Anyone noticed how low the resolution of the screen is?

[killmoms]

logic
he has a pda with 640x480 res
+Jobs say highest res
= guessing of iphone with res higher than 640x480, which is next? 800x600 or 1024x768!
hehe, actually quite reasonable.

Not really, since 160ppi is already quite dense. What's the point of more density? At 160ppi you already start to lose "pixel" sense at normal viewing distances, allowing for a very smooth look. Anything higher is just more stress on whatever graphics chip they have in there, which = more power consumption.

I'd say the interface is plenty high res for how small the screen is.

 

[slffl]

That resolution is awesome for a PDA/smartphone/ipod. For the love of god don't buy it if you don't like it. Apple is NOT reading forums to get ideas on how to design their products.

 

[mkrishnan]

At 160ppi you already start to lose "pixel" sense at normal viewing distances, allowing for a very smooth look.

Is this physiological psychology or "off the cuff?" I'm not so sure that's particularly true, at all. 150DPI and 300DPI are notably different on paper. Why is a screen any different?

 

[whooleytoo]

Apple is NOT reading forums to get ideas on how to design their products.

Damn straight! Apple only reads forums to find out who they can sue for breach of NDA's and the like...

 

[whooleytoo]

Is this physiological psychology or "off the cuff?" I'm not so sure that's particularly true, at all. 150DPI and 300DPI are notably different on paper. Why is a screen any different?

I'm not sure why either, but it's certainly true. Print pixel densities have (almost) always been far higher than screen densities.

 

[clevin]

Not really, since 160ppi is already quite dense. What's the point of more density? At 160ppi you already start to lose "pixel" sense at normal viewing distances, allowing for a very smooth look. Anything higher is just more stress on whatever graphics chip they have in there, which = more power consumption.

I'd say the interface is plenty high res for how small the screen is.

i have no problem with that. i was just answering a simply question about why Jobs claimed iPhone to have highest res, not a question about if 160ppi is enough, lol, is it enough? sure, at least i think so.

 

[killmoms]

Is this physiological psychology or "off the cuff?" I'm not so sure that's particularly true, at all. 150DPI and 300DPI are notably different on paper. Why is a screen any different?

I'd say 150 is different than 300 on paper. I'd ALSO say that for things like photographs, 150 is "good enough." Where 72dpi printed is "intolerable," 160 is more than double that, and a good deal more dense than one's typical computer LCD display. Even holding a recent iPod a comfortable 18 -24 inches from my face the text looks smooth and nice. Sure, it's not 300dpi, but 160 is definitely quite smooth for a display device.

i have no problem with that. i was just answering a simply question about why Jobs claimed iPhone to have highest res, not a question about if 160ppi is enough, lol, is it enough? sure, at least i think so.

Because he's talking about his own products.

 

[SimonTheSoundMa]

But print is LPI, not DPI.

With movies and video on iTunes now 640x480, it would have made sense.

 

[mkrishnan]

But print is LPI, not DPI.

Is there some subtlety here I'm missing? Beyond being technical (and technically wrong, anyway... everyone uses DPI in the print literature), what do you mean?

 

[evoluzione]

But print is LPI, not DPI.

on a press yeah, not on an inkjet or anything.