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 3

post #81 of 157
Borrox.
post #82 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


OK so how likely is it to be a problem to have multiple default.png's?
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.

 

The problem with complex vector graphics is that they take memory and time to convert to the eventual picture on screen, which has to be done every time. With the original iPhone that would have been impossible. Even now it would increase load times of everything. The benefit is lower size of the app on the flash drive.

 

The disadvantages of PNGS etc. are that for retina the size the app needs per PNG multiplied by 4 for each retina.png. And images are a considerable size of each app. Open up an .ipa in iTunes ( they are zips so just rename them to zip and uncompress) and see.

 

I can't imagine you ever shipped to the App store with PNGS, you need a few by default.

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #83 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

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.
Which would require a higher resolution display! Well that or a bigger iPhone.

Frankly I'd like to see such a screen.
Quote:

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.
Thank you for posting this!!. Just about every app on the iPhone needs an overhaul. Some of these apps such as contacts have no excuses for their shortcomings. Most of the apps should have feature parity with their desktop apps. Further they need to kill the special file formats for iWork apps.
Quote:
Fixing services is far, far more important than a UI overhaul, a larger screen, a longer lasting battery, iRadio, etc.
Actually a longer lasting battery is everything.
Quote:
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.
Yep! A lot of people are working on it too. All sorts of chemistries and technologies are being pursued. We may not be that far away from a break through.
post #84 of 157
I dare anyone to tell the visual difference between the iPhone 5's 326 pixels per inch, and the HTC One's 468-pixel-per-inch display... without using a microscope.

Human vision cannot discern pixel densities past a certain point. So unless you habitually carry a microscope around with you to use reading your phone display, increasing the iPhones display resolution is not going to make any real-world difference.
post #85 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.

winstein2010, the more I think about your suggestion, the more it makes sense, and the more enthusiastic I get about 3D in this product.  It should be simple to implement a 3D system for the iPhone since it is generally used by a single person, and can be held at a fixed spot for viewing. Only a single "sweet spot" needs to be supported.  No funky glasses would be necessary (using micro-prisms in the display to separate the images).

 

So why would 3D in a phone be useful?  Well, firstly... it would make visual chat/telephony truly magical.  Secondly, it would allow the iPhone to support displaying the large number of 3D films being produced these days.  Thirdly, it would make advertising and shopping much more pleasant--and functional because one could see a 3D image of products being purchased before the transaction.  If a picture is worth 1000 words, a 3D picture is worth 3000.  Or more, possibly.  Finally, let us not forget that the iPhone is also a powerful camera.  Imagine how magical it will be to look back at your vacation photos in stunning 3D.  Suitable for any Magic Kingdom!   In fact, I would give serious (Siri-ous?) thought to trading in my iPhone5 for an iPhone6 merely to have the 3D photography.  Imagine how much fun it could be to make your own home movies in 3D!  

 

This could be a BIG winner.   

 

And it could stimulate sales of 3D televisions.... which Apple might even start selling.

post #86 of 157
I dare anyone to tell the visual difference between the iPhone 5's 326 pixels per inch, and the HTC One's 468-pixel-per-inch display... without using a microscope.
 
Human vision cannot discern pixel densities past a certain point. So unless you habitually carry a microscope around with you to use reading your phone display, increasing the iPhones display resolution is not going to make any real-world difference. 1wink.gif
post #87 of 157

That would be so idiotic. I know people that can't even tell there's a difference between non-retina and retina Apple products. This resolution jump would be imperceptible to nearly everyone, and the drawbacks would be immense, from a power, battery life consumption, and developer asset point of view. Noone is complaining about the dpi of the iPhone, it's more than fine. There's so many other areas more worthy of focusing resources. 

