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."
I'm getting one!
This signature has Super Cow Powers
For reference, how does that compare to the DPI in iPhones?
I'm looking forward to desktop displays getting increased resolution and 4:3 aspect ratios back some day. It's mildly ridiculous that we'll have the mobile device market to thank for it.
...Samsung at least 2 months to make a cheaper, worse clone of!
Apple sure as hell didn't confirm anything. So basically we have someone who looked at a screen, that may or may not be for the iPad 3, under a microscope and "counted the pixels".
Again Slashdot titles are redefining words in the English language.
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.
They needed a microscope? Why not just take a screenshot?
2048x1536? My 21" monitor isn't even that high resolution and I can barely see the pixels. You're trying to tell me a 10" ipad is going to have higher resolution than my 21" monitor? Seems like a waste, especially on an iPad.
Give it a month, and Asus will edge that out and look ten times better doing it.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
...what exactly does this mean for current Apps?
Considering pretty much every tablet/mobile app takes the full screen. I mean, videos will look nice, but there aren't any large collections of videos in that resolution (that I know of), so wouldn't the upscaling actually make it look worse?
After the service I got on the ipad1 to ios5, I could give a rats behind. They broke mine and thousands of others, Ipad1 with IOS5 crashes constantly and since November have refused to do anything. I will never buy another Apple Product.. Screw them. Believe it or not, the moronic fanboys on the Apple forums are actually saying "well if they don't fix it by the time the ipad 3 comes out, I guess I'll just buy one of those" The main reason companies like this are able to thrive is this wierd fanboy mentality. Nothing more.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Unfortunately users at my company will still find a way to run them at 800x600
I for one welcome our new high resolution overlords, I have yet to see a display with too much resolution. I have seen displays with too low of a refresh rate.
This is not surprising at all. Most iOS developers expected no change in screen resolution until 2x was possible. The repositioning of screen widgets and the scaling of bitmap images works better with whole number multiples. If 2x is the multiple then the iPad 3 could automatically recycle the 2x bitmap images found in iPhone 4 aware apps.
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).
It will provoke technical problems as:
JCPM: not all is silvered bullet, the problems could exist, e.g. unexpected glitches due to their hw/sw bugs.
There have long been higher res displays. However there's some serious limits to their usefulness, which is why they aren't widespread.
One big one is that until recently OSes didn't have good resolution independence, and still to this day many apps don't. Windows Vista got top notch resolution scaling but if apps don't support it they can break badly, or just fail to scale.
Another is video memory. More pixels = more VRAM particularly when you talk 3D. Now this is not a big deal, we have lots, but wasn't long ago that 256MB was considered "high end" and 64MB was common for cheaper stuff.
Along those lines there is GPU power. If you are just fiddling with 2D stuff this isn't a big deal but if you are pushing 3D, more pixels means more strain. Double the rez in each direction you need 4 times the ROPs to get the same framerate at a given detail level.
Then there's interface bandwidth. Gets to be a bit of a trick to push lots of data through inexpensive connectors. Dual link DVI was the only way to go, and that capped out at not all that high of a rez. DP 1.2 and HDMI 1.4 solve this, but are quite new.
Of course then to all that there is the cost. Pixels mean transistors and more transistors mean more cost. You can't just increase pixel density and expect pricing to be the same.
So it is a situation that only now are all the pieces falling in to place. Only once you have an OS (and apps) that support it, a readily available interface that can push the data, a GPU that can produce the data and has the memory to hold it and costs are low enough to make it economically feasible does it make sense to start pushing it on a larger scale.
However for all that, if you want higher rez displays you can have them. There are 2.5k 27" and 30" displays that aren't too bad price wise. You can have 4k displays too, but they are extremely expensive.
people, make 4K displays.
for me.
Asus makes cheap junk. The Transformer's GPS doesn't even work despite being advertised, and many people are experiencing a flaw where you have to physically squeeze the end of the case to make the wifi antenna work. If you honestly believe that Asus will "edge that out and look ten times better doing it," you are a fanboy who just hates anything Apple does.
- "Hey, John. Stop playing around with your tablet and get out in the real world."
- "But moooom, this is the iPad 3!, it has BETTER resolution than the real world!"
"Asus are easily wiping the floor with Apple in the tablet market right now."
The iPad is so popular that it's outselling desktop PCs. Apple is #1 in the tablet market, with the only competitor even remotely in sight being the Kindle Fire due to price. Do people like you actually believe that Asus is beating Apple in the tablet market? For god's sake, the Transformer doesn't even run Android 4.0.
You're an Android shill. Plain and simple.
