Hints Point to iPad 3 With 'Retina Display' Res

[dragonsqrrl]

I didn't realize 10in 2048x1536 panels exist... is there any word on a manufacturer?

 

[dalethepcman]

and it's a key differentiation point when comparing iPhone hardware against other handsets.

How much did you get paid to write this? This is media marketing garbage. The human eye is capable of seeing much finer detail than 300DPI images if we weren't, then why would we need 4800x4800 scanners and printers?

Don't believe the hype the IPS display on the iphone 4 doesn't look much better or worse than competing products from other manufacturers, and while it was a huge leap from the 3gs to the 4, the increase in pixel density was rather small compared to what every other smarthphone maker was currently offering.

As for the rest of this article. Show me a the money! Samsung has a prototype 2560x1600 10" screen, but they don't really like dealing with apple (google lawsuit samsung apple) and would rather use all of them for their own products. This is the only prototype screen in the 10" range that has 300DPI or greater. Where is the existence of the product your speculating will go into the next ipad, which ships next year is would have a production run of millions of units at launch? You can't hide 5 million new technology displays, or the factory / manufacturer that made them from the world.

Of course why speculate that apple would just be scaling images to a virtual equivalent of that size so it could display them side by side, or that this could possibly be for using an external display. That would just make too much sense. No it has to be some new unknown screen, that no manufacturer has even announced there being a prototype for.

 

[livebriand]

That's a waste of money. I really want a matte screen. My 11.6" laptop, 1366x768, already looks pretty sharp. Who needs more than that? The dpi is likely similar to the ipad's.

 

[smeker]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]they dont. look at the majority of the games, most could run that resolution at current hardware[/citation]

Wrong...

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]agnickolov[/nom]Forget tablets, when are we going to see higher density desktop monitors? 2048x1536 existed in the CRT era yet we use lower resolutions today. The highest screen resolution available only on 30" monitors sold for insane prices is 2560x1600, which is only 64 lines higher and completely unaffordable. The newer 30" models are actually worse at 2560x1440! If it's going to be 16:9 (which I hate BTW), it should have progressed closer to 3840x2160 by now and become affordable... I don't care about movie playback, higher resolution is for better work experience.Say what you will about Apple, their Macs are actually at the forefront of monitor technology with 2560x1440 on 27" monitors in their AIO iMac...[/citation]
There are many other 27" monitors that support 2560x1440 resolution, and trust me, Macs are not at the forefront of display technology. Their are many other options, at least for professionals, that offer better color accuracy, color gamut, viewing angles, and white/black levels for a similar if not lower price.

As for your complaint about low desktop display resolutions, I would assume that has more to do with limitations in digital display interfaces such as DVI than any stagnation in the panel production industry. The max resolution DVI supports at 60Hz is 2560x1600. However, I believe DisplayPort supports up to 3840×2160 at 60Hz, but it also isn't nearly as ubiquitous as DVI yet. So we'll probably have to wait for wider adoption of either DisplayPort or some newer interface before we see monitors with higher resolutions.

 

[twile]

Some people here aren't very smart. You use a tablet at half the distance you do a laptop, so twice the DPI makes sense.

As far as people complaining about GPU performance in games, that assumes you're running at native resolution. And while that's optimal, it's not strictly required. People do more than game on their tablets, after all, and you shouldn't hold back on supporting a higher resolution for some things just because game playback can't run at those resolutions (look at the Xbox 360 and PS3!).

Some people don't see the value in a higher DPI, and that's fair enough. If you're content with the pixel density, then consider yourselves lucky--you have lots of great options on the market. For people who can tell the difference (and statistically speaking, that's most people), it's a compelling advantage.

Honestly people, try to be smart and objective about this stuff. I hate Apple but seriously, these arguments are just not thought through at all.

 

[Zingam]

[citation][nom]highrez2011[/nom]why so many haters???2048x1536 in 10" is GREAT!!!!!!! two full web pages side by side with NO zooming! + smooth as silk font. apple knows how to scale things[/citation]

You obviously have microscope sight! Most people don't. Maybe they double that resolution so you could look at 6 pages at the same time side by side.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

I knew there was a reason I didn't buy an iPad 1 or 2.

 

[livebriand]

Spammers, you do realize that we're not that stupid and we'll just thumb down your comment into oblivion, right?


