iPhone 6 display resolutions

[robinp]

Very interesting article by john gruber

http://daringfireball.net/2014/08/larger_iphone_display_conjecture

4.7-inch display: 1334 × 750, 326 PPI @2x
5.5-inch display: 2208 × 1242, 461 PPI @3x

 

[TommyA6]

I'd be happy with those resolutions

He certainly makes sense with his analysis. Hopefully he's right

 

[cynics]

Makes sense and that would be more then adequate however I'd like to see 1080 on the 4.7" for a standard video resolution.

 

[Abazigal]

PPI for the 4.7" iphone seems a tad low, though it is slightly better than 720p. I can see many people opting for the 5.5" iphone based on this alone.

 

[radiologyman]

PPI for the 4.7" iphone seems a tad low, though it is slightly better than 720p. I can see many people opting for the 5.5" iphone based on this alone.

Agree. Reputable Russian website already "confirmed" that 4.7 in will have low pixel density by taking screen under microscope. Now if 5.5 inch has high density ...

 

[iMacmatician]

1136 × 639 would be precisely 16:9, but an odd number of pixels in one dimension would be stupid.

I want to point out that the number of points in each dimension has been even for all the iDevice resolutions so far, so I'm not sure that 667x375 points will be used for an iPhone. I don't see why (besides the Ming Chi-Kuo report) something like 668x376 wouldn't fit his reasoning though. I definitely agree with the 736x414 points for a 5.5" iPhone though, as after analyzing the Feld & Volk picture I concluded that 736x414 could not be for a 4.7" iPhone. While I don't like 3x scaling, after reading this article I am leaning towards that as the more likely possibility for a 5.5" over a 2x scaling.

 

[0928001]

PPI for the 4.7" iphone seems a tad low, though it is slightly better than 720p. I can see many people opting for the 5.5" iphone based on this alone.

Funny how 326 is now "a tad low", when it was a couple years ahead of it's time in 2010. Anything beyond ~350 is a waste of battery life and GPU resources. I don't see Apple going beyond 400 PPI on any of their displays.

 

[C DM]

Funny how 326 is now "a tad low", when it was a couple years ahead of it's time in 2010. Anything beyond ~350 is a waste of battery life and GPU resources. I don't see Apple going beyond 400 PPI on any of their displays.

In general perhaps, but there are people who can see the difference between something in the 400 range and something in the 300 range.

 

[zipa]

Anything beyond ~350 is a waste of battery life and GPU resources

Certainly not. 350 is barely adequate, 500 ppi would be average and at around 1000-1200 ppi would be the "point of no return", as opposed to diminishing returns.

----------

In general perhaps, but there are people who can see the difference between something in the 400 range and something in the 300 range.

Yes. Those people would be pretty much everyone except the legally blind.

 

[0928001]

In general perhaps, but there are people who can see the difference between something in the 400 range and something in the 300 range.

I completely agree; I can see the difference as well. I just don't see Apple implementing a unnecessary amount of pixels in lieu of battery life, which customers already know the iPhone is at or near the bottom of the pack in terms of that.

Certainly not. 350 is barely adequate, 500 ppi would be average and at around 1000-1200 ppi would be the "point of no return", as opposed to diminishing returns.

This made me LOL. 500ppi is "average"? Think about it if you are Apple. You're going to tell me that it would be a better idea to let that lousy rumored 1810mAh battery in the 4.7 inch iPhone power a 500+ PPI display, and potentially knock off 1.5 hours of already crappy usage time? No. Apparently you didn't understand the purpose of my statement. I may understand this if the same A7 was manufactured using the 20nm node and placed in the iPhone 6 for the interest of power savings in lieu of such a display, but it won't be.

 

[Dilster3k]

I hope it stays true for the 5.5" model, will definitely be getting that.

 

[Lloydbm41]

Very interesting article by john gruber

http://daringfireball.net/2014/08/larger_iphone_display_conjecture

4.7-inch display: 1334 × 750, 326 PPI @2x
5.5-inch display: 2208 × 1242, 461 PPI @3x

Only one problem with that article: Assumptions! And a lot of them. The biggest and most fallible of which is think Apple will stick to the 16:9 ratio or that they haven't figured out how to code for dynamic scaling.

Apple will put out a 1080p screen for both devices. 720p simply isn't good enough when your displays are larger than 4.5 inches. Trust me. Take a look at the Moto X with its 720p screen (which is 4.7 inches BTW) and then look at any phone with a 1080p screen. The difference is significant! A 326ppi / 16:9 rratio screen at 4.7" is not gonna cut it and the pundits will have a field day. And while I'll likely still buy one, I will be highly disappointed in Apple.

 

[robinp]

Only one problem with that article: Assumptions! And a lot of them. The biggest and most fallible of which is think Apple will stick to the 16:9 ratio or that they haven't figured out how to code for dynamic scaling.

Apple will put out a 1080p screen for both devices. 720p simply isn't good enough when your displays are larger than 4.5 inches. Trust me. Take a look at the Moto X with its 720p screen (which is 4.7 inches BTW) and then look at any phone with a 1080p screen. The difference is significant! A 326ppi / 16:9 rratio screen at 4.7" is not gonna cut it and the pundits will have a field day. And while I'll likely still buy one, I will be highly disappointed in Apple.

I think he was quite clear about the assumptions in the article but the logic and reasoning was unusually strong and thorough compared to most of the trash that gets reported. He does have a track record of inside info which he denies at the start of the article but hints at later on. I would be surprised if the resolutions are exactly correct but they may well be in the right ball park.