or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Inside Apple's iPad: VGA video output
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Inside Apple's iPad: VGA video output - Page 4

post #121 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The problem with just taking the page length out of the equation is, if you're referring to a specific paragraph, how will you communicate to someone where it is?

eBooks have page markers. You could easily have a menu option to display the current page\\paragraph.
post #122 of 166
According to the Infoworld article, Texas Instruments was shipping a 1024x768 video card in 1986. Maybe Appleinsider should correct their story to indicate the iPad is using the TI-34010 resolution 'standard'?
post #123 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Ouch, that's stupid. I don't think a developer should have to turn it on or be allowed to disable a video out like that. An exception might be if the dev wants to use it as a second screen rather than just mirror the internal screen.

No, no, it's not. Remember, that is done through dock connector. You can't permanently mirror display onto dock. Even system-level preferences switch is less elegant solution than in-app option one.

P.S. From the software standpoint, Apple solution is serving better Keynote application, too. Extended desktop feature is easier to support, if it's application, which decides what and where to display.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #124 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

Yep. And it's for projectors. That's how Apple will pitch the iPad to businesses- as a presentation machine.

Personally, I have to admit I fail to figure out where the idea of iPad being a ATV replacement comes from.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #125 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

I think that's reading quite a bit into things. The simple fact is, VGA is the dominant (by a VERY wide margin) connector on projectors.

I might have been reading too much into Prince McLean's article, I just read it that he was saying VGA was as good as DVI etc at 1024x768. And that comment is relevant to the broader HDMI debate.

I agree it's dominant. It's good to support that. And the dock connector is an analog output so that's a better fit.

Quote:
Because the iPad isn't targeted at being tethered to a TV? The whole point of it is mobility and intimacy. If you have to have it attached to your TV, how intimate is that? As others have pointed out, there are other devices that are more appropriate to tether to your TV than the iPad.

I asked why Apple downgraded the component video output to 480p. You say "because it isn't targeted at TVs".

I'm happy to agree it's not really the best way to use the iPad. I just don't understand why Apple provides a way to connect TVs to the iPad, but doesn't output at the highest possible resolution (component AND iPad both support 720p)
post #126 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

I completely understand, and I think in 2010 it is pretty poor on Apple's part to have their worst product as the only gateway to HD output.

Many would say it's practical. Maybe it is, but the Apple TV is a failure, so iFail to see why they need to continue propping it up by crippling NEW products.

The iPad has 720p playback. It can watch YouTube HD, it can Rent/Buy HD Movies/TV Shows. Ok, that is a big step for the Apple portable....no such feature on the iPhone or iPod Touch to date...

But the iPhone has been able to output its highest capable resolution via component cable since day one.

iPad is intentionally crippled in that it outputs less than it does on the screen. It's lame, no matter how you slice it.

That's just an outright lie. The iPad cannot display 720p video on its built-in screen. That would require a display with 1280 horizontal pixels, but it only has 1024 horizontal pixels.

If you display a 720p image on an iPad screen, what you actually see is typically either a truncated image (where 20% of the horizontal image is cropped off, the vertical image is displayed at its original resolution, and there is some mild letterboxing), or a shrunken down image to fit the 1024 horizontal pixels (in which case the vertical resolution is reduced to 576 pixels and there is more pronounced letterboxing). (This all assumes, probably correctly, that the iPad natively works with square pixels...)

Regardless of whether you display the image on an XGA projector through a VGA cable, or through the iPad's native display screen, you will encounter the exact same trade-offs in terms of distorting the original image, and the resulting image will be the exact same resolution.
post #127 of 166
I'd call what iPad actually does with externally encoded video 720p->576p shrinking.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #128 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

Regardless of whether you display the image on an XGA projector through a VGA cable, or through the iPad's native display screen, you will encounter the exact same trade-offs in terms of distorting the original image, and the resulting image will be the exact same resolution.

IBM's XGA adapter output 1024x768@60Hz interlaced. Meaning, each line gets painted 30 times per second. And meaning horizontal motion is going to have those jaggies you see on an interlaced DVD when you play it on a computer.

