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.
Next iPhone Screen Resolution Confirmed at 960x640
- Thread starter hefeglass
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sub pixels don't change whether you're looking at them through 320dpi or 96dpi. I didn't know about the sub pixels until I saw the picture on that source site. I'm basing my other observations through my friend's Dad's Nexus One, which I got to play around with for a bit and another friend's Zune HD, which I borrowed for a few days. My Dad used to work with LCD/OLED displays so he's well versed about the technical side of things.
Trust me, a 5MP cellphone camera won't be the same as a point-and-shoot.
Physics precludes it.
Cellphone camera sensors are tiny and the lenses are puny as well. The combination of the two results in poor resolving power. Even if you shove a decent autofocus unit into the cellphone, you're still not going to have much leeway.
My main hope is that Apple focuses on providing really good low-light performance, particularly for video recording. When you shoot video, your effective shutter speed is 1/60 of a second.
I couldn't care less if still photography resolution was 3MP, 5MP or 8MP on a cellphone camera. Just give me low-light video performance. If you can give me 720p, that's great.
It's Crazy to think that our screens will be higher rez on our iPhones than our computer screens were in ~2002
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp
Also Higher Rez than our SDTV's that many of us had all the way up to ~2006
(I Didn't get an HD TV personally until December 2008)
And we used to look at our little 96X96 Nokia screens!
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp
Also Higher Rez than our SDTV's that many of us had all the way up to ~2006
(I Didn't get an HD TV personally until December 2008)
And we used to look at our little 96X96 Nokia screens!
Is there anything we *aren't* gonna know about the next iPhone?!
I don't wanna know in advance. I like surprises!
heck you think this was bad you should have been here prior to the iPhone we been hearing about apple making some sorta either a. a touch screen phone a wide screen ipod or both of the rumors together and a touch screen ipod lol. and that was for a year.
They could team up with Nikon and do a great deal though.
And believe me, I can tell the difference. My crummy Samsung has a 1.3 camera, is $400 cheaper, and I get better results with it at times - especially with fire.
And be stuck with Android? No thanks. My phone is currently an Android device and I can't believe how much the competition (to the iPhone) sucks. Quality not quantity. Quality would be the astounding 320PPI or whatever the number is and the IPS display. Quantity is the 720P video record capability with horrible compression on the Evo 4G and the crappy 4.3" LCD relative to the IPS.
B
Black Macbook
Guest
Well, in my country (the US of A), there's this horrible commercial for some cheap looking, hideous sunglasses and they advertise them as being HD!!!
It's a fad now for anybody to put HD at the end of their products.
I wouldn't be surprised if the next time I walk into a supermarket, I can buy HD eggs.
I love when people bash android 2.x but praise iPhone OS 3.x
iPhone OS is much more limited.
You can't change your background wallpaper
You can't pick a song from your library to be your alarm tone,
You can't set different vibration tones for texts/emails/tweets.
The weather app doesn't even tell you the weather because it's not a dynamic icon, it always says 73 degrees.
The clock icon doesn't even tell you the time.
Not to mention if you have an iPhone 2G you can't even record video.
You also can't have any news/widgets on the lockscreen.
The notification system is terrible.
I mean seriously... What do you have to say about all these things I'm saying?
I would love to hear why iPhone OS is much better than Android, because last time I checked, the things I just listed are very important.
To all the people that are complaining saying that that resolution isn't technically HD..... Do you realize that with a resolution like that, with the small iPhone screen, that is going to look equal to or better than a 50inch 720p television? People are ignorant.
It's not that simple. Both dpi and ppi are applicable to displays. The question is the definition of "dot" (often used by camera viewfinder/LCD display screens to inflate the resolution specified--a "dot" is each of the 3 subpixels in a pixel), but dpi is used both for actual dot count as well as for pixel count, depending on the source. A measure in ppi is unambiguous: it's the number of pixels per inch, but it can still be manipulated. A few manufacturers specify ppi in the diagonal direction, which is an inflated measure over the traditional horizontal measure.DPI is a reference to resolution of a printed page, PPI (pixel per inch) refers to screen resolution.
For printed images, the measure is just dpi, since there are no pixels, but printed dpi and screen dpi are not directly comparable (it takes four printed dots [CMYK] to equal one three-dot pixel [RGB] on most consumer printing methods, so you need about 33% higher dpi than screen ppi to achieve the same look--and optical blending effects of reflective vs. transmissive media [light bloom vs. ink blending] mean that paper printed at screen resolution is far less acceptable).
It depends what layer they're examining under the microscope. The individual subpixel elements behind the rectangular strip are more "dot" like (square, diamond, round), embedded in lens-like rectangular forms for easier assembly and less screen door effect in the finished display.
I'm still not convinced this is realistic for a production iPhone, let alone something six times the size. The cost of this display will be staggering compared to other iPhone requirements and way out of the budget for the iPad if it is to stay at $499, barring some major breakthrough in production methods that has not yet been disclosed to the industry.
Nothing that isn't already in shipping products. 960x640 is still less than the iPad. The GPU doesn't care about the display size, just the pixel count.
