Typo: When making an app with both low- and high-res images, the naming convention is file.png and [email protected], respectively. Devices with Retina displays will automatically pick the @2x version to display.
I think this is great. I love beautiful text and that is helped a lot by extra pixels. However, has anyone seen the new 120Hz LCD monitors that are coming out in the PC world now? These just look fantastic and are getting rave reviews. In some ways a higher refresh rate can blow your socks off just as much as more pixels.
I agree that on a monitor for a desktop or laptop, because of the way they're used, 120 Hz monitors are better looking when moving things around, though, I don't see a difference with a static image. But, for tablets, unles we're doing stereo,it won't matter much, because we don't manipulate the desktop of apps in general, the same way. We might see a slight improvement when dragging something, but I don't think it will be nearly as dramatic.
"Retina" does not mean >300ppi, it means when holding the device at a normal viewing distance (12' on the iphone) the eye can not discern individual pixels.
Since the iPad is held at a greater distance, like 18-20", I'm sure this resolution could be considered retina.
Insanely high res if true, in any case.
I don't think we hold them much further away than a phone. Maybe a few inches. Two or three.
I don't think it really matters. It will be more than sharp enough.
I?m still sold on this, then again I wasn?t on the iPhone 4 display until we had some proof coming out of China.
Ha! So now you do think it's possible?
Anyway, I'm all for it, if it does happen.
Quote:
1) The biggest issue with sourcing components came from the display.
2) The resolution isn?t bad and it already pushes more pixels than those other 7? tablets. Sure, they have a higher ppi, but in regards to the GPU you need more RAM and a more powerful system to push it. Is the PowerVR SGX453 rumoured to be coming up to that task?
Before you say yes, note these simple stats.
iPhone 3GS: 480x320 = 153,600 pixels
iPhone 4: 960x640 = 614,400 pixels
iPad 1: 1024x768 = 786,432 pixels
iPad 2: 2048x1536 = 3,145,728 pixels
That?s a huge jump. How will game play be affected? How with UI performance be affected? How will battery life be affected? Personally, I don?t want to lose a second of battery life for a higher resolution display.
The gpu can be run in parallel, and possibly even in quad mode, if Apple should choose to do that, so the amount of graphics power isn't a problem.
Quote:
Yeah, they got it wrong. It?s quadruple the number of pixles, but it?s only double the resolution, since resolution is resolved by perpendicular axes.
Pixles? With wings and dust too? Ahem. Yes, people confuse what resolution really means. It's linear measurement.
It's clear that they will be doubling the screen resolution (quadrupling the total number of pixels). Scaling graphics by multiples of two, either up or down is extremely efficient from the hardware standpoint as it doesn't have to fiddle with fractional pixels when it comes to rescaling images from older software.
That will still use a whopping lot of memory, so I trust they will at least double the RAM, but more likely quadruple it as well to 1 Meg.
Being just a little below "retina" resolution won't matter unless someone holds their iPad 4 inches from their face.
We'll probably get the full details before March, so developers can have time to modify their software for release date.
I've seen this twice now, once on another site. Where is this coming from?
I’ve seen some odd resolution sizes mentioned. At least 1920x1440 is a 4:3 aspect ratio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Ha! So now you do think it's possible?
Anyway, I'm all for it, if it does happen.
Still not sold… I mistakenly left out that word not. It’s been corrected.
As for this happening, I’m all for it even though I think it’s still unlikely without further evidence, especially because I know Apple won’t foolishly risk other areas of the device to achieve it as their focus is the user experience not what geeks can rattle off about a spec sheet.
Just pointing out, the 17" MacBook Pro has a resolution of 1920x1200, so the new iPad would have about 150% of the pixels of my screen. Does this mean the next gen of the 17" MacBook Pro will have a 2560x1600 resolution?
Why is this even here? The technology to produce an LCD with a resolution such as this at a size such as the iPads doesn't even exist. If it did Apple definitely wouldn't be able to put it in a device as entry level and cheap as the iPad. Wouldn't you think they would of had a higher resolution in there Macbook Pro if they had the tech to just produce any resolution on any screen size?
More fragmentation. 480x320, 960x640, 1024x768, and possibly 2048x1536. Everything will look horrible upscaled.
It really isn't that much of a problem. Several reasons why.
Number one is that as 480x320 devices are replaced, they become of less importance. I'd be willing to bet that by the end of this year, the low Rez iPhones and Touches will be no more than 25% of the total out there. Moving through 2012, those numbers will be much less. People will be upgrading their phones most every two years, and some even earlier as a matter of course. Most apps will continue to be upgraded so they will work and look fine at the higher Rez.
