I think QXGA is quite common for certain applications and has been for awhile.
But not in a 10-inch touchscreen LCD as far as I have seen. Projectors, I've seen a few high end ones for virtual reality applications, but those don't count in an iPad context - completely different tech.
I probably should have searched for some, I can see several garden variety LCDs in the form factor at 10" now. Had I done that earlier we could have shut down the entire is it even possible to double the resolution display question with a "here's the link..."
I don't think Apple would even need to change the finger tracking resolution, just work out the production bonding for the capacitive layer making the whole line engineering problem easier than I even thought. I got myself running through territory that wasn't even necessary even though it's true.
Thanks for the virtual wake up slap! So much for oddball sizes...
Some things to consider for those who keep saying its impossible:
- as mentioned above, the resolution is a standard resolution (QXGA) and was more common back in the days of CRTs where almost everything was 4:3. When I worked at ATI, I used to have a 20/21" CRT with that exact resolution (that monster practically took up half my desk too).
- back in 2006, Sanyo-Epson announced a 7.1 inch 1080p LCD. (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/17/s...e-worlds-smal/). So its not entirely unreasonable to assume a 9.7 inch QXGA given another 5 years (an eternity in tech). Why didn't it take off back then? Dunno, but my guess would be they didn't have the CPU/GPUs to drive it sufficiently back then.
Some things to consider for those who keep saying its impossible:
- as mentioned above, the resolution is a standard resolution (QXGA) and was more common back in the days of CRTs where almost everything was 4:3. When I worked at ATI, I used to have a 20/21" CRT with that exact resolution (that monster practically took up half my desk too).
- back in 2006, Sanyo-Epson announced a 7.1 inch 1080p LCD. (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/17/s...e-worlds-smal/). So its not entirely unreasonable to assume a 9.7 inch QXGA given another 5 years (an eternity in tech). Why didn't it take off back then? Dunno, but my guess would be they didn't have the CPU/GPUs to drive it sufficiently back then.
a 4.8" 1080p display. If you double that, you would theoretically have a 9.6" greater than QXGA display.
Welcome to the forum. I don’t think anyone reasonable is saying it’s impossible, merely that it’s improbable.
It’s not that we can’t do a 262 ppi on a display. It’s not that we can’t do 2048x1536 pixels on a display. It’s not that we can’t push 3.15M pixels on a GPU. It’s not that we can’t make 65M displays over the next 12 months. It’s trying to wrap all those things into one package whilst making it cost effective and power efficient to the point that it’s a feasible option for the 2011 iPad.
PS: Thanks for the link to the Ortustech display. That is one I hadn’t seen. Why did they make that display besides trying to get free press? Does 458 ppi really make it that much better than the iPhone 4? If you have better than 20/18 vision, maybe, but if making the best looking display was their goal then why stick with a weak TN panel with a 160° viewing angle and not one of the better panel times with 178° viewing angle?
It?s not that we can?t do a 262 ppi on a display. It?s not that we can?t do 2048x1536 pixels on a display. It?s not that we can?t push 3.15M pixels on a GPU. It?s not that we can?t make 65M displays over the next 12 months. It?s trying to wrap all those things into one package whilst making it cost effective and power efficient to the point that it?s a feasible option for the 2012 iPad.
Excuse me -- didn't you mean to say the 2011 iPad? (just kidding)
I think this is possible except I think it will be called the iPad HD. Next year when display yields are better, they could then call all their offerings iPad HD.
Comments
I think QXGA is quite common for certain applications and has been for awhile.
But not in a 10-inch touchscreen LCD as far as I have seen. Projectors, I've seen a few high end ones for virtual reality applications, but those don't count in an iPad context - completely different tech.
I probably should have searched for some, I can see several garden variety LCDs in the form factor at 10" now. Had I done that earlier we could have shut down the entire is it even possible to double the resolution display question with a "here's the link..."
I don't think Apple would even need to change the finger tracking resolution, just work out the production bonding for the capacitive layer making the whole line engineering problem easier than I even thought. I got myself running through territory that wasn't even necessary even though it's true.
Thanks for the virtual wake up slap! So much for oddball sizes...
- as mentioned above, the resolution is a standard resolution (QXGA) and was more common back in the days of CRTs where almost everything was 4:3. When I worked at ATI, I used to have a 20/21" CRT with that exact resolution (that monster practically took up half my desk too).
- back in 2006, Sanyo-Epson announced a 7.1 inch 1080p LCD. (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/17/s...e-worlds-smal/). So its not entirely unreasonable to assume a 9.7 inch QXGA given another 5 years (an eternity in tech). Why didn't it take off back then? Dunno, but my guess would be they didn't have the CPU/GPUs to drive it sufficiently back then.
- there was also this announcement just last year: http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/...hame-20101026/
a 4.8" 1080p display. If you double that, you would theoretically have a 9.6" greater than QXGA display.
Some things to consider for those who keep saying its impossible:
- as mentioned above, the resolution is a standard resolution (QXGA) and was more common back in the days of CRTs where almost everything was 4:3. When I worked at ATI, I used to have a 20/21" CRT with that exact resolution (that monster practically took up half my desk too).
- back in 2006, Sanyo-Epson announced a 7.1 inch 1080p LCD. (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/17/s...e-worlds-smal/). So its not entirely unreasonable to assume a 9.7 inch QXGA given another 5 years (an eternity in tech). Why didn't it take off back then? Dunno, but my guess would be they didn't have the CPU/GPUs to drive it sufficiently back then.
- there was also this announcement just last year: http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/...hame-20101026/
a 4.8" 1080p display. If you double that, you would theoretically have a 9.6" greater than QXGA display.
Welcome to the forum. I don’t think anyone reasonable is saying it’s impossible, merely that it’s improbable.
It’s not that we can’t do a 262 ppi on a display. It’s not that we can’t do 2048x1536 pixels on a display. It’s not that we can’t push 3.15M pixels on a GPU. It’s not that we can’t make 65M displays over the next 12 months. It’s trying to wrap all those things into one package whilst making it cost effective and power efficient to the point that it’s a feasible option for the 2011 iPad.
PS: Thanks for the link to the Ortustech display. That is one I hadn’t seen. Why did they make that display besides trying to get free press? Does 458 ppi really make it that much better than the iPhone 4? If you have better than 20/18 vision, maybe, but if making the best looking display was their goal then why stick with a weak TN panel with a 160° viewing angle and not one of the better panel times with 178° viewing angle?
It?s not that we can?t do a 262 ppi on a display. It?s not that we can?t do 2048x1536 pixels on a display. It?s not that we can?t push 3.15M pixels on a GPU. It?s not that we can?t make 65M displays over the next 12 months. It?s trying to wrap all those things into one package whilst making it cost effective and power efficient to the point that it?s a feasible option for the 2012 iPad.
Excuse me -- didn't you mean to say the 2011 iPad? (just kidding)
— Were there better than 160 ppi displays in 2007, 2008 and 2009? Yes, so why did the first three iPhones only have a 160 ppi display?
Excuse me -- didn't you mean to say the 2011 iPad? (just kidding)
I did mean 2011, but I do wonder if it’ll be possible in 2012.
I think this is possible except I think it will be called the iPad HD. Next year when display yields are better, they could then call all their offerings iPad HD.
Nostradamus lives!