See subject.
That's ridiculous. Apple is selling so many iPads that they could buy Greece. Like it or not, they're the #1 tablet vendor by an enormous margin. Your post is just shilling for Asus for some reason.
Apple has a huge parts supply advantage here (many seem to forget what Tim Cook was responsible for before becoming CEO). It's why they seem to be able to come out with technology that others aren't selling yet and sell it at a lower price than what others can sell. Remember when everyone expected the iPad to be $1000? They sold at $500, and it took like a year before competitors offered any halfway decent tablets for less than $800.
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.
Congratulations! You've been quoted in SomethingAwful's Android laugh factory thread mocking crazy Android fanboys found on the web!
What do you get when you cross a nigger and a octopus? Something that's really fucking good at picking cotton!
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.
Such a beautiful high resolution screen, covered with greasy finger prints and glare.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
If you are doing small screen monitoring, full rez isn't useful. You can't see all the detail, it is below what your eye can perceive, so scaling it down a bit doesn't hurt.
Remember that while for playback you are just worried about everything looking as clear an unpixellated as possible, for production you are worried about seeing all the detail that is there to make sure that it is clear and unproblematic.
Most pro cameras have displays far less than their native rez. No sense in trying to pack 1920x1080 or more in to a 4" LCD. I'd be a waste of money.
Aren't Asus tablets the ones that can't do WiFi or GPS because Asus forgot that metal blocks radio?
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 have a Macbook Pro 17" with a 1900x1200 display.
Due to being a cheap bastard, I also have a pretty cheap external standard 1080p widescreen monitor...
Although I can use it, I really do not like the widescreen monitor for any real work. Yes you can fit more side by side but the screen is just too short and you end up scrolling a lot, regardless of what the work is - coding, photography, writing books, reading books, it's just too short. Think about it, that's only 1024 pixels - hardly higher than an iPad (well an old iPad)!
A widescreen monitor also cannot, as an aside fit a whole iPad simulator in it at a 1:1 scale do the aforementioned fact it's basically the same size as the screen..
I am mulling over the 4:3 monitors choices I can find and will replace it eventually...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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
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.)
The basic models are $500. They are perfectly usable, it's only if you used them heavily you would really need more than the base storage (especially now that you could simply load some apps on demand and delete them when finished, and play most music off iCloud).
The battery can be replaced by Apple, I think a $99 fee. However the first iPad I bought has not needed a battery change yet.
Also the first iPad is perfectly usable, there is no "mandatory upgrade" when Apple releases a new iPad. The same is true of an iPad 2, those who bought them could continue using them happily for many years.
Part of what I think drives some of the upgrade is that people want to give away the older model to other family members so they will also have an iPad. Then, there are families who decide they would rather have an iPad each so they can better customize what is on the device.
But basically the biggest flaw is your assumption that most people upgrade year to year. They do not, Apple is mostly seeing new sales... and they are going to sell a LOT this year.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Such a beautiful high resolution screen, covered with greasy finger prints and glare.
The thing is, even as bright as the iPads are already you do not see any of that when on - and the new ones are brighter still, cutting through glare rather handily.
Now when off you will see all that but only someone obsessed by looks over function cares about that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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...
We'll have to wait 'til the real device is out to see how all the hardware manages this large number of pixels, but on point six - I think it could have an impact as that's more resolution than the e-Ink devices offer and judging from how it is to read on the iPhone 4, will make for a VERY nice reading experience.
Imagine this also for graphic art novels, very nice.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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...
‘iOS 5’ Makes The iPad Truly Magical by Magician Simon Pierro. http://goo.gl/82SO4
We have THREE display connection standards that basically stuck us to a 2560 x 1600 max resolution and the big differences between them is DRM hardware that adds to their costs and totally different cables and a market of adapters and cables.
My "old" DVI drives my 30" at the max resolution. HDMI was not progress, the DRM stuff is a backwards step. Then we have Display Port which didn't give us much but more BS the only redeeming thing seems to be the ThunderBolt external PCI built onto it.
I'd like 2560x2560 @100ppi with minimal borders please. These wide things suck to put next to each other, its so bad that one thinks of stacking vertical than going side by side. Subpixel anti-aliasing doesn't work rotated 90 degrees or I'd start lining up 30" displays.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The way you do it is you sell the old one after you buy the new one. Also conflating "iPad user" with "Mac user" is incorrect. A whole lot of people are buying these, and I doubt most of them are Mac users.
