Outlining the Case for 1334 x 750 and 2208 x 1242 iPhone 6 Retina Displays

[mrmarts]

I am more than happy that Apple is offering us the consumer with more variety in terms of screen choices, however the problem is i remember when Apple changed the display on the iPhone 5 many of my apps (still to today) where never updated to take advantage the full screen estate.

I'am looking forward to the 5.5" iPhone, but i have the gut feeling that many of my more recent apps in my library are descent to be forgotten.

 

[Janichsan]

…a resolution of 1334 x 750…

Couldn't they at least go for a horizontal resolution of 1337 pixels?

 

[LamrenR]

Nice! Now I can watch my 640p, 750p, 960p, and 1242p YouTube videos pixel for pixel.

 

[myforwik]

I didn't read Gruber as saying that. I read it as "you get more stuff on the screen at the same time, and at this particular pip it's comparatively easy to code for and by the way you also get 6% increase, which is certainly better than a decrease."

The problems with his 5.5" size are numerous. Firstly a 3X mode would be a huge pain to developers. They would have to have a 50% bigger version of every image, plus handle two new widths/heights. Also he never explains why apple would do a DPI over 326. Apple are convinced a higher DPI means nothing, I can't believe for a second that they would waste money on 400dpi.

The biggest problem he has is he never explains how past apps will work. This is massively important - there are over 100 million apps - most will never be updated for the higher resolutions.

On his suggested resolution at 400dpi they will be too small, so they will have to be scaled.... this would be believable if the scaled up resolution was 2x or maybe 1.5x, but under his system it would be 1.9 something - which would look terrible. The only solution would be an ugly but possibly acceptable scale to 150% with the rest being big black borders.

 

[Mattsasa]

How can there even be a 3 pixel stroke in an @2x asset??? Wouldn't it by definition have to be an even number? Isn't the whole point with the @2x asset that it can be rendered at the @1x size for backward compatibility? Ypu can't render 1.5 pixels at @1x so how could you render 3 @2x?? So an original 3 pixel stroke would actually be 6 pixels @2x and 9 pixels @3x. Doesn't everything have to start with the @1x asset in the first place? I don't think you can start with the @2x asset, it breaks the whole "point" of using the system.

I may be wrong, but I think Gruber's made a logical error there.

I have also been confused about this, even months ago people have been talking about the iPhone 6 being @3x... which would be 1704 x 960. But I don't understand how apps wrote nativels at @2x will scale to 3x....

 

[profets]

Sure, take the standards question out of it but they still need to come up with a way to make the OS resolution independent if they want to make further additions in the future.

Thanks for the explanation!

I think that's part of this as well. Almost like moving from 30pin to lightening. They'll let 320x568 die slowly, and are maybe using these new layouts for 4.7 & 5.5 for the foreseeable future (many years at least).

 

[ValSalva]

How can there even be a 3 pixel stroke in an @2x asset??? Wouldn't it by definition have to be an even number? Isn't the whole point with the @2x asset that it can be rendered at the @1x size for backward compatibility? Ypu can't render 1.5 pixels at @1x so how could you render 3 @2x?? So an original 3 pixel stroke would actually be 6 pixels @2x and 9 pixels @3x. Doesn't everything have to start with the @1x asset in the first place? I don't think you can start with the @2x asset, it breaks the whole "point" of using the system.

I may be wrong, but I think Gruber's made a logical error there.

Agreed, that was my point. I think we know who didn't do any coding work for Vesper

 

[ANANASOo]

After my iPhone 5 was broken I changed to Googles Android with Nexus 5. iOS is still better in handling but the display of the nexus with 4,95", FullHD and a ppi about 450 is much better than the iPhone ones. So if Apple makes the 5,5" iPhone to flagship, good bye Apple. In this case I can buy a Nexus 6, perhaps with a much better display than the iPhone 6 will going to have.

Vanilla Android runs as smooth as iOS. I can see the difference between 326ppi and 480ppi.

