Slashdot Mirror
iPad 3 Confirmed To Have 2048x1536 Screen Resolution
bonch writes "After months of reporting on photos of iPad 3 screen parts, MacRumors finally obtained one for themselves and examined it under a microscope, confirming that the new screens will have twice the linear resolution of the iPad 2, with a whopping 2048x1536 pixel density. Hints of the new display's resolution were found in iBooks 2, which contains hi-DPI versions of its artwork. The iPad 3 is rumored to be launching in early March."
Nobody with a smartphone using a 200+dpi display would agree with you.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure how you did your math, but I think 234 is the number you're looking for.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
It looks really nice, but I just can't bring myself to drink the Koolaid and walk into the walled garden. I like a little more freedom in my devices.
Now if you could jail brake it and install Android 4.0 I might consider it for the specs. I have to hand to Apple, they do look damn good.
Apple will only multiply the resolution by two. Anything less compromises the quality of artwork on existing apps.
The DPI measurement is only a measure of width, not a measure of area. You don't quadruple the count when measuring that.
Take a look, you won't find anybody calling the iPad3 500+ dpi. It has a LOWER DPI than the iPhone 4.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
You're going to need to show your work on that one... It looks like you tried to just double the 132, and accidentally came to 234 instead of 264. You're wrong regardless, since the resolution is doubling in both the X and the Y dimensions, meaning that the total pixels per inch should be quadrupled. 4 x 132 = 528.
Pixels per inch is a one dimension unit. 2 x 132 = 264 is correct. 264 ppi along X and 264 ppi along Y.
It has to do with the properties of your eye. At the normal viewing range an average human should not be able to discern pixels. With perfect color also you should not be able to tell the difference between a real thing (through glass) and its displayed photo except for the final and most difficult dimension of vision to overcome: parallax binocular depth.
But I digress. The apex of useful resolution is achieved when you can't see pixels any more. Any improvement after that is wasted effort. Eyes are pretty good on most folks, but this resolution on this display should just about do it.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Windows has supported changing the DPI (so widgets use more pixels) since Windows 3.1. Talk to the application developers.
There are a number of 27" and 30" displays that are 2.5k. The NEC PA271W and PA301W, the HP ZR2740w and ZR30w, the Dell U2711 and U3011, the DoubleSight DS- 277W and DS- 307W and so on.
They are 2560x1440 for the 27s, 2560x1600 for the 30s.
It isn't hard to find for regular old computers. However I imagine anyone shooting in the digital cinema 2k format is probably not concerned about having to get pro gear because they already have it. You have to step up to some pretty expensive cameras before you start talking that. Everything even remotely prosumer is 1920x1080 max since that is what you are targeting for home, of course. If you have to get expensive cameras, an expensive display isn't likely to be a show stopper.
However as I said, plenty of computer displays that do 2k (and more) no problem.
I believe there are a few android devices that have their DPI very close to the iphone 4/4s. I'm pretty sure there's at least one that is higher. Anyway, there is a reason why having a higher DPI is better. It makes everything A LOT clearer. Text becomes much easier to read. This picture compares the iPhone 3GS and an iPhone 4. If you can't see the difference or why one is better, then you should check your eyesight.
No reason not to use a vector-based PDF for graphics in iOS if you wish.
But sometimes you know, it's just nice to get every pixel exactly right - especially when you are talking about the very smallest sizes of something complex.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Unfortunately users at my company will still find a way to run them at 800x600
You laugh, but this is actually a serious reason why we don't have high-DPI displays on the mainstream desktop.
Not everyone has perfect 20/20 vision, or the same tolerance for small print. Many users already have problems reading text on existing displays when set to the default of 96 DPI. Unfortunately, the art of DPI scaling on mainstream OSes is still stuck in the dark ages. There are a LOT of poorly-written applications that assume 96 DPI and display badly broken output if anything else is set. Windows 7 is better than XP in its DPI scaling, but even so, it's far from perfect. Windows doesn't even support vector icons! The best you can do is to create a high-quality raster icon at 256x256 and hope it looks OK when downscaled.