Is that really what these 'XGA' projectors are doing? Or did the marketing department in the projector companies just grab a convenient, dormant label and run with it?

If so, then the correct term is VESA, VGA, or SuperVGA. Or just call it 1024x768.
post #129 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amdahl View Post

IBM's XGA adapter output 1024x768@60Hz interlaced. Meaning, each line gets painted 30 times per second. And meaning horizontal motion is going to have those jaggies you see on an interlaced DVD when you play it on a computer.

Is that really what these 'XGA' projectors are doing? Or did the marketing department in the projector companies just grab a convenient, dormant label and run with it?

If so, then the correct term is VESA, VGA, or SuperVGA. Or just call it 1024x768.

Calling it XGA is unusual but it does indicate the highest resolution it offers through a VGA port. Projectors just refer to VGA and 1024x768 is understood by those that understand that display tech.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #130 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Calling it XGA is unusual but it does indicate the highest resolution it offers through a VGA port. Projectors just refer to VGA and 1024x768 is understood by those that understand that display tech.

Calling it XGA resolution is surprisingly common in the projector market, though I don't think projectors themselves call it out like that on their internal displays. VGA is the most common term for the connector style, though it is sometimes used to refer to a resolution, 640x480.
post #131 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Calling it XGA resolution is surprisingly common in the projector market, though I don't think projectors themselves call it out like that on their internal displays. VGA is the most common term for the connector style, though it is sometimes used to refer to a resolution, 640x480.

I'm not part of the projector market, I don't follow it in any regard, but every one I've set up over the years (quite a few) have all listed VGA, not XGA, on them. I can see how it would be beneficial to state the max resolution in this case and I know my knowledge in this area is minimal so I have no reason to doubt you. I concede my previous point about it being unusual.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #132 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm not part of the projector market, I don't follow it in any regard, but every one I've set up over the years (quite a few) have all listed VGA, not XGA, on them. I can see how it would be beneficial to state the max resolution in this case and I know my knowledge in this area is minimal so I have no reason to doubt you. I concede my previous point about it being unusual.

The projector market is a niche, so I think you could call that unusual in itself.

I'm pretty sure it is the input connector is type that is referred to as VGA, and I think that's why it's called that in the menu and the connector panel, I don't think it's a contradiction. As a resolution, I've never seen VGA to refer to any resolution other than what I've already noted.
post #133 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Calling it XGA resolution is surprisingly common in the projector market, though I don't think projectors themselves call it out like that on their internal displays. VGA is the most common term for the connector style, though it is sometimes used to refer to a resolution, 640x480.

Seems to me you are right that VGA refers to the physical connector and sometimes gets used to describe a resolution (correctly or not?), but that XGA refers specifically to a resolution. Does it also get used to describe technical standards, such as sync pulse? Are any of these standards adopted by IEEE or ANSI or some other neutral standards body so we could know the technically "right" answer if we wanted to?

BTW, some other old-timers will remember when Apple's implementation of VGA include sync on green, which meant that not every monitor would work with a Mac system and vice-versa.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #134 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Seems to me you are right that VGA refers to the physical connector and sometimes gets used to describe a resolution (correctly or not?), but that XGA refers specifically to a resolution. Does it also get used to describe technical standards, such as sync pulse? Are any of these standards adopted by IEEE or ANSI or some other neutral standards body so we could know the technically "right" answer if we wanted to?

I think it's informal. I think it's a lot easier than writing the number out. If anyone has it standardized, it might be VESA, the same group that made DisplayPort as a standard.

1024x768 is the native resolution of IBM's "XGA" video card. I think the connector used was popularized with IBM's VGA brand video card, which maxed out at 640x480.
post #135 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockpop View Post

The iPad does not mirror anything. It only outputs video the app is specially designed to output, so essentially it only creates an "extended desktop." look at the keynote demo and you'll see it's showing one UI on the iPad while the actual presentation is being output via VGA. The iPad's Keynote display allows you to drive a virtual laser pointer or annotate the presentation John Madden style with your fingers while you present it.

