or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Why high resolution screens matter for Apple's iPad 2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why high resolution screens matter for Apple's iPad 2

post #1 of 196
Thread Starter 
Substantiated rumors of the next generation iPad using a vastly higher resolution 2048x1536 display are drawing some to question why the iPad would even need such a dense pixel count, which is much higher than even Apple's 17 inch MacBook Pro. The answer relates to resolution independence.

Understanding why Apple is expected to increase the next iPad's resolution beyond that of its existing high end notebooks requires a look at how screen resolutions and pixel densities have impacted the history of desktop computing, and why the company's iOS devices stand out as different.

Using higher resolution to increase display area

As screen resolutions have increased with the pace of technology, computers have historically used that new resolution to show more desktop real estate, packing in more sophisticated toolbars and drawing more windows on the screen, each providing a potentially larger, full sized view of the documents they contain.

When Apple released the original Macintosh in 1984, it delivered a resolution of 512x342 on a 9 inch monochrome screen just slightly smaller than today's iPad. The Mac's resolution was significantly higher than the 320x200 CGA resolution common on IBM PCs of the day, but also delivered another unique feature: square pixels.

While the rest of the PC industry was aiming at delivering color graphics for games and separate text-only modes for business apps like word processing, Apple delivered a high resolution black and white display with square pixels because this allowed the Mac to deliver a sharp, accurate screen capable of supporting a consistent, mouse-based user interface of windows and pull down menus, with easily readable text in any font face or size.

Other graphical desktop operating systems, including the Amiga, Atari ST and Apple's IIGS, used non-square pixels, which enabled them to use cheaper TV-like displays but gave their desktop a stretch appearances and distorted the relationship between documents on screen and in print. PCs began to adopt VGA as a square pixel standard only in the late 80s and early 90s.

Apple's crisp graphical user interface has continued across the last three decades, incrementally taking advantage of new display resolution technology to simply expand the Mac, and later Windows, desktop. Screen sizes have grown too, moving users from the original Mac's 9 inch screen to the 15 to 17 inch displays that became common in the 90s and the 20 to 30 inch displays that desktop systems now commonly use. Even notebooks that sport 17 inch displays are not uncommon today.



When higher resolution becomes a problem

Display sizes are now at the point where they can't dramatically grow without simply becoming unwieldily. The mainstream market for notebooks isn't growing much larger than 15 inches, and instead users are trending toward smaller devices, with netbooks once enjoying a brief surge in popularity, followed by Apple's own introduction of the MacBook Air, which offers the company's smallest notebook screen ever.

The new 11 inch MacBook Air delivers a similar pixel count (1366x768) as Apple's previous 13 inch notebooks, while the 13 inch Air uses the same 1440x900 resolution of the 15 inch MacBook Pros. In turn, the 15 inch Pro now offers a 1680x1050 high resolution option that was, until 2008, the native resolution of the 17 inch model.

As screen sizes incrementally bump up their pixel densities, the most obvious difference to users is that icons, menu bars, window controls and text in the user interface all grow smaller. While that allows for larger documents to be viewed within a smaller screen, it will eventually run into the problem of the user interface being too small to see, let alone easily target with a shrinking pointer that eventually becomes lost in a vast sea of pixels.

Rethinking resolution

As computer screen resolutions grow higher on both large and small screens, far smaller screens on handheld devices are exploding in popularity due to their handheld mobility. When the iPhone was introduced in 2007, the most similar smartphone, LG's Prada, offered a 400x200 screen resolution. Microsoft's Windows Mobile had attempted to scale down the PC desktop to fit within resolutions ranging from the Motorola Q's 320x240 "Windows Smartphone" to more PDA-like "Pocket PC" devices with 640x480 resolutions.

The Palm Treo 700 offered a 320x320 screen, opting for a simpler user interface rather than trying to replicate the desktop as Microsoft had with Windows CE. Both continued to use a similar stylus-based input system, which duplicated the role of the mouse in selecting text and targeting buttons and other user interface elements.