This is why so many users run a LCD monitor at less than the recommended resolution. The slight blurriness is better for them than crystal-clear text too small to read, or various graphical nastiness from broken DPI scaling. Just today, in fact, I dealt with such a situation at work. One of our librarians said that some icons in the library management software were appearing all-black. I'd seen this issue before and knew it was due to the software not supporting 120 DPI, which this librarian had set for easier reading. I tried a few different things to see if I could get it to work – I set the "Disable display scaling" option in Compatibility properties, and also tried XP-style DPI scaling as well as the native Windows 7-style scaling. None of this worked. Ultimately, the only fix was to switch back to 96 DPI and run the monitor at a non-native resolution.
As long as this situation continues, monitor makers see no advantage in higher resolutions than 1080p, since so many users will just sacrifice that resolution for readability anyway.
Confirmed? Really? AWESOME!! Uh, just because I want to see, could someone post a link to Apple's announcement confirming it?
Yeah.
Confirmed. I think you're using that word without knowing what it means...
Ex iphone owner (had 3 of them, never again)
I even think the screen on the iphone 4 is over rated (not to say it isn't brilliant) it's just that the iphone 3 / 3gs was so terrible. If you pull out an 800x480 4.3" Android from Samsung, HTC / Whomever, it still looks a damn sight better than an iphone 3 and only marginally worse than the iphone 4.
I also own a HP Touchpad (1024x768) I believe and 24 and 30" monitors and I've got to say, I do think what they are doing is fantastic for the industry. I'm not sure we needed 4x the pixels (but for their sake, it's simply logical based on software scaling) I will say it'll be good to see higher resolutions across the industry in general though
I'm fairly content with the resolution of the 24" monitor I'm typing this on and the 30" next to it. Honestly if they went up no more than 30% I don't think I'd be able to see a difference beyond that, it's simply a case of diminishing returns (regardless, this move by apple will promote higher resolutions industry wide)
I'm also fairly content with my 800x480 display on my phone - again, 30% more is about all I think I need to be honest, more diminishing returns beyond that. My HP Touchpad could DEFINITELY do with a higher res though, I'd like to see at least 50% more pixels on the thing. Probably the lowest DPI item I own.
Finally, the loungeroom : my television, I hear people clamouring about higher than 1080p resolutions. Personally, I simply don't think it's needed at all. We all sit at least 6' from TV's generally. I'm sitting 6' from a 50" and it's only 720p. I'm more than content with the display. I can only speculate if I owned a true 1080p display I wouldn't desire any more resolution.
What this is going to do for us all though is ensure that in the next 5 to 10 years, resolution of displays will no longer be a problem. The standard will be exceptionally fine by then. Then what we need is better blacks, better movement, 3D without glasses (if possible) higher refresh rates, better colours. It will be nice to finally see resolution simply not be something to worry about.
So, reluctantly - thank you Apple. Now stop suing people and being cocks otherwise...
My wife is a radiology resident, and the monitors they use have unreal resolution. They cost a fortune, and I'm sure they aren't as concerned about lag times and other performance measures for things like gaming or home entertainment.
Here's a supplier offering 8MP color and 10MP black and white monitors: http://www.eizo.com/global/products/radiforce/
The 17" MacBook Pro has a 1920x1200 screen. Is yours a 15" model?
The only 1920x1200 in a 15.x" screen that I know of that's available on new laptops is on the Panasonic Toughbook CF-52.
I'd seen this issue before and knew it was due to the software not supporting 120 DPI, which this librarian had set for easier reading. I tried a few different things to see if I could get it to work – I set the "Disable display scaling" option in Compatibility properties, and also tried XP-style DPI scaling as well as the native Windows 7-style scaling.
What you should do is, find the developer of that app, and punch them in the face. Let me explain why.
Windows could do "DPI scaling" for ages - I think it was there in Win95 already? definitely before XP, anyway. But, the way it did it, it was really just a global setting that all apps could read. Some Windows APIs respected it also - e.g. CreateDialog and friends, where you had to specify sizes of widgets in "dialog units", and said units would change according to DPI. VB6 also measured everything in "twips" rather than pixels, also DPI-aware. But many other APIs, even stock Win32 ones, dealt in physical pixels; and so did most apps in practice. At best you'd get correct scaling for stock Windows dialogs and Office...
That was the way it all worked up until Vista. In Vista, the status quo was found to be too broken to maintain, and they've decided to break things a bit so that the defaults would be more palatable. So they've introduced a concept of DPI-aware app - meaning that its author would have to make an explicit API call to tell the OS that, yes, he knows what DPI is, and, yes, he can do proper vector scaling where possible.
Obviously, none of the existing apps did that API call, in which case the OS assumed that they do not know how to properly render themselves at DPI other than default, and performed bitmap scaling on their top-level windows after they were rendered. The result is far from perfect, of course, since what you get are huge ugly upscaled pixels. But at least it was consistently ugly, and it actually made things bigger - which is kinda important for people with bad sight. The assumption was that, for unmaintained legacy apps, it's "good enough", and for maintained ones the authors would get complaints from their users, finally figure out the whole DPI thing, fix their apps, and opt out of bitmap scaling via the aforementioned API call.
Also, when you enable "XP-style DPI scaling", you're basically just disabling bitmap scaling and preventing the OS from lying to the app to pretend that DPI is always at 96 - so even if app did not declare itself as DPI-aware, it would still see the real value and try to handle it the best it can. It's mainly there for old apps that were never updated for Vista, but which were written correctly to begin with.
For the most part, the scheme works - as you note yourself, Win7 is much better than XP in that regard. Unfortunately, there's still no shortage of idiots who call SetProcessDPIAware (or set the equivalent in their app manifest) without actually them being aware of what it means, and what their obligations are when they do it. From your description, it sounds like you've run into one of those cases.
Now, since all this stuff that I've explained above is clearly spelled out in MSDN, and since DPI-aware is not the default setting even for new apps - you have to actually know how to enable it, which implies that you've read at least the summary of what the setting does on MSDN. So clearly, for any developers who did so and still managed to go away without understanding what they do, the only recourse is a face punch - since any attempt to gently educate was lost on them already.
I hated CRT monitors - they always got blurry when you ran them at super-high resolutions. Of course, I never bought the $2000 high end ones... (and having to run at 85Hz meant the monitor really only did 800x600).
The real reason cheap screens are 720p or 1080p is because the processing electronics is trivially cheap. It's basically the same as a regular HDTV. And that gives you a VGA and DVI/HDMI input "for free". To do 1920x1200 requires a different video processing chip for the monitor, which costs a lot more money because of the limited market (one reason why a 24" 1080p is available for under $200, while a 24" 1920x1200 is $500+).
Apple can do this because they're making these things by the millions, so they can buy in such huge quantities that high res stuff is cheap for them.
Are you kidding me? I'm voiding a couple mods I made but I just had to respond to this... utterly false statement. Have you ever done any iOS development at all? How about any Mac OS X development? Have you ever seen the Xcode developer tools? How about the Interface Builder component of Xcode? I've got a hunch that you haven't so I'm going to describe what it's like.
Interface builder is a WYSIWIG UI layout tool that generates XML files defining an application's interface to be loaded at runtime. Just about every app written for iOS has at least one of these interface files. The programmer uses Interface Building by dragging and dropping UI elements onto a sample device screen. You can resize and remask any element, as well as define new object templates with different appearance and behaviors. UIView objects, the base type of any interface element in the API, can be tweaked in an uncountable number of ways, as well as nested in other UIViews. The UI elements are linked to an Objective-C class that they are considered members of through a graphical relationship view.
Merely playing around with Interface Building for ten minutes will show you just how well iOS handles graphical scaling. Every piece of the UI kit is vector graphics and runtime rendering. Your uninformed conjecture has no basis in fact. Slashdot really needs a -1 wrong mod.