Are you sure? I've re-watched the demo of iWork Keynote twice now and I can't see a different screen on the iPad from what's on the big screen. I actually hope that you're right and I'm wrong, but can you point to a particular time point in the iPad keynote where a different screen is shown on the iPad than what's on the big screen?
post #136 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmansfield View Post

Are you sure? I've re-watched the demo of iWork Keynote twice now and I can't see a different screen on the iPad from what's on the big screen. I actually hope that you're right and I'm wrong, but can you point to a particular time point in the iPad keynote where a different screen is shown on the iPad than what's on the big screen?

This might have to be something that has to wait to see in actual action to be absolutely certain, but the developer members here seem to know what they're talking about most of the time, they had an opportunity to read the documentation and work with the development kit.

Apple sometimes does use output techniques special for their presentations that don't show up in the shipping product.
post #137 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

That's just an outright lie. The iPad cannot display 720p video on its built-in screen. That would require a display with 1280 horizontal pixels, but it only has 1024 horizontal pixels.

If you display a 720p image on an iPad screen, what you actually see is typically either a truncated image (where 20% of the horizontal image is cropped off, the vertical image is displayed at its original resolution, and there is some mild letterboxing), or a shrunken down image to fit the 1024 horizontal pixels (in which case the vertical resolution is reduced to 576 pixels and there is more pronounced letterboxing). (This all assumes, probably correctly, that the iPad natively works with square pixels...)

Regardless of whether you display the image on an XGA projector through a VGA cable, or through the iPad's native display screen, you will encounter the exact same trade-offs in terms of distorting the original image, and the resulting image will be the exact same resolution.

That is an outright lie. What you meant to say, before you wasted space by pointing out the obvious, is that the screen is the wrong size to display all of the pixels in a 720p video.

The iPad, however, can display 720p content. Like I said.
post #138 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

That's just an outright lie. The iPad cannot display 720p video on its built-in screen. That would require a display with 1280 horizontal pixels, but it only has 1024 horizontal pixels.

I think you're thinking about it too hard. You know that the iPhone can play video encoded at 640x480, right? The actual screen resolution is nowhere near that, yet it does play the file. In most cases, footage scaled down to a given resolution looks better than footage scaled up to that resolution, or even native resolution. After that, the only concern is file space and compute power/battery power.
post #139 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

That is an outright lie. What you meant to say, before you wasted space by pointing out the obvious, is that the screen is the wrong size to display all of the pixels in a 720p video.

The iPad, however, can display 720p content. Like I said.

I was not criticizing the first boldface statement taken in isolation. I was taking the entire post as a whole.

Your summation stated that the iPad was outputting less through its dock connector than it was outputting on the screen, and that therefore the iPad was intentionally crippled.

Your supporting evidence for that statement was its ability to display 720p video.

The logical inference is that the 720p video displayed through the dock connector output is somehow "less than" the 720p video that's displayed on the built-in screen.

This is false - if you playback a 720p video on the iPad's built-in screen, it is downscaled to fit the screen's 1024x768 dimensions -- just the same as it would be if you output it through the dock connector.

The two outputs offer exactly the same resolution, which is in conflict with your original conclusion. Hence the original conclusion was false.

You have now admitted as much yourself, calling it obvious. Indeed, I agree that it ought to be obvious. One has to wonder, though, if it is so blindingly obvious, then why did you miss it as you formulated your original conclusion?
post #140 of 166
The 3.2 SDK is very clear, you can output 720p or 1024x768 resolution. It respects both aspect ratios. When doing video out, you choose the resolution when throwing the image. You can support both or require one or the other. Apple guide recommend supporting both because some people will use the TV as primary gaming display and iPad as the gaming controller.
post #141 of 166
Many modern digital cameras by default shoot in 16:9, because users want to be able to display fullscreen photos on their HDTVs. It seems to me likely that almost all iPad users will use the devices for photo viewing, occasionally if not frequently, while relatively few will be giving presentations on external projectors. Therefore, I think that both the video output and the internal screen aspect ratios are an annoying mistake. 1280x720 should have been the default, with XVGA included as an option on the output. I don't believe that that would have increased the production costs for the iPad.
post #142 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVEperson View Post

Many modern digital cameras by default shoot in 16:9


16:9 shooting is an option. Most of the cameras I've seen and used default to the maximum of what the image sensor is capable of capturing, generally 4:3.

