Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

dabotsonline

macrumors member
Apr 14, 2014
44
8
I would like it if they went for @4 instead.
They might for 5.5", if they do release one at that size.

"But according to 9to5Mac, Apple may adopt an even higher-resolution display that triples the base number of pixels of the iPhone screen in both length and width. This "3x" mode would take the base "1x" resolution of 568 x 320 and expand it to 1704 x 960. Using this method, Apple would retain the Retina branding at 416 ppi and keep the current 16:9 ratio of the iPhone 5/5s/5c."

Yes, I would prefer a resolution of 2272 x 1280. This will give pixel densities of 555 ppi for the 4.7" model and 474 ppi for the 5.5" model. It is likely that the Galaxy Note 4 will have a resolution of 2560 x 1440 and have a screen size of 5.5", giving a pixel density of 534 ppi.
 

Carlanga

macrumors 604
Nov 5, 2009
7,132
1,409
I guess apps will continue to ballon up in size while memory size will prob stay in that dang 16-32-64 gb size which is expensive and ridiculous

----------

We moving into 4K technology and OLED and Apple is looking at 1704 x 960 screen size resolution for iPhone 6 !!? :mad: :mad:

So what did you want :confused:
 

TC03

macrumors 65816
Aug 17, 2008
1,272
356
This resolution is near full HD. I'm pretty sure the difference can't be noticed. The difference between 720p and 1080p @ 4.7" is already hard too notice, let alone this faux-full HD resolution Apple is proposing.
 

Traverse

macrumors 604
Mar 11, 2013
7,688
4,399
Here
I would LOVE this. I have an eye condition and am very near sighted, thus I tend to hold my iPhone closer than Apple's Retina display allows. I can clearly see some pixelation when I wear my glasses. Now a larger screen would help this since I could hold it an inch or two farther away, but I welcome any improvement here.

Typing that made me realize how "first world problem-ish" this is. :D
 

MarkNY

macrumors regular
Jun 21, 2010
228
103
So, effectively no increase in screen real estate? Is that what this means?
 

redscull

macrumors 6502a
Jul 1, 2010
849
832
Texas
It's already impossible to have a 999 pixel @2x UI element. You need even number dimensions when designing an @2x asset. Apple thought of it all. Similarly, @3x elements would probably need to have pixel dimensions that are multiples of 3.
Clearly you understand how pixels and resolutions work. It's refreshing; too many people don't.

However, the move to to an @3x resolution, while technically sound, is crappy. It means these new, larger iPhones will still have the same, relatively tiny 568x320 "usable" screen resolutions. The @3x ensures it'll look crisp on the bigger screens, but what I'd want out of a bigger screen is more resolution real estate for showing more content at once, not the exact same amount of content rendered bigger and sharper.

----------

So, effectively no increase in screen real estate? Is that what this means?
Precisely. Underwhelming.
 

DTphonehome

macrumors 68000
Apr 4, 2003
1,914
3,377
NYC
I guess apps will continue to ballon up in size while memory size will prob stay in that dang 16-32-64 gb size which is expensive and ridiculous

I really hope they bump capacities to 32-64-128. Especially if they're raising the price as rumored. Apps are bigger than ever, iTunes movies are becoming more and more popular, and now HD music is rumored for the iTunes Store. 16gb doesn't cut it anymore, except maybe for the "cheap" iPhone model.
 

69Mustang

macrumors 604
Jan 7, 2014
7,895
15,043
In between a rock and a hard place
Inb4 the android lot's "Not even 1080p lol" comments.. :rolleyes:

Something about lag usually shuts them up lol ;)

Sorry meant to say 2k earlier

Oh no no no when you mention lag you will hear "I have custom firmware and I can over clock my CPU. My Note III benchmarks are better than my brothers S5"

Then when I say benchmarks don't mean much in real world usage. He literally says something to the effect of "yeah I know it doesn't, but still...."

Hahaha that's when I know it's time to pack up and leave #

"Android: Because more is better"

;)

http://www.appleinsider.com

Over there your comments will be much, much, much more appreciated.;)
 

Traverse

macrumors 604
Mar 11, 2013
7,688
4,399
Here
So, effectively no increase in screen real estate? Is that what this means?

But if they increase real estate than content remains smaller. I thought the point of the larger screen was to give a somewhat magnified screen. You already see 16:9 when web browsing just like most monitors and android tablets. Maybe games will re-optimize to get controls out of the way, but I thought we wanted "bigger"

Maybe Apple can do a little of both? :confused:
 

dabotsonline

macrumors member
Apr 14, 2014
44
8
So.... does this mean that all existing apps will simply be enlarged to fit the screen? And if so, will there be a way for devs to use the extra screen real estate without modifying the 4" size?

At present:

From a developer’s perspective, the current iPhone 5/5s/5c display has a resolution of 568 x 320, up from 480 x 320 in the original iPhone. However, there are actually twice as many pixels in each direction to create a sharper image. In other words, an iPhone 5s with a non-Retina (or “1X”) display would have an actual resolution of 568 x 320 (which is the 1136 x 640 resolution divided by 2). We’ll call this the “base resolution” of the iPhone 5/5s/5c...