Apple's newly rethought user interface for the iPhone offered a different take on small display resolutions. The company abandoned its own concept of a desktop with windows, driven by a mouse pointer (or similarly pixel-accurate stylus), and instead focused the user interface on the much less accurate but far more natural direct touch of users' fingers.

Instead of small window controls and scroll bars, the iOS used large buttons and flickable scrolling lists of items (often arranged in columns of options reminiscent of NeXT's column view file browser, albeit showing one column per screen view at a time) in order to make the most natural use of its 3.5 inch, 480x320 display.

Unlike the Mac desktop, which defined an inch as being 72 pixels and simply grew to consume the increased area offered by higher resolution monitors as they became available, the iPhone's user interface was designed to be resolution independent, defining the whole screen as a fixed number of pixels in an abstract sense.

When Apple introduced iPhone 4 and its 960x640 Retina Display, it didn't display more of the interface at once; it simply sharpened the existing interface to the point where individual pixels became invisible.



On page 2 of 3: Focusing on interface resolution, not screen resolution.

Focusing on interface resolution, not screen resolution

At the same time, when Apple introduced the iPad and its 9.7 inch, 1024x768 screen, it did not simply deliver a bigger version of the existing iPhone interface. Instead, it created a distinct user interface that took advantage of its physically larger screen real estate, displaying the iPhone's familiar column view across multiple columns in its Mail and Settings apps, for example.

Apple did allow existing iPhone apps to run unmodified on the iPad, using pixel doubling to fill out most of the iPad's screen. However, while a transitional convenience, iPad users have clearly expressed a preference to seek out apps optimized to take full advantage of its larger display size rather than being content with existing iPhone apps blown up to fill the screen.

With iPad's enhanced user interface optimized to fit its 9.7 inch display, Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs warned that it would be impractical to scale down the iPad experience to fit into the 7 inch displays being favored by competitors, unless those small tablets were also packaged with files to whittle down users' fingers, he quipped.

Just as the Mac desktop's user interface elements shrink toward being invisible at higher pixel densities, the iPad's touch targets would grow unusably small were the display to simply scale down physically at the same pixel resolution.

Samsung's 7 inch Galaxy Tab offers a 1024x600 resolution similar to the iPad's, but introduces problems with trying to scale or stretch existing Android apps to fit that resolution.

While some apps are customized to take advantage of its larger (than a smartphone) screen, web developer Sencha complained that the Galaxy Tab oddly offered a tweener device pixel ratio that effectively made it "slightly bigger than a regular phone screen in CSS pixels, but not really big enough to handle what people want to put in a tablet screen."



More pixels, same interface

While Apple's competitors are planning to roll out devices that offer comparable display features to last year's iPad, ranging from the Motorola Xoom's 10.1 inch screen at 1280x800 to RIM's PlayBook with a 7 inch display and a 1024x600 resolution (similar to the Galaxy Tab), Apple is reportedly planning to double the iPad's resolution, just as it did with iPhone 4.

This would result in a very high 2048x1536 resolution on the next iPad, higher than the company's largest 17 inch MacBook Pro and in the ballpark of its 27 inch, 2560x1440 LED Cinema Display, which the company promotes as "supersize" and "huge," with an "astonishing" resolution.

What could such a high resolution possibly be used to do? Some observers are wondering what the benefit might be, including John Biggs of TechCrunch, who called the idea of such a pixel jump a "pipe dream," while referencing a blog entry by Jack Deneut pointing out that there's simply no video format with content currently available to fill all those pixels.

Deneut drew a diagram showing that DVD video would fill just a corner of the screen at its native resolution, while 720p video (from, say, iTunes) would fill just a quarter of the screen. Even 1080p video, which takes up tremendous gigabytes of storage space, would only fill most of the screen at full resolution. "Most people don't expect pixel-doubling when watching HD video," he wrote.



iPad is not just a video player

In reality, video playback is simply not very demanding in terms of resolution, with consumer televisions having now settled on 720p and 1080p resolutions all the way from 27 inch sets to huge 60 inch and larger televisions. All of these sets also scale standard HDTV resolutions up or down to fit their native display resolutions, typically 1360x768 or 1920x1080.

