Pictured Sharp LCD panel claimed to be Retina Display for Apple's 'iPad 3'

Posted:
in iPad edited January 2014


Another leaked component photo shows an LCD panel manufactured by Sharp that is claimed to be a 9.7-inch Retina Display for Apple's anticipated third-generation iPad.



The pictured component, highlighted by the Japanese-language site Macotakara, clearly shows on the connector that it is manufactured by Sharp. But the site also claims it is a QXGA 9.7-inch display that "seems to be for the next iPad."



The display has three flat cables that connect to the base of the LCD, which is said to sport a high-resolution 2,048-by-1,536-pixel display. That's the same size that has been rumored for an Apple-branded Retina Display on the third-generation iPad.



The resolution suggests that Apple's so-called "iPad 3" will not match the 326 pixel-per-inch density of the iPhone 4S, iPhone 4 and iPod touch. Rather, the rumored resolution would be a pixel density of around 260 pixels-per-inch, with quadruple the resolution found on the current iPad.



Currently, the iPad 2 and first-generation iPad have a resolution of 1,024-by-768 pixels, which has a density of 132 pixels-per-inch. That falls well short of Apple's "Retina Display" distinction, named so because the individual pixels are so small that they are all but impossible for the human eye to discern.











The purported iPad 3 LCD is the latest in a flurry of components claimed to show off parts from Apple's third-generation iPad. It comes on the heels of a photo claiming to show the back cover of the next-generation device, as well as another one that showed the inside of the back panel, suggesting the device will sport a larger battery.



The photos of the back panel suggest that the device will be nearly identical in form factor to the current iPad 2. But inside, the part shows signs that the LCD display, camera, and logic board have been redesigned, in addition to the prospect of a larger battery.



[ View article on AppleInsider ]

«1

Comments

  • applezillaapplezilla Posts: 941member
    Sounds perfect. This will be my first iPad. Jealous of my wife's iPad 2, but I really want the 'near' Retina Display. The current iPads look 'fuzzy' next to my iPhone 4.



    iPad 3, iPhone 5, maybe 'iTV' and 'Retina' MacBook Pros.



    Can't wait. Saving my pennies...
  • majortom1981majortom1981 Posts: 305member
    is the hardware going to be powerfull enough to support it? dont desktops have trouble running games at even 30fps on resolutions that big?
  • marokeromarokero Posts: 99member
    "...a pixel density of around 260 pixels-per-inch, quadrupling the density found on the current iPad."



    That's not quadrupling, it's doubling the density. Just because you double pixel dimensions doesn't mean you quadruple density. If density was quadrupled, that would have meant the iPad had a crappy 65dpi, which it doesn't.



    Anyway, if true, good for Apple in obtaining another lcd supplier, which hopefully won't bite it's hand later... cough, cough, Samsung... cough...
  • jamescouleejamescoulee Posts: 13member
    You use an iPad further away from your eyes than an iPhone: those pixels will be impossible to discern too.



    The "retina" qualifier relates not only to pixel density but also to distance to the eyes.. You can see the iPhone's pixels if you glue your face to it...
  • irelandireland Posts: 15,710member
    I could see Apple arguing you hold the iPad further away from your face (i.e. your eyes) than the iPhone and still marketing this as a retina display.
  • chabigchabig Posts: 596member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by marokero View Post


    That's not quadrupling, it's doubling the density.



    It depends on how you define density. Either pixels per inch, or pixels per square inch would work. But since author chose pixels per inch, he was indeed wrong about quadrupling.
  • jj.yuanjj.yuan Posts: 212member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chabig View Post


    It depends on how you define density. Either pixels per inch, or pixels per square inch would work. But since author chose pixels per inch, he was indeed wrong about quadrupling.



    I agree.



    But, on the other hand, the total number of pixels would be quadrupled when linear density is doubled. This puts a lot of pressure on the GPU.



    I wonder what will be delivered via AirPlay. Would it go 1080i or 1080p?
  • lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member
    Apple, releasing a new version of an existing product - with improved features - no way!
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post


    Apple, releasing a new version of an existing product - with improved features - no way!



    How about the Apple ][+ ?
  • marokeromarokero Posts: 99member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post


    Apple, releasing a new version of an existing product - with improved features - no way!



    iPhone 4s rings the bell too
  • irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,429member
    1024\tx768 =786432 pixels

    2048\tx1536=3145728 pixels



    Thats 4 times as many as the iPad and iPad 2, so quadrupled the pixels. However PPI is a measurement of pixels per square inch, so that translates to double the density or PPI.



    Anyhoo, if it does come with this display I will be passing the iPad 2 onto the Wife and kids and getting a 3G iPad3 for myself.
  • makingdotsmakingdots Posts: 89member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by majortom1981 View Post


    is the hardware going to be powerfull enough to support it? dont desktops have trouble running games at even 30fps on resolutions that big?



    I guess, app developers have an option to do either 1024x768 or 2048x1536.

    So those visually graphic intense games like Infinite Blade 2 will just run on 1024x768.

    Those apps that doesn't need heavy graphics like iBooks, Safari, etc will run on 2048x1536.

    It will be cool if Apple can remove the flicking black screen while changing it's resolution.

    It's amazing to think how they're making the OS optimized for both resolutions.
  • jason98jason98 Posts: 703member
    Well, I was hoping for an edge-to-edge display in a bezelless and buttonless design, with the virtual bezel switchable on and off, and the home button replaced with gestures. Would be cool for board games and other apps benefiting from max real estate.

    My 20 month old toddler keeps accidentally clicking on a home button when she solves puzzles so the home button going away would be nice as well.

    If both LCD and back panel have the same form factor then it won't happen this time and perhaps never.
  • simonmtlsimonmtl Posts: 41member
    Sharp being the manufacturer, it would seem we're getting the IGZO display. Thin, light, bright, battery-friendly. Ahhh! March can't come fast enough!
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,081member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Currently, the iPad 2 and first-generation iPad have a resolution of 1,024-by-768 pixels, which has a density of 132 pixels-per-inch. That falls well short of Apple's "Retina Display" distinction, named so because the individual pixels are so small that they are all but impossible for the human eye to discern.



    It was my understanding that there's a distance issue involved as well. The closer someone is likely to hold the device to their face the smaller the pixels have to be, but at a distance they can be slightly larger and the eye still can't pick one from another unless the viewer is some kind of mutant with super vision
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,517member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jj.yuan View Post


    I wonder what will be delivered via AirPlay. Would it go 1080i or 1080p?



    p, obviously. It does p now.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jason98 View Post


    Well, I was hoping for an edge-to-edge display in a bezelless and buttonless design, with the virtual bezel switchable on and off, and the home button replaced with gestures.



    You're crazy. He's crazy, right? You're crazy. A virtual bezel sounds nice until you realize no one's going to turn it off. An insanely small amount of uses for the iPad rely on tabletopping.



    Quote:

    My 20 month old toddler keeps accidentally clicking on a home button when she solves puzzles so the home button going away would be nice as well.



    And your toddler (and YOU and everyone else) will keep accidentally quitting apps, switching apps, performing commands, and what have you if there's no bezel.
  • jason98jason98 Posts: 703member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post






    You're crazy. He's crazy, right? You're crazy. A virtual bezel sounds nice until you realize no one's going to turn it off. An insanely small amount of uses for the iPad rely on tabletopping.



    You're kidding, right? What about Smart-cover use cases (video, picture frame, you name it) or do you use the Smart-cover just to well cover?







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post








    And your toddler (and YOU and everyone else) will keep accidentally quitting apps, switching apps, performing commands, and what have you if there's no bezel.



    It's the home button that makes apps getting quit accidentally.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    And your toddler (and YOU and everyone else) will keep accidentally quitting apps, switching apps, performing commands, and what have you if there's no bezel.



    My guess is that Apple has explored designs with a variety of bezel widths, including ones where the bezel is close to zero width.



    It seems necessary to have one - but the smaller the better, within the limits of ergonomics. I would think that Apple likes the current choice, because so amny other choices have already been tried and rejected.
  • ryszardryszard Posts: 23member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post


    Apple, releasing a new version of an existing product - with improved features - no way!



    So your definition of a "new" product is based solely on its exterior casing? That's a very low standard.
  • jason98jason98 Posts: 703member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    My guess is that Apple has explored designs with a variety of bezel widths, including ones where the bezel is close to zero width.



    It seems necessary to have one - but the smaller the better, within the limits of ergonomics. I would think that Apple likes the current choice, because so amny other choices have already been tried and rejected.



    Virtual bezel is a solution. Not only it could be turned off, it can be also adjusted to comfortable thickness depending on user's thumb size.
Sign In or Register to comment.