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
... 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 ridiculousnonsense in it is unlikely to be reliable.
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.
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.
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.
...[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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
. 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.
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.
Comments
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
... 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoffdino
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
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;-)
[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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingela
...[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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
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.
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.
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.
The iPad Mini though, THAT needs doubling.
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.
... 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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
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.
That's what I was thinking.......maybe a 4.7 inch screen like the HTC One.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
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...