Okay, so I keep seeing the pixel densities of the Apple Watch being listed as 290ppi for the 38mm and 302ppi for the 42mm everywhere, and for some reason they keep striking me as wrong, like they either weren't accounting for the bezels or were incorrectly estimating the size of the bezels. It just seemed odd to me that the two models would be different densities when they had the chance to determine whatever resolutions they wanted to streamline operations as much as possible.
If you follow the dimensions below for the 42mm (which I found here: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/use-a-pdf-to-see-how-big-apple-watches-really-are), it comes up around 326ppi (depending on rounding and method, 325-328), which happens to be the pixel density of the iPhone 4, 4s, 5, 5c, 5s, 6, and the retina iPad minis. If you assume the 32mm has bezels of identical size and reduce the screen only by the difference in case height and width (for height: 3.4mm, not 4mm, as the 38mm case is actually 38.6mm), it does come out similar.
However, whoever has drawn this up evidently hasn't got it near perfect, as the measurements don't come out exactly to a 5:4 ratio. A small error could make a big difference, but regardless, this does lead me to believe there is merit in thinking that the often quoted numbers are incorrect (if the pixel densities are wrong, then the diagonal sizes that have been used to derive them are wrong too) and that the two sizes have the same pixel density. They might even be using the same old 326ppi density that's been hanging around for years, but I'd say that shouldn't be assumed because these are OLED displays which the other 326ppi displays are not, so there's no supply chain benefits at this time.
Okay, I've gone on a bit of a geek out here. Seriously though, I just find it odd that no one has managed to work this out for sure already? It's 2015, it can't be that hard. 290ppi just seems way off to me, and 302ppi barely plausible, based on the rough numbers I borrowed. I feel like it's more in the ballpark of 320-330ppi and both sizes are the same.
If you follow the dimensions below for the 42mm (which I found here: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/use-a-pdf-to-see-how-big-apple-watches-really-are), it comes up around 326ppi (depending on rounding and method, 325-328), which happens to be the pixel density of the iPhone 4, 4s, 5, 5c, 5s, 6, and the retina iPad minis. If you assume the 32mm has bezels of identical size and reduce the screen only by the difference in case height and width (for height: 3.4mm, not 4mm, as the 38mm case is actually 38.6mm), it does come out similar.
However, whoever has drawn this up evidently hasn't got it near perfect, as the measurements don't come out exactly to a 5:4 ratio. A small error could make a big difference, but regardless, this does lead me to believe there is merit in thinking that the often quoted numbers are incorrect (if the pixel densities are wrong, then the diagonal sizes that have been used to derive them are wrong too) and that the two sizes have the same pixel density. They might even be using the same old 326ppi density that's been hanging around for years, but I'd say that shouldn't be assumed because these are OLED displays which the other 326ppi displays are not, so there's no supply chain benefits at this time.
Okay, I've gone on a bit of a geek out here. Seriously though, I just find it odd that no one has managed to work this out for sure already? It's 2015, it can't be that hard. 290ppi just seems way off to me, and 302ppi barely plausible, based on the rough numbers I borrowed. I feel like it's more in the ballpark of 320-330ppi and both sizes are the same.
