Apple May Adopt 1704 x 960 Resolution Display for Upcoming iPhone 6

[TouchMint.com]

This is what I've been praying for! This would really be a smart move by apple to keep fragmentation down.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

Anyone complaining about no 1080p is just a spec-whore. 416 ppi will look exactly the same to your eyes as 1,000 ppi...hence the definition of a "Retina display" in Apple's world. Samsung could make a phone with 1,000,000 ppi and it will look the same as 416 ppi.

 

[krewger]

so... the iPhone 6 with a larger screen will run about the same speed as the 5s as it has to drive more pixels and have the same battery life? oh yay. time to wait for the 6s for performance improvements in that form factor. To all the kiddies who want 1080p on their phone, if you can't see the pixels now, what is there really to gain other than requiring faster processors to push all those pixels and that will require more battery life. For what? It's a mobile device, not a IMAX movie theater. I watch movies download from iTunes on my macbook pro retina when I fly for work, there are more pixels than the resolution of the movie, combined with compression it doesn't look any better than my old non-retina macbook. 1080p on a 5" phone is a waste of resources that could be better used when dealing with a mobile device, such as battery life.

 

[D.T.]

It’s been a year since I started speculating that the iPhone 6 would have an @3x display, and so far a common reaction is always “But Steve Jobs said pixel-doubling was necessary when introducing the iPhone 4!”.

It’s important to understand why @2x made sense to also understand why @3x does

<snip>

Just wanted to say thanks. The news section is a minefield of dumb ( "Don’t step there!" *boom* “Duh ...” ) so thoughtful (and time consuming to author) posts like this are greatly appreciated.

 

[SirLance99]

Yes.


Because it's a PHONE.

No, it's not a phone. It's a smartdevice with a feature to use it as a phone. These devices do way more than just phone calls now days. This isn't 2007 anymore. People are talking less and less and consuming/being more productive on theses devices.

 

[goobot]

Yes. And no I don't mean if you're holding it an inch from your eyes.

You would have to hold it 7 inches or closer for this resolution not to be retina.

 

[Parasprite]

Yes.


Because it's a PHONE.

Meanwhile I thought someone's phone was a tablet the other day.

 

[xFerrr]

It’s been a year since I started speculating that the iPhone 6 would have an @3x display, and so far a common reaction is always “But Steve Jobs said pixel-doubling was necessary when introducing the iPhone 4!”.

It’s important to understand why @2x made sense to also understand why @3x does:

1) It was an integer scaling multiplier.

Xcode/Cocoa use a “points” system for every possible coordinate/dimension. Those don’t represent pixel values unless you’re using a non-Retina display (@1x). For everything else, the pixel dimensions of elements are found using points * scaling multiplier. For example, an iPhone 5 is seen as being 568x320 points * @2x = 1136x640 pixels.

If you had a floating point scaling multiplier, say @2.5x, you’d end up with floating point pixel dimensions as well. For example, a 85x45 points UI element * @2.5x = 212.5 x 112.5 pixels. Oops, fractions of pixels! Since the screen can’t render those directly, multisampling will be applied to “blend” fractions of pixels (think of anti-aliasing). What it would look like is this (on the right):

Image

You don’t want this blurry mess. Therefore, you don’t want your UI elements to end up with non-integer pixel dimensions. That’s why you want an integer scaling multiplier. In 2010 with the iPhone 4, @2x was chosen in large part because it was the next integer after 1, not because it’s the double. That means @3x would be an equally good scaling multiplier as long as keeping integer pixel dimensions goes.

2) It didn’t require scaling interpolation on older displays

Steve Jobs explained that one pretty clearly at WWDC.

Image

One pixel would become a 2x2 pixel grid. No fancy math had to be done to “scale” older apps on the iPhone 4. But why does this matter? Because scaling interpolations often reduce quality (not for performance reasons, that’s insignificant). Keep in mind however that unlike with the @1x -> @2x transition we had in 2010, this time we’d only have a 50% enlargement rather than 100%.

The thing is, a 50% enlargement with interpolation doesn’t look worse than a 100% enlargement with pixel-doubling, despite the loss of details due to the interpolation.

See those examples I made with bilinear interpolation (iOS’ default interpolation when scaling images):
Image
Image

As you can see, older non-@3x-optimized apps would actually look better on an @3x iPhone than non-@2x-opitmized apps did on an @2x iPhone. Add to this the fact that the screen's pixel density would be higher this time around, and the perceived image quality difference would be even smaller.

