Active Topics
-
Maemo 5 (Fremantle) to i386 (1)
to Maemo 5 / Fremantle by pichlo - 22 hrs, 24 mins ago -
Applications Wishlist (53)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Halftux - 1 day, 11 hrs ago -
How do I port Maemo to a unsupported device? (4)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by ste-phan - 4 days, 21 hrs ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (6)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 4 days, 22 hrs ago - more...
railroadmaster |
2010-10-16
, 14:16
|
|
Posts: 1,082 |
Thanked: 1,235 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
|
#31
|
The WeTab is nice but seriously 800 dollars way to much money.
|
|
2010-10-16
, 18:24
|
|
Posts: 701 |
Thanked: 585 times |
Joined on Sep 2010
@ London, England
|
#32
|
@ Kangal: Firstly, what are you doing editing your post to quote what I wrote after your original post? It makes it hard to follow the the flow of the discussion and see what new stuff has been written. Keep the edits for fixing mistakes and make a new post for adding new comments or clarifying your original points.
Now, to address the rest of your post, it is all based on a flawed assumption about viewing distance. I can tell you that I typically hold my N900 between 10-20 cm from my face; while I may struggle to see individual pixels at 20 cm, I can see them at 10, therefore >220 PPI clearly isn't too much since the N900 has 266 PPI and I can still see individual pixels.
At one point in your post you make the assumption that a 10" tablet would be used at 50cm, I don't have my netbook screen that far away when I'm actually using it (unless I'm watching video), so why on earth would I stretch my arm to hold a tablet at that distance. For a tablet computer, if the resolution is so high I can't see the detail I can bring it closer to my face, there is a point where increased resolution will be superfluous and it does depend on viewing distance, however most devices these days (generally excepting TVs) don't come close.
Now, to address the rest of your post, it is all based on a flawed assumption about viewing distance. I can tell you that I typically hold my N900 between 10-20 cm from my face; while I may struggle to see individual pixels at 20 cm, I can see them at 10, therefore >220 PPI clearly isn't too much since the N900 has 266 PPI and I can still see individual pixels.
At one point in your post you make the assumption that a 10" tablet would be used at 50cm, I don't have my netbook screen that far away when I'm actually using it (unless I'm watching video), so why on earth would I stretch my arm to hold a tablet at that distance. For a tablet computer, if the resolution is so high I can't see the detail I can bring it closer to my face, there is a point where increased resolution will be superfluous and it does depend on viewing distance, however most devices these days (generally excepting TVs) don't come close.
 |
|
2010-10-16
, 18:33
|
|
Posts: 333 |
Thanked: 153 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ blah blah
|
#33
|
famous toshiba plastic-fantastic design takes another !win
 |
|
2010-10-16
, 22:48
|
|
Posts: 1,789 |
Thanked: 1,699 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
|
#34
|
This one'c going to be a big post so I'll split it into 3 topics (size, bezel, screen)
@retsaw
Sorry about switching them around, I thought I covered enough ground that we wouldn't be discussing screen resolution and screen size anymore, and that I was enthusiastic to see your views on having a tablet running MIUI (with optimizations like I've listed).
Firstly: Size.
Has anyone here actually tried carrying an iPad around campus You notice after a while that it is very large and awkward and its actually very comfortable and small in your bag. However, the iPad may be awkward to carry by hand/grapsed in arm, it was actually to the point where it was bearable even when on foot for >25mins. And it certainly was better grasping it with a protector than continuously going into my bag to retrieve it. I've just graduated from the University of Queensland, and this is one of the largest campuses around fyi. So Steve Jobs, you've done a great thing on finding the largest size bearable, congratulations and good luck.
In addition, if you compare a tablet with 16:9 10" screen with thin bezel you see it is less wide but slightly longer than the iPad. But it's still slightly larger but within the confines of the iPad's size. I would love to grab a tablet I've described and do the whole "campus test", but money doesn't grow on trees here.
Firstly if you grab it the way you would a sandwhich-rotated (thumbs are parallel to the index, displaying the anatomical snuff box) it would maximize comfort and grip but it would also touch a large portion of the touchscreen. So I would grab this if I were watching a movie in portrait mode where my thumbs would not hit any links/buttons.
