The resolution of the new iPhone

Seems logical and 720p certainly makes transferring movies easier

Sounds like a possibility. Although I'm not sold on the tall, narrow screen at this point.

Vege-Taco said:

Sounds like a possibility. Although I'm not sold on the tall, narrow screen at this point.

Click to expand...

Yea, I do not understand how Tim Cook could make the comment about increasing secrecy to stop leaks, and we could have this massive of a leak so early in comparison to the new phones launch (with my luck, I am sure it won't be until October again). Most of the other phones we only saw parts. I don't recall seeing anything resembling the iPhone 4 until it was left in the bar right? (I am sorry if I am wrong, I am sure someone will post it)

Why does it feel like there are so many more leaks than normal with the supposed increase in secrecy? I do not like the taller phone, so my hope is that apple is using an old prototype or something as a distraction. That really seems to be the only hope for those who want a taller and wider iPhone.

EDIT: Also, when I was waiting on the iPhone 3G, the rumors about the design were very close to WWDC that year. Or at least WAY closer than the leaks for this phone are to their announcement.

Want300 said:

Yea, I do not understand how Tim Cook could make the comment about increasing secrecy to stop leaks, and we could have this massive of a leak so early in comparison to the new phones launch (with my luck, I am sure it won't be until October again). Most of the other phones we only saw parts. I don't recall seeing anything resembling the iPhone 4 until it was left in the bar right? (I am sorry if I am wrong, I am sure someone will post it)

Why does it feel like there are so many more leaks than normal with the supposed increase in secrecy? I do not like the taller phone, so my hope is that apple is using an old prototype or something as a distraction. That really seems to be the only hope for those who want a taller and wider iPhone.

EDIT: Also, when I was waiting on the iPhone 3G, the rumors about the design were very close to WWDC that year. Or at least WAY closer than the leaks for this phone are to their announcement.

Click to expand...

it may feel like more leaks...but it's about the same as always. Last year, iPhone 4S' antennae band leaked in January.

I think they'll settle with this unusual resolution. I think Apple is doing it wrong (if the rumours turn out to be correct). They just give us a bigger display because customers want them - and that's it. They didn't ask themselves "Why must we give the iPhone a bigger display?" - and in my opinion there are two reasons:

1) So everything (text, images) becomes bigger (in other words, just increasing the screen diagonal).
2) To see more content (adding extra pixels like they are rumoured to do).

It should be a combination of both.

Also, it appears that they settle with this unusual resolution so apps don't get screwed up too much. However, they are breaking the aspect ratio anyway... and I'd argue that if you break something, at least break it right.

A comparison. Let's say you're a thief. You know you're only going to do it once (at least for the coming years). Than what do you do? Are you going to steal some candy? Or are you going to organise the biggest robbery - without injuring anyone - mankind has ever seen?

Apple has gone resolution crazy this year.

If that trend continues we should get a 720P display easily.

isn't retina screen on the iphone 4 is 720p? Sure looks HD to me...

gta50419 said:

isn't retina screen on the iphone 4 is 720p? Sure looks HD to me...

Click to expand...

With a 16:9 ratio the resolution is 1280 × 720, or 921,600 pixels.

iPhone Retina is 3:2 at 960 x 640 or 614,400 pixels.

The question being does 720P make sense on a 4" display. Maybe not, so 1136 x 640 might make a lot more sense if Apple goes with that size.

3:2

4" iPhone and a bigger iPod Touch:

Apple can't lower the pixel density on its next iPhone (and iPod Touch) under 300 ppi, being their defined retina-class display pixel density for pocket devices' screens. They also won't make a phone much more bigger, especially in width. Though, the iPhone screen is never wide enough.

While the Tablet category probably allows any aspect ratio, the Pocket category of devices has more constraints.

I don't (want to) believe in the 16:9 iPhone rumors; I prefer the 3:2 screen aspect ratio for pocketable devices. It is said iOS could be able to accept height increase in resolution, as it is already asked for devs to support notifications bar events. Ok, but once held in landscape mode, the added pixels would be in width; what would then happen to apps? Anyway, i just like better the actual 3:2 aspect ratio.

