Why does the ipad 3 have better resolution than even $600 monitors ?

[eastmen]

The ipad a $500 device has a resolution of 2047 by 1536 pixels. Monitors with a resolution approaching this cost over a thousand dollars.

Why are we not seeing higher resolutions at home and when can we expect them to start coming ? PC's used to be the driving force and now device that costs the same as a single monitor is the driving force behind resolution increases .

 

[rpg.314]

Because it takes Apple to move Acer/HP/Dell.....

 

[3dcgi]

I think it's a couple reasons. First is PC vendors typically wait for customers to tell them what they want while Apple tells consumers what they don't yet know they want. Second is Windows doesn't seem to be built to scale to super high resolutions and still be useable. It needs a double density mode so icons and text don't get tiny.

 

[zed]

yes its terrible, but some ppl dont seem to mind, hopefully this will shame companies into producing higher res monitors as stanadard (instead of the current standard limit of 1920x1080)
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=61441

 

[Grall]

The ipad a $500 device has a resolution of 2047 by 1536 pixels. Monitors with a resolution approaching this cost over a thousand dollars.

Do you mean actual resolution (in which case you can get higher rez for less than $1000, today), or do you mean pixel density (in which case you'd end up with resolution far, far higher than the iPad3 on a regularly sized computer display)?

My current PC screen is a 2600*1440 pixel rez unit, and it costs quite a bit less than $1k. A monitor with the same size screen and a comparable pixel density would probably have beyond 4k rez, and 4k devices are monstrously expensive today, $3-4000+ range or somesuch.

I'm also somewhat concerned about the pixel failure rate one might expect from such a large, high-rez screen...

Why are we not seeing higher resolutions at home and when can we expect them to start coming ?

Why? Manufacturing complexity leads to (very) high costs. A 16:9 4k screen would have nearly 9.5 million pixels, and around 28 million sub-pixels. You'd need some tremendous datarates to drive so many pixels at 60Hz too, so add high-bandwidth interconnect (maybe the current displayport could possibly handle it, I'm not entirely sure), as well as support electronics inside the monitor itself.

PC's used to be the driving force and now device that costs the same as a single monitor is the driving force behind resolution increases .

IMO that's a positive thing. Technology is always moving forwards, especially electronics. It's always been this way, computers have gotten smaller and smaller over the years and I doubt it'll stop with touchpads; maybe one day we'll all walk around with wet-wired implants in our brains. Today we walk around with cellphones that have as much or more memory, storage capacity and computing power than mainframes of two decades ago.

If the iPad can usher in a new high-definition era in computing...so much the better I say.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Two reaons:
99,9% doesn't care.
For 99,9% there isn't any real world advantage in having a high resolution screen.

I work part time in a computer store and it usually goes like this: I want a laptop do to photoshop. Oke so I usually advice something with a 1080p screen because you have more space to work with. Most people don't care at all. They just buy a laptop with the same specs but with a shitty low res screen for 150 euros less. Or sometimes they say I can't see things properly with such a high res. Too small.

Looking at what the average person does with his/her pc, there is no need for such a high resolution. Apart from the professional market and gamers that have mone enough to buy a new crossfire/sli setup every year to actually power such a screen resolution with the newest games, there is just no real use for it. Most people won't even be able to see the difference.

I'm sure the apple fanboys are going crazy over how much better the ipad3 is going to be, but all I see it as is extra expenses, more power draw, gpu power ''wasted'' on the resolution while I dare to bet that most people wont even be able to tell the difference between a 1080p or even 720p screen and the one in the ipad3.

 

[almighty]

The ipad a $500 device has a resolution of 2047 by 1536 pixels. Monitors with a resolution approaching this cost over a thousand dollars.

Why are we not seeing higher resolutions at home and when can we expect them to start coming ? PC's used to be the driving force and now device that costs the same as a single monitor is the driving force behind resolution increases .

Because I for one like to run my games at max settings and I don't like/can't afford ultra high end hardware.

On a 2047x1536 monitor I would either have to reduce settings or buy ultra high end hardware... And I would be stuck having by hardware of that calibre for the rest of my gaming life.

 

[pcchen]

Remember that the cost of a LCD is not just about resolution, it's also about size. Even at the same resolution, a larger panel is much more expensive (which also including the need for larger back light).

Resolution density (dpi) is another issue. As others already noted, the most popular desktop OS (i.e. Windows) has poor support for resolution independence. Of course, it's a very hard problem and I don't blame Microsoft. Even Apple just released a double resolution mode in MacOS X not long ago. If, for example, Windows 8 shipped with a double resolution mode, maybe we'll see some LCDs with nice resolution.

 

[McHuj]

I would love to have a 2560x1600 23-24" monitor. I'm not aware of any with that resolution under 27". I really hope Apple starts adopting "retina" displays across their entire product line so that everyone else follows.

In my fantasy world, what I'd have a 24-27" 3840x2160 monitor. That way games could still be rendered at 1080p and linearly scaled without any artifacts. That should be indistinguishable from gaming on a 1080p monitor.

 

[Grall]

As others already noted, the most popular desktop OS (i.e. Windows) has poor support for resolution independence. Of course, it's a very hard problem and I don't blame Microsoft.