Here's the costing:
iPad 1: $629 (3g/16gb)
iPad 2: $729 (3g + 32gb)
Sell iPad 1: $400
iPad 1 cost: $229/year
Theoretical:
Buy iPad 3: $629 (3g/16gb)
Sell iPad 2: $525
iPad 2 cost: $100/year
The iPad 2s should be worth more than the iPad 1s over the same time frame. If I had waited until the flood of iPad 1s abated I could have sold the iPad 1 for at least $75 more. I'll do that when I sell my iPad 2.
Note that this is why you keep the original box - because you probably will resell your iPad...and you get more if it comes in the original box (that's true of almost all Apple products).
The iPad isn't obsolete, far from it. iPad 1s are still great - for most people the iPad 1 would have been fine; they run everything except Facetime. Pretty much every game/app I have that runs on the iPad 2 runs just fine on the iPad 1, including Mame. It's just things look better on the iPad 2.
This is one of the benefits of having your own team do everything.
While Android struggles mightily trying to render screens smoothly at today's resolutions*, Apple jumps ahead and renders a display with a whole lot more pixels a whole lot better. Or will, when the iPad 3 comes out.
* Most Android users don't seem to care that their display doesn't render well, for some reason. Do you guys just not see it, or don't care about it?
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/
crappy tablets get a higher resolution lcd screen and all capped at 1080p..
The iPad will finally be better than Nook Color and Kindle Fire. It's really hard to go back to the mediocre iPad screen after using a Nook Color or Kindle Fire for any length of time.
Kriston
You are, of course, free to whatever you want to your iDevice after you've bought it. Root it, run over it with your car, sell it to that nice Nigerian prince that keeps emailing you, knock yourself out. Nobody is stopping you. And Jobs would have been the first one to tell you to right ahead and buy whatever product it is that you want, same as if you wanted a computer with a built-in floppy drive in 1998. Whoop de freakin do - no one is holding a gun to your head here to buy something.
So yes, I will call out the whining about "walled gardens" for the selective, self-important wankery it is. Think about that over a nice, juicy, sterilized Big Mac.
You are, of course, free to whatever you want to your iDevice after you've bought it.
I want to sync it to my Linux workstation. How do I do that?
Netcraft, obviously.
I just sold my ipad2 because I found I couldn't read a book on a sunny day and that connector seemed weak to be plugging in and out with a daily battery life.
I'd prefer lower res. I understand the marketability of high res but it takes a lot of hardware and battery to drive that, no?
A blog I run for the wealth
Now Apple will sue anyone who else that makes a tablet with a 2048x1536 screen..
Why?
Yep, I can understand the concept of HD and having huge resolutions on large displays to avoid pixellation of an image.
But what benefit does this bring to a tiny 7" or 10" screen. I own two Android Phones, an Asus Transformer tablet and the missus owns an iPhone and a HP Tablet. I can't personally say that the displays are anything but excellent on any of those devices... yep, the screens on smartphones may be a bit "small" for reading ebooks and other such stuff but unless I plan on wearing super-magnifying glasses with 2" thick lenses made from the bottoms of glass bottles, how does a higher resolution on a smaller display benefit? Or carry a microscope round with me, of course!
I think this is one of those "marketing features" designed to allow Apple fanbois to elevate themselves one step higher than the rest of us so that can peer down their long pointy noses at the rest of we great unwashed from even loftier heights.
Windows 10 is great - I used it to download Linux.
iPad 3 16GB - $800
iMicroscope Visual Display Appreciation Unit - $400
Box of iTissues to clean ejaculate from from of Fanboi's knickers - $100
2048x1536 pixel density
That's not what density means, idiot.
Why the fuck they can manufacture this cheaply, and we don't have cheap 2048x1536 desktop LCDs?!?
Widescreen is good for watch movies and playing games. 4:3 is for people who need to do work on their PC.
1/3 of an arc MINUTE, sorry... not second. cripes, 1/3 of an arc second is completely impossible, since the sizes involved are smaller than the rod and cone cells in the actual retina itself. I meant to say 1/3 of an arc minute (which is 20 arc-seconds).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
yeah a real step up for display technology, take it into the real world and its still FAIL as soon as daylight gets near it, use it (or try to) on a sunny day or in a car and i cant even see if its switched on never mind actually use it
Have actual ownership of my device that I paid for? Sounds crazy I know....
No, the only crazy thing is that you think you don't own the device if you paid for it. If you absolutely require ability to install malware/pirated apps, jailbreak it. Most people simply don't miss the piracy/malware.
If I want their hardware I must accept their terms, drink the Koolaid, enter the walled garden, and become one the Shiny Happy People.
That is simply trollish nonsense, and an insult to the hundreds of millions of people who own Apple products. Why is this trolling modded up?
