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

[Dave245]

I can already hear the ads from Samsung etc. calling out the new iPhone for not being "full HD" (as inconsequential as that is from a practical standpoint).

----------



Because "flat" graphics also look like ass when rendered at low resolutions?

I hate those ads, there so faulse and its unreal. Speaking from experience, I had the S4 last year (before I scraped the junk and go the 5S) and those ads are so misleading. Half the features they advertise do not work most of the time, and they drain the hell out of the battery, and when you contact Samsung about battery issues, they tell you to turn the features off. Samsung are all marketing but there phones are rushed and buggy.

 

[mib1800]

I hate those ads, there so faulse and its unreal. Speaking from experience, I had the S4 last year (before I scraped the junk and go the 5S) and those ads are so misleading. Half the features they advertise do not work most of the time, and they drain the hell out of the battery, and when you contact Samsung about battery issues, they tell you to turn the features off. Samsung are all marketing but there phones are rushed and buggy.

The way I see it is that I what you said is unreal and false.

 

[makitango]

Is it really the case that this is a coding issue rather than some stuff graphic designers are having nightmares about? I only remember that same cheesy wording "rewritten from the ground" and "complete iOS (insert number) redesigned app" when developers/publishers re-release or update their apps which may take an attempt at sticking with the UI guidelines but yet fail at so many levels. You can often see how serious these devs are about their work when their apps take the same ridiculously long loading time or even longer than before, crash at the same points etc. It mostly seems like a skinjob makes them think they have a new product.
I cannot imagine how all of this would be a more coding-stressed job rather than just a common graphic designer's dilemma. And if I'm right, the rest of the developer's team may keep what they're doing anyways.

 

[gnasher729]

Yeah no. But good try. Apple has a policy for this type of thing that has served it well. It's called letter boxing. Just like the iPad, just like the iPhone 5. There is no need for you to bust your brain trying to invent something that is not needed.

On top of that, your logic is ridiculously flawed. First, stretching the existing apps to fill a bigger screen would make existing apps look terrible for no reason and risk breaking them as all the click targets would be too big. Second, optimized apps would still have no use for 3x artwork as long as the dpi remains the same. They would simply need a layout adjustment to account for the extra space.

Explain to me again how that works with the iPad and iPad mini. People don't seem to complain that apps look terrible and that click targets are too big. If I bought a 5.5 inch phone and apps were "letter-boxed" to 4 inch I'd be seriously pissed off. Having 50% more pixels and automatically scaling all retina apps to 3x retina solves that problem. And as I wrote, 3x artwork would look a bit better. _And_ developers have the option to adapt to the larger screen and use 2x mode.

Let me say this one more time, slowly. There is no need for 3x artwork unless Apple goes to 450dpi, and there is no good reason for Apple to do that. Apple values graphics performance, Android OEMs do not.

1704x960 on a much larger phone isn't much higher dpi.

 

[Dave245]

The way I see it is that I what you said is unreal and false.

Its just my opinion and experience, having tried and owned a Samsung Galaxy S4 last year.

 

[kojinshugi]

Thankfully most of iOS 7 is vector-based, as in buttons and other chrome have been largely replaced by text, which is completely scalable. And that's certainly not an accident, but the functional reason for the redesign being so graphic-sparse.

 

[diddl14]

Any perception of how "rough" or "smooth" this will be is irrelevant.

The complaint originates from developers who spend more time complaining than developing.

Remember how "rough" it was getting native iPad apps in 2010?
Remember how "rough" it was waiting for retina iPhone apps later in 2010?
Or how "rough" it was for iPad retina apps in 2012?
Or how "rough" it was for developers to move to the iOS 7 design language?
Or my personal favorite, how "rough" the Intel transition was?
And the "rough" transition to OS X retina apps for the rMBP?
And why stop there? Remember how "rough" System 7 to Mac OS 8 was? And OS 9 to OS X?

The point is, they'll always call it "rough", and it's never as bad as they say it is.

They're always going to complain.

Nice way of complaining about developers complaining.

 

[haravikk]

Why not let us use vector graphics? Most app-makers should be using a vector graphic for their icon to begin with, and you can scale those to any size you like. If it's for performance reasons then it's simple enough to just rasterise at the required size and cache the resultant bitmap for future use.

