Transition to '3x' iPhone 6 at 1704 x 960 Likely Smoother Than Move to Retina

[GenesisST]

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 Builder’s 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.

Autolayout sounds very convenient/powerful, but I'll be honest and say that I don't understand it at this moment. I was under the gun to release and decided to stick to autosizing.

I need to read on it carefully. I guess I'm missing the "ha-ah moment" where things will become clear.

 

[Casiotone]

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.

Not sure why you say I got it wrong then proceed to explain that in two dimensions, it is indeed four pixels for a point.

It's only a matter of semantics, we both mean the same thing.

pgiguere1 on the other hand is wrong since he's saying that pixels are the smaller unit. Since he confuses the two I doubt he has enough experience as an iOS developer to know what a transition to 416PPI means.

 

[JoeyCloverfield]

You're talking about one dimension, I'm talking about both dimension. I'll fix my post to make that clearer.

I understood your original post. I don't believe you are correct though. As SynPiekarza put it, a square-point is made up of four pixels. A pixel is NOT made up four points.

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.

 

[attila]

I sort of like Apple changing the resolution up every couple of years. Developers are forced to update their apps to remain current.

Wouldn't you prefer they worked on new or better features instead of wasting their time preventing their app from looking like ****?

 

[JoeyCloverfield]

Not sure why you say I got it wrong then proceed to explain that in two dimensions, it is indeed four pixels for a point.

Now I don't know what you're saying. You originally stated that a point is smaller than a pixel. How can it be smaller if four pixels fit in a point?

 

[supersalo]

The non-3x images look worse to me than the non-retina images did.

Non-retina images looked pixelated. The non-3x images look blurry.

 

[Casiotone]

Ok so let me try that again.

Here's a quote from pgiguere1 :

For example, an iPhone 5 is seen as being 568x320 points * @2x = 1136x640 pixels.

This is not true. A pixel is composed of two points. Points are the smaller unit. To iOS, the iPhone 5 is seen as being 568x320 pixels * @2x = 1136x640 points


----------

I understood your original post. I don't believe you are correct though. As SynPiekarza put it, a square-point is made up of four pixels. A pixel is NOT made up four points.

Yeah you're totally right, I got confused myself.

What a mess, maybe I should stop posting.

 

[osofast240sx]

hmmm weird resolution. any taller without making it wider and its literally gonna flip out of your hand

+ it would mean those star wars light saber memes were right all along

????? What are U talking about?????were do u see this

 

[Parasprite]

Ok so let me try that again.

Here's a quote from pgiguere1 :


This is not true. A pixel is composed of two points. Points are the smaller unit. To iOS, the iPhone 5 is seen as being 568x320 pixels * @2x = 1136x640 points

Image

According to your own picture, a point equals both 1 pixel and 2 pixels.

Which is really the point of this whole thing.

 

[DTphonehome]

Wouldn't you prefer they worked on new or better features instead of wasting their time preventing their app from looking like ****?

Well, if they're adding new/better features, then they will likely refresh the graphics as well. If they don't want to add new features, they can choose to either refresh graphics or not. I've seen all these approaches when the retina screen came out, and again when the longer iPhone 5 screen was released. Don't see why it would be any worse or different now.

 

[JoeyCloverfield]

Image

----------

Yeah you're totally right, I got confused myself.

What a mess, maybe I should stop posting.

No need for that. Everyone has brain-farts.

The image you attached to your post completely threw me off. It seemed to prove my point, so I thought I was missing something.

 

[Reason077]

Autolayout sounds very convenient/powerful, but I'll be honest and say that I don't understand it at this moment.

Powerful, maybe. Convenient? No.

Autolayout should have made life easier for developers, but in reality it's difficult to learn and needlessly complicated.

For most projects I've found it much easier to stick to the old layout constraints, and implement more complex layouts in code when necessary.

It shouldn't be this way, of course - autolayout should be convenient and simple. I really hope they get it right in iOS 8 / the next Xcode.

 

[pgiguere1]

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.

Can you point where I said the opposite? I think you misunderstood what I wrote. If I said what you claim I did, my whole logic for several arguments wouldn't even make sense, which makes me think you probably didn't read my post in full.

For MacRumor's reputation and my own, I'd appreciate that you retract this once you find out that you're wrong.

 

[amphiton]

I still think they'll double 1136x640 making it 2272x1280.

