Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

iPad 3 Confirmed To Have 2048x1536 Screen Resolution

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the small-package dept.

Displays 537

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."

cancel ×

537 comments

Nice. (1, Funny)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082053)

I'm getting one!

Re:Nice. (4, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082079)

My eyesight is too crappy to take advantage of that. I don't think I would personally pay extra for that resolution.

Re:Nice. (5, Funny)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082101)

Well yes, but I have better than perfect vision, and could really appreciate it. Besides, I've been wanting to get one download pointless noise making apps for months now. How did we ever live without pointless noise making apps? It's beyond me. Even now, my lack of pointless noise making apps is tearing at my soul. My android tablet has a few pointless noise making apps, but those are all free, and it's just not the same unless I'm wasting money on them.

Re:Nice. (5, Funny)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082111)

I suppose you also have rejected laser printers in favor of good ol' dot matrix. Am I right?

Re:Nice. (1)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082135)

Oh totally. Who needs lasers when you have you can have high quality photos printed out with white lines every half centimeter or so to delineate the page? My favorite is when they come out wet and bleed on to whatever surface you put it on! That way you can share your fond memories with your white table top, right? Who wouldn't want that?

Re:Nice. (1)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082153)

Or: Printing? Who does that?

Re:Nice. (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082269)

No, but the noise from the dot-matrix keeps the kids off my lawn.

Re:Nice. (1)

Etcetera (14711) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082305)

Pshhh. Remember Apple's ImageWriter LQ? 216dpi baby...

Re:Nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082151)

Can I like get special glasses or something to make it look bigger so I can pretend I have a desktop or tv with a display that good? Combined with their processing images to get more perceived dynamic range, they can display better images than most content can provide. At this rate, maybe they should offer higher-end (than a small lens) still/video cameras too. Heck, they've got the money, start another movie/tv production studio taking color depth to new levels. Buy a few small states and countries for those on-location shots.

Re:Nice. (2)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082165)

I don't know about special glasses, but I took this class on hypnosis once...

Re:Nice. (1, Interesting)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082327)

Or you could go find a used trinitron that will run this same resolution and was made about ELEVEN YEARS AGO.

Re:Nice. (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082545)

CRT. How quaint.

Re:Nice. (4, Informative)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082155)

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.

Re:Nice. (5, Funny)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082477)

I tried to jail brake my phone once, but it slowed it right down.

Re:Nice. (5, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082251)

If only you could get a desktop monitor at that resolution and price.

DPI comparison? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082057)

For reference, how does that compare to the DPI in iPhones?

Re:DPI comparison? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082077)

Slightly lower, but you do hold it further away.

Re:DPI comparison? (0)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082115)

According to Wikipedia, the iPhone 4S has 326 ppi, and the iPad 2 had 132 ppi. Doubling the resolution in both dimensions while keeping the screen size the same will quadruple the pixel density, meaning that the iPad 3 will have 528 ppi, which is quite a bit more than any device I've seen.

So in short: favorably.

Re:DPI comparison? (2, Informative)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082145)

I'm not sure how you did your math, but I think 234 is the number you're looking for.

Re:DPI comparison? (0)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082193)

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.

Re:DPI comparison? (4, Informative)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082219)

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.

Re:DPI comparison? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082237)

Ah, got it, thanks.

Re:DPI comparison? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082241)

It's pixels per inch, not pixels per square inch.So I believe 264 would be correct.

Re:DPI comparison? (4, Informative)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082267)

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.

Re:DPI comparison? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082363)

Last I checked it was ppi, not ppsi. Provided the pixels are of a square aspect ratio, it's only a value regarding the number of pixels per one unit dimension.* Thus a doubling and not a quadrupling because you're only measuring how many pixels are on a one inch line going across.

* (Some devices may have non-square pixels, and therefore differing ppi horizontal and vertical. Usually with the vertical resolution expressed as lines-per-inch and the horizontal still expressed as pixels-per-inch.)

Re:DPI comparison? (2)

mapinguari (110030) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082227)

I'm not sure how you did your math, but I think 264 is the number you're looking for.

Re:DPI comparison? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082333)

Correct, my bad.

4:3 comes back! (5, Insightful)

Bobtree (105901) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082069)

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.

Re:4:3 comes back! (4, Insightful)

qxcv (2422318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082127)

Why is 4:3 such a useful aspect ratio? Just curious because I tend to prefer wide-screen monitors that I can flip on their sides or use in landscape orientation depending on what you're doing, and it seems to me that the monitor market is going that way. I'd have thought that square-ish monitors tend to be less comfortable given that humans have a greater horizontal than vertical field of vision (I feel a bit boxed in when using 4:3 CRTs, but that may just be the low resolution).

