iPad 2 resolution will stay the same

[Bytor65]

Not that it matters much because he doesn't have much of a track record, but Kevin Rose reversed his position on the high res iPad.

http://www.9to5mac.com/48382/kevin-rose-joins-gruber-no-change-in-ipad-res

 

[Bytor65]

What I don't get is why higher rez should be 2x.

So it scales much better. Here is an example of resizing to 150% and 200%. Here are 5 text blocks:

1: Original
2: 150% Best Quality
3 150% Nearest Neighbor
4 200% Nearest Neighbor
5 200% Best Quality.

Now what should be obvious is that normal scaling (Best Quality) blurs at any size.

Nearest Neighbor creates artifacts unless you are going to a perfect multiple.

The best option by far is 200% Nearest Neighbor(second last below). It creates a perfect sharp upsize and it is also computationally simple. It is ideal to increase your display 2X if you have old apps to scale.

 

[hayesk]

Yes, but why would you ever upsize or downsize a graphic? iOS will just render text at higher resolution. For textures and other images, the developer will provide the higher resolution images.

On the iPhone 4, the only time you see scaling is when the developer didn't do their job and provide two sizes of images. That's a temporary problem.

 

[Bytor65]

On the iPhone 4, the only time you see scaling is when the developer didn't do their job and provide two sizes of images. That's a temporary problem.

Well Duh.

The whole point of scaling was dealing with old applications that existed before developers knew they needed to provide two sizes of images.

When iP4 shipped there were over a 100 000 low res iPhone applications that required upscaling. I bet a great number of them haven't been updated for hi res, so still need scaling today.

By the time a new resolution iPad ships there will likely be over 100 000 lower res iPad applications that require upscaling.

 

[MythicFrost]

It's actually quite easy. It's not limited to just copying one pixel exactly once and another pixel exactly twice. There are actually standard algorithms to adjust images when they are scaled. Here's a demonstration of your example of scaling a 10x10 image to 13x13 using a section of my avatar:

Actual size:
View attachment 268105

Detail:
View attachment 268106

As you can see, while the quality is degraded slightly (looks "fuzzy"), it works just fine. It looks even better for images with larger dimensions.

So, yes, it really is just as easy for apps to be scaled up by 1.5x as it is to scale them 2x.

I'm afraid your mistake here, is that an app isn't an image. Image's and videos can do this just fine, as they have no controls to position or draw within them.

An app does, you literally can't have a half pixel for a control, as it messes up layout and creates graphical issues.

 

[Eso]

Indeed, most art programs, Photoshop ect can use maths to scale an image to any size. However we are not talking about applying a filter to a photo, waiting a few seconds and seeing the result, we are talking about full speed, however many frames a second to get smooth animation scaling.

It doesn't take a "few seconds"; iOS already does this in real-time. Animations for opening, closing, switching apps, and scaling an iPhone app to full screen all scale images with interpolation in real-time to generate smooth animations. Most graphics would only have to be upscaled when the app is launched, and simple interpolation algorithms are not much more intensive than pixel doubling.

An app does, you literally can't have a half pixel for a control, as it messes up layout and creates graphical issues.

Worst case a control is shifted to a fractional pixel, in which case you just truncate the decimal and the control is off-centered by a single pixel. It's not a big deal. There's several controls in iOS that are not centered perfectly on non-retina display devices. For example, home screen buttons are offset 17 pixels from the left edge but 18 pixels from the right edge (on the 3GS).

 

[Bytor65]

I'm afraid your mistake here, is that an app isn't an image. Image's and videos can do this just fine, as they have no controls to position or draw within them.

There is also the pure visual element.

That is why in my example above I used a sharp source (text).

If you resize with a typical bicubic filter, you get a lot of blur.

To stay sharp you need to use nearest neighbor, but if you do that with a non integer value you get artifacts clearly visible in my example above.

The only clean and sharp upsize is nearest neighbor on a the perfect integer. This is why Apple chose it for iP4.

 

[MythicFrost]

Worst case a control is shifted to a fractional pixel, in which case you just truncate the decimal and the control is off-centered by a single pixel. It's not a big deal. There's several controls in iOS that are not centered perfectly on non-retina display devices. For example, home screen buttons are offset 17 pixels from the left edge but 18 pixels from the right edge (on the 3GS).

Let me put it like this... in XCode, it won't let you use fractions when positioning controls, only integers, I.E, X:50 Y:20 but not X:50.5 Y:20.5, etc.

