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.
Transition to '3x' iPhone 6 at 1704 x 960 Likely Smoother Than Move to Retina
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Seeing as iOS7 has almost all graphics without any photos or that sort of imagery, wouldn't using vector graphics future-proof the whole ecosystem, and make sure than no matter what PPI is used, will always render as sharply as possible? Much easier on developers, designers, well, everyone as far as I can imagine.
Doubling a value is so simple as bit shifting so no processor resource needed to do it, but multiplying by 1.5 is totally awkward and not very relevant... In my opinion but who knows.
Let's immagine they double again the resolution? I know this goes insane and useless for 4.7" and 5.5" sizes but why not?
Honestly I think that this 4:3 ratio is now dead and Apple should do a leap forward in 16:9 resolution by removing iphone 4 from store and focus on future resolutions + they started the old phone program replacement so in my mind this would make sense.
I don't need 4K res on a phone but a std 1920x1080 will be enough, a "std" resolution.
Anyway who really cares about all of this all we want is better battery
Let's immagine they double again the resolution? I know this goes insane and useless for 4.7" and 5.5" sizes but why not?
Honestly I think that this 4:3 ratio is now dead and Apple should do a leap forward in 16:9 resolution by removing iphone 4 from store and focus on future resolutions + they started the old phone program replacement so in my mind this would make sense.
I don't need 4K res on a phone but a std 1920x1080 will be enough, a "std" resolution.
Anyway who really cares about all of this all we want is better battery
I'm very sorry to have to say that, but I find it sad that Macrumors decided to make news out of a forum post from someone that don't even know the difference between pixel units and points units in iOS development.
Points are the smaller unit. Point units are composed of two pixels units (or four if you're talking about both dimensions), not the other way around.
Ok so I was the one who was wrong it seems. I'm retracting the above post.
Points are the smaller unit. Point units are composed of two pixels units (or four if you're talking about both dimensions), not the other way around.
Ok so I was the one who was wrong it seems. I'm retracting the above post.
Last edited:
I have no doubt the transition will be smoother. The tools today are better than the tools of 2010, but either way developers will step up or lose money.
Evolve or die.
Evolve or die.
This is wrong-headed thinking from the 90s. Vector art is pointless for this type of application. All we really need is sufficiently high resolution that the eye cannot see the flaws, ie. retina. Once achieved, that resolution would be sufficient for all time, or at least until the human eye is replaced with some other biotech. Using vectors requires extra complexity for no practical benefit once every machine has a retina screen and capable GPU. Apple tried to go down that rabbit hole with early OS X versions, then they realized the approach was critically flawed.
Obviously there will always be a place for vector art as a stage of the art design process, just not for final icons, controls, etc.
Yeah I agree with this. It's also one of the reasons that I'm excited for OS X 10.10. I'm kind of hoping it will encourage some updating of apps that have been neglected.
This is cool and all...but Apple could have done bilinear interpolation with 1x assets on retina displays. I believe they didn't to try and light a fire under developers to upgrade their apps faster.
Now maybe they did it for performance reasons, though I doubt many apps would have been affected. With 3x they don't really have a choice though as they can't just use pixel doubling.
Hopefully this is the case as it the difference between a 2x app scaled bilinearlly (Hopefully with fonts rendered at full resolution) and a 3x app will be miniscule.
Now maybe they did it for performance reasons, though I doubt many apps would have been affected. With 3x they don't really have a choice though as they can't just use pixel doubling.
Hopefully this is the case as it the difference between a 2x app scaled bilinearlly (Hopefully with fonts rendered at full resolution) and a 3x app will be miniscule.
emmm https://developer.apple.com/xcode/
Auto Layout
Auto Layout is a powerful technology that allows you to create a single user interface which automatically adjusts to screen size, orientation, and localization. With Xcode 5, Interface Builders support for Auto Layout has been greatly enhanced. Interface Builder offers as much or as little help as you like, giving you a free-form canvas on which to create your next great app. Xcode offers helpful alerts when constraints are missing or mis-configured, and Interface Builder can even fix the layout for you.
I hope they all do. Developers deserve to get paid. And we as iOS consumer should support them by buying these updates.
You know why the iOS ecosystem is considered the biggest and best? Because consumers are willing to pay real money for developer time. Some other platforms may have more users but they don't have real consumers who spend money. This is why iOS will continue to be at the forefront of cutting-edge app experiences that you won't see on any other mobile platform.
I consider it my duty to help support the developers of apps I love whenever they release a paid application. It's good for the ecosystem.
Doubling a value is so simple as bit shifting so no processor resource needed to do it, but multiplying by 1.5 is totally awkward and not very relevant... In my opinion but who knows.
Let's immagine they double again the resolution? I know this goes insane and useless for 4.7" and 5.5" sizes but why not?
Honestly I think that this 4:3 ratio is now dead and Apple should do a leap forward in 16:9 resolution by removing iphone 4 from store and focus on future resolutions + they started the old phone program replacement so in my mind this would make sense.
I don't need 4K res on a phone but a std 1920x1080 will be enough, a "std" resolution.
Anyway who really cares about all of this all we want is better battery
Firstly, the multiplying by 1.5 is not really relevant, because that will only be happening for calculating the position and size of the images ( not the rendering of them ).
And in those cases the difference is not much larger anyway:
a = a << 1;
vs
a += ( a >> 1 );
...
