apple's newly updated iBooks 2 app has set off another round of speculation that the company will soon release an iPad with an improved display that approaches Retina Display-like quality.
A person familiar with the matter has indicated to AppleInsider that iBooks 2, which Apple announced and released on Thursday, contains a third image with an @2x equivalent for the iPad.
Higher-quality iPad images were first discovered in the iBooks app alongside @2x images for the iPhone last January. The discovery of the images was taken as evidence that Apple was planning for its iPad the same resolution jump that it did with the iPhone. Apple released the iPhone 4 with a "Retina Display" that featured twice the resolution and four times the pixels of its predecessor, the iPhone 3GS.
High-resolution images also appeared in an iOS 5 beta last summer. The alleged files had a resolution of 2048x1536 and were found inside the Twitter framework.
A double-resolution iPad would feature a pixel density of 264 ppi. That would fall short of the 300 ppi "sweet spot" that Apple referred to for its "Retina" calculations and the 326 ppi of the iPhone 4, though it would, of course, represent a significant improvement over the current model. By comparison, the iPad and iPad 2 share a resolution of 1024x768 and a pixel density of 132 ppi.
Side-by-side comparison of regular and @2x images in sample iPad app.
Numerous reports have suggested that the Cupertino, Calif., company is due to release a high-definition iPad this spring, though there has been some disagreement on whether it would arrive as a high-end model. Most recently, Bloomberg claimed that the third-generation tablet has entered mass production ahead of a March launch and will feature a double-resolution display, 4G LTE and a quad-core processor.
According to one rumor, suppliers will ship this quarter six to seven million of the high-resolution LCD panels bound for the iPad. Sharp, LG and Samsung have all been named as suppliers of the upgraded panels by various sources, though one recent report said it had confirmed that Sharp had failed in its initial supply.
iBooks 2 was unveiled as part of Apple's education event in New York City on Thursday. The company also announced several other education and ebook initiatives, including a new iTunes U app, partnerships with textbook publishers and iBooks Author, a Mac OS X application for designing digital textbooks for the iBookstore.
Comments
It's one thing if this was left in by accident once, but at this point I think it's a done deal for the 2048x1536 iPad.
I don't think the resolution has ever been the question but when will get the screen to take advantage of it.
I don't think the resolution has ever been the question but when will get the screen to take advantage of it.
Um? do? you know what is?
?
um?
That would fall short of the 300 ppi number that Apple defines as "Retina" and the 326 ppi of the iPhone 4
If you recall Steve's introduction of retina limited viewing, he explained that the required PPI depends on the viewing distance. For the average viewing distance of an iPhone, that worked out to about 300+PPI. For the average viewing distance to an iPad, 264PPI would likely well qualify as retina limited.
iCloud has some nice features but storing 1GB+ iBooks and bigger apps is going to fill up current iPads mighty fast.
I don't think the resolution has ever been the question but when will get the screen to take advantage of it.
I mean for the next iPad release in the first half of this year.
If you recall Steve's introduction of retina limited viewing, he explained that the required PPI depends on the viewing distance. For the average viewing distance of an iPhone, that worked out to about 300+PPI. For the average viewing distance to an iPad, 264PPI would likely well qualify as retina limited.
As you say, they showed that simple slide with a general statement for comparison showing that the iPhone 4 had great resolution when pixels per inch isn't something most naturally can't grasp. That's it! Apple didn't define that 300ppi is the definition of Retina Display and the 265ppi would fit within most people's iPad placement and visual acuity. For comparison, at 20/20 vision at 12" away you only need 285ppi, and at 13" you only need 265ppi which is what this HiDPI iPad would be at.
edit: They can make this up as they see fit, but they do have to be able to justify it or risk irrevocably weakening said marketing term. I’d say about 16-22” seems about right for a tablet. Based on that criteria the PPI would need to be 156 to 215. Very doable since even 7” tablets are exceeding that lower measure.
