Video Demo of What a 4" iPhone Screen Looks Like in Action

[jrswizzle]

I think what people are missing about this whole "tall and skinny" business is this:

The SCREENS are the same ratio (approx. 1.78). It is the PHONES that are different. People whining about the iPhone being too skinny need to realize they wouldn't be asking for a wider SCREEN, but a wider bezel/phone. All Apple is doing is moving to the 16:9 aspect ratio and DECREASING the bezel. If you cut off the Galaxy's bezel, you would see much the same width.

I've heard plenty of mixed reviews about the GS3, most of the time falling under 1 of 2 categories: "OMG ITS SOOO AWESOME, WAAAAYY BETTER THAN THE IPHONE." or "I found the UI to be a little laggy and the screen to be a little too large. Overall it's a nice phone but I prefer the smoothness and simplicity of the iPhone."

Generally (not always) in those formats, either blithering generalizations about how the GS3 is superior in every way or thought-provoking commentaries on the design and functionality of the phone.

 

[Bezetos]

Picking on 1.778 lines of resolution (an impossible number to achieve) just shows the ignorance of those making the argument.

It is 16:9.

It is not.

16/9 = 1.7(7)

1280/720 = 1.7(7)

1920/1080 = 1.7(7)

1136/640 = 1.775

It's very close to 16:9, but not exactly 16:9.

If someone is ignorant, it's you.

 

[Ungibbed]

16:9 games should be no problem from the major developers who also port to the Mac and other platforms specifically Android devices that have the same screen ratio. The most common before the 720x1280 "HD" devices, earlier phones have used 540x960 displays first seen on the HTC Sensation as noted as a Sony super LCD part (great screen IMO, had one and loved it) the PSVita also uses the same pixel count on a OLED screen other current mid range Android phones use the same. Thinking about the iPhone 5 rumors of a larger screen if the current is 600x960 (not quite 4:3) but to stick true to the PPI, the amount of vertical pixels would have to be altered for a "true" 16:9 aspect ratio.

1024x600 is a interesting (and a more realistic) possibility as current devices that use the same ratio for a full 16:9 view if that is what Apple is shooting for and not too far out of reach from the current Retina Display.

 

[Geckotek]

It is not.

16/9 = 1.77

1280/720 = 1.77

1920/1080 = 1.77

1136/640 = 1.77

It's very close to 16:9, but not exactly 16:9.

If someone is ignorant, it's you.

Fixed

Rounding out to the thousandths is what's ignorant. For one, it's an extrememly negligible amount. Also, once again, the difference is 1.778 lines of resolution. Explain to me how you would add 1.778 lines of resolution to a display.

You're just picking on such tiny numbers to hate on the iPhone display. Nothing more. This argument is pointless and meaningless.

 

[tbrinkma]

I personally think that my "It might get loud" 720p movie will look better on a 1280x720 306 ppi screen (current SG3) than on a 1136 x 640 330ppi screen (AFAIR specs of new iPhone).

That's fine. You're certainly allowed to think so, but based on what we know about human visual acuity, you'd be incorrect. (Mind you, the 306ppi, 1280x720 display would be 4.5", which may improve subjective viewing experience. In neither case, at a typical viewing distance for either of those displays, would your eyes actually be resolving each individual pixel, so you wouldn't actually be able to see the difference in the images being displayed.

Every pixel is defined and displayed as is - no resizing algorithm needed. So I personally think the afterward sentence "This will fit many widescreen movies more naturally." is quite a bogus statement.

Well, I'm not the one who wrote the sentence you have quoted in there, but it's not bogus either. A 16:9 image fits on a 16:9.01 display more naturally than it does on a 3:2 display. Not because of discrete pixel-to-pixel mapping, but because there's less 'dead' area around the image.

Heck, a 320x180 screen also offers this aspect ratio but we won't need to argue that the picture will be crappy. Even though it is not letterboxed and therefore "looking more naturally".

I'll certainly concede that a 320x180 display (at any useful size) isn't going to look as nice as a higher resolution display (at the same or similar size) displaying a 720p image. After all, to have the same resolution as the iPhone display, the 320x180 display would be slightly less than an inch wide.

Fact is that the iPhone screen has been dethroned - and therefore there is no need to hype that screen as something revolutionary new - which is what the article does in a way.

And the only people claiming that anyone is claiming that the iPhone screen is *currently* 'revolutionary new' are the people who are claiming that they are. That was awkward. Let me try again.