 

[myforwik]

I have also been confused about this, even months ago people have been talking about the iPhone 6 being @3x... which would be 1704 x 960. But I don't understand how apps wrote nativels at @2x will scale to 3x....

They could simply apply a 150% scaling algorithm. These can make the image look pretty good. See the "150% - dilinear interpolation" example at: http://www.compuphase.com/graphic/scale.htm. (It would be similair to how the ipad uses 200% bilinear interpolation for iphone apps - which is also shown on that page).

 

[myforwik]

How can there even be a 3 pixel stroke in an @2x asset??? Wouldn't it by definition have to be an even number? Isn't the whole point with the @2x asset that it can be rendered at the @1x size for backward compatibility? Ypu can't render 1.5 pixels at @1x so how could you render 3 @2x?? So an original 3 pixel stroke would actually be 6 pixels @2x and 9 pixels @3x. Doesn't everything have to start with the @1x asset in the first place? I don't think you can start with the @2x asset, it breaks the whole "point" of using the system.

I may be wrong, but I think Gruber's made a logical error there.

You are forgetting retina. The idea of retina is that you cannot see the individual pixels. This means once you reach retina you no longer have to have only 1px or 2px or 3px strokes - these are only needed sub-retina.

You can for example do a good looking 1.5px stroke on a retina display with antialiasing. You can also do 1.8px and 1.9px. They would all be made of two (or possible 3) actual pixels - but of different colour. Thats the whole point of retina.

So in going to 3x, All vector graphics are not effected obviously. Fonts for example will just work. And all bitmaps will just have to include two different resolutions - one 50% larger than the other.

3X will not be a problem at all.

 

[zipa]

I look at my iPhone 5 and there are no pixels!

I look at my iPhone 5 and there are pixels everywhere. Every thin line is jagged, small text becomes blurry, circles aren't round. Give me something around the 500 ppi mark any day of the week, please.

 

[zipa]

What kind of internet browsing and productivity apps are you using that don't work on a 4" screen but suddenly work perfectly on a screen that's only 1-1.5" bigger? This argument has never made sense to me.

Any kind. The increase from 4" to 5.5" gives you almost twice the screen estate. And if we're talking about the 5.7" Note, that has just a tad over twice the screen area of an iPhone. The difference is like night and day.

 

[MacSince1990]

4.7 = the new 5c

It fills a very different niche than the 5C if these suggestions prove true.

----------

Yep, and we all see what the 5C got us.......There will be tons of used 4.7's hitting the market when people flock to the 5.5

? I myself don't want a phone that big, and think 4.7 is perfect.. as do many other people I know. If what you're suggesting is true, Apple will have wasted a LOT of money on R&D (which I imagine is quite unlike the 5C which was basically just a rebadged 5).

That would represent billions of dollars in lost revenue and sales. I don't think that's going to happen. In fact didn't they do a poll that showed most people wanted the 4.7 and 5.5 was a much smaller demographic?

----------

and looks like Apple is going to embrace the larger scale phone and make it the flagship iPhone.

This is just a rumor by someone who admits he's just speculating.

----------

This headline is misleading. Gruber is very clear that he has no inside information. These are just educated guesses on his part.

----------



Based on what?

And yet people insist on taking it as gospel lol

----------

Why would they introduce more fragmentation into their iPhone line?

Sort of what I was thinking. I feel like keeping at the same PPI probably makes more sense. They can do the retina scaling thing if they want and get larger icons or more viewable area on the larger iPhone while still having the same # of pixels per inch... just seems like two different screens built from two completely different parts (higher/lower ppi screens) is asking for trouble, especially when they don't know what will sell what. But then we could be totally wrong.

----------

The retina iPad mini has 326 ppi compared to 264 ppi for the iPad Air. Does that mean the retina mini is the flagship iPad?

Yes! Don't you see? It's all about PPI!

----------

I have both the Air and the Retina Mini, and I find that I use the mini far more frequently. So in my mind, the retina mini is now indeed the flagship.

>_> Do you know what "flagship" means? It doesn't mean most frequently used lol.

----------

Camera
PPI
128 GB option
Sapphire
clocked higher cpu (perhaps because of the larger screen)


Just off the top of my head, Rogifan

...This entire thread is based on someone who admits openly he has NO INSIDE INFO. There is zero indication it will have higher PPI.

Is there any indication 128 GB won't be offered on both?

Sapphire isn't necessarily "better" than GG.

...Higher-clocked CPU because of a larger body and thus fewer thermal constraints. You know, kind of how it is in computing everywhere. The larger screen won't require more CPU power, and even if it did, the iPhone 4S would be fully capable of handling it.

 

[zipa]

Those devs will get left behind and people will move on to better apps with devs that know how to make great apps. Easy.

Exactly. I have never understood the fuss about the developers. If they can't be bothered to update their apps to meet changing needs, then why should I bother with their app in the first place? It is unlikely that it will be properly maintained in any regard.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

Sort of what I was thinking. I feel like keeping at the same PPI probably makes more sense. They can do the retina scaling thing if they want and get larger icons or more viewable area on the larger iPhone while still having the same # of pixels per inch... just seems like two different screens built from two completely different parts (higher/lower ppi screens) is asking for trouble, especially when they don't know what will sell what. But then we could be totally wrong.

Having the same PPI on two different sized screens means two different resolutions not only physically with the number of pixels, but also on the developer side (number of points in the retina x2 or rumoured x3 resolutions).

Having two different PPI's that maintain the same developer target point resolution even when the physical pixel resolution changes means less screen size fragmentation because as long as the developer point target resolution is the same, the apps scale automatically.

However, Apple has been pushing devs to developing with resolution independence (This being the developer target point resolution, not the physical pixel resolution) for a couple of years now. This year will probably be the first year we see why they have been doing this.

I expect the 4.7" and 5.5" phones to have different developer target point resolutions, pretty much like Gruber is expecting.

 

[chleuasme]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is the common nomenclature. Something twice as large as another thing is 100% larger when expressed as a percentage.

138 / 100 = 1.38 and is therefore 1.38 times larger than 100, or 38% larger than 100. You can't actually say that something is 0.38 times larger because 0.38 is actually smaller, not larger. 38 / 100 = 0.38 and is therefore approximately 2.64 times smaller than 100, or 62% smaller than 100.

You're wrong too x% == x/100 (percent: per cent)
You can say 18% larger or 1.18 times as large. Gruber saying '1.18 times larger' had it wrong, but well that's nothing really important in the debate, and he edited his original post silently.

 

[apolloa]

I'm working in the video field. Let me tell you something. When the post house want you to check out the color of your work, they'll make sure you have an iPhone. If you have one, they send the file to you to see. If you have other brands, they won't bother.
Why? Because while some other phones are colorful, this is not a good thing if it's not color correct. I haven't check out other brands for sometimes so I have no knowledge of current situation. All I know is most of post houses here still didn't send the file to you if you're using other brands.



4K is hyped up because 1080p has run its course. The majority of people, who's not poor, are having one so manufacturers need something new to sell you. On the normal living room dimension, few people will benefit from it, unless you have screen bigger than 80-90", which most people don't.
Apple hyped 4K ability on Mac Pro because Mac Pro aims for professional market, not consumers.



If you think more resolution is automatically better without taking other things into consideration then you just fell for marketing bull__ like camera pixel war a decade ago.



Ironically, from your posts that accused people of falling for Apple marketing gimmick, you're the one who fell for marketing bull__, like this one.

So you've come here , replied to my comment, then stated you have not used anything other then an iPhone for sometime and then proclaim it's used as a professional video colour checking tool? Even though it can't even do 720p HD resolution? Surely you would use an iPad for a task like that.
Again you have totally missed my point, 1080p hasn't run it's course in the slightest, 4k is just the next big thing, technology evolving, it does suddenly make the previous tech obsolete.
I am also not under any marketing spell, I have my own eyes and as others on here have stated you CAN see a difference in screens with higher resolutions, even if they are 5" in size, perhaps you should use your own eyes and see them for yourself before accusing others of being under marketing spells? Have you ever used a first gen iPad Mini or an iPad 2? And then used a retina iPad? Did you not see a difference?

I was exaggerating with the 80" TVs to prove a point. Either way, 20+" screens are incomparably bigger than even the biggest phablets.
On that bold part... You are clueless, and it isn't even funny. You keep moaning about a possible low resolution display in the iPhone 6, yet you lack even the basic understanding of important terms involved in screen tech. Pure gold

Maybe I am wrong on ONE point, still a fact a screen with higher PPI looks much sharper and more detailed even when it's the same size. You also did not prove any point at all, you just failed to read mine properly in the first place.

 

[zipa]

it definitely looks like we'll all have to be carrying man purses.

Why? I certainly have never felt the need to carry one, nor do I really know anyone who does.

----------

But the difference between a 5.5" screen and a 4" screen for office apps is insignificant. It's basically like when I got my second monitor replaced from a 21" to a 24" screen. It's a bit bigger, it's nice, but it's nothing to write home about.

It's twice the size. Definitely not insignificant. It's like going from a 21" display to a 30" display. Or from a 40" TV to a 55" TV. The difference is HUGE.

----------

it must be a nightmare for the software developers to make apps for so many models and sizes!!

Like totally, man! It's not human! Why are we allowing this, why isn't the government stepping in to protect the poor developers? I bet Apple execs are looking at some serious jail time if they go through with this...

----------

It's pretty obvious what you're trying to do here.

But even if Apple adds two new resolutions with the iPhone 6, the total number of resolutions iOS devs will have to support will still be 1/100th of what's found on Android. And besides, Android fragmentation is not only about screens, it's about OS versions and other hardware features which again is 100x worse on Android.

Yet the only people complaining about Android fragmentation are Apple-fanboys.

 

[matrix07]

..and then proclaim it's used as a professional video colour checking tool? Even though it can't even do 720p HD resolution?

It's for color checking. What's it gotta do with resolution? You're always this confused?

Surely you would use an iPad for a task like that.

Surely not everyone carry iPad with them all the time? You shouldn't talk about things you have no idea about.

Again you have totally missed my point, 1080p hasn't run it's course in the slightest, 4k is just the next big thing, technology evolving, it does suddenly make the previous tech obsolete.
I am also not under any marketing spell, I have my own eyes and as others on here have stated you CAN see a difference in screens with higher resolutions, even if they are 5" in size, perhaps you should use your own eyes and see them for yourself before accusing others of being under marketing spells?

For resolution, I have talked about the basic of it here already. I won't recap it here. Just click the link to read. https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/19506081/

Have you ever used a first gen iPad Mini or an iPad 2? And then used a retina iPad? Did you not see a difference?

That's Apple vs Orange. That's normal res vs retina res. What we're talking here is retina res. vs beyond retina res.

 

[lewisd25]

Can you tell the difference in the displays? Honest question, just curious.

Honestly? Not really. For me it is about comfort. I can easily hold the mini one handed, while the full size Air is cumbersome due to the thinner bezels.

My feeling is that Apple wants the consumer to decide which is their "flagship", since both the mini and Air specs are almost identical. Hopefully the next gen iPads will continue to have identical features/hardware.

 

[daveathall]

Honestly? Not really. For me it is about comfort. I can easily hold the mini one handed, while the full size Air is cumbersome due to the thinner bezels.

Thank you.

 

[myforwik]

I believe the resolutions will be: 1336x752 for 4.7" and 1468x828 for the 5.5". This is my 'proof':

Firstly the 'rules' (ie. key assumptions) are:
1-If you are using 2x mode, the dpi must be >300, otherwise the display becomes non-retina and you can see the pixels.
2-If you are using 2x mode, the dpi must be <= 326, otherwise the physical size of the GUI elements shrinks.
3-If you are using 3x mode, the dpi must be <= 489, for the same reason above.
4-If you are using 3x mode, then the pixel count (for width and height) must have increased by at least 50%, otherwise the display will show less content.
5-Given the option, apple will chose the lowest DPI that meets 1 to 4 to reduce cost, the one exception being to favor 326dpi as a standard if possible.

For the 4.7" display:
Based on rule 4, the minimum DPI is 300 in 2x mode, or 416 in 3x mode. In 3x mode 416DPI would be needed just to display the same content as the 5s currently does, and probably 500dpi or more to display a decent amount of extra content - which pretty much rules 3x mode out. Given rule 5 - we can assume apple will attempt to go as close to 300 as possible - probably sticking to 326dpi, thus making the display 1336x752.

Now onto the 5.5" display:
The 5.5" can run in either 2x or 3x mode, and fits the DPI requirements of both. To meet rules 1 and 5 the resolution must be between 1436x810 and 1562x880. It just so happens that the icode leak of 734x414 points meets this definition in 2x mode. Therefore the most likly resolution is 1468x828, with a DPI of 306.

Q.E.D. Flame shield attached.

The only exception I can think of is for the 5.5" in that 306DPI could be not acceptable because it will be 'lower' density than past phones and therefore get mocking by Andriods/Samsung. So if you assume the 5.5" has to be 3x mode, then its minimum resolution becomes 50% bigger the 4.7" (so it can at least show the same content). So the 5.5" in 3x mode has a range of: 2004x1128 to 2343x1320. If the 734x414 leak is to be believed, then the resolution is 2202x1242. Personally I don't think 3x is likly because of the $$$ wasted and apples general mantra that they don't do things for specs alone (I doubt the average iConsumer can tell the difference between 300 and 326dpi and not at all for >326dpi).

 

[SirLance99]

I am more than happy that Apple is offering us the consumer with more variety in terms of screen choices, however the problem is i remember when Apple changed the display on the iPhone 5 many of my apps (still to today) where never updated to take advantage the full screen estate.

I'am looking forward to the 5.5" iPhone, but i have the gut feeling that many of my more recent apps in my library are descent to be forgotten.

That's a case of bad devs that don't care. Time to move on to better apps where the devs did update their apps.

----------

The problems with his 5.5" size are numerous. Firstly a 3X mode would be a huge pain to developers. They would have to have a 50% bigger version of every image, plus handle two new widths/heights. Also he never explains why apple would do a DPI over 326. Apple are convinced a higher DPI means nothing, I can't believe for a second that they would waste money on 400dpi.

The biggest problem he has is he never explains how past apps will work. This is massively important - there are over 100 million apps - most will never be updated for the higher resolutions.

On his suggested resolution at 400dpi they will be too small, so they will have to be scaled.... this would be believable if the scaled up resolution was 2x or maybe 1.5x, but under his system it would be 1.9 something - which would look terrible. The only solution would be an ugly but possibly acceptable scale to 150% with the rest being big black borders.

Those devs need to adapt or die. Apple is not going to keep everything the same forever. That's to implausible and unrealistic. Either the devs adapt or better devs will take their place.

 

[Reason077]

Those devs need to adapt or die. Apple is not going to keep everything the same forever. That's to implausible and unrealistic. Either the devs adapt or better devs will take their place.

Sure, but Apple isn't going to create a situation that makes the lives of developers unnecessarily difficult. If we up having to support a multitude of both different resolutions, different scale factors, and different ppi, then you have a bad situation.

Introducing a 3X scale factor would be both pointless and problematic. It would make apps harder to develop with few tangible benefits. If iOS becomes a hard platform to develop for, then that doesn't benefit anyone.

 

[Moonjumper]

I am more than happy that Apple is offering us the consumer with more variety in terms of screen choices, however the problem is i remember when Apple changed the display on the iPhone 5 many of my apps (still to today) where never updated to take advantage the full screen estate.

I'am looking forward to the 5.5" iPhone, but i have the gut feeling that many of my more recent apps in my library are descent to be forgotten.

The full screen estate wasn't used because of an aspect ratio change. There is no indication of another aspect ratio change, they are almost certain to remain 16:9.

Some apps will not work correctly if designed around a set number of pixels, but it will be far fewer than the aspect ratio change.