or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: Apple to double 'iPhone 5S' Retina resolution to 1.5M pixels
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple to double 'iPhone 5S' Retina resolution to 1.5M pixels - Page 2

post #41 of 157

I'll chime in with everyone else in saying that the resolution increase make no sense at all and doesn't sound like something Apple would do, but this part here is even more egregious. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

... In addition, the report claimed that the iPhone 5 will have an even thinner bezel than its current design, suggesting Apple will borrow design elements from its popular iPad mini. ...

 

In the first place, the iPhone was the one that started the "narrow side bezel" thing, so it can't actually be "... borrow(ing) design elements form ... (the) mini."  

 

Secondly, the side bezels on the iPhone 5 are already narrower than those on the iPad mini both in absolute and relative measurements.  So again, impossible.  

 

Any report that has this ridiculous nonsense in it is unlikely to be reliable.  

post #42 of 157
This doubling of resolution is total BS. I heard from a friend of a friend that they are QUADRUPLING the resolution. Microscopes have already been shipped to Apple stores so that customers can see the benefits of this new ground-breaking technology. If you buy one on launch day, Apple is throwing in a free AL13 signal attenuator with your new iPhone purchase.
post #43 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoffdino View Post

Isn't Retina supposed to be the limit of our eyes. ... ?

 

Exactly.  To do this would make a mockery of the very definition of "Retina."  And it's Apple's definition.  It would be like punching yourself. 

post #44 of 157
There seems to be a lot of negativity with respect to this rumor. First off it isn't a fact but rather a rumors so no sense in getting to wrapped up in the concept. Second sometimes you need to lay the ground work well before the you start to promote a hidden agenda.

So what might be the hidden agenda? Well think screens closer or farther away. Eye glass displays for close up or laser projected displays for farther away. Projected displays might be the hidden agenda here.
post #45 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

There seems to be a lot of negativity with respect to this rumor. First off it isn't a fact but rather a rumors so no sense in getting to wrapped up in the concept. Second sometimes you need to lay the ground work well before the you start to promote a hidden agenda.

So what might be the hidden agenda? Well think screens closer or farther away. Eye glass displays for close up or laser projected displays for farther away. Projected displays might be the hidden agenda here.

Or even simpler, a larger iPhone display.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #46 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post

I think it only makes sense if it is used for 3D: full res for each eye.

My first thought...

 

But then... just put up a 2 lens Google Glass and be done with it;-)

post #47 of 157

[yawn]

...yet another boring rumor...

 

Can we please have some _real_ rumor? I mean a rumor about an interesting product. For example, a Mac Pro rumor.

post #48 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingela View Post

...[I]f Apple is going to release a completely new less expensive model, maybe they "should" release more than a refresh to keep the interest on it's flashship premium model with higher margins rather than just the less expensive model with lower margins.

I think differently on it:  WHY should a "completely new, less expensive model" have a screen at all?

 

I image a stereo BT headset with advanced voice control - and the ability to piggyback off the cellular chip in your iPad to make calls....

 

The next big battleground is going to be over carrier rates, you know - and this would be a shot OVER the bow & straight into the magazine.

If yer gonna bother with thinking different, swing for the fences.
Reply
If yer gonna bother with thinking different, swing for the fences.
Reply
post #49 of 157
it makes no sense to double the resolution. You cannot see pixels at normal viewing distance on iPhone so I don't see the point of doubling the resolution. Doubling the resolution would only increase more processing time and power.
post #50 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


And who's fault is that? The tools to provide vector based images are there as are tools to scale images. So if this is true and developers take the easy way out and supply a bunch of bit maps is it really Apples fault?

 

Easy way out?  Easy way out?!!  :)

 

That's exactly the path that Apple took with their (expletive deleted) pixel doubling strategy to begin with.  They did this to encourage development by all the developers unused to better programming.

 

It's why there's ridiculous results like iPhone apps being tiny on an iPad (or jagged doubled), and black bands on the iPhone 5 to hide unused screen space.

