Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bear in mind these terms.. "retina".. "high definition".. these are just marketing terms. I personally think "HD" is one of the most damaging terms that we've had put upon us because it makes us think that "HD" is the ultimate gold-standard, and it's not. "Retina" is just a term that Jobs came up with holding a certain screen size a certain distance from his face and looking at the pixels. There's also a "Retina 4K" and a "Retina 5K" display too.

I work in IT and sit in front of terminal screens all day. A couple of months ago, I sprung for a big video card and dual UHD monitors at 2160p. I cannot tell you how much better my life is. I never thought it would matter, having all that extra resolution. Holy buckets, it is a dream for my eyeballs to scan a big piece of code now. I love it.

Honestly, it's very surprising to me that the iPhone 7 does not have a full HD display.

On one level I agree with you. People don't put anywhere near enough focus on things like displays and input devices, and focus too much on performance specs etc. In the real world, it's the stuff you physically interact with which brings you bigger benefits than pure grunt IMO.

However, that use case (sitting at a desk) is wildly different to a phone, and the concept doesn't transfer well. For me, things on the phone screen are small enough already, so adding pixels will just sharpen things up at shorter and shorter viewing distances. All this requires more juice, so now we're using up battery too.

So, it comes down to this: do you really want more on your 4.7" screen than you already have? If not, higher resolution is a waste of time.
 
Display Mate says that the 7 and 7 Plus are the best IPS LCD they have tested.
But then, who is Apple's competition in the 750p and 1080p LCD arena?
Almost nobody of significance. They're just competing with themselves.
It's like competing with yourself and getting slightly better each year.
Also if Apple does use Samsung for their AMOLED supplier, they will not get the best Samsung has to offer.
Samsung always supplies second best or previous generation display to other manufacturers.
 
That is the way AMOLED displays look and you either like it or you don't. But if you don't like it well the iP8 will have an AMOLED display so I guess you will never upgrade your iPhone again if you don't like the way AMOLED phones look.
[doublepost=1474655990][/doublepost]
Have you seen it? It is gorgeous. I had a Note7 for 2 weeks before I had to return it. The colors are not oversaturated like on the Note5. The Note7 has the best display on a smartphone that I have ever seen. It is a phenomenal phone.
I had the Note 7 too until it was recalled. Can't and won't go back for the Note 7 Maybe for the S8. The Note 7 is dead to me.

Also let's not forget one if the major issues with Samsung screens, and that's Burn in. Have you ever walked by the Samsung phones at a Best buy if you do you'll notice that a lot of their screen have burn in. One place is see as a problem with the Iphone is our rows of app icons. This maybe one thing that need to be figured out before the next iPhone is due with the new AMOLED displays.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: burgman
More pixels =

1) battery drain
2) need more RAM to push pixels
3) more overall CPU power (cores etc)

This is why a quad or octa core CPU with 4gb or RAM can still stutter and lag badly like many Android devices do at some point.

Sure, some of it is the Android coding, but a lot is the ridiculous screen resolutions. The Plus has 2,073,600 pixels. The Note 7 has 3,686,400 pixels. That's a LOT more pixels to push around on the battery and CPU/GPU.

This is why the iPhone has done so well with only a dual core processor and smaller capacity batteries in performance, overall smoothness of the UI, and battery life per mah of battery (Android devices require a LOT bigger capacity batteries to match the iPhone)
CPU does nothing for the resolution. It's all GPU. Also the GPU either has built in ram or gets allocated some ram from the main memory solely for you use and not accessible for anything else.
The only time the CPU and RAM gets involved in this case is when loading and running an application that is graphics intensive. The GPU maintains how fluid the graphics are.
 
I know there are people from different networks in this thread, but I'm on T-Mobile and see the Ultra HD screen as not a big deal. On T-Mobile they offer Binge on Demand a service that lets you watch popular streaming sites in dvd quality so it doesn't use your data allowance. For me even if my phone had a quad HD screen I couldn't really enjoy it unless I was at home on wifi or out some where they offered it. Even when I had an unlimited plan I found myself lowering the resolution so the video could play without buffering. For now I'll enjoy my 4k content on my 4k Tv where it really shines.
 
I know there are people from different networks in this thread, but I'm on T-Mobile and see the Ultra HD screen as not a big deal. On T-Mobile they offer Binge on Demand a service that lets you watch popular streaming sites in dvd quality so it doesn't use your data allowance. For me even if my phone had a quad HD screen I couldn't really enjoy it unless I was at home on wifi or out some where they offered it. Even when I had an unlimited plan I found myself lowering the resolution so the video could play without buffering. For now I'll enjoy my 4k content on my 4k Tv where it really shines.


