Rumor: Apple Working on iPad 'HD' With Retina

[eklipz330]

[citation][nom]S J W[/nom]No its true. This ridiculous resolution is just fantasy, as what on earth would the point of it? What possibly real life practical applications would need such a high resolution? It will be merely a stupid number for idiots to gloat about how superior there pad is over other peoples.[/citation]
well i'm glad you like purchasing inferior products! or you just have really bad buyers remorse. get over it.
[citation][nom]S J W[/nom]NO? Its not sick at all? Its like saying your BMW has the ability to go 300mph, but the wheels will only go up to 150mph before falling apart. Its just bragging rights. This resolution is completely useless, as you won't even the see the extra resolution in effect, as the screen size is too small![/citation]
ok don't get it. simple enough for you? people said the same thing about the iphone 4, but you know what? it still manages to look great. i say keep pushing those pixels higher and higher, until you can't even see they are there when your an inch away from the screen

 

[dkant1n]

I wonder how that will affect graphics performance and battery life

 

[lordravage]

I still have a few old CRT monitors sitting around that run at 2048x1536. I always found it funny that people thought HD monitors at 1920x1080 were so amazing since the old CRTs had higher resolution years before. Why didn't everybody go crazy for high rez CRT screens? Partly because running at a resolution 4x that of 1024x768 requires a lot more graphical power. The current gen iPads struggle already if you run the more intensive games. If the resolution goes up and there isn't a vast improvement in the GPU, everyone will be oohing and ahhing over games with high resoultion, low polygon count, low res textured graphics. But then again I remember hearing people gush about how amazing it was to have stereo sound for games on the iPad, so it's clear you can astound people with old technology in a shiny new form factor.

 

[Guest]

The iPhone 4 has 326 PPI. It's said that the human eye can only view up to 300 PPI unassisted. So the iPhone maybe higher than what is needed. Frames per second/Hertz has had trivial statements made as well, like the fact that 30fps was great, 60fps was better and now with 3D we need even higher fps. Who knows the future of increasing PPI above 300. I remember the light kits for the old Gameboy that blew size of the screen, that would count as an eye assistant. Maybe Steve Jobs will have iBifocals that he's planning on using to zoom into hidden features in the iPhone 15.

 

[scuba dave]

[citation][nom]dcompart[/nom]I agree and disagree, from the stand point we don't have higher resolution desktop screens that are in the common dimensions, but we do hold smartphones much closer to our eyes than we do with desktop screens and even farther with HD TVs.[/citation]

Agreed. Having a better (higher) resolution is a much better thing, up until you can't see the pixels individually at about 4-6 inches from the face. But even more so than that, I would prefer for the pixel density of TV's and desktops to take a step up for once.. For how long has 1920x1200 been, basically, the standard?(I refuse to acknowledge the existance 1920x1080 for computers) and 2560x1600( same for 1440)

But beyond that, while I do feel bad for those that bought the iPad 2, if they release this so soon, I can't really feel too bad.. It's the way of the world.. The latest and greatest is always around the corner.

 

[walter87]

@eklipz330
Theres a difference when you compare a small portable device like the iPhone to a large screen device. All phones at the time were either qVGA of hVGA and not anything near HD.
This new resoultion for the iPad HD will be beyond 1080P on a mere 10" screen. Have you ever tried watching a regular DVD movies on a 1080p screen? The down-scaling makes the image awful. Only apps completely redesigned for the resolution will be optimized for that resolution and the rest will look stretched thin.

 

[jacobdrj]

I too would love to see 326 dpi on a 30" LCD...

 

[FloKid]

iTech is great but what about what iWant to do on myPad?

 

[opmopadop]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom] when i have a 24 inch computer monitor, and the best you can get for under 1000$ is 1920x1200?[/citation]
Your choice of monitor vendor is just as crap as your english.

 

[jamie_1318]

@SJB, 300DPI is nowhere near a fantasy, and @ dcompart where did you hear that it is the limit of human perception? on photos that people are likely to view real close printers often go up to 1600DPI or 1200DPI, and personally I like to print at 600DPI because you can really tell the difference at about 6" (comfortable viewing distance for many people) and at least 300DPI is the standard for printing pretty much anywhere. 326DPI is great for giving everything a sharp feel when it is about a foot away from your face. Not a Crapple fan boy here but they calculated the pixel density based on hard math for viewing from 1 foot away. Personally I congratulate them for doing something so sensible pixel wise at least.

on a PC monitor I would like to see them pushing 200DPI at least for about a foot and a half away so I wouldn't have to deal with these jagged square boxes in my vision all the time. the money might be better spent on higher contrast and more color accuracy but more pixels is not a bad thing.