Secondly the newspaper method (your thumb wedges the tablet to the joint of the 4th and 5th phalanges of your index, and stabilizes with the lower-medial palm) was how Apple designed the iPad to be used. What this grip does is allow as much contact with your thumb on the bezel as possible, while clenching the bottom with only your index finger support. I can tell you after reading some scientific articles in that position for a while (>50min) you get a cramp on the medial-side of that joint in your surgical-hand one hand (for me it was my right-hand because I have better control and power there utilizing the left hand to flip pages every so minutes that I unconciensely avoided this). This can be easily avoided if the user knows about it and switches hands to do the page flicking. Overall, the amount of grip to the tablet is medium because the bottom is the slightly more important side needs contact but it only has one point of grip since the palm merely stabilizes the grip instead of providing full grip support.
Thirdly the book method. Ever grab a small novel and the way the page opens in a weird angle after reading for some time? Well that's because you slowly and unknowingly shift your grip from the newspaper-way to the book-way. This is when the top side is gripped with the medial-side of the thumbs (like in the newspaper method but your hand rolled to the side), your thumb grabs the tablet with hard and durant part of your thumb while not using the thick bezel. The lower part of the tablet is gripped (not stabilized) with the middle palm and all the fingers in an array. What you achieve is better grip than the newspaper way but your thumbs now only require half the bezel. Also, the endurance of this grip is higher and this is due to the fact that your inner-palm grabs the side of the tablet to relieve the stress from the thumb and fingers. With a trimmed bezel on the landscape sides, the user must adopt this form of gripping in portrait-style, if they want to avoid touching the screen, and the advantages are apparent. You can test all these grip methods yourself on a tablet or a thin notebook/netbook to get a better idea of this philosophy.
So you see, the Apple isn't perfect for me because I very much value those last cm's of screen-estate from the sides, and this is true when you open (MS/Open)Office and start viewing large webpages.
Last edited by Kangal; 2010-10-16 at 22:52. Reason: typo + link
@retsaw
Sorry about switching them around, I thought I covered enough ground that we wouldn't be discussing screen resolution and screen size anymore, and that I was enthusiastic to see your views on having a tablet running MIUI (with optimizations like I've listed).
Firstly: Size.
Has anyone here actually tried carrying an iPad around campus You notice after a while that it is very large and awkward and its actually very comfortable and small in your bag. However, the iPad may be awkward to carry by hand/grapsed in arm, it was actually to the point where it was bearable even when on foot for >25mins. And it certainly was better grasping it with a protector than continuously going into my bag to retrieve it. I've just graduated from the University of Queensland, and this is one of the largest campuses around fyi. So Steve Jobs, you've done a great thing on finding the largest size bearable, congratulations and good luck.
In addition, if you compare a tablet with 16:9 10" screen with thin bezel you see it is less wide but slightly longer than the iPad. But it's still slightly larger but within the confines of the iPad's size. I would love to grab a tablet I've described and do the whole "campus test", but money doesn't grow on trees here.
Originally Posted by ysss
Yes I realize this point, but I already took it into consideration. Well I agree Apple are notorious when testing their devices, and strive to get what they believe is perfection. But remember this is their idea of perfection, yours may vary. Example Apple thinks the perfect phone is the iPhone 4, I disagree because I much prefer the Milestone/Milestone2 (qwerty + removable battery + removable storage). Now with bezels it's kind of trickky and it all depends on the individual. Individuals with longer hands and fatter thumbs, will have increased chance of touching the screen when grabbing the tablet in portrait -style. There's three ways of grabbing the tablet (sandwhich, newspaper and book).
With the current standard of thick bezel, you can grab the slate naturally as you would a (paper) notepad; there's no need to artificially adapt your gestures to accommodate thinner bezels.
If there's any company that puts so much weight on how their products look. So vain. It's Apple. It's Steve Jobs. I can imagine him having many a sleepness night trying to find ways to shave off the sides of the iPad and still maintain high level of usability. Look at where it's at today.
The thinner bezel looks nicer, but all it does is conjure the many many usability problems I've had with all my past (Windows) tablets/convertibles....
Firstly if you grab it the way you would a sandwhich-rotated (thumbs are parallel to the index, displaying the anatomical snuff box) it would maximize comfort and grip but it would also touch a large portion of the touchscreen. So I would grab this if I were watching a movie in portrait mode where my thumbs would not hit any links/buttons.