Interesting aside: NeXTStep featured resolution independence back in the early 90s.

Of course, since it was vector based IIRC it wasn't terribly fast on the kind of CPUs they had back then. Also, IRIX, Silicon Graphics' version of Unix, had a vector based UI which was TEEEERRIBLY sluggish even on their Indigo and Onyx workstations.

In any case, full vectorization (rather than just fonts) is of course the proper way to do resolution independence, but I don't think we'll see either MS or Apple actually go that way. They'll hack something together and call it a day.

 

[Arwin]

I would love to have a 2560x1600 23-24" monitor. I'm not aware of any with that resolution under 27". I really hope Apple starts adopting "retina" displays across their entire product line so that everyone else follows.

In my fantasy world, what I'd have a 24-27" 3840x2160 monitor. That way games could still be rendered at 1080p and linearly scaled without any artifacts. That should be indistinguishable from gaming on a 1080p monitor.

The distance I'm sitting at, 22" would do. Then throw in passive glasses 3D (I can probably live with glassesless too, but fine with passive - I like those LG screens, just need them to not be half-res in 3D) while we're at it (should be fine at that res). I could certainly live with that!

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I would love to have a 2560x1600 23-24" monitor. I'm not aware of any with that resolution under 27". I really hope Apple starts adopting "retina" displays across their entire product line so that everyone else follows.

In my fantasy world, what I'd have a 24-27" 3840x2160 monitor. That way games could still be rendered at 1080p and linearly scaled without any artifacts. That should be indistinguishable from gaming on a 1080p monitor.

In 2001 IBM made the T220, a 3840x2400 resolution 22" monitor. It's been done before on the PC, just never made it even remotely close to the consumer market.

That also has a slightly higher pixel density than the upcoming iPad refresh I believe.

As to Apple pushing things. Well, they do and they don't. Sometimes things get adopted but most times it either takes a long long time (high resolution monitors), enjoys only limited market penetration (SCSI, Firewire), or doesn't last more than a few years in the Mac world (super floppies).

The new push for high resolution displays may fare better than many of Apple's past technology pushes. Mostly due to the fact that TV manufacturer's need something to attempt to boost TV sales now that 3D is proving to be about as attractive as Laser Disc was. So with TV manufactures hoping to push 4k in the upcoming years we may see a hard push. I remain skeptical that high resolution displays on large scale monitors/TVs (20" or more) will be even remotely as affordable as high resolution displays on small screens (10" or less).

Regards,
SB

 

[Arwin]

Apple isn't about new tech as much as applying the right tech at the right time with the right software.

 

[pcchen]

T220 is actually ~200 dpi, slightly less than the new iPad. It's still very good, of course, but also very expensive. But that's 11 years ago.

I think we are going to see roughly double resolution TV some day, but that's it. If a 42" TV has 3840x2160 resolution, although only ~100 dpi, that's "retina" enough if you view it from 2 meters away.

 

[Blazkowicz]

Looking at what the average person does with his/her pc, there is no need for such a high resolution. Apart from the professional market and gamers that have mone enough to buy a new crossfire/sli setup every year to actually power such a screen resolution with the newest games, there is just no real use for it. Most people won't even be able to see the difference.

I'm sure the apple fanboys are going crazy over how much better the ipad3 is going to be, but all I see it as is extra expenses, more power draw, gpu power ''wasted'' on the resolution while I dare to bet that most people wont even be able to tell the difference between a 1080p or even 720p screen and the one in the ipad3.

there's one obvious benefit, even if perhaps the single one : for reading text. it's plain old font rendering that computers have been doing for decades.

I guess it makes the characters more readable, easier to read densely packed text, fonts looking sharper and better. on a book-sized tablet it will be pretty nice.

on a full size desktop display, if you're into video games and movies, yes we couldn't care less. but if you have a beard, run dozens of unix terminals and compose documents in Latex then you must be drooling over this.

 

[Entropy]

there's one obvious benefit, even if perhaps the single one : for reading text. it's plain old font rendering that computers have been doing for decades.

I guess it makes the characters more readable, easier to read densely packed text, fonts looking sharper and better. on a book-sized tablet it will be pretty nice.

on a full size desktop display, if you're into video games and movies, yes we couldn't care less. but if you have a beard, run dozens of unix terminals and compose documents in Latex then you must be drooling over this.

Or read posts on a forum.....

 

[Mize]

Interesting aside: NeXTStep featured resolution independence back in the early 90s.

[Sigh] Ah how I miss NeXTStep. Had a Cube, a station and a TurboColor station...way, way ahead of its time...

 

[Mize]

Because I for one like to run my games at max settings and I don't like/can't afford ultra high end hardware.

Says the guy with TECs running on his water-cooled CFX/SLI system?

 

[homerdog]

This is maybe a bit off topic but I thought the iPad 2 had the same screen as the iPad 1? Are we talking about the iPad 3?

 

[Xmas]

The new push for high resolution displays may fare better than many of Apple's past technology pushes.

In this case it's simply an evolution like going from 32-bit to 64-bit. There's no alternative technology that could replace it. Apple is just in the prime position to deliver first because they sell the whole package. OS support and interface are in place, and as a major buyer of LCD panels they can single-handedly create the demand needed for ramping up production.