 

[distanted]

[citation][nom]tomrippity02[/nom]Doubtful. Even if it were a hundred dollars more, a lot of people who buy iPads have money to burn. A friend of mine got the cheapest iPad, not because of the money, but because he didn't think he needed all of the space, but if he thought the screen were much better, he might still have paid and the extra space would have been a nice added feature. Also, people love watching movies and view photography or playing games on the iPad and all of those would benefit from a high resolution right? If so, its not just for professionals.[/citation]

First of all, I doubt if Apple intends to sell an iPad with four times the pixel count for a mere $100 more. If that was the case, they could have simply built it into the iPad 2 knowing that Apple consumers would most likely accept a $100 price hike for all the improvements the 2 offers over the 1. I think this thing is going to be a lot more, like at least $300 more (probably higher). It's not only the screen that will have to be improved but the GPU and probably the battery.

Secondly, I'm not saying some casual users won't have the money to buy it, but I think the $300+ difference will create two distinct classes of iPads, pretty much like Apple's long history of having a consumer oriented line and a pro line, as the author pointed out.

Thirdly, unless they've revamped their entire library, iTunes movies top out at 720p. Even if they upscale it on the fly (seems unlikely on an iPad) I don't think at that screen size anybody would notice any improvement, so it seems unlikely that this is what's driving the 2048 x 1536 iPad. Games would be improved IF the game designers update their apps to incude the new resolution...when and if they do would probably be dictated by how many of their customers use the 2048 x 1536 iPad. Photography and artwork would obviously look great at 300+ dpi. Also, it would make it easier to edit imagery at those resolutions. But, one thing the current iPads lack that all serious photographers and artists need is color management. Datacolor has a workaround, but it only works on its gallery viewer. So, if this beast does exist, I think it will come with pro features like screen calibration.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]opmopadop[/nom]Your choice of monitor vendor is just as crap as your english.[/citation]
samsung syncmaster t240hd

name me the sub 1000$ that is 2560x1600 that is worth it for the price

 

[acadia11]

Don't care, Ipad 2, is my last Ipad , I'd rather be able to have full flash and full java support,so I can experience all the 4.5 billion websites on the net! And that means windows 8 tablet , here I come!!!! And I'm pretty sure they'll be dozens if not more tablets with full HD capability and better screens than retina.

 

[happyballz]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]anyone else thing that its sick that a 10 inch screen, and what is basically a full computer, will get a resolution close to 2560x1600 for about 500$ (possibly a bit more), when i have a 24 inch computer monitor, and the best you can get for under 1000$ is 1920x1200?[/citation]

Even though it was not related to me, your original post asks for 1920x1200 for under $1000... there is dozens of them for under $400. For example I just got HP LA2405wg for work for a cool $215, it might be "just" TN panel but you asked for resolution and here you go.

And that thing is a far cry from a full-blown powerful computer any way you want to twist it.

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]samsung syncmaster t240hdname me the sub 1000$ that is 2560x1600 that is worth it for the price[/citation]

There a 30" Hp that is 2560x1600, and as for the "worth the price" is subjective to certain individual based on his or her criteria.
http/www.google.com/products/catalog?q=2560x1600&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&oe=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=16928911374078793615&sa=X&ei=7kgcTt5qs7PQAa7ftLkH&ved=0CEAQ8wIwAQ#scoring=tp
Notice the size...there is a reason its that big...and remember the panels for Apple devices usually come from Samsung; meaning they already had this technology but did not use it for that exact reason = not enough benefit per price point. But more power to them its not like I will waste my money on it.

 

[Userremoved]

Yes and watch as the A5 will be barely able to render Angry Birds at that resolution.

 

[belardo]

I want a 27~28" display that does 2560x1600 res... for under $1000.

30" display is too big... and I want a sharper screen.

Sucks that NOW all 21~26" displays are TV HD resolutions... hate 16:9 for computer use. No more 1900x1200.

 

[belardo]

So yeah, an iPad (or any tablet) with very high res would be great. At least 1600x1200 would be a nice bump without overwhelming a GPU.

 

[lemonadesoda]

Higher resolution doesnt mean smaller text, but better quality text. Don't confuse "retina" display with a Windows non-scaled desktop, but think of it as "printer quality rendering" on your screen. No need for anti-alias or cleartype if you can render at higher dpi. And contrast improves. Cleartype is great at improving smoothness but at a cost of losing edge sharpness. HD/Retina brings back the sharpness.

The iPAD isnt far off the same size as a typical piece of paper (A4, letter), but it CANNOT render a legible full page like a printed page. With HD/retina is would do a better job, and it becomes a great pdf reading device.

 

[lemonadesoda]

Higher resolution doesnt mean smaller text, but better quality text. Don't confuse "retina" display with a Windows non-scaled desktop, but think of it as "printer quality rendering" on your screen. No need for anti-alias or cleartype if you can render at higher dpi. And contrast improves. Cleartype is great at improving smoothness but at a cost of losing edge sharpness. HD/Retina brings back the sharpness.

The iPAD isnt far off the same size as a typical piece of paper (A4, letter), but it CANNOT render a legible full page like a printed page. With HD/retina is would do a better job, and it becomes a great pdf reading device.