iPhone 5S Display Rumored to Carry Twice as Many Pixels as iPhone 5

[11thIndian]

While this rumour doesn't make much sense on it's own. If Apple is planning on expanding the iPhone brand to larger sizes, it will make sense to have a higher screen resolution available to maintain a sufficient pixel density. With Apple having ended sales of the the last non-Retina iPhone [3GS] in 2011. I wonder if the plan will be for future version of iOS to eliminate the original resolution and make the current iPhone resolution the "lower resolution", and introduce the second higher resolution suggested above for larger-screen devices.

 

[SlickYagami]

The iPhone 5 is already retina at a typical viewing distance. Going double retina actually gives zero noticeable improvement and only makes things harder for app developers and phone hardware requirements.

So my opinion is this rumour is just that. Not likely to come true.

Yep, yep. Unless if it were by some odd chance that we would see a larger iPhone be introduced at this WWDC. (shrug)

 

[nick_elt]

If "retina" as it is now is supposed to present pixels packed so closely the human eye can't see a difference, why is super-retina desirable? In other words, if about 150-300 ppi is at the limit of what human eyes could discern, why is "more than that" desirable?

If there was any truth to this rumor, it seems it would be the old Mhz, Ghz game of "who has the biggest number?" (or megapixel wars all over again). Or, it might mean that a bigger screen (height & width) might be coming, but I would think Apple would choose to target one of the iPad resolutions rather than add yet another resolution target somewhere in between. If Apple could fit one of the iPad resolutions into a new phone, you get "retina" and a huge number of apps already ready to go.

If there is anything to this, I would guess the latter. But I have great doubts about this one.

NEWSFLASH

"Retina" is just a made up marketing word for Apple

 

[GunZi]

Leaked pic or it wont happen!

 

[Vulcan]

I was always under the impression that resolutions with higher PPI above "Retina" would be unnoticeable. Is this not correct?

 

[subsonix]

NEWSFLASH

"Retina" is just a made up marketing word for Apple

Yes, but it's a marketing word there is a definition for. All words are made up.

 

[dagamer34]

It's a terrible idea. You cut effective GPU performance in half, extra burden on the CPU to decode 4x larger images, increased space used by images, increased power used from the display backlight and all for a benefit that is basically chasing a spec war. If Apple said that the retina display looked good enough 3 years ago to where you "couldn't see the pixels at a normal distance", you have to ask yourself what would justify adding more.

And as a developer, creating assets that high resolution would be an absolute pain in the ass.

Maybe it'll be true, but I really wish it wasn't. The hardware on the iPhone is fine. The software is what needs major work.

 

[ravenvii]

Maybe the bezels are smaller because the display is bigger, hence the double pixels?

I know, I know, but one can dream

 

[nick_elt]

I don't think I'm alone when I say that I'd rather have a larger display(doesn't have to be a phablet), than a higher PPI display in the same package.

i would rather a larger screen (wont go back until its larger) but why not keep up with the competition? doesnt hurt now does it.

 

[albusseverus]

First sensible rumour, i.e. isn't just guesswork, based on previous iPhone developments.

More pixels!

It's pretty clear Apple has to do something about iPhone's display. WIDELY under-reported in the Apple fan-bot universe, is how impressive the displays on competitor's latest phones were at MWC this year. Only the world mac journos ventured to ^truth^ that the iPhone screen hurt their eyes after viewing the new crop of competitors' phones.

I wouldn't be too disappointed if Apple had to increase the screen size to achieve this, either.

 

[Technodynamic]

what's the point?

This will put unneeded stress on the GPU and battery life... for what?

 

[nick_elt]

Yes, but it's a marketing word there is a definition for. All words are made up.

yeh there was a 300 dpi definition until apple decided the ipad could be lower yet still be called retina, the definition is whatever apple wants to call retina is retina

 

[snebes]

Actual name is iPhone 5S Maxi.

That sub-name is reserved only for the iPad. iPad 5 Maxi, iPad Retina Mini.

 

[dagamer34]

I was always under the impression that resolutions with higher PPI above "Retina" would be unnoticeable. Is this not correct?

"Retina" as Apple has defined it depends in the screen size and normal viewing distance. It is NOT a specific PPI. So for a phone, it's about 12 inches from your face, but if use your device in bed where it may be 3-4 inches away, you can definitely see pixels.

 

[iBug2]

NEWSFLASH

"Retina" is just a made up marketing word for Apple

No it's not. There's a simple principle concerning how many pixels a 20/20 human retina can discern from certain distances. And that's called retina resolution by Apple. Anything above that is overkill for 20/20 vision people. Only people with better than 20/20 vision can benefit from that, which makes up a quite low percentage of the human population.

 

[Technodynamic]

NEWSFLASH

"Retina" is just a made up marketing word for Apple

true, but it serves a purpose and has a valid point.

 

[dagamer34]

yeh there was a 300 dpi definition until apple decided the ipad could be lower yet still be called retina, the definition is whatever apple wants to call retina is retina

Definition has always been based on screen size and normal viewing distance, never by PPI.

 

[jamesryanbell]

Just give us the phone already. June is already too long of a wait.

 

[subsonix]

yeh there was a 300 dpi definition until apple decided the ipad could be lower yet still be called retina, the definition is whatever apple wants to call retina is retina

I don't think they ever made a reference to a specific dpi, but rather a dpi where a human eye can't make out individual pixels. That would differ by viewing distance for example and in terms of resolution, screen size.

 

[DanielDD]

yeh there was a 300 dpi definition until apple decided the ipad could be lower yet still be called retina, the definition is whatever apple wants to call retina is retina

As the typical viewing distance would be different depending on each device's usage, the pixels per inch claimed to be of retina quality can be different for the smallest devices (326, iPhone and iPod Touch), greater than the mid-sized devices (264, iPad) and greater than the larger devices (220, MacBook Pro).

 

[tasset]

No screen resolution is compelling enough for me to upgrade from the 5. Only hardware I'm looking for:
- one LTE chip to rule them all (use on any of the US carriers)
- battery breakthrough
- damage resistance in screen, aluminum, and internal water protection

 

[nick_elt]

just look at android screens, full hd DOES look better than HD, you cant say your eyes cant tell the dif. Come on guys be better than the fan boys

 

[iBug2]

yeh there was a 300 dpi definition until apple decided the ipad could be lower yet still be called retina, the definition is whatever apple wants to call retina is retina

No, iPads are hold at longer distances than phones so they need lower PPI to be considered retina. Same as a 60" HDTV with a lot less PPI being watched from 2.5-3 meters is considered retina.

 

[Mago]

Unlikely unless is aimed at the next iPhablet thas has a 6" screen... LOL

 

[samcraig]

Wait - I think there was a miscommunication. Somewhere someone read they were again doubling down on security. Not pixels...