Not sure about the Oppo Find 7, but the first "2K" smartphone is the Vivo Xplay 3S with a 6" 2560x1440 display (490ppi) with 3 individual subpixels per pixel (like the iPhone or the HTC One and unlike Samsung's "pentile" displays).
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.
How Apple Could Make the Move to 4.7" iPhone Displays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not sure about the Oppo Find 7, but the first "2K" smartphone is the Vivo Xplay 3S with a 6" 2560x1440 display (490ppi) with 3 individual subpixels per pixel (like the iPhone or the HTC One and unlike Samsung's "pentile" displays).
Oh right, well if we're talking that, the 4.95" phone I was talking about is my Nexus 5 of which about the screen subpixels:
The 4.95-inch, 1080p IPS LCD is one of the best you can get in a smartphone. The 445ppi display is second only to that on the HTC One, which packs the same 1080p resolution into a 4.7-inch screen. The screen is bright and beautiful; so bright that max brightness indoors is sometimes a little too bright. The colors are accurate, and the IPS LCD means you'll be getting superior color reproduction over the hyper-saturated AMOLED displays.
The Nexus 5 subpixel layout (left) is a full RGB stripe, but rather than orderly rows, the display has a "wiggly" subpixel layout. This is what's usually present in HTC devices. We've yet to hear a proper name for this design, but presumably the messy layout helps the display manufacturer pack in more pixels. The high number of pixels per inch, along with the LCD's full complement of subpixels, means that you will never see a pixel or jagged edge. It's interesting to compare this to the G2, which uses a normally aligned RGB stripe.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/11/nexus-5-review-flagship-hardware-for-half-the-price/
Im so tired of repeating my self. Listen ******** fanboy, I love Apple too but they HAVE to come up with something else instead of extra rows of icons *eyeroll*
quit kissing there A** Why would you even roll your eyes at that suggestion?
And what I mean by future proof is if they make a 5" iPhone or bigger in the future, they will have to raise the resolution AGAIN because it will no longer be 326ppi but 300 and under. And how do you know how people hold there phone? You think people will stretch there arms out more because its bigger???? It does no enlarge the text, the landscape is bigger but the size of the content is the same. Did the iPhone 5 stretch all its content? No it just added more landscape.
The iPad mini has the same hardware as the iPhone 5s which is why I mentioned it can handle a higher resolution. Quit being a duchebag to everyone on here for making possible rumors that are clearly possible... Do us all a favor and quit commenting...
Bigger is meant to be easier to read
One of the main reason's people want a bigger screen, is that will scale things up and make them easier to read.
I loved my Note II for readability. It was the reason I switched to an Android device. (But I switched back because Android was ugly and painful.)
If the larger screen iPhones don't increase readability, I think the proverbial will hit the fan. And the way my eyes are going, I'd probably have no choice but to go back to an Android phone before long.
One of the main reason's people want a bigger screen, is that will scale things up and make them easier to read.
I loved my Note II for readability. It was the reason I switched to an Android device. (But I switched back because Android was ugly and painful.)
If the larger screen iPhones don't increase readability, I think the proverbial will hit the fan. And the way my eyes are going, I'd probably have no choice but to go back to an Android phone before long.
326ppi on the iphone 6.....
Nexus 5 has 445 ppi, Galaxy S5 430+ ppi so does the HTC ONE. Apple is starting to fall behind........................
Nope, you are all wrong
The iPhone 6C (the one we are seeing in the leaks) will be plastic and have a larger screen with the same resolution of the current iPhone 5S (but a lower pixel density).
The iPhone 6 will be the real game changer. It will double the resolution, will have an even larger screen, and will arrive later in the year.
Those are my 2 cents.
The iPhone 6C (the one we are seeing in the leaks) will be plastic and have a larger screen with the same resolution of the current iPhone 5S (but a lower pixel density).
The iPhone 6 will be the real game changer. It will double the resolution, will have an even larger screen, and will arrive later in the year.
Those are my 2 cents.
I wish I could up vote this x1000. The "letterbox" black bars on apps and pictures looks like crap. Just make the screen 1080p. The offbeat resolutions are useless. Their flagship device shouldn't be displaying 2/3's of an app or especially a photo taken on that same device! What good is a bigger screen if the phone doesn't use it?!
