or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Rumor: Apple considering 12.9-inch iPads with 2K and 4K resolutions for 2014 launch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple considering 12.9-inch iPads with 2K and 4K resolutions for 2014 launch - Page 2

post #41 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Newcomb View Post

Cost, people. The cheapest 4K monitors right now are $3000 and over 30". To make a 13" 4K screen means the base price would over $4000.

Are you willing to pay more than a Mac Pro for an iPad that can only run App store software?

The very fundamental of this rumor is absurd.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7563/dell-24-uhd-up2414q-gets-a-price-28-uhd-4k-3840x2160-announced

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #42 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by AweWyld View Post
 

8.5" x 11" display with a 4:3 aspect ratio would make the diagonal 13.9".

 

Except that an 8.5" x 11" display can never have a 4:3 aspect ratio.  It always has an 11:8.5 aspect ratio. 

 

Now an 8.25" x 11" display... there's 4:3.  With a 13.75" diagonal.  :)

post #43 of 91

Apart from the pointlessness of 4K at pixel densities beyond your eyes being able to resolve, there's the rather large size of 4k dynamic media, which is enough to bulge conventional hard drives let alone a tablets storage at Apple's pricing.

post #44 of 91
I will tell u EXACTLY why I would buy TWO of these!

Too use as a left and right monitor on a 15" macbook pro for trading stocks while traveling and fixing multiple computers at once while traveling. I would use the iDisplay app for multi-monitor with both in EXTEND mode.
post #45 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Apart from the pointlessness of 4K at pixel densities beyond your eyes being able to resolve, there's the rather large size of 4k dynamic media, which is enough to bulge conventional hard drives let alone a tablets storage at Apple's pricing.

1) So you're saying we should keep pixel densities at a point where we can still resolve individual pixels? Brilliant¡

2) Larger files do not "bulge conventional hard drives" unless you're in a cartoon. Do 4K files take up more space than 1080p when using the same codec? Of course, just like 1080p taking up more space than 720p which takes up more space than 480p with the same codec.

3) Note that file sizes have dropped considerably and yet have gotten much higher quality since the days of MPEG-2 on DVDs to the current MPEG-4 AVC/H.264. HEVC/H.265 will allow for files to be reduced by an average of 50% which increased reduction for higher resolution files.

4) Of course, all your hatred here is only when Apple does it, but as soon as others vendors catch up you'll be signing a different tune.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #46 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Newcomb View Post

Cost, people. The cheapest 4K monitors right now are $3000 and over 30". To make a 13" 4K screen means the base price would over $4000.

Are you willing to pay more than a Mac Pro for an iPad that can only run App store software?

The very fundamental of this rumor is absurd.

 

4k is expensive because of economies of scale.  If they product 50,000,000 units a year the price will go down significantly

post #47 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by AweWyld View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post
 

I would consider this unlikely, but today, wishing my iPad was the size of a pad of paper (8 1/2 x 11), I may have to reconsider. An iPad that size and the same weight of a pad of paper might be useful. 

8.5" x 11" display with a 4:3 aspect ratio would make the diagonal 13.9". Makes more sense than 12.9". A larger display is desirable for creative pros, but only if it is pressure sensitive with a revamped touch interface, that in addition to the existing one centred around the finger, would also allow for the greater accuracy of a stylus. This would require a finer granularity of the coordinate system in the touch layer and the algorithms necessary to support it. With pressure sensitivity built-in, it would be system-wide and available to all apps.

8.5x11 is only used in North America. The rest of us (the other 93% of people on the planet) use A4 paper which is about 8.27x11.7" and has a diagonal of 14.3". However, I don't understand why a tablet should emulate any of those sizes.

post #48 of 91

See post #50.


Edited by InteliusQ - 12/4/13 at 6:26am
post #49 of 91

The main question is how Apple would present a new pixel count to developers. When the Mini came it used the same pixel count as its larger siblings so it ran the same apps unchanged. A 12.9" ipad at exactly double the current resolution, i.e. 4096x3072 at near 400ppi, would make for a smooth transition and little hassle for developers.

post #50 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

What OS will it run? They would have to either make some changes to iOS, such as letting it run more than one app at a time, or graft a touch interface onto OS X. Full screen calculator apps make sense for a 4 inch phone with limited screen space, but not so much for a 13 inch tablet.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kkerst View Post

I hope we don't see some type of hybrid device where if used as a laptop, the touch must be used. That's why the Surface has an identity crisis. It has no idea what it wants to be.

Check this out, I remember this keynote: http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-touch-screen-mac-2010-10

On the other hand I could see such a tablet/laptop having its screen disabled when in laptop mode. My true pipe dream would be a device that had an A7 and Intel processor all in one package. That would be a beast.

 

Actually, a 12.9" iPad Air would be a proper name for a hybrid of a "screen-less" Macbook Air with a 12.9" detachable iPad as its display. When the iPad is docked to the Macbook Air, the iPad becomes the Macbook Air's display that uses Airplay Mirroring through peer-to-peer WiFi to display the Macbook Air on the iPad screen (or through a physical hardwired connection when the iPad is docked to the Macbook Air).

 

Together, the iPad and the MacBook Air would become either the iPad Air or the iBook - and would weigh about the same as a Macbook Air. The Macbook Air would retain its logic board and battery package beneath the keyboard and track pad. The iPad would retain its logic board beneath its display.

 

When docked, the iPad becomes the Macbook Air's display, and ceases to be an iPad. However, while the iPad is docked, the user can still access and manipulate the iPad's apps through the Macbook Air's track pad (except apps that require an accelerometer), and naturally use the Macbook Air's keyboard when keying in text. The iPad would have a dock and magnetic connection on the bottom and the left side, to dock to the Macbook Air in both portrait and landscape orientation. Because the iPad powers its own display, the Macbook Air's battery would last longer.

 

The iBook would be the computer that combines two separate computers in one device, that both function independent of each other, yet work together. Instead of carrying two computers separately, you carry both computers together. You do not use one instead of the other, instead, you use one with the other.

post #51 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) So you're saying we should keep pixel densities at a point where we can still resolve individual pixels? Brilliant¡

2) Larger files do not "bulge conventional hard drives" unless you're in a cartoon. Do 4K files take up more space than 1080p when using the same codec? Of course, just like 1080p taking up more space than 720p which takes up more space than 480p with the same codec.

3) Note that file sizes have dropped considerably and yet have gotten much higher quality since the days of MPEG-2 on DVDs to the current MPEG-4 AVC/H.264. HEVC/H.265 will allow for files to be reduced by an average of 50% which increased reduction for higher resolution files.

4) Of course, all your hatred here is only when Apple does it, but as soon as others vendors catch up you'll be signing a different tune.

 

What a load of disingenuous misdirection.  Sony started the world's first 4K downloads only four months ago.  They are 100 Gb in size.  That is enough to strain most portable devices storage components - with or without your prayers to the gods of compression.

 

Hatred?  I am writing this on an original 15" Macbook Pro Retina, I bought an Airport Express yesterday and am returning an Apple TV I bought a week ago, not to mention the 4 other Macs in the house including an SE I bought new (ditched the Imagewriter II) or the 3 iPods or...  I am not a great fan of iOS - true - as I belive the eco-system is over priced.

post #52 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So you're saying we should keep pixel densities at a point where we can still resolve individual pixels? Brilliant¡.

Whether that was the intent of his comment or not, the "Retina" display already has more pixels than the eye can individually detect. To cram 4K density into a 13" screen does not make any sense in a consumer device, or even a pro device. The whole movement toward 4K, aside from a way to continue to expand the home entertainment business, is driven primarily by the massive flat screen sizes that are becoming common place in average Americans living rooms thanks to plummeting prices. 1080p looks amazing on a 32" flat screen even from a few feet away, at which close distance few people make a habit of watching TV. But even the average viewing distance of 8 feet away, a 50" screen begins to break down, to say nothing of an 80" screen. In 5 years, 120" screens will likely not be uncommon in many home theaters.

So considering a 13" device like an iPad would not only be taxed to supply the raw processing muscle, not to mention a power supply capable of driving that many pixels, with little or no real world payoff in the ability to benefit from the enhanced resolution at that size, I have a hard time imagining Apple would do this as a first step into 4K. Honestly, who would be able to take advantage of this? Certainly not the iPad's typical users. Apple has been notorious for lacking in their support for professional photographers on the iPad, one of the few who might benefit from such pixel depth, so who would they be doing this for (or have they turned over a new leaf)? Doctors who want to look at X-rays and cat scans? Even those arguably don't need higher resolution than is already offered on the iPad. And aside from movies, the iPad is primarily a scalable device anyway, relying on software to resolve pixels through sophisticed algorithms at larger than native sizes. That won't change thanks to added pixel density, any more than it did from the original iPad to the Air. People will still mostly be looking at images in something other than their native resolution.

Unless I'm missing something, this seems like a totally unrealistic rumor to me. If Apple were going 4K, it seems likely they would make that jump first where it would count the most -- the desktop, or Apple TV, skipping Retina altogether, then merely to consolidate compatibility across platforms, add it to the iPad when cost and power issues were resolved.
post #53 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) So you're saying we should keep pixel densities at a point where we can still resolve individual pixels? Brilliant¡
I believe he's saying it's pointless to have 400+ PPI when you can only see 300 PPI at a usable distance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InteliusQ View Post

See post #50.

How did you predict a future post?! 1smile.gif
post #54 of 91

My original post had one quote. I wanted to edit the post to include multiple quotes. Since I couldn't delete the post, and didn't want to double-post, I copied the text of the original post, performed a multi-quote in a new post, and pasted the copied text in the new post -after which I went to the original post, and edited it by changing the text to "See post #50".

post #55 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post
 

 

What a load of disingenuous misdirection.  Sony started the world's first 4K downloads only four months ago.  They are 100 Gb in size.  

"Average title download size is approximately 50 GB" - http://us.support.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3848.

post #56 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post
 

"Average title download size is approximately 50 GB" - http://us.support.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3848.


Considering my original argument, does that make any real difference?

post #57 of 91
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Sony started the world's first 4K downloads only four months ago.  They are 100 Gb in size.

 

lol. If 1080p downloads are 4GB, 4K shouldn’t be more than 16.

 

You’re using Sony as an example of what TO do? Of optimization? Of making a standard or anything anyone would want to use? Come on, man. Have an actual argument. When SD cards came out, Sony made their own crap. When FireWire was released, Sony gave it their own name and refused to use anything but 4-pin. When Thunderbolt was finalized, Sony ignored the standard and illegally made a USB-based version of it. 

 

Sony has 100GB downloads because they’re idiots. Talk about disingenuous misdirection!

 

There’s a plan in the industry to move from pixel-based files to vector based video. That’ll take down file sizes by an order of magnitude.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #58 of 91

I still think Apple will launch an A7 MBA, and this screen might just be the thing for that project. It could be that the folks at Foxconn saw iPad-like components and a large screen and thought oh! an iPad device.  I do not see a purpose for a larger, heavier iPad, but I do see a next gen laptop.

bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #59 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Man View Post

Mmmmmuummm! Three sizes - small, medium and larger! If true, maybe a larger iPhone 6 is assured.

They have nothing to do with each other.  When the Mini came out did they bring out a 3" iPhone?

 

We will eventually see a larger iPad, and we will eventually see a larger iPhone.  Just a matter of when.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #60 of 91
My only hope is that if there is an iPad Pro that it will finally include real stylus support. Hopefully something best of class.

Not sure there's much practical benefit to a 4k screen even at 12.9 inches.

What interests me even more than the hardware is that Apple wouldn't attempt an iPad Pro unless there was some software to push it into a big draw to some crowd. Some sort of content creation is going to be getting a boost on tablets if/when this thing is released by Apple.
post #61 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

lol. If 1080p downloads are 4GB, 4K shouldn’t be more than 16.

 

 

Well, according to Sony's website, 2TB will hold approximately 45 full-featured movies at 38GB per movie.

So that's over twice your estimation and over half of cnocbui's.

Lol, truth is often in the middle :)

bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #62 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Keep those hardware boners in your pants, folks. It's only a rumor.

What kind of hardware would it be if it wasn't a boner.

post #63 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

What a load of disingenuous misdirection.  Sony started the world's first 4K downloads only four months ago.  They are 100 Gb in size.  That is enough to strain most portable devices storage components - with or without your prayers to the gods of compression.

Talk about disengenuous misdirection. This is an article about display resolutions where you are now trying to weasel your way out with comment about Sony and 4K downloads. These are not tied together. There is no 2048x1536 or 2880x1800 from the iTunes Store just because Apple uses this on their iPad and MBP, respectively.

But let me get back to your original foolish comment. You stated t's pointless to have pixel densities the eyes couldn't resolve. If you keep the pixel densities where the eyes can still resolve the individual pixels then the displays are not Retina by Apple's standards (assuming you aren't less than 1% of the population with exceptionally good eyesight for the minimal level that qualifies as Retina). Perhaps you meant that it's foolish to continue quadrupling the number of the pixels once you achieve Retina quality but you neither stated in that in your original comment nor corrected yourself in your reply to me despite me giving you an out.
Quote:
Hatred?  I am writing this on an original 15" Macbook Pro Retina, I bought an Airport Express yesterday and am returning an Apple TV I bought a week ago, not to mention the 4 other Macs in the house including an SE I bought new (ditched the Imagewriter II) or the 3 iPods or...  I am not a great fan of iOS - true - as I belive the eco-system is over priced.

You complaining about comically bulging hard drives despite it having nothing to do with how an OS will handle a denser display panel and you complained about how much Apple charges. It sure doesn't sound like you're a fan, and DaHarder-ing a post claiming what you own doesn't help your position.


PS: You have addressed any of the points on HEVC made.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #64 of 91
I could see Apple bring out the larger iPad. More power, memory and stronger battery to stand up to more continues use. With all kinds of ports to attach every thing from a keyboard to big screen monitor. At 12.9 inches is still small enough to carry around yet do the same work of a laptop computer. I can really see the large iPad.
post #65 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonshf View Post
 

The main question is how Apple would present a new pixel count to developers. When the Mini came it used the same pixel count as its larger siblings so it ran the same apps unchanged. A 12.9" ipad at exactly double the current resolution, i.e. 4096x3072 at near 400ppi, would make for a smooth transition and little hassle for developers.

Not really. The 2x resolution skip was useful because the screen size remained the same between the non-retina and retina version. It enabled developers to keep the same exact layouts while the OS automatically converted coordinates by multiplying them by 2.

 

If the screen size changes significantly, developers have to redesign their apps layouts anyway, they can't simply make everything bigger because it would look ridiculous and waste screen estate.

 

So a 2x skip wouldn't make it easier for developers in this case.  There won't be a magical way to convert coordinates for a bigger screen like there was for the iPhone/iPad transition to retina.

 

And going over 326 PPI will make it much harder for developers than any iOS transition they've had before, because it would make existing bitmaps and touch targets too small. So not only they would have to change the position of their UI elements to make use of the bigger screen, something which will be handled in part by the auto-layout APIs introduced with iOS6, but they would need to scale up all their touch targets and maintain yet another set of bitmap assets to compensate, something that the iOS auto-layout APIs are not designed for.

 

If Apple is set to release a 12.9" iPad in 2014, I predict it will be between 264 ppi (iPad air) and 326 ppi (mini retina and iPhone), and more likely 264 ppi which will be plenty enough for 95%+ of the population, considering that this device will be held farther for the eyes than even an iPad air.

post #66 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Well, according to Sony's website, 2TB will hold approximately 45 full-featured movies at 38GB per movie.
So that's over twice your estimation and over half of cnocbui's.
Lol, truth is often in the middle 1smile.gif

The truth is in the codec and quality being utilized and TS's logic is sound. Remember that a video is just a series of images and sound placed into a container. Let's remove the container and sound and focus on a single frame of a video file.

Let's say that 1080p, which translates to 1920x1080. For a given level of data per pixel (read: the same info per pixel) the file shouldn't exceed more than 4x that of 4K because 4K is exactly 4x the number of pixels of 1080p. Now this value will usually be much less given the magic of the codec to only give pointers to pixels that have already used that same pixel data.

It's only going to be higher than the same level of data on 4K over 1080p if you make the data denser per pixel or make other changes like adding higher quality audio, more channels, more languages, or even more video and supplemental files, all of which is possible since Sony is trying hard to market 4K.

So the reality is for any reasonable vendor you'll get files less 4K files less than 4x over 1080p for a given codec, which is itself pointless since 4K video files (which are different from 4K monitors) shouldn't even be a consideration until we have H.265 chips in our HW will further reduce file sizes by up to half which means the 4K files you eventually see on the iTunes Store won't be much more than the current 1080p files as to detract their intended market.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #67 of 91
"Citing a people familiar with the matter"

"Tuesday's rumor is not the first suggest Apple is building a larger-sized iPad."

It's really hard to take anything you write seriously when there are so many typos. Does no one proofread over there?
post #68 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by starxd View Post

Does no one proofread over there?

Nope; it's all about the useful posts in the threads. Heck, don't even bother reading the articles themselves, go straight to the forum.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #69 of 91
Paragraphs two and five.

Proofread.
post #70 of 91
As things stand now, I would not buy a 13 inch iPad. I would rather buy a Mac air or even an iMac instead. If the iPad cost $800 you know a 13 inch iPad will cost 1200.
post #71 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

Big deal. It would surprise me if they weren't. However there's a huge difference between a prototype and a shipping unit. Until this actualy ships this is a non-story.

Well on a rumor site it isn't a non-story. But it's certainly nothing for anybody to get excited about.

post #72 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tjduffy View Post

As things stand now, I would not buy a 13 inch iPad. I would rather buy a Mac air or even an iMac instead. If the iPad cost $800 you know a 13 inch iPad will cost 1200.

Everyone is so eager to predict what you think about a product until it's been unveiled. There might be something more to it that just a change in screen size.

post #73 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by VL-Tone View Post

If Apple is set to release a 12.9" iPad in 2014, I predict it will be between 264 ppi (iPad air) and 326 ppi (mini retina and iPhone), and more likely 264 ppi which will be plenty enough for 95%+ of the population, considering that this device will be held farther for the eyes than even an iPad air.

Um, people's arms are only so long. You don't hold things farther away from you just because they're a bit bigger. There's no math function for determining how far away you place a display based on its size. You place it depending on what it's designed for and handholding is the primary iPad design intent. There are limited arm positions that are comfortable, as well (people aren't going to be holding them at full extension).

If you're suggesting the larger iPad would be intended as a desktop display, then that defeats touch interaction if it's not a mostly flat/horizontal desk position (plenty data out there to show that traditional display positioning doesn't work for touch screens; my personal experience says the same).
post #74 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post


Um, people's arms are only so long. You don't hold things farther away from you just because they're a bit bigger. There's no math function for determining how far away you place a display based on its size. You place it depending on what it's designed for and handholding is the primary iPad design intent. There are limited arm positions that are comfortable, as well (people aren't going to be holding them at full extension).

If you're suggesting the larger iPad would be intended as a desktop display, then that defeats touch interaction if it's not a mostly flat/horizontal desk position (plenty data out there to show that traditional display positioning doesn't work for touch screens; my personal experience says the same).

Agreed. I suspect the only people holding the iPad Mini closer than the iPad Air are children. (Edit: and probably the people like me whose eyes suck and they're trying to see what that tiny text says! :) )

post #75 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post


Um, people's arms are only so long. You don't hold things farther away from you just because they're a bit bigger. There's no math function for determining how far away you place a display based on its size. You place it depending on what it's designed for and handholding is the primary iPad design intent. There are limited arm positions that are comfortable, as well (people aren't going to be holding them at full extension).

If you're suggesting the larger iPad would be intended as a desktop display, then that defeats touch interaction if it's not a mostly flat/horizontal desk position (plenty data out there to show that traditional display positioning doesn't work for touch screens; my personal experience says the same).

The retina MacBook Pro screen is "only" 227 ppi and I don't see a lot of people complaining about that. But let's forget about the proximity from the eyes bit. 

 

The iPad air resolution is already good enough for 95%+ of people at 264 ppi. Heck, a lot of people can't even see the difference between a retina and non-retia iOS device. The only situation where I really notice the pixels on my iPad 3 is when some 3D game shows highly contrasted polygons without anti-aliasing.And that could be fixed by hardware anti-aliasing.

 

But whatever, my original point was that there is no good reason to go over 326 ppi for a 12.9" iPad pro, as doing so would introduce a lot of unnecessary hassles for developers because it would make everything too small, including most importantly buttons and other touch targets, while only benefiting a very small portion of the population.

post #76 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by VL-Tone View Post

But whatever, my original point was that there is no good reason to go over 326 ppi for a 12.9" iPad pro, as doing so would introduce a lot of unnecessary hassles for developers because it would make everything too small, including most importantly buttons and other touch targets, while only benefiting a very small portion of the population.