 

It reminds me of one reason that PCs took over.   Everyone else was doing slower but more forward-looking screen independence, while the PC folks hardcoded for direct access to VGA screen memory and blew away customers with speed and prettiness.  

 

Likewise, Apple chose the easier path of hardcoded sizes for iOS apps... something that is often cited as an "advantage" over more resolution independent apps on Android... yet is ultimately a short term solution.

post #51 of 157
Is Apple going to engage in a useless specs race? What's the point of developing resolution too fine too see? This is as dumb as 4K TVs. (A 1080p TV is a "retina display" unless you're sitting too close or have super-vision.)
post #52 of 157

AGAIN with the "larger iPhone display" schtick?

 

Have you SEEN those larger-screen monstrosities?

Only FASHION VICTIMS need apply!

 

Need a bigger screen?  Get an iPad.

If yer gonna bother with thinking different, swing for the fences.
Reply
If yer gonna bother with thinking different, swing for the fences.
Reply
post #53 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

That sounds like Apple is getting into the specs game, which would be silly.

Yep and Apple doesn't play that game.

Now if there's another reason, such as recalculating their math for shorter use distances, using a new style of display that doesn't use up anymore battery etc then fine. But to double it just because HTC etc have more PPI. Not buying it. Makes me wonde if someone mixed up the iPhone and the iPad mini.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #54 of 157
But...Why? That's added GPU use and battery drain for forcing more light through less transparent area (more pixels still means more non-pixel area), and for what appreciable benefit? You could argue about arc-minutes and humans theoretically resolving more, but that's a theoretical benefit that almost no one will see. On a 4 inch display, I see little point, only if they scaled it to bigger.

The iPad Mini though, THAT needs doubling.
post #55 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

I cant find the pixels on an iPhone 5 with a magnifying glass.  This indicates to me that when Apple says "Retina Display" means that it surpasses the limits of human vision, they are telling the truth.  Making the ppi any higher is just taxing the processing resources for no visible purpose.
The truth here is a funny thing because truth in the case of visible perception is very much an issue of individual capacity. At my age I certainly can't see the pixels but that doesn't mean that there aren't individuals out there that can under the right circumstances.
Quote:
It's like all that "frame rate" hooey that was so big a few years ago.  People perceive motion to be continuous at 24-30 frames per second.  Those who say they can detect an improvement at higher rates are either liars or outliers.

This part of your post is pure baloney. 24 frames per second was chosen because it was the best compromise available considering the film technology of the day. Likewise TV frame rates are compromise based on technology available or I should say capable of years ago. In both cases the rates chosen are more about bandwidth than anything else. For many of us sensitive to such things, the flicker associated with these low frame rates can be very disturbing. In both cases the frame rates chosen are more about meeting minimal needs rather than trying to completely eliminate the perception of a stream of discrete images.

Back in the day old televisions had things called tubes which had a feature called persistence. That is the ability of the phosphorus to emit light after illumination by the electron gun. That quality in many ways effectively smoothed out the image seen on screen softening the effects of the slow update rate. Today with LCDs they get around this flicker issue using a variety of techniques including very high refresh rates.

In the end your position is completely baseless. It has been proven with a great deal of confidence that people can benefit from the higher frame rates. In some cases the flicker associated with the low frame rates have been shown to be harmful to people.
post #56 of 157
Imo it only makes sense if they go full hd on bigger screen...

... oh wait, they could make full HD the new resolution on the phone. A 5" full 1080p HD phone and the current 4" could move to 720p, so half the resolution of the bigger phone. Both screen size would be over current retina PPI and it would be great for app devs.

in the same line of thinking , the new retina ipad mini could be half the resolution of the bigger retina ipad. Again, easier for devs.
Edited by herbapou - 5/28/13 at 8:05am
post #57 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

. It's quite striking to see high-quality video shot at 60 fps.

