I've been thinking about the idea of the iPad 2nd-gen getting a Retina display for a while now, specifically because it presents some distinct technological challenges for Apple to overcome. Doubling the dimensions (and quadrupling the number of pixels) of the iPhone was a huge step forward, but was well within the range of technological feasibility:
Original iPhone: 480 x 320 = 153,600 pixels at 165 PPI
iPhone 4: 960 x 640 = 614,400 pixels at 330 PPI
With a 3.5-inch display, this makes an indescribably huge difference in the legibility and crispness of what's displayed, and is an otherwise unheard of number of pixels in a screen that size. But in the macro sense, 960 x 640 is not an absolutely mammoth number of pixels for a device to render. This is why the same hardware Apple uses in the iPhone 4 is used in the iPad (at 1024 x 768) and the Apple TV (at 1280 x 720).
Now, the Retina display was so named because Apple found that "there's a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch that... is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels."* This assumes holding the device about a foot from your eyes, but I think most people tend hold their phone and their iPad at roughly the same distance (between 15 and 20 inches), it it's probably fair to assume that the iPad retina display should still be somewhere around 300 PPI.
Since the pixel density of the iPad wasn't as great as the original iPhone's, if you were to keep the screen size the same and simply double the iPad's resolution (the same way Apple simply doubled the iPhone's resolution) it actually wouldn't get you to Apple's magic retina number. The iPad at 2x (well, really 4x) would be 2048 x 1536, or 263 PPI.
However, using standard resolution increments, one can still achieve an almost identical PPI to the iPhone 4 on the iPad at a stunning 2560 x 1920 pixels, or the same 330 PPI as in the iPhone 4.
Maybe 2560 x 1920 doesn't sound like a lot, but it should. Let's put that in context with the kinds of high resolutions you get on some professional-grade desktop products:
MacBook Pro 15-inch = 1440 x 900
Macbook Pro 15-inch high-res = 1680 x 1050
Macbook Pro 17-inch = 1920 x 1200
Dell 24-inch monitor = 1920 x 1200
Apple 27-inch Cinema Display = 2560 x 1440
Think about that for a moment: a 9.7-inch screen that displays more visual information than two high res 24-inch monitors stacked on top of one another. Even if it was a simple doubling of the dimensions to 2048 x 1536 -- probably the most likely scenario, considering how Apple handled things with the iPhone 4 -- that is still a hell of a lot of pixels.
Given where we are today with display bus speeds, portable video hardware, LCD screen technology, etc. would this even be possible to do in the first half of 2011? Honestly, it's hard to say because nothing like this has ever existed in the portable device space, nor have there been many leaps forward the order of magnitude required to make this work. Try to put that kind of resolution in perspective: think about the kind of rig required for a computer to play even a slightly older 3D game at full resolution on 24-inch or 27-inch monitor. Even to do mundane stuff like display desktop apps would require far more than today's highest in mobile video chips.
The thing is, it's crystal clear where Apple WANTS to go with their displays. If Apple could create a proper Retina display for the iPad at an affordable price, I have no doubt they'd do it in a heartbeat. But for 2011 I'm just not so sure we're going to get an iPad with a display and hardware capable of that resolution. I hope I'm wrong, but given what's out there today, I think the technological leap required to make a 9.7-inch 2560 x 1920 or 2048 x 1536 display possible isn't right around the corner.
* From Steve's WWDC 2010 keynote; skip to about 36:30 minutes for the Retina display introduction.
Question about
If the iPad 2nd-gen gets a Retina display, what will the resolution be?
top answers
ryan's pick
I'm not sure that the 330 PPI for the iPad is equivalent to the PPI on the iPhone 4's Retina Display. Isn't the whole point of which PPI to use for a "Retina Display" depend on the distance that you hold the screen from your eyes. For the iPhone 4, we hold it closer typically than we do the iPad. I'd think that'd make the PPI for the iPad to reach "Retina Display" status less than what's required for the iPhone 4 since we hold that closer. That is of course going off the definition of a Retina Display being the loss of distinction between pixels. Even on my MBP's 15" display, I can't tell the difference between pixels because of how far away it sits from my eyes.
mark as good answer
6 people like this answer
Clicking the mark as good answer button helps us highlight the best answers.
ryan's pick
The doubling of the resolution for the iPhone 4 also was helpful for app developers, made existing apps a cinch to run at the higher resolution and made some of the tricks safari uses when it comes to units specified in "pixels" possible. A 1.5x factor on an iPad would mean existing apps would have to be scaled using hardware and would end up looking worse (blurry, a la upscaled content on an HDTV) on the new iPad than they did on the old one.
