Phil Schiller on iPhone XR Display: 'If You Can't See the Pixels, at Some Point the Numbers Don't Mean Anything'

[Whoakapi]

I though that until I got one, still pictures are indistinguishable you can read while the screen is moving (scrolling, whatever) this means A LOT of less eyes fatigue at the end of the day, only super high res would make screen looks physical stuff, as eyes are processing images in move everytime (even you laying on bed staring at the roof, there is always move, but you cannot tell because the human retina has each, approximately 6 million cones and 120 million rods - wikipedia)

so real test is using it, user experience improves a lot, you can tell very fast which screen has 200ppi or 500ppi

I'm not really sure what your point is?

I went from a 6S to a Galaxy S8. Even using the 400-something PPI setting, I literally don't see a difference compared to my old 6S with 326 PPI. I've never even used the S8's QuadHD+ resolution with 570 PPI.

 

[dk001]

I’d rather have the Xr are over any android phone because it’s an iPhone but resolution is important to me which is why I went with the max.
[doublepost=1540266262][/doublepost]
I think mind blowing is an exaggeration, unless you are comparing it to a budget android phone running a 4 year old chip.

The current SD845 is very capable. The A12 beats it in the benchmarks but it’s no slouch and you’ll have a good experience for day to day tasks.

The iPhone is better for me because of iOS, the ecosystem and support.

One other aspect to remember on Android, you can easily turn on Developer Options and scale back animations. Perceptually this makes the high end Android devices feel faster than the latest iPhones for many activities. Wish the same could be done on iOS.

 

[imola.zhp]

I agree. Most phone buyers more than likely want one rather than need one. However, I bought my current phone because the previous one, which I was happy with, completely failed. It was a modest (and rebranded) device so repair wasn't an option. So, on that occasion, I needed a new phone.

Usually I do need a new phone every two years; or I'm close to needing one so I typically go ahead and upgrade. But for whatever reason my 7+ is still like new actually. I use it more than I should but the battery is still good and its plenty fast and works with all of my ecosystem. This is the first time in my typical two year upgrade cycle that I'm possibly skipping a year. Triple digits for new phones is INSANE, the net cost of my 7+ was something like $319 after the trade in of my 6. Unless a good promotion comes out between now and Christmas I'll probably stick with the 7+ until next year.

 

[Zaft]

Here's another example of dead space, or a "virtual chin"

I meant to the degree the keyboard is raised. Of course there will be some space allocated for the bar since there is no home button.

 

[cocoua]

I'm not really sure what your point is?

I went from a 6S to a Galaxy S8. Even using the 400-something PPI setting, I literally don't see a difference compared to my old 6S with 326 PPI. I've never even used the S8's QuadHD+ resolution with 570 PPI.

ok, sorry english is not my native language...

try this, open instagram or any website an try to read it while you scroll up/down, on both devices, you will se the more pixels the less blur the screen have, as your eyes are ALWAYS looking at the screen no matter if you are focus on reading al time, this mean your brain is getting blur images no matter if you dont care, and is processing them.

This needs to be paired with screen refresh speed, XS has a 120hz I think XR has also 120hz, this is necessary for the above effect.

it is said human eye cannot reach more than 255 frames per second (which needs 255hz refresh) but theoretically, our brain can detect more frames though our consciousness is not aware of them, and around 876 ppi/dpi at 4 inches far from eyes (this are an estimated numbers by scientist)

SO, this would mean, the day smartphones screens reach at least 255hz and something bigger than 876 ppi/dpi at 4 inches far from eyes, the experience would be the closest ever to see actual physical stuff (please mind color accuracy and etc...), then and just then, moving far from that would mean nothing from our actual physical limitations.

 

[ColdShadow]

So PPI is the only thing you care about?

The XR has a chip that is 3x faster than the fastest Android phone. The battery will last 2x longer. This is bleeding edge tech. The screen will look great, battery life will be killer, and performance world class.

Like it or not, theres more to life than PPI.