For a usable screen a minimum size is imposed for obvious reasons (eyes capacity, average finger size / minimum touch area size),
If both portrait and landscape mode are targeted in usage, with constraints of hand morphology and to fit a pocket, you can't make it too large, but as you still need surface to display information, one end up with 3:2 – 8:5 as maybe the right aspect ratio range for pocket-class devices.
And for example, 16:9 (and over) aspect ratios are too elongated for thumb-usage only, out of a reasonable size of screens, and almost prevent from landscape mode usage if the screen is too small (well, of course, you can always find a way to still use it in landscape, but you need enough pixels, so increase size, and that's probably part of the reason of higher screen dimensions in the 16:9 Android world, coupled with often smaller pixel density).
And a 4:3 aspect ratio imply rapidly losing too much in height to keep it not too wide.

So let's consider they will stay with a 3:2 aspect ratio, having proved to be working fine from the start, and ensuring a better compatibility with existing apps.

How could Apple deal with the increase in size of the iPhone's screen while still support its apps catalog? Pixel doubling again would be overkill and technically, about doubling pixel density of screens is probably not feasible at low cost, or at all. But how about simply tripling the original iPhone resolution (i.e. 1.5x the retina iPhone screen)?

Once screens attain a pixel density in the retina range, the blur caused by a 1.5x increase become less perceptible, as Apple showed us with the retina MacBook Pro used at the non-native 1920x1200 resolution.

LG demonstrated recently its ability to produce 440 ppi screens, achieving to attain the limits of eyes capacity to distinguish pixels for people with perfect vision.

At 1440x960 (1.5x the iPhone retina display resolution), the 440 ppi screen reach 3.93" in diagonal, with an increase of less than 6 mm in width compared to the actual iPhone screen size (and the whole device would simply go back to the width of the 3GS), and a screen surface increase of more than 23%.

And then, you also have the iPod Touch to take in consideration: at this resolution, a screen at a pixel density between 440 and 326 ppi would allow to make a pocketable but bigger iPod (5.3" at 326 ppi), with still app compatibility (usage wouldn't suffer much from the expansion compared to apps running on the iPhone 4"). [more on this in the picture description]

And ultimately, once 480x320 support dropped (say 2 years from now, considering the 3GS will probably not be sold anymore after next iPhone refresh this autumn), the resolution would have to be seen as 2x 720x480 (and to support the then old 4/4S/Touch resolution, could be rendered at 2/3 until their turn to be unsupported)

Any adjustment in the iPhone or the iPod Touch size after that, if necessary, would be possible in the future by 'simply' adjusting pixel density of screens and leaving unchanged the resolution, with no real visual difference/adaptation for users/devs.

Technarchy said:

With a 16:9 ratio the resolution is 1280 × 720, or 921,600 pixels.

iPhone Retina is 3:2 at 960 x 640 or 614,400 pixels...

Click to expand...

Also add to that when playing a 1.78:1 video on the iPhone's 1.5:1 screen it will be 960x540 or 518,400 pixels. That brings it down to just a little more than 1/2 the minimum number of pixels for HD.

You guys really watch 2h movies on a regular basis on a phone and expect [full] HD support?
Do you really think this use case is determinant for Apple's choice in its phone screen, especially its aspect ratio?
I think the only minimal target they could have about video would be to at least be able to play decently, if not at 1:1, videos taken with the iPhone (actually 1920x1080, and played nicely at 50% as it is already, or at 75% would be pretty good on the 440 ppi previous example).

I am hoping that these leaks are something they were thinking about, and scrapped. Im hoping we'll just see something completely different and way better when its finally announced. And I do want that bigger screen, but not in the taller way.

What if it turns out that these 'leaks' are being fabricated by Android and Samsung in an effort to discourage people from waiting for the new iphone and instead jump ship to their phones with the bigger displays?

I wish Apple would just release a statement saying that all of these 'leaks' are complete BS to alleviate me fears that the tall, narrow iphone is not true.

SwingOnThis said:

What if it turns out that these 'leaks' are being fabricated by Android and Samsung in an effort to discourage people from waiting for the new iphone and instead jump ship to their phones with the bigger displays?

I wish Apple would just release a statement saying that all of these 'leaks' are complete BS to alleviate me fears that the tall, narrow iphone is not true.

Click to expand...

As much as I don't want just a taller iPhone ( I want a wider one as well), these leaks are 100% most likely true. However, if they weren't, Apple certainly wouldn't say anything; they wouldn't want competitors to know they were fakes as Apple may have sent out decoys (I wish, but again, not likely).

chleuasme said:

You guys really watch 2h movies on a regular basis on a phone and expect [full] HD support?
Do you really think this use case is determinant for Apple's choice in its phone screen, especially its aspect ratio?
I think the only minimal target they could have about video would be to at least be able to play decently, if not at 1:1, videos taken with the iPhone (actually 1920x1080, and played nicely at 50% as it is already, or at 75% would be pretty good on the 440 ppi previous example).