However, the iPad isn't primarily targeted at playing back video. Unlike most other tablet devices, it wasn't given an HDTV aspect ratio of 1280x720, instead using a 1024x768 resolution more closely suited to general computing applications.

Additionally, anyone with a large monitor is capable of scaling HD video up to play full screen, which is why everything from YouTube to Netflix to QuickTime to Flash Player has a "full screen" playback button, regardless of the size or display resolution of the user's monitor.

Apple's 30" Cinema Display, for example, has a 2560x1600 resolution but has no problem playing back full screen 1080p HD video. It doesn't need native resolution video to make movies look spectacular, and users can't really discern a higher resolution than 1080p (or really, 720p) when watching a screen from a typical viewing distance. Video is clearly not a big reason for needing extremely high resolution displays, and certainly not on a relatively small mobile device like iPad.

On page 3 of 3: When displays go Retina, Leveraging resolution independence.

When displays go Retina

If iPad 2 has no reason to dramatically increase its pixel density just for HD video playback, and is not designed to expand its apparent desktop size as PCs historically have, what good is a fantastically high resolution?

The answer is apparent in iPhone 4, which leapfrogged other smartphone-sized devices in terms of display quality while being completely compatible with all existing iOS software, unlike the Galaxy Tab.

Other Android smartphones have increased both their resolution (although not as much) and their physical screen size (which actually decreases the pixel density at the same resolution, making the display look slightly more pixelated).

While some users prefer a bigger phone, the Retina Display of the iPhone is more than a specification bump; it pushes the display from looking like a computer screen into being photorealistic on the level of very high quality print magazines.

A similar Retina Display on iPad 2 would propel Apple well ahead of competitors who are just now preparing to launch Android 3.0 tablets with larger than 7 inch screens, similar to how iPhone 4 shut down the lead Android smartphones had threatened to take early last year.

While part of iPhone 4's disruption of the Android deployment at Verizon was clearly related to iOS 4's shattering of previous limitations that Android didn't have, including multitasking features such as background audio playback, it was the hardware of iPhone 4 that got the most attention in product reviews, ranging from its industry leading HD video and still rear camera to its front facing FaceTime camera to its solid construction and, of course, its spectacular screen.

Rather than wondering what users might do with a high resolution iPad, it's useful to note what Apple might not do were it not to draw marked distinction between its iPad and the coming contenders from HP, RIM, and the Android licensees. It appears that Apple may not be able to extend its lead without dropping a bombshell on the nascent tablet business.

Skating to where the puck will be, but staying on the rink

Instead of attempting to maintain parity with competitors, Apple needs to anticipate practical, valuable features before customers (and competitors) even realize they exist. The SGX543 graphics processing cores that iPad 2 is expected to use have existed since 2009, but they haven't been put into use because the components needed to deliver an iPad Retina Display resolution haven't been affordable.

Apple's economies of scale, currently being driven by millions of iPad sales, could enable the company to bet on the new technology and roll it out well before it is cost effective for other makers. Apple was already ahead of other manufacturers in being able to deliver a full sized 9.7 inch tablet starting at $499, but it could only do that by banking on being able to sell millions of iPads in its first year.

That, in turn, was only possible if Apple invested lots of time and effort into making the iPad platform attractive to existing iOS developers. By making iOS apps relatively easy to optimize for iPad while retaining a familiarity in ease of use for existing iOS users, Apple fostered the growth of a huge library of iPad-specific apps, something that hasn't occurred for Android tablets.

In contrast, Google is preparing Android 3.0 Honeycomb (as presented below) to exclusively serve a new crop of tablets with an entirely new 3D user interface that offers little familiarity to existing Android smartphone users.



RIM is similarly preparing a completely new operating system to power its 7 inch PlayBook tablet, which offers little in common with its BlackBerry OS 6 smartphones.

