or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Double-resolution iPad images in iOS 5 beta rekindle speculation on iPad 3 display
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Double-resolution iPad images in iOS 5 beta rekindle speculation on iPad 3 display

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
High-resolution images discovered in the new Twitter framework of Apple's iOS 5 beta have rekindled rumors that Apple is planning to double the resolution of the iPad to 2048 x 1536 pixels.

Images discovered by a person familiar with the beta release of iOS 5 have a resolution of 1536 x 2048 and have prompted further speculation that Apple will upgrade the display of the next-generation iPad, as first reported by TechUnwrapped.

According to the tipster, the Twitter.framework, which is new to iOS, is the only framework to contain these larger files. Apple has built in system-wide Twitter integration to iOS 5 with an install button and login embedded within the Settings application.

A separate rumor from a Taiwanese newspaper on Tuesday claimed that Apple will launch the iPad 3 in the fourth quarter with "image resolution 5-6 times higher than iPad 2," though the report remains unverified.



The resolution of both the iPad and the iPad 2 is 1024 x 768. Doubling that resolution would quadruple the number of pixels, similar to the introduction of the Retina Display iPhone 4, which saw a jump from a resolution of 480 x 320 to that of 960 x 640 with a density of 326 pixels per inch.

Though the original report speculatively refers to the next iPad as having a "Retina Display," doubling the resolution of the device would still fall short of the 300 ppi "sweet spot" as defined by Apple CEO Steve Jobs.

According to Jobs, the "limit of the human retina" is 300 ppi at 10- to 12-inches away. It is, however, possible that Apple could repurpose the Retina Display definition for the iPad by asserting that iPads are generally held farther away from the eyes than iPhones or iPod touches. A 2048 x 1536 resolution iPad would have a pixel density of 264 ppi, while the current pixel density of the iPad is 132 ppi.



Rumors of an enhanced display for the iPad have persisted since before the release of the iPad 2, with some reports suggesting that Apple planned to include a 2048 x 1536 display on the iPad 2, but ran into last-minute "engineering issues" that prevented it.

Earlier this month, a rumor claimed that Apple has begun certifying parts from Taiwanese components makers. Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo with Concord Securities has asserted that Apple will deliver a double-resolution iPad 3 after resolving production volume and cost issues with the displays.
post #2 of 29
The reason why the iPad 2 doesn't have a Retina Display has nothing to do with "last-minute engineering issues."

There is simply no supply of these high-resolution screens. There isn't a manufacturing line on this planet that produces such a part in quantities necessary to supply Apple's needs.

Heck, Samsung can't build enough slender 10.1" parts for their own tablet so they had to make do with a different process that results in a thicker display, contrary to what they published in their own marketing materials.
post #3 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

The reason why the iPad 2 doesn't have a Retina Display has nothing to do with "last-minute engineering issues."

There is simply no supply of these high-resolution screens. There isn't a manufacturing line on this planet that produces such a part in quantities necessary to supply Apple's needs.

Heck, Samsung can't build enough slender 10.1" parts for their own tablet so they had to make do with a different process that results in a thicker display, contrary to what they published in their own marketing materials.

Ditto. Samsung has only recently announced that displays of that DPI at that size would only start manufacturing in quantity near the end of this year. Plus, you'd also think that there'd be more "high DPI" iPad-sized images found in iOS 4.2.x builds like has been previously seen when developers dig around the SDK for pre-release code and resources.
post #4 of 29
Please stop saying that the iPhone 4 "doubled" the resolution of the previous iPhone and that the iPad 3 may "double' the resolution of the current iPad. Both of these statements are untrue.

The iPhone 4 quadrupled the resolution of the previous iPhone, just as an iPad 3 with a 2048 x 1536 resolution is quadruple the current iPad's 1024 x 768.

Also, sorry for being a pedant! Calling this resolution jump a doubling isn't true in any sense and it drives me totally crazy.
post #5 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by orthodonticjake View Post

Please stop saying that the iPhone 4 "doubled" the resolution of the previous iPhone and that the iPad 3 may "double' the resolution of the current iPad. Both of these statements are untrue.