Click to expand...

I think it would be a mistake for Apple to listen to myopic customers that think iPhones exist to purely watch movies.

The simple route and probably the most sensible would be a 1024x768 resolution, which is the same as the iPad2 on a 4" display. That's 320 PPi as well.

Technarchy said:

The simple route and probably the most sensible would be a 1024x768 resolution, which is the same as the iPad2 on a 4" display. That's 320 PPi as well.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

A phone, as Apple seems to see it, has to be a reasonably sized device, on every aspect: size and aspect ratio.

The 4:3 aspect ratio has too much trade-offs for a pocket-size device. Too wide when too large, or too short vertically when kept in reasonable width dimensions.
And a too wide device is harder to use one-handed with the thumb.
And what to do with existing iPhone apps? letterbox would work but would not be a really elegant solution (and of course, in case that's your thought, iPad apps on a 4" 4:3 screen wouldn't be usable, rendered on such a small screen).

As I said earlier, in my opinion, the 3:2 - 8:5 range is probably the best aspect ratio for the pocket-size devices: not too elongated for thumb to reach any area (of course with a reasonable screen size), and wide enough to display enough informations, even once in landscape, at small size.
And I doubt the aspect ratio will ever change on the iPhone.

Technarchy said:

...The simple route and probably the most sensible would be a 1024x768 resolution, which is the same as the iPad2 on a 4" display. That's 320 PPi as well.

Click to expand...

....but that is 1.33:1. You want a 1.33 4" iPhone? This is of course not likely. I don't think Apple's primary reason to (maybe) going 1.78:1 is for movie watching but to keep the current "hold in hand" width while making a larger screen. As a side benefit 1.78 is more excepting than 1.5 (most want "widescreen") and works for video.

Julien said:

....but that is 1.33:1. You want a 1.33 4" iPhone? This is of course not likely. I don't think Apple's primary reason to (maybe) going 1.78:1 is for movie watching but to keep the current "hold in hand" width while making a larger screen. As a side benefit 1.78 is more excepting than 1.5 (most want "widescreen") and works for video.

Click to expand...

Let me clarify. 4:3 is not the most desirable form factor for a phone. From a development logistical perspective it makes sense considering the shape and easy scalability to the iPad, but the user experience would suffer from a too square too wide design.

3:2 is what Apple should stick with, but Apple can't just double the resolution like the iPad and iPhone 4/4S, so I am very curious about what will happen with iPhone "5".

ANYTHING but a taller iPhone. If they left the screen size the same as the current iPhone 4S I wouldn't personally mind it. A taller iPhone is just wrong...

Technarchy said:

Let me clarify. 4:3 is not the most desirable form factor for a phone. From a development logistical perspective it makes sense considering the shape and easy scalability to the iPad, but the user experience would suffer from a too square too wide design.

3:2 is what Apple should stick with, but Apple can't just double the resolution like the iPad and iPhone 4/4S, so I am very curious about what will happen with iPhone "5".

Click to expand...

Man, what's with you backwards thinking users? No insult intended just curious? I'll bet you don't like widescreen LCD's for PC/OSX use as well right? Or maybe you're just one of the few laggards that waited so long before transitioning over (and maybe you also where happy that VGA still exists)?!??

Sorry I think a 16:9 ratio is just fine, especially for a portable handheld device that can change orientation from portrait to landscape mode for data entry & manipulation, not just data output to the end users.

rudychidiac said:

ANYTHING but a taller iPhone. If they left the screen size the same as the current iPhone 4S I wouldn't personally mind it. A taller iPhone is just wrong...

Click to expand...

Take a look at a comparison photo of the IP4S & BlackBerry Dev 10 Alpha device ... very similar in hardware width & thickness yet height varies to accomodate a 4" screen which actually looks quite balanced. Yes RIM has no clue what their doing with the company and everything seems to be a knee-jerk reaction but this hardware is not too shabby for screen ratio, resolution (720P) and size in how it fits in the hand from what I can see over the net.

Prom1 said:

Man, what's with you backwards thinking users? No insult intended just curious? I'll bet you don't like widescreen LCD's for PC/OSX use as well right? Or maybe you're just one of the few laggards that waited so long before transitioning over (and maybe you also where happy that VGA still exists)?!??

Sorry I think a 16:9 ratio is just fine, especially for a portable handheld device that can change orientation from portrait to landscape mode for data entry & manipulation, not just data output to the end users.

Click to expand...

You haven't thought this through.

A 4" 16:9 display actually gives you less image area to display content compared to 3:2.

On a small screen you want MORE content display, not less.

Even on tablets, the iPad 4:3 screen seems huge compared to typical android tablets despite both having the same diagonal length typically.

On a 55" screen or in a movie theater this is a non-issue. The reason the iPhone is 3:2 is to make it easier to hold in the hand compared to 4:3.

If this doesn't make sense:

4″ screen with…

3:2 3.33"x2.22 with a total area of 7.38" squared
4:3, 3.2″x2.4″ with a total area of 7.69″ squared
16:10, 3.39″x2.12″ with a total area of 7.19″ squared
16:9, 3.49″x1.96″ with a total area of 6.83″ squared

Technarchy said:

You haven't thought this through.

A 4" 16:9 display actually gives you less image area to display content compared to 3:2.

On a small screen you want MORE content display, not less.

Even on tablets, the iPad 4:3 screen seems huge compared to typical android tablets despite both having the same diagonal length typically.

On a 55" screen or in a movie theater this is a non-issue. The reason the iPhone is 3:2 is to make it easier to hold in the hand compared to 4:3.

If this doesn't make sense:

4″ screen with…

3:2 3.33"x2.22 with a total area of 7.38" squared
4:3, 3.2″x2.4″ with a total area of 7.69″ squared
16:10, 3.39″x2.12″ with a total area of 7.19″ squared
16:9, 3.49″x1.96″ with a total area of 6.83″ squared

Image

Click to expand...

I guess I haven't thought it through.

But isn't the math above ONLY by physical size ... not the density of the pixels displayed which could vary even with the physical measurements above? Smaller pixels usually means a clearer view ... not necessarily smaller icons, yet possibly more data displayed.

Prom1 said:

I guess I haven't thought it through.

But isn't the math above ONLY by physical size ... not the density of the pixels displayed which could vary even with the physical measurements above? Smaller pixels usually means a clearer view ... not necessarily smaller icons, yet possibly more data displayed.

Click to expand...

Pixel density is just the relationship between resolution and screen size.

It's gotten to be a non-issue because all flagship android phones are 1280x720 (720P), which even on the GS3's very large 4.8" screen gives you 300+ ppi.

Even Windows Phone will go 720P in the fall.

What's more important for Apple at this point is display technology which plays a big role in color vibrancy and brightness.

If the next iPhone is really 1136x640 at 4" the ppi should 326.

The following is just my opinion, and pure speculation. I'm an outsider to the industry, learning as I go, so keep that in mind. Just my thoughts.

I agree with chleausme here that the 3:2 ratio is ideal and the one they will likely stick with. I can't see them going to an elongated phone, and I think the mockups seen so far are either decoys or just fakes. I'd have a hard time believing that after 2 yrs with the iPhone 4 on the market that Apple would just release an elongated version that otherwise looks the same. Some of these mockups look like they were made in someone's garage. And Apple would have cracked down on any leaks and we would be hearing stories of arrests by now.

The iPhone 4/4s is really too small, making it challenging for people with adult size fingers and thumbs to use, and becoming a bit too crowded with everything that is going on. I think it's a safe assumption that the screen will increase in size...length and width. The area around the screen can be smaller to minimize overall size increase of the phone.

Regarding resolution, seeing as how Apple will be keeping the iPhone 5 on the market for a good 2 yrs based on recent history, they are thinking ahead. I'd imagine they would want to jump to a minimum 1080p resolution. The easiest way to do that and maintain 3:2 ratio in a phone that isn't too big is to use the 440ppi screen, giving a resolution of 1620x1080 and a screen size of 3.68x2.45. The big problem of course would be the scaling, which would basically need a total redo. I'd bet that Apple held off on the iPhone 5 for this reason or until they could make the next step...screens reaching pixel density to allow a doubling to 1920x1280. Even at 440ppi the screen size jump would be more than what Apple would like to see, so they need a "Super" retina display of close to 500ppi for this to work.

As far as screen thickness, I've seen a lot about how the in-cell technology has allowed them to thin the screen a bit. I'm hopeful that this will allow them to integrate a tactile keyboard like the one made by Tactus technology. I don't know if it is ready for prime-time, but it would make a nice addition.