Other makers, such as Asus, are planning to use Windows 7 to hit the high end of the tablet market while using the mutually incompatible Android to target enhanced netbooks with more limited features.



Leveraging resolution independence

Apple faces certain issues in further increasing the resolution of its desktop and notebook Macs. If it doubled the resolution of its MacBook line, for example, window controls and the menu bar would become nearly invisible. The company has been developing resolution independence into Mac OS X, but this requires existing third party apps to draw everything on the screen in a way the operating system can scale to the preference of the user.

Mac OS X icons and the Dock have always scaled smoothly, and since Mac OS X Tiger there has been a hidden option to scale up window controls and menu bars to cope with increasingly higher screen resolutions. However, third party Mac apps may be created in Carbon, Java, Flash, or some other custom API that doesn't scale consistanly, resulting in unsightly jaggies or misplaced screen elements that look bad. The overall display of text needs to be scaled as well, to prevent characters from shrinking into microprint as the resolution grid packs more and more pixels into the screen.

The payoff for increasingly higher desktop screen resolutions is also limited. Users are already facing content overload as they peer into the display resolution of a 30 inch Cinema Display. Mobile devices are slightly different however. The iPad's existing pixel density is 132ppi, compared to iMacs hovering around 100ppi and MacBooks ranging from 110 to 135ppi (on the new 11 inch MacBook Air). At reading distance, the iPad's pixels are discernible; most people position their notebooks significantly further away, making individual pixels less obvious.

Prior to iPhone 4 (boasting 326ppi), Apple's highest screen density appeared on iPod nano models, ranging from 200 to 260ppi. In contrast, a 42 inch 720p HDTV offers just 35ppi, while a 60 inch 1080p set delivers 37ppi. The value of pixel density, clearly, relates to how close you're viewing a display. High resolution is actually rather unnecessary for impressive HD video when viewed across the living room, but is essential to deliver a sharp display on a mobile device held at the reading distance of a book.



Having already created a user interface that works well on a 9.7 inch display, Apple is now free to dramatically boost the iPad's resolution independently of its screen size, in order to deliver a very realistic depiction of photos, ebooks, documents, videos, and dynamic content that users navigate via touch while holding the display at distance where pixel density is readily noticeable.

So rather than needing super high resolution video content, the expected iPad 2 can present existing iPad apps (ranging from Netfllix to NPR) at full fidelity while allowing optimized apps to draw images, text and other content with razor sharp detail at a pixel density where individual dots begin to vanish from view, exactly like iPhone 4.

And because Apple has designed the iPad user interface from the ground up to be resolution independent, doubling the resolution doesn't have the same drawbacks involved with boosting pixel density on desktop or notebook systems. With a resolution nearing the retina's detail threshold, iPad 2 can deliver a user interface capable of exceptional quality, without demanding higher quality video sources than currently exist.

At the same time, photographers and anyone else who deals with detailed images, ranging from X-rays and MRI images to detailed PDF renderings and 3D architectural models, will benefit from the resolution boost because it will simply be there to use. Even users with basic needs for iWork productivity apps, browsing the web, and playing puzzle games will benefit from razor sharp rendering of text (that iOS is capable of doing automatically) and enhancements third party developers make to their custom graphic assets (which are easy to add to existing apps).

The resolution independent design of iOS will also allow Apple to potentially sell both new iPad 2 models with a very high resolution as well as the existing iPad at a low price tier, without causing fragmentation issues for developers or users. The same apps can run seamlessly on both, supplying normal or double resolution graphic assets as needed to take full advantage of the new screens while still working normally on existing models.

Of course, Apple hasn't yet revealed its hand on iPad 2 yet. But if 2011 follows the developments of 2010, as internal and external evidence suggests it will, it shouldn't come as a surprise to see Apple flexing its resolution independent muscle to differentiate its tablet offerings.
post #2 of 196
They need to go ahead and tack on WebM support if it's possible at all.
post #3 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

They need to go ahead and tack on WebM support if it's possible at all.

