Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
<snip consumerist boasting>

I don't know what more a "techie" can own.

A techie wouldn't boast about owning all that crap.

I think I'm a pretty big techie. I started my own software development company, and despite devoting my time to management now, I spend my spare time coding on various projects. I also ran a pretty huge BBS back in the early 1990s.

My laptop? It's a two year old Macbook Pro.

My desktop? A cheap Rasberry Pi thin terminal I hacked up using NX connected to a Ubuntu server. It's housed in a cardboard box.

That Ubuntu server is running on three year old Thinkpad laptop with a dead screen. It gives decent performance with minimal power usage.

My home theater system? Kit speakers in MDF enclosures, covered with felt. They're better than any speakers you're likely to see in store.

I still have an iPhone 3GS. It's still working, so why upgrade? My wife has the 4S, and it's nice, but there's no point replacing my phone while it still works.

Techies build things. They don't buy things, because they can use their MacGyver skills to get whatever they want working out of spare parts and cheap hardware. If something is still working, they don't replace it.
 
just curious why the odd resolution? I know it's 16:9 and everything designed around 16:9 will be in the right ratio.

But why that resolution? Why not the standard 1280x720?

Path dependency paired with poor design choices, if you ask me. For some reason they do not want to abandon the 320 multiples. Also means there wont be a 1080 device, until Apples works out how to break out of the box it built for itself. Might also mean that there will be a ****-ton of scaling if you ever want to watch high-res stuff on your phone.
 
You're still a PC guy? Blasphemy! :eek:


Honestly, though, I think a 4'' screen is the perfect size. Coming from the Galaxy S (Vibrant), Nexus and EVO 4g...I just love the 4'' size. 4.5'' was a bit too big. Not for my hands, they're big. But trying to pocket it is exhuasting. 4'' provides enough viewing room, but not too much.. Sizes like the Galaxy Note....there's a market...but you're better off getting a tableto.

If the new iPhone has a bigger screen and is thinner, without increasing the overal size...that would be the best case scenario.

Haha, MS is essential to my income so yep, still a PC guy. We agree on screen size, although I would've been fine w/ no change.

@Marlor, you blew away techie and went straight to nerdy! Lol. J/K
 
LOL I am? I bet my Car is worth more than your life. I buy my stuff. Nothing high tech about making iphone 3 generations ahead of yours?? There are things I've been doing with my iphones that iOS 5 just incorporated. Clearing all my apps with 3 clicks of home button, can you do that?? can you move all your apps simultaneously to another page? can you scroll your home row ?? can you turn off and on you're wifi and blue tooth without going in your settings app??

You honestly have no clue.

Yes I can, on my iPhone 1. It's all on Cydia and available by pressing a few buttons. And I bet my car is worth more than your Car...
 
A techie wouldn't boast about owning all that crap.

I think I'm a pretty big techie. I started my own software development company, and despite devoting my time to management now, I spend my spare time coding on various projects. I also ran a pretty huge BBS back in the early 1990s.

My laptop? It's a two year old Macbook Pro.

My desktop? A cheap Rasberry Pi thin terminal I hacked up using NX connected to a Ubuntu server. It's housed in a cardboard box.

That Ubuntu server is running on three year old Thinkpad laptop with a dead screen. It gives decent performance with minimal power usage.

My home theater system? Kit speakers in MDF enclosures, covered with felt. They're better than any speakers you're likely to see in store.

I still have an iPhone 3GS. It's still working, so why upgrade? My wife has the 4S, and it's nice, but there's no point replacing my phone while it still works.

Techies build things. They don't buy things, because they can use their MacGyver skills to get whatever they want working out of spare parts and cheap hardware. If something is still working, they don't replace it.

I was doing this until my mom gave me her old iPhone 4 :/
The iPhone 1 worked for me. Oh well, I still have my '06 MacBook that I got for free and put a hard drive (OK, I bought that) into so it would work then put a nice lightbulb design on the back. And my hacked record player. And my Cruzer flash drive that I managed to remove the stupid "U3 System" from.

Still, I'm not really a techie. I actually care about how my phone looks, not for impression on others but for my own enjoyment. It's just that I'd choose a free, ugly iPhone over an expensive, nice one. And if there was, in theory, a car that was just a Honda Accord but better and with a Prius or Aztek design, I'd just get the Accord.
 
