iPod touch iPod touch and iPhone different size screens?

the screens look the same size (tech specs say 3.5" for each) but on the website the iPod touch looks like a smaller unit than the iPhone (and the tech specs confirm this). i'm not sure if that answers specifically what you're asking, though.

this isnt answering your questions i dont think but im wondering why on the new iPod touch did they leave all that blank room at the top of the iPod? they could have made the screen bigger.

Size vs. Size

pianoman said:

the screens look the same size (tech specs say 3.5" for each) but on the website the iPod touch looks like a smaller unit than the iPhone (and the tech specs confirm this). i'm not sure if that answers specifically what you're asking, though.

Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken they are made by different contractors in China which probably accounts for the VERY slight difference in dimensions and screen pixel count, etc. Otherwise I don't know why that would be.

Yes, I think characters looks a little bit smaller (1%) on the iPod's screen.

Same screen size, just more pixels in the exact same measured area. That means the picture will be a little sharper. 3 pixels sharper since the iPhone is 160 pixels per inch, while the iPod touch is 163 pixels.

CLuv said:

Same screen size, just more pixels in the exact same measured area. That means the picture will be a little sharper. 3 pixels sharper since the iPhone is 160 pixels per inch, while the iPod touch is 163 pixels.

Click to expand...

The number of pixels is listed as identical. This would mean your reply is not correct.

yes, they are both 480 x 320, but manufacturers have been known at times when it comes to displays to use dpi interchangeable with pixels per inch. But the physical size of the screen is still 3.5, it's very clear and simple in regards to it's specs. So if you read it you'll see 160 dpi and 163 pixels per inch, that is a difference, but there is no difference in the diagonal measurement of the screen itself.

Diagonal viewing area which is 3.5 on each, that's a match.

480 x 320 pixel resolution that's 480 lines horizontal by 320 lines horizontal, that's a match.

160 dpi (interchangeable for some screen manufacturers with ppi) compared to 163 ppi, not a match, but that does not affect the size of the screen. That means in one square inch area on the iPhone there are 160 pixels, in the iPod touch there are 163 pixels in the same one square inch area. That translates into a sharper image on the iPod touch.

So technically speaking my statement is correct. That would be like saying a 32" Widescreen Non-HD TV is a smaller screen then a 32" Widescreen HD set. The HD set will have more pixels and more lines of resolution, but the diagonal viewing area is still the same.

CLuv said:

yes, they are both 480 x 320, but manufacturers have been known at times when it comes to displays to use dpi interchangeable with pixels per inch. But the physical size of the screen is still 3.5, it's very clear and simple in regards to it's specs. So if you read it you'll see 160 dpi and 163 pixels per inch, that is a difference, but there is no difference in the diagonal measurement of the screen itself.

Diagonal viewing area which is 3.5 on each, that's a match.

480 x 320 pixel resolution that's 480 lines horizontal by 320 lines horizontal, that's a match.

160 dpi (interchangeable for some screen manufacturers with ppi) compared to 163 ppi, not a match, but that does not affect the size of the screen. That means in one square inch area on the iPhone there are 160 pixels, in the iPod touch there are 163 pixels in the same one square inch area. That translates into a sharper image on the iPod touch.

Click to expand...

except that 480x320 is a fixed number of pixels no matter how you look at it. They cannot both have the same number of pixels in the same size of screen and yet differing ppi counts.

Unless you've found some new way to redefine integral mathematics.

so are they absolutely identical or not?

480 x 320 is not the number of pixels it is the number of vertical and horizontal lines. If you've seen an HD TV for example if it's labeled 1080 that is 1080 horizontal lines, a standard non-hd TV has 525 horizontal lines. Manufacturers only display the horizontal since the image is painted from top to bottom horizontally, not vertically. Your laptop might be 1280 x 800, that is 1280 vertical lines by 800 horizontal lines. If you had only 800 pixels for your whole screen the image would look horrible. There are thousands of pixels that span just one of the 1280 vertical lines, and thousands that span just one of the 800 horizontal lines.

Here's a link with a definition, and you'll see nowhere pixel count mentioned, since this does not measure the number of pixels.

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=lines+of+resolution&i=46138,00.asp

Yes, the viewing area is exactly the same.

gloss said:

except that 480x320 is a fixed number of pixels no matter how you look at it. They cannot both have the same number of pixels in the same size of screen and yet differing ppi counts.

Unless you've found some new way to redefine integral mathematics.

Click to expand...