I mentioned this in a previous post: that using a 326PPI display would allow apps to retain the retina assets (they’d be slightly scaled relative to the display area). I believe this would give a 4.7-ish sized device touch targets that comply with Apple’s HID guidelines.
Then a little AutoLayout magic - that I’d assume will improve with iOS8 ( let’s say I _hope_ it will improve
Well that's the problem, Autolayout is a freakin' nightmare to work with, especially if you want to do it visually in Xcode. It's horrible and frustrating to work with, easy to break your layout by changing anything, and difficult to debug when it's not working right, which is often. You can also do it programmatically, but that's a lot of extra code because you need TONS of constraints for an even moderately complex layout.
And Autolayout doesn't work at all for games, in general.
What I would prefer is sticking to multiples of what we already have:
2X = 1136 x 640 (current iPhone 5+) -- 326 ppi
3X = 1704 x 960 (4.7" iPhone 6, maybe 5.5") -- 416 ppi at 4.7", 356 ppi at 5.5"
4X = 2272 x 1280 (5.5" iPhone 6) -- 474 ppi at 5.5"
That makes things a lot easier on developers and would still look decent scaling "unoptimized" apps up, better than boxing it off IMO. Would be slightly soft at 3X because of the need to antialias, but should still look pretty good at that resolution as the pixels are very small, allowing for very good antialiasing.
Ok for the 4,7", but don't you think that on a 5,5" it's a waste of screen space to have the same base reoltution of the 4" device (568x320)?
Well I guess it depends on whether you would prefer to fit more stuff on the screen or have things appear larger, and have larger touch targets. I suspect different people would want different things. Some people want to see more, some people might like larger targets for things like typing.
The other thing is that it's generally harder to produce very high ppi screens in mass quantities, which could be a factor for Apple deciding to keep the ppi modest even in their largest phone, at least for now. Larger screens have lower yields, cost more, and require a larger battery, higher-powered GPU, and more VRAM to drive them, all things very important to Apple.
Eventually everything is just going to have 600+ ppi screens and anything can scale to any resolution and still look sharp, but we're not there yet.
If the next iPhone does in fact have a larger display, then Apple really needs to reinstate the full screen caller id and larger dialer/call menu buttons that were removed in iOS 7.1. They're already space wasters on the current 4" 5/5s/5c displays so image how they'd look on a 4.7" iPhone.
Hahaha, no doubt. One of our apps uses a completely custom UI, loads of custom view constraints in code to deal with different devices, orientations (its universal to add just one more layer of complexity).
Yeah, I havent decided what compromise is better (or worse). Ultimately, were going to have some kind of resolution increase on a larger device, and regardless of the design decision from Apple, theres going to be some effort and pain on the developer.
Yeah 336 on the iPhone is great, but I can still see pixels at my normal viewing distance, I won't be happy until it I can't see any period. Whatever number of ppi it truly needs to be in order to not see any at say 5"+, it needs to go to that. Look at the rotation lock icon in your status bar, tell me you can't see the pixels, the gaggedness..
A fractional (non-integer) increase in ppi would make it harder for developers, not easier. It never happened before in the history of iOS.
It's just numbers now. It's not going to make much difference when looking at the screen if your eye can only discren upto a certain amount of pixels. Going beyond this is useless and simply used for bragging rights. I'd like to see at least double the battery life on a single charge.
What if these two sizes going around as rumours are just rumours and maybe Apple only has one size 5" with 1080p? I say they introduce the phone and then say... "Oh and one more thing..." then BAM! they introduce the iPad mini with cellular capabilities.
Apple has only 4 strategies if they go the 16:9 4.7" route:
1. Same resolution as the 4" but then the pixel density falls down to 277 ppi. Eww
Best solution for app support but no benefit of having a larger screen: everything's just larger unless apps support at least the iOS 7 Text Size option (but the lower pixel density makes it even worse at small sizes)
2. 3x retina factor, 1704x960 at 416 ppi
Easy app support, devs mainly only have to provide new @3x bitmap elements, but without apps supporting the Text Size option, not a lot of benefits with the screen growth: everything is just larger like with solution 1.
3. Same 326 ppi pixel density, then with another weird resolution like 1336x752
AutoLayout is one answer for developpers to exploit the larger resolution and screen space. Letterboxed apps is the option for lazy ones.
