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

[AlphaWolf]

People looked at SD for 50 years, they can probably handle more than a few years of HD. If the manufacturers thought consumers could/would buy product in sufficiently quantity to make it profitable they would probably provide higher resolution sets. I suspect most people who bought an HDTV for >$1000 in the last few years wouldn't be ready to quintuple that investment for a few extra pixels (that they may or may not notice).

 

[zed]

One thing with much higher DPI is Sxotty & Grall sigs will be a lot more legible, quite ironic in Sxotty's case WRT his post

edit - FWIW I done a test with a 326ppi iphone, me in my chair as I normally sit it at the same disatnce as the monitor is (i.e. held on the monitor) I could still make out the pixels aliasing, but its close to my limit.

 

[Grall]

There is no reason why we aren't getting 2500x1600 hd Tv displays that upscale pictures...

The reasons are basically twofold:

One - cost. Higher rez displays are more complicated to manufacture, yield is less, prices higher. Also, they let through less light, so you need a stronger lightsource, raising power draw.

Two - there's no need. Upscaling 1080P to 1600P (which is not proper aspect ratio for widescreen btw, so unworkable for that reason) gives NO QUALITY INCREASE. And, there's no source content available for that resolution right now, and won't be for many many years to come.

So the incentive is zero to build such a TV, for bothh financial and practical reasons.

 

[french toast]

The reasons are basically twofold:

One - cost. Higher rez displays are more complicated to manufacture, yield is less, prices higher. Also, they let through less light, so you need a stronger lightsource, raising power draw.

Two - there's no need. Upscaling 1080P to 1600P (which is not proper aspect ratio for widescreen btw, so unworkable for that reason) gives NO QUALITY INCREASE. And, there's no source content available for that resolution right now, and won't be for many many years to come.

So the incentive is zero to build such a TV, for bothh financial and practical reasons.

Yes the best stuff always costs more to manufacturer..that can't be the sole reason...1080p has been around for years now..are you teeling me the cost have not gone down considerably in that time?....when you are prepared to pay £2000/$3500 on a televison..it seems to me there are more than enough margins, and as the new ipad proved..more than enough technology to make it happpen.

If you take the Toshiba cell tv....that thing has the processing power to up scale pictures to much higher resolutions...my Sharp tv at home, upscales normal definition actually rather well...and the processing is no where near what a cell could do....you could easilly up scale to 3840x2160 with current tech...don't forget the tv is plugged into the wall...ipad has just a battery!

 

[Arwin]

Still, I don't see any real business sense to do it with that resolution. Much more logical to wait and then go straight to 4k and 8k, where 4k would be nice for passive 3D, and you at least have the opportunity to render stuff without *having* to upscale.

 

[french toast]

Still, I don't see any real business sense to do it with that resolution. Much more logical to wait and then go straight to 4k and 8k, where 4k would be nice for passive 3D, and you at least have the opportunity to render stuff without *having* to upscale.

Of course it makes buisiness sense..if you are offering a product advantge over your competitors...people forking out the GDP of a small country (adjusting to the current climate) will certainly factor in something like that....

Technology moves forward...look at mobile screens...they keep edging up further and further..people keep buying the latest and greatest...just saying.

 

[Arwin]

The reality though is that upscaled to a weird new resolution just doesn't look all that great thanks to fixed pixel sizes and sometimes outright ugly.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Sort of impulse bought the new iPad today... I got the base 16GB white model. I have to say that the screen is pretty sweet

 

[french toast]

The reality though is that upscaled to a weird new resolution just doesn't look all that great thanks to fixed pixel sizes and sometimes outright ugly.

Well 2x certainly isn't weird..that the IPAD 2 - IPAD 3 change...granted upscaling is obviously not as good as native..with out question...however if the panel manufacturers moved the technology on there would be more of an incentive to make some native content..remember hardware comes first..then the software follows...

Besides..many top line tv's actually upscale very very well...seriously it has moved on a great deal...the point is we are getting raw deal with resolution..