Do you think it's possible that DP could support 4k in a newer revision? Man, HDMI really doesn't have any benefits here - no support for an analog signal (unlike DVI), and "only" 1080p resolution, plus licensing fees.

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]livebriand[/nom]Do you think it's possible that DP could support 4k in a newer revision? Man, HDMI really doesn't have any benefits here - no support for an analog signal (unlike DVI), and "only" 1080p resolution, plus licensing fees.[/citation]
It seems entirely possible, the current DP spec is already pretty close to a 4K standard (digital cinema 4K is 3996×2160), although more significant changes are probably needed to support full aperture 4K 4096x3112.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]agnickolov[/nom]Forget tablets, when are we going to see higher density desktop monitors? 2048x1536 existed in the CRT era yet we use lower resolutions today. The highest screen resolution available only on 30" monitors sold for insane prices is 2560x1600, which is only 64 lines higher and completely unaffordable. The newer 30" models are actually worse at 2560x1440! If it's going to be 16:9 (which I hate BTW), it should have progressed closer to 3840x2160 by now and become affordable... I don't care about movie playback, higher resolution is for better work experience.Say what you will about Apple, their Macs are actually at the forefront of monitor technology with 2560x1440 on 27" monitors in their AIO iMac...[/citation]
[citation][nom]agnickolov[/nom]Forget tablets, when are we going to see higher density desktop monitors? 2048x1536 existed in the CRT era yet we use lower resolutions today. The highest screen resolution available only on 30" monitors sold for insane prices is 2560x1600, which is only 64 lines higher and completely unaffordable. The newer 30" models are actually worse at 2560x1440! If it's going to be 16:9 (which I hate BTW), it should have progressed closer to 3840x2160 by now and become affordable... I don't care about movie playback, higher resolution is for better work experience.Say what you will about Apple, their Macs are actually at the forefront of monitor technology with 2560x1440 on 27" monitors in their AIO iMac...[/citation]
I fail to see how can Apple be at the forefront of monitor technology when they buy their lcd panels from third parties.

 

[livebriand]

[citation][nom]twile[/nom]Some people here aren't very smart. You use a tablet at half the distance you do a laptop, so twice the DPI makes sense.As far as people complaining about GPU performance in games, that assumes you're running at native resolution. And while that's optimal, it's not strictly required. People do more than game on their tablets, after all, and you shouldn't hold back on supporting a higher resolution for some things just because game playback can't run at those resolutions (look at the Xbox 360 and PS3!).Some people don't see the value in a higher DPI, and that's fair enough. If you're content with the pixel density, then consider yourselves lucky--you have lots of great options on the market. For people who can tell the difference (and statistically speaking, that's most people), it's a compelling advantage.Honestly people, try to be smart and objective about this stuff. I hate Apple but seriously, these arguments are just not thought through at all.[/citation]
It depends. I sit quite close to my 11" netbook. However, it obviously has smaller text than a full-sized 15" laptop at the typical 1366x768 resolution.

 

[doorspawn]

Definitely need to see these types of pixel densities on desktop monitors. I'd pay many 1000s.
And as far as I'm concerned, the squarer the better. 1:1 is my preferred ratio (although widescreen with pivot is quite nice too).

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]they dont. look at the majority of the games, most could run that resolution at current hardware[/citation]
at 5fps??? not worth it, lol

 

[fir_ser]

I believe the hardware will be equivalent to Kal-El.

 

[fir_ser]

Very interesting, and this means the hardware should also be 4 times as powerful as the current hardware.
I believe the hardware will be equivalent to Kal-El.

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]twile[/nom]Honestly people, try to be smart and objective about this stuff. I hate Apple but seriously, these arguments are just not thought through at all.[/citation]
You're new here aren't you?

 

[ProDigit10]

how about just twice the resolution, for 3D? (2048x768)?

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]ProDigit10[/nom]how about just twice the resolution, for 3D? (2048x768)?[/citation]
Anamorphic-like display on a tablet?

 

[elemento911]

Anyone else here that it would also be 3d? After seeing the video on youtube I'm definitely digging that idea. Here's the article I read..

http/www.tabletpccomparison.com/tablet-pc-comparisons/ipad-3-will-come-with-a-3d-display/