Just a curiosity, since my earlier question was put onto hold and couldn't communicate any further on that question, so my curiosity according to this link is whether the size of the pixel changes in different environments physically such as computer screen, ipda, mobile devices. I was wondering about that and if that does then can pixel be considered relative unit in relative to computer devices? Other curiosity is that what I found out from the video on youtube, which says that the size of pixel changes logically when we change the resolution of the screen, but even after changing the resolutions, I could not find the size of image being changed. Hence, I would like to get your answers whether the size of the pixel stays the same in every devices or they change just logically according to the resolution of the screen and resolution of image.
Consider screens with a native maximum (physical) resolution of 1600x900. If you have a 21" monitor with that resolution, the physical pixel size will be different than a 42" monitor with the same native maximum resolution. Logical resolution is different, but the (logical) pixel grouping will similarly be different with disparate underlying physical display size characteristics.
Related
Todays displays have a quite huge range in size and resolution. For example, my 34.5cm × 19.5cm display (resulting in a diagonal of 39.6cm or 15.6") has 1366 × 768 pixels, whereas the MacBook Pro (3rd generation) with a 15" diagonal has 2880×1800 pixels.
Multiple people complained that everything is too small with such high resolution displays (see example). That is simple to explain when developers use pixels to define their GUI. For "traditional displays", this is not a big problem as the pixels might have about the same size on most monitors. But on the new monitors with much higher pixel density the pixels are simply smaller.
So how can / should user interface developers deal with that problem? Is it possible to get the physical size of the screen? Is it possible to set physical sizes instead of pixel-based ones? Is that still a problem (it's been a while since I last read about it) or was that fixed meanwhile?
(While css seems to support cm, when I try here it, it is not the set size).
how can / should user interface developers deal with that problem?
Use a toolkit or framework that support resolution independence. WPF is built from the ground up to be resolution-independent, but even old framework like Windows Forms can learn new tricks. OSX/iOS and Windows (or browser if we're talking about web) itself may try to take care the problem by automatic scaling, but if there's bitmap graphic involved, developers might need to provide different bitmaps such in Android (which face most varying resolution and densities compared to other OS)
Is it possible to get the physical size of the screen?
No, and developers shouldn't care about it. Developers should only care about the class of the device (say, different UI for tablet and smartphone), and perhaps the DPI to decide which bitmap resource to use. Vector resource and font should be scaled by the framework.
Is that still a problem (it's been a while since I last read about it) or was that fixed meanwhile?
Depend on when you last read about it. Windows support is still spotty, even for the internal apps itself, and while anyone developing in WPF or UWP have it easy, don't expect major third party apps to join soon. OSX display scaling seems to work a bit better, while modern mobile OS are either running on limited range of resolution (iOS and Windows Phone) or handle every resolution imaginable quite nicely (Android)
There are a few ways to deal with different screen sizes, for example when I make mobile apps in java, I either use DIP(Density Independent Pixels; They stay at a fixed size) or make objects occupy a percentage of the screen with simple math. As for web development, you can use VW and VH (Viewport Width and Viewport Height), by adding these to the end of a value instead of px, the objects take up a percentage of the viewport. For example 100vh takes 100% of the viewport height. Then what I think is the best way to do it, but time consuming, is to use a library like Bootstrap that automatically resizes elements, even when the window is resized. W3Schools has a good tutorial on bootstrap and more detailed explainations on any of these options can be looked up with an easy google search.
The design of the GUI in today display diversity era is real challenge. I would suggest several hints, mainly about the GUI applications design:
Never set or expect constant pixel size of the text - the user can change it from the system settings of the OS. Use some real-world measures for the text and check its pixel size when drawing. Provide some way to put the random size text in the boundaries of the window.
Never set or expect constant pixel size of the GUI widgets. Try to position them on the window in some adaptive way - according to the size of the window. Most GUI widget toolkits today have such instruments.
Never set or expect constant pixel size dialog windows. Let the OS to choose the size for you and then use what you get (X). Or, if you need to set some size and position (Windows), define it as a percent of the screen size.
If possible use scalable image formats for the icons. SVG is great for icons actually. Using sets of bitmap icons with different sizes is acceptable, but highly non-optimal as memory use and still will not provide perfect scaling in most cases.
I use Matlab on my MacBook Pro with Retina display.
Using get(0,'ScreenSize'), we obtain
ans =
1 1 1440 900
instead of 1 1 2880 1800. Is there any way to work with right sizes?
No, 1440-by-900 is likely the correct effective value for your screen's resolution. This is the value that the OS tells applications and is not the the same as the number of pixels (sometimes referred to as the "native resolution"). However, applications also need to check if a display supports HiDPI mode (a.k.a. Retina) as well. In your case, each "retina pixel" is made up of a 2-by-2 set of raw pixels (which, in turn, each have RGB sub-pixels). Applications that are "Retina-aware" can then render certain graphics (e.g., images and video) at the the full native resolution within regions of the screen. Some more details – probably more accurately stated – can be found in this article.
There are 3rd-party solutions to run OS X at the native resolution (e.g., SwitchResX and the methods discussed here), but this of course makes everything, UI included, ridiculously tiny. If you're running one of these, Matlab should report your resolution as 2880-by-1800.
I am not aware of any Matlab options, properties, or functions that allow one to actually take advantage of advantage of a Retina display. This means that, for example, when you display an image, each of it's pixels are rendered as 2-by-2 retina pixels.
I understand the use of thumbnail in network applications but assuming all the image are in the application itself (photo application), in this case do we still need thumbnail images for performance reasons or is it just fine for the device to resize the actual image on run time?
Since the question is too opinion based I am going to ask more quantitively.
The images are 500x500, about 200-300kb size jpg.
There will be about 200 images.
It is targeted for iphone4 and higher, so that would be the minimum hardware specs users will have.
The maximum memory used should not pass 20% of the devices capacity.
Will the application in this case need separate thumbnail images?
It depends on your application. Just test performance and memory usage on device.
If you show a lot of images and/or they change very quickly (like when you are scrolling UITableView with a lot of images) you will probably have to use thumbnails.
UPDATE:
When image is shown it takes width * height * 3 (width * height * 4 for images with ALPHA channel) bytes of memory. 10 photos 2592 x 1936 stored in memory will require 200Mb of RAM. It is too much. You definitely have to use thumbnails.
Your question is a bit lacking on detail but I assume you're asking if, for say a photo album app, can you just throw around full size UIImages and let a UIImageView resize them to fit on the screen, or do you need to resize?
You absolutely need to resize.
An image taken by an iPhone camera will be several megabytes in compressed file size, more in actual bytes used to represent pixels. The dimensions of the image will be far greater than the screen dimensions of the device. The memory use is very high, particularly if you're thinking of showing multiple "thumbnails". It's not so much a CPU issue (once the image has been rendered it doesn't need re-rendering) but a memory one, and you're severely memory constrained on a mobile device.
Each doubling in size of an image (e.g. from a 100x100 to a 200x200) represents a four-fold increase in the memory needed to hold it.
After reading posts on this site and others, I am uncertain what pixel width I should make for a background cover image. For retina devices it is recommended to create a background image x2 the size if for a non-retina device.
I want to create a background image that will cover the entire screen but this would make a retina device image 2560 x 1760 and non-retina 1920 x 1200 if accommodating large monitors.
Is this too big?
I can't keep the jpeg image file size down to 276KB and that is with the most compression I can apply without destroying the image quality
Well your question is very interesting. To address your comment about what pixel width you should design your background image for. The size of a screen for a laptop, or desktop can vary. So you'll never exactly be able to make a single "universal" image for all backgrounds. Generally diagonal display in inches decides the amount of pixels. My screen is quite large, roughly the biggest size commercially purchased by public. Which is of course 1600 x 900 pixel, 17.3" diagonal display. I wouldn't recommend designing images for any display larger because those displays are custom and more for people who do things like graphic design themselves. Visit http://nodejs.org/logos/ If you scroll down to the computer display, you can see a list of pixel ratios that nodejs designs its logos for. These are very mainstream and popular display sizes. I would recommend you do the same and use those. Hope this answer helped.
Edit: nodejs builds for quality up to 2560 x 1440. If the size of the files doesn't matter. You should easily be able to build for sizes this large. Hope this helped.
May I know what are the ways to calculate the length of 1 pixel in centimeters? The images that I have are 640x480. I would like to compare 2 pixels at different places on the image and find the difference in distance. Thus I would need to find out what's the length of the pixel in centimeters.
Thank you.
A pixel is a relative unit of measure, it does not have an absolute size.
Edit. With regard to your edit: again, you can only calculate the distance between two pixels in an image in pixels, not in centimeters. As a simple example, think video projectors: if you project, say, a 3×3px image onto a wall, the distance between the leftmost and the rightmost pixels could be anything from a few millimeters to several meters. If you moved the projector closer to the wall or farther away from it, the pixel size would change, and whatever distance you had calculated earlier would become wrong.
Same goes for computer monitors and other devices (as Johannes Rössel has explained in his answer). There, the pixel size in centimeters depends on factors such as the physical resolution of the screen, the resolution of the graphical interface, and the zooming factor at which the image is displayed.
A pixel does not have a fixed physical size, by definition. It is simply the smallest addressable unit of picture, however large or small.
This is fully dependent on the screen resolution and screen size:
pixel width = width of monitor viewable area / number of horizontal pixels
pixel height = height of monitor viewable area / number of vertical pixels
Actually, the answer depends on where exactly your real-world units are.
It comes down to dpi (dots per inch) which is the number of image pixels along a length of 2.54 cm. That's the resolution of an image or a target device (printer, screen, &c.).
Image files usually have a resolution embedded within them which specifies their real-world size. It doesn't alter their pixel dimensions, it just says how large they are if printed or how large a “100 %” view on a display would be.
Then there is the resolution of your screen, as others have mentioned, as well as the specified resolution your graphical interface uses (usually 96 dpi, sometimes 120)—and then it's all a matter of whether programs actually honor that setting ...
The OS will assume some dpi (usually 96 dpi on windows) however the screens real dpi will depend on the physical size of the display and the resolution
e.g a 15" monitor should have a 12" width so depending on the horizontal resolution you will get a different horizontal dpi, assuming a 1152 pixel screen width you will genuinely get 96 dpi