New pixel-level photos point to Retina Display iPad

2»

Comments

  • guinnessguinness Posts: 473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Napoleon_PhoneApart View Post


    This may be enough to finally make me commit to iPad ownership.



    I second this. While I have a Touchpad (and like it for the firesale price and webOS), an iPad with a high res screen could replace my Mac, laptop, netbook, and TP for extended purposes that don't fit with my iPhone.
  • michael scripmichael scrip Posts: 1,847member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    But the price drops to $120.26\twhen you buy 10, to $116.89 when you buy 20, and $114.68 when you buy 50. Based on the progression they will be free once Apple buys more than 1700.



    In all seriousness, iSuppli listed the iPad 2 display as costing Apple $127. ignoring all the stated prices I find it hard to accept that Apple will get a Retina Display for the iPad at a lower price.



    Doesn't Apple sometimes pump billions into companies to help them build new factories?



    Plus... Apple is gonna place an order for about 70 million of these screens for the year... and they pay billions in cash up-front.



    Surely Apple can get that price down a lil bit.
  • suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,034member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Good enough for me.



    This could be a prototype. If the tech is not ready for cost effective mass production, it still might not arrive on the iPad 3.
  • mauszmausz Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    This could be a prototype. If the tech is not ready for cost effective mass production, it still might not arrive on the iPad 3.



    I had my doubts as well, until I saw the 1920x1200 panels arrive at CES in a number of android tablets. They are not yet available for consumers, but they were also not one-offs for the CES.
  • MarvinMarvin Posts: 13,621member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    It's quite impressive manufacturing technology, to make such a dense screen without dead pixels. It was only a few years ago that dead pixels were commonplace but nowadays it's rare to find one on your new computer.



    Now that you mention it, I haven't experienced nearly as many dead pixels with recent technology as I used to. I agree, with the density of pixels, that is an impressive feat. Hopefully it won't start to come back in by doubling the resolutions.



    Mac displays could use displays like these as long as they don't increase the cost significantly:



    http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/10/...a-macbook-pro/
  • neeperneeper Posts: 20member
    "QXGA screen that is twice the resolution of current versions of Apple's tablet."



    AI: I see this written over and over again.



    2048x1536 (3.145.728) or roughly 3 Mega pixels is not double the resolution of 1024x768 (786.432) 0.8 Mega pixels.



    It is 4 TIMES the resolution of the current iPad!



    If it is double the pixels in both directions on a rectangular surface it has to be 4 times the resolution, how hard is it to understand?



    Kim
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,888member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Neeper View Post


    If it is double the pixels in both directions on a rectangular surface it has to be 4 times the resolution, how hard is it to understand?



    Because both are correct depending on how the sentence is written and the material is presented.
  • neeperneeper Posts: 20member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Because both are correct depending on how the sentence is written and the material is presented.



    No it is not
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,888member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Neeper View Post


    No it is not



    Yes. It is.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Think about it. Display resolution is the measure along two axes on a Cartesian coordinate system. That means if you double in each plane you are doubling the resolution. However, that is 4x the number of pixels.



  • neeperneeper Posts: 20member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Yes. It is.



    So, the iPhone 4S's 8 Mp camera is only double the resolution of the 1st gen iPhone's 2 Mp?
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,888member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Neeper View Post


    So, the iPhone 4S's 8 Mp camera is only double the resolution of the 1st gen iPhone's 2 Mp?



    Slightly more than (3264 vs. 1600), sure. You'd express the increase in pixels via multiplication, however, just as you do for displays.



    Super Hi-Vision has 16x the number of pixels as 1080p, but is 4x the resolution.
  • neeperneeper Posts: 20member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Slightly more than (3264 vs. 1600), sure. You'd express the increase in pixels via multiplication, however, just as you do for displays.



    Super Hi-Vision has 16x the number of pixels as 1080p, but is 4x the resolution.



    In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,888member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Neeper View Post


    In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.



    No, this has nothing to do with people's vision capability. This is an argument of semantics. You're not wrong. I'm not wrong. It depends on how you state what you're stating.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Neeper View Post


    So, the iPhone 4S's 8 Mp camera is only double the resolution of the 1st gen iPhone's 2 Mp?



    Note that "Mp" refers to PIXELS not RESOLUTION which is a measure of two adjacent axes not of surface area.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Neeper View Post


    It is 4 TIMES the resolution of the current iPad!



    If it is double the pixels in both directions on a rectangular surface it has to be 4 times the resolution, how hard is it to understand?



    The number of pixels doesn't tell you the resolution but the resolution tells you the number of pixels. This is elementary school logic and you're completely wrong.
  • augustyaaugustya Posts: 103member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Who are the jerks in these plants who are getting paid off for pictures like this? Clearly Foxconn has to accelerate their labor replacing robots implementation.



    Edit: I see that MacRumors is probably in receipt of a stolen iPad 3 display. Apple should deploy the heavy legal artillery to recover any and all samples or property that is clearly theirs.



    Officially its secretive, but I was reading so many articles where authors explained how Apple is one of the best players out there to make hype about their product (giving "leaks" to some sites")



    Just ask yourself how can anyone get iPad 2 & iPad 3 displays and then bring them under microscope LOL



    So can't help but think that it is only because Apple wanted this information to be leaked out and that is why there is so much leaked information about the iPad-3.
  • sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Wow, we're pretty geeky here but I'm leaning towards Tallest Skil... "Double the resolution" is generally understood when referring to pixel heights and widths as we are doing here.



    "4x the pixels", "4x the pixel density" (I know, that depend on the screen sizes being equal) would be used when talking about total "pixel-level improvement".



    Also, Apple uses the @x2 terminology in it's app, so "double-resolution" refers to doubling height and doubling width, hence "x2" instead of "x4".



    Semantics, but well, that's my take.



    Suffice to say this is INSANE resolution in an INSANE form factor for an INSANE price.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Because both are correct depending on how the sentence is written and the material is presented.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Neeper View Post


    "QXGA screen that is twice the resolution of current versions of Apple's tablet."



    AI: I see this written over and over again.



    2048x1536 (3.145.728) or roughly 3 Mega pixels is not double the resolution of 1024x768 (786.432) 0.8 Mega pixels.



    It is 4 TIMES the resolution of the current iPad!



    If it is double the pixels in both directions on a rectangular surface it has to be 4 times the resolution, how hard is it to understand?



    Kim



  • SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 24,153member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by augustya View Post


    Officially its secretive, but I was reading so many articles where authors explained how Apple is one of the best players out there to make hype about their product (giving "leaks" to some sites")



    Just ask yourself how can anyone get iPad 2 & iPad 3 displays and then bring them under microscope LOL



    So can't help but think that it is only because Apple wanted this information to be leaked out and that is why there is so much leaked information about the iPad-3.



    I suppose all of it adds to the drama and mysteriousness of Apple product releases... Heck, even one of my usually not very excitable relatives knew about the iPad 3 release getting nearer and was quite interested in it!
Sign In or Register to comment.