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
"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
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
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
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."
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...
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Comments
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
@ 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....