
Tablets are often regarded as cheap notebook replacements, and we often excuse their low-resolution displays as a result. However, this expectation may also have delayed significant improvements in tablet display resolution and image quality.
For example, the iPad 2 had a screen resolution of 1024x768 on a 9.7" screen, resulting in 132 pixels per inch. Samsung's gorgeous SuperPLS display is only slightly better; 1280x800 resolution on a 10.1" display results in 149 pixels per inch.
Why does this matter? A screen's native resolution directly corresponds to its ability to display fine detail. Recall a time when 20" CRT monitors were limited to 1024x768. The output was less than impressive on a screen that large. But later 20" screens supporting higher resolutions looked far better. Apple is the first to take this resolution leap, if you will, in the tablet space.
At 2048x1536, the iPad 3's 9.7" screen yields 264 pixels per inch, which better than almost every desktop display. A22" monitor running at 1080p has a pixel density close to 100 ppi. In fact, iPad 3 displays such fine detail that it is near the 286 ppi limit of what a human eye can resolve under ideal conditions.
| Model | iPad 2 | iPad 3 | Galaxy Tab 10.1 | Transformer (Original) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen Size | 9.7" | 9.7" | 10.1" | 10.1" |
| Aspect Ratio | 4:3 | 4:3 | 16:9 | 16:9 |
| Native Resolution | 1024x768 | 2048x1536 | 1280x800 | 1280x800 |
| Pixels Per Inch | 132 | 264 | 149 | 149 |
In order to give you an idea of how much more detail to expect, check out the side-by-side comparison of the "Maps" icon on the home screen:
It's startlingly easy to see the difference. The small red way-point and individual roads are incredibly pixelated on the iPad 2 when you zoom in close.
iPad 2
iPad 3
You're never going to magnify the screen like this in the real-world. However, the difference is still pretty clear from a foot away. Smaller pixels help make edges and borders appear sharp and clear, and help define colors more accurately. You can see all three effects quite easily in the side-by-side comparisons. The interstate sign is very sharply defined, and the blue looks more vivid. But are smaller pixels the only improvement made to the iPad 3's display? Let's break out our microscope.


Fail troll.
My thoughts exactly. I don't care that it outputs 3x FPS over Transformer Prime; the latter can actually integrate into my devices' ecosystem and that's what matters. I'm not buying any tablet or phone without inbuilt memory card reader.
When comparing the three iPads, the iPad 2 and iPad 3 are both said to be using PowerVR SGX545 GPUs (core-count is correct) while the table below it comparing SoCs the models are completely different and listed as SGX543.
I smell something fishy, dinner must almost be ready!
Fail troll.
My thoughts exactly. I don't care that it outputs 3x FPS over Transformer Prime; the latter can actually integrate into my devices' ecosystem and that's what matters. I'm not buying any tablet or phone without inbuilt memory card reader.
After playing around with most hi-end Android devices AND iPhone 4S/iPad 2, I happen to believe this "nonsense". Everything looks so much more hi-res... but that's only Android's fault. When are they going to fix the menu animation lag and make everything more hi-res? ICS kind of did a good job on it, though, and now it actually looks NOTHING like iOS and is beautiful.
Of course, the menu animation lag and low-res icons can't make me shift to Apple, especially now that I run ICS on my netbook (try that, Apple... oh wait, your toy MacOS IS already like a tablet OS, lol) - same way that MacOS's ability to take screenshots of a selected area of the screen can't make me shift from Windows/Ubuntu. It's just not nearly enough to compensate for the important features I'll lose. Sure enough, there're tons of people to whom all of them don't matter and they'll just go with the most hyped thing out there, but I prefer to know what I'm paying for. It's a habit that pays off on the long run.
The author comments it is suitable for watching movies. Which movie is even available in such a resolution??? For watching movies in your lap on 10", 720p is more than enough.
Typo, fixed.
Cheers,
Andrew Ku
This would rule out the galaxy tab 10.1, as it also uses adapters.
Agreed, I was NOT happy when I noticed that Samsung decided to follow that stupid trend.
But all of us have different needs so I am not saying it's bad with memory slots and USB ports, but personally I can do just fine without them, so for me iPad "3" is a win-win. I skipped iPad 2 since I felt it wasn't a good enough upgrade from iPad 1 (don't need camera, and speed was decent enough). But with this excellent screen AND better performance (compared to iPad 1) and the reduced weight and thickness (again, compared to my iPad 1) I feel I get enough good new stuff to warrant the expense.
And personally I don't like the current messy state of Android so iOS works just fine for me. Again, my personal opinion so you trolls and haters can go back under the rock where you came from.
And I wrote this using my Galaxy Tab.
I recommend them spend their $100 bil. USD for example developing more power efficient and powerful technologies, because this is going nowhere. What's next? Battery the size of a truck?
I had the idea of setting up a local DNS and web-server. With some simple HTML5 pages I could then serve all my media library to the device (HD videos, images, music etc). This would be one way round the ipad storage and connectivity limitations.
(Not sure if Safari can go 'full screen' on the ipad that would help with this though?)
I was shocked then to read "Safari, does not display high-resolution pictures in their native format."
I wonder if then if this has been done intentionally to cripple media access to the device through the browser? I wonder if this applies to hd video too? If so I really hope that apple are not that anal and do make a fix for upcoming releases. Then I could have the best of both worlds
Don't use the "scores" though, they're Apple biased. Tell us the actual numbers, they seemed to be fair.
i had fun seeing my iPod's A4 doing 66 MFLOPS...and then thinking that my Core 2 Quad does 40 GFLOPS