Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple May Adopt 1704 x 960 Resolution Display for Upcoming iPhone 6
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Jaggedness on an iPhone display huh? Well good for you...but we're also now talking about going from 326 ppi to 416 ppi...a 28% increase in pixel density.
Presenting more data to the user is only relevant if it actually is taking advantage of the added real estate potential. Given the relatively small size of phone screens, this is much less relevant to the conversation.
I didn't either, but you won't see 4k on smart phones on 5 years i guarantee that.
Not unless some thing exciting happens.
Technology advance too fast!
My 2 years old smartphone was 720p (1280x720), my last year smartphone is 1080 (1920x1080).
LG is going to release a 2K or QHD (2560 x 1440) smartphone soon.
http://www.stuff.tv/g3/lg-confirms-g3-will-have-2k-qhd-screen/news
1080p is perfect for me and I think that a 4K resolution smartphone is unnecessary but, technology advance too fast and I am sure someone will release a 4k (4096x2160) in the next few years.
My 2 years old smartphone was 720p (1280x720), my last year smartphone is 1080 (1920x1080).
LG is going to release a 2K or QHD (2560 x 1440) smartphone soon.
http://www.stuff.tv/g3/lg-confirms-g3-will-have-2k-qhd-screen/news
1080p is perfect for me and I think that a 4K resolution smartphone is unnecessary but, technology advance too fast and I am sure someone will release a 4k (4096x2160) in the next few years.
They can't be serious. Can we just make the leap and get some nice fHD screens? none of this 1704 bs. 1920x1080 or nothing.
I agree. It looks really BAD for Apple to not have FULL HD at this stage. Sure, it's just another 120 pixels vertically, but in terms of advertising, they're just going to continue to get pummeled by the competition on this issue. I guess old Johnny fIves just can't figure out the math.
I think the point is that Apple is no longer innovating and LEADING, but is now following Samsung's lead into larger displays with more resolution. They're copying Samsung now, essentially. How ironic. A lot of us said they should have a larger model when it first came out and the rumors were that Apple wanted an even SMALLER iPHone because small and thin and gaunt was Steve Jobs personified. Those of us that are not 5 feet tall and have larger hands knew immediately the original iPhone was too darn small. I only have to look around at work and see that larger is more popular even if it looks ridiculous to have a phone call on such a beast. But most people do little calling these days and TEXT instead (because it's SO much more inefficient
).But then Apple can't even manage an OS update these days without fracking something up royally as the missing /Users file shows, let alone the Mail App which STILL doesn't work right all the time (i.e. I click on the new mail button and nothing comes up. I check with Thunderbird and there's new mail sitting there which then shows up 30 minutes or more later in Mail. I guess it checks it when it feels like checking it and the check mail button does nothing something like that.)
I remember the days (i.e. Tiger) when OSX actually used to work nearly rock solid. But it seems since the iPhone started to take center stage (even before it was released), Apple has been screwing up their core business more and more. Maybe they should just dump the Mac lines and do iOS full time since it's all they really care about.
"On the rumored 4.7-inch model, this would result in a display with 416 ppi and the same 16:9 ratio of the iPhone 5/5s/5c, while a 5.5-inch model at the same resolution would carry a density of 356 ppi."
Love the resolution increase! Not sure which I going to buy but the 416 vs 356 is a non factor for me since both are pretty close in resolution quality! It just have to look at both and see which is the one!
Love the resolution increase! Not sure which I going to buy but the 416 vs 356 is a non factor for me since both are pretty close in resolution quality! It just have to look at both and see which is the one!
Bit by bit, Apple seems to be less like the Apple of years ago ("It just works") and more like PC/Windows, where Apple backers have for years ridiculed the OS for constant update bugs, lack of stability, etc.
Apple can't seem to fix major bugs that exist for long periods of time, release updates with bugs that are so obvious you wonder if they actually tested it first, etc. Just seems like as Apple adds more features to their OS's (to catch up with the competition) they lose stability. Imagine that...
Your Galaxy S5 uses a pen tile matrix, so it's not really 432 PPI ... And still is one of the best display ever made, just to demonstrate that resolution isn't the only factor that counts.