High frame rate video also gives editors etc more data for smoothing motion, even slowing it down a little, to make things more visible. The trick is to use it well. I had high hopes that Jackson would produce a great example of this with The Hobbit but I was disappointed in how the 3d version turned out. The lack of grain made it not really fit with the previous voices visually and pans etc were too fast and looked bizarre. So it came off like a gimmick. Which is a bit of what this resolution thing is. A gimmick. There comes a point where it's just not worth it from the common consumer point of view to get any better so why do it other than to have a better spec on the page than someone else. Show me how doubling etc will give me better color, allow me to use it outside in bright sun AND not kill my battery etc and we can talk.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #58 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Huh? Have you actually looked at developer tools lately? There is plenty of support for vector graphics in iOS.

The standard image loaders expect pngs - at all resolutions. Apple insists that the default images on load ( the default.png) come in all resolutions. And so on.

 

Even if vector tools exist to create these pngs, they still need to be loaded into the resource files of the app. As non-vector graphics.

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #59 of 157

That's what I was thinking.......maybe a 4.7 inch screen like the HTC One.....

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #60 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Imo it only makes sense if they go full hd on bigger screen.

That's what I was thinking...... a 4.7 inch screen like the HTC One...

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #61 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

That's exactly the path that Apple took with their (expletive deleted) pixel doubling strategy to begin with.  They did this to encourage development by all the developers unused to better programming.

**** you sound like paid shill! I suppose APIs and memory management are just tools for Apple to baby their shitty App Store developers, too? It's too bad iOS doesn't have great apps like you find in Google Play with those real developers that are used to programming better because they get more control by getting to waste more time dealing with a less mature SDK¡ 1oyvey.gif

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #62 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Obvious View Post

AGAIN with the "larger iPhone display" schtick?

 

Have you SEEN those larger-screen monstrosities?

Only FASHION VICTIMS need apply!

 

Need a bigger screen?  Get an iPad.

 

I'm not going to defend their practicality, but the fact of the matter is LOT (i.e., millions) of people like them and are buying them. Apple can snub their noses at these people and take a position of morally superiority, or they can address a sizable market (pun intended) where they could certainly offer a better product than their competitors. Aside from not being as portable, these larger phones function as good (or better for those with big hands and/or eyesight issues) as their smaller counterparts. For this reason, it isn't a netbook type of market that Apple should avoid. 

post #63 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

in the same line of thinking , the new retina ipad mini could be half the resolution of the bigger retina ipad. Again, easier for devs.

That seems unlikely to me. You're talking about not doubling the resolution for the first time which results in a 1536x1152 at 1.5x which is 244 PPI. I suppose that would work for a Retina tablet but it seems like the simplest path is to just make it 2048x1536 at 326 PPI which fits into very part of the process.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #64 of 157
This would only make sense if they also plan on making significantly larger screens (5'' or 6'' iPhone?).

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #65 of 157
I don't know whether this rumor is true, but have suspected there has been a "campaign" going on, for a while to distract and provide turbulence surrounding Apple. Competitors, and stock traders (options world) both have an interest in an atmosphere of doubt and disappointment. Not that all rumors are created by those who have agendas, but there have been some silly rumors that only appear to raise expectations (unnecessarily, and without basis).
post #66 of 157
On topic: with the 5's widescreen format and the guarantee that apps will support it with ios7, an upscale to a ~5inch screen could keep a reasonable width, and with decreased top & bottom bezels a redesign in this direction would be very apple.

Could everyone quit whining about AI and see if they can wrap their heads around the fact that apple exists in a marketplace. People do in fact see android as an alternative, and Samsung is the only other company making any money. Stories on Samsung have become relevant.
post #67 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Easy way out?  Easy way out?!!  1smile.gif