Secondly the newspaper method (your thumb wedges the tablet to the joint of the 4th and 5th phalanges of your index, and stabilizes with the lower-medial palm) was how Apple designed the iPad to be used. What this grip does is allow as much contact with your thumb on the bezel as possible, while clenching the bottom with only your index finger support. I can tell you after reading some scientific articles in that position for a while (>50min) you get a cramp on the medial-side of that joint in your surgical-hand one hand (for me it was my right-hand because I have better control and power there utilizing the left hand to flip pages every so minutes that I unconciensely avoided this). This can be easily avoided if the user knows about it and switches hands to do the page flicking. Overall, the amount of grip to the tablet is medium because the bottom is the slightly more important side needs contact but it only has one point of grip since the palm merely stabilizes the grip instead of providing full grip support.
Thirdly the book method. Ever grab a small novel and the way the page opens in a weird angle after reading for some time? Well that's because you slowly and unknowingly shift your grip from the newspaper-way to the book-way. This is when the top side is gripped with the medial-side of the thumbs (like in the newspaper method but your hand rolled to the side), your thumb grabs the tablet with hard and durant part of your thumb while not using the thick bezel. The lower part of the tablet is gripped (not stabilized) with the middle palm and all the fingers in an array. What you achieve is better grip than the newspaper way but your thumbs now only require half the bezel. Also, the endurance of this grip is higher and this is due to the fact that your inner-palm grabs the side of the tablet to relieve the stress from the thumb and fingers. With a trimmed bezel on the landscape sides, the user must adopt this form of gripping in portrait-style, if they want to avoid touching the screen, and the advantages are apparent. You can test all these grip methods yourself on a tablet or a thin notebook/netbook to get a better idea of this philosophy.
So you see, the Apple isn't perfect for me because I very much value those last cm's of screen-estate from the sides, and this is true when you open (MS/Open)Office and start viewing large webpages.
Last edited by Kangal; 2010-10-16 at 22:52. Reason: typo + link
|
|
2010-10-16
, 23:50
|
|
Posts: 1,789 |
Thanked: 1,699 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
|
#35
|
Now, sorry that last post was long. I just wanted to give you as much info as possible why I prefer a trimmed bezel on the landscape-side (holding-portrait) and why so on a 10" screen (readability, less zooming needed, links are easier to press and avoid).
This third section will involve resolution density (PPI values for short).
I've already discussed this and my stance is that a perfect tablet is 1366x768 on a 10" tablet. However, I've discussed why a 1024x600 on a 10" tablet is low-resolution but sufficient for a tablet, and more desired over a medium-resolution 1024x600 7" tablet. So instead I'm just going to let you flip back one-page to read it, and I will reply to the comments.
1) seeing things more easily, avoid hitting things easily and easily hit things but get slightly "chunky" graphics.
2) seeing things harder, able to accidentally hit things more often, able to miss hitting things more often but get "smoother" graphics.
edit: sorry I misread your comment, yes I would notice slight "chunkiness" of a 100PPI display that is 45cm from my eyes. I thought it was 123PPI at 57cm from your eyes (sorry I'm tired).
I will reiterate, the more the pixels; the merrier. But you do get to a point where we get greedy and those extra pixels mean nothing to the user experience (eg iPhone4 vs Galaxy S resolutions). If you can see individual pixels on your N900 on the homescreen etc, you have dead-pixels, or get that thing out from your face, or you are a Superhero/villian (and I'm gald to meet you).
Have I left any other areas of discussion?
If not can we discuss this now because I think its great and I think it would make a perfect experience on a tablet.
Last edited by Kangal; 2010-10-16 at 23:58.
This third section will involve resolution density (PPI values for short).
I've already discussed this and my stance is that a perfect tablet is 1366x768 on a 10" tablet. However, I've discussed why a 1024x600 on a 10" tablet is low-resolution but sufficient for a tablet, and more desired over a medium-resolution 1024x600 7" tablet. So instead I'm just going to let you flip back one-page to read it, and I will reply to the comments.
Originally Posted by RobbieThe1st
Agreed. And like I've said before, this is a personal choice for everyone: do you prefer:
To be honest, I completely disagree. The whole benefit of a high PPI screen is that you have trouble seeing individual pixels - Things look "smooth" vs "chunky".
1) seeing things more easily, avoid hitting things easily and easily hit things but get slightly "chunky" graphics.
2) seeing things harder, able to accidentally hit things more often, able to miss hitting things more often but get "smoother" graphics.
Originally Posted by RobbieThe1st
Are you Superman, a dbz character or a cyborg of some sort?!?