When I shoot photos, I want to capture the maximum the camera I'm using is capable of. If I want, I can crop or work with them in Photoshop, though I prefer keeping the aspect ratio of my photos "as is".
Macintosh: It just WORKS!
Reply
Macintosh: It just WORKS!
Reply
post #143 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post

16:9 shooting is an option. Most of the cameras I've seen and used default to the maximum of what the image sensor is capable of capturing, generally 4:3.

When I shoot photos, I want to capture the maximum the camera I'm using is capable of. If I want, I can crop or work with them in Photoshop, though I prefer keeping the aspect ratio of my photos "as is".

Compacts are usually 4:3. Most SLRs have a 3:2 native sensor, and many common photo print and frame sizes are also 3:2. However, I think they all crop to make 16:9, even HD camcorders crop down the image on a taller sensor.
post #144 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVEperson View Post

Many modern digital cameras by default shoot in 16:9, because users want to be able to display fullscreen photos on their HDTVs.

Old cameras did 3:2 (half way between 4:3 and 16:9). Then digital cameras started with the 4:3 (going in the wrong direction) and I still haven't seen many default to 16:9. Mostly, 4:3 will work fine.

Quote:
It seems to me likely that almost all iPad users will use the devices for photo viewing, occasionally if not frequently, while relatively few will be giving presentations on external projectors.

That bumps against the key question really... what will most iPad users use the device for?

The internal slideshow of the iPad works when the iPad is docked vertically - so if the iPad was extra thin and tall it'd actually reduce the effectiveness of the slideshow. When reading pages (to replace newspapers or magazines), matching standard letter size makes sense. Those are arguments for 4:3.

What about reading mail or a website? For mail, we see that split interface with the list down the left and body of the message on the right - would that be more (or less) manageable if the landscape mode of this device was wider? I'm guessing less manageable.

As far as I can see, the screen aspect really comes down to watching movies.

Quote:
Therefore, I think that both the video output and the internal screen aspect ratios are an annoying mistake. 1280x720 should have been the default, with XVGA included as an option on the output. I don't believe that that would have increased the production costs for the iPad.

Definitely the video (component) output could have been made wide screen 1280x720. Similarly 1368x768 VGA output as an OPTION would make sense (though most projectors are 4:3). I can't see any reason not to offer widescreen output as an option. Perhaps the VGA output mirrors the display, rather than a separate display?
post #145 of 166
@jeffharris: My mistakeI'd misunderstood something I read. The native resolution of my Canon G11 (for example) does indeed give it a 4:3 aspect ratio, with cropped 16:9 as an option. I've been shooting in 16:9, but I guess I'll reform my ways in anticipation of the iPad, since I'm much more likely to regularly use that as a photo viewer than I am my HDTV.

@GregAlexander: Surely it cannot be that the iPad slideshow operates only in portrait mode.

Okay, any choice of aspect ratio for the iPad would compromise some application or other, but I concede that 4:3 is probably more generally useful. It's the folks who see the thing as primarily a movie screen who will likely object the most.
post #146 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Compacts are usually 4:3. Most SLRs have a 3:2 native sensor, and many common photo print and frame sizes are also 3:2. However, I think they all crop to make 16:9, even HD camcorders crop down the image on a taller sensor.

The Panasonic Lumix cameras have 16:9 CCDs. Don't know about any of the others.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #147 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVEperson View Post

@GregAlexander: Surely it cannot be that the iPad slideshow operates only in portrait mode.

I don't know.
But the iPad sits in its dock (or keyboard dock) in a portrait mode, and the screen saver is a slideshow.

I would guess a slideshow works in regular mode too when held in the hand.
post #148 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The Panasonic Lumix cameras have 16:9 CCDs. Don't know about any of the others.

I think some are, depends on the model. I have a couple recent Lumixes, each model introduced roughly six months ago, that have 4:3 native sensors, and they're CMOS.
post #149 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I think some are, depends on the model. I have a couple recent Lumixes, each model introduced roughly six months ago, that have 4:3 native sensors, and they're CMOS.