4. Any resolution with a minimum width of 960 px, and then 1920x1080 is a logical candidate (but pixel density as high as 468 ppi):
3x retina factor (a [2x/3x] 568x320 app is letterboxed, or could even be scaled) + AutoLayout to drive the [3x] 640x360 screen.
Best of both worlds but some more headache for developpers.
I really hope 1 is not in the pipes.
2 and 3 have both trade-offs.
Let's hope 4 is not impossible.
1. Same resolution as the 4" but then the pixel density falls down to 277 ppi. Eww
Best solution for app support but no benefit of having a larger screen: everything's just larger unless apps support at least the iOS 7 Text Size option (but the lower pixel density makes it even worse at small sizes)
2. 3x retina factor, 1704x960 at 416 ppi
Easy app support, devs mainly only have to provide new @3x bitmap elements, but without apps supporting the Text Size option, not a lot of benefits with the screen growth: everything is just larger like with solution 1.
3. Same 326 ppi pixel density, then with another weird resolution like 1336x752
AutoLayout is one answer for developpers to exploit the larger resolution and screen space. Letterboxed apps is the option for lazy ones.
4. Any resolution with a minimum width of 960 px, and then 1920x1080 is a logical candidate (but pixel density as high as 468 ppi):
3x retina factor (a [2x/3x] 568x320 app is letterboxed, or could even be scaled) + AutoLayout to drive the [3x] 640x360 screen.
Best of both worlds but some more headache for developpers.
I really hope 1 is not in the pipes.
2 and 3 have both trade-offs.
Let's hope 4 is not impossible.
Last edited:
but Apple and all the fan boys said 3.5" is the perfect size
It is. I still hope Apple will keep iPhone at this size and surprise everyone. I certainly don`t want my phone to have a bigger screen. A tablet yes, but phone - no thanks!
Number 4 is not impossible, but it's unlike any other transition that occurred on iOS and I personally think it's not worth it.
I prefer number 3 and think Apple will chose this avenue.
Also, number 3 is essentially the same thing as the iPhone->iPad transition, but even easier in some ways.
I see only two tradeoffs to number 3.
- Unoptimized apps would have black bars all around or have fractional scaling to fill the screen. But that would have the benefit of creating an incentive to devs to optimize their apps.
- No increase in ppi. I think that people clamouring for a sharper iPhone display are a (vocal) minority. Apple may have lost sales by not providing a larger iPhone, but it doesn't mean the same logic applies to screen density. I'm sure though it will become the next talking point of Android/Samsung shills as they won't be able to attack Apple for the lack of larger iPhone anymore.
Number 4 has tradeoffs not only for developers (with a more complex transition than number 3) but also for energy usage. Higher ppi screens use more power which could be used to increase battery life instead.
Edit: There's also a 5th possibility that you left out, maybe because the tech is not ready yet:
5. Use ~600 ppi. It would essentially be like applying the retina transition to number 3. It would be an overkill and need expensive and energy hungry screens with todays's technology. Maybe Apple could start with number 3 and then go to number 5 in a couple of years when 600 ppi screen are cheaper and more energy efficient?
Last edited:
We all quite agree.
I also excluded any approach with a pixel density lower than 326 ppi with a screen width superior to 640 px, like an AutoLayout strategy with a 1280x720 resolution for example: I don't think Apple could go any lower than 326 ppi for an iPhone.
Yep, that's what i was putting behind 'impossible' for 4.
Yes I deliberately excluded this one, for this year at least
I also excluded any approach with a pixel density lower than 326 ppi with a screen width superior to 640 px, like an AutoLayout strategy with a 1280x720 resolution for example: I don't think Apple could go any lower than 326 ppi for an iPhone.
Last edited:
It's not just numbers at 326 PPI. I can see pixels at normal viewing distance, if you can't, that's nice, but I can.
I was refering to putting an actual 1080p file on their 16GB iPhone. As far as streaming 1080p content on the phone, data rates for steaming that would probably eat up data fast. Sure wifi at home would be fine, but why not just watch on your tv when at home.
As far as a stupid reason, I do find those to be terrible reasons at this point, unless all carriers start to provide unlimited data for all customers soon.
----------
Like I mentioned above, I don't think its reasonable yet due to data usage. And as for the sizes, aren't the usual 720p file sizes 1.2 GB while the 1080p close to 3GB