I have a ~100ppi 23" desktop screen(1920x1080), and at a distance of 18" or so, I can see individual pixels clearly; a single pixel out of place on a font looks bad, and if something's spaced slightly off its easily noticeable.
edit: sorry I misread your comment, yes I would notice slight "chunkiness" of a 100PPI display that is 45cm from my eyes. I thought it was 123PPI at 57cm from your eyes (sorry I'm tired).
Originally Posted by RobbieThe1st
Yes the more pixel density the better. But remember there is a limitation: your eyes and the CPU+RAM+GPU on the device. The more pixels you have, the more power you need, the less battery life you will get. On the topic of AA, you are comparing Apples to Oranges!
My N900 is even better - I really have to strain to see individual pixels, and AA on games isn't even really required for it to appear sharp and clear; On my desktop screen, 4XAA is required for a game to look good. On my laptop, 2X is sort of required.
Originally Posted by RobbieThe1st
You are free to say what ever you want, but I respectfully disagree and so does my justifications. Let's agree to disagree?
So, in conclusion, I completely disagree, and don't think you know what you know what you are talking about.
Originally Posted by ysss
I see what you did there. But all kidding aside, a high PPI does nothing but make things look smooth. I would love a Retina-display, would I need it, no. And think of other advantages you get with medium-resolution over high-resolution... like cost.
I think the pitfall here is how this particular feature is 'classed'. When you say something is 'necessary' or not, then you get very2 subjective.
ie: Is it a necessity for anyone here to own a 7 or 10" internet tablet?
Originally Posted by ysss
Yes I also pondered about this. But remember Android has pinch-to-zoom (and a great one at that, besting the iOS). And if you think outside-the-box, Windows has that natively within the explorer and so does webrowsers like Firefox. Good point, but one we don't need to worry about in this case.
Generally I agree. But the distance can vary a lot and there's one more element here that I think is crucial, which was the saving grace of past iPhone\Touch's low ppi screens:
- Zoom capability of the OS. (How fast, how easy, how available)
Originally Posted by ysss
Woops, sorry. I didn't mean the aspect ratio, I meant the PPI, as long as the message was successfully understood. Btw the PPI comparison between those two would be 160PPI vs 196PPI, and yes the difference between the two is hard to distinguish when its used at the intended distance from eyes.
Yes, because you're comparing a 4:3 screen with a 16:9 screen. It's not a direct ppi comparison, you're unnecessarily introducing another element in this comparison.
Originally Posted by ysss
I love HD. As for standards; I own a Samsung Galaxy S. This discussion is about why standard def is "acceptable". I've stated before 1366x768 (720p) on 10" is what I want, but if I have to settle for 1024x600, that is acceptable to a person of my techh-calibre.
@VGA on 5": Subjective. People may mistake this to you having less sensitivity to high quality picture or having low standards.
Originally Posted by ysss
Agreed, iPad's 132PPI display is good/nice. About the next generation iPad, I agree with Capt'NCrunch
iPad's resolution is not bad, but I am quite certain Jobs will put retina-class display on the next one. I certainly could use a higher ppi on the iPad when reading publications (ie: zinio) on it.
Originally Posted by retsaw
I don't know about you but I've applied to be in the army and been through all the physical examinations and they told me I've got 20/20 vision. I want to keep it that way, that is why I keep my laptop and phone at the distance they were meant to be used. The laptop is exactly an arms length, my SGS is half of that. I haven't seen many people in the public keep their phones closer than that; a distance of roughly 38cm (I just measured!). And so it is completely valid that a tablet be used at a distance of 40/50cm (any closer and you'll get square-eyes
Now, to address the rest of your post, it is all based on a flawed assumption about viewing distance. I can tell you that I typically hold my N900 between 10-20 cm from my face; while I may struggle to see individual pixels at 20 cm, I can see them at 10, therefore >220 PPI clearly isn't too much since the N900 has 266 PPI and I can still see individual pixels.
I will reiterate, the more the pixels; the merrier. But you do get to a point where we get greedy and those extra pixels mean nothing to the user experience (eg iPhone4 vs Galaxy S resolutions). If you can see individual pixels on your N900 on the homescreen etc, you have dead-pixels, or get that thing out from your face, or you are a Superhero/villian (and I'm gald to meet you).