Yeah, CLuv isn't making sense to me here, either, and I'm not stupid (grad student in physical sciences).

One thing we haven't considered is that it's a type-o on Apple's part.

Height and width of iPod Touch is 110x61.8 mm while that of the iPhone is 115x61 mm ... That doesn't really help, though, since the iPhone is taller, but thinner, so it probably has more to do with the case than the screen.


Edit: I wrote this before CLuv posted his clarification. However, my last two points are possibly still relavent.

here's information on ppi to help clarify

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=ppi&i=49602,00.asp

A 3.5" screen cannot change size of the viewing area, even if one manufacturer makes a finer, more precise screen that has a greater number of pixels in the same defined area. This area is know as ppi or dpi. Think of computer monitors that show 23 dpi or 20 dpi, but they are both 21" monitors. One screen can fit more pixels in the same area, therefore the 23 dpi will have a sharper picture then a 20 dpi monitor. The physical viewing on both is 21" even though one has more dpi/ppi.

It's not, it's just the number of lines that run from one side of the screen to the other side of the screen in a horizontal and vertical measurement. There are pixels that make up the line, and if you measured a one inch area on your screen, in that area there would be 160 or 163 pixels, depending on how small each pixel is that makes up that area.

CLuv said:

here's information on ppi to help clarify

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=ppi&i=49602,00.asp

A 3.5" screen cannot change size of the viewing area, even if one manufacturer makes a finer, more precise screen that has a greater number of pixels in the same defined area. This area is know as ppi or dpi. Think of computer monitors that show 23 dpi or 20 dpi, but they are both 21" monitors. One screen can fit more pixels in the same area, therefore the 23 dpi will have a sharper picture then a 20 dpi monitor. The physical viewing on both is 21" even though one has more dpi/ppi.

It's not, it's just the number of lines that run from one side of the screen to the other side of the screen in a horizontal and vertical measurement. There are pixels that make up the line, and if you measured a one inch area on your screen, in that area there would be 160 or 163 pixels, depending on how small each pixel is that makes up that area.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I get it now.

I'm glad that helped, I'm not trying to sound short. I initially tried to relate it to when I was in the high-end audio field. When it comes to TV's, manufacturers general only talk about the horizontal lines, since your TV "paints" the image horizontally from top to bottom. Now most HD manufacturers will say they are 1024 x 768, and then some will in their detailed spec sheets say their dpi/ppi to the sales reps to show that hey our set is better then our competitor since we can fit in 100,000 pixels in an inch while they can only 75,000 pixels in an inch.

Correct, the manufacturer of the iPod touch screen has made a better screen that can fit more pixels in the same sized viewing area. That means each pixel is smaller then their last version (assuming it's the same manufacturer of the iPhone's screen) and since each pixel is smaller/finer, that means it will translate into a sharper image on the same sized screen.

From a manufacturing point of view, it makes sense to keep the screen the same size, as now they don't have to make different screens for the iPhone or iPod Touch.

Another take

The two are very misleading. DPI is usually used when measuring the dots per inch a printer can print at. While pixels per inch is used in screens, so while CLuv is actually right manufactures interchange the two(thus confusing the hell out of the customer) they're really the same thing.

So I'm thinking it's actually a typo because regardless the screen is still the same size, and it's even the same resolution.

Almost correct:

There are more pixels in the iPod then the iPhone.

In a sense yes 480 x 320 just proportions if that simplifies it, but not the number of pixels.

It's not considered 3x2 though, since it's a widescreen the ratio is 16:9. Relating it to a widescreen TV and a standard box TV. A widescreen's ratio is 16:9, while a standard TV (box) is 4:3. That's why a widescreen has a longer display.

Think of the diagonal as making a triangle. The length of the x to the y is a ratio of 16:9 in a widescreen TV, while on a standard boxed TV the length of the x to the y is a ration of 4:3. That's getting technical, but that's how it's defined in regards to viewing areas.

Mrjynx, that is correct. Since one is labeled 160 dpi and the other 163 ppi, it leads me to believe it is a different manufacturer for the iPod touch's LCD screen. It also confuses the hell out of consumers to see dpi and then ppi on displays, since they are used as one in the same. You are also correct that dpi is truly supposed to be used for printer's in regards as to how many dots are made per inch. So some display manufacturers have said dots sounds easier to understand then pixels, since a pixel in theory is a dot. So to "dumb" it down, some decide to use dpi instead of the true accepted terminology of ppi.