I think the next increase in size will be a true doubling of resolution, but that it won't happen for the next iPad. I'd guess it'll happen for the third gen.
I think the next increase in size will be a true doubling of resolution, but that it won't happen for the next iPad. I'd guess it'll happen for the third gen.
mark as good answer
4 people like this answer
ryan's pick
Why don't you ask the question backwards: What is the largest practical size for a mobile retina display device, and how likely is it that Apple will produce such a device in the near future?
On the one hand, you can look at the 11" MacBook Air, and realize that it's nVidia GPU can support 2560 by 1600 pixels. It's not "2560 x 1920"; it is 16 x 10 rather than 4 x 3. Remove the keyboard and trackpad from the MBAir, shrink it a little bit, add a Retina Display, and you would have a 2.? pound tablet that costs more than twice as much as the iPad, with less than half the battery life. Would that sell? This iPad "RD" would have a Core 2 Duo capable of running Mac OS X. Would that sell? I doubt it.
On the other hand, you can look at what you think would sell. According to Steve & Co. that's an iPhone sized device. According to Dell it's 5"; according to Samsung it's 7"; .... W e should know "Real Soon Now".
On the one hand, you can look at the 11" MacBook Air, and realize that it's nVidia GPU can support 2560 by 1600 pixels. It's not "2560 x 1920"; it is 16 x 10 rather than 4 x 3. Remove the keyboard and trackpad from the MBAir, shrink it a little bit, add a Retina Display, and you would have a 2.? pound tablet that costs more than twice as much as the iPad, with less than half the battery life. Would that sell? This iPad "RD" would have a Core 2 Duo capable of running Mac OS X. Would that sell? I doubt it.
On the other hand, you can look at what you think would sell. According to Steve & Co. that's an iPhone sized device. According to Dell it's 5"; according to Samsung it's 7"; .... W e should know "Real Soon Now".
mark as good answer
2 people like this answer
I don't think they'll double it because I just don't see them getting that many pixels into that small of a screen at an affordable price (but kudos if they do).
Seeing as how it's somewhat rare to see a machine with 1920x1080 in a 15" (what my EliteBook has), fitting something like that into an iPad at 10" would be pretty insane. I'd love to see them do that though because it looks so sharp on this machine, that on a 10" screen it would look fantastic. Plus it would give them the option to play back 1080p clips at full-res.
Seeing as how it's somewhat rare to see a machine with 1920x1080 in a 15" (what my EliteBook has), fitting something like that into an iPad at 10" would be pretty insane. I'd love to see them do that though because it looks so sharp on this machine, that on a 10" screen it would look fantastic. Plus it would give them the option to play back 1080p clips at full-res.
mark as good answer
1 person likes this answer
I'll first say I doubt (with 75% confidence) that Apple will release a higher res iPad next year. That being said, I have my opinions on what is and isn't possible, and what a Retina display is.
I haven't seen the keynote in a while, but from what I remember about Steve's 300ppi comment was that 300ppi threshold was regarding smartphones. 300ppi surely isn't the magic number for pixel differentiation on say - a HDTV, right? Apple will probably tell you the 300ppi number is right for a smartphone since you hold it at a given length from your face. Tablets are held a little bit further from your face in normal use, so the ppi restriction is less. In my opinion, they can still market a Retina display for devices with variable PPI relative to their screen sizes. They can do whatever they want really, others say that 477ppi is the real number for a device 12 inches away from your face (see Soneira on iPhone4 wiki page).
I also disagree where some comments imply "it needs to scale 2x or fail". Hardware upscaling doesn't imply it will look terrible. Why is pixel-to-pixel mapping so important on a display were you can barely make out the pixels anyways? I could be wrong here and if I am please tell me why. I don't think a 1.25x or 1.5x iPad is out of the question, the latter arguably marketable as Retina display. Again, probably not 2011, but when their iterate their processor and display tech advances.
I haven't seen the keynote in a while, but from what I remember about Steve's 300ppi comment was that 300ppi threshold was regarding smartphones. 300ppi surely isn't the magic number for pixel differentiation on say - a HDTV, right? Apple will probably tell you the 300ppi number is right for a smartphone since you hold it at a given length from your face. Tablets are held a little bit further from your face in normal use, so the ppi restriction is less. In my opinion, they can still market a Retina display for devices with variable PPI relative to their screen sizes. They can do whatever they want really, others say that 477ppi is the real number for a device 12 inches away from your face (see Soneira on iPhone4 wiki page).
