Have you noticed that you can look at glass from either side? And that when you look at it from the other side things that were on the left now are on the right?
Have YOU ever noticed that!!!!
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
Have you noticed that you can look at glass from either side? And that when you look at it from the other side things that were on the left now are on the right?
Have YOU ever noticed that!!!!
You can't just rotate it (that's what the forger did), you must do a perspective correction as shown in the first image.
Also, I did a histogram adjustment to show the duplicated section in the second image.
It appears that this image was scaled down from a larger one before jpeg encoding as the pixels are not exact duplicates
It is fake, no doubt.
Attachments
Rather than being insulting (and wrong), how about realizing that "resolution" refers to the dot pitch. If you know the size of a screen, then the number of pixels can be used to state the resolution (since it tells you the dot pitch), but the point is that resolution is used to refer to dpi.
I buy a new iPhone every year, whether "eligible" or not, and yet I'm opposed to it if all it does is make things bigger without maintaining resolution. And since they won't add more pixels, the resolution will decrease, and it will thus serve no purpose.
The part may be fake, but it definitely isn't a photoshop job. The duplicated part isn't duplicated; isn't it ten times more likely that there are two of the same light fixture, or a reflection that doubles one light fixture?
Come on people, not everything is photoshopped. Something like this would be easy to fake as an actual part, it would be moronic and a waste of time to do it in photoshop. Plus photoshop wouldn't do the cmos/lens defect everyone seems to be complaining about.
It doesn't take too much to imagine a few different possible iPhone 5 designs.
"I" predict no home button AT ALL on the face of the phone. In fact, I can easily picture the entire face of the phone being the actual video screen. There would be no black above or below the viewing area because the entire phone will be a viewing area.
"I" predict no home button AT ALL on the face of the phone. In fact, I can easily picture the entire face of the phone being the actual video screen. There would be no black above or below the viewing area because the entire phone will be a viewing area.
Possibly, if all that was duplicated was light reflections, but that isn't the case, there are more than just light reflections duplicated.
I disagree, that lame fake would be much easier to do in Photoshop than creating a physical part.
BTW I didn't say it was a Photoshop job, but FWIW I think it is more likely than not.
Sorry but you are again, wrong. Resolution does not refer to dot pitch. DPI has to do with pixel density in a measurable area (dots per inch). Resolutions, like 1920 x 1080 as an example, refer to an exact amount of overall pixels. If you change the physical resolution of a screen, you are changing the amount of pixels, fact not opinion. Knowing a screen's physical size and it's physical resolution, is what allows you to figure out the DPI. If you want to argue that a change to a 4" screen, will effect the DPI, I'm right there with you. Just get your facts straight. I just think the DPI would remain high enough to be considered "retina" still, as we know that the term is related to viewing distance as well.
As for coming off as insulting, I'll admit to that, and do apologize. I have read to many peoples "factual" opinions over the last week on these forums and am always angered when people "spout" out facts when they don't know what they are talking about.
Last edited:
Dude, I appreciate what you are saying, and I know people often refer to pixel counts as resolution, but the term is properly used to refer to the dpi. Someone also doubted me earlier in the thread, and then he looked it up and saw I was right. I suggest you do the same.
By the way, the reason it is called "resolution" is because it is a measure of the ability to "resolve" details - a higher PPI allows more details to be resolved.
By the way (2), here's a helpful overview: http://www.ideastraining.com/PDFs/UnderstandingResolution.pdf
Last edited:
I concur with the prediction of no homebutton. Apple is seriously putting effort into touch based OS's, look at the new nano there isnt a home button at all. The new iOS has gestures that is the same styling as the nano's features on going to a home screen and bringing up the multi task menu. To me it sounds like Apple is using multi touch to eliminate the need of a physical home button. At the very least the home button would be a capacitie styling to flow with the screen.
Oh how we all want to believe.
I'd be shocked if it turns out to be real. Not because Apple wouldn't do it but because it would mean a big change to the iPhone in just 1 year. They went to a lot of trouble to get the retina... Why do 4-5" in screen size now? What would happen to the iPod Touch?
From that article: Monitor resolution is measured by pixel width and height. Some common setttings are 800x600, 1024*768, and 1600*1200. Different size monitors could be set to the same resolution, so there is no default pixels PER INCH setting for monitors.
I think resolution is ppi, whereas display resolution is pixel dimensions. Hence the confusion.
If you can't pull the phone out of your pocket, and with one hand, get off the lock screen and onto the phone itself to either answer a call or play your music, then "gestures" would be the stupidest thing Apple ever did to the iPhone. What the hell is it with people wanting gestures on something you primarily use with one hand?
Look bro your wrong. I'm sorry you don't know how to use the proper terms. I'll quote your own PDF (which is sad BTW), "Monitor resolution is measured by pixel width and height". You had said you want apple to keep the same resolution but add more pixels. The proper way to express what you are saying, is that you want them to keep the DPI the same and add more pixels. This would be a higher resolution screen so that it could maintain the current DPI. I'm sorry but you are mixing terms. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you any longer. It's not worth my time
You raise a very good point. But in the future you can guarantee with the apple trend they will make it buttonless.
The IPad 3 is believed to be going buttonless, which is a device that obviously doesn't require buttons like the iPhone.
The reason monitor resolution is specified that way is because the monitor dimension is known, hence the 800x600 tells you the ppi.
But if you go on and read the rest of the article, they make it clear that the ppi setting is the "resolution."
I agree it is confusing, and I agree that in common usage people usually cite monitor "resolution" using 800x600.
I was only defending myself since the poster rudely asserted that I didn't know anything, when all I was doing was using "resolution" in the proper manner.
You're the one who insulted me; I'm merely defending myself.
You stopped reading the article a sentence or two to short. The paragraph on "monitors" then goes onto discuss 72 ppi vs 96 ppi, then says (with respect to PPI) "some programs hve to ASSUME a default resolution, so you will still see those numbers [i.e. "ppi"] used."
In other words, dots per inch is resolution, but, as I've said repeatedly in this thread (since long before your decision to insult me), for monitors, where the screen dimensions (in inches) is known, its common to used 800x600 (or whatever) to denote resolution, since that also tells you the dots per inch.
But the point is this: you keep claiming I am misusing the term "resolution," but clearly I am not.
Hell, I hate to cite wikipedia, but:
"Pixels per inch (PPI) or pixel density is a measurement of the resolution of devices in various contexts; typically computer displays, image scanners, and digital camera image sensors." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density)
Here's another link: http://faculty.mdc.edu/elopez1/files/gra2577c_handouts.pdf
Last edited: