How big a deal would a retina iPad display be?

[micrometers]

IMO retina was a huge deal for te iPhone and iPod touch. What about the iPad though? It is larger and generally is held further away.

 

[cheez]

^ Actually that would be bad for the iPad. Oh, and it is bad for iPod and iPhones too already.

The reason being is that the viewing angle is terrible. Yeah the pixels are tight, and will support nice and high definition resolutions. But the viewing angle and the motion handling isn't so good. Samsung has already come out with Super AMOLED Plus screen technology that will far exceed the iPad 3 if Apple is going to go with Retina display..... unless they fix the viewing angle and motion issues, but I think, they would need to the drop that tech altogether and invent something very different to just to catch up.

 

[ViRGE]

The viewing angle is terrible? Cheez, certainly you've at least tried an iPhone and not just an iPod Touch? The iPhone is IPS, the viewing angle is absolutely fantastic.

Anyhow, to answer the question at hand, given the larger viewing distance for using a tablet I'm not sure it would noticeably help like it did on the iPhone. However I suppose it's something you have to try to be sure of.

 

[cheez]

The viewing angle is terrible? Cheez, certainly you've at least tried an iPhone and not just an iPod Touch? The iPhone is IPS, the viewing angle is absolutely fantastic.

I have an iPod Touch 4. The viewing angle is jaw dropping terrible.D:

One my family members has just got an iPhone 4S. Surprisingly, the viewing angle seemed good! Very different than the iPod Touch. Why is that?? Did Apple change something?

 

[ViRGE]

Ahh, that's what I figured. So the iPod Touch uses a 3.5" 960x640 (i.e. retina) display, but it's not the same type of panel. The iPhone uses a high-end IPS panel - it has full 8 bit color and fantastic viewing angles. The iPod Touch uses a low-end TN panel to make up for the fact that it's a cheap device - the resolution is the same, but it offers fewer colors and much worse viewing angles.

 

[MrX8503]

^ Actually that would be bad for the iPad. Oh, and it is bad for iPod and iPhones too already.

The reason being is that the viewing angle is terrible. Yeah the pixels are tight, and will support nice and high definition resolutions. But the viewing angle and the motion handling isn't so good. Samsung has already come out with Super AMOLED Plus screen technology that will far exceed the iPad 3 if Apple is going to go with Retina display..... unless they fix the viewing angle and motion issues, but I think, they would need to the drop that tech altogether and invent something very different to just to catch up.

Uh...IPS has great viewing angles. You're spreading misinformation.

The iPhone4 has an IPS screen, which has great viewing angles and is regarded as the screen tech of choice for photo professionals. The iPod Touch 4 screen is probably TN, which has terrible viewing angles. Apple used an inferior screen to cut costs.

The SAMOLED+ is nice....but there isn't a retina screen for that yet.

Retina for the iPad3 will be a big deal. It'll be the first retina tablet I believe and its going to look like printed paper.

 

[cheez]

Ahh, that's what I figured. So the iPod Touch uses a 3.5" 960x640 (i.e. retina) display, but it's not the same type of panel. The iPhone uses a high-end IPS panel - it has full 8 bit color and fantastic viewing angles. The iPod Touch uses a low-end TN panel to make up for the fact that it's a cheap device - the resolution is the same, but it offers fewer colors and much worse viewing angles.

^ Ah no wonder! My display looks like crap compare to hers! It's a night and day difference in both color and viewing angles.

 

[bearxor]

Yeah, you can even find replacement front glass with screen for an iPhone 4 that are less than $30, but they use TN panels. I don't think a lot of people really notice unless they have an IPS screen to directly compare it to.

 

[runawayprisoner]

IMO retina was a huge deal for te iPhone and iPod touch. What about the iPad though? It is larger and generally is held further away.

But even held further away, 1024 x 768 rears its ugly head. It's true that you generally hold the iPad further away, but not as far away as a laptop screen.

I typically find that I hold the iPhone about 1/4 the distance to my Macbook screen, and the iPad about 1/2 the same distance. When PPI is divided equally, that means that my Macbook at 4x the distance of the iPhone needs a PPI of 1/4 that of the iPhone for me to not be able to discern individual pixels, which is reasonable.

Here's an article about the same thing:
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/06/do-you-really-need-300-ppi-on-a-3-5-inch-phone/

Typically, I hold my Macbook about... 20" away from my face. At that distance, my Macbook's 110ppi doesn't really bother me because I can't see individual pixels anymore (if the above article holds true).

But the iPad with 130ppi at 12" away from my face is really begging for me to see its pixels, and I can do that without having to be really particular about it.

 

[cheez]

Uh...IPS has great viewing angles. You're spreading misinformation.

The iPhone4 has an IPS screen, which has great viewing angles and is regarded as the screen tech of choice for photo professionals. The iPod Touch 4 screen is probably TN, which has terrible viewing angles. Apple used an inferior screen to cut costs.

The SAMOLED+ is nice....but there isn't a retina screen for that yet.

Retina for the iPad3 will be a big deal. It'll be the first retina tablet I believe and its going to look like printed paper.

Hmm wow oh wow wee wee, if the iPad3 screen display is going to look like iPhone4 it might not be a bad thing at all.... we may have a competition!

I don't think a lot of people really notice unless they have an IPS screen to directly compare it to.

No sweetheart, the PQ due to inferior viewing angle bothers me. I don't need direct comparison. It just doesn't look good. The new iPhone however, I am impressed with.

 

[runawayprisoner]

cheeze, I think it's worth noting that even though the current iPad doesn't have the resolution (thus sharpness) density of the iPhone 4, the viewing angle and colors are the same.

With the iPad 3, it's just a resolution doubling that people are waiting for.

 

[micrometers]

Yeah, you can even find replacement front glass with screen for an iPhone 4 that are less than $30, but they use TN panels. I don't think a lot of people really notice unless they have an IPS screen to directly compare it to.

this. I only have an ipod touch and it is fine IMO. I only really care about viewing angles when playing a tilt game. Otherwise, no big deal.

 

[Mr. President]

I honestly think it would be the best thing ever™. Displays have been stagnant for far too long and the iPad (and possibly the Mac) getting higher DPI could become the important first step towards mainstream displays finally growing up.

The applications for higher DPI are countless even if we don't immediately recognize it. It's not about more screen space but sharper images. Media won't benefit much but vectors and bitmaps will benefit immensely.

TNs may not benefit as much because they inherently give a much fuzzier image quality than IPSes. I recently spoke to a radiologist at work (where we've been testing iPads) and he told me that, even despite the lower resolution, the current iPad is vastly superior to the 'professional' workstation TNs for viewing images. I don't think that the higher DPI will get to shine without better-than-TN display technology.

 

[bearxor]

No sweetheart, the PQ due to inferior viewing angle bothers me. I don't need direct comparison. It just doesn't look good. The new iPhone however, I am impressed with.

Hey, that's why I said 'a lot' and not 'everybody'.

It would bother me too...

 

[PrayForDeath]

I'm more concerned about app support for 2048x1536. If apps don't support it, it will look fugly. And I hope the processor/GPU can keep up with 2048x1536 games.

With the iPad 3, it's just a resolution doubling that people are waiting for.

Quadrupling.

 

[Mr. President]

I'm more concerned about app support for 2048x1536. If apps don't support it, it will look fugly.

I'm not too worried about that. The high DPI should make scaling a relative non-issue and, assuming a same size screen, apps should look the same since each pixel will simply be represented by four.

Game performance is another issue but the DPI should also there allow non-native resolutions without too much artifacting.

 

[TheStu]

I'm more concerned about app support for 2048x1536. If apps don't support it, it will look fugly. And I hope the processor/GPU can keep up with 2048x1536 games.




Quadrupling.

The resolution is doubled in each direction. The pixels are quadrupled.

It is the same as when the iPhone went Retina. The previous resolution was 480*320, they doubled that to 960*640. Existing apps scaled up, the only issue was slight issues with icons and images. But then developers fixed that very quickly. Same will apply to the iPad with a 2048*1536 display.

The current prevailing theory is that Apple was waiting for the quad core A6 to get done so then they could put that into the iPad. That is basically the only use that I can think of for that kind of CPU.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I think they will need a hell of a lot more RAM than 512MB, though. Graphics at 2048 x 1536 is 4x more space-consuming than 1024 x 768, and considering 512MB was barely enough to hold 1024 x 768 on the iPad (iPad 1 with 256MB was constantly hitting the roof), I don't doubt they'd have to beef the A6 up significantly.

 

[TheStu]

I think they will need a hell of a lot more RAM than 512MB, though. Graphics at 2048 x 1536 is 4x more space-consuming than 1024 x 768, and considering 512MB was barely enough to hold 1024 x 768 on the iPad (iPad 1 with 256MB was constantly hitting the roof), I don't doubt they'd have to beef the A6 up significantly.

Not a huge problem to put 1GB or more in there, sure it might cut into their profit margins a bit, but probably not a huge amount.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I'd think that a high res display + quad-core chip with 1GB of integrated RAM would be more costly. It'd be amazing that they can keep the current pricing tiers, but I'm not really holding out for it.

After all, 2048 x 1536 for a 9.7" IPS display is nothing to cough at...

 

[cheez]

cheeze, I think it's worth noting that even though the current iPad doesn't have the resolution (thus sharpness) density of the iPhone 4, the viewing angle and colors are the same.

With the iPad 3, it's just a resolution doubling that people are waiting for.

I donno man.... the display quality, visually, looked different on the iPhone 4s than on the iPad 2. It looked crisper, and look like drawing on the paper as if there is no thick glass on top of it. iPad 2 seems to have thick layer of glass and *looks* like it has some hollow space between the display and glass.

iPad 2 doesn't look bad at all. I liked it. But it's not ground breaking. If it's going to look like this with 4x the display resolution it's gonna get whooped by Samsung Galaxy tab 7.7 (Super AMOLED Plus tech). Should be the viewing angle king of the king kongs.

I guess we won't know for sure until the iPad3 comes out and check em out in person.^_^

 

[GoSharks]

TNs may not benefit as much because they inherently give a much fuzzier image quality than IPSes. I recently spoke to a radiologist at work (where we've been testing iPads) and he told me that, even despite the lower resolution, the current iPad is vastly superior to the 'professional' workstation TNs for viewing images. I don't think that the higher DPI will get to shine without better-than-TN display technology.

Um what? TN is just as sharp as IPS. And was the radiologist was specifically talking about screen technology when comparing an iPad to the workstation?

 

[Mr. President]

Um what? TN is just as sharp as IPS. And was the radiologist was specifically talking about screen technology when comparing an iPad to the workstation?

While I'll grant you that the coating matters, the differences between IPSes and TNs are far greater than just pixel sharpness at the film level and all of which contribute to picture definition. The difference between an iPod Touch and iPhone 4, for example, is striking and I have myself observed the difference by viewing medical images on both.

I was the one who explained the different technologies to the radiologist after he mentioned it but to him it acted completely as a blind test. He preferred the IPS-based iPad to his workstation TN despite the lower resolution and without any knowledge of LCD technologies.

Edit: To clarify, I am not talking about the dedicated medical workstations. Medical-grade displays are all IPS-based and for a very good reason. I am talking about the personal workstation TNs that doctors have on their desks.

 

[mmntech]

Retina on the iPad is going to require a lot of GPU power. It would have to be 2560x1920. For 2D it's not a big deal, but for games it will be an issue.

 

[JackBurton]

Retina on the iPad is going to require a lot of GPU power. It would have to be 2560x1920. For 2D it's not a big deal, but for games it will be an issue.

The retina display on the iPad 3 will be 2048x1536. This essentially doubles the resolutions of the current iPad, for easy upscaling of older apps using the 1024x768 resolution.