 

Then again, this rumor is 99% bullshit. 

post #88 of 157

Noooo. This would make application sizes huge. Our latest iPad app is 70mb because of all the "Rentina" backgrounds.

post #89 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

winstein2010, the more I think about your suggestion, the more it makes sense, and the more enthusiastic I get about 3D in this product.  It should be simple to implement a 3D system for the iPhone since it is generally used by a single person, and can be held at a fixed spot for viewing. Only a single "sweet spot" needs to be supported.  No funky glasses would be necessary (using micro-prisms in the display to separate the images).

 

So why would 3D in a phone be useful?  Well, firstly... it would make visual chat/telephony truly magical.  Secondly, it would allow the iPhone to support displaying the large number of 3D films being produced these days.  Thirdly, it would make advertising and shopping much more pleasant--and functional because one could see a 3D image of products being purchased before the transaction.  If a picture is worth 1000 words, a 3D picture is worth 3000.  Or more, possibly.  Finally, let us not forget that the iPhone is also a powerful camera.  Imagine how magical it will be to look back at your vacation photos in stunning 3D.  Suitable for any Magic Kingdom!   In fact, I would give serious (Siri-ous?) thought to trading in my iPhone5 for an iPhone6 merely to have the 3D photography.  Imagine how much fun it could be to make your own home movies in 3D!  

 

This could be a BIG winner.   

 

And it could stimulate sales of 3D televisions.... which Apple might even start selling.

 

I have a 3DTV, have watched a few 3D movies on it, and almost everything you say is ridiculous. No, 3D isn't that transformative, and consumers have shown they don't really give a shit. A but of added depth perception is not going to suddenly make all those experiences you mentioned more magical. Noone cares about taking 3D photos of making 3D movies, and noone is going to start caring anytime soon. It's a neat gimmick, and cool for some movies on a big screen, but not a pocketable device. 

post #90 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic View Post

I dare anyone to tell the visual difference between the iPhone 5's 326 pixels per inch, and the HTC One's 468-pixel-per-inch display... without using a microscope.
 
Human vision cannot discern pixel densities past a certain point. So unless you habitually carry a microscope around with you to use reading your phone display, increasing the iPhones display resolution is not going to make any real-world difference. 1wink.gif

There are plenty of people that will tell you they can see the difference. These people will easily say how much better the HTC One display is which they will quickly follow up as the pixel density as the reason (I suspect these are the same people that said the Retina iPhone, iPad, and MBPs were pointless and stupid).

These people aren't being scientific about their testing. Even if they were being completely objective they are looking a larger display to make their decision of what looks good. They may not even realize that they are using other metrics in their comparison. What needs to be done is show the same images on across multiple devices using only a set physical size. Anything smaller than the smallest display size would work but I'd go with something even smaller, like 1.5"x 2".

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #91 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

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

 

What does color accuracy mean?

 

What about contrast, sub-pixel resolution, color depth, brightness, gamma, color shifts, indoor v. outdoor, black level, white point, ...? Don't they count for something?

post #92 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? Especially when there is no reason to do such.
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.

Dude, you don't know WTF you are talking about.  To submit an app to the AppStore you have to include a large number of .png files for different icons and splashscreens for iPad, iPad mini, iPhone 4, iPhone+, retina and non-retina.  And every icon or image you include in your app has to have two versions (retina and regular).  Yes, iOS has a ton of support for vector graphics, but not for icons. 

post #93 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

 

The problem with complex vector graphics is that they take memory and time to convert to the eventual picture on screen, which has to be done every time. With the original iPhone that would have been impossible. Even now it would increase load times of everything. The benefit is lower size of the app on the flash drive.

 

The disadvantages of PNGS etc. are that for retina the size the app needs per PNG multiplied by 4 for each retina.png. And images are a considerable size of each app. Open up an .ipa in iTunes ( they are zips so just rename them to zip and uncompress) and see.

 

I can't imagine you ever shipped to the App store with PNGS, you need a few by default.

 

This is interesting.  I wonder if it could be possible to include vector images, then the first time each image is drawn (or as a startup task on the very first load of the app), on whatever screen size the device is, for the app to save the resultant image as a PNG, and use the PNG for ever more.  That way the .ipa wouldn't need to contain multiple PNGs for every image file for each device size and resolution, just the vector, (which could be deleted once it's served its purpose, if possible), and the image that is generated on first open.