Amen to that. That's the thing, for the time being the vast majority of streaming mobile video content is of nowhere near a quality or bitrate to really demand a 4K screen. And even if it was, for such a small screen at normal viewing distance (not right up at your face) really seeing an appreciative quality difference in resolution is questionable. Tablets yeah more likely, actual televisions obviously, teeny wee phone screens not so much, things look better no matter what the smaller a screen gets. Provided it's a good screen that is.

I'll say this first, I've got near perfect vision according to my optometrist, I'll just get that out of the way before this next bit. So the results aren't my eyesight, the morphine, maybe :D

Out of curiosity I've just spent the best part of half an hour viewing videos. The source was a good quality 4K video. Scaled to various resolutions at the best quality one could expect from them.

The result is quite surprising. At normal arms length viewing distance, I got all the way down to 240p before the image looked really poor.

Granted this is on a 1080p screen. However from 4K to 1440p right down to 480p looked good, clear and perfectly watchable.

Second test and this is easy for anyone to try and far more applicable to the mobile situation is YouTube, using the app not the website so you get the quality control and connected to (very fast) WiFi.

Search for "Playstation 4 pro 4k gameplay" and select the first one, should be a 27 minute showcase at 1440p. I only choose this one because the game footage is good quality for a streaming site.

So. On my iPhone 6 Plus with its 1080p screen and at a reasonable viewing distance less than arms length (maybe a foot and a half) I began watching and re-watching at every available resolution.
All the way down to 480p was just about acceptable for watching at that distance. Below that, ewwww :D

Obviously getting your face right up close to the screen changes things a bit. But with that video stream and my phone as close to my face as I could get it and still focus on the screen properly. 720p is great. Even at 480p at that distance, although obviously rather soft you can still make out the detail, look for instance at the holes in Spider-Man's eye mask and even the bricks of the buildings in the background. All easily identifiable.

Streaming video from Amazon at all of their quality settings on 4G looks good on the 1080p screen. Even the lowest quality setting is pleasingly watchable a foot from your face, though who wants to watch a film that close up. Incidentally the film was Dispicable Me, chosen because animation like that can easily show the worst of an image and when it's good quality it's really good.

I should also add at this point we did the same on my sister-in-laws Galaxy S7 Edge with its 2K display and we saw no appreciable difference in quality at normal distances, close up, yeah definitely sharper, but too close for long durations. Maybe it's different with something other than video content.

So what can we learn from all of this medication fuelled rambling. Bugger all probably :D

Other than when really close up a high resolution screen with good quality sources is obviously going to look sharper. But then, when you drop to normal, comfortable viewing distances 1080p looks just as good if it's a quality screen.

That's all hugely unscientific and based on just three people watching videos (2 Androiders and little, ok 6'3 isn't that little, me.) So it's going to be different for everyone.

The massive phone resolution debate will probably go on for years. You'll find many professionals and experts writing articles who claim that 4K on a phone is just unnecessary nonsense for advertising sake to lure people in. But then you'll likely also find some who claim the opposite.

Funny thing is, can anyone else cast their mind back to when the iPhone 4 and its retina screen was introduced? I can and I distinctly remember that when Steve and Apple claimed it was Retina because the human eye couldn't detect more than 300ppi. Afterwards companies like DisplayMate, Android opposers and manufacturers almost immediately declared this to be complete nonsense and that a true Retina display should be around 477ppi as that was the true limit of the human eye.

Oddly enough, neither is right, and both are right. But what both are doing is essentially taking a complex and variable subject matter and distilling it into easy to comprehend numbers for we mere cattle to understand.

The reality of course is more complex and I'm not going to put the math here its long and boring (much like this post) you can do it yourself or look it up. But basically with 20/20 vision and at the average normal viewing distances of 10 inches or more the human eye can perceive around 300ppi.

If you have better than 20/20 you can appreciate a higher ppi and rather obviously worse than 20/20 and your going to have to get closer than 10 inches.

Studies have shown at distances of around 6 - 7inches with better than 20/20 vision the human eye can resolve higher than 500ppi on a display.