Yes, I assume it does depend on the model. The LX2 I bought a couple of years ago does have the 16:9 CCD, which is one of the reasons why I chose it. This was considered to be their top-of-the line "prosumer" compact camera at the time, IIRC. Not cheap.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #150 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Yes, I assume it does depend on the model. The LX2 I bought a couple of years ago does have the 16:9 CCD, which is one of the reasons why I chose it. This was considered to be their top-of-the line "prosumer" compact camera at the time, IIRC. Not cheap.

They have even more expensive models that are 4:3. Even their regular SLR is 4:3, which is a little unusual for SLR. LX3 uses a 3:2 sensor, crops vertically for 16:9, horizontally for 4:3.
post #151 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

They have even more expensive models that are 4:3. Even their regular SLR is 4:3, which is a little unusual for SLR. LX3 uses a 3:2 sensor, crops vertically for 16:9, horizontally for 4:3.

What we're seeing here I think is a function of the generally less than enthusiastic embrace of the HD standard by the public, and hence by manufacturers. Given how poorly this standard has been received, it comes as no surprise to me that Apple hasn't designed the iPad around it, which seems to be what some people expected.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #152 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

What we're seeing here I think is a function of the generally less than enthusiastic embrace of the HD standard by the public, and hence by manufacturers. Given how poorly this standard has been received, it comes as no surprise to me that Apple hasn't designed the iPad around it, which seems to be what some people expected.

I don't think that explains it. The uptake of HDTVs seems pretty thoughrough right now. I haven't seen a TV for sale that was anything other than 16:9 in a long time. I don't think people think of using TVs to look at photos very often.

They may just be a lot more directed about what this device is used for, namely its function that is new to Apple devices, paper-based media. I think 16:9 would be too wide for anything other than videos anyway, small screens like that seem way too constrained when not used for movies. I thought 3:2 would have been a better choice all around (like the iPhone), but hey.
post #153 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't think that explains it. The uptake of HDTVs seems pretty thoughrough right now. I haven't seen a TV for sale that was anything other than 16:9 in a long time. I don't think people think of using TVs to look at photos very often.

They may just be a lot more directed about what this device is used for, namely its function that is new to Apple devices, paper-based media. I think 16:9 would be too wide for anything other than videos anyway, small screens like that seem way too constrained when not used for movies. I thought 3:2 would have been a better choice all around (like the iPhone), but hey.

Agree with you here.

I really don't think Apple had any reasons for this or that aspect ratio other then it feeling right for the device at hand. Mind that, all that is being discussed is fed into such a decision. At the 10" size, I bet that they felt 16:9 and 3:2 didn't feel natural in both portrait or landscape orientations. In portrait orientation, I bet it felt unnaturally tall and skinny for the overall reading experience (web page, book, image, etc). Then in landscape, 16:9 is too wide and short for the overall reading experience. The feeling of just right drove them to 4:3.

On the iPhone and iPod touch, going to 16:9 may not have a lot to gain due to this, and 3:2 maybe be it.

In fact, I think 16:9, 16:10 is a fairly crappy aspect ratio for computer monitors. 4:3 is just right. If I had to go wide, I'd go 8:3, but only for horizontal use.
post #154 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't think that explains it. The uptake of HDTVs seems pretty thoughrough right now. I haven't seen a TV for sale that was anything other than 16:9 in a long time. I don't think people think of using TVs to look at photos very often.

They may just be a lot more directed about what this device is used for, namely its function that is new to Apple devices, paper-based media. I think 16:9 would be too wide for anything other than videos anyway, small screens like that seem way too constrained when not used for movies. I thought 3:2 would have been a better choice all around (like the iPhone), but hey.

Can you buy any other kind of TV anymore? The TV makers may be on board (even if the HD "standard" is far from standardized), but I'm actually thinking of the content being provided, which is still overwhelmingly 4:3 SD. People are watching that on their HDTVs stretched and cropped (which also happens to be several steps backwards in quality).