My 1999 clamshell iBook has less pixels.... wth. 10 years is a forever ago. I bet the processing is stronger on the iPhone as well.
Different vibration combinations is important? Dynamic icons are important? Because Android's app icons aren't dynamic either. The widgets are but apples to oranges.
You should of mentioned UI customization, "open" app market, and diversity of devices. Not the crud above not in red.
It is just as HD as video game consoles. The Call of Duty: Modern Warfare games run at 1024x600, which is the same number of pixels as the next iPhone. (not that I'd call COD:MW high definition in the first place)Reality check, 960x640 is very high-res, but it certainly isn't HD. Not even close. I guess I shouldn't be surprised though. The term "HD" is so overused these days, it almost has no true meaning or value as a descriptor. Just tack it on to any item these days, and call it awesome.
I hope they are right about it being IPS. I haven't seen an LCD in a pocket sized device that is IPS. I can't stand the way that other LCDs look, especially with darker colors.
I like that this is only a slightly higher resolution than SD PAL TV, should make watching iPlayer that little bit better.
I hope they can squeeze in 2 memory chips too like the iPod touch so people can carry the same amount of video and photos as they used to.
I hope they can squeeze in 2 memory chips too like the iPod touch so people can carry the same amount of video and photos as they used to.
While i'm always a fan of more resolution (in monitors and TVs at least), i'm not quite sure what the benefit of such a high resolution on such a small screen is. I have a 3rd gen touch that I love to death, but i wouldn't have said that the screen was too low res. Considering it's only ~3 inches, i don't really see why we need greater resolution. I mean, how close do you plan on holding this thing to your face? Also, any games or apps that use the extra resolution are going to require a lot more processing power in order to display them, which means that battery life will suffer as a result. To me this just seems like a gimmicky update.
who knows though, maybe you have to see it to appreciate it...?
who knows though, maybe you have to see it to appreciate it...?
:lol: spoken like someone who hasn't spent any time with a Droid or Droid Incredible.
Having a 960x640 screen will be amazing for detail, especially in text.
This dude just got the 10,000,000th post
wow man he did to! prize him up!
Gaming... that's your ace in the hole... smartphone gaming... *rolls eyes* That's the reason why the iPhone is better? Tell me some things the iPhone (OS 3.1) can do that Android (OS 2.2) can't do. I really want to hear them. Because everything I mention you claim isn't a big deal.
You don't have to have widgets and news, but you should be able to have them. And you've obviously never used Froyo, it doesn't lag. I mean... think how dumb it is that an iPhone (which is an iPod, that you can have 1000s of songs on) doesn't even allow you to use your songs for the alarm. And why hasn't the weather app changed once since June of 2007. It's like they are so lazy, they can't even do a proper weather app, or a proper alarm app. And the "Clock" app has an icon that always says it is 10:15. And Wallpaper, that's so damn basic, like how do you mess that up. Like the bad alarm that's like making a brick breaker game and forgetting the pause button. And it's really unfair that 2G users can't record video, even though they could, Apple just wants to rip off the people who paid 599 for the phones. And who cares about how popular something is, it doesn't make it better. Besides, in America, Android is number one online and number two in handset sales even though Apple is outspending Android on advertising substantially and their OS is a year older. 100,000 handsets are activated everyday.
1) Wait a few weeks. I'm not sure why Apple didn't allow this for so long, but they're adding it this summer.
2 & 3) True. This is lame on Apple's part.
4 & 5) It's not that big of a deal, but I agree with you here too. I wish Apple made these icons update, like how calendar shows the date.
6) Free/cheap other apps will do this. Apple won't because the weaker camera of the 2G/3G won't record above 15FPS, and Apple would rather leave a feature out than implement it poorly. I totally see their logic here.
7) This is a matter of philosophical difference between Android and iPhone. The iPhone is app-centered, and the icon grid is meant to be seen only when jumping between apps. IMO, some of the widgets are nice, but for news widgets or anything that displays more 5 words, I find jumping into a full app is easier.
8) Again, it's a matter of simplicity. The android toolbar gets filled with notification icons very quickly because it collects everything. It's good for keeping track of past notifications whereas the iPhone isn't, but it's also distracting.
What is most important to me? Apps. A smartphone is a small computer, and to do computer-y things on it you use apps. Android apps, on the whole, are not as good as iPhone apps, and this is a deal-breaker. Except for apps by Google, if there is an iPhone and Android version of the same app, the iPhone version will be MUCH better. Compare, for example, Yelp, Ebay, Dropbox, Twitter, Seesmic, Meebo, PS mobile, and the list goes on.
This isn't just me regurgitating what I've read online. I switched from a 3GS to a Nexus One for about three months. I switched back recently, because ultimately I prefer iPhone.
Your field of View is infinite in pixel depth [Human Eye].
Staring at a compressed format view of a non-raw file image which is limited again by the camera sensors technology and it's interpolation algorithms isn't helping you to claim it's weak compared to the Nexus One.
I can tell you're not an educated engineer in material science, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chemical engineering or physics.