The iPhone 4 quadrupled the resolution of the previous iPhone, just as an iPad 3 with a 2048 x 1536 resolution is quadruple the current iPad's 1024 x 768.

Also, sorry for being a pedant! Calling this resolution jump a doubling isn't true in any sense and it drives me totally crazy.

I was thinking the same thing.......
post #6 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Though the original report speculatively refers to the next iPad as having a "Retina Display," doubling the resolution of the device would still fall short of the 300 ppi "sweet spot" as defined by Apple CEO Steve Jobs.

That is not true.

Jobs defined 'retina display' as a display where the pixels were too small to be distinguished by the human eye. That is a function of both pixel density AND viewing distance.

The phone is typically viewed at a closer distance than the iPad. So while 300 ppi might be the cutoff for a phone, the iPad (being viewed at a greater distance) might have a retina display at 200 or 250 ppi.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #7 of 29
I don't see how this is news. Obviously any change in the iPad resolution would have to double resolution (on each axis!). Haven't we gone over why Apple will do this (as opposed to some fractional resolution bump like 1080p)?

http://www.macstories.net/stories/th...y-on-the-ipad/
post #8 of 29
4x the resolution may take more power than even the a5 can handle well too.
post #9 of 29
In the image, you blocked out the name but not the MobileMe (.mac) email address? Think Apple can't trace that?
post #10 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by orthodonticjake View Post

Please stop saying that the iPhone 4 "doubled" the resolution of the previous iPhone and that the iPad 3 may "double' the resolution of the current iPad. Both of these statements are untrue.

The iPhone 4 quadrupled the resolution of the previous iPhone, just as an iPad 3 with a 2048 x 1536 resolution is quadruple the current iPad's 1024 x 768.

Also, sorry for being a pedant! Calling this resolution jump a doubling isn't true in any sense and it drives me totally crazy.

It is correct to say that it quadrupled the number of pixels on the display or quadrupled the density of the pixels but this is not what the term "resolution" refers to.

But when measuring a display's resolution the number of pixels are "resolved" to each linear axis. Since the number of pixels along the vertical and horizontal are have both been increased by a factor of two it is accurate to say that the resolution has been doubled. It is implied that the aspect ratio is maintained.

Quadrupling a display's resolution would increase the number of pixels 16-fold etc.
post #11 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by orthodonticjake View Post


Please stop saying that the iPhone 4 "doubled" the resolution of the previous iPhone and that the iPad 3 may "double' the resolution of the current iPad. Both of these statements are untrue.

The iPhone 4 quadrupled the resolution of the previous iPhone, just as an iPad 3 with a 2048 x 1536 resolution is quadruple the current iPad's 1024 x 768.

Also, sorry for being a pedant! Calling this resolution jump a doubling isn't true in any sense and it drives me totally crazy.

"Pixel-doubling" is a universally accepted term. It refers to each the X and Y axis... not total pixels combined.

You say 1024 x 768... not 786,432 pixels... right?
post #12 of 29
This is not the first time that this topic has come up and it probably won't be the last. I've already made my opinion clear in the past, but whenever I hear people talking about retina displays in iPads, I automatically envision those people as looking like this:



I still think that all of this retina talk for the iPad sounds totally insane and extremely unlikely. I wouldn't complain if it were true, and I would gladly admit to being wrong if it turned out true, but too many questions are raised which makes this rumor sound very doubtful to put it politely, and it's downright laughable if one is to be totally frank about it.

Is there currently a single device on the market, regardless of price which has such a resolution at that screen size?

The iPad is going to have a higher resolution than my desktop monitor which is 1920x1080? Does that mean that Apple is now going to have to put ultra high resolution displays into everything they make? You and I both know that people shelling out good money for Macbook Pros and Macbook Airs are going to be pretty pissed if an iPad display is wiping the floor with them. Everybody is going to want retina and super resolution on every device.

I guess there's going to be at least a 4 x more powerful GPU in the iPad to move four times as many pixels around? More storage and RAM will also be needed, as everything would take up more space now. Is all of that extra power which needs to be driven and the higher resolution display going to eat into the battery life? WIll there be any performance decrease in certain apps or games? If by some miracle, this all turns out true and there will be a retina display iPad, what's it going to cost? Do the tin foil hat wearing people ever stop and think about these issues?