Originally Posted by retsaw
Agreed that high PPI allows you to peek closer into the device (as discussed in my first post). I don't have my iPad anymore (I sold that and my netbook for a Acer 4810TG... great upgrade), BUT when I hold the screen like I would when I used the iPad the distance is 46cm (I measured just now). At that distance my arms are extended but not fully. It's like 3/4 the distance I use my 14" laptop, and its comfortable, and this is the distance I used the iPad and seen people use the iPad (unless they're trying to draw a picture with their fingers, that's always amusing to watch).
At one point in your post you make the assumption that a 10" tablet would be used at 50cm, I don't have my netbook screen that far away when I'm actually using it (unless I'm watching video), so why on earth would I stretch my arm to hold a tablet at that distance. For a tablet computer, if the resolution is so high I can't see the detail I can bring it closer to my face, there is a point where increased resolution will be superfluous and it does depend on viewing distance, however most devices these days (generally excepting TVs) don't come close.
Have I left any other areas of discussion?
If not can we discuss this now because I think its great and I think it would make a perfect experience on a tablet.
Last edited by Kangal; 2010-10-16 at 23:58.
 |
|
2010-10-21
, 19:20
|
|
Posts: 4,384 |
Thanked: 5,524 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ ˙ǝɹǝɥʍou
|
#36
|
Originally Posted by Capt'n Corrupt
You're right. Most of the gpu in that class seems to max out at 1080p, at least for accelerated video decoding.
I would guess that the major resistive-force acting against a large ultra-high PPI display is the number of pixels. Pushing all of those pixels on a mobile chipset may be beyond the capabilities of current chips, especially for 3D (a major facet of iOS software). As I understand it, desktop/laptop GPUs struggle to display at high resolutions.
The second resistive-force, I would imagine to be cost. 1024x768 displays at 10" are somewhat common, but something higher like 1920x1200 may be too expensive for the benefit of bragging rights or slightly clearer text.
The third resistive-force, I would imagine is the software resolution. As I understand it, iOS is resolution fixed (unless this is changed with the iPad SDK), and introducing a new resolution may break a lot of apps or split the young iPad market prematurely.
I don't see why they wouldn't do this on the iPad (original 1024x768, "retina" display: ?)
(ps: sure, it shouldn't be called retina display if it has a different ppi; BUT, Jobs may quote different usage distance (eye to screen) to justify the lower ppi to still have the 'retina effect'. See what he did here? He didn't commit to 300+ ppi with the 'retina display' branding.)
I would actually be surprised if the next iPad had a retina-type display. I would guess that there would be bump in processor spec, perhaps some cameras attached, the announcement of a complementary iPad-mini @ 7", and/or even dynamic LED backlighting for further power savings and AMOLED-esque contrast. But I would actually be shocked if the iPad-line had anything but a 1024x768 display for the next generation.
__________________
Class .. : Power User
Humor .. : [#####-----] | Alignment: Pragmatist
Patience : [###-------] | Weapon(s): Galaxy Note + BB Bold Touch 9900
Agro ... : [###-------] | Relic(s) : iPhone 4S, Atrix, Milestone, N900, N800, N95, HTC G1, Treos, Zauri, BB 9000, BB 9700, etc
Class .. : Power User
Humor .. : [#####-----] | Alignment: Pragmatist
Patience : [###-------] | Weapon(s): Galaxy Note + BB Bold Touch 9900
Agro ... : [###-------] | Relic(s) : iPhone 4S, Atrix, Milestone, N900, N800, N95, HTC G1, Treos, Zauri, BB 9000, BB 9700, etc
Follow the MeeGo Coding Competition!
| The Following User Says Thank You to ysss For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-10-21
, 19:45
|
|
Posts: 4,384 |
Thanked: 5,524 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ ˙ǝɹǝɥʍou
|
#37
|
Originally Posted by Kangal
You're assuming all the source material has dynamically resizable elements?
I see what you did there. But all kidding aside, a high PPI does nothing but make things look smooth. I would love a Retina-display, would I need it, no. And think of other advantages you get with medium-resolution over high-resolution... like cost.
What about PDF and eBooks with small types?
High res images?
So, no, it doesn't just 'make things look smooth'. It shows more details.
Yes I also pondered about this. But remember Android has pinch-to-zoom (and a great one at that, besting the iOS). And if you think outside-the-box, Windows has that natively within the explorer and so does webrowsers like Firefox. Good point, but one we don't need to worry about in this case.