They should really have pushed developers do this for Retina, as it would remove all PPI concerns in future entirely; of course vector graphics may lack detail at huge sizes, but at least they'd still look crisp, and iOS is going for an overall flatter look anyway so there's not much call for tiny details in high-res icons.

So yeah, please convert the entire OS to use vectors and simply generate cached bitmaps for performance, and this kind of problem will be a non-issue. That includes fonts in icons/images as well, since they're already vector-based.

 

[shanson27]

This is stupid, I want Full HD display

 

[proline]

Why not let us use vector graphics?

Because they tried this many years ago with some of the betas for OS X 10.3 and realized it wasn't worth the effort.

Most app-makers should be using a vector graphic for their icon to begin with, and you can scale those to any size you like. If it's for performance reasons then it's simple enough to just rasterise at the required size and cache the resultant bitmap for future use.

Not true. Sure, vector graphics can be displayed at any resolution, but that does NOT guarantee they will look good. For example, a very detailed vector image will be unreadable when rendered very small. Apple wants developers to THINK about issues like this and not just use one vector diagram at every scale.

They should really have pushed developers do this for Retina, as it would remove all PPI concerns in future entirely; of course vector graphics may lack detail at huge sizes, but at least they'd still look crisp, and iOS is going for an overall flatter look anyway so there's not much call for tiny details in high-res icons.

Nope, retina itself removes all future concerns. Once you have it, you do not need to increase resolution again ever for as long as people have eyeballs, because any further increase cannot be made out by the human eye.

So yeah, please convert the entire OS to use vectors and simply generate cached bitmaps for performance, and this kind of problem will be a non-issue. That includes fonts in icons/images as well, since they're already vector-based.

This is already a non-issue. @2x art is all you will need. Don't worry, and don't believe the garbage you read on rumour sites.

----------

Explain to me again how that works with the iPad and iPad mini. People don't seem to complain that apps look terrible and that click targets are too big. If I bought a 5.5 inch phone and apps were "letter-boxed" to 4 inch I'd be seriously pissed off. Having 50% more pixels and automatically scaling all retina apps to 3x retina solves that problem. And as I wrote, 3x artwork would look a bit better. _And_ developers have the option to adapt to the larger screen and use 2x mode.

Could you just do a little thinking on your own? iPads display iPhone apps letterboxed with HUGE black areas. iPhone 5s display 3.5" content letterboxed. Ergo, iPhone 6 will display iPhone 5 content letterboxed. It's simply logic here dude.

1704x960 on a much larger phone isn't much higher dpi.

If the DPI is the same THERE IS NO NEED FOR 3X ARTWORK. If you don't understand that do some research.

 

[nutjob]

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!

Of course you can have a half a pixel. I draw half a pixel lines all the time. I can move lines a half a pixel across and so on. It's not just possible, most of the graphics on your screen isn't rendered in whole pixels.

You just don't know anything about computer graphics. Try using google.

 

[Tech198]

You probably wouldn't need to create different fixed icon, button sizes, you could just hook into API’s apple provides and that would handle the scaling..

(at least i think that's how it would work)

However how can you transition a fixed image size ? at some stage they would have to appear distorted right, and start looking all deformed, loose their sharpness etc..

 

[marvz]

Nope, retina itself removes all future concerns. Once you have it, you do not need to increase resolution again ever for as long as people have eyeballs, because any further increase cannot be made out by the human eye.
.

This isn't true. Todays retina display at 326 DPI is not enough. Of course often you can't see pixels but there are also many moments when you are holding your phone to close to your eyes (under Apple's "average" distance) and you can see pixels/blurry texts/circles etc.
I'm hoping they are going over 400 DPI. Then it will be enough for almost every usual distance.

 

[Mattsasa]

Again, your UI is defined in points.
You can then render it at 1 pixel per point, 4 pixels per point or -here- 9 pixels per point.

So does this mean developers can only develops apps for iPhone 5/5S with only 568x320 points?? I am genuinely confused, trying to understand how iOS development works?