So at the end of the day, for the average joe blogs who has normal vision and holds their phone at the distance most of us do, the 401ppi of the iPhone 7 Plus is perfectly fine as is the regular iPhone 7. Those with higher ppi displays are definitely going to benefit if they are closer to the screen or have decent vision (aided or unaided) but there becomes a point where at the size of a phone resolution really is just a numbers game. Unless you hold your phone so close you leave nose prints on it :D

So my personal view, what I'm taking away from this little experiment between phones is that unless you're unfortunate enough to have a screen lower than 300ppi you're going to get a good experience from it (screen accuracy and quality dependent of course) so just kick back and enjoy the tech you have and stop worrying about the tech you don't. Or some hippy crap like that, what do I know I'm practically on the ceiling by this point, which is why I've waffled on so long :p

I'm done with this now, I'm happy with what I have. Argue among yourselves and I care not who wants to tear any part of this lecture apart :D


This ridiculous post was brought to you today by 360mg of morphine, 8,800mg of gabapentin, more I won't bother listing, a good couple of litres of coffee, 6 cans of energy drink, the number 7 and the letter i and the, oh crap I was supposed to do the laundry. ;)
 
I know there are people from different networks in this thread, but I'm on T-Mobile and see the Ultra HD screen as not a big deal. On T-Mobile they offer Binge on Demand a service that lets you watch popular streaming sites in dvd quality so it doesn't use your data allowance. For me even if my phone had a quad HD screen I couldn't really enjoy it unless I was at home on wifi or out some where they offered it. Even when I had an unlimited plan I found myself lowering the resolution so the video could play without buffering. For now I'll enjoy my 4k content on my 4k Tv where it really shines.
4k for a phone is overrated but in most countries with fast LTE speeds, video content is streamed at 720p and 1080p. I never watch anything lower than 720p while on LTE and always 1080p on WiFi.
 
A couple days ago they came out with the statement about how the LCD display on the 7 is so good. "Best LCD Display Ever" they said.

But let's back up

Now, they told us the iPhone 6s is reportedly only compatible with 720p.

But now, they told us since these iPhones have Retina displays, the claim was that a Retina display is the maximum quality that the eye can see concerning distance.

But now they're telling us they have these iPhone 6s Plus's with 1080p quality.

But now they're telling us they have the iPhone 7, and this display is even better still. Even though the 6s Retina display was the maximum the eye can see.

Now they're telling us they've got Retina HD display.

And that's where I've got to stop.

They can't have a Retina HD display on the iPhone 7, when the Retina display on the iPhone 6s is the maximum the eye can see. The two are diametrically opposed. It can't exist at the same time.

I'm talking about resolution. I can give them a pass on the iPhone Plusss being 1080p if they're recalculating the viewing distance.

But I honestly don't know what display is better. Well, I do know that Samsung phones have better displays. That's all I know.

All this stuff that Apple is talking about is a bunch of bunk.

Retina Display is a marketing term so of course it's bunk.

In a nutshell, the higher the pixel density, the closer you can view the screen to appreciate the detail in an image. Above 500 ppi the gains aren't noticable to most people, and above 600 ppi they aren't noticable to anyone.

That's why the 401 ppi iPhone 5.5" display is better for image detail than the 326 ppi iPhone 4.7" display. Holding them at arm's length you won't see any difference, but when viewing photos with interesting detail people normally hold it closer.

Thus the pixel density war isn't pointless at all. It's like saying the SoC war is pointless because your iPhone with an A8 is fast enough for you. That may be true, but other users can use the speed of an A10 Fusion, and app developers can explore new possibilities with faster silicon.
 
Retina Display is a marketing term so of course it's bunk.

In a nutshell, the higher the pixel density, the closer you can view the screen to appreciate the detail in an image. Above 500 ppi the gains aren't noticable to most people, and above 600 ppi they aren't noticable to anyone.

That's why the 401 ppi iPhone 5.5" display is better for image detail than the 326 ppi iPhone 4.7" display. Holding them at arm's length you won't see any difference, but when viewing photos with interesting detail people normally hold it closer.

Thus the pixel density war isn't pointless at all. It's like saying the SoC war is pointless because your iPhone with an A8 is fast enough for you. That may be true, but other users can use the speed of an A10 Fusion, and app developers can explore new possibilities with faster silicon.
So what's you're saying is with the PPI of retina, 1080p is irrelevant?

I'm watching HD movies in 3D with VR headsets on the iPhone and it looks just as crisp and crystal clear as IMAX.
 
That's why the 401 ppi iPhone 5.5" display is better for image detail than the 326 ppi iPhone 4.7" display. Holding them at arm's length you won't see any difference, but when viewing photos with interesting detail people normally hold it closer.

