According to the Infoworld article, Texas Instruments was shipping a 1024x768 video card in 1986. Maybe Appleinsider should correct their story to indicate the iPad is using the TI-34010 resolution 'standard'?
Ouch, that's stupid. I don't think a developer should have to turn it on or be allowed to disable a video out like that. An exception might be if the dev wants to use it as a second screen rather than just mirror the internal screen.
No, no, it's not. Remember, that is done through dock connector. You can't permanently mirror display onto dock. Even system-level preferences switch is less elegant solution than in-app option one.
P.S. From the software standpoint, Apple solution is serving better Keynote application, too. Extended desktop feature is easier to support, if it's application, which decides what and where to display.
I think that's reading quite a bit into things. The simple fact is, VGA is the dominant (by a VERY wide margin) connector on projectors.
I might have been reading too much into Prince McLean's article, I just read it that he was saying VGA was as good as DVI etc at 1024x768. And that comment is relevant to the broader HDMI debate.
I agree it's dominant. It's good to support that. And the dock connector is an analog output so that's a better fit.
Quote:
Because the iPad isn't targeted at being tethered to a TV? The whole point of it is mobility and intimacy. If you have to have it attached to your TV, how intimate is that? As others have pointed out, there are other devices that are more appropriate to tether to your TV than the iPad.
I asked why Apple downgraded the component video output to 480p. You say "because it isn't targeted at TVs".
I'm happy to agree it's not really the best way to use the iPad. I just don't understand why Apple provides a way to connect TVs to the iPad, but doesn't output at the highest possible resolution (component AND iPad both support 720p)
I completely understand, and I think in 2010 it is pretty poor on Apple's part to have their worst product as the only gateway to HD output.
Many would say it's practical. Maybe it is, but the Apple TV is a failure, so iFail to see why they need to continue propping it up by crippling NEW products.
The iPad has 720p playback. It can watch YouTube HD, it can Rent/Buy HD Movies/TV Shows. Ok, that is a big step for the Apple portable....no such feature on the iPhone or iPod Touch to date...
But the iPhone has been able to output its highest capable resolution via component cable since day one.
iPad is intentionally crippled in that it outputs less than it does on the screen. It's lame, no matter how you slice it.
That's just an outright lie. The iPad cannot display 720p video on its built-in screen. That would require a display with 1280 horizontal pixels, but it only has 1024 horizontal pixels.
If you display a 720p image on an iPad screen, what you actually see is typically either a truncated image (where 20% of the horizontal image is cropped off, the vertical image is displayed at its original resolution, and there is some mild letterboxing), or a shrunken down image to fit the 1024 horizontal pixels (in which case the vertical resolution is reduced to 576 pixels and there is more pronounced letterboxing). (This all assumes, probably correctly, that the iPad natively works with square pixels...)
Regardless of whether you display the image on an XGA projector through a VGA cable, or through the iPad's native display screen, you will encounter the exact same trade-offs in terms of distorting the original image, and the resulting image will be the exact same resolution.
Regardless of whether you display the image on an XGA projector through a VGA cable, or through the iPad's native display screen, you will encounter the exact same trade-offs in terms of distorting the original image, and the resulting image will be the exact same resolution.
IBM's XGA adapter output 1024x768@60Hz interlaced. Meaning, each line gets painted 30 times per second. And meaning horizontal motion is going to have those jaggies you see on an interlaced DVD when you play it on a computer.
Is that really what these 'XGA' projectors are doing? Or did the marketing department in the projector companies just grab a convenient, dormant label and run with it?
If so, then the correct term is VESA, VGA, or SuperVGA. Or just call it 1024x768.
IBM's XGA adapter output 1024x768@60Hz interlaced. Meaning, each line gets painted 30 times per second. And meaning horizontal motion is going to have those jaggies you see on an interlaced DVD when you play it on a computer.
Is that really what these 'XGA' projectors are doing? Or did the marketing department in the projector companies just grab a convenient, dormant label and run with it?
If so, then the correct term is VESA, VGA, or SuperVGA. Or just call it 1024x768.
Calling it XGA is unusual but it does indicate the highest resolution it offers through a VGA port. Projectors just refer to VGA and 1024x768 is understood by those that understand that display tech.
Calling it XGA is unusual but it does indicate the highest resolution it offers through a VGA port. Projectors just refer to VGA and 1024x768 is understood by those that understand that display tech.