Why would it not allow that but it be acceptable to be done via code? It isn't. There's a reason why they don't let you position controls with fractions and that is, a control can't take up anything about a whole pixel, not a half or a third, etc.

Extending a control by half a pixel can create graphical issues, and Apple isn't about to do that... that's why everything has to be 2x.

And being off centered like your example with the home screen means nothing when you've designed it that way, but when you've got an app and it's been designed perfect as is, let's say evenly, and then because of being upscaled that changes... then it is a problem.

There is also the pure visual element.

That is why in my example above I used a sharp source (text).

If you resize with a typical bicubic filter, you get a lot of blur.

To stay sharp you need to use nearest neighbor, but if you do that with a non integer value you get artifacts clearly visible in my example above.

The only clean and sharp upsize is nearest neighbor on a the perfect integer. This is why Apple chose it for iP4.

Ah good point, I've not thought of that before. Images that hadn't been updated would look terrible if it wasn't exactly 2x.

 

[Eso]

Let me put it like this... in XCode, it won't let you use fractions when positioning controls, only integers, I.E, X:50 Y:20 but not X:50.5 Y:20.5, etc.

Why would it not allow that but it be acceptable to be done via code? It isn't. There's a reason why they don't let you position controls with fractions and that is, a control can't take up anything about a whole pixel, not a half or a third, etc.

Extending a control by half a pixel can create graphical issues, and Apple isn't about to do that... that's why everything has to be 2x.

Did you even read what I said?

Suppose you have a control that's positioned at 51 x 21 pixels (since your 50x20 example already scales by 1.5 perfectly). Scale it up 1.5 and you get 76.5 x 31.5, so you just truncate the decimal and place the control at 76 x 31. Any graphic associated with the control would be scaled in exactly the same way so there would be no issues with the control not aligning properly.

Assuming it was perfectly centered previously, it will now be off by one pixel (just like the home screen already is). It's not a big issue, and it's already a challenge on iOS devices - such as centering a graphic that is an odd number of pixels wide in the middle of the screen.

 

[MythicFrost]

Did you even read what I said?

Suppose you have a control that's positioned at 51 x 21 pixels (since your 50x20 example already scales by 1.5 perfectly). Scale it up 1.5 and you get 76.5 x 31.5, so you just truncate the decimal and place the control at 76 x 31. Any graphic associated with the control would be scaled in exactly the same way so there would be no issues with the control not aligning properly.

Assuming it was perfectly centered previously, it will now be off by one pixel (just like the home screen already is). It's not a big issue, and it's already a challenge on iOS devices - such as centering a graphic that is an odd number of pixels wide in the middle of the screen.

Yes, I did... Did you even read what I wrote?

If that 51x31 control was flat up the top right, when scaled up 1.5x to 76.5x31.5 will be truncated to 76x31 and will leave a 1 pixel wide gap between the control and the right side of the screen which will be blatantly visible and unappealing.

 

[Eso]

Yes, I did... Did you even read what I wrote?

If that 51x31 control was flat up the top right, when scaled up 1.5x to 76.5x31.5 will be truncated to 76x31 and will leave a 1 pixel wide gap between the control and the right side of the screen which will be blatantly visible and unappealing.

And one pixel is such a difficult technological problem to overcome? Clearly no amount of logic will dissuade you people.

It's an irrelevant discussion anyways as the iPad's resolution won't change.

Perhaps we'll have a new display with the iPad 3 in 2012, as well as scalable UI technologies! Have you heard about this thing called HTML? You can actually align objects to one side of the screen or other! The size of objects can be expressed in terms of percentage of screen size... what? Can't wait!

 

[MythicFrost]

And one pixel is such a difficult technological problem to overcome? Clearly no amount of logic will dissuade you people.

There's no need to be rude. And just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it's correct.

And yes, when you've designed and positioned tens, or even hundreds of controls with a specific size inside of a 1024x768 area, which is then scaled up by anything between 1 and 99% it can become a problem.

I provided ONE example of having an unevenly sized control at the top right corner of the screen producing a white 1-pixel wide space all down the right side of the screen, I'm sure there are many more.

The FACT that XCode (or any IDE to my knowledge) doesn't allow you to use decimals for positioning and sizing should be enough proof.

It's an irrelevant discussion anyways as the iPad's resolution won't change.

Perhaps we'll have a new display with the iPad 3 in 2012, as well as scalable UI technologies! Have you heard about this thing called HTML? You can actually align objects to one side of the screen or other! The size of objects can be expressed in terms of percentage of screen size... what? Can't wait!

Don't be rude, seriously. We're not talking about aligning objects, we're talking about scaling up an area (1024x768) whilst maintaining multiple controls inside of that area which have specific positions and sizes.

You can easily write a computer application which automatically scales it's controls based on the size of the window... if you think that's all this is, which I take it by your (rude) reply, then you need to re-evaluate your logic.

Oh, and what Bytor65 wrote is also an issue: images that aren't scaled up by 2x look terrible. Something I believe SJ put great emphasis on at the Keynote when they released the iPhone 4, was that developers didn't need to do anything, it looks great already -- but, updating with HD images would make it look even better.

In this scenario, all apps without HD images provided would look significantly worse.

 

[toke lahti]

Extending a control by half a pixel can create graphical issues, and Apple isn't about to do that... that's why everything has to be 2x.

I don't have an iPad (yet), so have you noticed these horrible problems when using apps that were done for iP4 and older iPhone with iPad?

 

[Bytor65]

Oh, and what Bytor65 wrote is also an issue: images that aren't scaled up by 2x look terrible. Something I believe SJ put great emphasis on at the Keynote when they released the iPhone 4, was that developers didn't need to do anything, it looks great already -- but, updating with HD images would make it look even better.

This is the critical factor IMO. It was done mainly for appearance.

I find it hilarious that people will overestimate scaling issues when they don't really matter. Like when they think they need exactly 1280x720 or 1920x1080 to play video. This is a silly pointless requirement some people get wrapped up in. Video has naturally soft edges and can be scaled to any size without issues or artifacts.

And then underestimate scaling issues when they matter (Sharp edged interface elements, unique artwork, text, sharp textures etc). This is where scaling is very problematic. If you use traditional high quality scaling algorithms (bicubic,lanczos) you get soft blurry appearance.

You can really only avoid blurring and artifacts by doing what Apple did with the iP4. Perfect doubling and nearest neighbor. Not only do you get perfect scaling without blur, it takes zero computation.

 

[StarkInc]

I think the iPad 2 must have retina screen! But now we are talking about Apple! iPad will get the same tough update as iPhone ..

iPad 2 will probably just get a simple update such as the iPhone 3G to the iPhone 3G got. iPad will probably not receive retina screen until Gen 3 or Gen 4.

 

[MythicFrost]

I don't have an iPad (yet), so have you noticed these horrible problems when using apps that were done for iP4 and older iPhone with iPad?

Those don't scale; they run "pixel-double" and look very pixelated.

This is the critical factor IMO. It was done mainly for appearance.

I find it hilarious that people will overestimate scaling issues when they don't really matter. Like when they think they need exactly 1280x720 or 1920x1080 to play video. This is a silly pointless requirement some people get wrapped up in. Video has naturally soft edges and can be scaled to any size without issues or artifacts.

And then underestimate scaling issues when they matter (Sharp edged interface elements, unique artwork, text, sharp textures etc). This is where scaling is very problematic. If you use traditional high quality scaling algorithms (bicubic,lanczos) you get soft blurry appearance.

You can really only avoid blurring and artifacts by doing what Apple did with the iP4. Perfect doubling and nearest neighbor. Not only do you get perfect scaling without blur, it takes zero computation.

I think what both you and I pointed out are pretty much equally important; in both cases it can't be done as it will not look pleasing. And yeah, I find that funny also haha =P

 

[toke lahti]

Those don't scale; they run "pixel-double" and look very pixelated.

Is this pixel-double nearest neighbor?
I mean you can't just double every pixel when 480x320 ->1024x768.
Is it also very bad when using iP4 app in iPad (960x640 -> 1024x768)?

 

[ArmCortexA8]

Hi all

From what I have read so far we should expect the iPad 2 to have a higher resolution screen as discussed beforehand, however I must advise this does not mean it will have the same PPI as Retina Display - these are two big differences. Yes the current iPad's screen looks a bit bland colour wise to the iPhone 4, but this is because the PPI on the iPhone 4 is over 2 x that of the iPad. Also, the current iPad uses the A4 processor which is probably limited in graphics horsepower. I have heard the new iPad 2 will use a new A5 processor with a higher end GPU so higher resolutions will be no problems at all.