Re:4:3 comes back! (1)

Tyrannosaur (2485772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082203)

I feel a bit boxed in when using 4:3 CRTs

well they ARE boxes...

Re:4:3 comes back! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082215)

I've never found a decent (and cheap) screen that can do this without having some color shift between my left and right eye from the crappy viewing angle.

Re:4:3 comes back! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082341)

"decent (and cheap)" you say.
I reply: "I think I found your problem."

Re:4:3 comes back! (5, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082389)

Eleven years ago you could buy a 24" monitor that could do this resolution, and 21" monitors that did 1600x1200 were commonplace. Inch for inch a 4:3 monitor will have more usable space than an equivalent widescreen display, they got popular because companies figured out they were cheaper to make and gave more panels for a given investment. Marketing convinced people that instead of getting an inferior display with less usable space they were getting the Next Big Thing.

I've been waiting for resolutions and refresh rates to catch up to what they were a decade ago ever since we made the switch to widescreen flatpanels.

Re:4:3 comes back! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082453)

I think it wasn't the panel manufacturing process that stimulated the size, but rather the rise in DVD's and the upcoming HDTV standard. The movie industry had been shooting in a wider format than 4:3 for years, DVD's were taking advantage of this, and the plans for HDTV accommodated the movie industry's standards. The original selling point for the wider screens was that you could watch DVD's on them and use the full screen (the laptops were the same height as 4:3 but wider, often with numeric keypads).

If you want 4:3 resolutions, projectors still accommodate that and many have native resolutions in the 4:3 ratio.

Re:4:3 comes back! (2, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082509)

It's why I have not upgraded my 5 year old macbook pro. You cant get a 1920X1200 laptop screen anymore. WTF is that.

Re:4:3 comes back! (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082515)

While you're right that widescreen monitors cost less to make due to less overall surface area, I think you're neglecting the fact that it's more comfortable for people to work with things side-by-side than top-to-bottom. Also, vertical scrolling is far easier on most computers than horizontal, so having two windows next to each other on a widescreen monitor is better than two next to each other on a 4:3 monitor--the windows will be slightly wider on the 16:9 monitor (duh, I know).

Widescreen monitors are better for multitasking when you have to switch between two windows often, or look at the content of two windows at the same time. It's also superior for movies (and video games), as you have a wider angle in which to display things. Interesting stuff doesn't tend to happen in the sky or at the cameraman's feet.

If you're just using one app at a time in full-screen, then I agree that 4:3 is better.

Re:4:3 comes back! (1)

Mia'cova (691309) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082405)

I prefer 4:3 for multi-monitor setups. I have three 1600x1200 21" monitors laid out horizontally at work. I like having the consistent resolution so something fits the same regardless of which screen I drag it onto. My workflow wouldn't work so well if the resolutions didn't line up. For example, if I'm remoting into a machine at a 1600x1200 resolution, I can fullscreen it on any of the three monitors. It'd be annoying to adjust the resolution of those sessions if I were to move them around between different resolution screens.

At home, I have a large widescreen as my main monitor with a 4:3 on the side just to have that off-screen supplimental space, like browsing around for my next time-waster while watching some important video of a cat on the main screen.

Re:4:3 comes back! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082291)

But it's only nearly twice the linear resolution :(
I was hoping for at least an order of parabolic magnitude.

Re:4:3 comes back! (1)

deisama (1745478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082425)

Unfortunetely, its not the mobile device market, its the apple tablet market. Aside from the discountinued HP touchpad, all of the other tablets and phones still use the widescreen resolution.

For giant monitors I prefer widescreen, and for phones that have to have the widescreen form factor anyway, it makes sense.

But for the tablets the narrow approach doesn't make sense. In portrait mode its to skinny to fit everything in it, and in landscape mode its hard to fit everything with the limited height.

Re:4:3 comes back! (2)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082505)

You can get a 4:3 Android tablet. I have one. I also have the Transformer with widescreen and prefer it. Buy what you want. Android is "fragmented" that way so you can choose.

This'll take... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082081)

...Samsung at least 2 months to make a cheaper, worse clone of!

Re:This'll take... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082231)

In all fairness, the Samsung GLX VR3 Pad Extreme Blitz will cost more.

Confirmed by who? (5, Insightful)

mkraft (200694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082083)

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.

Re:Confirmed by who? (3, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082137)

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.

Re:Confirmed by who? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082323)

Lick the smegma out from under my filthy AIDS-ridden foreskin.

Re:Confirmed by who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082463)

I can tell you are smart because you can delay gratification.

Most dumb people, however, know from the corroborating reports over the past several months, the market pressure, and the ideally sized icons for a 2048x1536 screen in iOS builds that, indeed, the iPad 3 will feature such a screen.

See you on March 7th, mkraft.