 

[Arwin]

Well 2x certainly isn't weird..that the IPAD 2 - IPAD 3 change...granted upscaling is obviously not as good as native..with out question...however if the panel manufacturers moved the technology on there would be more of an incentive to make some native content..remember hardware comes first..then the software follows...

Besides..many top line tv's actually upscale very very well...seriously it has moved on a great deal...the point is we are getting raw deal with resolution..

I was responding to your suggestion of "2500x1600 hd Tv"

The iPad 2 to IPad 3 change is a 4x change, and something I could more get behind. We're seeing that happen already, albeit only just slowly. I've just been saying that it makes sense to skip your '2500x1600 hd Tv' suggestion, imho.

And yes, Apple is giving some good examples of why it is better to do it like that. All their steps up in resolution have been an even doubling / quadrupling. And the iPad 3 does have upscaling features I think, shown among others by the 3D games that usually do not run in iPad 3 native res, but more something like 1440x1080)

 

[french toast]

I was responding to your suggestion of "2500x1600 hd Tv"

The iPad 2 to IPad 3 change is a 4x change, and something I could more get behind. We're seeing that happen already, albeit only just slowly. I've just been saying that it makes sense to skip your '2500x1600 hd Tv' suggestion, imho.

Yea..i was just throwing any old improvement forward a straight 2-4x would be the way to go...after oled screens makes the grade..thats the only way to IMHO.

 

[Grall]

1080p has been around for years now..are you teeling me the cost have not gone down considerably in that time?

I don't see the point you're trying to make. 1080P panels are cheap because they're ubiqutous in the TV industry; it's a now firmly established standard. What does that have to do with anything? You're discussing oranges using apples as an example.

....when you are prepared to pay £2000/$3500 on a televison..it seems to me there are more than enough margins, and as the new ipad proved..more than enough technology to make it happpen.

Extremely few people are willing to pay two thousand quid for a TV. It's super niche, especially since you'd gain nothing from it. Going from SDTV up to HD at least had a visible benefit.

my Sharp tv at home, upscales normal definition actually rather well...and the processing is no where near what a cell could do....you could easilly up scale to 3840x2160 with current tech...

SDTV is just a quarter the resolution of HDTV, roughly (or less, depending on if you compare PAL or NTSC), upscaling anything beyond that runs you into diminishing returns very quickly. You don't create any new detail with upscaling, it doesn't give a percievable visual increase in the same way higher definition source imagery does. There's no legit reason to go with higher-def panels today.

It's kind of like those silly RGBY panels some manufacturer(s) put into some of their models, it has virtually no visible impact, it just costs more money for no genuine reason.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Yes the best stuff always costs more to manufacturer..that can't be the sole reason...1080p has been around for years now..are you teeling me the cost have not gone down considerably in that time?....when you are prepared to pay £2000/$3500 on a televison..it seems to me there are more than enough margins, and as the new ipad proved..more than enough technology to make it happpen.

If you take the Toshiba cell tv....that thing has the processing power to up scale pictures to much higher resolutions...my Sharp tv at home, upscales normal definition actually rather well...and the processing is no where near what a cell could do....you could easilly up scale to 3840x2160 with current tech...don't forget the tv is plugged into the wall...ipad has just a battery!

As Grall pointed out and as I have in previous posts here, 1080p has gone down in price due to its use in LCD TVs.

Lets consider what happens when you limit the market to...oh let's say the computer market.

Here we've had 1920x1200 monitors for longer than we have had 1920x1080 monitors OR TV sets. However, since it isn't used in TV's the cost hasn't really gone down all that much. In fact, it was pretty stagnant at around 400-500 USD for the past 5+ years. Although recently there's been a small push to introduce more affordable 16:10 24" displays.

Once we have TV manufacturer's pushing high PPI HDTVs then we may eventually get affordable high PPI computer monitors.

Also, remember that it took quite a few years for 1080p HDTV's to become even remotely affordable for most consumers. So even after 4k HDTV's are introduced to the market, it'll still be quite some years before the cost drops.