- 3438 * (1/12") = 287 ppi
- 3438 * (1/13") = 264 ppi
- 3438 * (1/14") = 246 ppi
- 3438 * (1/15") = 229 ppi
- 3438 * (1/16") = 215 ppi
- 3438 * (1/18") = 191 ppi
- 3438 * (1/20") = 172 ppi
- 3438 * (1/22") = 156 ppi
(Where 3438 is the scaling factor derived from a 1 arc minute visual acuity for 20/20 vision.)Now that we have that squared away we can easily use a PPI calculator to see what difference displays would be. Here’s a simple site I like to use: http://thirdculture.com/joel/shumi/c...e/ppicalc.html
- XGA: 1024 x 768 = 786,432 pixels = 132 ppi*
- SXGA: 1280 x 960 = 1,228,800 pixels = 165 ppi*
- SXGA+: 1400 × 1050 = 1,470,000 pixels = 180 ppi*
- UXGA: 1600 × 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels = 206 ppi*
- QXGA: 2048 x 1536 = 3,145,728 pixels = 264 ppi*
That’s a lot more pixels to render even going the minimum Retina Disaply classification outlined above based on about 22” away from eyes. Still, I think the SXGA+ is actually doable on the newer Imagination Tech GPUs. It’s almost 2x as many pixels of the current iPad, but Apple isn’t close to using the most powerful GPU they offer. Whether that is viable for power efficiency reasons, if they can even source these displays when the current IPS displays seem to be holding the iPad production up already, or if they need to wait a year (or more) for other reasons is obviously unknown.PS: For comparison, the iPhone 4S’s GPU is only working for a 614,400 pixels.
* Assuming a 9.7” display.
It would be nice to have the PPI go from 132 to 264. One reason is a slight blurring of Zoom at the max. Also, hopefully the flash storage options will be expanded at a lower cost.
The Wi-Fi speed is another limiting factor. There is a second or two lag on loading complex web pages. There is a definite need to move up in this area whenever the new 'ac' version is nearly defined.
I mean for the next iPad release in the first half of this year.
As you say, they showed that simple slide with a general statement for comparison showing that the iPhone 4 had great resolution when pixels per inch isn't something most naturally can't grasp. That's it! Apple didn't define that 300ppi is the definition of Retina Display and the 265ppi would fit within most people's iPad placement and visual acuity. For comparison, at 20/20 vision at 12" away you only need 285ppi, and at 13" you only need 265ppi which is what this HiDPI iPad would be at.
edit: They can make this up as they see fit, but they do have to be able to justify it or risk irrevocably weakening said marketing term. I?d say about 16-22? seems about right for a tablet. Based on that criteria the PPI would need to be 156 to 215. Very doable since even 7? tablets are exceeding that lower measure.
- 3438 * (1/12") = 287 ppi
- 3438 * (1/13") = 264 ppi
- 3438 * (1/14") = 246 ppi
- 3438 * (1/15") = 229 ppi
- 3438 * (1/16") = 215 ppi
- 3438 * (1/18") = 191 ppi
- 3438 * (1/20") = 172 ppi
- 3438 * (1/22") = 156 ppi
(Where 3438 is the scaling factor derived from a 1 arc minute visual acuity for 20/20 vision.)* Assuming a 9.7? display.
Just speaking for myself... Hold the iPad about 16 -18inches away.
Just speaking for myself... Hold the iPad about 16 -18inches away.
But if you do that, you can see the pixels. Hold it farther away for a true Retina display experience.
It doesn't seem probable, though, that the when is March 2012. I will say that when the display does get upgraded, there cannot be an increase in weight or a reduction in battery life.
If the iPad with the higher resolution screen was sold alongside a revised iPad 2 (an iPad 2S if you will) and it turned out that the iPad 3 was significantly more expensive, heavier, with shorter battery life, it would be a hard sell. I don't think that the majority of consumers want a heavier iPad that costs more than a $100 more. That's a bad combination and it does seem to me that it's probably what a Retina iPad would look like.
So if the iPad 3 would prove to be a slow seller, you run into the problem of the cost per unit going up dramatically. If you sell 800,000 of these devices, the cost per unit is dramatically higher than if you were to sell 8 million. I really think the market for a $700 tablet is dramatically smaller than for a $500 tablet. There are some people who could significantly benefit from having the higher-resolution screen but for many of us, certainly the bulk of the device's target market, it would just be a nice feature as opposed to a must-have.
When Apple can deliver the higher resolution in an iPad priced similarly to the current model, then the upgrade will happen. That when, by the way, does not have to be either this March or some future March. If the viability of the product was there let's say in October, I could imagine Apple bringing out an upgrade on the iPad in March based around the current display and then bringing out the Retina iPad in time for the holiday season. This is possible because Apple will sell millions of iPads in a matter of months, hence tooling up for just a six-month run is workable.