I also disagree where some comments imply "it needs to scale 2x or fail". Hardware upscaling doesn't imply it will look terrible. Why is pixel-to-pixel mapping so important on a display were you can barely make out the pixels anyways? I could be wrong here and if I am please tell me why. I don't think a 1.25x or 1.5x iPad is out of the question, the latter arguably marketable as Retina display. Again, probably not 2011, but when their iterate their processor and display tech advances.
mark as good answer
1 person likes this answer
I think if you separate the iPad from the Apple ecosystem, it would make sense to increase the screen resolution. After owning one for the past year, I would agree that tightening up the resolution, although not to the level of retina display, would be an improvement.
That being said, both the iPhone 4 and iPad have had supply issues, tied directly to the screen manufacturer and their ability to provide the amount of screens to meet demand. They had mentioned they could have sold at least twice as many iPhones if they had the screens. Now imagine the demand of a retina display iPad, which is like 4 iPhones in one. (not to mention that it is more difficult to get error free LCD's the larger they become).
The second fact would be the App Store, which is heavily involved. I think they are still reeling from a bit of disorganization that the two different App resolutions that were created. I think they need a year or so to create a standardized 1024 X 768, or something that is common between the iPhone 4 and iPad. Then have some sort of algorithm (whether its hardware or software) that downgrades app resolution to work on iPhone 3GS and below.
After they streamline these inconsistencies, I think they will introduce a higher resolution iPad, but I doubt it will be 9.7. Even thought Jobs talks smack about smaller screen sizes in a tablet (like 7"), I think the iPad will shrink a bit, to allow normal people to hold it one handed, like a magazine, and be a bit smaller, to support a doubling of the 1024X768, or something that works well with App developers.
The next iPad? Same screen resolution, but with cameras (because of facetime and everyone wining about them being available on other devices), and some way to keep the weight down, like carbon fibre, or a lighter glass)
That being said, both the iPhone 4 and iPad have had supply issues, tied directly to the screen manufacturer and their ability to provide the amount of screens to meet demand. They had mentioned they could have sold at least twice as many iPhones if they had the screens. Now imagine the demand of a retina display iPad, which is like 4 iPhones in one. (not to mention that it is more difficult to get error free LCD's the larger they become).
The second fact would be the App Store, which is heavily involved. I think they are still reeling from a bit of disorganization that the two different App resolutions that were created. I think they need a year or so to create a standardized 1024 X 768, or something that is common between the iPhone 4 and iPad. Then have some sort of algorithm (whether its hardware or software) that downgrades app resolution to work on iPhone 3GS and below.
After they streamline these inconsistencies, I think they will introduce a higher resolution iPad, but I doubt it will be 9.7. Even thought Jobs talks smack about smaller screen sizes in a tablet (like 7"), I think the iPad will shrink a bit, to allow normal people to hold it one handed, like a magazine, and be a bit smaller, to support a doubling of the 1024X768, or something that works well with App developers.
The next iPad? Same screen resolution, but with cameras (because of facetime and everyone wining about them being available on other devices), and some way to keep the weight down, like carbon fibre, or a lighter glass)
mark as good answer
1 person likes this answer
I don't know if they will get to retina even in 2 or 3 years. I'm going with the doubling scenario as I think in Steve's mind he wanted to increase resolution but do so in a manner that kept all the UI exactly to scale. Retina display is more of a marketing term that fitted to the tech, rather than the other way around. If you take these two figures: 614,400 (iPhone 4) and proposed doubling for ipad 3,145,728 it starts to become apparent how many more pixels have to be pushed onto the screen. Even with double the ram I don't see it happening unless we get an ARM chip running at 2Ghz+ (remember the A4 is based on standard ARM cores with modified instruction set, they don't set the clock speed) or a dual core ARM. The former is probably at least 18 months from debut and the latter would require a substantial rewrite of iOS in order to fully take advantage of the 2nd core in an efficient way.
It's strange that everyone expected Apple would eventually go to 800 x 480 or similar, but this would have distorted the UI and required devs to resubmit new art. By going with the pixel double solution they have set a really high bar for themselves and everyone else, now it remains to be seen when the tech will catch up with their ambition
It's strange that everyone expected Apple would eventually go to 800 x 480 or similar, but this would have distorted the UI and required devs to resubmit new art. By going with the pixel double solution they have set a really high bar for themselves and everyone else, now it remains to be seen when the tech will catch up with their ambition
mark as good answer
1 person likes this answer
It comes down to hardware. It's one thing for a video card to write to a teeny display like the iphone, it's a completely different deal to write to a larger screen like the iPad. Remember, you have to multiply the horizontal resolution by the vertical resolution to get the TOTAL number of pixels written to the screen. An HD frame is 6 times the size of an SD frame. So EVERYTHING needs to be 6x faster, bigger (diskspace) etc....