That's exactly the path that Apple took with their (expletive deleted) pixel doubling strategy to begin with.  They did this to encourage development by all the developers unused to better programming.
Apple did that to support developers. They also have been whacking developers over the head about resolution independence, vector graphics and the like for a long time now at WWDC. It is the old adage about leading a horse to water but not being able to make him drink!
Quote:
It's why there's ridiculous results like iPhone apps being tiny on an iPad (or jagged doubled), and black bands on the iPhone 5 to hide unused screen space.
Ahh yes but even resolution independent graphics or vector graphics wouldn't have solved all of the problems with moving to the larger screen. The reality is the massive change in screen size alters what is proper user interface design wise. That is why Apple had to offer up alternate ways to interface with the user with the release of the SDK supporting the iPad.
Quote:
It reminds me of one reason that PCs took over.   Everyone else was doing slower but more forward-looking screen independence, while the PC folks hardcoded for direct access to VGA screen memory and blew away customers with speed and prettiness.  
Because speed matters? Frankly speed did matter back in those days.
Quote:
Likewise, Apple chose the easier path of hardcoded sizes for iOS apps... something that is often cited as an "advantage" over more resolution independent apps on Android... yet is ultimately a short term solution.

The sizes aren't hard coded for iOS apps. The drawing routines are resolution independent. Apple has repeatedly advised developers to not to assume screen sizes and resolutions will remain the same. It isn't really Apples fault if developers ignore these suggestions. Now I'd be the first to admit that things where not real clear in the first couple of SDK releases but at some point Apple became very public in warning developers to to assume screen size or resolutions.

IOS developed rather quickly, as such many developers simply didn't keep up. Again this isn't Apples fault. Is the UI on iPhone perfect, of course not but it does work very well for the platform and is far better than trying to shoehorn a desktop like UI on the platform.
post #68 of 157
Another Chinese rumor and the natives react predictably. Why not wait until the facts are in before complaining about the next iPhone?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #69 of 157
They too smart for that dudes.
post #70 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

I also heard that the battery will be larger than the phone itself. This will increase the battery life by 100%. Oh, and it will be called the iPhone Tardis.

 

Samsung will counter with the Galaxy Dalek series. 

post #71 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

That sounds like Apple is getting into the specs game, which would be silly.

I'd rather they improved battery life and/or capacity, and used elsewhere the cost savings associated with keeping the retina display as is. (They could even use it to cut prices a bit....)

Agree - Apple doesn't play specs game for the sake of it. I don't know of any reason to get into 500+ ppi territory. Not on a phone anyhow. Having said that, it would be interesting to see if/when iPhone will adopt a true 1080p display.

 

Battery life extension would be welcomed. But, frankly, I believe Apple needs to improve their cloud services above all else, including Mail, iCloud sync, iCloud integration with 3rd party apps (and their own), iMessage, Siri, Maps, etc. A zealot can (maybe even convincingly) argue some of these Apple services have caught up in specific ways with what other companies offer. But, overall, there are issues of reliability, user-friendliness, utility and integration friendliness that make their services second class to those of Google. As it stands, music is the only service I personally find head and shoulders superior to anything else out there.

 

Fixing services is far, far more important than a UI overhaul, a larger screen, a longer lasting battery, iRadio, etc.

 

Footnote on battery - Despite misleading reports by technorati, no smartphone has clearly superior battery performance. Someone out there will crack this nut soon and make a lot of money doing it.

post #72 of 157
I don't see the point in Apple doing this because even though the ppi is lower on the ip5 compared to other the phones, the iPhone 5 still had the best screen compared to the htc one and galaxy s4.
post #73 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


That seems unlikely to me. You're talking about not doubling the resolution for the first time which results in a 1536x1152 at 1.5x which is 244 PPI. I suppose that would work for a Retina tablet but it seems like the simplest path is to just make it 2048x1536 at 326 PPI which fits into very part of the process.

 

 

Not just the simplest path, but the only rational one.

post #74 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by quest01 View Post

I don't see the point in Apple doing this because even though the ppi is lower on the ip5 compared to other the phones, the iPhone 5 still had the best screen compared to the htc one and galaxy s4.

What does "best screen" mean?

 

Is that as meaningful (i.e. meaningless) as best camera, best athlete, best person, best engine, ...?

 

Seriously, what in the world does "best screen" mean?

post #75 of 157
Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post
Is Apple going to engage in a useless specs race? What's the point of developing resolution too fine too see? 

 

Agreed.


This is as dumb as 4K TVs. (A 1080p TV is a "retina display" unless you're sitting too close or have super-vision.)

 

Completely disagreed.