Would that be in software (resulting in a battery draining way to watch YouTube), or by adding new hardware acceleration for WebM that doesn't yet exist, something that would make 70 million iOS devices and 150 million iPods just that much more obsolete?

And once we have established WebM as the way to play web videos, what happens once the MPEG LA forces Google to license its patent portfolio and the whole WebM thing goes away just like Wave, Google Answers, Google Video DRM, GOOG-411, Writely, Dodgeball, Buzz, Jaiku, Orkut, Knol and the Nexus One.

Then what?
post #4 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The answer relates to resolution independence.

If only...

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

They need to go ahead and tack on WebM support if it's possible at all.

Not gonna happen. Whatever patents there might be for WebM are 100% Google owned. Meaning the ones that aren't already infringing on MPEG-LA patents.

Regardless, it'd be financial suicide for another company to buy into WebM until the patent wars against it have shaken out, b/c Google refuses to indemnify other WebM users (corporations and individuals) when it's found to be infringing. Funny behavior for a technology that claims to be "open"...

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #5 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

They need to go ahead and tack on WebM support if it's possible at all.



This has been a sad news day. Thanks for the laugh.

post #6 of 196
I don't think anyone thought of a 2048x1536 screen resolution as a bad idea, just with the assumed added cost it wouldn't be worth it.

If Apple can manage to quadruple the pixels and everything that goes along with it whilst keeping the same low iPad price then they should definitely go for it.
post #7 of 196
I can't wait to watch NASCAR races on the new display. This is the perfect couch companion to watch the race and get the in-car camera and radio chatter on the iPad.
post #8 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archos View Post

Would that be in software (resulting in a battery draining way to watch YouTube), or by adding new hardware acceleration for WebM that doesn't yet exist, something that would make 70 million iOS devices and 150 million iPods just that much more obsolete?

And once we have established WebM as the way to play web videos, what happens once the MPEG LA forces Google to license its patent portfolio and the whole WebM thing goes away just like Wave, Google Answers, Google Video DRM, GOOG-411, Writely, Dodgeball, Buzz, Jaiku, Orkut, Knol and the Nexus One.

Then what?

Please, the webm religion debate is in another thread. Both of you, OT.
post #9 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by perfect number View Post

I can't wait to watch NASCAR races on the new display. This is the perfect couch companion to watch the race and get the in-car camera and radio chatter on the iPad.

OK. As a NASCAR fan, how are you doing this?
oneof52
Reply
oneof52
Reply
post #10 of 196
"when Apple introduced the iPad and its 9.7 inch, 1024x768 screen, it did not simply deliver a bigger version of the existing iPhone interface. Instead, it created a distinct user interface that took advantage of its physically larger screen real estate"

No It Didn't, and there's very little that visually or functionally differentiates the manner in which IOS works/looks on the the iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad.

What makes the iPad user experience different are the apps/physical size, and little else.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #11 of 196
Daniel, only you can make 3 pages of endless dribble from

"It will look better."
post #12 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebaker355 View Post

Personally, a retina display on the iPad will be the single biggest reason for me to upgrade from the original device. I do a ton of reading on my iPad, but after a while, the 1024x768 pixels begin to strain my eyes. The text will look so much more crisp on a retina iPad. I think it will be easier to read over time.

The only thing that's remotely 'straining' on the iPad (for the reader) is the excessive weight after holding it for extended periods- IMO.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #13 of 196
Hopefully they bring this back to the Mac for Lion so we can finally get some advancement in windowed OS display resolutions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

I don't think anyone thought of a 2048x1536 screen resolution as a bad idea, just with the assumed added cost it wouldn't be worth it.

If Apple can manage to quadruple the pixels and everything that goes along with it whilst keeping the same low iPad price then they should definitely go for it.

It would be nice and does seem prohibitively expensive, but I still wonder about the power needs and performance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

"when Apple introduced the iPad and its 9.7 inch, 1024x768 screen, it did not simply deliver a bigger version of the existing iPhone interface. Instead, it created a distinct user interface that took advantage of its physically larger screen real estate"

No It Didn't, and there's very little that visually or functionally differentiates the manner in which IOS works/looks on the the iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad.

