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

iPhone Foldable Display Said to Feature iPad-Style 4:3 Aspect Ratio

iZac said:
The other day I posed my own guess based on the rumoured 7.8 and 5.5 inch screens, and tried to line them up to proportionally correspond.

Apparently I'm doing anything to avoid work so I thought I would model them up really roughly to see what it looked like. Bezels are a bit 'optimistic' when I got them into 3D though.

Apologies, I'm not a product designer or anything so this is flawed and the rendering is pretty rough.

View attachment 2496539View attachment 2496540

Again, this is just my guess based on nothing but my assumptions from the previous rumours, please don't hold any stock in the veracity of this!
Click to expand...
That’s really fat (wide) when closed. Wider yet shorter than an max
 
W2u7Yw4HaD said:
I doubt they will go forgo touchID.. Where I can see touchID coming back is on the apple watch when making a payment.. The simple password to unlock isn't secure enough frankly..
Click to expand...
How is the Apple Watch passcode any less secure than the iphone passcode? On either device, the passcode is the primary key. TouchID or faceID are both secondary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 840quadra
For you math nerds—what does the aspect ratio have to be for the inside and outside screens to have the same ratio?
 
subjonas said:
For you math nerds—what does the aspect ratio have to be for the inside and outside screens to have the same ratio?
Click to expand...
They cannot have the same ratio because the outer screen will need to be about the same height but about half the width of the inner display.
 
iZac said:
The other day I posed my own guess based on the rumoured 7.8 and 5.5 inch screens, and tried to line them up to proportionally correspond.

Apparently I'm doing anything to avoid work so I thought I would model them up really roughly to see what it looked like. Bezels are a bit 'optimistic' when I got them into 3D though.

Apologies, I'm not a product designer or anything so this is flawed and the rendering is pretty rough.

View attachment 2496539View attachment 2496540

Again, this is just my guess based on nothing but my assumptions from the previous rumours, please don't hold any stock in the veracity of this!
Click to expand...
Pretty sure you hit the nail on the head with this one. Played around with some different possibilities on DisplayWars given the rumored screen sizes and inner display aspect ratio.. this is pretty much the only thing that makes sense. I like it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: iZac
Tagbert said:
They cannot have the same ratio because the outer screen will need to be about the same height but about half the width of the inner display.
Click to expand...
Yes technically outer display x:y ratio would become inner display y:x ratio--but for all intents and purposes that's the same ratio, since the device can be orientated any way one wishes.
 
UltimaKilo said:
As someone who works quite a bit from his phone, I am excited about this device. However, I never purchase a first gen Apple product and rarely purchase a second gen product either since it usually takes Apple 2-3 gens to perfect a product (sometimes more like Apple Watch, iPad, etc.). However, I might bite and become an early adopter with this.
Click to expand...
I feel like I can already see the writing on the wall with this: first-gen fold gets a ton of people (myself included) to bite on an upgrade due to the new form factor. But in order to achieve the battery / size / weight targets they’ll have cut out a couple of notable features… dual/triple camera system, FaceID, etc… then gen 2 and gen 3 get people to bite again when those features get reintroduced! Maybe I’m just a sucker :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: UltimaKilo
subjonas said:
Yes technically outer display x:y ratio would become inner display y:x ratio--but for all intents and purposes that's the same ratio, since the device can be orientated any way one wishes.
Click to expand...
Folding any display in half doesn’t just invert its aspect ratio. Easiest example is a 1:1 square… fold that in half and you’re going to get 2:1 (or 1:2). Non-square aspect ratios will change depending on which axis you’re folding, too.
 
UltimateSyn said:
Folding any display in half doesn’t just invert its aspect ratio. Easiest example is a 1:1 square… fold that in half and you’re going to get 2:1 (or 1:2). Non-square aspect ratios will change depending on which axis you’re folding, too.
Click to expand...
Hmm maybe I didn’t express my question clearly. I’ll try again:
There is a specific aspect ratio of a rectangle that if you unfold it by its long side, it will be twice as large in surface area but maintain the same exact aspect ratio (except inverted). What is that specific aspect ratio?
 
Not sure whether all the new iPads have a 4:3 ratio. Anyway waiting to see the device. Think it will miss out on FaceID. Hoping that there will be 3 cameras.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mganu
I’am very tempted to buy a fold, and sell the iphone 17 pro max i am getting this year.

It would hit a sweet spot, given i miss my iPad mini since i sold it.

