There’s been lots of talk (at least in the nerdy online circles I hang out in) about the iPad 2 and particularly whether or not it is going to have a “retina” display, similar to the iPhone 4.

The iPhone 4 doubled the amount of pixels on the phone from the previous model. If you aren’t aware, that’s an insane amount of pixels. Apple claims there are so many they are indistinguishable to the human eye. It’s a beautiful display.

The problem with the iPad doubling its resolution is that it would put the screen at 2,048 x 1,536 which is an astounding 3,145,728 pixels.

How astounding is it? It’s a million more pixels crammed in a 9.7″ screen than Apple’s own 21 inch (1920 x 1080) iMac has.

It presents significant technical hurdles. First, battery life to power all those pixels would be tremendous. Add to that the required processing power and the tight quarters of the iPad’s internals (can’t exactly cram a bunch more batteries in there) and it seems nigh impossible…at least at a competitive price.

So what if the iPad 2 didn’t double the iPad’s resolution, but instead doubled the iPhone 4′s retina display resolution?

Current iPad: 1024 x 768

iPad 2: 1920 x 1280

It’s not double, but it’s significantly better. And more feasible. And easier for iPhone app developers to scale their apps to the new dimensions.

I’m frickin’ brilliant.

Except I’m not.

@hughroper is though.

Hugh pointed out my proposed dimensions would change the aspect ratio from 1.3 to 1.5, something not seen in the pictures above, and also not something El Jobso would likely tolerate.

Lame.

Thanks to the good folks at 9to5 Mac for the image. Cruise on over there to see more evidence of my much anticipated muse.