Finally some screen advancements? (5, Interesting)

Jmanamj (1077749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082089)

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.

Re:Finally some screen advancements? (2, Insightful)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082161)

I think operating systems have some work to do as well. Higher DPI often just means smaller widgets. Hopefully this makes its way to laptops soon.

Re:Finally some screen advancements? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082467)

Windows has supported changing the DPI (so widgets use more pixels) since Windows 3.1. Talk to the application developers.

Re:Finally some screen advancements? (4, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082199)

I'd like to thank Apple for helping break the "HD = 1950x1080" fixation

You big meanie! For every extra pixel over 2106000, a young Chinese worker cries himself to sleep every night.

Re:Finally some screen advancements? (0)

reub2000 (705806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082285)

Why is such a high resolution needed on a 10 inch screen?

Re:Finally some screen advancements? (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082371)

Why not? If the battery life isn't terrible I think it's a great idea. People do a lot of reading on these things and having a display with a similar DPI as early laser printers is a fantastic thing.

Re:Finally some screen advancements? (5, Interesting)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082373)

Look at the screen on an iPhone 3GS and an iPhone 4/4S and you'll see why - at that very high ppi, it's virtually impossible to distinguish the individual pixels by eye and you end up with a screen that can display text as if it's printed on paper.

It really does look outstanding. It really shines when reading text especially.

Re:Finally some screen advancements? (2, Insightful)

Jmanamj (1077749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082401)

Well the main purely practical use I see on a tablet PC is crisp clear text for reading. One might also use a tablet like this with technical documents, diagrams, maps. It's also aesthetically pleasing to have everything displayed with seamless clarity.

But what I'm praising is the effort to make better screens in general. A move to high resolution screens on tablets means the infrastructure gets a boost for better screens in laptops and desktops and various other displays. Have you used a 16" laptop with 1080p? Even that is great, but also rare. I got my sister one for graduation, and there weren't many to choose from. I want to see the DPI of this tablet on a 22" monitor for my desktop, and I'd like a decent selection of laptops with high DPI screens.

Re:Finally some screen advancements? (3)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082413)

Why is such a high resolution needed on a 10 inch screen?

If you're really curious, here's an experiment you can try:

-Borrow a buddy's iPhone 3G.
-Read an article on Slasdhot.
-Borrow another buddy's iPhone 4.
-Read same article on Slashdot.
-Go back to the 3G and try again, notice the pain yo ufeel.

Re:Finally some screen advancements? (3, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082465)

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.

Ummmm (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082367)

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.

Re:Ummmm (1)

Jmanamj (1077749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082503)

Thanks for a very informative post.

I do recall seeing screens here and there with high resolutions, though high DPI is harder to find. CPU power and GPU power levels have been progressing for quite some time, and it confuses me how much screen resolution seems to lag behind. Seems there was more in the background I wasn't really aware of. I'm still looking forward to higher DPI displays though. Even if tech can only support a 15.5" laptop with a resolution doubling my current 1366x768, it's still a huge improvement.

hmm (2, Interesting)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082091)

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.

Re:hmm (5, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082213)

Apple will only multiply the resolution by two. Anything less compromises the quality of artwork on existing apps.

Re:hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082441)

Apple will only multiply the resolution by two. Anything less compromises the quality of artwork on existing apps.

Google should take note: This helps avoid fragmentation.

(Posting AC for obvious reasons.)

Re:hmm (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082407)

16:9 is like reading off of an envelope. I'd much rather have 4:3 or 16:10 at the very least.

PrtSc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082097)

They needed a microscope? Why not just take a screenshot?

Re:PrtSc (1)

lsolano (398432) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082403)

Because with a screenshot no one could see the difference. Maybe not even with a device in their hands.

But Apple fans should find a way to say that having that DPI is better.

whoa (1, Insightful)

amoeba1911 (978485) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082113)

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.

Re:whoa (4, Informative)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082119)

Nobody with a smartphone using a 200+dpi display would agree with you.

Re:whoa (2)

readandburn (825014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082149)

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.

"640x480 is more resolution than anyone will ever need." - amoeba1911

Re:whoa (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082163)

Do you hold that 21" monitor in your hand or sit a couple of feet away?

Re:whoa (3, Interesting)

nomel (244635) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082259)

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.

Re:whoa (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082271)

You could put a big magnifying glass in front of it ala Brazil.

Re:whoa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082277)

Ideally, you shouldn't be able to see individual pixels at all. It's just most desktop OSes have been almost frozen to ~96DPI for nearly two decades now. Modern Windows, MacOSX and Linux/X.org do ALL support resolution-independent vector drawing that is better on high-res displays, but there are so many legacy apps out there on those platforms, so in a vicious circle, higher-resolution (i.e. more pixels per inch) desktop monitors don't get made much except for special applications (e.g. medical imaging), even though to match print quality you need about 3 times that.

