Any non-Apple Retina tablets in the works?

[bannerdog]

I purchased an iPad (64 GB, AT&T), but was very disappointed.

I sold it (although I would have been better off returning it for a 10% restocking fee).

I was shocked to find that it wasn't even an adequate web browser or PDF reader (there may be a good purchasable PDF reader available, but there are no try-before-you-buy options, and the one free PDF reader sucked).

I was pondering buying a Mac Air, but after that experience, I won't buy another Apple product.

However, I do like the retina display.

Anyone know whether there's a non-Apple product in the works with such a display?

[Jack4L]

Oh I hope not, but if the iPhone 4 is any indication it will most likely take a year before anyone reaches that high a pixel count. I'd say 9 months before we get anything worthwhile. The launch of windows 8 will most likely spur the development more. Right now I dont think anyone has any intention of going over full HD because there just isn't a good enough reason to go higher with Full HD still being the limit of most movies and games.

[3602]

I thought the "Retina" name is an Apple trade-mark.

[Marvin the Martian]

Originally Posted by 3602

I thought the "Retina" name is an Apple trade-mark.

So did I.

[Mikerman]

My understanding is that Retina is, indeed, an Apple trademark, although when I looked at one of the company's websites earlier today, I didn't see Apple using a trademark symbol (TM or R-in-a-circle) after it.

Regardless, Apple didn't develop the Retina display--it comes from Samsung and LG. Who, no doubt, will be bringing out their own high-res displays this year, along with others.

[nathan]

Samsung demonstrated a 11.6 tablet at CES and said it would be commercially available in the near future. Sammy is supposedly putting an even more powerful home brewed gpu in it than what the ipad 3 has. There probably working out the problems that Apple didn't even bother to fix (just scroll through the whole site).

http://www.reghardware.com/2012/01/3...ndwich_tablet/

[saratoga]

The Android people are talking about 1080p stuff in their rending code, so we'll probably see Android 4.1 (or whatever comes next) launch on 1080*1920 tablets.

[nathan]

also isn't asus releasing the infinity line? It's a transformer prime basically but with 1080p display and better wifi. I think it should be out next month.

[bannerdog]

Thanks, all, for the responses.

As for the term "retina display", I don't mean a non-Apple tablet using the same term.

I mean a non-Apple tablet with the same resolution as the new iPad. I don't care about the terminology.

An HD tablet (1080*1920) would have some advantages for video over the higher resolution "retina display".

However, for clarity of letters, etc, the higher resolution is sharper.

Assuming that the display has a 16:9 ratio, in order to optimally display 1080 video, while also implementing higher resolution for non-video purposes, I suppose the device would need to double the 1080 x 1920 resolution, displaying 4 pixels for each "source" pixel.

If a "double HD" video standard also eventually came about, watching it might be almost like looking through a very clean window.

If data density and bandwidth continues to increase, content should be storeable/deliverable (although, the RF spectrum may be becoming very crowded for non-LOS transmissions).







Further, 1080P is still insufficient (especially on a large screen) to "fool" the human eye.

I'd like to see a resolution at which A) the human eye cannot detect pixels, and B) increased pixel density would be undetectable by the human eye.

[3602]

Hey I watch a regular 2005 27" CRT and I can't detect the difference between that and a new Sony BRAVIA. That CRT is just "clear enough". I don't see how it can get any clearer.

Though I have seen 320 x 240 on a 4.3" screen...

[Baadaq]

well, apple's retina display has a good res screen for movile device, but take in count that they used LCD SCREENS, you can't compare iphone 4/4s against nexus screen, they are in totally differents levels, i don't know any manufacturer working with the overhiped "retina display", but asus and samsung, have better screen, all with amoled and the res difference isn't even huge.
pros of other manufacturer screens
better colors
better contrats
sharpen image
almost visible in every angle
better performance
work well under sun light
the only con is the resolution, because is hard to build screen like that with high pixel density.

[nathan]

Originally Posted by Baadaq

the only con is the resolution, because is hard to build screen like that with high pixel density.

Well I think it's a case of it being supper expensive.

[TexasRockbox]

The Galaxy Tab 7.7 has a 1280x800, 7.7" SAMOLED+ screen. Not quite so-called "Retina", but very, very dense.

[3602]

Originally Posted by TexasRockbox

The Galaxy Tab 7.7 has a 1280x800, 7.7" SAMOLED+ screen. Not quite so-called "Retina", but very, very dense.