As far as the iPad goes, there are now almost 62,000 apps out for it, and because of that fewer people need iPhone apps. I'm pretty sure that shortly we'll be able to view hi Rez iPhone apps on our iPads as such. That means two things. The first is that on a low Rez iPad, they will fill most of the screen and look pretty good without magnification. Two is that even on the higher Rez screen they won't look any worse than do low Rez iPhone apps on the current iPad.
I've found, as I'm sure everyone else who has moved to the iPhone 4, that low Rez apps look the same, or better than they did on the older phones, mine being the 3G. The same thing will be true for low Rez iPad apps on the high Rez screen.
Apple is very smart here. Unlike Android and other systems, by going all the way to double Rez, they eliminate all of the problems associated with odd mathematical fractions.
This is not really much of a fragmentation problem at all as it is with Android, where slightly differing resolutions and even different ratios make if a problem for developers to keep up with all of the phones out there. apple also doesn't have the problem of devices coming out at the same time with different versions of the OS, which the manufacturers or carriers then decide to not update, as we're seeing with Samsung and one other whose name escapes me at the moment.
If people owning an iOS device decide to not update their OS if they can, that's up to them, they aren't being prevented from doing so unless the device is two years old, or older. We,re seeing this happen to other devices that are less than 6 months old. Different problem entirely.
It's clear that they will be doubling the screen resolution (quadrupling the total number of pixels). Scaling graphics by multiples of two, either up or down is extremely efficient from the hardware standpoint as it doesn't have to fiddle with fractional pixels when it comes to rescaling images from older software.
That will still use a whopping lot of memory, so I trust they will at least double the RAM, but more likely quadruple it as well to 1 Meg.
Being just a little below "retina" resolution won't matter unless someone holds their iPad 4 inches from their face.
We'll probably get the full details before March, so developers can have time to modify their software for release date.
If Apple really is doing all of this (and I personally still find it hard to believe) the sales pitch becomes clear: The iPad2 is 4x more powerful than its predecessor.
4x more RAM. They could easily go from the current 256MB to 1GB. This is probably the easiest one to achieve.
4x the processing power. Making this claim with the GPU would be no big deal, GPU power tends to explode upward fast. But to make the claim with the CPU as well, may be stretching a bit, but is within the realm of possibility. *If* it's dual core, and if it's a stepping above the current chipset, that could lead to a 3-4x increase in speed. But for marketing purposes, they can just call it 4x.
4x the resolution. 2048x1536 would be the key quality feature nobody else has or will have anytime soon.
So then you round that out with a laundry list of new or improved features. Dual cameras and Facetime. SD card slot. Improved audio/speaker system. Updated OS with a few new key features. Refined case design. Possibly lighter, possibly longer battery life, most probably thinner.
It will make the iPad1 look primitive by comparison, and I would argue that the iPad as it stands today is a pretty remarkable little PC.
And if they did all this, still not convinced they will, but if they did I think it would take them some time before we see another power jump of this magnitude in such a short time. To go from launch with a whole new device, having it for 1 year and it shaking up the industry the way it has, no signs of sales slowing down, and just 1 year later to add all this to the device, when people are clearly pretty happy with the v1 model would be... gosh I dunno... unprecedented even by Apple standards.
It would be beyond remarkable, and I honestly don't think any of us would have seen anything even remotely comparable to it before.
If Apple really is doing all of this (and I personally still find it hard to believe) the sales pitch becomes clear: The iPad2 is 4x more powerful than its predecessor.
4x more RAM. They could easily go from the current 256MB to 1GB. This is probably the easiest one to achieve.
4x the processing power. Making this claim with the GPU would be no big deal, GPU power tends to explode upward fast. But to make the claim with the CPU as well, may be stretching a bit, but is within the realm of possibility. *If* it's dual core, and if it's a stepping above the current chipset, that could lead to a 3-4x increase in speed. But for marketing purposes, they can just call it 4x.
4x the resolution. 2048x1536 would be the key quality feature nobody else has or will have anytime soon.
Why is this even here? The technology to produce an LCD with a resolution such as this at a size such as the iPads doesn't even exist. If it did Apple definitely wouldn't be able to put it in a device as entry level and cheap as the iPad. Wouldn't you think they would of had a higher resolution in there Macbook Pro if they had the tech to just produce any resolution on any screen size?
The technology does exist. The question you bring up about cost is valid though. However, Apple will sell between 20 and 40 million iPads this year. Most will be the iPad2. That's a lot of screens. Apple can get them much cheaper than anyone else can because of volume.
This is one of two reasons why most other manufacturers are going to 7" screens. Cost and battery life are too expensive for them at iPad size. In the world of electronics, volume is everything. Remember how shocked everyone was at the pricing when it first came out? Notice how the 7" Galaxy Tab costs the same as Apple's 10" model, and has much worse battery life?