What makes the iPad user experience different are the apps/physical size, and little else.

Only you would look at this picture and think the only difference is the physical size.

Why dont you go back to Engadget to troll.
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 #14 of 196
I bet the resolution would be 25% or 50% more ....

25% ... 1280x960 ... perfect for 720p video...

also possible

50% ... 1536x1152 ... though less likely due to the odd resolution size...
post #15 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It would be nice and does seem prohibitively expensive, but I still wonder about the power needs and performance.

You might've missed this since the rumors are flying fast and furious around here, but a previous thread stated the cost of the ipad1 screen is about $60 and the cost for the ipad2 screen is about $200. A little more than 3x the price, but probably the most expensive component.

I think this affirms the idea that they'll raise the price by $100, but keep at least one model of the ipad1 around at a cheaper price just so they can move units.

For power, if its true that its the backlight that costs watts and not pixel density, then problem solved.

For performance, yeah they would need a much better GPU. If its true that they have a dual core upgraded GPU ready to go, that sounds like it could probably drive at least 4x the pixels and not break a sweat.
post #16 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by perfect number View Post

I can't wait to watch NASCAR races on the new display. This is the perfect couch companion to watch the race and get the in-car camera and radio chatter on the iPad.

I wish they would do that with F1 and MotoGP/World Superbike. NASCAR (as much as I despise watching cars go in circles) really knows how to cater to the viewer and make the viewing experience (both at the track and in the home) amazing. I tip my hat to NASCAR in that respect.
post #17 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by REC View Post

You might've missed this since the rumors are flying fast and furious around here, but a previous thread stated the cost of the ipad1 screen is about $60 and the cost for the ipad2 screen is about $200. A little more than 3x the price, but probably the most expensive component.

I think this affirms the idea that they'll raise the price by $100, but keep at least one model of the ipad1 around at a cheaper price just so they can move units.

For power, if its true that its the backlight that costs watts and not pixel density, then problem solved.

For performance, yeah they would need a much better GPU. If its true that they have a dual core upgraded GPU ready to go, that sounds like it could probably drive at least 4x the pixels and not break a sweat.

Yeah, I saw those but Im not yet convinced of their legitimacy. One reason is they dont state what kind of IPS technology is used. For instance, LGs 2009 E-IPS tech reportedly has a "Wider aperture for light transmission, enabling the use of lower-power, cheaper backlights. Improves diagonal viewing angle and further reduce response time to 5ms. This seems to be exactly what Apple would want. Add to that Apples patents to reduce to the power used in backlights and this could be pretty amazing.

As for performance, its not enough that the GPU can push 3 millions pixels instead of just 700k, its how this affects the battery and Im not convinced that 4x as many pixels can result in about the same power usage in a YoY upgrade of the GPU.

That said, I cant express enough how much I want this to be feasible. Im also aware that the success of the iPad could easily allow Apple to add more expensive HW to maintain their lead in the tablet market, and even push so far ahead at the beginning of this market that it could create another natural monopoly like it did with the iPod by making the iPad the only reasonable choice for the average consumer.

PS: iSuppli listed the iPads 1024x768 display as costing just over $28.
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 #18 of 196
I think one look at this display would tell you why they did it. The 2x wood grain texture they found in iBooks alone makes me think it would look absolutely incredible. The impact of the iPhone 4's display is attenuated by its small size. This would be mind-blowing.

I think another reason they're going for high resolution displays is that touch computing lends itself to smaller displays. The iPad's display doesn't really feel small. The way you hold an iPad makes it quite different to a laptop display. So I think smaller, high-resolution displays are going to be the norm for multitouch tablets.
post #19 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by karteekmehta View Post

I bet the resolution would be 25% or 50% more ....

25% ... 1280x960 ... perfect for 720p video...

also possible

50% ... 1536x1152 ... though less likely due to the odd resolution size...

