Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

I personally believe it was a mistake going 1136x640 instead of 1280x720

Developers program apps per "points" not pixels. The resolution wouldn't have made any difference to any properly written app. An app written for the 3g will display the same on a 4g, and a 4g app will display the same on a 3g (except every graphic is automatically scaled independently to display at half resolution).

1280x720 would make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that it's a proper resolution, but other than that, it would make no difference, and would probably lead to supply problems for apple.
 
iPad 2 said:
Plenty of andriod phones offer 1280x720 resolution screens. There are even 5 inch screen smartphones with 1920x1080 resolution, so a 4 inch 1280x720 resolution screen is indeed technologically viable.



Yes, it is a deterrant. I would like to be able to playback 720p movies and 720p iTune rentals at their native resolution. I would like wise be able to output my iPhone to a HDTV at a standard resolution.

1280x720 is a standard resolution, one supported by every HDTV, and every movie out there. 1136x640 is not.
Click to expand...

So then don't buy the phone and get a phone with a native 1280 x 720 standard resolution ...problem solved
 
Pros:

- Increase PPI over the Retina limit (no visible difference at average viewing distance though)
- Bragging rights to impress the Android crowd competing on theoretical specs

Cons:

- Make all current apps a lot more letterboxed
- Increased costs
- Lose automatic conversion of all UITableView-based apps
- Lose the opportunity for developers to simply add an iAd to their existing applications
- Increased pixel density means either lower battery life or lower brightness (or both)

You really think it's worth it?

Every time I see threads about what people think Apple should do, they don't factor in all the consequences of what they're asking for. They're simply considering the end benefit like it would magically have no drawbacks. I'm glad Apple do what they think is best and don't listen to people, they know what they're doing more than anybody here.
 
Why would they change the resolution just to fit 720 lines of pixels there? If you weren't told, you wouldn't even know how many pixels were in the current iPhone. "HD" resolutions don't matter anymore since all screens are so pixel dense anyway. It's another spec for gadget geeks to say "I have an HD screen".

HD was the term before Retina where it was an easy way to know if a screen was high resolution. However, even 720 on a 30" screen isn't going to look sharp. Right now, the meaningful spec is how pixel dense the screen is, not how many vertical pixels are on screen. What makes 1280 x 720 inherently better than 1136 x 640? They are arbitrary numbers anyway.
 
kockgunner said:
Why would they change the resolution just to fit 720 lines of pixels there? If you weren't told, you wouldn't even know how many pixels were in the current iPhone. "HD" resolutions don't matter anymore since all screens are so pixel dense anyway. It's another spec for gadget geeks to say "I have an HD screen".

HD was the term before Retina where it was an easy way to know if a screen was high resolution. However, even 720 on a 30" screen isn't going to look sharp. Right now, the meaningful spec is how pixel dense the screen is, not how many vertical pixels are on screen. What makes 1280 x 720 inherently better than 1136 x 640? They are arbitrary numbers anyway.
Click to expand...

Amen!
 
iPad 2 said:
Think about it, if you're going to up the resolution to 1136x640 with a 16:9 aspect ratio and also put a black border around all of the old apps until they get updated, why not just go that tiny bit further and go to 1280x720 allowing for perfect playback of 720p movies without any scaling.

iTunes HD movie rentals are all at 720p, and it's a shame that the iPhone 5 can't play them at their native resolution.

Maybe the iPhone 6 will feature a 4.3 inch 1280x720 resolution screen.
Click to expand...

Current videos are already scaled without issue. Nobody even realized it until this change.

So no need. Scaling isn't noticed at 4" and the phone is perfectly capable of handling it.
 
They wanted a 4" screen for the spec sheet. They also wanted to do 16:9 ratio, and they wanted to keep the PPI the same. When you have those constraints, the screen resolution they came up with is the only option. (Some are saying maybe a 4.3" 720p screen is next, which would have the same ratio and PPI-- I think they didn't do that because they found the phone was then too wide)

The PPI number is probably the most important, because, right now, there are only 2 PPIs on iPhones, pre iP4 and post, and the difference between one and the other is simply 2x in one direction. This ensures that artwork doesn't have to be scaled to some non-multiple (resulting in jaggy edges or blurring).