It would be nice to have the PPI go from 132 to 264. One reason is a slight blurring of Zoom at the max. Also, hopefully the flash storage options will be expanded at a lower cost.
The Wi-Fi speed is another limiting factor. There is a second or two lag on loading complex web pages. There is a definite need to move up in this area whenever the new 'ac' version is nearly defined.
I don't think you understand how things work. A higher res screen will not bring less blur when you zoom in, it will bring less blur when zoomed out and details are fine.
Also, Wi-Fi speed has nothing to do with web page speed - the iPad already supports the fastest WiFi standard. A higher resolution screen certainly won't help this problem either. If a complex page is loading slow (and it isn't on a PC), then it's because the iPad's CPU can't handle it. But I haven't really experienced this problem with the iPad 2 (the iPad is noticably slower), and given the level of your current technical knowledge, the problem was probably just a slow website.
Are games going to be limited to the normal resolution and upconverted ?
Will this bring less battery time since so much cpu and gpu power will be needed in more demanding apps like games?
I don't think the resolution has ever been the question but when will get the screen to take advantage of it.
Very true. Also, they should improve the resolution. And possibly the screen too.
I don't think you understand how things work. A higher res screen will not bring less blur when you zoom in, it will bring less blur when zoomed out and details are fine.
Also, Wi-Fi speed has nothing to do with web page speed - the iPad already supports the fastest WiFi standard. A higher resolution screen certainly won't help this problem either. If a complex page is loading slow (and it isn't on a PC), then it's because the iPad's CPU can't handle it. But I haven't really experienced this problem with the iPad 2 (the iPad is noticably slower), and given the level of your current technical knowledge, the problem was probably just a slow website.
With zoom, it is relative, and where your base line is, so to speak. Yes, at a higher screen resolution, zooming in to the max will result a sharper image than at a lower screen resolution. Thus, my interest in a higher PPI with HiDPI. This is a special case because of my low vision, and yes, it is a narrow case.
I did not say the Wi-Fi speed is related to web page load speed directly. I am saying that Wi-Fi is a lot slower than Gigabit Ethernet for example, You will notice the speed difference with transferring files. There are a number of factors involved in web page load speed, and Wi-Fi speed can be one of the bottlenecks.
The iPad communication is primarily via Wi-Fi, and occasionally USB 2.0 cable. Thus, my interest in improving the Wi-Fi speed. Think of the advantage with respect to iCloud – from the iPad via Wi-Fi to the modem to the internet to the server.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...20-Percent-HMH
I guess what Apple is proposing has some basis in reality.
On a different iBooks 2 topic, have a look at this article:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...20-Percent-HMH
I guess what Apple is proposing has some basis in reality.
With classes more filled than ever an interactive "book" clearly has benefits over a printed book. While conceptual writing might be near impossible for a computerized system to judge questions with static answers can instruct the student where and/or how they made there mistake.
For example: 4 x 5 + 5 = ?. If you answer 40 it could respond with the appropriate concept that isn't being understood because the user would have certainly would have added before competing the multiplication.
I really look forward to digital foreign language textbooks. I can forsee a digital book having you speak phrases as answers which greatly benefits your retention and assists you in your pronunciation.
I don't think you understand how things work. A higher res screen will not bring less blur when you zoom in, it will bring less blur when zoomed out and details are fine.
Also, Wi-Fi speed has nothing to do with web page speed - the iPad already supports the fastest WiFi standard. A higher resolution screen certainly won't help this problem either. If a complex page is loading slow (and it isn't on a PC), then it's because the iPad's CPU can't handle it. But I haven't really experienced this problem with the iPad 2 (the iPad is noticably slower), and given the level of your current technical knowledge, the problem was probably just a slow website.
Real nice response. You unnecessarily insult the OP and then spout out information that is false. I don't think YOU understand how things work.
As for Wifi speed, why do you assume to know what the OP was experiencing? Wifi reception has to do with a host of variables and I would give the OP the benefit of the doubt that he knows what a slow web page looks like. Yet you chose to assume he is clueless and make a snide remark about his knowledge/intelligence.
I'm trying to create a webpage and I'm setting the font size like this:
{font-size: 11px}
Do I need to rethink?