Now....considering that an iPad doesn't have many of the issues that a computer has, and that Apple is designing and fabricating it's own processors, it MAY be less of a problem than we think to write that much data to the screen. I'm pretty happy with the display on the iPad right now. Watching movies and TV (Hulu/Netflix) is pretty amazing. Anything better would be REALLY amazing. I'd rather see Apple keep the resolution the same, and increase the processor speed so we could have BETTER gaming and 3D (cg, not stereo) Apps.
Now....considering that an iPad doesn't have many of the issues that a computer has, and that Apple is designing and fabricating it's own processors, it MAY be less of a problem than we think to write that much data to the screen. I'm pretty happy with the display on the iPad right now. Watching movies and TV (Hulu/Netflix) is pretty amazing. Anything better would be REALLY amazing. I'd rather see Apple keep the resolution the same, and increase the processor speed so we could have BETTER gaming and 3D (cg, not stereo) Apps.
mark as good answer
1 person likes this answer
Ryan, great question. I'm going to sound crazy, but I think the resolution won't change much but instead go into a HD format of 1280 x 720. While this may not emulate that "papersize" feel of the 10.1" and it's current resolution, it will be a format which matches their Apple TV. I have a feeling apps are going to be very important in the upcoming year and years to come, not just for portable devices but for "Connected" devices in the home a la Apple TV vs Google TV vs Roku. If I were an average user, how awesome would it be to have similar apps on my TV that I have on my iPhone? See me my point? Couldn't this help developers?
I'm going to guess that while an increased ppi would be cool, it's not in the cards and frankly may not be as needed as we think. Sure it'd be nice to have, but on an ipad most webpages, even "full pages", are rendered fine; we don't need to zoom in as much like on our mobile phones. Plus now they can market it has a true widescreen 720p device and we all know Apple likes to overly emphasize basic info.
Unless LG has something hidden in their new IPS panels, I just don't think we will see that much of a higher resolution. I'm hoping and guessing there will be a front facing camera, I mean Facetime. Facetimeeeeee. Battery levels will be improved and by that I mean either a more efficient chip, or they are using a relatively new updated battery which will accept more charging cycles. It will be lighter, not by much, but they will find a way to make it lighter. I'm going to say somehow even though their acquisition was recent, liquidmetal will find a way into the process.
I'm going to guess that while an increased ppi would be cool, it's not in the cards and frankly may not be as needed as we think. Sure it'd be nice to have, but on an ipad most webpages, even "full pages", are rendered fine; we don't need to zoom in as much like on our mobile phones. Plus now they can market it has a true widescreen 720p device and we all know Apple likes to overly emphasize basic info.
Unless LG has something hidden in their new IPS panels, I just don't think we will see that much of a higher resolution. I'm hoping and guessing there will be a front facing camera, I mean Facetime. Facetimeeeeee. Battery levels will be improved and by that I mean either a more efficient chip, or they are using a relatively new updated battery which will accept more charging cycles. It will be lighter, not by much, but they will find a way to make it lighter. I'm going to say somehow even though their acquisition was recent, liquidmetal will find a way into the process.
mark as good answer
1 person likes this answer
Funny, I wrote this exact article 5 months ago: marktrapp.com/blog/2010/06/22/retina-display-equip... I don't think your paraphrasing is as cogent an argument as what I said then, though.
mark as good answer
0 people like this answer
I think that Apple has a long history of marketing hype. Doubly so when it comes to benchmarks and talking up "world's first" features. I suspect that the next iPad will get a resolution bump of some sort AND that they'll call it a Retina display regardless of whether or not it has the same pixel density as the iPhone 4.
mark as good answer
0 people like this answer
I think we might see a slight bump, and into a more "video friendly" aspect ratio. Something like 1280x768 - to mirror the Apple TV and be able to show iTunes purchased based video in the proper format (1280x720p). I was actually surprised when the iPad came out that it was a ~1.3 A/R vs. something in the 1.6-1.7 range (like a traditional widescreen TV).
Of course, that's not factoring in potential OS issues, Apps, etc., that might have to be modified.
The other thing is the language in talking about the display that's been circulating. It's not clearly talking about a better resolution, but a better display. That could be improved color, better daylight viewing (since that's been a big part of the Kindle marketing campaign), or something else relating the touch interface.
If Apple wanted to better position themselves again the two possible competitors: Android tabs (decent ones, like the GS) and eBook readers, they'd want better reading technology (see above) and a FFC (which I think at this point is a no brainer with Facetime in place). Everything else is kind of in place (apps, media sharing, etc.)