Last edited:
Yes I can, on my iPhone 1. It's all on Cydia and available by pressing a few buttons. And I bet my car is worth more than your Car...

My car isn't. Learned a few years ago to put my money into experiences over possessions. Now I spend more of my money on traveling than anything else. Still gotta have some gadgets though. :p. (it's an addiction I battle daily)
 
The problem here is that this isn't the 16:9 aspect ratio that we are used to - it's close but not exactly 16:9. So you will not be able to watch 720p natively like on other phones.

Indeed. Wont stop Apple from marketing how awesome the 16:9 ratio is for media though. Well, there is always 320p content to watch :eek:

And that's where the problem arises - even though it's a few pixels off, when scaling HD content the difference is a lot bigger.

The pixels really dont matter. Cut them off, no one will notice. Having to scale from say 720 to 640, on the other hand, matters.
 
If it is the car in your name, I bet it is too. :D

Aaaaaaaah nice. I want a new name though. It's my dog's name plus a car I thought was the coolest car ever when I was 8. I still think the Z06 is a sweet car.

No, I don't have a Z06 :(
 
The problem here is that this isn't the 16:9 aspect ratio that we are used to - it's close but not exactly 16:9. So you will not be able to watch 720p natively like on other phones.

How is it not 16:9????

----------

The pixels really dont matter. Cut them off, no one will notice. Having to scale from say 720 to 640, on the other hand, matters.

At 4" it doesn't.
 
I can see September 12th coming and Apple will show this same 4 inch screen that is not wider. No one will complain right there and then at the keynote.

Since the iPhone has been playing the catch up game since forever, (look how long it took to get simple copy and paste) we'll have to hope to get a wider not just longer phone next year. iPhone 6 or what ever they choose to call it.

iphone 5S. S for screen!

----------

How is it not 16:9????

----------



At 4" it doesn't.

a) If it didnt matter at 4", there would be no issue scaling apps from 640->720.
b) At 4", you are bound to end up with your eyes near the display.
c) Re-think. Re-post.

And to answer your question to Bezetos, it is not 16:9 because it lacks a pixel or two. That, like earlier stated, is quite irrelevant though.
 
iphone 5S. S for screen!

----------



a) If it didnt matter at 4", there would be no issue scaling apps from 640->720.
b) At 4", you are bound to end up with your eyes near the display.
c) Re-think. Re-post.

And to answer your question to Bezetos, it is not 16:9 because it lacks a pixel or two. That, like earlier stated, is quite irrelevant though.

A) huh? How does that matter? I certainly didn't mention it.
B) and you still won't be able to discern the scaling.
C) done done

A couple of pixels does not magically make it not 16:9. To argue that point is ludicrous and will make no discernible difference in the viewing of content.
 
Amazing! Innovative! What a step forward!

Do you think Apple will patent "a process for making a smaller screen just a little bit bigger"?

They should patent their marketing process. That's the really innovative and amazing thing Apple produces.
 
Who said anything about live broadcast? You stated the highest resolution TV format is 1080i. TV is not limited to live broadcasts. The actual TV sets are obviously 1080p

Btw I would like some evidence that "780p" exists. As far as I'm aware 720p is it. Digital broadcast isn't like analog broadcast -- there aren't any "extra lines" used to carry other data. On another note, I don't really understand why we still define everything by horizontal lines. Actual resolution makes more sense.

Ratio is essentially standardized, and thus implied in 720p.
 
Hahaha, your TV doesn't make you techie. Your possessions don't impress me in any way. We all have them and they really don't make one person better than another.

And to be clear, I never said you weren't techie, you said I wasn't. I was only pointing out that I've been a techie so long that modding my phone and over clocking my PC no longer interest me. Not saying those aren't techie things to do...just no longer interesting for me.

By bigger toys I mean the systems I run for the very large airline I work for. I'm an Exchange and Lync architect and admin.

Edit: perhaps my photography has also been filling my techie desires lately.

If it aint Sabre it aint cool, if it aint cool you cant be a techie... oh wait! Jokes aside, if you are that old you ought to be wise enough not to fuel pointless e-cock debates.
 
If it aint Sabre it aint cool, if it aint cool you cant be a techie... oh wait! Jokes aside, if you are that old you ought to be wise enough not to fuel pointless e-cock debates.

