Oka so the new iPad has a resolution of 2048x1536 that's more pixels than full hd tv but in a smaller package. Now if apple can create that many pixels in a device that small (9.7inches) imagine how many pixels they could fit in a screen 26inches 32inches and so on that would take tv to a whole new level and as apple would say 'This is only the beginning'
Pixels pixels pixels
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
professorhat
Well-known member
Except there would be no need to load a TV with that many pixels because it would be viewed from a greater distance. The reason for the high dpi on the likes of the iPad and the iPhone is because they are portable devices that you hold in your hand and look at the screen from a relatively short distance. Increasing the resolution therefore improves the experience at the small distances these devices are used at.
On the other hand, people don't watch their TV closer than a few feet at most (more likely somewhere in the region of 6 feet or more). At that distance, 1080p resolution is really all you need for screens of that size (probably up to about 50"). As screens grow larger (65" and more), then it makes more sense to look at resolutions like 4K or Ultra HD (or 8K) for those screens when sitting at normal living room distances. But these screen sizes are still prohibitively expensive.
On the other hand, people don't watch their TV closer than a few feet at most (more likely somewhere in the region of 6 feet or more). At that distance, 1080p resolution is really all you need for screens of that size (probably up to about 50"). As screens grow larger (65" and more), then it makes more sense to look at resolutions like 4K or Ultra HD (or 8K) for those screens when sitting at normal living room distances. But these screen sizes are still prohibitively expensive.
All good points! but this is apple and people do have the tendency to beleive what they hear not what they see I remember when hd tvs started coming out people didn't know the difference between 1080i and 1080p so they stuck full next to hd for those who are not savy so 1080p became full hd. And also know more and more people are using there tv as computer screen I think we're see more pixels in tv soon enough specially know the likes of apple taking centre stage. I do believe it's just a matter of time before apple announce there version of the tv and like apple I do belive it will be magical lol.
Paul.
Well-known member
Daniel 1 said:
I know! Imagine if they made a 27" display that was 2560x1440 pixels, that would be ace. They could even put a computer in it! Bet they wont though...
Tv are a big market for apple to take on they will have to cater for all people that mean a rage of sizes, 19inch-50inch and above, people like certain sizes. Then again couldn't they just fit what we want in the apple tv that we already have (yes that little box) they could have there own freeveiw voice control (siri) they already cater 1080p. In fact the only things the apple tv lacks other than software is like a iSight camera but again apple could bring there own iSight camera and have it attached in some sort of ideal can't see it way to your existing tv! Now if they keep that apple tv (the tiny box thing lol) and make it worth purchasing voice control decent freeveiw lovefilm wouldn't go a miss maybe even safari for brief surfing it can cater for every1 because you would just connect to your existing tv. This is what I'm saying other than having more pixels they can't really make a huge amount of difference that they can't already do with the existing apple tv why go through all that trouble bringing out there own tvs! But stop me there this is apple who ever would think I needed a bigger iPod touch but here I am typing on 1 that's 4 sizes too big!
But what is going to be viewed on all these pixels?
- Images over 1024 pixels in Safari on IPad 3 are downscaled (eg. if the image you are looking at is originally 18megapixels 5184x3456 it will be downsampled to 1.12megapixels 1296x864 - and then upscaled to fit screen - resulting in blocky images, and lack of detail.)
- 1080p videos will need to be upscaled - introducing blockiness. If the details not in the source theres not much you can do.
- Ipad3 doesnt have enough memory bandwidth to render games at native res with textures - so they will be rendered at lower resolution and upscaled. Already seen with Ipad 3 versions of games lacking visual effects seen in other tablets.
The term blockly is of course relative - but dont get blown away by the PR. Almost none of it will be rendered at native resolution, most things will be upscaled. It is still a lovely screen though - but it needs source material
- Images over 1024 pixels in Safari on IPad 3 are downscaled (eg. if the image you are looking at is originally 18megapixels 5184x3456 it will be downsampled to 1.12megapixels 1296x864 - and then upscaled to fit screen - resulting in blocky images, and lack of detail.)
- 1080p videos will need to be upscaled - introducing blockiness. If the details not in the source theres not much you can do.
- Ipad3 doesnt have enough memory bandwidth to render games at native res with textures - so they will be rendered at lower resolution and upscaled. Already seen with Ipad 3 versions of games lacking visual effects seen in other tablets.
The term blockly is of course relative - but dont get blown away by the PR. Almost none of it will be rendered at native resolution, most things will be upscaled. It is still a lovely screen though - but it needs source material
I haven't played any games yet but photographs synched to my new iPad and displayed on the screen look almost 3D.
I have never seen my photo's look so sharp and vivid.
So far I am very pleased with it - but then I am using it for my work and not as a games machine.
I have never seen my photo's look so sharp and vivid.
So far I am very pleased with it - but then I am using it for my work and not as a games machine.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram