Report: New Galaxy Tab to Have 2560x1600 'Retina' Display

[nikorr]

Great!

 

[guardianangel42]

[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]27" monitor is, uhm, 5-6 times bigger area than 11"?[/citation]

Which means a lower pixel density, theoretically being easier to produce.

 

[oxiide]

[citation][nom]Rantoc[/nom]i bet the eyes cant actually distinguish pixels at that res and tiny screen size.[/citation]
No, you probably can't distinguish individual pixels on an 11" 2560x1600 display. In fact, I think you may have stumbled upon the entire point of increasing screen resolution at all.

 

[rzgibbs]

[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]27" monitor is, uhm, 5-6 times bigger area than 11"?[/citation]

which makes the production much easier.

 

[masterofevil22]

I just think it's hilarious that as we get incrementally faster CPU's and GPU's (SOC's really), we get displays with higher and higher resolutions that require more horsepower to "fund", so to speak; making the extra CPU/GPU power that much less noticeable...great job technology :\

 

[de5_Roy]

i'd be very disappoint if my shiny new 22" 1080p monitor had less resolution than an 11" tablet.

 

[kyuuketsuki]

[citation][nom]Rantoc[/nom]2560x1600 have a proper name already - WQXGA. Retina is just crapples way of saying to the sheeps that its something "cewl" and a must have although i bet the eyes cant actually distinguish pixels at that res and tiny screen size.[/citation]Yeah... because I'd totally rather use the awkward and difficult to remember WQXGA acronym than to just say "Retina". Not to mention, the term Retina has nothing to do with that particular resolution but with achieving a pixel density where the human eye is unable to resolve the individual pixels that comprise the image at the distance the screen is to be viewed from.

Oh, and the iPhone's screen definitely looks better than displays with lower pixel densities, so you lose your bet.

I have no particular love for Apple, but this weird backlash against the term Retina is dumb, especially from people who, apparently, don't even know what it means. Yeah, it's a marketing term, but it turned out to be a useful one.

 

[zachusaman]

retina display? seriously?
how about using an actual term for it, not one of apples many moronic buzzwords.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

jgutz2006 :

Apple owns the patent for any resolution of: 2560 x 1600 so Royalties will be paid to everyone who attempts to use a resolution equal or greater than this!

madooo12:
are you serious because 2650x1600 has been here many years ago and it wasn't first made by appleit is a standard resolution like 1080P or 720P

He was being sarcastic. You must live in the west, because the irony and sarcasm detectors of a lot of people in the west appear to be broken, or next to non-existent.

 

[Benihana]

[citation][nom]madooo12[/nom]please tell me you're joking the PPI on a 27" of that resolution is much much less than the PPI of a 11" tablet if any resolution (PPI = Pixels per inch) so a 27" monitor of that resolution must be cheaper because it has a much less PPI[/citation]
I think he meant that if you were to produce a 27" monitor with that higher PPI, it would cost far too much to be cost effective for production. As in, the high-PPI 27" would be significantly more expensive than the regular-PPI 27".

 

[theuniquegamer]

Why anyone needs 2560x1600 resolution on a too small 11.6'' screen?I mean the 1080 or 720p is sufficient on a 11.6'' screen . Also a retina display with such high resolution will drain the battery in minutes. I hope samsung needs a bigger battery for it .

 

[zubai]

[citation][nom]husker[/nom]And that is a typical Apple response. Just because an iPad is a certain size that does not define the "correct" size for a tablet device. Head's up: Its a big world out there, come and join us sometime.[/citation]
Good luck with that, they don't play well with others.

 

[f-gomes]

[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]27" monitor is, uhm, 5-6 times bigger area than 11"?[/citation]
Hence easyer to achieve those high resolutions, so his point is right.

 

[de5_Roy]

only real display id' bother with are OLED displays. 22-23", 240 hz, 2560x1600 or 4kx4k, less than 2ms input lag and response time, ips, oled monitors...mmm
totally worth the price!

 

[nao1120]

[citation][nom]jgutz2006[/nom]Apple owns the patent for any resolution of: 2560 x 1600 so Royalties will be paid to everyone who attempts to use a resolution equal or greater than this![/citation]

That wouldn't surprise me.... Sounds a bit ludicrous.

 

[warezme]

So, we can get a 2560 x 1600 resolution screen on a freaking smartphone pad but not on a decent laptop???? I would be happy with 1920 x 1200 on a laptop let alone 2560 x 1600. This industry is f'ed up.

 

[willwayne]

[citation][nom]stm1185[/nom]I cant get a 27 inch monitor with 2560x1440 res for under $850 but you can get an "11 tablet with a 2560x1600 screen for probably $500. WTF LCD PANEL PEOPLE, GET ON THAT![/citation]

Yields on 27" (diag) glass panels is probably still a lot less than that of an 11" (diag) glass panel.

 

[wolfram23]

I cant get a 27 inch monitor with 2560x1440 res for under $850 but you can get an "11 tablet with a 2560x1600 screen for probably $500. WTF LCD PANEL PEOPLE, GET ON THAT!

This! I'd like a 2560x1440 27" 120hz monitor for $500, please. Thanks, Santa!

 

[masterasia]

I'm in for one.

 

[freggo]

[citation][nom]wolfram23[/nom]This! I'd like a 2560x1440 27" 120hz monitor for $500, please. Thanks, Santa![/citation]

Christmas 1999. My wish... a 9GB hard drive for under $1,000.
I got my wish. at a year end sale for 998.99... still have the drive somewhere.
Let me see, a 16GBUSB stick (faster than that hard drive) is now $30.
Oh, how times and Christmas wishes have changed.

If only Monitors would follow the same price development

 

[clonazepam]

"Let's R&D making the snappiest tablet we can at this resolution."

"Nah, dude. It's too late for that... We gotta go to 2560x1600 before You Know Who..."

"But.. but.. it'll need a 2GHZ processor, and a hardcore battery..."

"Yah its ok, we hooked up with Craftsman and we're gonna use the battery they put in their cordless impact wrenches, its a done deal. Have you heard of any construction workers catching on fire from using a CIW? I think not. It's pure genius."

If they shoot for sub200ms latency on the touch it'll be great. If the extra horsepower doesn't effect typical battery life, it'll be great. If its heavier than a Transformer, it'll suck.

 

[dgingeri]

Samsung better work on getting an updated 24" monitor panel to match this resolution. I don't like the idea my 24" gaming monitor will have a lower resolution than an 11.6" tablet. That's just... wrong.

 

[wererat]

Apple or Samsung aside, 300dpi isn't "retina" resolution ... I can easily see the jaggies on a 300dpi printer although 300dpi seems to be the standard for commercial printing. All my work printing is done at 600dpi though.

 

[clonazepam]

[citation][nom]wererat[/nom]Apple or Samsung aside, 300dpi isn't "retina" resolution ... I can easily see the jaggies on a 300dpi printer although 300dpi seems to be the standard for commercial printing. All my work printing is done at 600dpi though.[/citation]

Depends on the printer, some are smarter than others. Some use a one size fits all dot size. Some use a variable droplet size. Some use heat to squirt out inconsistent blobs and others use a more refined method using a crystal that responds to electricity to flex just the right amount to produce a perfect dot.

 

[Guest]

How about adjustable resolution?

We we know, increase in resolution = increase in working space... BUT, some people (especially older ones) actually find it harder to work with such large resolutions and usually need every made bigger (which negates the reason for high res in the first place)

I've got a co-worker who is in their mid 50's and we got them a 27" iMac 2560x1600 and we had to turn the resolution down because everything was "too small"

Take a super high res like that and then squish it to an 11" screen? Yeah, a wonderful idea, but I think we need to now consider "optimal resolutions" for tablets based on their physical screen size.

Sure cramming so many pixels into such a small area means you will not see the lines in between each one... but who honestly sees those anyways?