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).
Related
I have three characters and one background for an iOS game. I'm using Photoshop to develop these assets. Do I need to develop all the characters and background in #3x and then use the option in Photoshop to make the same image #2x? What would the PPI for each asset be?
If you have only #3x images, iOS will have to resize to fit.
Two possible downsides are, (1) it definitely takes time, (2) image quality may not be what you want. Advantage is that the app bundle size may be smaller.
Now, these downsides above are clearly app dependent (image size, etc.). You can examine with the real device and see how it works.
But usually, we don't have many kinds of real devices. So to have both #3x and #2x is the safe bet. See other comments here and Apple's guidline here. Screen resolution is found at this Apples doc.
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.
I have an image that is used in multiple places within my IOS app at various sizes. Should I be using one large image in conjunction with UIViewContentModeScaleAspectFit to scale it (currently this approach seems to cause distortion on the smaller images despite being scaled to proportionate sizes) or should I have multiple versions of the image at different sizes.
It seems a little extreme to have so many copies of one image e.g. my_image_ipad, my_image_small, my_image_large, my_image_medium.
In general it depends on what it takes to get the look and quality you want. Some images will scale from a large image to a small image with little or no visual loss in quality. Others, as you've found, scale poorly, especially at extreme scales. You're really going to have to just try various solutions and see what works. One way you can almost always cut down on application size is to remove the non-#2x artwork and ship with just the #2x.
It is better to use one image, because it will make your app "lighter", but this may cause your code to become bigger.
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.
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