I build an app for Tablets and used some of the pictures from SD card and some from drawable folder.
The thing is if i use images from from SD and show them in my app i can use image with original screen resolution/size to display the on full screen (1280x720) but when i use same image from drawable folder i have to enlarge it 1.5 time bigger to show on full screen (1920x1080). This is not a big issue just curious why is that.
Repost of an earlier comment, but now as answer (as requested):
This sounds as a typical issue related to the different dpi options. The four generalized densities, lpi, mdpi, hdpi and xhdpi have 3:4:6:8 scaling ratios, with mdpi being the baseline. It sounds like your tablet has an hdpi density, which could explain the 1.5 multiplication factor, since 6/4=1.5.
For more details, read the Supporting Multiple Screens article.
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 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.
i am building windows store app. I am using windows 8 and WPF with visual studio .net 2012.
UI of this application should be scalable to different screens. I have created a page where the controls (buttons, images, texts) fits correctly when running the app on simulator with resolution 1920 x 1080 for 10.6" screens. The problem is that when i change resolution, controls do not behave correctly
when resolution or screen sizes are increased (ex. 1920 x 1080 for 23" screens) empty spaces are created on the page;
when resolution or screen sizes are decreased (ex. 1024 x 768 for 10.6" screens) controls sizes are increased too and some of them are not visible in UI because they are displayed too far in bottom.
Is there a way to build "scalable" store app which are independent of screen sizes or resolution? Control sizes and font sizes should increase and decrease when resolution change or from one screen to another but all of them should fit in the space and shouldn't create empty areas.
Any help would be very appreciated.
thank you
This MSDN article discusses the guidelines for scaling to screens.
it touches on Screen size, Screen resolution, and Aspect ratio. It provides a table which shows best practices recommended for apps that use scale-to-fit functionality and it touches on adaptive layout. there is a reference to [Guidelines for layouts] at the end of the article as well.
Hope this helps!
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh780612.aspx
joelcitizen
hope this question is ok on stackoverflow. I want to use a photo as the background for the homepage of a website. The photo will be take up the entire page. However i don't know what resolution i should make the photo. I was thinking 1920 x 1200px so that people with 24 inch screen don't see the 'ends' of the photo. However is that big enough? I'm worried about the site looking ok on screens larger than 24 inches.
Also anyone know how i should optimize the photo so it loads as fast as possible? Thanks.
Overall, this seems to be a question of trade-offs. The better the resolution, the slower the page load for a do-nothing page. Is it worth the slow-down to have the better resolution and avoid pixellation?
Also, I think you're asking the wrong question, since a 24-inch screen can be in multiple resolutions.
I would approach this in the following manner:
what is the largest resolution you MUST have your photo look "good" on? Then make your photo that resolution. If 24" is your target, look at what resolutions this size monitor "typically" supports and target that.
What number of colors you want? (or perhaps b&w / grayscale). If you reduce the number of colors (preferably to "web-safe" colors), you can load faster with the same resolution.
A program like Photoshop (or Gimp) will probably give you the most power in tuning these parameters.
Do you care if only a portion of the photo displays when your viewer has a smaller window?
I know this isn't a cut and dried answer, but these things seldom are (IMHO).
For a solution that will work on most modern browsers, you will need to place the image in a div with a z-index less than the rest of your page (see: Stretch and scale CSS background)
As far as creating a 1920x1200 photo that will compress to a small size, I would recommend trying a smaller size (e.g. 960x600) and see if it looks okay on your 24-inch screen. There are many programs that will let you specify file size for your compression (e.g. FastStone Resizer) so you can experiment and see what is acceptable. In general, photos with less detail and/or color-depth will compress better.
Another problem you are going to run into is aspect ratio. Even assuming that your web-site is always opened in a full screen browser and not a window, sometimes that screen is going to be 16:9 ratio and sometimes 4:3. You could try to create an photo that has a nice 4:3 ratio "sweet-spot" in the center and adjust your div using some Javascript based on the current window aspect-ratio.