Windows has it in explorer? what?
This matters. Quite a lot.
Remember what's it like before the mousewheel? You have to stop what you're doing, move your cursor over to the scroll bar to manipulate the view, then go back to what you were doing.
Sure, you can use the keyboard on a desktop/notebook (another ui consistency issue here), but we're talking about tablets/handhelds where keyboard should primarily be used just for data entry and navigation/data consumption should be optimized for 100% fingers use.
Do worry about it...
Woops, sorry. I didn't mean the aspect ratio, I meant the PPI, as long as the message was successfully understood. Btw the PPI comparison between those two would be 160PPI vs 196PPI, and yes the difference between the two is hard to distinguish when its used at the intended distance from eyes.
Just some common sense here, you'd find different type of content and formatting on paperback-sized books and magazines.
I love HD. As for standards; I own a Samsung Galaxy S. This discussion is about why standard def is "acceptable". I've stated before 1366x768 (720p) on 10" is what I want, but if I have to settle for 1024x600, that is acceptable to a person of my techh-calibre.
I will reiterate, the more the pixels; the merrier. But you do get to a point where we get greedy and those extra pixels mean nothing to the user experience (eg iPhone4 vs Galaxy S resolutions).
Moreover, I think 'nod to zoom' (that is, getting your face closer to the screen) is an acceptable maneuver on a large screen device, rather than having to tinker with UI elements (clicking to open a pop-up window with the zoomed-in text/image, double clicking, etc). It wouldn't cause as much discomfort to your eyes as the ultra-small fine text on a 3.5" 960x640 screen.
__________________
Class .. : Power User
Humor .. : [#####-----] | Alignment: Pragmatist
Patience : [###-------] | Weapon(s): Galaxy Note + BB Bold Touch 9900
Agro ... : [###-------] | Relic(s) : iPhone 4S, Atrix, Milestone, N900, N800, N95, HTC G1, Treos, Zauri, BB 9000, BB 9700, etc
Class .. : Power User
Humor .. : [#####-----] | Alignment: Pragmatist
Patience : [###-------] | Weapon(s): Galaxy Note + BB Bold Touch 9900
Agro ... : [###-------] | Relic(s) : iPhone 4S, Atrix, Milestone, N900, N800, N95, HTC G1, Treos, Zauri, BB 9000, BB 9700, etc
Follow the MeeGo Coding Competition!
 |
|
2010-10-21
, 20:01
|
|
Posts: 3,524 |
Thanked: 2,958 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Delta Quadrant
|
#38
|
While it's certainly possible, I think it's improbable. The iPhone 4's bump relative to the iPhone was significant, but 960x480 is within the limits of mobile processors (the Tab has extremely similar hardware and is moving 1024x600).
The main problem that I see is the number of pixels and the [assumed] limits of mobile GPUs for displaying 3D at those resolutions (as is the case with the hardware accelerated iOS UI). I just don't see the technology at that point yet where it can move that many pixels smoothly. I should note, that video is a different beast entirely, and yes 1080p is easily done with todays mobile processors.
The only viable option that I could see to support very high resolutions would be hardware upscaling for 3D rendered content (similar to BluRay players) and quick software switching for high resolutions on [mostly] static displays. But this could have some unpleasant side effects without a solid algorithm driving the switching. Dunno.
But this is all based on the assumption that 3D at 1440x900 or 1600x1200 would be a bit much for a mobile CPU/GPU, considering desktops slow down considerably when displaying games at these resolutions. But if the assumption is wrong, then my argument falls flat.
Oh, and wouldn't it be 1440x1080 to maintain the 4:3 ratio?
I have no doubt that the iPad will see a higher resolution, but I would be very surprised if it were the next iteration of the device. But who knows? I've been wrong before. I'd be pleasantly surprised if they pulled it off!
I've noticed that apple products generally iterate with one or two big feature changes and some software updates. The iPhone 4 brought the camera, screen, and processor upgrade. If I were to guess (having heard Steve Job's disdain towards 7" panels), I would say that the next iPad would have a front facing camera, some new software that integrates more tightly with the Macbook line, and perhaps a slightly refined form-factor.
Anyone want to take that bet?
The main problem that I see is the number of pixels and the [assumed] limits of mobile GPUs for displaying 3D at those resolutions (as is the case with the hardware accelerated iOS UI). I just don't see the technology at that point yet where it can move that many pixels smoothly. I should note, that video is a different beast entirely, and yes 1080p is easily done with todays mobile processors.
