Pixels are pixels, every image is defined by its number of pixels. If what you said is the case, there would be no need to design iphone 4 apps at a higher resolution. What you are saying is that a retina display can somehow turn a 200px jpg into a 400px jpg and still look as good. For that 200px image to look as good and even crisper (due to physically smaller pixels) it would need to be saved at 400px from the get go.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Problem with a 2x Retina Display on the iPad - The Internet.
- Thread starter hifoo45
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pixels are pixels, every image is defined by its number of pixels. If what you said is the case, there would be no need to design iphone 4 apps at a higher resolution. What you are saying is that a retina display can somehow turn a 200px jpg into a 400px jpg and still look as good. For that 200px image to look as good and even crisper (due to physically smaller pixels) it would need to be saved at 400px from the get go.
That makes no sense because while hour screen is now displaying 16 pixels your original picture is still only 4 so all that is going to happen is the image will be 4x as small on the same sized screen. Like I said earlier, look at the same website on your iPad and on your computer monitor (assuming your monitor is higher res). You'll find things on the iPad look enlarged vs the monitor and the iPad won't fit the same content.
The "internet" will look exactly the same as it does now on the current iPad screen, except that text will be sharper.
To the end user who is browsing the web, the benefit of having the ridiculous "retina" pixel real estate would be that Safari would be forced to provide us with better formatting control over pages. I really really want to be able to set the default font size, since just layout-zooming only helps for pages with fixed or fractional width text columns.
Here, try it on your own monitor. On my 27" iMac I set my browser the resolution of a 2x iPad 1536px. I went to apple.com, looks great! because all page elements are displayed at their designed/intended sizes. Why does it work on Mac OSX? because it allows for open space around the site.
Now back to the iPad, which needs to resize pages to fit perfectly within the 10" screen, how would it be able to do this on a 980px site? It can only achieve this by zooming in, but since 1536px is greater than 980 all images will have to be englarged through the zoom. No new pixels are created just stretched. Which ultimately causes quality loss.
Heres two images that shows what happens, obviously I know the imac does not have 264dpi, but it also isn't 10", but the same principle applies.
http://linequality.com/images/Ipaddefault.jpg
http://linequality.com/images/IpadBlowUp.jpg
Like I said before if retina was magically and made everything look great at the initial pixel size and still physically take up the same space on screen, there would be zero reason to redesign apps for retina screens.
No, I said that the new screen can use 4 of its pixels to make 1 of the older pixels. The image quality doesn't change nor does the size of the image displayed.
See in the attached image how the same picture can be displayed on both "screens" and be identical (not including the black lines of course). This is also how the retina display in the iphone works too and why any app not made to use the increased resolution will look exactly the same on a old or new screen.
Attachments
Last edited:
Someone gets it, exactly my point, I don't think apple will feel comfortable in boasting that their new iPad has the highest res display in the world of tablets while 99.9% of images on the websites will look not so crisp after the enlargement that must be done to fill the browser.
There is no need to design iPhone 4 apps at a higher resolution. An app not designed for the higher resolution will look exactly the same on the 3GS and on the iPhone 4. But an app designed for the iPhone 4 will look crisper.
By the same logic IF the iPad 2 gets a retina display apps and webpages won't look worse than on the iPad 1, they simply have the potentially to look better if developers take advantage of it.
Are you comparing those two images on the same monitor?
If so, of course the blown up image looks worst.
Why don't you display the blown up image on a monitor with higher pixel density such that the original image shown on you own monitor and the blown up image shown on a monitor with higher pixel density would both have the same physical size?
Please take a good look at p Mentior's illustration
He's not saying that pictures will look better, he's saying that it will look the same. Non-retina iPhone apps don't somehow look worse on the iPhone 4 than on the 3GS, at least not significantly. They get updated because then they look better, and match the rest of the UI.
Also, there's a difference between UI components and images in webpages. UI components in non-retina ready apps get pixel doubled. Images on a webpage will be scaled.
I think the closest thing that you could do to try to simulate this would be to open a webpage on an iPhone 4 and zoom it in until it's about the same physical size (imagining the webpage extending beyond the small iPhone screen) as an iPad screen. I doubt it will look bad at all.
Dear Thread Starter,
You are wrong. If you can not see this by now you have no hope.
Cheers
lusheslewis
You are wrong. If you can not see this by now you have no hope.
Cheers
lusheslewis
Personally l don't see why there's a need to improve the iPad resolution - it's fine as it is.
On the iPhone that is great to have due to the screen size and viewing distance.
I work in the graphic design field and on printed materials i.e. A4 brochure, leaflets, business cards etc. Images prints in an optimum resolution of 300dpi (vector files excepted), but large banners and billboards is in 80dpi as you're not going to take a step ladder, climb up and admire the oustanding 300dpi print quality close up as it's overkill.
Not only that, someone is likely to call the Police to have you taken away or someone is going to kick the step ladder and you'll fall and break both legs. Not to mention creating a bill board sized graphic at 300dpi resolution is likely to give your Mac a heart attack trying to process that in photoshop.
When it comes to creating web assets, I still create these in 72dpi as it's standard (for the time being), if I created that 50x50 pixel sized graphic for my web team I would get a slap and deservedly so.
On the iPhone that is great to have due to the screen size and viewing distance.
I work in the graphic design field and on printed materials i.e. A4 brochure, leaflets, business cards etc. Images prints in an optimum resolution of 300dpi (vector files excepted), but large banners and billboards is in 80dpi as you're not going to take a step ladder, climb up and admire the oustanding 300dpi print quality close up as it's overkill.
Not only that, someone is likely to call the Police to have you taken away or someone is going to kick the step ladder and you'll fall and break both legs. Not to mention creating a bill board sized graphic at 300dpi resolution is likely to give your Mac a heart attack trying to process that in photoshop.
When it comes to creating web assets, I still create these in 72dpi as it's standard (for the time being), if I created that 50x50 pixel sized graphic for my web team I would get a slap and deservedly so.