I agree with this but I would go even further and question how Apple would introduce a larger tablet when the current 4:3 aspect ratio becomes less ideal at increasingly larger sizes and there is no simple upscale that would allow for an easy transition for developers, unlike with the iPad Mini's simple downscaling.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #77 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I agree with this but I would go even further and question how Apple would introduce a larger tablet when the current 4:3 aspect ratio becomes less ideal at increasingly larger sizes and there is no simple upscale that would allow for an easy transition for developers, unlike with the iPad Mini's simple downscaling.

I wonder if Apple can go to a 16:10 aspect ratio @ 326ppi for a bigger iPad Pro.

post #78 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanukStorm View Post

I wonder if Apple can go to a 16:10 aspect ratio @ 326ppi for a bigger iPad Pro.

If they were going to go bigger I'd think 264 ppi is sufficient, but since we're likely talking an entirely new UI akin to going from the iPhone to the iPad they could really chose anything that would still maintain Retina quality from a natural holding position.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #79 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The truth is in the codec and quality being utilized and TS's logic is sound. Remember that a video is just a series of images and sound placed into a container. Let's remove the container and sound and focus on a single frame of a video file.

Let's say that 1080p, which translates to 1920x1080. For a given level of data per pixel (read: the same info per pixel) the file shouldn't exceed more than 4x that of 4K because 4K is exactly 4x the number of pixels of 1080p. Now this value will usually be much less given the magic of the codec to only give pointers to pixels that have already used that same pixel data.

It's only going to be higher than the same level of data on 4K over 1080p if you make the data denser per pixel or make other changes like adding higher quality audio, more channels, more languages, or even more video and supplemental files, all of which is possible since Sony is trying hard to market 4K.

So the reality is for any reasonable vendor you'll get files less 4K files less than 4x over 1080p for a given codec, which is itself pointless since 4K video files (which are different from 4K monitors) shouldn't even be a consideration until we have H.265 chips in our HW will further reduce file sizes by up to half which means the 4K files you eventually see on the iTunes Store won't be much more than the current 1080p files as to detract their intended market.

 

In the near future we'll have cheaper, faster broadband connections with a higher data limit, and that will ease the transition to 4K, but at the moment the reality is 4K content is at 40-60GB. Sony did say they're hoping that future codecs will slash the file size in half, but that's still a 20-30GB file.

 

 

I do not believe that Sony is serving large files because they're idiots, Sony is using MPEG4 which is an efficient codec. The only way to decrease the size of the file is to reduce the quality of the image, or increase the load on the processor. The latter might also work better in the future with better chips tuned to chomp MPEGs. 

 

Moreover, the MPEG4 codec is more than just a series of images with a sound file, the codec uses many technologies, such as frames. The P-Frame, a vector motion frame, makes for smaller MPEGs when elements in a footage moves in 2D space, but has no effect of zooming footage.

bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #80 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Retina display with a 2,048-by-1,536 pixel resolution, which by many standards is already a 2K panel

thats a Retina display.. no only the resolution on iPad its higher than the 2K (2048 x 1536 vs 1920 x 1080) but also has 264 ppi that makes it a 4K resolution or even better

Quote:
Originally Posted by rgroves
It would be nice if they give the iPhone an hd screen before jumping to 2K or 4K screens on the iPad

If you want a HD iPhone buy the iPhone 3gs or the first one
now you have something better a "retina".. the first iPhone resolution (480 x 320) was not a big deal but the 163 ppi was greater than almost all Full HD TV's 50 ppi that was released back in 2009

typical media tech reffered to Retina as market term but now every other electronics are using it inclunding HDTV's around 140 ppi

if Apple wouldn't made Retina for iPhone 4 the smartphones of today like that ceap plastic phablet Samsung Gallaxy S4 the specs on paper will be like this 1920 x 1080p - 74 ppi

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Rumor: Apple considering 12.9-inch iPads with 2K and 4K resolutions for 2014 launch
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Rumor: Apple considering 12.9-inch iPads with 2K and 4K resolutions for 2014 launch