 

[proline]

This isn't true. Todays retina display at 326 DPI is not enough. Of course often you can't see pixels but there are also many moments when you are holding your phone to close to your eyes (under Apple's "average" distance) and you can see pixels/blurry texts/circles etc.
I'm hoping they are going over 400 DPI. Then it will be enough for almost every usual distance.

Quibbling about what exactly is the retina threshold is irrelevant. The point is, it exists and when it is reach, which is soon if not already, there is no need for further increases in resolution. Vectorization is therefore not necessary as there is a clear limit on future resolution.

And no, Apple will not be going to 400DPI any time soon. If you want that, go buy an Android.

 

[pgiguere1]

Could you just do a little thinking on your own? iPads display iPhone apps letterboxed with HUGE black areas. iPhone 5s display 3.5" content letterboxed. Ergo, iPhone 6 will display iPhone 5 content letterboxed. It's simply logic here dude.

If the DPI is the same THERE IS NO NEED FOR 3X ARTWORK. If you don't understand that do some research.

That would only be true assuming the screen estate will increase, which we have no clue about yet. And no, a DPI that wouldn't change has nothing to do with it. Increasing the screen estate would only involve: 1) A higher resolution and 2) Not increasing the scaling multiplier (Or at least, not increasing it proportionally to the resolution increase). The PPI, which is inversely proportional to the screen's physical dimensions, is not related to the screen estate.

As you say it: If you don't understand that do some research.

----------

So does this mean developers can only develops apps for iPhone 5/5S with only 568x320 points?? I am genuinely confused, trying to understand how iOS development works?

Yes, everything must be aligned to this "points" grid which is lower-res than the pixel grid if you have a Retina iOS device. This means developers lose granularity for positioning elements but this part is not really a big deal. The goal of the points system is to make sure no matter the scaling multiplier (@1x, @2x, @3x...), your elements will always be positioned the same and never include fractions of pixels as dimensions/positions (which would cause the blurriness issue I mentioned in my original post).

If pixels were used rather than points for positioning, you'd have this kind of issue: Developer designs with Interface Builder in Retina mode (@2x). He places an image 25px from the left side of the screen. When someone runs his app on a non-Retina (@1x) device, he would see the image as being 12.5 px left from the side of the screen. Fractions of pixels would means the image would be blurry. You could also get weird effects (like seeing a 1px 0.5 alpha line of something that should be in background) due to the multisampling and UI elements not fitting perfectly flush like they were snapped to a grid.

 

[marvz]

Quibbling about what exactly is the retina threshold is irrelevant. The point is, it exists and when it is reach, which is soon if not already, there is no need for further increases in resolution. Vectorization is therefore not necessary as there is a clear limit on future resolution.

And no, Apple will not be going to 400DPI any time soon. If you want that, go buy an Android.

Of course, if it is reached you don't have to increase the resolution. I just said that with todays 326 DPI retina displays it is not reached because the used distance for calculating is to long.
You read the article? Apple seems to adopt the @3X variant and that means 416DPI on a 4.7'' display

 

[Tech198]

Having seen these posts, if people need to quibble over DPI and the the fact they can see pixels. the i just one question ?

How close do people actually use their phones ? it must be petty close to see, I mean, i can see pixels on my 22' LCD panel, but only if at it closely...

Obviously, i never/and no one would t this close range.... Apple just users the term "Retina" as something you can't see as THEIR suggested distance..

The same applies to phones as well.... Are you just going by what Apple suggests? or are you going by what you (the customer) is a good distance ?

Because what Apple things, and what the customer things can be two different things.... Apple's standpoint is just an assumption, based on tests/research, which does nothing in the real world where every one is different.

 

[proline]

You read the article? Apple seems to adopt the @3X variant and that means 416DPI on a 4.7'' display

I read it, you did not. It doesn't say Apple is adopting 3x, it says some fool said Apple was doing that. Those are two very different concepts. Apple isn't going to halve their frame rates by turning 4 pixels into 9 when only people with perfect eyesight viewing the screen from 6" away can tell the difference. That would be a Samsung move.