As for the "connector" on the top of the iPad 2 (based on the cases) this may be a DisplayPort, unless Apple go for HDMI which I highly doubt. The advantage of the iPad 2 is it seems no more Camera Connection Kits is required which makes it a lot more suitable for transferring photos, etc.

 

[kevink2]

The only way I'll upgrade is if it has a retina display... otherwise I'll way until iPad 3.

Though technically I COULD afford to upgrade annually, then I would have to hand off my older model. And the $800 or so would have to come out of some other area, like vacation or retirement savings.

My argument to myself is that if I can't be happy with my purchase for a minimal 2 years, I'm probably making a mistake with my purchase from Apple.

I skipped a generation with my iPhone too. Going from a 3G to 4. That was in 18 months, but the 3G had started acting weird in wifi from being dropped a few times on concrete, so I'm not blaming that on a defect.

 

[Bytor65]

Is this pixel-double nearest neighbor?
I mean you can't just double every pixel when 480x320 ->1024x768.
Is it also very bad when using iP4 app in iPad (960x640 -> 1024x768)?

Why would you want to run old iPhone apps? When there 50 000 native iPad apps.

They don't looks so hot on iPad which was a concern when there wasn't native version of nearly everything, but that isn't the case anymore.

 

[GnillGnoll]

I think this is a combination of people not knowing how GPUs/computer hardware in general work

This is true, but probably not in the way you mean.

The FACT that XCode (or any IDE to my knowledge) doesn't allow you to use decimals for positioning and sizing should be enough proof.

Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) allows decimals. You can create WPF projects in recent Visual Studio versions.

Is this pixel-double nearest neighbor?
I mean you can't just double every pixel when 480x320 ->1024x768.
Is it also very bad when using iP4 app in iPad (960x640 -> 1024x768)?

iPhone apps do not run fullscreen on iPad. They either run without zoom at 480x320 or with 2x zoom (nearest neighbor) at 960x640.

 

[MythicFrost]

Is this pixel-double nearest neighbor?
I mean you can't just double every pixel when 480x320 ->1024x768.
Is it also very bad when using iP4 app in iPad (960x640 -> 1024x768)?

It just doubles the pixels, which means it runs at 960x640. Or you can run it at 480x320. Oh and iPhone 4 apps still run at those resolutions and look no better to my knowledge.

Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) allows decimals. You can create WPF projects in recent Visual Studio versions.

Ah ok

 

[yodaxl7]

Duh! I mean, come on people. When has Apple ever given us this many upgrades at once? The next iPad will be slightly faster and have cameras. That is all. I'd be willing to wager heavily on that.

I take that BET!! iPhone 1 and 2 did not have any competition. So, iPhone 4 is the real update!!

At this point, competition is coming sooner and apple is ready. Apple knows that they cannot let competition come into the fold. iPad 2 will be a big update. iPad 1 was light because they did not know how well it will do. I bet that they thought they'll sell much less and was surprised, too.

A5 is the major thing for me. Better games!! Better apps, period!

 

[AgDon]

Not sure what to do about a tablet now some of the other new tablets coming out are showing 3D capabilities. If Apple does not have the retina display/ dual core and extra ram, it now puts in play the other tablets with a dual core, 3D gorilla glass screen etc..
Some 3D info:
Link: http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/23/1-2ghz-tegra-2-3d-chips-suggested-by-leaked-slide-coming-sprin/
Link:
http://www.tmonews.com/2011/01/samsung-galaxy-tab-2-to-have-super-specs/
What to do? Have been waiting for the iPad 2, but spec's are not known and some others are popping up with some possibly good spec's.

 

[johannnn]

Not sure what to do about a tablet now some of the other new tablets coming out are showing 3D capabilities. If Apple does not have the retina display/ dual core and extra ram, it now puts in play the other tablets with a dual core, 3D gorilla glass screen etc..
Some 3D info:
Link: http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/23/1-2ghz-tegra-2-3d-chips-suggested-by-leaked-slide-coming-sprin/
Link:
http://www.tmonews.com/2011/01/samsung-galaxy-tab-2-to-have-super-specs/
What to do? Have been waiting for the iPad 2, but spec's are not known and some others are popping up with some possibly good spec's.

Rumors.

And, did you take a look at the spec's where it said the OS? The most important spec of them all. Sure if you want Android go ahead, but I'll stay with iOS for at least a few years more.