I agree with what you're saying about the iPad screen ratio. My addition is that the people who are arguing that Apple was dumb for not making it 16:9 because that's supposedly the new "standard" could not have looked at the reality of broadcast content recently, or they'd know better. It's a huge mess of standards out there.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #155 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Can you buy any other kind of TV anymore? The TV makers may be on board (even if the HD "standard" is far from standardized), but I'm actually thinking of the content being provided, which is still overwhelmingly 4:3 SD. People are watching that on their HDTVs stretched and cropped (which also happens to be several steps backwards in quality).

I agree with what you're saying about the iPad screen ratio. My addition is that the people who are arguing that Apple was dumb for not making it 16:9 because that's supposedly the new "standard" could not have looked at the reality of broadcast content recently, or they'd know better. It's a huge mess of standards out there.

For video aspect ratios (not counting film), there are only two, and 4:3 is legacy now, I think it's just a matter of time before it settle out of use for broadcast, except for reairs of classic shows. Local news organizations have been moving over if they haven't already, every news station in my area has switched. I haven't seen any prime time entertainment that is 4:3 in quite some time. Outside of prime time, it might be different, but I think that's a matter of time too.
post #156 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

For video aspect ratios (not counting film), there are only two, and 4:3 is legacy now, I think it's just a matter of time before it settle out of use for broadcast, except for reairs of classic shows. Local news organizations have been moving over if they haven't already, every news station in my area has switched. I haven't seen any prime time entertainment that is 4:3 in quite some time. Outside of prime time, it might be different, but I think that's a matter of time too.

It's been a matter of time for a long time now. Of the channels on my cable box, probably 80% are SD broadcasts. Even the premium channels are still overwhelmingly SD, and I can count the number of HD channels that have been added during the last two years on the fingers of two hands. Even the channels that are HD, they still broadcast much of their content letterboxed (vertically and horizontally), and some of it stretched. It's bizarre, it's confusing, it's a mess. This transition has been ugly and interminable and I'd expect it to remain ugly for the foreseeable future, if only because the broadcasters don't seem to care, and many of the content providers don't seem to care either.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #157 of 166
For the last time the iPad outputs 16:9 720p video-out, or it can output 1024x768 (Mirror Mode)

I can't make it any clearer.
post #158 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by webmail View Post

For the last time the iPad outputs 16:9 720p video-out, or it can output 1024x768 (Mirror Mode)

I can't make it any clearer.

I appreciate the information, I missed it on your earlier post.

Have you got any thoughts on how this reconciles with Apple's iPad specs page?

Support for 1024 by 768 pixels with Dock Connector to VGA Adapter; 576p and 480p with Apple Component AV Cable; 576i and 480i with Apple Composite AV Cable
http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

I guess my first question is - which cable does it use for 720p output?
2nd question - can the external and built-in display operate simultaneously and independently?

btw: I know the apple specs aren't always accurate. The AppleTV still says 720p24 is the limit, where 720p25 (PAL standard) works fine and always has.
post #159 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

I appreciate the information, I missed it on your earlier post.

Have you got any thoughts on how this reconciles with Apple's iPad specs page?

Support for 1024 by 768 pixels with Dock Connector to VGA Adapter; 576p and 480p with Apple Component AV Cable; 576i and 480i with Apple Composite AV Cable
http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

I guess my first question is - which cable does it use for 720p output?
2nd question - can the external and built-in display operate simultaneously and independently?

btw: I know the apple specs aren't always accurate. The AppleTV still says 720p24 is the limit, where 720p25 (PAL standard) works fine and always has.

Using the iPod Dock Connector to component cables is likely how you output to 720p. If it's like the iPhone/iPod it's not mirrored and will only show a static image on the device when playing video through those cables. You can double click the static image to switch from full image to crop. I've never tried it on a widescreen TV, only 4:3 in hotels but it can't imagine working much differently.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #160 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post

Personally, I have to admit I fail to figure out where the idea of iPad being a ATV replacement comes from.

i brought that up
a larger home ipadian model will one day be a harddrive less ATV
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Inside Apple's iPad: VGA video output