----------
They are just following what Samsung taught them .... you need 1080p, don't you know ?
[
And 4k resolution on a 5" display is just a waste of resources.....
Last edited by a moderator:
Your Galaxy S5 uses a pen tile matrix, so it's not really 432 PPI ... And still is one of the best display ever made, just to demonstrate that resolution isn't the only factor that counts.
----------
They are just following what Samsung taught them .... you need 1080p, don't you know ?
And 4k resolution on a 5" display is just a waste of resources.....
Yes I agree that 4K on an smartphone is completely unnecessary, but some people don't realize that. 1080p I think is perfect for an smartphone.
Maybe you shouldn't comment on a discussion you haven't follow from the start and probably don't even understand...
Requesting 4K resolution display for the next iPhone (well, any phone) is just absurd. If you don't understand this, go re-read the whole thread from the beginning... and if you still don't understand, well, I can't help.
So, if you tell me you can see every pixels of a 4K resolution 5" screen at a regular viewing distance, you should definitely go see some specialists, because you have super-power dude. Maybe you can also hear 60kHz frequencies... who knows?
As said, it's math and physics...
Yep, because most of uneducated and brainwashed people are just believing that "more is better" and can't realise what the numbers really mean and understand the fact that there's a point where technology exceed human being senses capabilities.
So having 1,000 PPI displays wouldn't be better... it would actually be worst, because some pixels would just be in a "dead spot" for any human eye, even the best ones.
Actually, 1080p could even be good enough for TVs in a living room (depending the TV size and the distance of your couch). That's why there's no real _need_ for 4K resolution for most of applications (such smartphone, tablet, TV). It will only be interesting for computer displays, mainly in case of video and photo editing... (or even games). Mainly because we sit closer to the screen (in comparison to 10 feet we sit from the TV... unless you have a 200 inches TV
).
1080p is overkill for most people, even. At 10 feet, my 93" screen is barely enough to to see/resolve full 1080p resolution. With a 50" (average size screen these days) screen at 10 feet, you might as well just have a 720p set as you will not be able to see 1080p worth of resolution due to the human eye's resolving limits (10 feet is full 720p for a 50"). To see full 1080p with a 50" screen, you'd need to sit no more than about 6 feet away with some improvement over 720p between 6 feet and 9.5 feet and that's with 20:20 vision. To see full 4k on a 50" set, you'd need to sit no more than 3 feet away (i.e. more like a 50" computer monitor). In fact, if you have a 30" 4k computer monitor, you can't see the full resolution unless you sit less than 1.8 feet from the screen (getting pretty close to most normal monitor distances at a desk). Below that, 4K is a waste of time as a monitor, even.
I saw a 60" 4K set at Best Buy the other day. It was REALLY impressive at about 3 feet away. The trouble is/was that once you back up to a more normal living room seating distance (8-15 feet), you can't tell it from 1080p AT ALL (in fact at 15 feet, you can't tell it from 720p).
Here's an accurate chart (I saw at least one online that was flat out wrong, but this matches the previous accurate charts I saw for 720p/1080p but now includes 4k). http://www.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-television-graph-size.png
I think my point is that 4K is going to be total advertising blitz to try and sell something that 90% of all people won't get ANY benefit from with a normal sized (40"-65") television. That won't stop them from selling 4K 20" sets in a few years and marketing how GREAT it is as they show it to you 1.5 feet away on a shelf and most people won't even think about how they won't watch from 1.5 feet away.
I'm sitting about 12 feet from a 93" screen and I'm right at the maximum 1080p distance. If I got a larger screen (I wouldn't want to sit closer), 4K might have "some" value. But I'd need to sit no more than 4 feet from a 93" screen to see the full 4K resolution. Ever sit 4 feet from a 93" screen? Unless you're on a stadium seat, you'd be craning your neck to even try it.
I've been thinking about getting a 2.35:1 screen and that would be more like 160 inches and so for that aspect ratio, at least, I might get some 4K benefit (especially if it's done digitally instead of using an expensive Panavision lens).
I couldn't agree more with you.