If they do put in such a high-resolution screen, I hope it doesn't come at the expense of increasing the DRAM and flash memory. Last summer when the iPhone went to a retina display is the was the first update that didn't include a doubling of flash memory capacity.
Also, hopefully it will be an iPhone quality display and not an iPod touch quality display, which I understand is inferior. Although I've never compared them side-by-side.
Comments
The iPad2 resolution is 1920 x 1440.
Based on?
More fragmentation. 480x320, 960x640, 1024x768, and possibly 2048x1536. Everything will look horrible upscaled.
Not that bad really.
These new resolutions will hold them for quite a while if the iPad 2 resolution does indeed happen.
Much worse with Android.
Not that bad really.
These new resolutions will hold them for quite a while if the iPad 2 resolution does indeed happen.
Much worse with Android.
That's for sure.
Typo: When making an app with both low- and high-res images, the naming convention is file.png and [email protected], respectively. Devices with Retina displays will automatically pick the @2x version to display.
Well, this blows their theory into pieces. LOL.
The iPad2 resolution is 1920 x 1440.
I've seen this twice now, once on another site. Where is this coming from?
I think this is great. I love beautiful text and that is helped a lot by extra pixels. However, has anyone seen the new 120Hz LCD monitors that are coming out in the PC world now? These just look fantastic and are getting rave reviews. In some ways a higher refresh rate can blow your socks off just as much as more pixels.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3842/a...-look-at-120hz
I agree that on a monitor for a desktop or laptop, because of the way they're used, 120 Hz monitors are better looking when moving things around, though, I don't see a difference with a static image. But, for tablets, unles we're doing stereo,it won't matter much, because we don't manipulate the desktop of apps in general, the same way. We might see a slight improvement when dragging something, but I don't think it will be nearly as dramatic.
"Retina" does not mean >300ppi, it means when holding the device at a normal viewing distance (12' on the iphone) the eye can not discern individual pixels.
Since the iPad is held at a greater distance, like 18-20", I'm sure this resolution could be considered retina.
Insanely high res if true, in any case.
I don't think we hold them much further away than a phone. Maybe a few inches. Two or three.
I don't think it really matters. It will be more than sharp enough.
I?m still sold on this, then again I wasn?t on the iPhone 4 display until we had some proof coming out of China.
Ha! So now you do think it's possible?
Anyway, I'm all for it, if it does happen.
1) The biggest issue with sourcing components came from the display.
2) The resolution isn?t bad and it already pushes more pixels than those other 7? tablets. Sure, they have a higher ppi, but in regards to the GPU you need more RAM and a more powerful system to push it. Is the PowerVR SGX453 rumoured to be coming up to that task?
Before you say yes, note these simple stats.
- iPhone 3GS: 480x320 = 153,600 pixels
- iPhone 4: 960x640 = 614,400 pixels
- iPad 1: 1024x768 = 786,432 pixels
- iPad 2: 2048x1536 = 3,145,728 pixels
That?s a huge jump. How will game play be affected? How with UI performance be affected? How will battery life be affected? Personally, I don?t want to lose a second of battery life for a higher resolution display.The gpu can be run in parallel, and possibly even in quad mode, if Apple should choose to do that, so the amount of graphics power isn't a problem.
Yeah, they got it wrong. It?s quadruple the number of pixles, but it?s only double the resolution, since resolution is resolved by perpendicular axes.
Pixles? With wings and dust too? Ahem. Yes, people confuse what resolution really means. It's linear measurement.
That will still use a whopping lot of memory, so I trust they will at least double the RAM, but more likely quadruple it as well to 1 Meg.
Being just a little below "retina" resolution won't matter unless someone holds their iPad 4 inches from their face.
We'll probably get the full details before March, so developers can have time to modify their software for release date.
I've seen this twice now, once on another site. Where is this coming from?
I’ve seen some odd resolution sizes mentioned. At least 1920x1440 is a 4:3 aspect ratio.
Ha! So now you do think it's possible?
Anyway, I'm all for it, if it does happen.
Still not sold… I mistakenly left out that word not. It’s been corrected.
As for this happening, I’m all for it even though I think it’s still unlikely without further evidence, especially because I know Apple won’t foolishly risk other areas of the device to achieve it as their focus is the user experience not what geeks can rattle off about a spec sheet.
More fragmentation. 480x320, 960x640, 1024x768, and possibly 2048x1536. Everything will look horrible upscaled.
It really isn't that much of a problem. Several reasons why.
Number one is that as 480x320 devices are replaced, they become of less importance. I'd be willing to bet that by the end of this year, the low Rez iPhones and Touches will be no more than 25% of the total out there. Moving through 2012, those numbers will be much less. People will be upgrading their phones most every two years, and some even earlier as a matter of course. Most apps will continue to be upgraded so they will work and look fine at the higher Rez.