Those were a few technical reasons. There are also business reasons and common sense reasons as to why the retina display iPad sounds ridiculous. FIrst, Apple just recently released iPad2 and it's in very high demand as we all know, they're making them as quickly as they can. In case anybody hasn't heard, at least one person has already traded in their kidney for cash to buy an iPad2. I feel kind of sorry for that dude if the retina iPad3 does get released, but not really, because he's a dumbass. Also, Apple usually sticks to an almost yearly release cycle for most of their products, and Steve Jobs also did state that 2011 is the year of the iPad2 during a keynote.

And those are my reasons as to why this rumor still sounds like a load of stinking garbage. But like I already said earlier, I wouldn't mind being wrong.
post #13 of 29
I don't care that a term is "universally accepted" -- that just means more people are being stupid. Resolution is a quantity, and doubling it means something entirely different from squaring it, which is the case when resolution increases as we know it. If you had a 1x7 array, would you say it was "doubled" if it became a 2x7 array? Would you say it was "doubled" if it became a 1x14 array?* There's no shorthand for this. We are talking about resolution quadrupling, and the rest is misinformed nonsense.

*I actually WOULD call this doubling, but I don't think this is what the general use of the term indicates -- this is what upsets me.
post #14 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

The reason why the iPad 2 doesn't have a Retina Display has nothing to do with "last-minute engineering issues."

There is simply no supply of these high-resolution screens. There isn't a manufacturing line on this planet that produces such a part in quantities necessary to supply Apple's needs.

Heck, Samsung can't build enough slender 10.1" parts for their own tablet so they had to make do with a different process that results in a thicker display, contrary to what they published in their own marketing materials.

Were we aware of 960x640 3.5 inch displays being manufactured 'in quantity' before the iPhone 4 was officially announced?
post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by formerarsgm View Post

in the image, you blocked out the name but not the mobileme (.mac) email address? Think apple can't trace that?

d'oh!

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by orthodonticjake View Post


Resolution is a quantity, and doubling it means something entirely different from squaring it, which is the case when resolution increases as we know it. If you had a 1x7 array, would you say it was "doubled" if it became a 2x7 array? Would you say it was "doubled" if it became a 1x14 array?* There's no shorthand for this. We are talking about resolution quadrupling, and the rest is misinformed nonsense.

*I actually WOULD call this doubling, but I don't think this is what the general use of the term indicates -- this is what upsets me.

Resolution is not a quantity of pixels... resolution describes the number of pixels in each dimension that can be displayed.

You're right... a retina iPad would have 4 times the quantity of pixels as the current iPad... but the resolution (X and Y) has only been doubled.
post #17 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by orthodonticjake View Post

I don't care that a term is "universally accepted" -- that just means more people are being stupid. Resolution is a quantity, and doubling it means something entirely different from squaring it, which is the case when resolution increases as we know it. If you had a 1x7 array, would you say it was "doubled" if it became a 2x7 array? Would you say it was "doubled" if it became a 1x14 array?* There's no shorthand for this. We are talking about resolution quadrupling, and the rest is misinformed nonsense.

*I actually WOULD call this doubling, but I don't think this is what the general use of the term indicates -- this is what upsets me.

In the example you have described the resolution has been doubled along one axis. The iPhone 4 the resolution was doubled along both axes. In a theoretical volumetric display you might double the resolution along three axes. The "along all axes" can be inferred because modification of the aspect ratio results in a qualitatively different type of array.

The root word "resolve" has very specific meaning.
post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by orthodonticjake View Post

Please stop saying that the iPhone 4 "doubled" the resolution of the previous iPhone and that the iPad 3 may "double' the resolution of the current iPad. Both of these statements are untrue.

The iPhone 4 quadrupled the resolution of the previous iPhone, just as an iPad 3 with a 2048 x 1536 resolution is quadruple the current iPad's 1024 x 768.

Also, sorry for being a pedant! Calling this resolution jump a doubling isn't true in any sense and it drives me totally crazy.

