We know. How expensive would a higher IPS 9.7" screen be? It would knock the pricing out the window.
31 ppi less than the iPhone but about 8x as much surface area. I think it will be an impressive little display to read on. Even without doing at math it would be obvious this a focus for Apple.
The iPad has a significantly higher display resolution. The term is referring to pixel dimensions in that sense. In a strict sense of digital display management we would go by the pixels per inch or its dot pitch. For this forum the term is adequate.
Well, strictly, DPI is a printing term, as is LPI. PPI is for monitors, and SPI is for scanners, digital cameras, etc. When they get used incorrectly, it can lead to confusion, as they do mean different things.
31 ppi less than the iPhone but about 8x as much surface area. I think it will be an impressive little display to read on. Even without doing at math it would be obvious this a focus for Apple.
It will. I'd love a bit more resolution, say 1280 x 960 (1.25x). That would seem ideal, but the screens are likely too expensive yet, or it may not exist in a 9.7 size as an IPS panel.
It will. I'd love a bit more resolution, say 1280 x 960 (1.25x). That would seem ideal, but the screens are likely too expensive yet, or it may not exist in a 9.7 size as an IPS panel.
Do you have educated guesses on what Apple will bring to the next iPhone? I did some math yesterday to show some potential increase ranges and how it compares to other phones.
Do you have educated guesses on what Apple will bring to the next iPhone? I did some math yesterday to show some potential increase ranges and how it compares to other phones.
I've been reading all your posts, so I did read that. I was thinking something along the lines of 640 x 430 to 720 x 480. The first would be a good boost, and prove actually usable for text. the second would, to me, seem about as high as is useful for background work that would carry up to the iPad.
Of course, a simple halving of the iPad's rez would give an easy 2x interpolation which would look good at the higher rez of the iPad, in other words, 512 x 384. That wouldn't require any odd math, which is what makes LCD displays look so bad when used out of their native rez.
But that may be too low from a marketing standpoint in todays market.
Of course, a simple halving of the iPad's rez would give an easy 2x interpolation which would look good at the higher rez of the iPad, in other words, 512 x 384. That wouldn't require any odd math, which is what makes LCD displays look so bad when used out of their native rez.
But the iPad is 4:3 and the iPhone is 16:9, right? Wouldn't that mean an elongated pixel for the iPhone?
But the iPad is 4:3 and the iPhone is 16:9, right? Wouldn't that mean an elongated pixel for the iPhone?
The iPhone is, as you know, 480 x 320. 16:9 would have been 569 x 320. Since you're always doing the math, I'm surprised you didn't work that one out as well.
The iPhone is 3:2. The iPad is 4:3.
If Apple went to 512 x 384, the screen would have to be a bit wider. Or some of the edge or the iPad would need to be cut off. not a real problem. Except for fixed graphic features, text and most other elements could be rendered for the slightly different ratios. Most of this stuff is vector graphics anyway.
The iPhone is, as you know, 480 x 320. 16:9 would have been 569 x 320. Since you're always doing the math, I'm surprised you didn't work that one out as well.
The iPhone is 3:2. The iPad is 4:3.
If Apple went to 512 x 384, the screen would have to be a bit wider. Or some of the edge or the iPad would need to be cut off. not a real problem. Except for fixed graphic features, text and most other elements could be rendered for the slightly different ratios. Most of this stuff is vector graphics anyway.
Mea culpa. I couldn't recall so I picked it up and glanced at the screen for a second. It DID NOT occur to me to use the well known display dimensions.
Comments
We know. How expensive would a higher IPS 9.7" screen be? It would knock the pricing out the window.
31 ppi less than the iPhone but about 8x as much surface area. I think it will be an impressive little display to read on. Even without doing at math it would be obvious this a focus for Apple.
The iPad has a significantly higher display resolution. The term is referring to pixel dimensions in that sense. In a strict sense of digital display management we would go by the pixels per inch or its dot pitch. For this forum the term is adequate.
Well, strictly, DPI is a printing term, as is LPI. PPI is for monitors, and SPI is for scanners, digital cameras, etc. When they get used incorrectly, it can lead to confusion, as they do mean different things.
31 ppi less than the iPhone but about 8x as much surface area. I think it will be an impressive little display to read on. Even without doing at math it would be obvious this a focus for Apple.
It will. I'd love a bit more resolution, say 1280 x 960 (1.25x). That would seem ideal, but the screens are likely too expensive yet, or it may not exist in a 9.7 size as an IPS panel.
It will. I'd love a bit more resolution, say 1280 x 960 (1.25x). That would seem ideal, but the screens are likely too expensive yet, or it may not exist in a 9.7 size as an IPS panel.
Do you have educated guesses on what Apple will bring to the next iPhone? I did some math yesterday to show some potential increase ranges and how it compares to other phones.
Or even 200.
Good point. My 27" iMac is only 109
Do you have educated guesses on what Apple will bring to the next iPhone? I did some math yesterday to show some potential increase ranges and how it compares to other phones.
I've been reading all your posts, so I did read that. I was thinking something along the lines of 640 x 430 to 720 x 480. The first would be a good boost, and prove actually usable for text. the second would, to me, seem about as high as is useful for background work that would carry up to the iPad.
Of course, a simple halving of the iPad's rez would give an easy 2x interpolation which would look good at the higher rez of the iPad, in other words, 512 x 384. That wouldn't require any odd math, which is what makes LCD displays look so bad when used out of their native rez.
But that may be too low from a marketing standpoint in todays market.
Of course, a simple halving of the iPad's rez would give an easy 2x interpolation which would look good at the higher rez of the iPad, in other words, 512 x 384. That wouldn't require any odd math, which is what makes LCD displays look so bad when used out of their native rez.
But the iPad is 4:3 and the iPhone is 16:9, right? Wouldn't that mean an elongated pixel for the iPhone?
But the iPad is 4:3 and the iPhone is 16:9, right? Wouldn't that mean an elongated pixel for the iPhone?
The iPhone is, as you know, 480 x 320. 16:9 would have been 569 x 320. Since you're always doing the math, I'm surprised you didn't work that one out as well.
The iPhone is 3:2. The iPad is 4:3.
If Apple went to 512 x 384, the screen would have to be a bit wider. Or some of the edge or the iPad would need to be cut off. not a real problem. Except for fixed graphic features, text and most other elements could be rendered for the slightly different ratios. Most of this stuff is vector graphics anyway.
The iPhone is, as you know, 480 x 320. 16:9 would have been 569 x 320. Since you're always doing the math, I'm surprised you didn't work that one out as well.
The iPhone is 3:2. The iPad is 4:3.
If Apple went to 512 x 384, the screen would have to be a bit wider. Or some of the edge or the iPad would need to be cut off. not a real problem. Except for fixed graphic features, text and most other elements could be rendered for the slightly different ratios. Most of this stuff is vector graphics anyway.
Mea culpa.