And in the actual rendering there is hardly any difference, if you looked at the assembler it might resemble this:
Resolution * 2 ( drawing 2 pixels, 6 instructions )
-----------------------
LOOP: LD A, [pixelSource]
MV [pixelDest], A
INC pixelDest
MV [pixelDest], A
INC pixelSource
JMP LOOP
Resolution * 1.5 ( drawing 3 pixels, 10 instructions )
-----------------------
LD A, [pixelSource]
LOOP: MV [pixelDest], A
INC pixelDest
INC pixelSource
LD B, [pixelSource]
ADD A, B
SHR A
MV [pixelDest], A
INC pixelDest
LD A, B
JMP LOOP
This is a very basic example, and not to be taken too seriously but as you can see the instructions per pixel is pretty much the same for a 2x or a 1.5x increase.
Last edited:
Has anyone considered the idea that the new iPhones may be 5 and 6" exactly?
Here is my reasoning. iPad mini adapted the iPhones pixel density, so at 1704x960 the pixel density of the 6" iPhone would be 326 just like the current iPhone, and at 5" it would be 1.5x IPad Air's pixel density.
All the reliable leaks show the schematics for the back of the phone, and everyone is assuming Apple will keep the same exact amount of bezel all around. But c'mon!!! Apple of all companies can do better than that and 5" and 6" screens fit perfectly well with reasonable bezel to work with to all the mockups we have seen.
This is Apple not HTC
Here is my reasoning. iPad mini adapted the iPhones pixel density, so at 1704x960 the pixel density of the 6" iPhone would be 326 just like the current iPhone, and at 5" it would be 1.5x IPad Air's pixel density.
All the reliable leaks show the schematics for the back of the phone, and everyone is assuming Apple will keep the same exact amount of bezel all around. But c'mon!!! Apple of all companies can do better than that and 5" and 6" screens fit perfectly well with reasonable bezel to work with to all the mockups we have seen.
This is Apple not HTC
You got to have one in a million vision! I have 5s and Galaxy S5! The only thing I do notice on S5 screen is more vibrant/saturated display. On neither of them I can see any pixels.
I doubt this resolution. Speaking as a developer, redoing graphics to work at 3x is definitely more awkward than supporting an entirely new resolution. If we design graphics at 3x in Photoshop, 2x assets will be all kinds of blurry, since they don't divide evenly.
I think the screen will be 1024 x 1536 @2x, or 512 x 768 in points. The reason is simple: this is 3:2 aspect ratio, the same as all iPhones until the 5, and it's also half the size of an iPad display. With the iOS 8 rumor that iPads will be able to do side-by-side multitasking, this resolution makes a lot of sense.
I think the screen will be 1024 x 1536 @2x, or 512 x 768 in points. The reason is simple: this is 3:2 aspect ratio, the same as all iPhones until the 5, and it's also half the size of an iPad display. With the iOS 8 rumor that iPads will be able to do side-by-side multitasking, this resolution makes a lot of sense.
The move to retina was easy because the screen size did not change. The change in resolution was exactly the same as the change in PPI (2x).
Developers could keep the same exact coordinates for their UI layout and let the doubling be handled by iOS, resulting in buttons and touch targets that were the same physical size on the retina device.
The move to 3x on a larger screen would NOT be easier as it changes the resolution and PPI by a different ratio, meaning that buttons and touch targets would not be the expected size. Auto-layout is not currently designed to handle this. All system widgets (buttons etc.) are currently made to be displayed on a 163 or 326PPI display.
To make them the right size, coordinates would need to be scaled by a number like 1.27607, resulting in a blurry interface, and that even with vector art.
Developers could keep the same exact coordinates for their UI layout and let the doubling be handled by iOS, resulting in buttons and touch targets that were the same physical size on the retina device.
The move to 3x on a larger screen would NOT be easier as it changes the resolution and PPI by a different ratio, meaning that buttons and touch targets would not be the expected size. Auto-layout is not currently designed to handle this. All system widgets (buttons etc.) are currently made to be displayed on a 163 or 326PPI display.
To make them the right size, coordinates would need to be scaled by a number like 1.27607, resulting in a blurry interface, and that even with vector art.
It's even better because it still lacks any journalistic intuition. It is still made up stuff without any backing to it. The only "true" rumor is a bigger screen based on the a biannual design change from last years experience. "We don't post the news, we make them."
I still come here to laugh. This iPhone6 madness is a joke I can't get enough of.
I think you're going to have to check your facts on this one. On a retina display a point is made up of two pixels. The iPhone 5 has a 320-by-568 point resolution and a 640-by-1136 pixel resolution.
Yup, that's about right. And Casiotone got it wrong.
But just so all is correct, a point is made up of four pixels. Two times two.
A pixel is a square and a point is a square 2 pixels wide, 2 pixels high.
Basically someone gets a rumor and rather than just reporting the rumor they feel they have to add all this filler around it, get people to do mock ups, ect. so they can re-label it an exclusive report rather than a rumor that could be reported in one paragraph.
You're talking about one dimension, I'm talking about both dimension. I'll fix my post to make that clearer.
It is not possible in real world!
You make it too simple that things can be multiply.
But you forgot a very simple and major point:
Pixel is a Unit!
Simply not every object can be multiply by 1.5 times, for example, if something is draw by 31 pixel X 31 pixel, by multiply it to 1.5 times, you will have.....
46.5 pixel!
You just cannot have 0.5 pixel! That means you need to draw a new one for this resolution. THEN it is not a simple multiply it!
I agree. This article is utter *********! It's actually easier to multiply by 2 than by 1.5 (as you said)! And in any case, you need to redraw all graphics.
The only reason this change would not be "as rough" is because many are already forced to have vector assets, so half the work is done. You still need to touch up the exported bitmaps.
100% incorrect. Even if stated in bold.
All iPhones to date have had a width of 320 points in portrait mode. The resolution (pixels) per unit of screen real estate (point) is what changes.