The group of people who are claiming that the iPhone display is *currently* /revolutionary new' consists of straw-men made by people looking to prove that it *never was*. (Ok, there's probably a few idiots out there who don't realize that the iPhone 4's display resolution is pretty typical for high-end phones *now*, but there's idiots on the other end of the spectrum who claim they were common on phones in general before the release of the iPhone 4. But, I try not to base my arguments on what idiots say, regardless of their particular bias.)

 

[nickharris1992]

great video. Best yet

 

[Bezetos]

Fixed

Rounding out to the thousandths is what's ignorant.

For one, it's an extrememly negligible amount. Also, once again, the difference is 1.778 lines of resolution. Explain to me how you would add 1.778 lines of resolution to a display.

You're just picking on such tiny numbers to hate on the iPhone display. Nothing more. This argument is pointless and meaningless.

Gosh, do you understand maths at all?

The rumoured resolution is not 16/9. Period. I'm just stating a fact. I'm not posting an argument, I'm not arguing about anything, I'm just stating a mathematically proven fact. How the hell is this ignorant? You are (incorrectly) rounding up a repeating decimal, which I have used instead of a vulgar fraction in order to show the difference. What you've done is ignorant.

It is very close to 16/9 but it is not 16/9.

1280/720 = 16/9

1136/640 ≠ 16/9

1.7(7) ≈ 1.78 ≠ 1.77
1.775 ≈ 1.78 ≠ 1.77

1.7(7) ≈ 1.775
1.7(7) ≠ 1.775

You can't argue with maths!

 

[Geckotek]

Gosh, do you understand maths at all?

Hahaha, yeah, I get math. It's very clear that I understand. The person here that is beating a dead horse is you. You are arguing over less than 2 lines of resolution. Just proves you need your head checked.

It's close enough to 16:9 to call it 16:9. The difference is so marginal that it's not worth discussing....unless you're just trying to find the tinniest issue to pick on Apple with....which is what is happening here. This all coming from the same guy that picks on people camping out for iPhones but it's find to camp out for a book.

 

[Bezetos]

Hahaha, yeah, I get math. It's very clear that I understand.

Oh is it? You've incorrectly rounded up a number.

The person here that is beating a dead horse is you. You are arguing over less than 2 lines of resolution. Just proves you need your head checked.

Seriously, what is wrong with you. You started arguing that the rumoured resolution is 16:9, and when I show you solid, undeniable proof that it is not, you start talking about two lines of resolution (??) and ask me to have my head checked. I am not arguing over two lines, I am simply stating a fact: that rumoured resolution is not 16:9.

You're either back-pedalling in a terrible way or simply trolling.

It's close enough to 16:9 to call it 16:9.

That's just your opinion. It is not 16:9. It is very close. You can say "it's nearly 16:9" or "it's almost 16:9" or even "it's so close to 16:9 that you might not notice the difference" and that's great. But it's not exactly 16:9, and that's all I'm saying.

The difference is so marginal that it's not worth discussing....unless you're just trying to find the tinniest issue to pick on Apple with....which is what is happening here.

No it is not. You are putting words into my mouth. I am simply saying that it is not 16:9. Because it is not. If that's a problem for you I don't care. My only complaint in this thread was that you can't watch content natively in 720p, because the resolution is lower than 720p. Which is also a fact.

This all coming from the same guy that picks on people camping out for iPhones but it's find to camp out for a book.

I was comparing queuing for a couple hours for a book with camping out for a couple days to buy an expensive gadget like the iPhone. If you can't see the difference then you should have your head checked.

 

[Geckotek]

Oh is it? You've incorrectly rounded up a number.

Hahaha, now you're the one that doesn't get math.

 

[Bezetos]

Hahaha, now you're the one that doesn't get math.

Please elaborate. You've made a mistake, I've pointed it out, and I DON'T GET MATH.

Hmmmmmmmm....

 

[Geckotek]

Seriously, what is wrong with you. You started arguing that the rumoured resolution is 16:9, and when I show you solid, undeniable proof that it is not, you start talking about two lines of resolution (??) and ask me to have my head checked. I am not arguing over two lines, I am simply stating a fact: that rumoured resolution is not 16:9.

You're either back-pedalling in a terrible way or simply trolling.

1.78 lines of resolution is what it would take to make it EXACTLY 16:9....but since this is impossible, I think we've located our troll.