Like it or not? What are you talking about,I only use X and XS.I have no interest in “Regular” edition when more advanced versions exist.
I said IF it was the only iPhone I’d switch to Galaxy,and it will be superior to a phone with old ass LCD leftover display that has lower than standard (for its price) resolution and just one camera.
if you want the inferior phone,fine but don’t come here make it like the perfect phone,because it simply is not.

 

[kre62]

Like it or not? What are you talking about,I only use X and XS.I have no interest in “Regular” edition when more advanced versions exist.
I said IF it was the only iPhone I’d switch to Galaxy,and it will be superior to a phone with old ass LCD leftover display that has lower than standard (for its price) resolution and just one camera.
if you want the inferior phone,fine but don’t come here make it like the perfect phone,because it simply is not.

I know its not perfect, I just dont know why someone would take such a huge performance hit to get a better screen. The galaxy is dog slow compared to the XR.

 

[rafark]

What’s the point?

The jump from non retina to retina had a big impact on readability. Anything beyond retina will not have much of an impact. It may result is 2% more average enjoyment by those who actually care or notice.

 

[cocoua]

XD

 

[Mac 128]

Also, with EVERY generational leap in pixel density the color gamut increases and the quality of the colors and accuracy improves. More pixels means more light is combined from more sources of light so that the color gamut and accuracy improves. This is why 4K looks far more realistic then 1080p or 720p displays. Advances like HDR are not available on 1080p displays because those displays simply cannot reproduce the color depth and gamut or accuracy that standards like HDR demand. With higher pixel density, the color accuracy and gamut increases which is overall a good thing. personally when a display matches the quality of real life, that is when enough is enough, no display yet matches that yet.

Both Apple and Netflix offer HDR and DV over 1080p streams. There are 1080p monitors which support HDR. So that’s a flawed argument. I actually prefer streaming my content at 1080p in most cases as it improves load time, lowers bandwidth, and I can’t really tell the difference on my 65” 4K TV from a normal viewing distance. The only reason this trade off is acceptable to me is because I don’t sacrifice HDR, the difference for which is no less dramatic in 1080p than it is in 4K. I watched them in both resolutions on my TV and noticed no difference in quality of picture from the same viewing distance. I’ve also watched them side by side in a Magnolia showroom, and seen no difference.

I completely disagree that 4K looks more realistic than 1080p from a certain distance. And while HDR makes a definite difference from any distance, it appears to be no less effective on 1080p content and displays than it is on 4K for most content the average consumer may watch. Blu-ray discs have elected to market themselves as offering HDR with 4K only. But streaming has no restrictions. Perhaps that’s where some of this confusion comes from. That said, blu-ray has a decidedly better compression, which may affect the perception of reality over 1080p, and 1080p also tends to look better as well — which make no mistake is the bulk of 4K content: upscaled 2K. Regardless the difference is marginal at best from standard viewing distances, and often depend entirely upon the individual’s ability to perceive it, as well as their visual preferences.

 

[Baymowe335]

$749 is “affordable” ... sure Phil, whatever.

It is. Best in class silicon, top 3 camera, iOS, security, and premium build. Nice things cost money.

That Android you're comparing it to still costs $500, doesn't get supported longer than 6 months, isn't secure, tracks your every move, and doesn't have good hardware.

 

[Khedron]

It is. Best in class silicon, top 3 camera, iOS, security, and premium build. Nice things cost money.

That Android you're comparing it to still costs $500, doesn't get supported longer than 6 months, isn't secure, tracks your every move, and doesn't have good hardware.

Worst in class display. Worst camera of any >$700 phone.
Android doesn't withhold software features from previous models so they can be used for marketing.
Non-premium package. Want to fast charge? Pay Tim extra. Want to use standard headphones? Pay Tim extra. Cheap anodised aluminium scratches instantly.

iOS apps also track your every move and sell the information. Don't worry though, Tim says he doesn't approve of it. Actually doing something about it would hurt his bottom line though.

 

[Baymowe335]

Worst in class display. Worst camera of any >$700 phone.
Android doesn't withhold software features from previous models so they can be used for marketing.
Non-premium package. Want to fast charge? Pay Tim extra. Want to use standard headphones? Pay Tim extra. Cheap anodised aluminium scratches instantly.

iOS apps also track your every move and sell the information. Don't worry though, Tim says he doesn't approve of it. Actually doing something about it would hurt his bottom line though.