Sigh.

Re:whoa (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082303)

We've already been through this with the doubling of the iPhone to a "Retina Display". So we already know for sure it substantially improves the quality of the graphics. Your gut feel is irrelevant.

Re:whoa (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082419)

Let me guess, widescreen flatpanel? You could buy 24" monitors that did 2048x1536 back in 2001. You have flatpanels and widescreen to thank for our resolution and refresh rate dark ages.

Give it a month (-1, Troll)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082121)

Give it a month, and Asus will edge that out and look ten times better doing it.

Re:Give it a month (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082229)

Give it a month, and Asus will edge that out and look ten times better doing it.

With other vendors seemingly having a hard time competing with Apple on price with anything tolerable, it seems doubtful that others will find it cost effective to upgrade screens. Any semi-sluggish competitors will be even more pressed to upgrade the rest of the hardware too when pushing around more pixels. And even if they do, who has code optimized enough to perform as well? The bar is set very high. There's a reason HP threw in the towel.

Re:Give it a month (4, Interesting)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082295)

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.

Re:Give it a month (3, Interesting)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082387)

"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.

Re:Give it a month (-1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082415)

The hardware looks good. But unfortunately it runs Android. Which means I'm just as unlikely to buy it as I am to buy a Windows PC.

Are you SERIOUS?! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082497)

"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.

Re:Give it a month (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082517)

LOL. The only android tablet selling in any sort of quantity is the Kindle Fire. You know, the android tablet that Google refuses to acknowledge.

Re:Give it a month (2, Insightful)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082233)

And Apple will sue them for it.

Re:Give it a month (-1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082293)

Apple leads. Everyone else follows.

Re:Give it a month (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082319)

Yeah? Which manufacturer is building a 9.7 inch display at that resolution that looks ten times better next month?

You've gotta be kidding me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082445)

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.

And I get called a shill? (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082521)

See subject.

Big change from 3:2 to 4:3 aspect (0)

Kreylix (322480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082129)

...what exactly does this mean for current Apps?

Re:Big change from 3:2 to 4:3 aspect (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082171)

There is no aspect ratio change, it's exactly double the iPad 1/2.

Re:Big change from 3:2 to 4:3 aspect (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082325)

Apps that are updated to take advantage of the higher resolution will be fine, and those that don't will be cleanly upscaled (each pixel becomes 2x2). The exact same thing is seen with the iPhone 4, which will upscale older apps in such a way that they look identical on either an iPhone 3 or 4.

What a waste (1)

DeeEff (2370332) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082167)

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?

Re:What a waste (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082221)

Since it's an exact double, I don't see how upscaling could make it worse. If nothing else, they could just group all the pixels into 2x2 pixel squares and treat them as a single pixel, thus exactly recreating the old resolution.

In fact, that's almost certainly why they went with that particular resolution.

Re:What a waste (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082443)

With pixel doubling there is no situation where the display will look worse. And plenty of situations where it will look a lot better.

(Provided the brightness is as good or better - and it was with the Retina display for the iPhone.)

After the service I got on the ipad1 to ios5 (-1, Troll)

gearloos (816828) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082177)

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.

Unfortunately (3, Funny)

Frogbert (589961) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082183)

Unfortunately users at my company will still find a way to run them at 800x600

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082195)

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.

Not surprising at all .. (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082205)

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.

Can this be hacked for digital cinema? (4, Interesting)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082247)

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).

Too much resolution for starting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082307)

It will provoke technical problems as:

  1. 1. what GPGPU accelerator does it use for the resolution 2048x1536?
  2. 2. what kind of video codec does it use for the resolution 2048x1536?
  3. 3. what're their clock frequencies (core, horizontal and vertical) for this exceeded screen resolution? Hundreds of megahertzs, some kilohertzs, tens of hertzs, etc.
  4. 4. how much energy will it waste for this exceeded screen resolution? Overall when the user is 3D gaming, and the GPGPU is the warmest piece part of all this electronic mobile device.
  5. 5. how much slower will the applications for this exceeded screen resolution?
  6. 6. does it kill the "electronic book" favouring the PDF electronic paper in conveniently adjusted screen size?
  7. 7. how much slower will be the 3D games for this exceeded resolution of 2048x1536?
  8. 8. It could kill newer possible sw-technologies based in lower resolutions.

JCPM: not all is silvered bullet, the problems could exist, e.g. unexpected glitches due to their hw/sw bugs.

Re:Too much resolution for starting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082537)

Are you sure you don't mean the GPGPGPU?

what the fudge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39082393)

people, make 4K displays.

for me.

Futurama reference (5, Funny)

Patron (2242336) | more than 2 years ago | (#39082469)

- "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!"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...