I'm fully expecting the first consumer oriented "4k" displays to be around 2000-4000 USD for a cheap unit, and possibly even more than that. Prosumer/Professional 4K displays will likely be offered earlier and for even more than that.

Regards,
SB

 

[french toast]

I don't see the point you're trying to make. 1080P panels are cheap because they're ubiqutous in the TV industry; it's a now firmly established standard. What does that have to do with anything? You're discussing oranges using apples as an example.

..No im not, Common sense tells you that if they were selling 1080p panels 6 years ago...manufacturing priced would have dropped immensely..so..on the midrange cheaper panels..sure you can get a cheap decent 1080p tv...BUT.if you want to pay more than $1500 for a top of the range tv... then you should have access to 4k...what about plugging your PC into one?? alot of people already do that anyway- The technology difference between a $1000 tv and a $4000 tv is now negligible....

Im not talking about people in the lower/mid brackect...they already get a fantastic deal with their 1080p...im talking about people who like high end products...you expect high end tech to push the bounderies....thats all im saying...

SDTV is just a quarter the resolution of HDTV, roughly (or less, depending on if you compare PAL or NTSC), upscaling anything beyond that runs you into diminishing returns very quickly. You don't create any new detail with upscaling, it doesn't give a percievable visual increase in the same way higher definition source imagery does. There's no legit reason to go with higher-def panels today.

It's kind of like those silly RGBY panels some manufacturer(s) put into some of their models, it has virtually no visible impact, it just costs more money for no genuine reason.
__________________

Where did i say that? i said scale to 4x...which is what my tv already does a fantastic job at from SD-HD.......of course it makes a difference...it even makes a difference...on the xbox 360..which was a £300 console in 2005....it DOES add more detail..my eyes can attest to that....im not saying its better than Native..of course its not..its artifical..but anything up 4x with powerfull processing can make a stunning difference.

By the way my sharp Quattron was the worlds first RGBY panel....and its stunning...it DOES make a difference....although as a disclaimer..i wouldn't call in colour reproduction completely accurate..some blues are overly saturated..but that has nothing to do with the Yellow sub pixel....Golds really do resemble gold.
All movies though are made with RGB..so any deviation from that wont be accurate by default.

Once we have TV manufacturer's pushing high PPI HDTVs then we may eventually get affordable high PPI computer monitors.

Also, remember that it took quite a few years for 1080p HDTV's to become even remotely affordable for most consumers. So even after 4k HDTV's are introduced to the market, it'll still be quite some years before the cost drops.

I'm fully expecting the first consumer oriented "4k" displays to be around 2000-4000 USD for a cheap unit, and possibly even more than that. Prosumer/Professional 4K displays will likely be offered earlier and for even more than that

Thats what im talking about..the £2000-£4000 displays should have been here already...as you state your self...it pushes the technology down into other markets...which helps it get more mainstream-then film companys/tv/game consoles etc etc are persuaded to develop software (NATIVE) to stick on it..to give them a competitive advantage over their competition....this is the merry go round of technology..always move forward...im having the same debate on the wp7 thread about not wanting dual/quad cores....people just don't get it.

EDIT; My wish is for a 50inch Samsung oled display running at 4k..with the oled's laminated onto gorrilla glass 2..maybe some steroscopic 3d action as well. and some custom cell processing power to run it!..(wont be ablt to afford that anytime soon..but we can dream)

 

[Kyyla]

I was on a beach holiday last month and read 4 books with my Kindle touch. It is a relly great device. I just love the display. I felt pity for the poor chap reading with his ipad in sunlight.

 

[Sxotty]

If the distance between you and the monitor is around 40 cm (~16 inches), by the standard 0.3 arc minute per pixel (0.6 arc minute per line pair), the pixel size should be around 0.035 mm. That's more than 700 dpi.

However, at this resolution we probably can take subpixels as pixels (i.e. those RGB things). So maybe 200 ~ 300 dpi is good enough (Note that on paper you can still see better quality from a 600 dpi print than a 300 dpi print).