Everyone has the right to their own beliefs. That being said, the possible correct answer is:

Retina Display for iPhone 4 had "resolution doubled", and "pixels quadrupled".

Resolution is pixel density and "ppi" (pixels per inch) is used as a measurement. (See Wikipedia if you think that's a reliable source.)
iPhone 3GS to 4 is 163ppi to 326ppi so it is "double resolution". With Apple's official iOS development file naming conventions, images for the higher resolution has "@2x" suffix.

I hope this makes you feel better.
post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

It is correct to say that it quadrupled the number of pixels on the display or quadrupled the density of the pixels but this is not what the term "resolution" refers to.

But when measuring a display's resolution the number of pixels are "resolved" to each linear axis. Since the number of pixels along the vertical and horizontal are have both been increased by a factor of two it is accurate to say that the resolution has been doubled. It is implied that the aspect ratio is maintained.

Quadrupling a display's resolution would increase the number of pixels 16-fold etc.



This.

I was going to say the same thing.
post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

This is not the first time that this topic has come up and it probably won't be the last. I've already made my opinion clear in the past, but whenever I hear people talking about retina displays in iPads, I automatically envision those people as looking like this:



I still think that all of this retina talk for the iPad sounds totally insane and extremely unlikely. I wouldn't complain if it were true, and I would gladly admit to being wrong if it turned out true, but too many questions are raised which makes this rumor sound very doubtful to put it politely, and it's downright laughable if one is to be totally frank about it.

Is there currently a single device on the market, regardless of price which has such a resolution at that screen size?

The iPad is going to have a higher resolution than my desktop monitor which is 1920x1080? Does that mean that Apple is now going to have to put ultra high resolution displays into everything they make? You and I both know that people shelling out good money for Macbook Pros and Macbook Airs are going to be pretty pissed if an iPad display is wiping the floor with them. Everybody is going to want retina and super resolution on every device.

I guess there's going to be at least a 4 x more powerful GPU in the iPad to move four times as many pixels around? More storage and RAM will also be needed, as everything would take up more space now. Is all of that extra power which needs to be driven and the higher resolution display going to eat into the battery life? WIll there be any performance decrease in certain apps or games? If by some miracle, this all turns out true and there will be a retina display iPad, what's it going to cost? Do the tin foil hat wearing people ever stop and think about these issues?

Those were a few technical reasons. There are also business reasons and common sense reasons as to why the retina display iPad sounds ridiculous. FIrst, Apple just recently released iPad2 and it's in very high demand as we all know, they're making them as quickly as they can. In case anybody hasn't heard, at least one person has already traded in their kidney for cash to buy an iPad2. I feel kind of sorry for that dude if the retina iPad3 does get released, but not really, because he's a dumbass. Also, Apple usually sticks to an almost yearly release cycle for most of their products, and Steve Jobs also did state that 2011 is the year of the iPad2 during a keynote.

And those are my reasons as to why this rumor still sounds like a load of stinking garbage. But like I already said earlier, I wouldn't mind being wrong.

Thanks for the post that I was also going to write.

But you see? Nobody cares about your logical explanation why a "retina display" iPad won't be coming soon, and certainly NOT by this Fall. They just want, want, want... and blather about what pixel-doubling means.

Just imagine the GPU, the heat, and the dedicated RAM to push a display like that on a desktop or laptop... and the conclusion can only be that it's a couple of years out before hitting the market.

Caveat: although this is Apple we're talking about, and there's always that "one more thing"... so don't hold it against me if this does come to be sooner
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post

4x the resolution may take more power than even the a5 can handle well too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I guess there's going to be at least a 4 x more powerful GPU in the iPad to move four times as many pixels around?

Nothing an A6 with 2 Cortex-A15, a PowerVR SGX554MP4, and 1GB RAM can't handle
On a 28nm process the die won't be bigger than now.
On Intel's 22nm Apple could even pack another 2 Cortex-A15 on it and it still would be smaller than an A5.
post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

It is correct to say that it quadrupled the number of pixels on the display or quadrupled the density of the pixels but this is not what the term "resolution" refers to.