Another common comment has been "But shouldn't developers be using AutoLayout constraints, which make apps pretty much resolution-independent? Therefore, who cares about the exact resolution?"

Yes, they should. But the reality is that most apps (even those using AutoLayout) wouldn't magically scale well to a bigger display like it was a responsive website. They would require significant tweaking before they can do that, and I can't see Apple forcing AutoLayout everywhere just yet. That would essentially force developers to redesign/test their app in around a month, unless which their app would probably look like crap on the iPhone 6. Since that's kind of an unrealistic timeframe, it's the consumers that would end up paying in the end. I think Apple will go through a smoother transition than that.

With the recent introduction of Asset Catalogs in Xcode, I think it's pretty clear that Apple wants to introduce a new resolution. The fact images are still labeled by "@1x" and "@2x" also leads me to believe they're not ready to drop the points system just yet.

I have no idea of what you just said, but i'm inspired!

 

[TroyBoy30]

not good enough

 

[Smartass]

1080 is industry standard at the moment, and there are phones with 2k display just behind the corner yet apple cant even, according to these rumors, manage normal 1080 display? Apple would need to make a 2k display and leave the competition behind. But i doubt it, that age is long go.

And yes, i do realise that nobody is going to see a difference even if it aint a 1080 screen, but come on, there's always that "prestige factor" when it comes to things like that.

 

[jwestveer]

HATE the idea of a bigger phone.

I HATE the idea of a bigger phone.

 

[TallManNY]

I'm not sure I'm going to want a larger phone. I carry my iPad Mini back and forth with me to work. So I usually have that available. I'd like a full feature smartphone on me at all times. But I'd also like it fit easily into my pockets.

Today I've got a bad feeling about this.

 

[Crichton333]

In other news, my iWatch better be 4k, that's all I have to say.

New rumors today that its gonna be 8k. Take it with a grain of salt.


/SARKASM

 

[Parasprite]

Anyone complaining about no 1080p is just a spec-whore. 416 ppi will look exactly the same to your eyes as 1,000 ppi...hence the definition of a "Retina display" in Apple's world. Samsung could make a phone with 1,000,000 ppi and it will look the same as 416 ppi.

Actually, their definition says that you can't discern individual pixels. In reality, a person with normal or better than normal vision will probably still make use of the higher PPI, particularly when movement/shading/textures come into play where things become more subtle. It will still look more "real" at 1000 PPI than at 416 PPI, whether you can actually see individual pixels or not is actually irrelevant (for this discussion). I don't personally think that there will be much, if any, difference at higher than 1000 PPI, but it is extremely difficult to measure objectively.

 

[Oletros]

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.

I look my old Nexus 4, my Nexus 5 and my father iPhone 5 and I can clearly see the differences between all three screens resolutions

 

[cleirac]

Anyone complaining about no 1080p is just a spec-whore. 416 ppi will look exactly the same to your eyes as 1,000 ppi...hence the definition of a "Retina display" in Apple's world. Samsung could make a phone with 1,000,000 ppi and it will look the same as 416 ppi.

What is even more pathetic is calling iPhone shi33ty just because it is not "1080p". And they keep coming back here and looking at their "1080 p" screen, 1 mm away from their face, to see if iPhone 6 1080p mock-up / rumors are on the horizon in this forum.

Next up: "iPhone is shi33ty because it is not waterproof!"

 

[Mattsasa]

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.

I am not a developer, so I don't know how things work. But I don't understand could an app have a UI element that isn't an @2x element. And just a regular one that is 999 pixels

 

[groovyd]

Right, because then we wouldn't have hundreds of "my battery life sucks" threads to add to the lot.....

... oh yeah and a 24 hour battery life. I forgot that part.

 

[chleuasme]

Here's the thing though. 3x HiDPI gives a clear backwards-compatibility path that isn't terribly complicated, and gives predictable results with the existing software on the market.

That isn't to say you can't use auto-layout for more real-estate on a 1704x960 screen as well. But apps would need to "opt-in" to that mode, much like apps needed to opt-in to the iPhone 5 resolution to tell the OS it was capable of running in the taller screen. So there's nothing really preventing what you suggest with 960.