Of course, that's not factoring in potential OS issues, Apps, etc., that might have to be modified.
The other thing is the language in talking about the display that's been circulating. It's not clearly talking about a better resolution, but a better display. That could be improved color, better daylight viewing (since that's been a big part of the Kindle marketing campaign), or something else relating the touch interface.
If Apple wanted to better position themselves again the two possible competitors: Android tabs (decent ones, like the GS) and eBook readers, they'd want better reading technology (see above) and a FFC (which I think at this point is a no brainer with Facetime in place). Everything else is kind of in place (apps, media sharing, etc.)
mark as good answer
0 people like this answer
A Chinese-language Economy Daily News (EDN) report citing industry sources claims Apple will add five new features to the iPad 2: video phone, better mobility, USB port, new display technology and 3-axis gyroscopes.
The video-phone feature (probably FaceTime) is expected to benefit Apple iPad's webcam suppliers, while iPad 2 may adopt smaller size panels featuring thinner glass. The USB feature will allow the device to be more connection friendly, while Apple's "Retina Display" technology will enhance image and color output performance. The 3-axis gyroscopes will enhance gaming, added the paper.
www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/NewsSearch.asp?DocID=PB...
The video-phone feature (probably FaceTime) is expected to benefit Apple iPad's webcam suppliers, while iPad 2 may adopt smaller size panels featuring thinner glass. The USB feature will allow the device to be more connection friendly, while Apple's "Retina Display" technology will enhance image and color output performance. The 3-axis gyroscopes will enhance gaming, added the paper.
www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/NewsSearch.asp?DocID=PB...
mark as good answer
0 people like this answer
I think that a 1920 wide iPad screen would be ideal, Perhaps 1920x1440 to preserve the 4:3 ratio, but to also allow for full 1080p widescreen video formats. I doubt we'll see it till 2012 though, the front facing camera and memory bumps, plus some new bells and whistles in an iOS 4.3 release seems more likely, and will probably be more than enough to sell plenty more iPads in 2011. Besides, how much iTunes content is even available at 1080p today?
mark as good answer
0 people like this answer
I'm actually really hoping on the next iPhone iteration, that they will increase the screen size just a little bit. They wouldn't need to increase the resolution, as they could go to a 3.8 or so while still maintaining around 300 PPI. That would help give it a little more physical real estate for your fingers on the screen. Somehow, it's actually starting to feel a little cramped for my thumbs.
I think they could even decrease the bezel size on top and bottom ever so slightly (need to keep handles for landscape use) to avoid increasing the overall phone's size much.
Then again, it's already crazy small and thin, but it would be a very incremental improvement.
I think they could even decrease the bezel size on top and bottom ever so slightly (need to keep handles for landscape use) to avoid increasing the overall phone's size much.
Then again, it's already crazy small and thin, but it would be a very incremental improvement.
mark as good answer
0 people like this answer
Here is my question...if Retina Display is added...will that cause a further split among developers making apps that support it?
mark as good answer
0 people like this answer
Interesting followup on this today: data unearthed in iOS 4.3 beta SDK appears to show new models of iPad (2,1; 2,2; 2,3; see: www.9to5mac.com/47069/47069 ), which also includes assets for a new camera application (as expected). The app resolution is 1024 x 768, which seems to very strongly indicate that the next iPad display won't have an increased resolution.
It's still early to say this for sure, but it's a pretty good leading indicator -- whenever this kind of data gets pulled out of the SDK it tends to be very reliable as it's coming right from Apple's engineering teams.
www.9to5mac.com/47070/ipad-2-will-take-pics-shoot-...
www.9to5mac.com/47248/is-this-the-ipad-2s-camera-a...
It's still early to say this for sure, but it's a pretty good leading indicator -- whenever this kind of data gets pulled out of the SDK it tends to be very reliable as it's coming right from Apple's engineering teams.
www.9to5mac.com/47070/ipad-2-will-take-pics-shoot-...
www.9to5mac.com/47248/is-this-the-ipad-2s-camera-a...
mark as good answer
0 people like this answer
follow this question
share:
Related questions
31 users following this question:
This question has been viewed 3604 times.
Last activity .
Tips for giving the best answers
Sometimes it's just little details that separates a great and not so great answer! Here are a few simple tips to keep in mind:
- 1
- Be complete and thorough. Don't skimp on the details!
- 2
- Try not to answer with a question. Because that's not really an answer, right?
- 3
- A little research goes a long way. Back up your claims and assumptions!
- 4
- Try to be patient, tech questions can be complicated.
- 5
- You are awesome for both reading this and answering questions.