It has the same camera as the XS which just tested as one of the best smartphone cameras, period.

There are plenty of displays that would be worse than the XR. The XR would have better contrast and color accuracy than MANY android displays. We will see.

iOS doesn't sell your information. You're just talking now.

 

[chleuasme]

You can't compare LCD PPI to OLED PPI because most OLED phone displays are pen tile. The pixel density OLED displays have to be much higher to overcome the screen door effect.

Galaxy Note 9 - 516 x 0.75 = 387ppi
iPhone XS - 458 x 0.75 = 343ppi
iPhone XR - 326 x 1 = 326ppi

I'm not sure this kind of math hold :unsure:
The issue is of course colors aren't equal to human eyes, and so subpixels are not a really good unit compared to pixels, but I let you correct me if I'm wrong when trying to go at the sub-pixel level:


This is the Pentile Diamond arrangement Apple is using :

I can't find any source of how exactly pixels are considered, but going with this subdivision for 1 point (@3x then 9 px):

With then 9G per point and either 4R+5B or 5R+4B, it gives:


Pentile Diamond 458 ppi @3x

1 pt == 9 px == 18 subpx (4.5R + 9G + 4.5B)

2*458/2.54 = 361 subpx/cm to continue with linear units

but more logically, a pixel should be related to area units:

2*458^2 = 419528 sppsi (subpixels per square inch)
419528/2,54^2 = 65027 subpx/cm^2
And so 32513 G and 16257 R or B subpixels per cm^2

and we verify √(65027 * 2) = 361

But when looking at the density of data on screen,
with 18 subpx per point : (458/2.54)^2 / 9 = 65027/18 = 3613 pt/cm^2


To compare with:

RGB 326 ppi @2x

1 pt == 4 px == 12 subpx (4R + 4G + 4B)

3*326/2.54 = 385 subpx/cm

3*326^2 = 318828 sppsi
318828/2.54^2 = 49418 subpx/cm^2
And so 16473 R, G or B subpixels per cm^2

and √(49418 * 3) = 385

And with 12 subpx per point : (326/2.54)^2 / 4 = 49418/12 = 4118 pt/cm^2


And for reference:

RGB 264 ppi @2x

1 pt == 4 px == 12 subpx (4R + 4G + 4B)

3*264/2.54 = 312 subpx/cm

3*264^2 = 209088 sppsi
209088/2.54^2 = 32409 subpx/cm^2
And so 10803 R, G or B subpixels per cm^2

And with 12 subpx per point : 32409/12 = 2701 pt/cm^2


RGB 401 ppi @3x-scaled 1242x2208->1080x1920

115x115 pt => 9x100x100 px == 270000 subpx
1 pt => 270000/13225 = 20.4 subpx

3*401/2.54 = 474 subpx/cm

3*401^2 = 482403 sppsi
482403/2.54^2 = 74773 subpx/cm^2
And so 24924 R, G or B subpixels per cm^2

But with 20.4 subpx per point: 74773/20.4 = 3662 pt/cm^2



And conclusion ... well, anyway most people don't see any real difference in sharpness between these screens

But it comes the Pentile screens Apple is using are 32% sharper than the screens on their non-Plus iPhone (65027 vs 49418 subpx/cm^2), disregarding colors matters (same number of R and B subpixels, but double the number of G subpixels on the OLED screen).
And the iPhone Plus models are 15% sharper than the X models (74773 vs 65027 subpx/cm^2).
Now, the OLED screens and the iPhone Plus screens have about the same density of data when the 326 ppi RGB screens are denser, and this translates for the latter to elements displayed smaller on screen and then with fewer subpixels.

So to me the 458 ppi Pentile diamond screens appear definitely superior to the 326 ppi RGB screens in term of sharpness. And the issue with the sharper 401 ppi RGB screens is the necessary scaling that will display blurry horizontal or vertical 1 pt lines, and messing with scrolling.

