That would be over 17 inches away from the eyes to be considered Retina by Apple's stated standards, which I think is too far away.
As an aside, I question if a 13 inch-ish tablet wouldn't be better suited as going from 4:3 to 16:10 or 16:9.
16:10 would be good. You go to wide the height suffers. 16:9 screens need to be rather big to work well, I'd say almost 17"
At 7.85" and 9.7" a 4:3 aspect ratio is ideal but over 12" I'm not so sure, but to change that with iOS offers additional complications, even they though they did move from a 3:2 to 16:9 aspect ratio with the iPhone.
What complications? Anything Apple does will result in apps requiring updates. What would be neat would be the ability to run apps side by side on a wide screen device, The proble with that is that doubling any current screen does not produce a machine of the size described.
Hurry up already ! I am keeping my shillings in anticipation of an iPad Pro. I think I actually thought it into existence - I've been craving a bigger iPad since my iPad 1. I am a designer, and I seriously need a bigger screen !!
I've been wondering about an iPad that size also. No designing on the iPad for me just old eyes.
What would be neat would be the ability to run apps side by side on a wide screen device.
I wouldn't use it. Seems totally moronic to create a tablet where the focus is Full Screen, for all its intends, and then make the application smaller again because we can now have 2 apps side by side. I think that should only be available to windowed systems, like OSX.
The PPI is certainly possible, other phones have it. Whether it's possible to produce it in volume with decent yield on a ~13" display... well some people didn't think Apple would be able to do it for the 10" iPad, so doubt at your own risk.
On phones, yes. A 12.9" tablet display with almost 400 ppi...no.
MacBook Pro with Retina Display 13": 227 ppi./ 2560×1600?
Real question, based on not knowing anything. Thanks.
So far Apples approach to retina displays has been to double pixels in both directions and maintain aspect ratios. Except iPhone 5, which simply added vertical pixels to fill in the new vertical space. On an iPad with the same aspect ratio as today, an increase in both vertical and horizontal inches would be required. Just like a decrease in both vertical and horizontal inches was required to create the iPad mini.
I reckon the screen (if this happens of course) will be a 12.8 inch display with a screen res multiple of 9 (a 9 pixel grid for every one of the original iPad) like the current iPad Retina display has a 4 pixel grid for every one of the original iPad, or 3072 x 2304 for a resolution of just over 7MP's. That's technologically possible for 2014 and would provide an exact 300 ppi screen density, or true Retina. The rumours elsewhere I've read also mention that the screen would have near if not full Ultra HD resolution (Ultra HD is 8.3MP's) so this makes sense.
This is intriguing. And that resolution seems a lot more attainable. Question remains, can that sort of uneven pixel distribution work?
What complications? Anything Apple does will result in apps requiring updates. What would be neat would be the ability to run apps side by side on a wide screen device, The proble with that is that doubling any current screen does not produce a machine of the size described.
The 7.9" iPad mini with same resolution and aspect ratio as the iPad Air, as well as being close enough in size to the original allowed for zero changes in the SDK or App Store apps to accommodate the new size.
Going down (I.e.: denser PPI) allows for more range than going up.
Side by side offers an interesting solution. Are there any solutions that scale perfectly, like the iPad Mini using the same resolution as the iPad Air but same PPI as iPhone?
If we're talking about a "no compromise" device that makes for both a less than adequate spoon and worthless fork then I think we're talking about the MS Spork.
Since I started with my online business I earn $62 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don't read www.bar29.?om
Since I started with my online business I earn $62 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don't read www.bar29.?om
Compared to the iPad Air at 263 ppi, which just barely cuts it for a "Retina" display.
So what's it gonna be? Is Apple going to accept this very low ppi for its iPad Pro?...
I don't think you understand what Apple's definition of a "retina" display is.
Any display where you can't discern individual pixels at the "normal" viewing distance is consider a retina display by Apple. Knowing Apple, I would guess with a 12.9" tablet they will use the same 2048x1536 resolution and then claim at the viewing distance they consider normal for the device, pixels can't be seen so it will be retina.
I don't think you understand what Apple's definition of a "retina" display is.
Any display where you can't discern individual pixels at the "normal" viewing distance is consider a retina display by Apple. Knowing Apple, I would guess with a 12.9" tablet they will use the same 2048x1536 resolution and then claim at the viewing distance they consider normal for the device, pixels can't be seen so it will be retina.