The Sony LT26i also has 1280x800 resolution. Density? This is above Apple's Retina in the iPhone.

[Olley]

4x the pixels, but 1x the screen. 4x the graphic processing to push 4x the pixels. Net visual impovement = 0. I can't discern individual pixels on my iPad 2, and certainly can't see any added value for the high rez screen on the new iPad. Explains why it sells for the same price as the iPad 2 did.

[Pennhaven]

Originally Posted by Olley

4x the pixels, but 1x the screen. 4x the graphic processing to push 4x the pixels. Net visual impovement = 0. I can't discern individual pixels on my iPad 2, and certainly can't see any added value for the high rez screen on the new iPad. Explains why it sells for the same price as the iPad 2 did.

That's why I bought the Asus Transforme Prime instead of waiting for the more expensive Infinity with 1080p. Since I'm completely happy with 1080 x 1920 on my 24" desktop monitor it seems to me that 1080 lines of resolution on a 10" screen is a solution in search of a problem and not worth paying anything for, especially when you consider the added load on the graphics processor and memory and lack of app support.

[JxK]

Originally Posted by Pennhaven

That's why I bought the Asus Transforme Prime instead of waiting for the more expensive Infinity with 1080p. Since I'm completely happy with 1080 x 1920 on my 24" desktop monitor it seems to me that 1080 lines of resolution on a 10" screen is a solution in search of a problem and not worth paying anything for, especially when you consider the added load on the graphics processor and memory and lack of app support.

As always, whether or not such high resolutions are beneficial depends upon the task at hand. If you're watching movies or playing games, such high resolutions are typically wasted. If anything, they'll detract from the graphics performance.

But if you're doing alot of web browsing, and especially book reading, then it's a different story. For these activities, high resolution screens result in much more legible text, and a more pleasant reading experience.

[Pennhaven]

Originally Posted by JxK

As always, whether or not such high resolutions are beneficial depends upon the task at hand. If you're watching movies or playing games, such high resolutions are typically wasted. If anything, they'll detract from the graphics performance.

But if you're doing alot of web browsing, and especially book reading, then it's a different story. For these activities, high resolution screens result in much more legible text, and a more pleasant reading experience.

On a 10" screen 1280 x 800 makes for very legible text for reading / web browsing.
The pixel density is already high. With a screen this size or smaller any improvement from going to 1080 is marginal and IMO not worth paying more for.

[JxK]

Originally Posted by Pennhaven

On a 10" screen 1280 x 800 makes for very legible text for reading / web browsing.
The pixel density is already high. With a screen this size or smaller any improvement from going to 1080 is marginal and IMO not worth paying more for.

1280x800 on a 10" screen only makes for a 150ppi resolution. It's not as bad as the original ipad's 132, but not enough to keep text from being pixelated. There are diminishing returns, but the difference between 150 and say the 216 ppi of a 7" 1280x800 screen are very obvious.

Again, not so much for movies/games, but for browsing and e-books. Obviously it's not necessary, and something like the 169 ppi of the kindle fire is perfectly adequate...but it sure is more pleasant.

[Pennhaven]

Originally Posted by JxK

1280x800 on a 10" screen only makes for a 150ppi resolution. It's not as bad as the original ipad's 132, but not enough to keep text from being pixelated. There are diminishing returns, but the difference between 150 and say the 216 ppi of a 7" 1280x800 screen are very obvious.

Again, not so much for movies/games, but for browsing and e-books. Obviously it's not necessary, and something like the 169 ppi of the kindle fire is perfectly adequate...but it sure is more pleasant.

Man I certainly cannot detect any pixelation of text at 150 ppi.

Right now I'm writing using my 24" 1920 x 1080 desktop monitor with a pixel density of about 93 ppi and text seems very sharp to me at 26" distance, not at all fatiguing to look at for hours. To notice the pixels in the text I have to get within 16" inches of the screen. In comparison 150 ppi on my Asus Eee Pad looks extremely sharp. I literally cannot detect any pixelation at the closest my eyes I can focus which is 12" due to presbyopia. Without magnification, it would be tough, if not impossible, for me to distinguish anything sharper.

Point of reference. In the 1980s the standard moved from 640 x 480 on a 13" monitor to 800 x 600 or from about 61 to 76 ppi. IIRC the original Apple and Atari personal computers were 320 x 240 on 13" or about 30 ppi.

So 150 ppi is really quite sharp relatively speaking. Anything sharper would be lost on me, but maybe other folks have better near vision than I do.