Calling it XGA resolution is surprisingly common in the projector market, though I don't think projectors themselves call it out like that on their internal displays. VGA is the most common term for the connector style, though it is sometimes used to refer to a resolution, 640x480.
Calling it XGA resolution is surprisingly common in the projector market, though I don't think projectors themselves call it out like that on their internal displays. VGA is the most common term for the connector style, though it is sometimes used to refer to a resolution, 640x480.
I'm not part of the projector market, I don't follow it in any regard, but every one I've set up over the years (quite a few) have all listed VGA, not XGA, on them. I can see how it would be beneficial to state the max resolution in this case and I know my knowledge in this area is minimal so I have no reason to doubt you. I concede my previous point about it being unusual.
I'm not part of the projector market, I don't follow it in any regard, but every one I've set up over the years (quite a few) have all listed VGA, not XGA, on them. I can see how it would be beneficial to state the max resolution in this case and I know my knowledge in this area is minimal so I have no reason to doubt you. I concede my previous point about it being unusual.
The projector market is a niche, so I think you could call that unusual in itself.
I'm pretty sure it is the input connector is type that is referred to as VGA, and I think that's why it's called that in the menu and the connector panel, I don't think it's a contradiction. As a resolution, I've never seen VGA to refer to any resolution other than what I've already noted.
Calling it XGA resolution is surprisingly common in the projector market, though I don't think projectors themselves call it out like that on their internal displays. VGA is the most common term for the connector style, though it is sometimes used to refer to a resolution, 640x480.
Seems to me you are right that VGA refers to the physical connector and sometimes gets used to describe a resolution (correctly or not?), but that XGA refers specifically to a resolution. Does it also get used to describe technical standards, such as sync pulse? Are any of these standards adopted by IEEE or ANSI or some other neutral standards body so we could know the technically "right" answer if we wanted to?
BTW, some other old-timers will remember when Apple's implementation of VGA include sync on green, which meant that not every monitor would work with a Mac system and vice-versa.
Seems to me you are right that VGA refers to the physical connector and sometimes gets used to describe a resolution (correctly or not?), but that XGA refers specifically to a resolution. Does it also get used to describe technical standards, such as sync pulse? Are any of these standards adopted by IEEE or ANSI or some other neutral standards body so we could know the technically "right" answer if we wanted to?
I think it's informal. I think it's a lot easier than writing the number out. If anyone has it standardized, it might be VESA, the same group that made DisplayPort as a standard.
1024x768 is the native resolution of IBM's "XGA" video card. I think the connector used was popularized with IBM's VGA brand video card, which maxed out at 640x480.
The iPad does not mirror anything. It only outputs video the app is specially designed to output, so essentially it only creates an "extended desktop." look at the keynote demo and you'll see it's showing one UI on the iPad while the actual presentation is being output via VGA. The iPad's Keynote display allows you to drive a virtual laser pointer or annotate the presentation John Madden style with your fingers while you present it.
Are you sure? I've re-watched the demo of iWork Keynote twice now and I can't see a different screen on the iPad from what's on the big screen. I actually hope that you're right and I'm wrong, but can you point to a particular time point in the iPad keynote where a different screen is shown on the iPad than what's on the big screen?
Are you sure? I've re-watched the demo of iWork Keynote twice now and I can't see a different screen on the iPad from what's on the big screen. I actually hope that you're right and I'm wrong, but can you point to a particular time point in the iPad keynote where a different screen is shown on the iPad than what's on the big screen?
This might have to be something that has to wait to see in actual action to be absolutely certain, but the developer members here seem to know what they're talking about most of the time, they had an opportunity to read the documentation and work with the development kit.
Apple sometimes does use output techniques special for their presentations that don't show up in the shipping product.
That's just an outright lie. The iPad cannot display 720p video on its built-in screen. That would require a display with 1280 horizontal pixels, but it only has 1024 horizontal pixels.
If you display a 720p image on an iPad screen, what you actually see is typically either a truncated image (where 20% of the horizontal image is cropped off, the vertical image is displayed at its original resolution, and there is some mild letterboxing), or a shrunken down image to fit the 1024 horizontal pixels (in which case the vertical resolution is reduced to 576 pixels and there is more pronounced letterboxing). (This all assumes, probably correctly, that the iPad natively works with square pixels...)
Regardless of whether you display the image on an XGA projector through a VGA cable, or through the iPad's native display screen, you will encounter the exact same trade-offs in terms of distorting the original image, and the resulting image will be the exact same resolution.
