As for those people who ported their iPhone app to the iPad and call it the "HD" version, what are they going to call this version?
HD+ ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1
Here's what I'm wondering: What effect will a retina display have when viewing iPhone apps on an iPad 3? I assume it'll be an improvement... right?
I think Apple still only has the 480x320 resolution in effect for iPhone apps shown on the iPad...even if they are Retina Display capable, and evn if you view them in 2x. It seems reasonable to think that Apple would offer the better resolution on a bigger display but I think Apple doesn't want iPhone apps on the iPad to be something people use. They want devs to create iPad apps and customers to use them. For those reasons I wouldn't expect any change and perhaps eventually the quite removal of iPhone apps on the iPad altogether.
What was the title of this article, again? "DEVELOPER SHOWS HOW TO PUMP INANE GAME INVOLVING WALKING BURGERS AND DONUTS"? Ah, I see. Right. Give me a break.
Wow! Gee, hd looks better! Wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles...
While the advantages of an iPad with a Retina Display are apparent from the screenshots, Ng also noted that there are some issues that Apple will encounter with its anticipated device. Most notably, four times as many pixels will use just as much additional data for video, and will result in larger downloads for App Store software.]
There's a fundamental problem with that statement.
For one, a 4x increase in pixels does not, necessarily, translate into an increase in download size. The developer in question already stated that he's using vector graphics.
Vector graphics, by definition, are resolution-independent, so the same vectors, and the same number of bytes, are used from the lowly original iPhone screen all the way through the new HD/Retina displays, and beyond.
The only time there'll be an increase in bytes is if using pixel-based images rather than vector.
The PS3 and Xbox 360 are 5 year old+ devices. The current iPhone has pretty much the same power. Who's to say the new chips won't be capable of this? Let's wait and see.
If the new chip can do this, they should put it on a PCI-E card and sell it right away for <$100 (what would be the cost if they can put it in a $499 device).
There are cheap chips which can do 1920x1200 at a reasonable framerate (sandy bridge for instance) but they do not have the Watt range needed on a mobile device.
I sure games will greatly benefit from the high def display but I'm most eager to see medical apps, like radiology, take full advantage of the 3 megapixel display. Game changer to me!
There's a fundamental problem with that statement.
For one, a 4x increase in pixels does not, necessarily, translate into an increase in download size. The developer in question already stated that he's using vector graphics.
Vector graphics, by definition, are resolution-independent, so the same vectors, and the same number of bytes, are used from the lowly original iPhone screen all the way through the new HD/Retina displays, and beyond.
The only time there'll be an increase in bytes is if using pixel-based images rather than vector.
He's using vectors that will have to be rasterized post scaling and at a higher ppi. So yes, it will consume more space.
For the sample given I will believe this can work, and although I have confidence in the powervr gpu I do not see it pushing 3d games in 2048x1536...
ps3/xbox360 cannot even do this, only dedicated gpu cards with 150W+ can do this.
They can currently, so the new GPU must be 4 times as fast as the current generation. Simply switching to 8 GPU cores instead of 2 will do the trick. And that's possible because the new A51/2 or A6 has a feature size of 32nm (or even 28nm) instead of 45nm.
PowerVR specs of future chips indicate that they have the same level of performance as the ps3 at the end of the year using ony a few watts.
They can currently, so the new GPU must be 4 times as fast as the current generation. Simply switching to 8 GPU cores instead of 2 will do the trick. And that's possible because the new A51/2 or A6 has a feature size of 32nm (or even 28nm) instead of 45nm.
PowerVR specs of future chips indicate that they have the same level of performance as the ps3 at the end of the year using ony a few watts.
J.
As far as I know it doesn't need to scale like that. The GPU has to push 4x as many pixels but it doesn't need 4x as many cores to do it.
I sure games will greatly benefit from the high def display but I'm most eager to see medical apps, like radiology, take full advantage of the 3 megapixel display. Game changer to me!
I bet maps will look beautiful too. They often have small writing.
Comments
As for those people who ported their iPhone app to the iPad and call it the "HD" version, what are they going to call this version?
HD+ ?
Here's what I'm wondering: What effect will a retina display have when viewing iPhone apps on an iPad 3? I assume it'll be an improvement... right?
I think Apple still only has the 480x320 resolution in effect for iPhone apps shown on the iPad...even if they are Retina Display capable, and evn if you view them in 2x. It seems reasonable to think that Apple would offer the better resolution on a bigger display but I think Apple doesn't want iPhone apps on the iPad to be something people use. They want devs to create iPad apps and customers to use them. For those reasons I wouldn't expect any change and perhaps eventually the quite removal of iPhone apps on the iPad altogether.