A specific resolution matters less for video than apps because it scales much more gracefully due to the differences in contrast in edges with bitmap graphics being sharp and captured images bring a bit blurry.
post #20 of 196
Hi Daniel,

You have used the phrase resolution independence wrong.

It should be resolution irrelevance.

Apple has devalued pixels as a marketing tool, a spec to wave about. Once you can't really see them it really doesn't matter how many more you have.

By making the iPhone and then the iPad screens "retina" Apple cannot be out-specced.

So resolution is now irrelevant.

Resolution independent refers to graphics that use mathematical functions instead of bitmaps to express them and as such can be scaled to any size without changing visually.
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #21 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

The only thing that's remotely 'straining' on the iPad (for the reader) is the excessive weight after holding it for extended periods- IMO.

You know, I think a serious case can be made for changing your name from DaHarder .... to DaHardly .... as in hardly ever adds anything intelligent to any discussion. ........
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #22 of 196
If we're talking about resolution independence, then surely there is no longer a need for @2x images? The UI should scale properly the image nominated for a purpose. The image should be of the resolution preferred by the developer.
post #23 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Mac OS X icons and the Dock have always scaled smoothly, and since Mac OS X Tiger there has been a hidden option to scale up window controls and menu bars to cope with increasingly higher screen resolutions.

Hidden option? Guess I've been in the dark on this. Could anyone clue me in?

Thanks,

Tucker
post #24 of 196
I think this was a great article that explains and clears a lot of confusion on resolution strategies and how it affects desktops and mobile devices. I will forward this on to people who don't have a full grasp on this side of tech knowledge.

Cheers
post #25 of 196
wow, the trolls can't even take a break when steve announces he's taking another medical leave. no class. you guys really have nothing better to do than go on a apple fan site just to be dicks? and please don't bother attempting to defend yourselves, it's laughable when you do.

anyway, another great article from AI, full of hyperbole of course but lots of useful information and insights too.. it looks more and more like apple is going to come out with an ipad pro. not only do they blindside the incompetent and unoriginal competition by dominating the low end of the market, they're creating another high end to compliment it! great stuff.. i expect, and hope, that apple is going to do the same thing with the iphone soon as well.
post #26 of 196
It's gonna look awesome. And no amount of opinions from people with zero technical knowledge of the situation is going to affect that.

Can't wait. Hoping for a Feb. 15th announcement.
post #27 of 196
As a photographer making a living with pictures, the current iPad causes quite a stir. The resolving power of iPad 2 will be something to behold.

Nice article, thanks.

And as someone above said, the trolls have no class. Let's remind ourselves exactly who they are for minute shall we? http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/...-iphone-4.html
post #28 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

... followed by Apple's own introduction of the MacBook Air, which offers the company's smallest notebook screen ever.

Not true. My old PowerBook 100 had a 9" screen.
post #29 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post

Hi Daniel,

You have used the phrase resolution independence wrong.

It should be resolution irrelevance.

Apple has devalued pixels as a marketing tool, a spec to wave about. Once you can't really see them it really doesn't matter how many more you have.

By making the iPhone and then the iPad screens "retina" Apple cannot be out-specced.

So resolution is now irrelevant.

Resolution independent refers to graphics that use mathematical functions instead of bitmaps to express them and as such can be scaled to any size without changing visually.

Where did he use it incorrectly? The term resolution independence is well known and means exactly what you said in the last sentence, which is exactly the issue Mac OS has with using higher resolution displays, just as he stated.
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 #30 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon T View Post

As a photographer making a living with pictures, the current iPad causes quite a stir. The resolving power of iPad 2 will be something to behold.

Nice article, thanks.

And as someone above said, the trolls have no class. Let's remind ourselves exactly who they are for minute shall we? http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/...-iphone-4.html

Thanks for that link. Brilliant, I say
post #31 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

Not true. My old PowerBook 100 had a 9" screen.

i thought I adopted notebooks early, but you beat me by 6-7 years.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...erbook100.html
And even before you PowerBook 100 they had this beast for $6500. Weve come a long way.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl..._portable.html
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 #32 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Only you would look at this picture and think the only difference is the physical size.

... and that screen -shot is of an iOS app (the Mail App to be specific), something that is indeed a different experience on the iPad... which happens to be exactly what I posted.

Now go ahead and try to make up some nonsense of how drastically different the UI/etc is.

Hint: it Isn't.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #33 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

As for performance, its not enough that the GPU can push 3 millions pixels instead of just 700k, its how this affects the battery and Im not convinced that 4x as many pixels can result in about the same power usage in a YoY upgrade of the GPU..

Agree..

If ever, Apple to deliver that kind of high resolution screen on iPad 2, then the main concern for the Cupertino company and us (the users) is battery life. It's a hard bargain for road warriors, and a nuisance for every day use if the battery life sucks.
post #34 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Hopefully they bring this back to the Mac for Lion so we can finally get some advancement in windowed OS display resolutions.



It would be nice and does seem prohibitively expensive, but I still wonder about the power needs and performance.




Only you would look at this picture and think the only difference is the physical size.

Why dont you go back to Engadget to troll.

I think is point is well supported by the SDK. The differences are there in the GAuI but they are very minor. In the end a vast portion of the SDK is identical on each platform. Even if you take the referenced picture in to consideration, the behavior of the list is virtually the same.

Frankly it is hard to look at the iPad and not see a lot of the iPhone in it.
post #35 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilimanjaro View Post

Agree..

If ever, Apple to deliver that kind of high resolution screen on iPad 2, then the main concern for the Cupertino company and us (the users) is battery life. It's a hard bargain for road warriors, and a nuisance for every day use if the battery life sucks.

The iPad's battery life is pretty outstanding, so even if they lose a few minutes, it shouldn't prove an issue for most users.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #36 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I think is point is well supported by the SDK. The differences are there in the GAuI but they are very minor. In the end a vast portion of the SDK is identical on each platform. Even if you take the referenced picture in to consideration, the behavior of the list is virtually the same.

Frankly it is hard to look at the iPad and not see a lot of the iPhone in it.

it uses the same SDK, something that didnt happen for a few months after the SDK for the iPad was released. Dont we now have a single SDK for iOS and Mac OS apps? Sure, they both use CocoaTouch as that is the primary I/O, but that DOES NOT MAKE THEM THE SAME APPS. They are uniquely designed for the different display sizes and dimensions because, as previously stated, that is also the primary I/O. Its fucking silly argument to say that apps are the same because the development tools are the same. Does that make all apps made with .NET the same? Does that make all PS3 games the same?
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 #37 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

The only thing that's remotely 'straining' on the iPad (for the reader) is the excessive weight after holding it for extended periods- IMO.

+1

An iPad with the rumoured specs would be amazing and beautiful and I'd want one for about a minute. Then I'd walk away because it's still too big to take with me everywhere.
post #38 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

... and that screen -shot is of an iOS app (the Mail App to be specific), something that is indeed a different experience on the iPad... which happens to be exactly what I posted.

Now go ahead and try to make up some nonsense of how drastically different the UI/etc is.

Hint: it Isn't.

Your first and second sentences appear contradictory.

There are certainly UI differences between the two devices -- an iPad is not just a larger iPhone. Perhaps you have not used both devices extensively. Why would it be "drastically" different?! They are both touchscreen systems running the same version of iOS, but with the UI optimized for the different display sizes.
post #39 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by karteekmehta View Post

I bet the resolution would be 25% or 50% more ....

25% ... 1280x960 ... perfect for 720p video...

also possible

50% ... 1536x1152 ... though less likely due to the odd resolution size...

You'll bet wrong.

There is a reason LG with Apple are investing in Billions ramping up production of just panels. It's goes beyond just stamping out what they have developed for today.
post #40 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It’s fucking silly argument to say that apps are the same because the development tools are the same.

It's even 'sillier' to continue this inane 'argument' given that the initial point wasn't that the APPS were the same, only the core OS/UI... Which the certainly are.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Why high resolution screens matter for Apple's iPad 2