 

Maybe it's not possible to generate and switch resources about like that.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #94 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic View Post

I dare anyone to tell the visual difference between the iPhone 5's 326 pixels per inch, and the HTC One's 468-pixel-per-inch display... without using a microscope.
 
Human vision cannot discern pixel densities past a certain point. So unless you habitually carry a microscope around with you to use reading your phone display, increasing the iPhones display resolution is not going to make any real-world difference. 1wink.gif

Actually, the visual differences are quite obvious, but not in the sense of better or worse and not primarily because of the resolution.

 

As someone was asking above - what does "best screen" mean? There is really no such thing. There is a whole "spectrum" of metrics to compare displays. It is rare that competing displays trump another one on every metric. Some websites or companies arbitrarily design a weighted scale for head-to-head comparison, but it is really for the purpose of generating views and clicks.

 

So yes, you can absolutely see differences between the displays on iPhone and HTC One. But anyone who says one is better, and that they are just as good, is either generalizing or repeating what they have heard/read.

 

It is also wrong to say that increasing iPhone display resolution is not going to make any real-world difference. The difference does not show up in most applications, but it most definitely will in applications that actually take advantage of the high res.

post #95 of 157
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post
What does color accuracy mean?

 

Take a… wild guess?

post #96 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

I have a 3DTV, have watched a few 3D movies on it, and almost everything you say is ridiculous. No, 3D isn't that transformative, and consumers have shown they don't really give a shit. A but of added depth perception is not going to suddenly make all those experiences you mentioned more magical. Noone cares about taking 3D photos of making 3D movies, and noone is going to start caring anytime soon. It's a neat gimmick, and cool for some movies on a big screen, but not a pocketable device. 

I'm sorry you are dissatisfied with your 3D TV.  Personally, I do not own a 3D TV, and I generally dislike 3D movies on a big screen.  However, I do think on a small screen, especially the pocketable iPhone (as well as iPad mini, and maybe full-size iPad), that 3D would be very attractive, for the reasons I mentioned.  Not needing the special glasses being a major factor.  Your disagreement is welcome; no need to cast aspersions.  :)

post #97 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



How are you two getting these values? The article says double so 1136x640 would be 2272x1280.

 

 

My guess is they would do a linear resolution triple of the current 320X568 points. The iPhone 4, that still has 320X480 points, doubled the linear resolution 640X960 pixels. The iPhone introduced a 320X568 point screen with a resolution of 640X1156 pixels. The next logic step would be to triple it to 960X1704. This is close to double the number of pixels and is 1.6 million pixels.

post #98 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

Dude, you don't know WTF you are talking about.  To submit an app to the AppStore you have to include a large number of .png files for different icons and splashscreens for iPad, iPad mini, iPhone 4, iPhone+, retina and non-retina.  And every icon or image you include in your app has to have two versions (retina and regular).  Yes, iOS has a ton of support for vector graphics, but not for icons. 

And why is this a problem? Really is it that much of a problem to support the required icons and images? I really don't think the majority of the complaints surround these trivial requirements. If that is what people are complaining about then I really feel sorry for them.

Honestly folks how long have icons been around? Further over the years how many different sizes have they come in? Bit depths?

I mean really we have people crying in their cereal over the need to supply a few images and icons. It is rather pathetic if you ask me. This is especially the case when you consider all the tools we have today to create such files.
post #99 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Take a… wild guess?