-kpluck
I think he does know, but the real question is would it really be held farther away than the Pad Air under "normal" conditions? We're talking about no less than slightly over 17" away from the eyes for the minimal Retina effect for someone with 20/20 vision, according to Apple's definition.
Does it have to be for a larger iPad or could it really be a new touch screen for a 13" MacBook? I know Apple has said that converging the notebook and the tablet doesn't make sense, but they deny lots of things that eventually come to be.
Does it have to be for a larger iPad or could it really be a new touch screen for a 13" MacBook? I know Apple has said that converging the notebook and the tablet doesn't make sense, but they deny lots of things that eventually come to be.
That's one that won't. They've stated quite flatly, even recently, that they are two separate things that will remain separate.
What these reports could refer to is a 12" Retina Display for MacBook Air. But, I can't see why Apple would need to source a new supplier for such a relatively low volume product.
Comments
Because it's all a lie and the only thing they are really interested in are page views?
What complications? Anything Apple does will result in apps requiring updates. What would be neat would be the ability to run apps side by side on a wide screen device, The proble with that is that doubling any current screen does not produce a machine of the size described.
I wouldn't use it. Seems totally moronic to create a tablet where the focus is Full Screen, for all its intends, and then make the application smaller again because we can now have 2 apps side by side. I think that should only be available to windowed systems, like OSX.
So far Apples approach to retina displays has been to double pixels in both directions and maintain aspect ratios. Except iPhone 5, which simply added vertical pixels to fill in the new vertical space. On an iPad with the same aspect ratio as today, an increase in both vertical and horizontal inches would be required. Just like a decrease in both vertical and horizontal inches was required to create the iPad mini.
This is intriguing. And that resolution seems a lot more attainable. Question remains, can that sort of uneven pixel distribution work?
The 7.9" iPad mini with same resolution and aspect ratio as the iPad Air, as well as being close enough in size to the original allowed for zero changes in the SDK or App Store apps to accommodate the new size.
Going down (I.e.: denser PPI) allows for more range than going up.
Side by side offers an interesting solution. Are there any solutions that scale perfectly, like the iPad Mini using the same resolution as the iPad Air but same PPI as iPhone?
Right after the iShoes and iSpork arrive.
Don't waste your money. Buy the Galaxy Spork.
Not in 2014. Samsung likes to "innovate" in 0.2-inch increments, in order to milk every last drop of "innovation" out of the phablet market.
If we're talking about a "no compromise" device that makes for both a less than adequate spoon and worthless fork then I think we're talking about the MS Spork.
ˆ Haha!
Right after the iShoes and iSpork arrive.
Ooooh, I was going to buy a ti spork but now I'll just wait for the 2014 iSpork!
2048 x 1536 on a 12.9" display = 198 ppi
Compared to the iPad Air at 263 ppi, which just barely cuts it for a "Retina" display.
So what's it gonna be? Is Apple going to accept this very low ppi for its iPad Pro?...
I don't think you understand what Apple's definition of a "retina" display is.
Any display where you can't discern individual pixels at the "normal" viewing distance is consider a retina display by Apple. Knowing Apple, I would guess with a 12.9" tablet they will use the same 2048x1536 resolution and then claim at the viewing distance they consider normal for the device, pixels can't be seen so it will be retina.
-kpluck
I think he does know, but the real question is would it really be held farther away than the Pad Air under "normal" conditions? We're talking about no less than slightly over 17" away from the eyes for the minimal Retina effect for someone with 20/20 vision, according to Apple's definition.
According to DigiTimes,
Oh that's a shame, I wanted this rumour to be true.
Quote:
Apple is said to have been hurt by low yields of the product
Does it have to be for a larger iPad or could it really be a new touch screen for a 13" MacBook? I know Apple has said that converging the notebook and the tablet doesn't make sense, but they deny lots of things that eventually come to be.
Does it have to be for a larger iPad or could it really be a new touch screen for a 13" MacBook? I know Apple has said that converging the notebook and the tablet doesn't make sense, but they deny lots of things that eventually come to be.
That's one that won't. They've stated quite flatly, even recently, that they are two separate things that will remain separate.
What these reports could refer to is a 12" Retina Display for MacBook Air. But, I can't see why Apple would need to source a new supplier for such a relatively low volume product.
With all that screen real estate you know that you'll want a second or third app window open.