There's a site that allows you to calculate the distance you need to stand for a display reach the retina limit. It's: http://isthisretina.com
And that's why I was saying it was completely absurd to want a 4K resolution on a 5" phone.
4K is great when you're filming. It allows you to crop the video to 1080p during post-prod. And then it's great for Video Editing to be able to see the entire 4K video source. We can easily have a 30" computer display and sit only 3 or 4 feet away. So in that case, we can find some benefit in the 4K... But it's mainly for people that do produce content, edit (video, photo), etc...
But for everyday's task on smartphones, tablets, TVs, etc... and then mainly for content consuming, there's absolutely no need and no benefit. It's like having audio interface that can play sound over 22kHz... No human being can actually hear it, so it's useless.
That's my point
Two things wrong there:
1) 300 dpi (or thereabouts) is no magical limit.
2) Not being able to see individual pixels does not equal being able to sort images based on their resolution.
If you look at a visual acuity chart, you'll find that yes, at some point you can no longer make out the symbols on the bottom row. You can, however, for quite some time still tell that they are different from one another.
There have also been several studies with people sorting images printed at different resolutions up to 600 or 1200 dpi. All of the test subjects are usually getting all the images sorted in the correct order.
All those extra pixels...
So effectively tripling the base line resolution results in there being 9 times as many pixels making up the screen. So the graphics engine will need to be able to light up those pixels AT LEAST 9 times faster in order for there to be no perceptible difference in frame rate performance...
So effectively tripling the base line resolution results in there being 9 times as many pixels making up the screen. So the graphics engine will need to be able to light up those pixels AT LEAST 9 times faster in order for there to be no perceptible difference in frame rate performance...
But if you don't see all the pixels, it's nothing different from having a reduced pictures. So you don't need the extra pixels anyway...
It's not about a "magical" limit, it's about a "human" limit. If you can't see it, why would you try to show it anyway?
----------
Here's a simple way to explain it.
Take a chessboard. Right in front of you, if I move a piece, you can easily know where it was and where I moved it, right?
OK, now go on the roof of you house, the chessboard on the table downstair is already looking smaller, but if I move a piece, you might not know which piece I moved, but you can still know that it's not the same and it moved.
OK, now what about from a plane? You won't see any piece, or even any chessboard... barely the roof of your house. So, I can move whatever I want on the chessboard, from the plane you won't be able to see the difference at all.
So, why use CPU and GPU power to move pieces, if you won't see them from your plane anyway? That's the whole point of the "Retina" Display limit...
Except that what Apple claims to be that limit is nowhere even near the actual limit, which is somewhere closer to 1000 dpi at handheld distances.
Basically any text on the subject will tell you that the eye can resolve up to 0.4 arc minutes. At around 4", that's over 2000 dpi, at a foot or so it is somewhere around 800-900 dpi. And that is not the maximum you need to have. That is the minimum needed to not be able to see individual pixels.
Then there is the question (to which no exact answer can be given) of how much higher you need to pump the dpi until you can no longer see a difference in the quality of gradients, textures, curves and other bigger elements.
So you look at your phone 4 inches from your eye?
Not the maximum? Isn't that why it's called the maximum resolving distance for a given resolution? You want more anyway? Kind of like all those people that want 24/96 or even 24/192 for audio even though you can't possibly hear the difference in any way, shape or form? Yeah, I think that's exactly what you're looking for.
Phones aren't meant to be VR devices designed to sit 4" from your eyes....
So you look at your phone 4 inches from your eye?
Not the maximum? Isn't that why it's called the maximum resolving distance for a given resolution? You want more anyway? Kind of like all those people that want 24/96 or even 24/192 for audio even though you can't possibly hear the difference in any way, shape or form? Yeah, I think that's exactly what you're looking for.
Phones aren't meant to be VR devices designed to sit 4" from your eyes....
Well, some people will pretend to hear frequencies over 22kHz... while in fact most of adult people don't hear much anything above 15-16kHz. But again, they will know for fact that 192 kHz will "sound better" and they can hear the difference... just like some will "see" the different with a 4K iPhone display. It will look "so much sharper" for them.
Anyway, hopefully Apple engineers will know better, until then, it's just a waste of time