Ummmm, Sabre related? And I'm bored. Waiting around on a phone call to practice emceeing a wedding tomorrow.
 
Ratios are not standardized by anyone, it's simply a mathematical designation. 720p is, but obviously this screen is not 720p.

Read within context next time. Ratios are very much standardized in the context of broadcasting media. Do you think its an accident that every tv (and unfortunately far too many computer displays) happen to be 16:9? Also:

16:9 (1.77:1) (16:9 = 42:32) is an aspect ratio with a width of 16 units and height of 9. Since 2009, it has become the most common aspect ratio for sold televisions and computer monitors and is also the international standard format of HDTV, Full HD, non-HD digital television and analog widescreen television (EDTV) PALplus.​


----------

A) huh? How does that matter? I certainly didn't mention it.
B) and you still won't be able to discern the scaling.
C) done done

A couple of pixels does not magically make it not 16:9. To argue that point is ludicrous and will make no discernible difference in the viewing of content.

A) others have, and more will. fact of the matter is, scaling matters. perhaps not to you, but undoubtedly to image quality. Furthermore, it requires additional processing.
B) You admitted to being old, so im not going to fault you for having poor sight ;)
 
Read within context next time. Ratios are very much standardized in the context of broadcasting media. Do you think its an accident that every tv (and unfortunately far too many computer displays) happen to be 16:9? Also:

16:9 (1.77:1) (16:9 = 42:32) is an aspect ratio with a width of 16 units and height of 9. Since 2009, it has become the most common aspect ratio for sold televisions and computer monitors and is also the international standard format of HDTV, Full HD, non-HD digital television and analog widescreen television (EDTV) PALplus.​

Again, 720p is the standard, not 16:9. 16:9 happens to be the ratio of the 720p standard. Don't put the cart before the horse.

Also, notice how they stop at the hundredths? 1136/640 is still 1.77. So while it's not 720p, it is 16:9.

----------

A) others have, and more will. fact of the matter is, scaling matters. perhaps not to you, but undoubtedly to image quality. Furthermore, it requires additional processing.
B) You admitted to being old, so im not going to fault you for having poor sight ;)

A) I'll give you the processing, but most material downloaded will most like be sized correctly. (assuming iTunes and handbrake being the most popular sources) Not sure how it affects streaming. And have you ever seen the quality difference on a 56"? (I have on my old Samsung). While noticeable there, it's not enough of a difference to be noticeable on a 4" screen. When the phone is released, feel free to try to prove me wrong by comparing the same content playing on a 720p screen vs the new iPhone.
B) Still have 20/15 vision. Never needed glasses. :D

Edit: oh, I don't watch videos on my iPhone anyway so I really don't care. Just trying to point out how unimportant these minute details you guys are picking on are.
 
Last edited:
Again, 720p is the standard, not 16:9. 16:9 happens to be the ratio of the 720p standard. Don't put the cart before the horse.

Also, notice how they stop at the hundredths? 1136/640 is still 1.77. So while it's not 720p, it is 16:9.

Sigh. 16:9 is standard both by fact and agreement. Further, that A is standard does not support the conclusion that B is not. Cant be bothered to actually type up responses stating obvious things, so here is another wiki-quote:


720p is a progressive HDTV signal format with 720 horizontal lines and an aspect ratio (AR) of 16:9 (1.78:1). All major high definition (HD) TV broadcasting standards include a 720p format which has a resolution of 1280×720, however there are other formats, including HDV Playback and AVCHD for camcorders, which utilize 720p images with the standard HDTV resolution. The number 720 stands for the 720 horizontal scan lines of image display resolution (also known as 720 pixels of vertical resolution), while the letter p stands for progressive scan (i.e. non-interlaced).[1] When broadcast at 60[note 1] frames per second, 720p features the highest temporal (motion) resolution possible under the ATSC and DVB standards. The term assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9, thus implying a resolution of 1280 × 720 (0.9 megapixels).

16:9 is standard. 16:9 is implied. Thus, there is no need to state the full resolution, as the resolution (within context) is already given by knowing the horizontal lines.

