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.
iPhone 5 Part Shows Larger Screen, Thinner Bezel?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Will it support Flash?
That is the only 'make or break' issue - rest is irrelevant...
Flash ain't coming to the iPhone, give it up, i've not had any issues not having flash on my iPhone just like so many others. the general public don't give a monkeys
Before steve job already said that more than 4 inch is very large for a phone,but then later lG introduce the 4inch feature 394PPL in 2010,So Steve Job changed his mind and focus on 4inch 394 PPL display : ) , but 394 PPl in 4inch how many resolution ?
Link : http://www.lgdisplay.com/lgdhp/eng/pr/newsView.dev?seq=3318
Link : http://www.lgdisplay.com/lgdhp/eng/pr/newsView.dev?seq=3318
Last edited:
understand perspective much?
Is my ipad fake because I didn't take the pic at an exact perpendicular angle?
look at the ear hole, if it was down to perspective, then that should also be slightly off, but it's not, its the same as the edge..... duh!
lol you got an android cos you think you can't use the keyboard on an iphone? i have big hands and have no problem, like any phone, takes a little while to get used to. as for mechanical shutter, sounds like you won't be happy unless you got a proper camera! this is a camera phone, deal with it.
as for Thunderbolt, what about the 99% of people in the world that won't have it...
Same res. Aspect would be the same 3:2
Nothing would be messed up, but the claim that this display would still be exactly "retina". No one would care, as long as the phone-itself is not any wider.
This could in fact be very true. Apple is all about getting smaller, thinner, extra battery, and so on. We have no perspective in this shot...so it could very well be a 3.5 inch screen with a smaller bezel. Honestly, making developers completely reprogram their apps would be a giant pain, especially after the retina conversion last year.
It is not uncommon for a word to have multiple meanings. Both pixel count (960x640) and pixel density (326 ppi) can be called "resolution". And with known screen dimensions they are interchangeable.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; fr-fr) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
It probably isn't really crooked. That's just just how wide angle close up photos look like. I often take pictures with a 18mm focal length and get this distorted effect (and 18mm isn't that wide, it's standard for DSLRs).
I'm not saying it's real, but come on. Seriously, why would they make a crooked fake? It's not like it's harder to make a straight one. Cameras don't behave like the human eye. Do you call every fisheye photo fake cause everything is not parallel? You'd need almost infinite focal length to get perfect 90 degree angles. That's not possible when you take photos from up close.
It probably isn't really crooked. That's just just how wide angle close up photos look like. I often take pictures with a 18mm focal length and get this distorted effect (and 18mm isn't that wide, it's standard for DSLRs).
I'm not saying it's real, but come on. Seriously, why would they make a crooked fake? It's not like it's harder to make a straight one. Cameras don't behave like the human eye. Do you call every fisheye photo fake cause everything is not parallel? You'd need almost infinite focal length to get perfect 90 degree angles. That's not possible when you take photos from up close.
This is an arrogant comment. Perhaps you ought to be educating yourself.
Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_display_resolutions
or here, for generalized treatment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution
Yes, there are some conflicting conventions mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution
but this article is really referring to pixel density and is not entirely consistent. The convention people generally use when referring to screen resolution is to say both dimensions. That's why, for example, 3840x2160 is referred to as QUAD HD, not "Double" HD. 3840x2160 = 4 x 1920x1080.
What has happened here is that somehow Apple has referred to this as "resolution doubling" when it should have been called quadrupling, as per convention.
Last edited:
No, resolution and number of pixels is the same thing when referring to a screen or an image sensor (dealing with pixels). It is not the same thing, however, when you are referring to print (dealing with converting pixels to physical dots), that is called DPI, for Dots Per Inch. You only refer to "Dots" when talking about print, so it's not relevant here.
If they want to put the same amount of pixels on a larger area, they have to decrease the pixel density (called PPI, Pixels Per Inch), i.e. they will put the pixels further apart and make them bigger, so that they don't have to add any but make them cover a larger area.
I don't see why this photo would be Photoshopped though, the quality is too low to tell, visible JPEG artifacts caused by compression are totally normal at this size and quality.
EDIT: Okay maybe it is fake then, if those lines aren't parallel...
Last edited:
Didn't Apple apply for (or get) a patent referring to having only part of the screen active at any one time?
Perhaps this technology could be utilised to allow for a bigger screen size, but one that retains the same "Retina Display" pixel density.
4" screen would be nice, although I personally found the Samsung Galaxy S too large to be comfortable.
I'm sure Wednesday 2nd March will provide us with more clues / hints as to what is happening with the next iPhone.
Perhaps this technology could be utilised to allow for a bigger screen size, but one that retains the same "Retina Display" pixel density.
4" screen would be nice, although I personally found the Samsung Galaxy S too large to be comfortable.
I'm sure Wednesday 2nd March will provide us with more clues / hints as to what is happening with the next iPhone.
wow if this is true, it makes another thing $teve Job$ bashed but ended up copying from competitors. This one being a larger screen. "Waaaah larger screen.. big bag of DOA.. blah blah blah *mumbling Note to self, make iphone screen bigger* blah blah blah big screen bad... "
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; fr-fr) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
u mad?
Copying screen size? Are you serious?
I don't remember Steve calling big phones DOA, just small tablets. Do you have a link?
camelsnot said:
u mad?
Copying screen size? Are you serious?
I don't remember Steve calling big phones DOA, just small tablets. Do you have a link?
It's commonly used both ways so you're right either way... well, this is the Internet, so you're wrong either way