----------

Yes, everything must be aligned to this "points" grid which is lower-res than the pixel grid if you have a Retina iOS device. This means developers lose granularity for positioning elements but this part is not really a big deal. The goal of the points system is to make sure no matter the scaling multiplier (@1x, @2x, @3x...), your elements will always be positioned the same and never include fractions of pixels as dimensions/positions (which would cause the blurriness issue I mentioned in my original post).

If pixels were used rather than points for positioning, you'd have this kind of issue: Developer designs with Interface Builder in Retina mode (@2x). He places an image 25px from the left side of the screen. When someone runs his app on a non-Retina (@1x) device, he would see the image as being 12.5 px left from the side of the screen. Fractions of pixels would means the image would be blurry. You could also get weird effects (like seeing a 1px 0.5 alpha line of something that should be in background) due to the multisampling and UI elements not fitting perfectly flush like they were snapped to a grid.

Sad when people know just enough to be dangerous. They sound smart so it sucks people in. Developers are not constrained to the points grid and never have been. There are numerous ways you can position elements at fractional values. Views are positioned on iOS using floating point numbers. All the mumbo jumbo you made up to back up your point without actually doing any research is wrong too.

 

[TheAnvil]

So while the rest of the world is about to move to WQHD (2560 x 1440) Apple won't even give out full HD.

 

[fertilized-egg]

I read it, you did not. It doesn't say Apple is adopting 3x, it says some fool said Apple was doing that. Those are two very different concepts.

Actually the original Macrumors article did point to a 9to5mac article by Mark Gurman who does have pretty good record when it comes to his original reporting.

So while the rest of the world is about to move to WQHD (2560 x 1440) Apple won't even give out full HD.

I don't see too much problem with the resolution. 4x (2272 x 1280) would've probably been easier for developers to make use of existing 2x assets but it's questionable if such screens can be made in the quantity required by Apple and the power consumption will be higher.

Compared to 1080p The pixel count is about 25% lower but 400+ DPI is still more than sufficiently high and it should makes the job easier for the developers. Movies downscale really well and at that pixel density on a mobile display, 1080p movies will play just fine. The bigger problem for movie watching on a mobile LCD screen remains the contrast ratio even though it has vastly improved in the past five years.

 

[nviz22]

Apple and the Xbox both share something in common: obscure resolutions.

 

[soupisgoodfood4]

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

A 5" iPhone is too big for a the small version, IMO. I think they can only get a 4.7" iPhone to work for those who like one-handed use because the combination of being thinner, narrower, and rounded edges will make it easier to reach across the larger display.

 

[TheAnvil]

I don't see too much problem with the resolution. 4x (2272 x 1280) would've probably been easier for developers to make use of existing 2x assets but it's questionable if such screens can be made in the quantity required by Apple and the power consumption will be higher.

Compared to 1080p The pixel count is about 25% lower but 400+ DPI is still more than sufficiently high and it should makes the job easier for the developers. Movies downscale really well and at that pixel density on a mobile display, 1080p movies will play just fine. The bigger problem for movie watching on a mobile LCD screen remains the contrast ratio even though it has vastly improved in the past five years.

Well, 27% when you compare it with 1080p; but if you look at 2560x1440 it's a staggering 125% increase, that's big.

Why should movies be downscaled?
There is no reason not to go for big and better; power will be compensated by a bigger battery in a bigger phone.
Unless you want to wait another two years...

 

[soupisgoodfood4]

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.

Why does an iPhone need to have a display that conforms to standards designed for TVs and large monitors? If you're that serious about your video viewing experience that the idea of watching a particular movie at a down-sized resolution feels like a compromised experience, then surely watching it on such a tiny screen will also be a compromised experience?

As for using existing panels, I don't think Apple has a problem getting panels at the sizes they need. It's not like making a different size panel is especially hard -- they cut the panels from a huge panel that has the required DPI.

----------

1920 x 1080 would be a start, but hardly put them in front.
Apple wastes so much effort justifying avoiding standards.
1080p native just seems more sensible.

Anyone know enough about this to weigh in on non-square pixels?
I like having a 1920x1080 iMac. I don't like having non-square pixels, though. Rotate something and it changes size. Just nuts.

Since when does any iMac with an LCD panel have non-square pixels? I think even the original iMac had square pixels.