This will make life easier for developers and designer, current apps will look just fine too.

 

[Casiotone]

According to your own picture, a point equals both 1 pixel and 2 pixels.

Which is really the point of this whole thing.

I removed the image because it was confusing. We're talking about an iPhone 5 here in his example, where one points equals two pixels. He got it backward which was my original point.

 

[DonutHands]

I still think they'll double 1136x640 making it 2272x1280.

This will make life easier for developers and designer, current apps will look just fine too.

That would make a 4.7" display 550 ppi and a 5.5" display 470 ppi. Quite impressive if apple chose to go that route. Doubtful, but impressive if they do.

 

[Casiotone]

Can you point where I said the opposite? I think you misunderstood what I wrote. If I said what you claim I did, my whole logic for several arguments wouldn't even make sense, which makes me think you probably didn't read my post in full.

For MacRumor's reputation and my own, I'd appreciate that you retract this once you find out that you're wrong.

Here's a quote from your post:

For example, an iPhone 5 is seen as being 568x320 points * @2x = 1136x640 pixels.

This is not true. A pixel is composed of two points. Points are the smaller unit. To iOS, the iPhone 5 is seen as being 568x320 pixels * @2x = 1136x640 points

 

[TouchMint.com]

I would like to see apple send out a notice saying apps that are still 1x for 3.5 only will be removed from the store if not updated to atleast 2x by say 6 months. At the very least if not removed heavily down ranked in searches. It would clear a lot of old junk apps out of the store.

 

[pgiguere1]

Here's a quote from your post:



This is not true. A pixel is composed of two points. Points are the smaller unit. To iOS, the iPhone 5 is seen as being 568x320 pixels * @2x = 1136x640 points

Ah, I get what you mean now. You're still wrong but a different kind of wrong.

It's actually the opposite of what you say:

https://developer.apple.com/library...sdrawingoverview/graphicsdrawingoverview.html

"On a high-resolution display (with a scale factor of 2.0), a line that is one point wide is not antialiased at all because it occupies two full pixels"

 

[Bare]

Hey hey! Who knew!? You can actually post stuff that doesn't involve a mockup?!

Provided it's written by a forum member and not MacRumors.

 

[jonnysods]

I wonder how many rows of icons there will be. I saw a mockup on The Verge using the existing size icon, it made the phone look crazy.

 

[Casiotone]

Ah, I get what you mean now. You're still wrong but a different kind of wrong.

It's actually the opposite of what you say:

https://developer.apple.com/library...sdrawingoverview/graphicsdrawingoverview.html

"On a high-resolution display (with a scale factor of 2.0), a line that is one point wide is not antialiased at all because it occupies two full pixels"

Image

Ok then I'm retracting my post and I'm sorry if I caused you any grief. This is not my day I guess...

I still don't believe that going 3X would make it as easy or easier than the retina transition which involved changing both the resolution and PPI by the same amount (resulting in a screen of the same size), which is not the case in your theory.

 

[pgiguere1]

Ok then I'm retracting my post and I'm sorry if I caused you any grief. This is not my day I guess...

Thanks!

I still don't believe that going 3X would make it as easy or easier than the retina transition which involved changing both the resolution and PPI by the same amount (resulting in a screen of the same size), which is not the case in your theory.

Indeed this would imply the physical size of UI elements would be bigger (so no gain in screen estate), which is less than ideal when you screen is bigger. My theory is not 100% perfect (no solution really is) so I'm myself not completely sure that's what will happen.

 

[vixducis]

I wonder why they don't just go with 1080p already. I know it'll be a pain in the *** for devs at first. But it could very well be the very last time they'll need to change the resolution, so why not do it the industry standard way? They can use existing panels, which should be easier to find suppliers. You can play 1080p videos at native res, and even at 5,5", it's a retina resolution.

 

[Ploki]

I wonder why they don't just go with 1080p already. I know it'll be a pain in the *** for devs at first. But it could very well be the very last time they'll need to change the resolution, so why not do it the industry standard way? They can use existing panels, which should be easier to find suppliers. You can play 1080p videos at native res, and even at 5,5", it's a retina resolution.

I don't know of any 1080p phone that uses normal RGB matrix. All samsungs and HTCs use "pentile display matrix" which is inferior to the arrangement Apple uses in their devices.