More reading:

In 1983, the International Telecommunication Union's radio telecommunications sector (ITU-R) set up a working party (IWP11/6) with the aim of setting a single international HDTV standard. One of the thornier issues concerned a suitable frame/field refresh rate, the world already having split into two camps, 25/50 Hz and 30/60 Hz, largely due to the differences in mains frequency. The IWP11/6 working party considered many views and throughout the 1980s served to encourage development in a number of video digital processing areas, not least conversion between the two main frame/field rates using motion vectors, which led to further developments in other areas. While a comprehensive HDTV standard was not in the end established, agreement on the aspect ratio was achieved.

[---]

An aspect ratio of 16:9 was duly agreed upon at the first meeting of the IWP11/6 working party at the BBC's Research and Development establishment in Kingswood Warren. The resulting ITU-R Recommendation ITU-R BT.709-2 ("Rec. 709") includes the 16:9 aspect ratio, a specified colorimetry, and the scan modes 1080i (1,080 actively interlaced lines of resolution) and 1080p (1,080 progressively scanned lines). The British Freeview HD trials used MBAFF, which contains both progressive and interlaced content in the same encoding.

Its okay to be wrong. Its not okay to be a bitch about it.

Edit: i re-read your post. I said the ratio was implied in 720p. You said i was wrong. Now you are trying to make the point that the ratio is implied in 720p? Make up your mind. You cant have it both ways. If theres a problem with not stating the full resolution (your initial position), ratio cannot be implied, standardized, or otherwise given.

P.S. as you can see above, they agreed on ratio before they agreed on resolution. 16:9 TV also appeared long before HDTV.

----------

Again, 720p is the standard, not 16:9. 16:9 happens to be the ratio of the 720p standard. Don't put the cart before the horse.

Also, notice how they stop at the hundredths? 1136/640 is still 1.77. So while it's not 720p, it is 16:9.

----------



A) I'll give you the processing, but most material downloaded will most like be sized correctly. (assuming iTunes and handbrake being the most popular sources) Not sure how it affects streaming. And have you ever seen the quality difference on a 56"? (I have on my old Samsung). While noticeable there, it's not enough of a difference to be noticeable on a 4" screen. When the phone is released, feel free to try to prove me wrong by comparing the same content playing on a 720p screen vs the new iPhone.
B) Still have 20/15 vision. Never needed glasses. :D

Edit: oh, I don't watch videos on my iPhone anyway so I really don't care. Just trying to point out how unimportant these minute details you guys are picking on are.

A) I actually doubt that most material downloaded will be sized correctly. Its a very odd resolution, and little reason to support it. Google wont, thats for sure.

Battery dead. end of post.
 
Last edited:
Sigh. 16:9 is standard both by fact and agreement.

Sigh, it's just a mathematical expression. Unless you care to pull out the document delineating the standard??

Further, that A is standard does not support the conclusion that B is not. Cant be bothered to actually type up responses stating obvious things, so here is another wiki-quote:


720p is a progressive HDTV signal format with 720 horizontal lines and an aspect ratio (AR) of 16:9 (1.78:1). All major high definition (HD) TV broadcasting standards include a 720p format which has a resolution of 1280×720, however there are other formats, including HDV Playback and AVCHD for camcorders, which utilize 720p images with the standard HDTV resolution. The number 720 stands for the 720 horizontal scan lines of image display resolution (also known as 720 pixels of vertical resolution), while the letter p stands for progressive scan (i.e. non-interlaced).[1] When broadcast at 60[note 1] frames per second, 720p features the highest temporal (motion) resolution possible under the ATSC and DVB standards. The term assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9, thus implying a resolution of 1280 × 720 (0.9 megapixels).

In my youth, I sold a/v gear. I'm very familiar with the 720p standard. I haven't refuted it and I'm still unclear why you keep quoting it to me as I haven't argued anything against 720p.

16:9 is standard. 16:9 is implied. Thus, there is no need to state the full resolution, as the resolution (within context) is already given by knowing the horizontal lines.

So you are trying to tell me that everytime someone says 16:9 they mean 1280x720? That can't be what you mean so please clarify.

More reading:

In 1983, the International Telecommunication Union's radio telecommunications sector (ITU-R) set up a working party (IWP11/6) with the aim of setting a single international HDTV standard. One of the thornier issues concerned a suitable frame/field refresh rate, the world already having split into two camps, 25/50 Hz and 30/60 Hz, largely due to the differences in mains frequency. The IWP11/6 working party considered many views and throughout the 1980s served to encourage development in a number of video digital processing areas, not least conversion between the two main frame/field rates using motion vectors, which led to further developments in other areas. While a comprehensive HDTV standard was not in the end established, agreement on the aspect ratio was achieved.