Wow! Gee, hd looks better! Wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles...
While the advantages of an iPad with a Retina Display are apparent from the screenshots, Ng also noted that there are some issues that Apple will encounter with its anticipated device. Most notably, four times as many pixels will use just as much additional data for video, and will result in larger downloads for App Store software.]
There's a fundamental problem with that statement.
For one, a 4x increase in pixels does not, necessarily, translate into an increase in download size. The developer in question already stated that he's using vector graphics.
Vector graphics, by definition, are resolution-independent, so the same vectors, and the same number of bytes, are used from the lowly original iPhone screen all the way through the new HD/Retina displays, and beyond.
The only time there'll be an increase in bytes is if using pixel-based images rather than vector.
The PS3 and Xbox 360 are 5 year old+ devices. The current iPhone has pretty much the same power. Who's to say the new chips won't be capable of this? Let's wait and see.
If the new chip can do this, they should put it on a PCI-E card and sell it right away for <$100 (what would be the cost if they can put it in a $499 device).
There are cheap chips which can do 1920x1200 at a reasonable framerate (sandy bridge for instance) but they do not have the Watt range needed on a mobile device.
HD+ ?
Like VHS and S-VHS, maybe S-HD? But I like HD+, it -looks- better. And it's simple, yet elegant. Well done!
Plus demos of Pages, graphics package, and iBooks+ 2.0?
games are nice, but i'm excited to see how books read on a retina display ipad. the typography and font scaling should be beautiful
Yeah, the only problem is the current ebook formats are awful for typography.
Back line breaking, awful rivers, no extended characters (ligatures etc), basically epub is just a browser view presented as a book reader.
That said, PDF books with good typography will look marvelous on the retina display.
The article is on the verge of insulting. The author writes these things as if talking to a child.
I'm a CS graduate, and I'm not insulted.
If you want something harder, why not go read kernel code or visit Lambda the Ultimate?
I too am more interested in text though, that should be nice.
There's a fundamental problem with that statement.
For one, a 4x increase in pixels does not, necessarily, translate into an increase in download size. The developer in question already stated that he's using vector graphics.
Vector graphics, by definition, are resolution-independent, so the same vectors, and the same number of bytes, are used from the lowly original iPhone screen all the way through the new HD/Retina displays, and beyond.
The only time there'll be an increase in bytes is if using pixel-based images rather than vector.
He's using vectors that will have to be rasterized post scaling and at a higher ppi. So yes, it will consume more space.
For the sample given I will believe this can work, and although I have confidence in the powervr gpu I do not see it pushing 3d games in 2048x1536...
ps3/xbox360 cannot even do this, only dedicated gpu cards with 150W+ can do this.
They can currently, so the new GPU must be 4 times as fast as the current generation. Simply switching to 8 GPU cores instead of 2 will do the trick. And that's possible because the new A51/2 or A6 has a feature size of 32nm (or even 28nm) instead of 45nm.
PowerVR specs of future chips indicate that they have the same level of performance as the ps3 at the end of the year using ony a few watts.
J.
They can currently, so the new GPU must be 4 times as fast as the current generation. Simply switching to 8 GPU cores instead of 2 will do the trick. And that's possible because the new A51/2 or A6 has a feature size of 32nm (or even 28nm) instead of 45nm.
PowerVR specs of future chips indicate that they have the same level of performance as the ps3 at the end of the year using ony a few watts.
J.
As far as I know it doesn't need to scale like that. The GPU has to push 4x as many pixels but it doesn't need 4x as many cores to do it.
He's using vectors that will have to be rasterized post scaling and at a higher ppi. So yes, it will consume more space.
No it won't. It will use more system ram (at that moment) while running, but it won't use more space for its binary image.
J.
I sure games will greatly benefit from the high def display but I'm most eager to see medical apps, like radiology, take full advantage of the 3 megapixel display. Game changer to me!
I bet maps will look beautiful too. They often have small writing.
As far as I know it doesn't need to scale like that. The GPU has to push 4x as many pixels but it doesn't need 4x as many cores to do it.
Only if the cores are more efficient or have a higher clock rate. But with the same clock rate my remark is correct.
And I didn't state that it was the only way to achieve the required speed.
Most of the time the number of cores increases and the clock speed at the same time.
But, as I said, I just presented one way to do it.
J.