That is an outright lie. What you meant to say, before you wasted space by pointing out the obvious, is that the screen is the wrong size to display all of the pixels in a 720p video.
The iPad, however, can display 720p content. Like I said.
That's just an outright lie. The iPad cannot display 720p video on its built-in screen. That would require a display with 1280 horizontal pixels, but it only has 1024 horizontal pixels.
I think you're thinking about it too hard. You know that the iPhone can play video encoded at 640x480, right? The actual screen resolution is nowhere near that, yet it does play the file. In most cases, footage scaled down to a given resolution looks better than footage scaled up to that resolution, or even native resolution. After that, the only concern is file space and compute power/battery power.
That is an outright lie. What you meant to say, before you wasted space by pointing out the obvious, is that the screen is the wrong size to display all of the pixels in a 720p video.
The iPad, however, can display 720p content. Like I said.
I was not criticizing the first boldface statement taken in isolation. I was taking the entire post as a whole.
Your summation stated that the iPad was outputting less through its dock connector than it was outputting on the screen, and that therefore the iPad was intentionally crippled.
Your supporting evidence for that statement was its ability to display 720p video.
The logical inference is that the 720p video displayed through the dock connector output is somehow "less than" the 720p video that's displayed on the built-in screen.
This is false - if you playback a 720p video on the iPad's built-in screen, it is downscaled to fit the screen's 1024x768 dimensions -- just the same as it would be if you output it through the dock connector.
The two outputs offer exactly the same resolution, which is in conflict with your original conclusion. Hence the original conclusion was false.
You have now admitted as much yourself, calling it obvious. Indeed, I agree that it ought to be obvious. One has to wonder, though, if it is so blindingly obvious, then why did you miss it as you formulated your original conclusion?
The 3.2 SDK is very clear, you can output 720p or 1024x768 resolution. It respects both aspect ratios. When doing video out, you choose the resolution when throwing the image. You can support both or require one or the other. Apple guide recommend supporting both because some people will use the TV as primary gaming display and iPad as the gaming controller.
Many modern digital cameras by default shoot in 16:9, because users want to be able to display fullscreen photos on their HDTVs. It seems to me likely that almost all iPad users will use the devices for photo viewing, occasionally if not frequently, while relatively few will be giving presentations on external projectors. Therefore, I think that both the video output and the internal screen aspect ratios are an annoying mistake. 1280x720 should have been the default, with XVGA included as an option on the output. I don't believe that that would have increased the production costs for the iPad.
Comments
Ouch, that's stupid. I don't think a developer should have to turn it on or be allowed to disable a video out like that. An exception might be if the dev wants to use it as a second screen rather than just mirror the internal screen.
No, no, it's not. Remember, that is done through dock connector. You can't permanently mirror display onto dock. Even system-level preferences switch is less elegant solution than in-app option one.
P.S. From the software standpoint, Apple solution is serving better Keynote application, too. Extended desktop feature is easier to support, if it's application, which decides what and where to display.
Yep. And it's for projectors. That's how Apple will pitch the iPad to businesses- as a presentation machine.
Personally, I have to admit I fail to figure out where the idea of iPad being a ATV replacement comes from.
I think that's reading quite a bit into things. The simple fact is, VGA is the dominant (by a VERY wide margin) connector on projectors.
I might have been reading too much into Prince McLean's article, I just read it that he was saying VGA was as good as DVI etc at 1024x768. And that comment is relevant to the broader HDMI debate.
I agree it's dominant. It's good to support that. And the dock connector is an analog output so that's a better fit.
Because the iPad isn't targeted at being tethered to a TV? The whole point of it is mobility and intimacy. If you have to have it attached to your TV, how intimate is that? As others have pointed out, there are other devices that are more appropriate to tether to your TV than the iPad.
I asked why Apple downgraded the component video output to 480p. You say "because it isn't targeted at TVs".
I'm happy to agree it's not really the best way to use the iPad. I just don't understand why Apple provides a way to connect TVs to the iPad, but doesn't output at the highest possible resolution (component AND iPad both support 720p)
I completely understand, and I think in 2010 it is pretty poor on Apple's part to have their worst product as the only gateway to HD output.
Many would say it's practical. Maybe it is, but the Apple TV is a failure, so iFail to see why they need to continue propping it up by crippling NEW products.
