Got a tip for us?
Let us know

- Thread starter Schnebar
- Start date

They probably needed the same proportions so they cant just stretch the screen.

It also makes it more balanced.

Think what it wold look like if it wasn't there.

If I'm not mistaken they are made by different contractors in China which probably accounts for the VERY slight difference in dimensions and screen pixel count, etc. Otherwise I don't know why that would be.the screens look the same size (tech specs say 3.5" for each) but on the website the iPod touch looks like a smaller unit than the iPhone (and the tech specs confirm this). i'm not sure if that answers specifically what you're asking, though.

The number of pixels is listed as identical. This would mean your reply is not correct.

Diagonal viewing area which is 3.5 on each, that's a match.

480 x 320 pixel resolution that's 480 lines horizontal by 320 lines horizontal, that's a match.

160 dpi (interchangeable for some screen manufacturers with ppi) compared to 163 ppi, not a match, but that does not affect the size of the screen. That means in one square inch area on the iPhone there are 160 pixels, in the iPod touch there are 163 pixels in the same one square inch area. That translates into a sharper image on the iPod touch.

So technically speaking my statement is correct. That would be like saying a 32" Widescreen Non-HD TV is a smaller screen then a 32" Widescreen HD set. The HD set will have more pixels and more lines of resolution, but the diagonal viewing area is still the same.

except that 480x320 is a fixed number of pixels no matter how you look at it. They cannot both have the same number of pixels in the same size of screen and yet differing ppi counts.yes, they are both 480 x 320, but manufacturers have been known at times when it comes to displays to use dpi interchangeable with pixels per inch. But the physical size of the screen is still 3.5, it's very clear and simple in regards to it's specs. So if you read it you'll see 160 dpi and 163 pixels per inch, that is a difference, but there is no difference in the diagonal measurement of the screen itself.

Diagonal viewing area which is 3.5 on each, that's a match.

480 x 320 pixel resolution that's 480 lines horizontal by 320 lines horizontal, that's a match.

160 dpi (interchangeable for some screen manufacturers with ppi) compared to 163 ppi, not a match, but that does not affect the size of the screen. That means in one square inch area on the iPhone there are 160 pixels, in the iPod touch there are 163 pixels in the same one square inch area. That translates into a sharper image on the iPod touch.

Unless you've found some new way to redefine integral mathematics.

Here's a link with a definition, and you'll see nowhere pixel count mentioned, since this does not measure the number of pixels.

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=lines+of+resolution&i=46138,00.asp

Yes, the viewing area is exactly the same.

Yeah, CLuv isn't making sense to me here, either, and I'm not stupid (grad student in physical sciences).except that 480x320 is a fixed number of pixels no matter how you look at it. They cannot both have the same number of pixels in the same size of screen and yet differing ppi counts.

Unless you've found some new way to redefine integral mathematics.

One thing we haven't considered is that it's a type-o on Apple's part.

Height and width of iPod Touch is 110x61.8 mm while that of the iPhone is 115x61 mm ... That doesn't really help, though, since the iPhone is taller, but thinner, so it probably has more to do with the case than the screen.

It is like a graph in math. 480 pixels on the x axis and 320 on the y

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=ppi&i=49602,00.asp

A 3.5" screen cannot change size of the viewing area, even if one manufacturer makes a finer, more precise screen that has a greater number of pixels in the same defined area. This area is know as ppi or dpi. Think of computer monitors that show 23 dpi or 20 dpi, but they are both 21" monitors. One screen can fit more pixels in the same area, therefore the 23 dpi will have a sharper picture then a 20 dpi monitor. The physical viewing on both is 21" even though one has more dpi/ppi.

It's not, it's just the number of lines that run from one side of the screen to the other side of the screen in a horizontal and vertical measurement. There are pixels that make up the line, and if you measured a one inch area on your screen, in that area there would be 160 or 163 pixels, depending on how small each pixel is that makes up that area.

maybe the iPhone screen is 3.54 in and the iPod touch screen is 3.46 inA 3.5" screen cannot change size of the viewing area, it's measured screen area if one make manufacturer makes a finer, more precise LCD display.

So they rounded.

Thanks for that. I get it now.

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=ppi&i=49602,00.asp

A 3.5" screen cannot change size of the viewing area, even if one manufacturer makes a finer, more precise screen that has a greater number of pixels in the same defined area. This area is know as ppi or dpi. Think of computer monitors that show 23 dpi or 20 dpi, but they are both 21" monitors. One screen can fit more pixels in the same area, therefore the 23 dpi will have a sharper picture then a 20 dpi monitor. The physical viewing on both is 21" even though one has more dpi/ppi.

It's not, it's just the number of lines that run from one side of the screen to the other side of the screen in a horizontal and vertical measurement. There are pixels that make up the line, and if you measured a one inch area on your screen, in that area there would be 160 or 163 pixels, depending on how small each pixel is that makes up that area.

I am trying to understand this.Think of computer monitors that show 23 dpi or 20 dpi, but they are both 21" monitors. One screen can fit more pixels in the same area, therefore the 23 dpi will have a sharper picture then a 20 dpi monitor. The physical viewing on both is 21" even though one has more dpi/ppi.

I get that they are the same size screens but wouldn't that also mean that the two screens have different screen resolutions like for getting wallpaper.

One has more pixels crammed into the screen.

We know that both the iPhone and iPod touch have the same screen resolution. 480x320

So there will be more pixels on the iPod then the iPhone.

even-though they are both 480x320

so 480x320 is just the proportions not the actually pixels horizontal and vertical.

you could call the screen proportions 48x32 or 3x2?

The two are very misleading. DPI is usually used when measuring the dots per inch a printer can print at. While pixels per inch is used in screens, so while CLuv is actually right manufactures interchange the two(thus confusing the hell out of the customer) they're really the same thing.

So I'm thinking it's actually a typo because regardless the screen is still the same size, and it's even the same resolution.

There are more pixels in the iPod then the iPhone.

In a sense yes 480 x 320 just proportions if that simplifies it, but not the number of pixels.

It's not considered 3x2 though, since it's a widescreen the ratio is 16:9. Relating it to a widescreen TV and a standard box TV. A widescreen's ratio is 16:9, while a standard TV (box) is 4:3. That's why a widescreen has a longer display.

Think of the diagonal as making a triangle. The length of the x to the y is a ratio of 16:9 in a widescreen TV, while on a standard boxed TV the length of the x to the y is a ration of 4:3. That's getting technical, but that's how it's defined in regards to viewing areas.