I'm releasing a new update for one of my apps and I was disappointed to see that it just barely surpasses 20MB estimated size (20MB is the point where it can no longer be downloaded over cell data).
My app contains a lot of images, so I could greatly reduce the size if I didn't have all those non-retina images. I know that there are some non-retina devices that will be running my app. So here are my questions:
How will a non-retina device react if I have an image with the #2x suffix but no non-retina image without it.
If I use a retina sized image without the #2x suffix and scale it down to the size I want to display it at programmatically and/or
through interface builder, will it still maintain full quality on
retina devices? Will the quality be worse on a non-retina device
than using an image I downscaled from the original using GIMP
instead?
How will a non-retina device react if I have an image with the #2x suffix but no non-retina i
image without it.
I use that approach on a couple of apps of mine and it works flawlessly. I am not able to detect any performance or visual issues on non-retina display devices (concretely, iPad 1/2 and mini).
I am not sure what can happen on older iOS version, since I only support iOS5+ on those apps.
If I use a retina sized image without the #2x suffix and scale it down to the size I want to display it at programmatically and/or through interface builder, will it still maintain full quality on retina devices? Will the quality be worse on a non-retina device than using an image I downscaled from the original using GIMP instead?
This comes down to how you set interpolation options while doing the scaling. See this other question for more details on how interpolation quality affects scaling down an image. In GIMP or Photoshop you also have control on the interpolation to be used for scaling, btw.
But in the end I don't think you need to go this way.
Most importantly, that bandwidth limit has been raised to 50MB.
OK.
If you only provide one image then you have one of two possibilities.
The image is a non-retina image. This will look fine on the non-retina. It will look identical on a retina device. But will look low quality next to a retina image.
The image is a retina image. On the retina device it will still load as a retina image. It will look fine. However, on the non-retina device it will have to scale down the image. This takes extra cycles of the CPU so could affect performance and it may not look how you want. It may shrink the image using a different method than you want and so may make the image look odd.
This is the same with or without a suffix.
The best solution is to create retina images and then use your editor of choice to create the standard versions. Nothing will stop you only providing one image but it may lead to a look and performance that you don't want.
On a side note. The size for downloading over cellular data was increased to 50MB.
Try these things using the simulator and find out for yourself.
I think the answer is that UIImage will ignore the #2x choice if you're relying on [UIImage imageNamed:#"without2xSuffix.png"] and not find anything, but I haven't tried it. Deliberately requesting the #2x file will work, but whether the image will be scaled, tiled, stretched or centered (or something else) is up to the place where it's used.
Note that the documentation says that unless you use the name without the #2x suffix and let iOS find the 2x version for you, it will set the scale of the image to 1.0 rather than 2.0, which complicates drawing. You'd have to load the image using imageWithData:scale: to fix this.
Related
I recently asked a question about why we use the 3 different image types listed above, and got good/detailed responses. It also lead me to question something else...
Assume I am working in XCode (with SWIFT) and have the three image sizes #1x, #2x, #3x for a particular say UIImage on an iPhone. Now, I want it to look nice on iPad, so I add some scaling. However, this will change the sizes of the 1x, 2x, 3x images I need for the iPad, so I need to make 3 more to compensate for that new size. Now how will XCode differentiate between the two? Do I need to check what size screen I am using and then choose the images?
I read that assets could help me, but that only deals with iPhone vs. iPad, what if I scale my images across iPhone 4, 5, 6 and iPad. That's a lot of different sizes and #x images, and I read Apple doesn't like device checking so I'm not sure how that would happen.
I hope this makes sense. I get the #1x, 2x, 3x per device, but if my app is being designed for universal device use, then how do I manage all of these different sizes in code for the proper device?
You really should use image asset catalog. It makes it almost too easy. Here is the definition Apple gives so you know it's not hearsay:
Image sets: Used for most types of images, an image set contains all the versions, or representations, of an image that are necessary to support various devices and scale factors.
And it goes on further:
Each set in an asset catalog has a name. You can use that name to programmatically load any individual image contained in the set. To load an image, call the platform specific class method, passing in the name of the set that contains the image. The OS will load the image from the set that is most appropriate for the current scale factor
So there really is not much for you to do. I don't know where you heard the opposite
See Documentation here
You need to check the size of the biggest image, if you are using an iPad figure out the size of the UIImageView frame. For instance if it is 400*400pts then your image will be 1200*1200. Just use a single image. I don't think you need to include the #2x and #1x. The 1200*1200 covers your bases for the largest possible image and scaling down will still have plenty of pixels left over for the full #3x resolution on other devices and so on. This is how I understand it anyway. I also wondered this myself and only found #1x #2x #3x useful for things that I didn't scale up as the screen size increased such as some buttons.
In my app I am using images of size 155*155pts so I am supplying it with an image of 310*310px resolution. I know that I can use image.png image#2x.png and image#3x.png and then [UIImage imageNamed: image] to select the image appropriate for the resolution. My question is do I really need to include a lower resolution version of size 155*155px, won't the UIImageView it's displayed in just scale it appropriately? A similar question for the iphone6+, if I don't include the #3x version will it just use the #2x and display it as clearly as a standard retina screen would?
Even though there are plenty of answers at SO discussing this topic
(Google them) e.g. How to handle image scale on all the available iPhone resolutions?
Its just a recommendation to to use scaled up images with #2x and #3x in your app. You don't have to create them. From my experience in making apps, in almost all of them I have never used multiple images. I create one UIImage and use it for all the phone sizes. I then either use auto layout or manually adjust the width height of UIImages myself.
There is a reason I do that is lets say one of your sample1.png image is 1MB then you will need to create 3 of them.
sample1.png
sample1#2x.png
sample1#3x.png
You just doubled or tripled your binary size which is bad for downloads. There always be users running non-retina devices and it would be shame to not support them. Can you only make retina enabled apps, of course you can and Apple will approve those as they will be testing your apps on the latest devices but the best approach is to support all devices.
It depends, if you only support non-retina devices you don´t have to add the normal image size anymore.
The scaling for the 6+ works with the #2x images but i guess you will see a quality difference
Silly question. But regarding images for iOS, I keep seeing the #2x identifier. Does that just mean the image is twice the size and therefore clearer as opposed to "#1x" image with the same dimensions? Or does the #2x actually mean something when compiling. What's the drawback to just using larger images and scaling them down inside xcode?
Clearly I don't understand something.
#2x is just the convention Apple chose for what image to use on a retina device vs a non-retina one—it has no meaning for compilation.
Using larger images and scaling them down doesn't look as good as using 1x images (you can try it yourself). Sometimes a designer might also e.g. remove details from a 1x image because at the lower resolution you can't make them out. Some things also don't scale down well, such as 1px lines. Scaling down images also adds overhead in I/O (opening a larger file) and at runtime (scaling algorithm).
Technically the #2x doesn't even need to be double the size of the 1x, though it's rare that you wouldn't want to do that (in one case for me, I was using resizable images and it was more convenient to have their cap-insets be exactly double even if the images themselves weren't).
If you have an app that works fine on non retina devices, and then you deploy it on a retina device, without providing the requisite #2x images, what side effects could occur?
high memory usage? crashing of the application?
No, the events you mentioned will not occur. However, obviously your images will look terrible as they will not scale properly (therefore they will be pixelated and incorrect sizes etc.).
There isn't any point in not using retina images - all you have to do is add #2x to the images and double the image size, and they will scale correctly for both non-retina and retina display.
If you do not include #2x images, then the device will automatically stretch the image on a retina device to take up the same room (enlarge the image).
The scaling method that UIKit uses does not do any interpolation. Instead, it merely doubles the size of every pixel ("nearest neighbor" scaling). For images of squares with hard edges, that works fine. However, for photos or most artwork, the image ends up looking very pixelated (has artifacts).
Scaling the images up on a retina device is not performance intensive because of the simple scaling method that is employed. It is not likely to affect performance, only image quality.
If you include only high resolution images, they are not automatically scaled down for the non-retina device. Instead, for an UIImageView, for instance, you would set the view mode to Scale to Fill, so that the image scales down to fit the frame. However, again, UIKit uses the nearest neighbor, but when scaling down, artifacts are less noticeable.
The newer, retina devices are more performant, so they are able to handle high resolution images at the same speed as non-retina devices can handle the low resolution images, and scaling images up is trivial for them. However, older non-retina devices will simply be slower with high-resolution images which require more memory and more graphics power, especially since it has to scale them down as well.
This is very noticeable if you have high resolution images in a UITableView. Your retina device will scroll the table very smoothly, whereas you will notice some jitter on the non-retina device. It will not crash, it just won't be smooth. If the user experience is too bad, your app could be rejected. For static, non-moving images, there is unlikely to be much noticeable performance difference.
If you have room in your bundle, you should include both retina and non-retina images. Even if you simply double the image size in a nice photo editor like Photoshop to create your #2x images, the images will be of much nicer quality than what UIKit produces.
Remember that if your zipped app bundle is over 50 MB, it can only be downloaded via WiFi from the App Store. PNGs and JPEGs do not compress much since they are already compressed. That is one reason why you might choose to only include high resolution images (to keep the size of your app bundle down, especially for a universal app, where you might end up having 4 sets of images).
Of course you can provide only retina or even only non-retina images.
We did some testing on this matter a few month ago.
Only non-retina images resulted - as expected - in poor graphics. Even an non-trained eye could notice the blurrines.
Only retina images: it works. But memory footprint is bigger (for non-retina devices that would otherwise load non-retina images) and some lag could be noticed. Though we had to measure it to be sure.
To answer your question: zenith provided the answer. If you only provide non-retina images the graphics on retina devices will be blurry, but no low-memory condition could emerge because of this.
EDIT:
Unless you are doing some kind of research on graphics capabilities of different iOS devices i'd strongly suggest to provide both types of images: retina and non-retina.
If your designer is giving you hard time because of this you can do few things:
get a new designer
provide him some kind of tool to make his job easier: Unretiner for example
This has been bugging me for a while. I don't understand why one should include low-res images. If a 3GS, for example, can't find the low-res image, it just uses the #2x version anyway and displays it at it's native resolution. So why add to the filesize of your app by including all the half-res images?
Halley had it right. The system does not automatically downsample #2x images to non-retina size, and it shouldn't. The 3Gs does not have enough memory to load retina images. It will likely choke your app and cause it to exit with an out of memory error.
The problem gets even worse with the iPad 1. The iPad 1 has very low memory relative to it's screen size, and if you tried to make it load retina sized images, it would choke and die very quickly.
To scale an image the system has to load it at full size and do a complex scaling operation each time it draws it. It's the worst of all possible worlds - slower, 4x as much memory, and the images don't look as good.
In most cases, you can make an icon look better when created at the low-res resolution, instead of having the system scale it. If you don't care too much about how your icons look when scaled, then using the #2x version only is probably fine.
The other posters mentioned some excellent points, but here's one more for posterity: as mentioned several times in http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#DOCUMENTATION/UserExperience/Conceptual/MobileHIG/IconsImages/IconsImages.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40006556-CH14-SW1, a 2x image may be more detailed. In other words, the low-res image isn't simply a scaled-down version of the 2x image; the 2x image may contain details not present in the smaller image.
#2x filenames are intended for Retina Display enabled devices.
If you intend to use them for display on the iPhone 3GS make sure to properly test that they look as acceptable as the low-res image Apple wants you to use.
The reason being, is when images are scaled up if there is no #2x available, they can become pixelated and blurry, so you would prob think that making the original image twice as big would solve the problem.
But no, because the retina devices would still scale it up (in my experience) and non retina devices would display the image incorrectly.
It's got a lot to do with the quality standards Apple wants for the Apps on their app store