However the camera may be a break, if it does not have more than one lens.
 
Last edited:
iGüey said:
Which extra bulk?

Analysts have said that a closed Apple foldable would be as depth as current slab iPhones are. That’s why Apple is actually developing the iPhone Air, to be the precursor of Apple foldables.
Click to expand...

Well that’ll be great if there’s no extra bulk but if we’re looking at 2x iPhone airs on top of each other that’s over 10mm in depth.

Doesn’t sound much but it’ll be noticeable in your hand.
 
subjonas said:
Hmm maybe I didn’t express my question clearly. I’ll try again:
There is a specific aspect ratio of a rectangle that if you unfold it by its long side, it will be twice as large in surface area but maintain the same exact aspect ratio (except inverted). What is that specific aspect ratio?
Click to expand...
Oh, I get you!

You have x and y dimensions of your inner display with an aspect ratio represented by x:y (or x/y). Assume we’re folding the display along the y-axis, halving the x-axis dimension, and want the aspect ratio to stay the same. So we know that .5x/y (aspect ratio of inner screen folded) = y/x (aspect ratio of outer screen, orientation will flip here). Plugging in x=1 we solve for y and get 1/sqrt(2).

1:0.707 is the answer.

If we had a 1000 x 707 pixel display, with an aspect ratio of 1000/707 = 1.414, and folded that to 500x707 its aspect ratio would remain the same but rotated at 707/500 = 1.414. Here’s that example visualized from DisplayWars:
IMG_1737.jpeg

Visual TV Size Comparison : 7.49 inch 1000x707 display vs 5.3 inch 500x707 display

Visual size comparison of a 7.49 inch 1000x707 display vs 5.3 inch 500x707 display
displaywars.com displaywars.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: subjonas
UltimateSyn said:
Oh, I get you!

You have x and y dimensions of your inner display with an aspect ratio represented by x:y (or x/y). Assume we’re folding the display along the y-axis, halving the x-axis dimension, and want the aspect ratio to stay the same. So we know that .5x/y (aspect ratio of inner screen folded) = y/x (aspect ratio of outer screen, orientation will flip here). Plugging in x=1 we solve for y and get 1/sqrt(2).

1:0.707 is the answer.

If we had a 1000 x 707 pixel display, with an aspect ratio of 1000/707 = 1.414, and folded that to 500x707 its aspect ratio would remain the same but rotated at 707/500 = 1.414. Here’s that example visualized from DisplayWars:
View attachment 2496813

Visual TV Size Comparison : 7.49 inch 1000x707 display vs 5.3 inch 500x707 display

Visual size comparison of a 7.49 inch 1000x707 display vs 5.3 inch 500x707 display
displaywars.com displaywars.com
Click to expand...
That's how DIN/ISO paper formats work.
 
  • Love
Reactions: UltimateSyn
Got it! You're describing a shape (likely a rectangle) where:

  1. The width is xx, the height is yy, and the diagonal is 5.5.
    • This gives the equation:
      x2+y2=5.52x2+y2=5.52
  2. When two of these shapes are placed side by side, the new width becomes 2x2x, the height stays yy, and the diagonal is 7.8.
    • This gives the equation:
      (2x)2+y2=7.82(2x)2+y2=7.82

Step 1: Write the Equations​

Expanding the given equations:

x2+y2=30.25x2+y2=30.254x2+y2=60.844x2+y2=60.84

Step 2: Subtract the First Equation from the Second​

(4x2+y2)−(x2+y2)=60.84−30.25(4x2+y2)−(x2+y2)=60.84−30.253x2=30.593x2=30.59x2=10.197x2=10.197x=10.197x=10.197x≈3.19x≈3.19

Step 3: Solve for yy​

Substituting x2=10.197x2=10.197 into the first equation:

10.197+y2=30.2510.197+y2=30.25y2=30.25−10.197y2=30.25−10.197y2=20.053y2=20.053y=20.053y=20.053y≈4.48y≈4.48

Final Answer:​

  • Width x≈3.19x≈3.19
  • Height y≈4.48y≈4.48
So, the original shape has dimensions 3.19×4.483.19×4.48, and when placed side by side, the combined shape is 6.38×4.486.38×4.48 with a diagonal of 7.8.


so maybe 3.2 inch x 4.48 inch that sound very pocketable
 
  • Like
Reactions: subjonas
this will be such an ideal aspect ratio and glad apple are going this route. the tri folds that are coming are only real aspect ratio that works great for content this will be next best thing
 
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