Your post might make sense if you'd payed attention to anything he had said.
Justify his internal logic of keeping the smallest phone possible while whining about wanting a larger one.
I saw and responded to that. I'm doing the same thing.
I bought an iPhone when, at least as far as I knew, it was pretty much the only game in town. I wanted what it offered: maps with GPS in my pocket and the ability to check my email on the road. I was amazed and impressed.
Over time I began to realize that the format was really just too small to be practical for some applications. Being able to read street names on a map requires zooming in to where only two or three blocks are visible. Typing is cramped, so it's uncomfortable for longer messages. Web pages require so much zooming and scrolling as to be next to useless. I was, and am, still happy to have those capabilities AT ALL, even in a less-than-perfect size, but my excitement was tempered somewhat by the fact that I would only use them as a last resort, not readily, conveniently and happily.
When my second 3GS wore out I bought a 4. At that point we still hadn't seen larger screens from other manufacturers (or at least *I* hadn't).
In the time I've owned it we've seen a variety of screen sizes from other manufacturers. I've looked into some of them and found the larger screen much better suited to my preferences. The problem was they weren't iPhones. I wouldn't get automatic syncing with my Mac via iCloud, ITunes integration or protection from malware, so I didn't buy one.
I still want an iPhone, but I also want a larger screen. Since my 4 still works there's no pressing need to buy anything else. Obviously I would like a faster processor and LTE, but those are not worth ~$800 to me.
So I wait. The phone I have works and is paid for. So far Apple doesn't make a screen size I want and no one else makes a phone with iOS, so if I'm gonna suffer with a smaller screen ANYWAY, I might as well do it with the one I have and not spend a pile of money on something I won't really be happy with. When my 4 wears out I'll be forced to make a decision, but until then I can wait and wish.
What would make sense for Applr to adopt HD native resolutions, for better viewing and less GPU use for video scaling.
So a 720*1280 or 768*1366 instead of the current 640*1136 for the small form factor devices.
I'll make a deal with you. You run a battery of tests on the battery of 640x1136 video compared to 720x1280 video on the iPhone 5 and I'll tell you why it's pointless to completely mess with the entire OS, developers and customers to support 720p whilst ignoring all other common resolutions for video.
What would make sense for Applr to adopt HD native resolutions, for better viewing and less GPU use for video scaling.
So a 720*1280 or 768*1366 instead of the current 640*1136 for the small form factor devices.
I'll make a deal with you. You run a battery of tests on the battery of 640x1136 video compared to 720x1280 video on the iPhone 5 and I'll tell you why it's pointless to completely mess with the entire OS, developers and customers to support 720p whilst ignoring all other common resolutions for video.
The resolutions that 'matter' are those available in the iTunes store, because those are the resolutions that make money. YouTube etc. are not relevant, these are freebies that help Apple's competitors. Plus these videos are usually short, but if you watch a feature film on the iPhone, that's where it starts to matter.
Going to 1366*768 also allows for video mirroring to/from computers with less pain.
Given that both of these are more or less industry standard resolutions, it was odd that Apple chose some oddball resolutions in the first place.
iphone 5S should be a game changer more than a phone it is.. If it keep the same size so we can find cool iPhone5 Taktik Extreme Metal Shock Drop Resistance Case for iphone 5S easily.
I suppose having a slightly higher resolution would help reduce the amount of cpu cycles used for the scaling required to render full HD. However I agree with bcode, it would be yet another resolution to support for developers. I suppose as long as the proportions of the screen is kept the same you can somewhat control the fragmentation due to resolution.
I suppose having a slightly higher resolution would help reduce the amount of cpu cycles used for the scaling required to render full HD. However I agree with bcode, it would be yet another resolution to support for developers. I suppose as long as the proportions of the screen is kept the same you can somewhat control the fragmentation due to resolution.
Apple's APIs and developers' coding practices need to start to be resolution independent. I mean, does anyone ask how many screen resolutions the mac has, or what window size a particular device has? Even in full screen mode on the mac there are a variety of resolutions and developers deal with it just fine.
There may need to be a threshold, once screen size/resolution goes above a certain limit, you start displaying iPad GUI, but it's a shame that by now there are still developers who make iPhone and iPad apps, just to milk the market, instead of creating universal iOS apps.
...does anyone ask how many screen resolutions the mac has, or what window size a particular device has? Even in full screen mode on the mac there are a variety of resolutions and developers deal with it just fine.
This has been answered in excessive detail since at least 2010 when the iPhone 4 was released.
The resolutions that 'matter' are those available in the iTunes store, because those are the resolutions that make money.
Using this logic then all displays no matter small or large should be 16:9 1080p. Do you not see a problem with that?
Quote:
Going to 1366*768 also allows for video mirroring to/from computers with less pain.
Using this logic then all displays no matter small or large should be 16:9 1080p. Do you not see a problem with that?
No, you don't see what I'm saying, and I have absolutely no problem with what I'm saying, otherwise I wouldn't say it.
Using this logic all displays on CPU constrained platforms should be standard resolutions, or displays that can display standard resolutions without scaling.
That includes 720p as well, which may be perfectly fine for smaller screens. It would also allow e.g. for 960*1280, which is a 4:3 aspect ratio that can display 720p (720x1280) without scaling.
This does not necessarily apply to Macs who have plenty of CPU/CPU roast, and are usually hooked up to a power line, but even there, non-integer factor scaling of bitmapped graphics always causes artefacts, so video scaling is always an ugly thing by its very nature.
The eye can't discern a higher resolution than a 'retina display', can it? So why would it be necessary or desirable to go further than that? Does a higher resolution actually appear more 'photo-real', or is it just meant to impress the 'spec-centric' among us?
I'd think that once 'retina' resolution was achieved, any additional visible benefit would only come from more accurate color space, better black level, contrast, etc.
It's possible additional pixels would allow for smoother gradation, etc. but is it really discernible to the naked eye at those sizes/resolutions?
Adding a higher resolution demands more energy management and app development resources. All considered, would those be worthwhile trade-offs? I'm thinking not.
I also find it a bit gimmicky that companies are applying the "1080p format" concept to handsets. Maybe there's some benefit, but I'm not seeing it. It seems more like a contrived marketing 'connection' to a popular format than anything really beneficial.
Correct me if I'm wrong about all this. I'm interested in other perspectives...
That strikes me as the perfect screen - one-to-one pixel representation of HD video at a size large enough to see roughly half a web page at legible scale.
Really? Half a web page at 'legible scale'? Sure, you could display it. I do that on my iPhone now, but it isn't at all legible (OK, maybe the occasional large headline), I don't think those would be any more legible on a 4.7" screen just because the resolution is higher.
I also find it a bit gimmicky that companies are applying the "1080p format" concept to handsets. Maybe there's some benefit, but I'm not seeing it. It seems more like a contrived marketing 'connection' to a popular format than anything really beneficial.
The main benefit is that no scaling of video is required, which is computationally expensive (i.e. eats battery) and introduces visual artefacts (although they may not be too visible at retina-resolution-levels).
However, much more useful, would have been if Apple had used the 720p spec, i.e. 720x1280 instead of the 640x1136 they currently have.
The main benefit is that no scaling of video is required, which is computationally expensive (i.e. eats battery) and introduces visual artefacts (although they may not be too visible at retina-resolution-levels).
However, much more useful, would have been if Apple had used the 720p spec, i.e. 720x1280 instead of the 640x1136 they currently have.
Scaling is very efficiently done in the GPU, it's not very computationally expensive. It would have been nice to do 720p though, to have a slightly larger screen.
The main benefit is that no scaling of video is required, which is computationally expensive (i.e. eats battery) and introduces visual artefacts (although they may not be too visible at retina-resolution-levels).
However, much more useful, would have been if Apple had used the 720p spec, i.e. 720x1280 instead of the 640x1136 they currently have.
Scaling is very efficiently done in the GPU, it's not very computationally expensive. It would have been nice to do 720p though, to have a slightly larger screen.
Well, in battery operated devices "efficiently" and "not very computationaly expensive" have quite a different context. Of course, scaling is quick, as e.g. seen when zooming around in photos with finger pinches. But if you watch a 2h feature film and it has to be scaled vs. it has not to be scaled, it could add up in terms of power consumption.
Maybe they have a fixed video decoding/deinterlacing/scaling pipeline that has a constant power consumption regardless of whether or not the scaling part is running at unity or not, but so far I haven't heard anyone make that claim. And then of course, it's also a matter of what quality the scaling is done at, just as for deinterlacing, there are a variety of different algorithms with varying quality and computational cost. Probably doesn't matter much, because I doubt the videophile will watch movies on the iPhone on an ongoing basis.
Still, a bit like running all digital music through SRC instead of just playing it at the native sampling rate.
Well, in battery operated devices "efficiently" and "not very computationaly expensive" have quite a different context. Of course, scaling is quick, as e.g. seen when zooming around in photos with finger pinches. But if you watch a 2h feature film and it has to be scaled vs. it has not to be scaled, it could add up in terms of power consumption.
It's negligible compared to the computational cost of decoding h.264. Drop-in-the-bucket negligible, if not drop-in-the-ocean negligible.
Comments
Originally Posted by v5v
[post]
Your post might make sense if you'd payed attention to anything he had said.
Justify his internal logic of keeping the smallest phone possible while whining about wanting a larger one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Your post might make sense if you'd payed attention to anything he had said.
Justify his internal logic of keeping the smallest phone possible while whining about wanting a larger one.
I saw and responded to that. I'm doing the same thing.
I bought an iPhone when, at least as far as I knew, it was pretty much the only game in town. I wanted what it offered: maps with GPS in my pocket and the ability to check my email on the road. I was amazed and impressed.
Over time I began to realize that the format was really just too small to be practical for some applications. Being able to read street names on a map requires zooming in to where only two or three blocks are visible. Typing is cramped, so it's uncomfortable for longer messages. Web pages require so much zooming and scrolling as to be next to useless. I was, and am, still happy to have those capabilities AT ALL, even in a less-than-perfect size, but my excitement was tempered somewhat by the fact that I would only use them as a last resort, not readily, conveniently and happily.
When my second 3GS wore out I bought a 4. At that point we still hadn't seen larger screens from other manufacturers (or at least *I* hadn't).
In the time I've owned it we've seen a variety of screen sizes from other manufacturers. I've looked into some of them and found the larger screen much better suited to my preferences. The problem was they weren't iPhones. I wouldn't get automatic syncing with my Mac via iCloud, ITunes integration or protection from malware, so I didn't buy one.
I still want an iPhone, but I also want a larger screen. Since my 4 still works there's no pressing need to buy anything else. Obviously I would like a faster processor and LTE, but those are not worth ~$800 to me.
So I wait. The phone I have works and is paid for. So far Apple doesn't make a screen size I want and no one else makes a phone with iOS, so if I'm gonna suffer with a smaller screen ANYWAY, I might as well do it with the one I have and not spend a pile of money on something I won't really be happy with. When my 4 wears out I'll be forced to make a decision, but until then I can wait and wish.
Make sense?
So a 720*1280 or 768*1366 instead of the current 640*1136 for the small form factor devices.
I'll make a deal with you. You run a battery of tests on the battery of 640x1136 video compared to 720x1280 video on the iPhone 5 and I'll tell you why it's pointless to completely mess with the entire OS, developers and customers to support 720p whilst ignoring all other common resolutions for video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
What would make sense for Applr to adopt HD native resolutions, for better viewing and less GPU use for video scaling.
So a 720*1280 or 768*1366 instead of the current 640*1136 for the small form factor devices.
I'll make a deal with you. You run a battery of tests on the battery of 640x1136 video compared to 720x1280 video on the iPhone 5 and I'll tell you why it's pointless to completely mess with the entire OS, developers and customers to support 720p whilst ignoring all other common resolutions for video.
The resolutions that 'matter' are those available in the iTunes store, because those are the resolutions that make money. YouTube etc. are not relevant, these are freebies that help Apple's competitors. Plus these videos are usually short, but if you watch a feature film on the iPhone, that's where it starts to matter.
Going to 1366*768 also allows for video mirroring to/from computers with less pain.
Given that both of these are more or less industry standard resolutions, it was odd that Apple chose some oddball resolutions in the first place.
If it keep the same size so we can find cool iPhone5 Taktik Extreme Metal Shock Drop Resistance Case for iphone 5S easily.
http://www.theideasforgift.com/en/iphone-5-case/354-iphone5-taktik-extreme-metal-shock-drop-resistance-case.html
Using this logic then all displays no matter small or large should be 16:9 1080p. Do you not see a problem with that?
Using this logic then all displays no matter small or large should be 16:9 1080p. Do you not see a problem with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xennex
I suppose having a slightly higher resolution would help reduce the amount of cpu cycles used for the scaling required to render full HD. However I agree with bcode, it would be yet another resolution to support for developers. I suppose as long as the proportions of the screen is kept the same you can somewhat control the fragmentation due to resolution.
Apple's APIs and developers' coding practices need to start to be resolution independent. I mean, does anyone ask how many screen resolutions the mac has, or what window size a particular device has? Even in full screen mode on the mac there are a variety of resolutions and developers deal with it just fine.
There may need to be a threshold, once screen size/resolution goes above a certain limit, you start displaying iPad GUI, but it's a shame that by now there are still developers who make iPhone and iPad apps, just to milk the market, instead of creating universal iOS apps.
This has been answered in excessive detail since at least 2010 when the iPhone 4 was released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
The resolutions that 'matter' are those available in the iTunes store, because those are the resolutions that make money.
Using this logic then all displays no matter small or large should be 16:9 1080p. Do you not see a problem with that?
Quote:
Going to 1366*768 also allows for video mirroring to/from computers with less pain.
Using this logic then all displays no matter small or large should be 16:9 1080p. Do you not see a problem with that?
No, you don't see what I'm saying, and I have absolutely no problem with what I'm saying, otherwise I wouldn't say it.
Using this logic all displays on CPU constrained platforms should be standard resolutions, or displays that can display standard resolutions without scaling.
That includes 720p as well, which may be perfectly fine for smaller screens. It would also allow e.g. for 960*1280, which is a 4:3 aspect ratio that can display 720p (720x1280) without scaling.
This does not necessarily apply to Macs who have plenty of CPU/CPU roast, and are usually hooked up to a power line, but even there, non-integer factor scaling of bitmapped graphics always causes artefacts, so video scaling is always an ugly thing by its very nature.
The eye can't discern a higher resolution than a 'retina display', can it? So why would it be necessary or desirable to go further than that? Does a higher resolution actually appear more 'photo-real', or is it just meant to impress the 'spec-centric' among us?
I'd think that once 'retina' resolution was achieved, any additional visible benefit would only come from more accurate color space, better black level, contrast, etc.
It's possible additional pixels would allow for smoother gradation, etc. but is it really discernible to the naked eye at those sizes/resolutions?
Adding a higher resolution demands more energy management and app development resources. All considered, would those be worthwhile trade-offs? I'm thinking not.
I also find it a bit gimmicky that companies are applying the "1080p format" concept to handsets. Maybe there's some benefit, but I'm not seeing it. It seems more like a contrived marketing 'connection' to a popular format than anything really beneficial.
Correct me if I'm wrong about all this. I'm interested in other perspectives...
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
That strikes me as the perfect screen - one-to-one pixel representation of HD video at a size large enough to see roughly half a web page at legible scale.
Really? Half a web page at 'legible scale'? Sure, you could display it. I do that on my iPhone now, but it isn't at all legible (OK, maybe the occasional large headline), I don't think those would be any more legible on a 4.7" screen just because the resolution is higher.
The main benefit is that no scaling of video is required, which is computationally expensive (i.e. eats battery) and introduces visual artefacts (although they may not be too visible at retina-resolution-levels).
However, much more useful, would have been if Apple had used the 720p spec, i.e. 720x1280 instead of the 640x1136 they currently have.
Scaling is very efficiently done in the GPU, it's not very computationally expensive. It would have been nice to do 720p though, to have a slightly larger screen.
Well, in battery operated devices "efficiently" and "not very computationaly expensive" have quite a different context. Of course, scaling is quick, as e.g. seen when zooming around in photos with finger pinches. But if you watch a 2h feature film and it has to be scaled vs. it has not to be scaled, it could add up in terms of power consumption.
Maybe they have a fixed video decoding/deinterlacing/scaling pipeline that has a constant power consumption regardless of whether or not the scaling part is running at unity or not, but so far I haven't heard anyone make that claim. And then of course, it's also a matter of what quality the scaling is done at, just as for deinterlacing, there are a variety of different algorithms with varying quality and computational cost. Probably doesn't matter much, because I doubt the videophile will watch movies on the iPhone on an ongoing basis.
Still, a bit like running all digital music through SRC instead of just playing it at the native sampling rate.
It's negligible compared to the computational cost of decoding h.264. Drop-in-the-bucket negligible, if not drop-in-the-ocean negligible.
This big bump in resolution is pointless on a 4" screen.
For one, the fusion of a tiny battery and a huge GPU crushing resolution is a bad combination.
And really, over 300 PPI on a 4" screen? What's the point?