The iPad has 720p playback. It can watch YouTube HD, it can Rent/Buy HD Movies/TV Shows. Ok, that is a big step for the Apple portable....no such feature on the iPhone or iPod Touch to date...
But the iPhone has been able to output its highest capable resolution via component cable since day one.
iPad is intentionally crippled in that it outputs less than it does on the screen. It's lame, no matter how you slice it.
That's just an outright lie. The iPad cannot display 720p video on its built-in screen. That would require a display with 1280 horizontal pixels, but it only has 1024 horizontal pixels.
If you display a 720p image on an iPad screen, what you actually see is typically either a truncated image (where 20% of the horizontal image is cropped off, the vertical image is displayed at its original resolution, and there is some mild letterboxing), or a shrunken down image to fit the 1024 horizontal pixels (in which case the vertical resolution is reduced to 576 pixels and there is more pronounced letterboxing). (This all assumes, probably correctly, that the iPad natively works with square pixels...)
Regardless of whether you display the image on an XGA projector through a VGA cable, or through the iPad's native display screen, you will encounter the exact same trade-offs in terms of distorting the original image, and the resulting image will be the exact same resolution.
Regardless of whether you display the image on an XGA projector through a VGA cable, or through the iPad's native display screen, you will encounter the exact same trade-offs in terms of distorting the original image, and the resulting image will be the exact same resolution.
IBM's XGA adapter output 1024x768@60Hz interlaced. Meaning, each line gets painted 30 times per second. And meaning horizontal motion is going to have those jaggies you see on an interlaced DVD when you play it on a computer.
Is that really what these 'XGA' projectors are doing? Or did the marketing department in the projector companies just grab a convenient, dormant label and run with it?
If so, then the correct term is VESA, VGA, or SuperVGA. Or just call it 1024x768.
IBM's XGA adapter output 1024x768@60Hz interlaced. Meaning, each line gets painted 30 times per second. And meaning horizontal motion is going to have those jaggies you see on an interlaced DVD when you play it on a computer.
Is that really what these 'XGA' projectors are doing? Or did the marketing department in the projector companies just grab a convenient, dormant label and run with it?
If so, then the correct term is VESA, VGA, or SuperVGA. Or just call it 1024x768.
Calling it XGA is unusual but it does indicate the highest resolution it offers through a VGA port. Projectors just refer to VGA and 1024x768 is understood by those that understand that display tech.
Calling it XGA is unusual but it does indicate the highest resolution it offers through a VGA port. Projectors just refer to VGA and 1024x768 is understood by those that understand that display tech.
Calling it XGA resolution is surprisingly common in the projector market, though I don't think projectors themselves call it out like that on their internal displays. VGA is the most common term for the connector style, though it is sometimes used to refer to a resolution, 640x480.
Calling it XGA resolution is surprisingly common in the projector market, though I don't think projectors themselves call it out like that on their internal displays. VGA is the most common term for the connector style, though it is sometimes used to refer to a resolution, 640x480.
I'm not part of the projector market, I don't follow it in any regard, but every one I've set up over the years (quite a few) have all listed VGA, not XGA, on them. I can see how it would be beneficial to state the max resolution in this case and I know my knowledge in this area is minimal so I have no reason to doubt you. I concede my previous point about it being unusual.
I'm not part of the projector market, I don't follow it in any regard, but every one I've set up over the years (quite a few) have all listed VGA, not XGA, on them. I can see how it would be beneficial to state the max resolution in this case and I know my knowledge in this area is minimal so I have no reason to doubt you. I concede my previous point about it being unusual.
The projector market is a niche, so I think you could call that unusual in itself.
I'm pretty sure it is the input connector is type that is referred to as VGA, and I think that's why it's called that in the menu and the connector panel, I don't think it's a contradiction. As a resolution, I've never seen VGA to refer to any resolution other than what I've already noted.
Calling it XGA resolution is surprisingly common in the projector market, though I don't think projectors themselves call it out like that on their internal displays. VGA is the most common term for the connector style, though it is sometimes used to refer to a resolution, 640x480.
Seems to me you are right that VGA refers to the physical connector and sometimes gets used to describe a resolution (correctly or not?), but that XGA refers specifically to a resolution. Does it also get used to describe technical standards, such as sync pulse? Are any of these standards adopted by IEEE or ANSI or some other neutral standards body so we could know the technically "right" answer if we wanted to?
BTW, some other old-timers will remember when Apple's implementation of VGA include sync on green, which meant that not every monitor would work with a Mac system and vice-versa.
Seems to me you are right that VGA refers to the physical connector and sometimes gets used to describe a resolution (correctly or not?), but that XGA refers specifically to a resolution. Does it also get used to describe technical standards, such as sync pulse? Are any of these standards adopted by IEEE or ANSI or some other neutral standards body so we could know the technically "right" answer if we wanted to?
I think it's informal. I think it's a lot easier than writing the number out. If anyone has it standardized, it might be VESA, the same group that made DisplayPort as a standard.
1024x768 is the native resolution of IBM's "XGA" video card. I think the connector used was popularized with IBM's VGA brand video card, which maxed out at 640x480.
The iPad does not mirror anything. It only outputs video the app is specially designed to output, so essentially it only creates an "extended desktop." look at the keynote demo and you'll see it's showing one UI on the iPad while the actual presentation is being output via VGA. The iPad's Keynote display allows you to drive a virtual laser pointer or annotate the presentation John Madden style with your fingers while you present it.
Are you sure? I've re-watched the demo of iWork Keynote twice now and I can't see a different screen on the iPad from what's on the big screen. I actually hope that you're right and I'm wrong, but can you point to a particular time point in the iPad keynote where a different screen is shown on the iPad than what's on the big screen?
Are you sure? I've re-watched the demo of iWork Keynote twice now and I can't see a different screen on the iPad from what's on the big screen. I actually hope that you're right and I'm wrong, but can you point to a particular time point in the iPad keynote where a different screen is shown on the iPad than what's on the big screen?
This might have to be something that has to wait to see in actual action to be absolutely certain, but the developer members here seem to know what they're talking about most of the time, they had an opportunity to read the documentation and work with the development kit.
Apple sometimes does use output techniques special for their presentations that don't show up in the shipping product.
That's just an outright lie. The iPad cannot display 720p video on its built-in screen. That would require a display with 1280 horizontal pixels, but it only has 1024 horizontal pixels.
If you display a 720p image on an iPad screen, what you actually see is typically either a truncated image (where 20% of the horizontal image is cropped off, the vertical image is displayed at its original resolution, and there is some mild letterboxing), or a shrunken down image to fit the 1024 horizontal pixels (in which case the vertical resolution is reduced to 576 pixels and there is more pronounced letterboxing). (This all assumes, probably correctly, that the iPad natively works with square pixels...)
Regardless of whether you display the image on an XGA projector through a VGA cable, or through the iPad's native display screen, you will encounter the exact same trade-offs in terms of distorting the original image, and the resulting image will be the exact same resolution.
That is an outright lie. What you meant to say, before you wasted space by pointing out the obvious, is that the screen is the wrong size to display all of the pixels in a 720p video.
The iPad, however, can display 720p content. Like I said.
That's just an outright lie. The iPad cannot display 720p video on its built-in screen. That would require a display with 1280 horizontal pixels, but it only has 1024 horizontal pixels.
I think you're thinking about it too hard. You know that the iPhone can play video encoded at 640x480, right? The actual screen resolution is nowhere near that, yet it does play the file. In most cases, footage scaled down to a given resolution looks better than footage scaled up to that resolution, or even native resolution. After that, the only concern is file space and compute power/battery power.
That is an outright lie. What you meant to say, before you wasted space by pointing out the obvious, is that the screen is the wrong size to display all of the pixels in a 720p video.
The iPad, however, can display 720p content. Like I said.
I was not criticizing the first boldface statement taken in isolation. I was taking the entire post as a whole.
Your summation stated that the iPad was outputting less through its dock connector than it was outputting on the screen, and that therefore the iPad was intentionally crippled.
Your supporting evidence for that statement was its ability to display 720p video.
The logical inference is that the 720p video displayed through the dock connector output is somehow "less than" the 720p video that's displayed on the built-in screen.
This is false - if you playback a 720p video on the iPad's built-in screen, it is downscaled to fit the screen's 1024x768 dimensions -- just the same as it would be if you output it through the dock connector.
The two outputs offer exactly the same resolution, which is in conflict with your original conclusion. Hence the original conclusion was false.
You have now admitted as much yourself, calling it obvious. Indeed, I agree that it ought to be obvious. One has to wonder, though, if it is so blindingly obvious, then why did you miss it as you formulated your original conclusion?