15 ms·

Understanding the iPhone 6 Plus Screen

170 points by elo 12y ago

0x0 12y ago
Would it take a jailbreak to trick uikit into rendering at native resolution? What would be the downside? Larger UI elements and less available space on the screen? Could a @2x instead of @3x mode work or would that result in super tiny "bad hidpi" UI?
- wingerlang 12y ago
  There are at least two released jailbreak tweaks that does something related to this [0][1]. Although I don't know exactly what they actually do, technically, as I have not had the interest in these specific screen details. [0] http://www.idownloadblog.com/2014/11/07/littlebrother-iphone-6-plus-scaling-landscape-home-screen-older-iphones/ http://www.idownloadblog.com/2014/11/07/littlebrother-iphone... [1] http://www.idownloadblog.com/2014/11/06/upscale-change-resolution-jailbroken-iphone-iphone-6-plus-5s-6/ http://www.idownloadblog.com/2014/11/06/upscale-change-resol...
  - 0x0 12y ago
    Hm, those two tweaks appear to be for iphone5/5s only. I'm more interested in the capabilities of the 3x screen on the 6+. I wonder if this whole downsampling business is happening because the 6+ didn't get a "full resolution" screen in time and so they had to go with off-the-shelf 1080p screens? Related to the GT scandal maybe?
TillE 12y ago
The scaling makes sense for legacy apps, but I can't understand why they don't present a 1920x1080 screen for everything else. Hasn't iOS had tools for building resolution-independent apps ever since the iPhone 5 was released?
- 0x0 12y ago
  Probably because 1080p as a @3x screen gives a smaller effective viewport than the lesser models, which would make it look weaker?
- zw 12y ago
  No, iOS has had tools for building apps with flexible canvases, that has very little to do with the resolution of the screen these days.
userbinator 12y ago
Does anyone wonder what's with the odd 414x736 resolution? I can't say I've ever heard of that resolution before; 360x640 at 3x would fit the 1080x1920 native resolution perfectly, or 2x the 540x960 of the iPhone 4. Apple's "Think Different" mentality at play here?
- refulgentis 12y ago
  Word on the Apple rumor street was that the display was supposed to be a full 3x 414x736 (1242x2208), but the display yield was too poor.
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    That would be my guess as well, a compromise, no sapphire and a fudged screen. That said, my take away from this article was that once your screen resolutions gets above 300 ppi the resolution available is not nearly as important as it is otherwise.
    - Bud 12y ago
      The sapphire is a completely separate issue and has nothing whatever to do with the screen resolution. In addition, it's not even clear yet that a sapphire screen on an iPhone (as distinct from a watch) would be an improvement, because sapphire apparently shatters more easily. Which is why Apple is reportedly working on a screen incorporating a layer of sapphire on top for more scratch resistance, since it's harder, bonded to a layer of glass below, for more durability.
  - twoodfin 12y ago
    I didn't hear any rumors like that other than Gruber's very-late-in-the-game speculation (on the potential resolution, not the yield). If there were any, they were more than outpaced by rumors that the larger iPhone would feature a 1080p (or lower!) resolution. Here's one from all the way back in October '13 that predicted the 1080p screen on the "5.7 inch" phone: http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2013/10/in-2014-apple-will-once-again-rely-on-displays-for-innovation/ http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2013/10/in-2014-apple-will-... I think they have made a conscious decision to bet on display scaling technology at high PPI's, so they have the flexibility to always buy the best displays they can get manufactured at the price point they need to hit.
jordanthoms 12y ago
iOS still doesn't have proper resolution independence, hence hacks like this. There's no reason to be doing post scaling on a rendered image unless you have poor software which can't render at the proper resolution in the first place. If anyone else did this they'd be pilloried for it being the total battery wasting font-destroying hack that it is, but Apple gets away with it. This is true on the Macbook Retinas also - when I set mine to looks like 1680 or 1920, fonts get blurry due to this scaling, when if the software was better it'd be rendered at the native resolution and they would look as good as they do at the 2x resolution. (where the numbers work out that you can scale without a loss of fidelity)
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  Are you sure? I think iOS is resolution-independent, they just chose to do this since a 3x scale factor is more convenient. EDIT: It also sounds like it was originally going to be the correct resolution, they just couldn't get the yields. If that's the case, perhaps they made it downscale at the last minute and used a 1080p panel?
  - leoc 12y ago
    > It also sounds like it was originally going to be the correct resolution, they just couldn't get the yields. I strongly assume that the lower resolution was indeed Plan B, and that it's the result of another twist in the saga of Apple's relationships with the mobile component suppliers. On a not-really-unrelated note, the Samsung Galaxy Note 4's screen is apparently pretty stellar in all respects, not just resolution: http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note4_ShootOut_1.htm http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note4_ShootOut_1.htm .
  - jordanthoms 12y ago
    Why should 3x be any more convenient than 2.5x or 2.2x in a properly designed system? It's not any more difficult in Android (although images are prescaled in size buckets for efficiency and IQ reasons).
    - 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

170 points by elo 12y ago

0x0 12y ago

Would it take a jailbreak to trick uikit into rendering at native resolution? What would be the downside? Larger UI elements and less available space on the screen? Could a @2x instead of @3x mode work or would that result in super tiny "bad hidpi" UI?

wingerlang 12y ago
There are at least two released jailbreak tweaks that does something related to this [0][1]. Although I don't know exactly what they actually do, technically, as I have not had the interest in these specific screen details. [0] http://www.idownloadblog.com/2014/11/07/littlebrother-iphone-6-plus-scaling-landscape-home-screen-older-iphones/ http://www.idownloadblog.com/2014/11/07/littlebrother-iphone... [1] http://www.idownloadblog.com/2014/11/06/upscale-change-resolution-jailbroken-iphone-iphone-6-plus-5s-6/ http://www.idownloadblog.com/2014/11/06/upscale-change-resol...
- 0x0 12y ago
  Hm, those two tweaks appear to be for iphone5/5s only. I'm more interested in the capabilities of the 3x screen on the 6+. I wonder if this whole downsampling business is happening because the 6+ didn't get a "full resolution" screen in time and so they had to go with off-the-shelf 1080p screens? Related to the GT scandal maybe?

TillE 12y ago

The scaling makes sense for legacy apps, but I can't understand why they don't present a 1920x1080 screen for everything else. Hasn't iOS had tools for building resolution-independent apps ever since the iPhone 5 was released?

0x0 12y ago
Probably because 1080p as a @3x screen gives a smaller effective viewport than the lesser models, which would make it look weaker?
zw 12y ago
No, iOS has had tools for building apps with flexible canvases, that has very little to do with the resolution of the screen these days.

userbinator 12y ago

Does anyone wonder what's with the odd 414x736 resolution? I can't say I've ever heard of that resolution before; 360x640 at 3x would fit the 1080x1920 native resolution perfectly, or 2x the 540x960 of the iPhone 4. Apple's "Think Different" mentality at play here?

refulgentis 12y ago
Word on the Apple rumor street was that the display was supposed to be a full 3x 414x736 (1242x2208), but the display yield was too poor.
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  That would be my guess as well, a compromise, no sapphire and a fudged screen. That said, my take away from this article was that once your screen resolutions gets above 300 ppi the resolution available is not nearly as important as it is otherwise.
  - Bud 12y ago
    The sapphire is a completely separate issue and has nothing whatever to do with the screen resolution. In addition, it's not even clear yet that a sapphire screen on an iPhone (as distinct from a watch) would be an improvement, because sapphire apparently shatters more easily. Which is why Apple is reportedly working on a screen incorporating a layer of sapphire on top for more scratch resistance, since it's harder, bonded to a layer of glass below, for more durability.
- twoodfin 12y ago
  I didn't hear any rumors like that other than Gruber's very-late-in-the-game speculation (on the potential resolution, not the yield). If there were any, they were more than outpaced by rumors that the larger iPhone would feature a 1080p (or lower!) resolution. Here's one from all the way back in October '13 that predicted the 1080p screen on the "5.7 inch" phone: http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2013/10/in-2014-apple-will-once-again-rely-on-displays-for-innovation/ http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2013/10/in-2014-apple-will-... I think they have made a conscious decision to bet on display scaling technology at high PPI's, so they have the flexibility to always buy the best displays they can get manufactured at the price point they need to hit.

jordanthoms 12y ago

iOS still doesn't have proper resolution independence, hence hacks like this. There's no reason to be doing post scaling on a rendered image unless you have poor software which can't render at the proper resolution in the first place. If anyone else did this they'd be pilloried for it being the total battery wasting font-destroying hack that it is, but Apple gets away with it. This is true on the Macbook Retinas also - when I set mine to looks like 1680 or 1920, fonts get blurry due to this scaling, when if the software was better it'd be rendered at the native resolution and they would look as good as they do at the 2x resolution. (where the numbers work out that you can scale without a loss of fidelity)

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
Are you sure? I think iOS is resolution-independent, they just chose to do this since a 3x scale factor is more convenient. EDIT: It also sounds like it was originally going to be the correct resolution, they just couldn't get the yields. If that's the case, perhaps they made it downscale at the last minute and used a 1080p panel?
- leoc 12y ago
  > It also sounds like it was originally going to be the correct resolution, they just couldn't get the yields. I strongly assume that the lower resolution was indeed Plan B, and that it's the result of another twist in the saga of Apple's relationships with the mobile component suppliers. On a not-really-unrelated note, the Samsung Galaxy Note 4's screen is apparently pretty stellar in all respects, not just resolution: http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note4_ShootOut_1.htm http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note4_ShootOut_1.htm .
- jordanthoms 12y ago
  Why should 3x be any more convenient than 2.5x or 2.2x in a properly designed system? It's not any more difficult in Android (although images are prescaled in size buckets for efficiency and IQ reasons).
  - 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]