The only viable option that I could see to support very high resolutions would be hardware upscaling for 3D rendered content (similar to BluRay players) and quick software switching for high resolutions on [mostly] static displays. But this could have some unpleasant side effects without a solid algorithm driving the switching. Dunno.
But this is all based on the assumption that 3D at 1440x900 or 1600x1200 would be a bit much for a mobile CPU/GPU, considering desktops slow down considerably when displaying games at these resolutions. But if the assumption is wrong, then my argument falls flat.
Oh, and wouldn't it be 1440x1080 to maintain the 4:3 ratio?
I have no doubt that the iPad will see a higher resolution, but I would be very surprised if it were the next iteration of the device. But who knows? I've been wrong before. I'd be pleasantly surprised if they pulled it off!
I've noticed that apple products generally iterate with one or two big feature changes and some software updates. The iPhone 4 brought the camera, screen, and processor upgrade. If I were to guess (having heard Steve Job's disdain towards 7" panels), I would say that the next iPad would have a front facing camera, some new software that integrates more tightly with the Macbook line, and perhaps a slightly refined form-factor.
Anyone want to take that bet?
|
|
2010-10-21
, 20:16
|
|
Posts: 3,524 |
Thanked: 2,958 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Delta Quadrant
|
#39
|
Hold the phone! I may be wrong after all! If you look at the spec for the SAMSUNG S5PC110 (the core that's found in the Galaxy Tab), it seems it can push 1000Mpixels/s theoretical!
http://www.samsung.com/global/busine...0&xFmly_id=229
If this is indeed true, and it can move 1.5-2M pixels at interactive rates, then yes, a retina-class display would be indeed possible on the second-gen iPad (1440x1080 == 1.55Mpixels). This is *really* interesting. I wonder what the bus' practical limits are?
Anybody wise care to share a little insight before I start eating this hat?
Also, if this is true, why aren't these SoCs in note/net/smartbook computers?!?!
http://www.samsung.com/global/busine...0&xFmly_id=229
If this is indeed true, and it can move 1.5-2M pixels at interactive rates, then yes, a retina-class display would be indeed possible on the second-gen iPad (1440x1080 == 1.55Mpixels). This is *really* interesting. I wonder what the bus' practical limits are?
Anybody wise care to share a little insight before I start eating this hat?
Also, if this is true, why aren't these SoCs in note/net/smartbook computers?!?!
|
|
2010-10-22
, 12:45
|
|
Posts: 1,789 |
Thanked: 1,699 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
|
#40
|
Capt'n Crunch you may be interested in perusing this:
http://sean-the-electrofreak.blogspo...agon-1ghz.html
Read the chapter about "GPU Performance".
I think there is a huge gap between "theoretical polygons per sec" compared to "reasonable/sustained polygons per sec".
Eg, the Moto Droid can push out ~14M, but actually pushes out ~10M.
the Nexus One can push out ~22M, but actually pushes out ~11M.
According to that blog, the Galaxy S/Galaxy Tab can push out 90M, but actually pushes out ~28M (still the highest figure available).
The only rivals are the new QSD (HTC Desire Z) with the Adreno205 which comes close, and the Tegra 2 which slightly exceeds the SGX540 (in actual tests not theoretical tests). However, the graphics on the Galaxy Tab are roughly equal to the Original Droid because apparently Samsung's coders are chimps (seriously no GPS, force closures, lagging ... low quality software on hi-end hardware!)
http://sean-the-electrofreak.blogspo...agon-1ghz.html
Read the chapter about "GPU Performance".
I think there is a huge gap between "theoretical polygons per sec" compared to "reasonable/sustained polygons per sec".
Eg, the Moto Droid can push out ~14M, but actually pushes out ~10M.
the Nexus One can push out ~22M, but actually pushes out ~11M.
According to that blog, the Galaxy S/Galaxy Tab can push out 90M, but actually pushes out ~28M (still the highest figure available).
The only rivals are the new QSD (HTC Desire Z) with the Adreno205 which comes close, and the Tegra 2 which slightly exceeds the SGX540 (in actual tests not theoretical tests). However, the graphics on the Galaxy Tab are roughly equal to the Original Droid because apparently Samsung's coders are chimps (seriously no GPS, force closures, lagging ... low quality software on hi-end hardware!)