I think that is how you get your "megapixels" on cameras - it's the area. i.e. 4500px x 2300px equals about 10 Megapixels.
So, if you multiply out 480x320 you get 153,600 pixels, 1.5 decapixels? *shrugs*
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
iPod touch iPod touch and iPhone different size screens?
- Thread starter Schnebar
- Start date
So, if you multiply out 480x320 you get 153,600 pixels, 1.5 decapixels? *shrugs*
ha, if manufacturers start using decapixels, then I'm very scared. Although at the same time, I'm glad I'm done with selling to customers, because I'm sure that will confuse people.
You might want to patent that for future small LCD screen technology though.
You might want to patent that for future small LCD screen technology though.
I should! Screw Apple stock, i'm branching out on my own.ha, if manufacturers start using decapixels, then I'm very scared. Although at the same time, I'm glad I'm done with selling to customers, because I'm sure that will confuse people.
You might want to patent that for future small LCD screen technology though.
The iPod touch and iPhone have a ratio of 3x2 since it has a screen resolution of 480x320. Widescreen TVs are considered 16x9 because they have resolutions of 1280x720 or 1,920x1,080 etc.
So the iPod has more pixels? How much more exactly if not 480x320? How would i go about creating wallpapers if i don't know the resolution. In my opinion, the iPod and the iPhone use the same screens and the difference in ppi is just a rounding error. I just did the calculation to three significant figures and get a value of 165 ppi.
So the iPod has more pixels? How much more exactly if not 480x320? How would i go about creating wallpapers if i don't know the resolution. In my opinion, the iPod and the iPhone use the same screens and the difference in ppi is just a rounding error. I just did the calculation to three significant figures and get a value of 165 ppi.
I think you're on to it. It is 480x320...so it has a total of 153,600. But, as i understand it, it has 480 pixels over the length of the screen and 320 over the height (for the accurate numbers i'll let you do the trig). I don't think the iPod has more pixels per se. And i don't think you can do wallpapers without knowing resolution (unless you know the ratio).The iPod touch and iPhone have a ratio of 3x2 since it has a screen resolution of 480x320. Widescreen TVs are considered 16x9 because they have resolutions of 1280x720 or 1,920x1,080 etc.
So the iPod has more pixels? How much more exactly if not 480x320? How would i go about creating wallpapers if i don't know the resolution. In my opinion, the iPod and the iPhone use the same screens and the difference in ppi is just a rounding error. I just did the calculation to three significant figures and get a value of 165 ppi.
Just wanted to throw out there that even if CLuv is not correct, and the screen is slightly smaller, it's smaller by 0.06 inches on the diagonal, or 1.6 mm ... well within rounding errors for a "3.5-inch" screen if the iPhone's was, say 3.51 inches on the diagonal.
I'm surprised by some of the misinformation in this thread. Both screens are 480x320 pixels, which means they have exactl 153,600 pixels total. The resolution is exactly the same, so no, you would NOT need different sized wallpapers for the two devices.
I believe when Apple uses DPI and PPI, they're referring to the same thing. Dots (Pixels) Per Inch and Pixels (Dots) Per Inch. There's 2 possibilities for the 160 vs 163 (d|p)pi difference.
1) The iPod Touch screen is SLIGHTLY smaller. If this is the case, the difference is miniscule, you'd never notice
2) Apple rounded the iPhone number down from 163 to 160, which would mean there's no difference. I think this is actually the most likely answer.
I believe when Apple uses DPI and PPI, they're referring to the same thing. Dots (Pixels) Per Inch and Pixels (Dots) Per Inch. There's 2 possibilities for the 160 vs 163 (d|p)pi difference.
1) The iPod Touch screen is SLIGHTLY smaller. If this is the case, the difference is miniscule, you'd never notice
2) Apple rounded the iPhone number down from 163 to 160, which would mean there's no difference. I think this is actually the most likely answer.