Yes, developers may still have to reprogram apps to properly use the extra space on the iPhone 5, but the artwork for everything they have already programmed will look fine, even if they still haven't updated the app to make use of the retina display yet.
 
Why the iPhone 5 didn't have 720p resolution.

While I agree that a 720p resolution would have been nice. I don't think it fit the iPhone's criteria. In this case, the criteria being Apple wanting to keep the 2.31 inches (58.6mm) horizontal size of the iPhone.

Let's assume Apple realized that bringing the PPI up would have been pointless and therefore idiotic. So they decided to stick with the iPhone 4's 326ppi. That would mean that the iPhone's new screen with 720p resolution would have been 2.209 inches (56.1mm) by 3.926 inches (1425.1mm). That would give Apple 2.5mm for the edges or 1.25mm per edge. As comparison, the iPhone 5 has 4.25 mm per edge. Quite simply, Apple couldn't figure out a way to have a screen so close to the edge. Also, the iPhone would have gotten even taller with a 720p 326ppi display. Possibly making one-handed use harder. I think they could achieve an awesome one-handed device with 326ppi and a 720p resolution display if they finally took off the Home Button or redesigned it to be in the bottom edge or something. So yes, it's possible but not right now.

There is no software issues for a 720p w/ 326ppi screen. Except for the "letterboxes in both sides" which stops being an issue after a couple months.

PS. The display in my argument would be close to 4.5" (diagonal). Also, my math might be wrong; I did it in my head and didn't double check.
 
iPad 2 said:
Plenty of andriod phones offer 1280x720 resolution screens. There are even 5 inch screen smartphones with 1920x1080 resolution, so a 4 inch 1280x720 resolution screen is indeed technologically viable.



Yes, it is a deterrant. I would like to be able to playback 720p movies and 720p iTune rentals at their native resolution. I would like wise be able to output my iPhone to a HDTV at a standard resolution.

1280x720 is a standard resolution, one supported by every HDTV, and every movie out there. 1136x640 is not.
Click to expand...

In reality, you won't notice any difference between 1280x720 and 1136x640 movie on a 4 inch screen.
 
andyp350 said:
On a 4" screen is anyone even going to be able to see the difference?
Click to expand...

No, but people think this must be Android, where you sell a phone on only spec's. Samsung and all other Android manufactures can only sell their phones by taunting they have a 12 core 15,000MHz processor. Guarantee the human eye cannot differentiate between 720p to 640p
 
Merkie said:
Drawbacks of scaling 720p movies down: none (resolution already is retina, adding more pixels are almost not visible by the naked eye, especially when the content is movie).
Click to expand...

Scaling stuff uses more power than playing as is. (Assuming they are doing some sort of interpolation).

----------
i-John said:
In reality, you won't notice any difference between 1280x720 and 1136x640 movie on a 4 inch screen.
Click to expand...

I think people wanted the screen to have 720p but also have a slightly bigger screen (height and width) so that the dpi remains the same.
 
ixodes said:
Apple has certain reasons why they do things. Their committment to easy one handed operation is one of their preferences that's not likely to change.

It seems the majority of their users also like the size, therefore the present 4.0" display is probably here for a few more years.
Click to expand...


3.5" is the perfect magical size, remember the days of galaxy S and people say it is ******* big and won't fit into the pockets :cool:
 
Probably because if they changed the PPI it would cost a **** ton for those extra few pixels. The way they make screens is based off of PPI they make a giant sheet based on a certain PPI ( in this case the current retina PPI) and then they cut the screen into small screens for the iphones, they probably stuck with 4inch at same PPI for the new iphone because they get more screens per batch which saves money and lowers costs. This is the same reason most TV and computer Monitors come in certain sizes but leave out other sizes its based off of the same concept.

im sure there are other reasons also already posted etc
 
mooseolly said:
3.5" is the perfect magical size, remember the days of galaxy S and people say it is ******* big and won't fit into the pockets :cool:
Click to expand...

Instead of your guesswork, let's look at FACTS :)

With a 4.0" display of normal width, (not narrow) Galaxy S is only:

8mm taller

5mm wider

1.5mm thinner

14g lighter

The conversion is 25.4mm = 1.0"

So as you can see the Galaxy S is only marginally taller and wider, yet thinner and lighter than iPhone 4.



http://goo.gl/tv4Ab
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back