No, people don't being their phones to their face.

It's called tap to zoom/pinch to zoom.
 
No, people don't being their phones to their face.

It's called tap to zoom/pinch to zoom.

I'm not talking about zooming, I'm talking about viewing an entire photo, especially on an iPad.

That's cool if you don't care about maximum detail without zooming. High pixel density doesn't affect how you use an iDevice, which is totally awesome. It's also damn cool that some people can enjoy the 401 ppi of the 5.5" iPhone.
 
So what's you're saying is with the PPI of retina, 1080p is irrelevant?

I'm watching HD movies in 3D with VR headsets on the iPhone and it looks just as crisp and crystal clear as IMAX.

What, like Google cardboard? Under such magnification most people would see a significant difference between 326ppi and 401ppi. I've compared my 6 Plus to a few crazy high dpi Android phones and the difference is huge.

I must say it's kind of weird that high pixel density would bother you. Do you lose sleep over Apple's A10 Fusion being too fast more most users to take advantage of it's maximum processing power?
 
I'm not talking about zooming, I'm talking about viewing an entire photo, especially on an iPad.

That's cool if you don't care about maximum detail without zooming. High pixel density doesn't affect how you use an iDevice, which is totally awesome. It's also damn cool that some people can enjoy the 401 ppi of the 5.5" iPhone.

When you view an entire photo, you view the entire photo, if you want to get closer, it's easier, and what's normal and most people do.
 
When I put my iPhone inside a VR headset you can see the pixels. It takes you back to the 1950s. Retina display my ass.
 
Last edited:
You have started so many iPhone complaint threads, you got to wonder why you are still here except just to bash Apple products. Do you have a life or what?


We've known going on 5 years that Apple's screens have been inadequate. And in 2016, Apple is saying "Best LCD display ever" LCD technology is out. They don't develop and manufacture their own screen technology.

I can't see myself buying another Apple device with these low resolution screens not in this day and age. You couldn't get me to. For me to sit there and put an iPhone 7 in my cart when they've not changed a thing about their inadequate resolution screens, that would be a divestment. I have disposable income but I don't have money to waste like that!

Apple has fallen behind on performance and screen specifications. And the iPhone 7 is not even a future-proof phone.
 
We've known going on 5 years that Apple's screens have been inadequate. And in 2016, Apple is saying "Best LCD display ever" LCD technology is out. They don't develop and manufacture their own screen technology.

I can't see myself buying another Apple device with these low resolution screens not in this day and age. You couldn't get me to. For me to sit there and put an iPhone 7 in my cart when they've not changed a thing about their inadequate resolution screens, that would be a divestment. I have disposable income but I don't have money to waste like that!

Apple has fallen behind on performance and screen specifications. And the iPhone 7 is not even a future-proof phone.

Then it is time for you to move on. There is no such thing as future proof.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tomjleeds
Lol who cares man. You like a product you buy it. You don't like it don't buy it. There are so many threads about 'Why should i get it its no different i'm going to stick with my 6S and wait for the BIG upgrade' and 'Samsung make the best displays so that immediately makes the iPhone a no purchase for me because specs matter more than the user experience and satisfaction and performance as long as my screen looks nice and vibrant before it explodes in my hands'.

Just buy and use what you all like instead of justifying it to yourselves that you are making the right choice and to those who have a different opinion on the matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tomjleeds
Then it is time for you to move on. There is no such thing as future proof.

When I say futureproof it doesn't mean what you think it means. I'm talking about futureproof in relation to Apple's lineup. The iPhone 5s was futureproof. The iPhone 6s is futureproof. Which means that the processors they put in it won't really be put to good use until later.

Lol who cares man. You like a product you buy it. You don't like it don't buy it. There are so many threads about 'Why should i get it its no different i'm going to stick with my 6S and wait for the BIG upgrade' and 'Samsung make the best displays so that immediately makes the iPhone a no purchase for me because specs matter more than the user experience and satisfaction and performance as long as my screen looks nice and vibrant before it explodes in my hands'.

Just buy and use what you all like instead of justifying it to yourselves that you are making the right choice and to those who have a different opinion on the matter.
I'm not buying it. I cant. I can't spend another bundle on a screen that isn't worth it. The screen is the most important thing on the phone and that's the thing that hasn't been improved upon. And if it's not OLED in 2017, I may not be buying that one.

When I hear people talking about buying the iPhone 7, even if they came from the iPhone 5s, I have to ask why they're buying the iPhone 7. They could've still bought the iPhone 6s.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.