As far as the iPad goes, there are now almost 62,000 apps out for it, and because of that fewer people need iPhone apps. I'm pretty sure that shortly we'll be able to view hi Rez iPhone apps on our iPads as such. That means two things. The first is that on a low Rez iPad, they will fill most of the screen and look pretty good without magnification. Two is that even on the higher Rez screen they won't look any worse than do low Rez iPhone apps on the current iPad.
I've found, as I'm sure everyone else who has moved to the iPhone 4, that low Rez apps look the same, or better than they did on the older phones, mine being the 3G. The same thing will be true for low Rez iPad apps on the high Rez screen.
Apple is very smart here. Unlike Android and other systems, by going all the way to double Rez, they eliminate all of the problems associated with odd mathematical fractions.
This is not really much of a fragmentation problem at all as it is with Android, where slightly differing resolutions and even different ratios make if a problem for developers to keep up with all of the phones out there. apple also doesn't have the problem of devices coming out at the same time with different versions of the OS, which the manufacturers or carriers then decide to not update, as we're seeing with Samsung and one other whose name escapes me at the moment.
If people owning an iOS device decide to not update their OS if they can, that's up to them, they aren't being prevented from doing so unless the device is two years old, or older. We,re seeing this happen to other devices that are less than 6 months old. Different problem entirely.
It's clear that they will be doubling the screen resolution (quadrupling the total number of pixels). Scaling graphics by multiples of two, either up or down is extremely efficient from the hardware standpoint as it doesn't have to fiddle with fractional pixels when it comes to rescaling images from older software.
That will still use a whopping lot of memory, so I trust they will at least double the RAM, but more likely quadruple it as well to 1 Meg.
Being just a little below "retina" resolution won't matter unless someone holds their iPad 4 inches from their face.
We'll probably get the full details before March, so developers can have time to modify their software for release date.
If Apple really is doing all of this (and I personally still find it hard to believe) the sales pitch becomes clear: The iPad2 is 4x more powerful than its predecessor.
- 4x more RAM. They could easily go from the current 256MB to 1GB. This is probably the easiest one to achieve.
- 4x the processing power. Making this claim with the GPU would be no big deal, GPU power tends to explode upward fast. But to make the claim with the CPU as well, may be stretching a bit, but is within the realm of possibility. *If* it's dual core, and if it's a stepping above the current chipset, that could lead to a 3-4x increase in speed. But for marketing purposes, they can just call it 4x.
- 4x the resolution. 2048x1536 would be the key quality feature nobody else has or will have anytime soon.
So then you round that out with a laundry list of new or improved features. Dual cameras and Facetime. SD card slot. Improved audio/speaker system. Updated OS with a few new key features. Refined case design. Possibly lighter, possibly longer battery life, most probably thinner.It will make the iPad1 look primitive by comparison, and I would argue that the iPad as it stands today is a pretty remarkable little PC.
And if they did all this, still not convinced they will, but if they did I think it would take them some time before we see another power jump of this magnitude in such a short time. To go from launch with a whole new device, having it for 1 year and it shaking up the industry the way it has, no signs of sales slowing down, and just 1 year later to add all this to the device, when people are clearly pretty happy with the v1 model would be... gosh I dunno... unprecedented even by Apple standards.
It would be beyond remarkable, and I honestly don't think any of us would have seen anything even remotely comparable to it before.
I've seen this twice now, once on another site. Where is this coming from?
From Apple - current iPad - 1024-by-768-pixel resolution at 132 pixels per inch (ppi)
If Apple really is doing all of this (and I personally still find it hard to believe) the sales pitch becomes clear: The iPad2 is 4x more powerful than its predecessor.
And 4x less battery life. hehe
Why is this even here? The technology to produce an LCD with a resolution such as this at a size such as the iPads doesn't even exist. If it did Apple definitely wouldn't be able to put it in a device as entry level and cheap as the iPad. Wouldn't you think they would of had a higher resolution in there Macbook Pro if they had the tech to just produce any resolution on any screen size?
The technology does exist. The question you bring up about cost is valid though. However, Apple will sell between 20 and 40 million iPads this year. Most will be the iPad2. That's a lot of screens. Apple can get them much cheaper than anyone else can because of volume.
This is one of two reasons why most other manufacturers are going to 7" screens. Cost and battery life are too expensive for them at iPad size. In the world of electronics, volume is everything. Remember how shocked everyone was at the pricing when it first came out? Notice how the 7" Galaxy Tab costs the same as Apple's 10" model, and has much worse battery life?
Also, hopefully it will be an iPhone quality display and not an iPod touch quality display, which I understand is inferior. Although I've never compared them side-by-side.