But when measuring a display's resolution the number of pixels are "resolved" to each linear axis. Since the number of pixels along the vertical and horizontal are have both been increased by a factor of two it is accurate to say that the resolution has been doubled. It is implied that the aspect ratio is maintained.

Quadrupling a display's resolution would increase the number of pixels 16-fold etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

"Pixel-doubling" is a universally accepted term. It refers to each the X and Y axis... not total pixels combined.

You say 1024 x 768... not 786,432 pixels... right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

Resolution is not a quantity of pixels... resolution describes the number of pixels in each dimension that can be displayed.

You're right... a retina iPad would have 4 times the quantity of pixels as the current iPad... but the resolution (X and Y) has only been doubled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

In the example you have described the resolution has been doubled along one axis. The iPhone 4 the resolution was doubled along both axes. In a theoretical volumetric display you might double the resolution along three axes. The "along all axes" can be inferred because modification of the aspect ratio results in a qualitatively different type of array.

The root word "resolve" has very specific meaning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kame View Post

Everyone has the right to their own beliefs. That being said, the possible correct answer is:

Retina Display for iPhone 4 had "resolution doubled", and "pixels quadrupled".

Resolution is pixel density and "ppi" (pixels per inch) is used as a measurement. (See Wikipedia if you think that's a reliable source.)
iPhone 3GS to 4 is 163ppi to 326ppi so it is "double resolution". With Apple's official iOS development file naming conventions, images for the higher resolution has "@2x" suffix.

I hope this makes you feel better.


Very good points. I have never heard of "resolution" being measured in total pixels, it is always measured along the linear axis and displayed as say 1024 x 768. That is why monitors that use the term "resolution" are always measured as such where as digital cameras, which are more focused on total pixels, are measured in "megapixels". Resolution is a dimensional measurement. In dealing with displays, the term "Resolution" always refers to two dimensions. Saying that a displays resolution has been double is the same as saying "the display's dimensions (plural, meaning both dimensions) have been doubled."
post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Nelson View Post


Very good points. I have never heard of "resolution" being measured in total pixels, it is always measured along the linear axis and displayed as say 1024 x 768. That is why monitors that use the term "resolution" are always measured as such...

Thank you... I knew we weren't crazy
post #24 of 29
@ ThePixelDoc>

So you're calling people in here tinfoil hat crazy lunatics for thinking that Apple may do to the next iPad what they've already done to the iPhone over a year ago?
Allow me to remind you that the display in the good ol' iPhone 4 has a higher resolution (PPI) than the rumored iPad display we're talking about here.
Doubling the resolution of the iPad display would only bring it (almost) up to par with the resolution we've been getting in the iPhone 4 for well over a year now.
post #25 of 29
What's interesting is that the people discounting the rumours seem to forget the source: iOS 5 issself. At least according to one dev.

If we trust he is not lying, or misinformed, then it seems that Apple are pixel doubling graphics internally and putting examples into their builds for internal test groups. So they have iPads with that resolution and machines to run them.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garion View Post

@ ThePixelDoc>

So you're calling people in here tinfoil hat crazy lunatics for thinking that Apple may do to the iPad what they've already done to the iPhone over a year ago?
Allow me to remind you that the display in the good ol' iPhone 4 has a higher resolution (PPI) than the rumored iPad display you call crazy and impossible.
Doubling the resolution of the iPad display would only put it (almost) on par with the resolution we currently get in the iPhone 4.

I don't agree with ThePixelDoc's "couple years" theory, I think it will be next year, but you are ignoring the case he made and the poster he replied to about GPU performance, amount of RAM needed, and battery life.

Ignoring the difficulty when larger sizes are involved, the ability to produce a display that is higher than 132ppi isn't the issue. You're saying the iPhone has a higher DPI than what this iPad would have and that's true, but they both run from the same YoY ARM PoP/SoC and the iPad with its lowly 132ppi already pushes more pixels to the display than the iPhone 4. Now imagine having to push 4x as many pixels than the current iPad, or 5x as many pixels as the iPhone 4 (614,400 pixels v. 3,145,728 pixels).
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 #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I still think that all of this retina talk for the iPad sounds totally insane and extremely unlikely. I wouldn't complain if it were true, and I would gladly admit to being wrong if it turned out true, but too many questions are raised which makes this rumor sound very doubtful to put it politely, and it's downright laughable if one is to be totally frank about it.