[---]

An aspect ratio of 16:9 was duly agreed upon at the first meeting of the IWP11/6 working party at the BBC's Research and Development establishment in Kingswood Warren. The resulting ITU-R Recommendation ITU-R BT.709-2 ("Rec. 709") includes the 16:9 aspect ratio, a specified colorimetry, and the scan modes 1080i (1,080 actively interlaced lines of resolution) and 1080p (1,080 progressively scanned lines). The British Freeview HD trials used MBAFF, which contains both progressive and interlaced content in the same encoding.

Yep, they agreed to use a 16:9 aspect ratio. Still not getting your point.


Its okay to be wrong. Its not okay to be a bitch about it.

Edit: i re-read your post. I said the ratio was implied in 720p. You said i was wrong. Now you are trying to make the point that the ratio is implied in 720p? Make up your mind. You cant have it both ways. If theres a problem with not stating the full resolution (your initial position), ratio cannot be implied, standardized, or otherwise given.

P.S. as you can see above, they agreed on ratio before they agreed on resolution. 16:9 TV also appeared long before HDTV.


Never changed my mind. From the beginning I've said that A) 16:9 is not a standard, it is a mathematical expression and that 720p is a standard that is agreed to use the 16:9 aspect ratio.

Let's be clear on one thing. Being a mathematical expression means that it doesn't need to be a standard. It simply is what it is. 16/9...1.77 It requires no definition, no standard.

So let's get back to the origin of this argument. The new iPhone display is 16:9 because it is 1136x640 and 1136/640 = 16/9.01408... The .01408 is negligible and it's even stupid that you guys are picking on it.

I have conceded that there may be some processing necessary for sampling resolutions other than 1136x640 down, but I'm sure that Apple will include a processor that can handle it just fine.

So, the only thing left is your statement that there will be quality loss due to downsampling. If we were talking a 30" screen or better, perhaps. But most agree that the human eye can't even discern the improvement of going up to 720p (video or photos) on such small screens, let alone notice downsampling. But like I said earlier, feel free to prove me wrong by setting up a comparison once the phone has been released. I guarantee it will take a video professional to notice a difference.

A) I actually doubt that most material downloaded will be sized correctly. Its a very odd resolution, and little reason to support it. Google wont, thats for sure.

Battery dead. end of post.

Most people I know format downloaded material using handbrake before loading it on the iPhone/iPad etc... But I'm sure some don't.

What does Google have to do with it?

Edit: Do you think Apple didn't test it thoroughly before deciding on this resolution? Oh, and what about all the videos already scaling?!?!? Now that I think about it, the experience can't be any worse that what we already have. This entire argument is moot. Can't believe none of us has pointed that out before now.

----------

If you do the division math, the iPhone 5 is a tiny bit shorter than 16:9. It's a really tiny, unimportant difference, but he is technically right.

Technically he's picking on 1.778 lines of resolution which is just stupid (and not possible).
 
Last edited:
Boy you are itching to pick a fight? My typing 780p was an obvious typo: I typed 780 instead of 720p, and used it correctly elsewhere. Thanks for pointing it out...went back and corrected it.

The previous poster was saying 720p doesn't exit. I was focused on the 'p'. I thought, based on his post, he was trying to say it was 720i and 1080p for broadcast, when it is actually 720p and 1080i....1080p is reserved to blu ray, preloaded movies or high speed internet. And the other poster was trying to make a connection to phone screen resolution and TV 720p resolution. Different beasts.

Sorry to ruin your attempt at an 'I gotcha'...;) Never said there was no 1080p TV's. Just relating to the post threads on 720 TV and the new iPhone at 640 pixels

For the record, all I said was 780p doesn't exist, because of your "typo" you apparently made 3 times in one post... That's why I said there's 1280x720p. We're on the same page, but you're typo sure created mass confusion.
 
1080p is reserved to blu ray, preloaded movies or high speed internet.

There are plenty of 1080p broadcasts in countries that actually use the proper DVB standards.

For example, BBC HD broadcasts in 1080p.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.