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."
Before the flames rise and Slashdot begins to slash the dots, I'd like to thank Apple for helping break the "HD = 1950x1080" fixation the market has. Hopefully monitor tech will get some advances soon.
If they could get away with it, seems like 1920x1080 would be ideal. That's a lot longer/skinner (or shorter/wider) than 2048x1536, but still an incremental improvement over the iPad2 resolution.
Counting the pixels is a pretty good way to figure out how many there are. How else would you do it? The only matter in question is whether or not the screen they were looking at is actually going to be in the iPad 3. That seems likely to be the case, unless this is just some prototype screen that isn't going to go into any device.
So the most commonly used format for digital cinema is 2048x1080 (4K is not widely used, yet). Notice that it is just a little bit wider than 1080p (128 pixels). So either cinematographers have had to scale down the outputs from their digital cameras/post production workstations to use "standard" HD displays (and suffer scaling artifacts), throw away the pixels on the side, or use very expensive professional equipment.
Could the iPad 3 display be used instead? If the iPad 3 has thunderbolt (now THAT would be interesting), could it be used as a (very) portable display?
I am such an Apple Fanboi you wouldn't believe but if Samsung came out with a tablet that, at the flip of a switch, coud be used as a portable, digital cinema ready display, I would buy it so fast it would make Steve Jobs spin. (hope that wasn't too morbid or disrespectful).
You've obviously never played angry birds or plants vs zombies.
I think the pretty and usefulness will be in the proper aliased text presentation. The desktop monitor I'm looking at has only a few useful font sizes for the capital letter "I", ether one pixel wide, two pixels wide, or three pixels wide...anything between is blurry. I would absolutely love to see a true type font that didn't look blurry and didn't require some barely tolerable sub-pixel tricks.
Do yourself a favour, and play with a Transformer or Transformer Prime at your local electronics store, compare the price tags, and then tell me others are struggling to compete on price for something "tolerable". True, Motorola haven't put out a good device that's lasted more than six months since the original Razr, Toshiba really cheaped out on screen quality, and Samsung aren't doing enough to really be different in appearance or utility (not in that they're copying but that there's no reason to get a Galaxy Tab compared to any other tablet), but Asus are easily wiping the floor with Apple in the tablet market right now.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Or you could go find a used trinitron that will run this same resolution and was made about ELEVEN YEARS AGO.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
"Wiping the floor" is a bit of a bold statement - while the Transformer (which is very nice) is $100 cheaper than an iPad, it's hardly wiping the floor - it's not even making a dent, and will now be playing catchup to the new one.
Asus certainly had the right idea - everyone else with their more expensive-than-iPad tablets were never going to get anywhere, but even with a $100 price difference, they're not setting the world on fire.
It's why I have not upgraded my 5 year old macbook pro. You cant get a 1920X1200 laptop screen anymore. WTF is that.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Last time I checked Android phones were using qHD displays almost a year before the iphone 4(the first retina display device) got released.
And there are already phones with 720p HD resolution while the iphone is stuck on that "retina" resolution.
The same I can say about the use of dual core and, now, quad core processors, front cameras, NFC, 3d displays and cameras, etc.
When it comes to hardware, apple is hardly ever ahead. The iOS biggest strength is not hardware, but the software. Low IO latency in particular(GUI latency problems of android were finally fixed with ICS) and security thanks to the authoritarian hardware control proctices Apple is known for. Too bad those advantages come at the high price of having to deal with one of the most strict walled garden in the world.
I still wait for a reasonably prized desktop monitor with resolution beyond 1920x1080 (2560 x 1440 rwould be nice) et's hope that this changes now when tablets will have 50 percent more pixels than standard desktop monitors.
came out march 2011, and the one before that in 2010 about the same time give or take a month.
As a slashdotter whos never used a "tablet computer" I sincerely want to ask mac users, why do you keep buying these? if you select the average ipad its
six-hundred dollars and has a one-time battery that cannot be replaced (or not that apple is willing to inform on their website.)
you will have sunk by this march about $1800 into an appliance that is guaranteed manufactured-obsolete in one year.
You dont do this with cars, televisions, stereos, homes, desktops, laptops, clothes (presumably they last longer than a year)
or any other major consumer purchase, so why do it with tablet computers?
Good people go to bed earlier.
I test out betas of people's android software on my phone all the time. I didn't have to sign up for a silly developer account. I just went in to the settings and checked the box that said "run unsigned code" and it just worked. Good times.
moox. for a new generation.
> Why is 4:3 such a useful aspect ratio?
I don't know, but I agree with the question's implied premise (4:3's high utility).
It's a good question and I wish I knew the answer to it. I couldn't find any historical reference as to why 4:3 was originally chosen for televisions (the details behind the NTSC format are brilliant, but that's a separate topic).
I suspect it was less because it was "optimal", and more because it was an acceptable compromise between a desirable aspect ratio and technical limitations. Remember, back then, when they were using primitive CRTs, the closer to a perfect circle, the easier it was to manufacture, and most efficient rectangular shape was a square. But humans with their two eyes generally want something wider than it is tall (note movie aspect ratios, which were less constrained by technology). A 4:3 aspect ratio provides something which is close enough to a square to efficiently use the technology of the time, but wide enough to provide a somewhat comfortable shape for viewing.
With non-CRT tech, and modern manufacturing technique, there's a lot more freedom to choose a shape which is good for viewing, so it makes sense there's a lot of experimentation with aspect ratios these days.
Personally I love the "medium-wide" aspect ratios like 16:10 for my main hacking monitor; 4:3 feels constraining. Note that I tend to have multiple windows open (multiple editor windows, an editor and some terminal windows, etc) at the same time, and side-by-side windows are vastly preferable to vertically adjacent windows when the windows are tall (typically true of editor windows). A wide aspect ratio fits this usage pretty well. People whose main mode is the MS-style "one-app-window-always-maximized" may have different preferences.
In the case of the ipad, of course, the main style does seem to be "one app visible", and they strongly want a shape which is viable when used either vertically or horizontally. Given those factors, 4:3 does seem a reasonable choice.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
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.
If what you want is a high-res screen, wait a few months - ICS tablets are coming in 1920x1080. Granted, not as high as this baby, but high enough for all practical purposes - Apple really only needs that crazy DPI because they want to be able to 2x-upscale existing iPad apps (just as it was with iPhone 4).
Specifically, I'd wait out for the next Transformer from Asus - by most accounts, it'll be much like Prime, which is already thinner and lighter than iPad 2 while looking mostly similar, except with fixed Wi-Fi reception and 1080p screen.
It'll address that resolution, sure, but it won't display it. I own one such Trinitron. The aperture grille pitch is about 1 pixel wide at 1600x1200. To meet the Nyquist sampling condition, the electron beams must be defocused to at least half that. The resolution of a 1600x1200 LCD is effectively greater than that of a 1600x1200 CRT. Furthermore, the LCD can use subpixel rendering.
Test it yourself: generate images consisting of alternating lines at 1 pixel spacing, and display them at 1:1 scaling on your CRT.
80 characters isn't a bad choice for how most people read. Studies have shown that the ideal (as much as there is one ideal of course, it varies between typefaces, styles and sizes) is around 60 characters. Allowing for a few indents 72 or 80 characters are good guidelines.
But it is only a guildeline. Code is not natural language and the rules are more flexible. You are not just trying to make the code easier to read line by line but you are trying to illustrate its flow in a way that you don't need to with natural language, and sometimes long lines actually help this rather than hinder it.
Using the right tool for the job extends to using the right layout for the code at hand.