 


Originally Posted by stelligent View Post
Seriously, what in the world does "best screen" mean?

 

Highest resolution and most color accurate with the greatest field of view.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #76 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post

A 1080p TV is a "retina display" unless you're sitting too close or have super-vision.

Note that all displays can be defined as retina until you're too close.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #77 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Apple did that to support developers. They also have been whacking developers over the head about resolution independence, vector graphics and the like for a long time now at WWDC. It is the old adage about leading a horse to water but not being able to make him drink!
Ahh yes but even resolution independent graphics or vector graphics wouldn't have solved all of the problems with moving to the larger screen. The reality is the massive change in screen size alters what is proper user interface design wise. That is why Apple had to offer up alternate ways to interface with the user with the release of the SDK supporting the iPad.
Because speed matters? Frankly speed did matter back in those days.
The sizes aren't hard coded for iOS apps. The drawing routines are resolution independent. Apple has repeatedly advised developers to not to assume screen sizes and resolutions will remain the same. It isn't really Apples fault if developers ignore these suggestions. Now I'd be the first to admit that things where not real clear in the first couple of SDK releases but at some point Apple became very public in warning developers to to assume screen size or resolutions.

IOS developed rather quickly, as such many developers simply didn't keep up. Again this isn't Apples fault. Is the UI on iPhone perfect, of course not but it does work very well for the platform and is far better than trying to shoehorn a desktop like UI on the platform.

 

you are making things up. All that Apple gave it's developers prior to iOS6 was the advice to use the rectangle of [NSScreen mainScreen] rather than hard code the coordinates. Since ios6 there is auto-layout which will position the buttons relative to each other and the edge of the screen, but it does not resize the graphics as vector graphics, because the standard API ( NSImage and controls which use it) do not take in vector graphics.  They take in PNGS. 

 

(One concession is that if a dev adds the @2x.png to his image, he can use the standard NSImage loading API imagedNamed: without specifying the @2x addition, the API works it out on Retina displays)

 

So a universal app would need resultions for iPhone, iPhone retina, iPad and iPad retina, and iPhone 5 and iPhone 5 retina in the cases where you need to fill the iPhone 5 screen ( as in the loading Default.png screen).

 

What vector loading graphics do you think are part of the standard API set?

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #78 of 157
Half the time I wonder if these rumors are started solely for the purpose of raising expectations to ridiculous levels. When they prove to be untrue, gosh, Apple "failed" to meet them and must be doomed, inept, losing/lost its innovation mojo... Whatever.
post #79 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

you are making things up.

No, he's not. From nearly the start they were pushing developers to think in points, not pixels. They tried hammering this long before the iPhone 4 arrived, when points and pixels were finally no longer the same value.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #80 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

The standard image loaders expect pngs - at all resolutions. Apple insists that the default images on load ( the default.png) come in all resolutions. And so on.
OK so how likely is it to be a problem to have multiple default.png's?
Quote:
Even if vector tools exist to create these pngs, they still need to be loaded into the resource files of the app. As non-vector graphics.
You will admit though that developers have the option to use vector graphics in their apps where they often don't? I'd be the first to admit that raster graphics have a place on any platform but even on a desktop apps you run into situations where having an image in multiple sizes makes perfect sense. In the end I really don't understand where all of this whining about Image sizes and multiple resolutions comes from. If it is a problem for a developer then they should minimize the use of such images. Seems pretty simple to me.

By the way I'm not a full time developer and the only apps written to date have been for private use. Given that I've done very useful things with out even bothering with png's. Maybe developers of commercial apps feel the need to fill every damn slot with a custom graphic but that isn't me. I'm probably one of those guys that will celebrate Ive's new flat iOS appearance but to put this simply I think many developers have this idea that more is better where I'm of the opinion that less is better.

In the end when I hear all of these noises about: "I'm a poor developer that will need to spend many a sleepless night doing more graphics work", all I can say is not my problem. The issue isn't unique to iOS either so I don't understand the issue there either.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: Apple to double 'iPhone 5S' Retina resolution to 1.5M pixels