It will happen eventually. If not with the iPad 3, then certainly by the iPad 4. Manufacturers are working on the screens. It seems they have to start with small screens (like phone size) then work up to larger and larger sizes.

Quote:
Is there currently a single device on the market, regardless of price which has such a resolution at that screen size?

No. But the absence of such a product right now does not mean that such a product won't exist in the future.

Quote:
The iPad is going to have a higher resolution than my desktop monitor which is 1920x1080?

Seems like it. It would be silly not to use ultra high resolution displays at 10.1 inches when they become available because 13 to 27 inch displays aren't ready yet.

Quote:
Does that mean that Apple is now going to have to put ultra high resolution displays into everything they make? You and I both know that people shelling out good money for Macbook Pros and Macbook Airs are going to be pretty pissed if an iPad display is wiping the floor with them. Everybody is going to want retina and super resolution on every device.

Apple is laying the groundwork for that to happen. Instead of resolution independence, Lion includes "HIDPI" versions of its resolutions that are half the usual resolution but use doubled pixels. When displays capable of 3840 x 2400 at 13 to 27 inch sizes become available, then Macs will have those.

Quote:
I guess there's going to be at least a 4 x more powerful GPU in the iPad to move four times as many pixels around? More storage and RAM will also be needed, as everything would take up more space now. Is all of that extra power which needs to be driven and the higher resolution display going to eat into the battery life? WIll there be any performance decrease in certain apps or games? If by some miracle, this all turns out true and there will be a retina display iPad, what's it going to cost? Do the tin foil hat wearing people ever stop and think about these issues?

You don't think Apple is thinking about these issues either? By the time a device is ready those issues will have been worked out.

Quote:
Those were a few technical reasons. There are also business reasons and common sense reasons as to why the retina display iPad sounds ridiculous. FIrst, Apple just recently released iPad2 and it's in very high demand as we all know, they're making them as quickly as they can. In case anybody hasn't heard, at least one person has already traded in their kidney for cash to buy an iPad2. I feel kind of sorry for that dude if the retina iPad3 does get released, but not really, because he's a dumbass. Also, Apple usually sticks to an almost yearly release cycle for most of their products, and Steve Jobs also did state that 2011 is the year of the iPad2 during a keynote.

And those are my reasons as to why this rumor still sounds like a load of stinking garbage. But like I already said earlier, I wouldn't mind being wrong.

The only thing I agree with you on is the timing of the release. Apple will not release the iPad 3 until next year. Period. Will the iPad 3 have a "retina" display? Maybe. Maybe not. But the iPad 4 most likely will.
post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Just imagine the GPU, the heat, and the dedicated RAM to push a display like that on a desktop or laptop... and the conclusion can only be that it's a couple of years out before hitting the market.

Wrong on almost all counts.


GPU - the iPad 1 was fast enough for many purposes. The iPad 2's GPU was about 9 times as fast. That's more than enough to push pixels faster than the iPad 1 - even with 4 times as many pixels. And since faster GPUs are generally available every 6-12 months, it's not unreasonable to think that an even faster one will be available later this year.

Dedicated RAM? No problem. There's more than enough RAM to handle the number of pixels.

Heat? Nope. Most of the heat in a display is caused by the backlighting - which is more a function of area than pixel density.

And that's on an iPad. On a desktop or laptop, it's even easier - and could easily be done today.

Bottom line is that none of your reasoning makes sense. If and when higher resolution displays become available at acceptable quality and price, there's no technical reason Apple couldn't use them in the iPad - or laptops or cinema displays.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #29 of 29
Screens increase in resolution. 'Tis simply the way of things.

That which seemed impossible at one point, became possible. Often sooner than people thought it would.

It's the beauty and wonder of human progress.

Be at peace children, and know that all of these pixels will be yours. If not now, then soon....
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Double-resolution iPad images in iOS 5 beta rekindle speculation on iPad 3 display
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Double-resolution iPad images in iOS 5 beta rekindle speculation on iPad 3 display