Apple will likely be tripling the aforementioned “base resolution” (568 x 320) of the iPhone screen in both directions, and that the iPhone screen resolution will be scaled with an increase of 150% from the current 2X resolution of 1136 x 640.

however:

Of course, Apple tests several different iPhones and display technologies, so it is possible that Apple chooses to take another route for display specifications for the 2014 iPhone upgrade.
 

jrswizzle

macrumors 603
Aug 23, 2012
6,107
129
McKinney, TX
It's already impossible to have a 999 pixel @2x UI element. You need even number dimensions when designing an @2x asset. Apple thought of it all. Similarly, @3x elements would probably need to have pixel dimensions that are multiples of 3.

Just wanted to say thanks for the info you provided - real interesting stuff. Figured Apple wouldn't screw devs unnecessarily, but didn't know how they'd do it.

Looking forward to WWDC and September!
 

Nikiaf

macrumors regular
Mar 18, 2013
119
288
Would you really be able to tell a difference if the screen was 1080p?

After using a Nexus 5 for three months and then switching back to an iPhone 5, I can say without a doubt that the extra resolution makes a difference.

Even "retina" doesn't look as sharp as it used to. Granted, the difference isn't like going from iPhone 3G to 4; but it is in fact noticeable. Plus at this point, Apple is already lagging behind not only what is possible, but what has now become industry standard in terms of resolution. They really should be pushing for 1080p by now.
 

TylerL

macrumors regular
Jan 2, 2002
207
291
At what resolution/ppi can anti-aliasing finally be disabled? If you want a "crisp" screen, that's how you get it.
The 416ppi mentioned in the article may be close enough.

Also, I've been hoping UIImage in the iOS SDK would finally get the ability to natively display vector PDF, much like NSImage has done for ages on OS X. That would make the majority of @2x, etc UI elements unnecessary, and could seriously lower app sizes.
 

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
I guess apps will continue to ballon up in size while memory size will prob stay in that dang 16-32-64 gb size which is expensive and ridiculous

Correct. Why? Because Apple's biggest customers- which is not us consumers- want us to "embrace the future" (the cloud) as is often spun by some of the cheerleaders here. "Store everything in the cloud and just stream it" sounds great… but not in a world of ever-tightening data tiers, unless we also love having more and more dollars streamed from our wallets.

I think just about all iDevice "innovation" now is about data burn: how quickly can we get iDevice users to the next tier(s) of data. That makes AT&T, Verizon, etc happy and those are Apple's biggest customers of the most profitable mainstream product at Apple. Apple apparently wants to squeeze $100 more out of the subsidy in the new phone(s). Their biggest customers ask "what's in it for us?" and Apple is "innovating" signature app after app (that require data burn) and "upgrades" that beg for more and more data. Expanding on-board storage to minimize data demand would fly in the face of what I am presuming Apple's most key partners want.
 

jrswizzle

macrumors 603
Aug 23, 2012
6,107
129
McKinney, TX
After using a Nexus 5 for three months and then switching back to an iPhone 5, I can say without a doubt that the extra resolution makes a difference.

Even "retina" doesn't look as sharp as it used to. Granted, the difference isn't like going from iPhone 3G to 4; but it is in fact noticeable. Plus at this point, Apple is already lagging behind not only what is possible, but what has now become industry standard in terms of resolution. They really should be pushing for 1080p by now.

I went through the HTC One, GS4, and Nexus 5 - used all side-by-side with my iPhone 5 then 5S.

The differences were negligible. And more often than not, my iPhone could be brighter and was far more color accurate.

Resolution is next to meaningless. As long as we stay ahead of the "retina" threshold, color accuracy and display quality mean more than resolution.

Apple continues with the "wonky" resolutions to make it easier on developers. Don't you think it would be easier for Apple to buy cookie-cutter displays with standard resolutions? But they don't.....why is that? Because they don't want to screw over the developers who make iOS what it is and they make sure their hardware and software are extremely efficient. No need wasting energy powering a few more meaningless pixels.
 

MarkNY

macrumors regular
Jun 21, 2010
228
103
But if they increase real estate than content remains smaller. I thought the point of the larger screen was to give a somewhat magnified screen. You already see 16:9 when web browsing just like most monitors and android tablets. Maybe games will re-optimize to get controls out of the way, but I thought we wanted "bigger"

Maybe Apple can do a little of both? :confused:

I dunno. I guess for watching movies, the blown up size will be nice, but for other things, I'm not sure. Certainly for me, the 5.5 model is out of the questions if there is no extra screen real estate.
 

jrswizzle

macrumors 603
Aug 23, 2012
6,107
129
McKinney, TX
Correct. Why? Because Apple's biggest customers- which is not us consumers- want us to "embrace the future" (the cloud) as is often spun by some of the cheerleaders here. "Store everything in the cloud and just stream it" sounds great… but not in a world of ever-tightening data tiers, unless we also love having more and more dollars streamed from our wallets.

I think just about all iDevice "innovation" now is about data burn: how quickly can we get iDevice users to the next tier(s) of data. That makes AT&T, Verizon, etc happy and those are Apple's biggest customers of the most profitable mainstream product at Apple. Apple apparently wants to squeeze $100 more out of the subsidy in the new phone(s). Their biggest customers ask "what's in it for us?" and Apple is "innovating" signature app after app (that require data burn) and "upgrades" that beg for more and more data.

Apple isn't alone in this. HTC is, so far, the only major OEM to offer 32 GB as standard.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.