Jumping to 1080p screws up that plan a bit, as you are now dealing with scaling of older apps in a way that is likely to look worse than just running 3x HiDPI.

How exactly with AutoLayout on a 1704x960 screen? Either displaying at 85% the @3x bitmap assets to maintain the same physical size as on a 326 ppi @2x screen? Or asking to not only supply @2x and @3x but also @2.5x to avoid scaling? Not really great, much more headache.
As I mentioned too, the Text Size option that appeared with iOS 7 could at least answer to part of the problem.

With a 1920x1080 4.7" screen, you can letterbox on a 4.2" portion of the screen the current apps but @3x. AutoLayout would then allow to take advantage of the whole screen. Is that really more headache?

App compatibility is a necessity. But a larger iPhone not capable to exploit the larger surface of the screen is a failure.

Not to mention more pixels in your LCD = more battery drain running the screen. While 1080p would fill a tick-box of not downscaling full HD content, Apple has historically cared very little about those sorts of feature tick-boxes. Nor am I convinced that 1080p provides a drastic benefit over 960p.

Nope, with 416 ppi or 468 ppi, the difference is probably not much perceptible, that was not my point with the advantages of 1920x1080.
There sure have power issues with more pixels, but then to me a larger iPhone still at 326 ppi would have far more advantages than one with 3x the base resolution. I don't need to enlarge the UI.

 

[cube]

Expect Apple's competitors and Apple/iPhone detractors to point out that the next iPhone is not Full HD, so video has to be downscaled.

And I agree this is a reason to prefer something else. I expect the phone I buy this year to be 1080p, not going for the leading edge.

 

[jrswizzle]

I look my old Nexus 4, my Nexus 5 and my father iPhone 5 and I can clearly see the differences between all three screens resolutions

Perhaps you can see differences in the displays - but is that directly due to differences in resolution?

There are quite a few other important aspects to display quality.

I look at my iPhones quite a bit during the day. I don't notice any fuzziness, any jagged edges, any pixelation. Not sure how it gets much better than that.

Not saying the differences aren't there - just negligible in my opinion. Certainly not worth hurting battery life just to pump as many pixels into it as we can.

 

[Oletros]

Perhaps you can see differences in the displays - but is that directly due to differences in resolution?

There are quite a few other important aspects to display quality.

Yes, the crispness? is clearly different in all of them, I'm not talking about color rendition or saturation, I'm talking about text crispsness

 

[jrswizzle]

Expect Apple's competitors and Apple/iPhone detractors to point out that the next iPhone is not Full HD, so video has to be downscaled.

And I agree this is a reason to prefer something else. I expect the phone I buy this year to be 1080p, not going for the leading edge.

Because if you can't attack the competition with anything of substance, revert to spec sheet wars that don't mean anything in real world usage.

----------

Yes, the crispness? is clearly different in all of them, I'm not talking about color rendition or saturation, I'm talking about text crispsness

I don't see any text "blurriness" on my current iPhones....if there's no blurry, how can it be sharper? "clearly" my vision is impaired since I can't see a "clear" difference. Last time I went to the optometrist, I had 20/15 vision.

Like I said - I'll take added battery life over useless sharpening of already crisp text. Make sure my colors are accurate and my display is bright and I'm good.

Also - no need to screw over devs just to hit some threshold of resolution.

There are legitimate things to criticize about the iPhone and iOS - display resolution and quality aren't on that list.

 

[cube]

Because if you can't attack the competition with anything of substance, revert to spec sheet wars that don't mean anything in real world usage.

It is important for many people to experience the unaltered original version, even if you can't really tell the difference.

 

[Oletros]

I don't see any text "blurriness" on my current iPhones....if there's no blurry, how can it be sharper? "clearly" my vision is impaired since I can't see a "clear" difference. Last time I went to the optometrist, I had 20/15 vision.

Like I said - I'll take added battery life over useless sharpening of already crisp text. Make sure my colors are accurate and my display is bright and I'm good.

Also - no need to screw over devs just to hit some threshold of resolution.

There are legitimate things to criticize about the iPhone and iOS - display resolution and quality aren't on that list.

Where I have criticized anything? I have said that I can see the difference between some devices.

And please, you can keep the sarcasm for yourself, I don't think that my ****ing answer doesn't attack anyone or anything. Too much defensive today?