Apple iPad 3 'retina display' uses Sharp super-high aperture tech What's the secret behind squeezing four times as many pixels into the same iPad screen area as Apple's display suppliers managed with the previous model and making it look better? A technology called "Super High Aperture", apparently. SHA involves slapping a 3µm "photo-definable acrylic resin layer" on top of the display's …
Either way, only good can come out of this. I will eventualy get monitors that have resolutions that are not curtailed by the latestst highdef standard for movies. Yes I know such monitor do exist, but a mortgage is cheaper than what they cost.
So I'm looking forward to better resolution monitors on the back of the we most follow Apple trends mentality alot in the industry seem to have. YAY, apple fans and non-apple fans win.
A more pressing question is why you need a 4k TV. I suppose its inevitable they'll start appearing and perhaps even gain some support from games consoles and so on (apparently the PS3 has a 4K picture stills mode already).
You'd have to have a massive screen or be 2 feet away from your 46" to to tell the difference and probably only then with high contrast hires content.
"No it's news because from what I can make of the article it's the first time it's been deployed on a device. It just happens to be an apple one. It would have been news had anyone done it."
Really? From the article: "DisplaySearch reckons that a quarter of the LCDs shipping today use the technology." To me that implies that this tech is already being used on a lot of other devices. (Unless the iPad3 can account for 25% of all LCDs currently being manufactured).
As this is new tech or a new approach, is there any word on any increase in side-effects such as increased risk of dead pixels, reduced viewing angles or light bleeding? Also, as there is another layer (albeit thin) on top of the display, does this give the impression of the image being further behind the glass - or does lamentation of the glass (giving the impression the image is on top) always counter this effect?
It's nice to have the tech, but I still don't see the "need" for these high resolutions on a 10" display. Let's be honest, the latest Transformer's 1920x1080 is already pretty much overkill, I mean looking at my old transformer at 1280x800 I really don't feel like it is suffering in any way when it comes to resolution, even when reading fine text or viewing photos. I would rather have the fab new A5x processor in an original ipad display and then have mind blowing gaming graphics than waste that computing power blowing everything up to this ridiculous resolution.
"waste that computing power blowing everything up to this ridiculous resolution."
You are aware aren't you, that it is already blown up to that 'ridiculous' resolution, rendered and then anti-aliased back down so that the individual pixels are not so visible? This all done to stop the images displayed looking like a ZX Spectrum.
Perhaps now they will be able to just render it for the actual screen pixels, and then no anti-aliasinig down-sampling will be needed, leading to a nicer, crisper image with less processing required?
Do you actually understand what anti aliasing is? "already blown up to that 'ridiculous' resolution, rendered and then anti-aliased back down" That is utter nonsense. Nothing is blown up at all. If anything the image would be rendered at lower res for 3d games and then upscaled to the ipad3 res, just like the xbox and PS3 do. Any video content would have to be upscaled or run in a box and let's not even mention the vast amount of upscaling that would need to occur to display any kind of web content. Remember, even Hi density displays like the iPhone4, Galaxy Nexus and now the ipad 3 will still use anti aliasing, so no saving there.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