Personally I think for a desktop monitor 200 dpi is probably good enough. Since currently 1920x1080 for a 24" is roughly 96dpi, we can get near 200dpi @ double resolution (which is convenient), that's 3840x2160. I think then we can focus more on other important issues such as color gamut and accuracy.

I measured and I sit 33 inches from my monitors. So this may explain why I am not as worried about it. I am never against increases in quality, but personally I would prefer 120hz becoming standard first.

 

[Xmas]

Here we've had 1920x1200 monitors for longer than we have had 1920x1080 monitors OR TV sets. However, since it isn't used in TV's the cost hasn't really gone down all that much. In fact, it was pretty stagnant at around 400-500 USD for the past 5+ years. Although recently there's been a small push to introduce more affordable 16:10 24" displays.

The computer monitor market isn't that much smaller than the TV market. I found some numbers that peg it at 2/3 in terms of revenue worldwide. Those panels are more expensive because they currently are a niche within that smaller market, but if all monitor makers were to use high PPI panels (and/or concentrate on a small number of different panels) they would easily create sufficient demand to bring costs down.

I fully expect 4k (or similar res) monitors to be available for well below $2000 next year.

 

[rpg.314]

Once we have TV manufacturer's pushing high PPI HDTVs then we may eventually get affordable high PPI computer monitors.

That might not happen as TV viewing distance is 10 feet. You don't need as high PPI at those distances.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The computer monitor market isn't that much smaller than the TV market. I found some numbers that peg it at 2/3 in terms of revenue worldwide. Those panels are more expensive because they currently are a niche within that smaller market, but if all monitor makers were to use high PPI panels (and/or concentrate on a small number of different panels) they would easily create sufficient demand to bring costs down.

I fully expect 4k (or similar res) monitors to be available for well below $2000 next year.

And you seriously expect 4k computer monitors to be less of a niche than 2560x1600 monitors?

And 1080p monitors didn't only supplant 1920x1200 monitors. They're also in the process of supplanting 1680x1050, 1400x900, and 1600x900 monitors. Why? Due to dual use in HDTV's the cost to manufacture is lower than those other screen resolutions, despite 1680x1050 having once held over half the computer display market at one point. In other words it wasn't a niche computer display resolution. But manufacturing costs even for those 3 mentioned resolution panels cannot compete with 1080p panels.

That might not happen as TV viewing distance is 10 feet. You don't need as high PPI at those distances.

Certainly true for "smaller" screens. But marketing will attempt to convince people that they need 4K even if the difference isn't noticeable at typical viewing distances.

Similar to how TV manufacturer's managed to convince people that they needed 1080p in 30" TV's and smaller despite the resulting image being indistinguishable from 720p at typical viewing distances.

Heck at my viewing distance I couldn't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on my previous 46" display. It was only when I recently moved up to a 55" set that I could start to notice the difference.

Regards,
SB

 

[Xmas]

And you seriously expect 4k computer monitors to be less of a niche than 2560x1600 monitors?

I expect high PPI to (slowly) become standard. And I expect computer use to be the driving force for at least the next few years., not TV.

And 1080p monitors didn't only supplant 1920x1200 monitors. They're also in the process of supplanting 1680x1050, 1400x900, and 1600x900 monitors. Why? Due to dual use in HDTV's the cost to manufacture is lower than those other screen resolutions, despite 1680x1050 having once held over half the computer display market at one point. In other words it wasn't a niche computer display resolution. But manufacturing costs even for those 3 mentioned resolution panels cannot compete with 1080p panels.

Monitors with these resolutions are still very cheap. But that's not enough to compete when 1080p panels are also cheap and offer more area/better quality.

Similar to how TV manufacturer's managed to convince people that they needed 1080p in 30" TV's and smaller despite the resulting image being indistinguishable from 720p at typical viewing distances.

At least you can argue that viewing distance varies sufficiently for 1080p at those sizes to make a difference for some people. But it's a question of content availability, too. 4K movies will initially only sell to a high-end market (with big TVs) – but 4K on a computer monitor is immediately useful.