Well if you look at the subpixels, Red and Blue have pretty much the same number as the XR. This can't be a coincidence.

Red 324 SPPI
Green 458 SPPI
Blue 324 SPPI

Where is this coming from? I understand that if there is 458 green subpixels per inch horizontally or vertically, with a Pentile diamond arrangement, it's only diagonally that there is 458/√2 = 324 red or blue subpixels per inch.
There is only 2 subpx per pixel, and 1/2 of the subpx are green; I don't think you can do 2.54*√16257 = 324 and 2.54*√32513 = 458 to get the R/B and G subpixels count per inch, basing on previous math.
[edit]The linear units show issues when you want to manipulate subpixels basing on pixels, depending on the fact you're in RGB or with a Pentile screen, but you don't face this kind of problem with points of course:
For example 2.54*√2701 = 132 pt/inch and 2.54*√4118 = 163 pt/inch (or more simply: 264/2 and 326/2 because each point is composed of exactly 2*2 pixels)
And the point size on the Pentile screen and the Plus screen is equivalent, and fall between the two others: 2.54*√3613 = 153 pt/inch and 2.54*√3662 = 154 pt/inch (or 458/3 and 1.15*401/3)[/edit]

Shouldn't you rather compare the green density with 458*0.5 = 229 red or blue subpixels per inch horizontally or vertically?

Because otherwise, if you want to look at the diagonal density of subpixels, there is then 648 green subpixels per inch. But I don't think you can consider that pixels are turned 45° like follows:

And I don’t think either Apple is doing complex stuffs like this:

where every pixels have 4 subpixels but one subpixel is shared with every contiguous pixel. We’d get:

1 pt == 9px == 24 subpx (6R + 12G + 6B)

458 px per inch => 4 + 3*457 = 1375 subpx per inch
hence 1375/2.54 = 541 subpx/cm

458^2 px per sq in => u(458) = 420444 sppsi
[ with u(1) = 4 and u(n) = u(n-1) + 4n = 2*n*(n+1) ]
hence 420444/2.54^2 = 65169 subpx/cm^2
And so 32584 G and 16292 R or B subpixels per cm^2

but with 24 subpx per point, we get: 65169/24 = 2715 pt/cm^2

and unless I'm making a mistake, this last value should be close to the one found with the iPhone Plus screen, as seen before, given the size of the elements displayed on the OLED Pentile screen iPhone models (but we can note this pixels arrangement could be a way to emulate the iPad with 264 ppi RGB displays on a 458 ppi Pentile diamond screen. Another solution being to use @3x a 401 ppi RGB panel for example, then with 27 subpx per point to get 74773/27 = 2769 pt/cm^2 , given 132*3 ~ 401).



edit: there is one mistake or imprecision in the last calculations above:

When the screen is seen as a 458 ppi screen with 2 subpixels per pixel, we found 361 subpx/cm.

If it is now seen as a 458 ppi screen with 4 shared subpixels per pixel, we probably should rather have 4 + 3*457 - 1 = 1374 subpx per inch (but of course, at this size, the width of a subpixel is well inside the margin of error).
This still gives 1374/2,54 = 541 subpx/cm anyway

(and we can see here the problem when using linear units: one has to count here the number of subpixels contained in a 1 pixel thick line. And that’s why, despite being exactly identical screens, we find 361 ≠ 541 subpx/cm that are both valid results)

Similarly, there is u(458) - 2*458 = 419528 sppssi and now we find the same value as before, logically (was bugging me)
And so giving the same 65027 subpx/cm^2
still with 32513 G and 16257 R or B subpixels per cm^2

And finally, with 24 subpx per point, we now get: 65027/24 = 2709 pt/cm^2
and the rest of the post hold wrt to the iPad 264 ppi RGB screens equivalence.

 

[chleuasme]

And so Prediction: the iPad Pro is getting Pentile diamond (OLED?) screens with subpixels at the same size as the so-called 458 ppi screens of the iPhone (given the pixels arrangement change, the pixel density measured in ppi would have to differ in marketing despite the identical subpixels), on a coming upgrade, the time for the cost of production to get lower (micro-LED?).