I have never owned an Apple product in my life, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with doing so, or the people who do.
Though I do wonder about those who have massive nerd rage over something as simple as a walled garden ecosystem. If you don't like it, don't buy. There is zero need to insult those who do like it, or raise you BP.
First I'm making stupid typo's... then I apparently hit "post" instead of "reply". Can I please restart this day?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Our reality: Apple doubles tablet resolution; Slashdot rolls eyes and talks about how unnecessary it is and how it confirms Apple is all about style over substance and is just a distraction from the evil / closed nature of the company and platform.
Somewhere, in an alternate reality: Samsung ships a 250DPI 10" tablet; Slashdot explodes in triumph with talks about how it's the most amazing breakthrough ever, will revolutionize tablet use, and confirms Android's role as an innovation leader and the general superiority of the completely open platform.
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
I just don't give a damn! Why is there a /. story about screen resolution??? OFFS! a slow news category so that I can filter it out.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
PPI race is gearing up to fail like the megapixel race for digital cameras or the MHz race for CPU's. True black and not grey, contrast ratio and vibrant colors are much more pleasant than high PPI.
You can get a widescreen one that does 2560x1440, which is plenty to scroll and fit pretty much anything you like.
Yes, that would be fine. It really is more about minimum number of vertical pixels than anything else. for me.
Personally, I find that even 1080 pixels vertically is plenty for me on a 27" screen
That's what I have. It is generally too small. It's not of course unusable, I do use it, but when I have a 1900x1200 display right next to it (my laptop) it gets frustrating quickly to have more vertical space on my laptop screen than the supposedly "larger" monitor!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Nobody with a smartphone is using it from the distance you'd view a 9.7-inch tablet.
I was not aware people's arms changed length depending on the device they are holding.
I am very much looking forward to the higher DPI iPad for reading, but also if you think about it for another strength - drawing!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A *healthy* human eye can resolve details approximately 1/3 of an arc minute across. At about 8" of distance, that works out to about 20 microns in size. The iPad3 has pixels that are about 80 microns in size.
[citation needed]
From all I've learned -- and I'm away from my primary sources at the moment, but here's a Wikipedia page that summarizes the issue -- a *perfect* human eye under *optimal* conditions can resolve details a maximum of 0.4 arcmin across. That corresponds to approximately 20/8 vision. The standard "normal vision" for a "healthy eye" is 20/20, corresponding to the traditional 1-arcmin resolution. And, again, that's under optimal conditions of distance and lighting -- if you're in normal indoor lighting, or in a twilight or night setting, you'll have trouble doing even that well.
Now, there are other issues, like vernier acuity, that mean resolution beyond these limits can matter. But in that realm, you can use antialiasing and other perception-informed techniques to get around the issue.
In practice, 80 microns at 12 inches is a perfect match for normal visual perception. If your vision is much sharper than this, congratulations; enjoy it while you can. (Presbyopia strikes even the sharpest-eyed of us in the end.)
If you paid for an iPad then looks over function is what you care about.
Obviously not since non-iPad devices are less functional. People buying Android tablets currently do so on the brand name more than how they can make use of it.
I don't mind if you're shallow, you can stop trying to pretend otherwise.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hi: What are the actual HxV lineal resolutions of the devices we're talking about here? Most CRT displays uses for Windows run around 100 lineal dpi. The iPad 3 mentioned here may have a lineal resolution of around 250 dpi. Are the pixels square? I've read the posting and many of the comments here, but can't seem to get a clear picture of the physicals. -- Roy Zider
FTFY. If your jailbreak causes hardware problems on your iDevice, on what planet should Apple be responsible for that, anymore than installing an aftermarket part in your engine (that blows up) should be warrantied by Ford?
Apple haterz need to find one person who has had warranty coverage denied because of a software jailbreak that caused no physical damage to the phone before this argument holds any water.
Why does this argument apply to Apple and only Apple in the real of consumer electronics? You don't see the WATB brigade marching on Microsoft for not making the XBox an open platform, or HTC for having to root your Android phone to delete applications you don't want.
I'm someone who's tired of smug pedants who either make false or selective arguments. And since you skipped it the first time:
And Jobs would have been the first one to tell you to right ahead and buy whatever product it is that you want, same as if you wanted a computer with a built-in floppy drive in 1998. Whoop de freakin do - no one is holding a gun to your head here to buy something.
Because the parent was just talking about the Golden Arches, that's why.
....to notice that I said "to" and not "with".
By writing your own drivers to do whatever it is you want to do. Any more questions?