 

My guess is that you don't know what it means. Because, in reality, there is no such thing. At best, it is an ambiguous term used by those not in the know (e.g. CNET, PC World) or those in the know but compelled to distill their analysis into a single phrase. Which one are you?

post #100 of 157
You can tell this "report" is a BS already from the title.
An Android-device-style tickmark spec that has no purpose whatsoever. Let's move on now.
post #101 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

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

A longer lasting battery for us to confirm more frequently that iMessage isn't working? ;-)

 

I reckon, based on my experience, that 25% of smartphone users can prolong battery life by closing an app (or at least returning to launcher screen) before stuffing their phones into their pockets or purses. I cannot tell you how many people would take a photograph with their phone and then immediately pocket it. That is likely the #1 battery killer.

post #102 of 157
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post
My guess is that you don't know what it means.

 

I'd waste my time going over how the term 'color accuracy' is perfectly fine by showing you how the accuracy (funny word) of colors is represented.

 

Except I know you couldn't care less. 

post #103 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

The problem with complex vector graphics is that they take memory and time to convert to the eventual picture on screen, which has to be done every time. With the original iPhone that would have been impossible. Even now it would increase load times of everything. The benefit is lower size of the app on the flash drive.
That all depends upon what you mean by every time. At the start up of the app certainly. However after the app is running that is a different story and depends upon the developers goals. Frequently used images can be cached for reuse in the App so that you only pay for the draw time once.
Quote:
The disadvantages of PNGS etc. are that for retina the size the app needs per PNG multiplied by 4 for each retina.png. And images are a considerable size of each app. Open up an .ipa in iTunes ( they are zips so just rename them to zip and uncompress) and see.
I fully realize their size, my point is that many developers use raster images where they don't have too. In this context one can hardly feel sorry for the developer.
Quote:
I can't imagine you ever shipped to the App store with PNGS, you need a few by default.

Yes you need a few but the required ones are trivial.
post #104 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I'd waste my time going over how the term 'color accuracy' is perfectly fine by showing you how the accuracy (funny word) of colors is represented.

 

Except I know you couldn't care less. 

Nice way to wriggle off the hook! :) 

 

NP, I am not one to beat a dead horse.

 

But if you care, then you'll learn that the term is at ambiguous and in reality entirely misleading.

 

Case closed.

post #105 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

A longer lasting battery for us to confirm more frequently that iMessage isn't working? ;-)

 

I reckon, based on my experience, that 25% of smartphone users can prolong battery life by closing an app (or at least returning to launcher screen) before stuffing their phones into their pockets or purses. I cannot tell you how many people would take a photograph with their phone and then immediately pocket it. That is likely the #1 battery killer.

I'd say it's #2.

 

Top drainer of battery (without considering specific 3rd party apps) is likely the antennas. Connecting with Wi-Fi routers and 3G base stations, handovers between base stations and even GPS processing can all drain the battery pretty fast.

post #106 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

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?

What I basically mean that the screen on the iPhone 5 is better overall in terms of color saturation, brightness, picture quality compared to both the htc one and Samsung galaxy s4.
post #107 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

A longer lasting battery for us to confirm more frequently that iMessage isn't working? ;-)
Hardly a problem worth mentioning.
Quote:
.
I reckon, based on my experience, that 25% of smartphone users can prolong battery life by closing an app (or at least returning to launcher screen) before stuffing their phones into their pockets or purses.
This is so true. Another killer is leaving Safari running while viewing a web site that auto updates every few seconds.
Quote:
I cannot tell you how many people would take a photograph with their phone and then immediately pocket it. That is likely the #1 battery killer.
There are a few but even when used properly some apps do seem to kill the battery at an alarming rate. If your work day is longer than the 8 hour average this can be a big problem. Thus battery life is a big issue on my check list. I'd like to see a 25% improvement though I realize that probably won't happen. In fact if the screen and electronics improve I could see Apple making the phone thinner and thus lowering battery capacity. This would put us back to the same run time life.
post #108 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.

 

Actually on the ipad side what I would like to see is a move to the 16:9 aspect ratio. That would simplyfied resolution handling on the dev side and could explain why they would go to unnessary high PPI on the phones. 

 

Phones could run at 1920x1080 full HD and tablets could run at double HD. That would take care of the resolution for a few years on all mobile devices and Apple could have a very clean dual resolution pattern that would be very clean for devs.

 

On top of that, Full HD on phones and 2x HD (4k) on tablets could also be expand to full HD Tv's and 4K tv's.  I really love this concept. This is all doable with IGZO screens. They could handle everything with those 2 resolutions.


Edited by herbapou - 5/28/13 at 10:46am
post #109 of 157
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

Case closed.

 

Two screens. Each supposed to display #00FF00. One displays turquoise and the other displays a deep burgundy.

 

Which one is more accurate.

post #110 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Two screens. Each supposed to display #00FF00. One displays turquoise and the other displays a deep burgundy.

 

Which one is more accurate.

Sorry. That type of argument doesn't deserve a proper response. No offence. But ...

 

P.S. Damn! I did respond. But you know what I mean. :p

post #111 of 157
I doubt this rumor is true. Quadrupling the display resolution is not what the iPhone needs. What the iPhone actually needs is to be slightly widened and bump the resolution to 1136x720. Consumers will likely perceive the display as 720p, and thus, HD.
 
Furthermore, skeuomorphism is not what is wrong with iOS either. The UI feels antiquated and clunky under iOS. There are a lot of little things Android does right that Apple can take a page from. The address and search bars are merged in the Android web browser. The UI supports popup and dropdown windows which means you can switch mailboxes in the Mail app without having to navigate all throughout the UI like under iOS' Mail app. The camera under Android feels more like a fully-fledged digital camera than Apple's. The little things to improve the user experience can go a long way.
post #112 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but you guys need to think a little more:

 

  • The current iPhone already has enough horsepower for it;
  • If they go with Imagination's ROGUE, it will have more than enough horsepower to power a nuclear submarine. That sort of thing, on your phone, must have a purpose, and it isn't Angry birds;
  • With things like IGZO, the power requirements would be substantially lower;
  • Put an HTC one and an iPhone side by said. While you can talk about the iPhone having a better screen overall, try and read text. The HTC one just looks better.

 

So, basically:

  1. I hope this rumor is true;
  2. I hope they go with the 9.7" iPad's resolution;
  3. I hope they use the same resolution on the iPad mini or the resolution on the 13" retina Macbook pro;
  4. I hope they up the resolution on the 9.7" iPad so it is equal to the 15" rMBP;
  5. I hope they use similar resolutions on Airs;
  6. I hope they go 4K for the Macbook Pros;
  7. IGZO all the way.

 

And, to conclude:

 

  • It could make sense, be a huge improvement, put prices down for IGZO and LiquidMetal, so they can make a non-expensive badass watch for everyone, later.

 

Have a nice day! 

 

Just because something is possible doesn't mean it makes sense to do it.  I'm aware of the various possibilities such as being first to use Rogue based GPUs and IGZO technology, etc.  We're all aware of this.  Where we differ is by claiming other (higher ppi) devices actually look better than the iPhone's 326ppi.   Sorry, but I don't see it.  Maybe that's a limitation of my otherwise strong eye sight.  However, the difference between 133ppi (original iPhone / iPad mini) and the current iPhones (326ppi) was dramatic and a marketing worthy upgrade.  Going from 326ppi to something higher just has a lot of people asking... why?  It's not something that people will notice and quite frankly, even if you could tell the difference, if you have to compare two phones side by side and really look closely to see the difference, it's just not obvious or important.

 

Like others, I don't believe this rumor, simply because it doesn't make sense.  Apple isn't in the spec comparison game and there is no tangible benefit to making this move.  This move would impact developers, it would impact heat, it would impact performance.  Even if you add new, more efficient display technology like IGZO, it would still be more efficient / brighter at lower resolutions.

post #113 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Actually on the ipad side what I would like to see is a move to the 16:9 aspect ratio. That would simplyfied resolution handling on the dev side and could explain why they would go to unnessary high PPI on the phones. 

Phones could run at 1920x1080 full HD and tablets could run at double HD. That would take care of the resolution for a few years on all mobile devices and Apple could have a very clean dual resolution pattern that would be very clean for devs.

On top of that, Full HD on phones and 2x HD (4k) on tablets could also be expand to full HD Tv's and 4K tv's.  I really love this concept. This is all doable with IGZO screens. They could handle everything with those 2 resolutions.

1) God i hope not! The worst concept for a tablet is to use 16:9. The only benefit is for watching videos, which are still most likely letterboxed or cropped unless they are TV shows or camera phone videos. They are not ideal for anything text based from either portrait or landscape mode.

2) This idea that it could 1x or 2x from the iPod Touch to the 10" iPad implies it would use the same UI across the board. That would ruin everything. Everything!

3) I don't get this idea that we need the same resolution and aspect ratio from the smallest to the largest displays. Why does a phone need to be 1920x1080 a tablet 4K for them to be functional? Why not use the ideals that work best to maximize the UX?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #114 of 157
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post
That type of argument doesn't deserve a proper response.

 

What, a relevant one?

post #115 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.

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.

Then why are the bulk of Android apps simply hideous when run on a tablet?
post #116 of 157

Yeah, this isn't right. If there's any truth to it, maybe it's somebody who got confused by seeing the specs of the larger-screened iphone.

It's pointless to include pixels that can't be distinguished. 

post #117 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Then why are the bulk of Android apps simply hideous when run on a tablet?

The bulk of them look hideous on a phone, too. But that's just Google not wasting time on the SDK because real programmers don't want anything to make apps look and run better with less effort.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #118 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

I'm sorry you are dissatisfied with your 3D TV.  Personally, I do not own a 3D TV, and I generally dislike 3D movies on a big screen.  However, I do think on a small screen, especially the pocketable iPhone (as well as iPad mini, and maybe full-size iPad), that 3D would be very attractive, for the reasons I mentioned.  Not needing the special glasses being a major factor.  Your disagreement is welcome; no need to cast aspersions.  1smile.gif

For the record, I don't think what you are saying is ridiculous at all. There are hidden benefits to stereo vision that most people have never thought about, and won't until they have some experience with a medium that takes advantage of it. It's not just about depth perception or objects coming out past the screen, it's just as much about the appeciation of texture, the flow of objects through space, solidity vs. softness, fine detail that is otherwise invisible without parallax, stuff like that.

Whether this rumor is true or not, a doubling of resolution will probably be necessary to maintain the sharpness of the fused picture when the pixels are divided between right and left views—if the two views are multiplexed, or interlaced, that is.

Or another way of looking at it: if Apple goes ahead with their stereo glasses-screens they are going to need twice the res for that as well.

I'd prefer this latter approach to handheld glasses-free 3D, which won't be nearly as immersive as stereo screens filling the field of view.
post #119 of 157

Which would you prefer:

 

1. 1136 x 640 at 120 Hz

 

or

 

2. 1600 x 900 at 60 Hz

 

or

 

3. 2272 x 1280 at 30 Hz

 

 

I barely watch TV, so I have no idea if there are any benefits between 60 to 120 Hz. These resolutions and frame/refresh rates will all require about the same CPU/GPU performance. Higher DPI may be technically easier to do than higher refresh rates though. Don't know all this TV this well.

post #120 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

Which would you prefer:

1. 1136 x 640 at 120 Hz

or

2. 1600 x 900 at 60 Hz

or

3. 2272 x 1280 at 30 Hz


I barely watch TV, so I have no idea if there are any benefits between 60 to 120 Hz. These resolutions and frame/refresh rates will all require about the same CPU/GPU performance. Higher DPI may be technically easier to do than higher refresh rates though. Don't know all this TV this well.

120 is the max needed for a non-3D TV. 24Hz, 30Hz, 60Hz are all standard US TV or video frame rates. 120Hz is the lowest frame rate that divides in to integer number of frames for those three frame rates. If it weren't for that fact, it's overkill.
Edited by JeffDM - 5/28/13 at 3:44pm
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