That's just your opinion. It is not 16:9. It is very close. You can say "it's nearly 16:9" or "it's almost 16:9" or even "it's so close to 16:9 that you might not notice the difference" and that's great. But it's not exactly 16:9, and that's all I'm saying.

Again, picking on stupid minutiae. Typical.

No it is not. You are putting words into my mouth. I am simply saying that it is not 16:9. Because it is not. If that's a problem for you I don't care. My only complaint in this thread was that you can't watch content natively in 720p, because the resolution is lower than 720p. Which is also a fact.

And your eye won't be ablet to tell the difference, so unless you are here to troll on Apple, why are you picking on it?

I was comparing queuing for a couple hours for a book with camping out for a couple days to buy an expensive gadget like the iPhone. If you can't see the difference then you should have your head checked.

Nobody in that thread ever said they were camping out for a couple of days. You simply compared caming out with one for camping out for another. If you had said "I'm ok with camping out for anything for a couple of hours, but 2 days is too much" then I wouldn't have said anything. But you didn't qualify. You clearly stated waiting for a book is ok but waiting for a phone is not. Perhaps you should be a little more specific if you mean something else. Either way, it's clear that you had prejudice.

----------

Please elaborate. You've made a mistake, I've pointed it out, and I DON'T GET MATH.

Hmmmmmmmm....

I've made no rounding mistakes, I simply didn't round. And either way, they all round to the same value. You're the jerk that keeps arguing over a value of 3 one-thousandths.....something indistinguishable to the human eye at 4".



Edit: Let me ask you this, if you ask someone what the price of gas is per gallon and they answer $3.99....do you correct them and say "NO! It's $3.999!"

I didn't think so. You have chosen to pick on an insignificant number here. Your motivation is not 100% clear, either you don't like me or you don't like the iPhone. Either way, you are being unreasonable and that is most likely clear to everyone.

 

[Bezetos]

1.78 lines of resolution is what it would take to make it EXACTLY 16:9....but since this is impossible, I think we've located our troll.

I think you have some issues. I am NOT arguing about any lines of resolution - I am NOT claiming that you can add 1.78 lines of resolution.

I am simply stating that the rumoured resolution is not exactly 16:9.

Do you get it?

Or should I repeat again?

Here we go:

The rumoured resolution is not exactly 16:9.

That's all I'm claiming. If you can prove I'm wrong (Note: you can't) then we can continue this conversation. Otherwise I see no point whatsoever, unless you want to keep trolling.

Again, picking on stupid minutiae. Typical.

I'm not picking on anything.

And your eye won't be ablet to tell the difference, so unless you are here to troll on Apple, why are you picking on it?

I'm not picking on anything. I'm simply stating that it is not 720p, thus the content will be downscaled - at such screen size, you will probably won't see the difference. I personally prefer to have a bigger screen and 720p, but that's only my personal preference.

Nobody in that thread ever said they were camping out for a couple of days. You simply compared caming out with one for camping out for another.

No I did not. Quote: I understand queuing up to buy a new book (...) But >camping out< to buy something that most of the world can't even afford

If you had said "I'm ok with camping out for anything for a couple of hours, but 2 days is too much" then I wouldn't have said anything.

That's exactly what I said. Quote: I personally find queuing to buy something more than a couple hours disturbing

Either way, you are being unreasonable and that is most likely clear to everyone.

I am not unreasonable, you are trying so so hard to argue with me over something I did not say.

Just stop this nonsense already.

I am only claiming that the rumoured resolution is not exactly 16:9.

I am not claiming that it is bad. I've only said that since the resolution is lower, the 720p content will be downscaled.

I am not claiming that because the ratio is not exactly 16:9 the new (rumoured) iPhone is bad.

I am not claiming that is is possible to add 1.78 lines of resolution. I've never ever mentioned it before you brought it up (and I only quoted you saying it).

Am I making this clear enough for you? Or maybe you still wan't to come up with things I've never said? Give it a break.

 

[Geckotek]

The rumoured resolution is not exactly 16:9.

Yes, please give it a break. You are right, it's not exact. It's 3 one-thousandths off. Only a tool argues that point to death. It's close enough to 16:9 that it will not be noticeable to anyone.

And nobody ever said it was 720p, that was never part of the conversation. This argument started when you jumped in regarding my reply to someone else stating that it is 16:9 (or close enough to it that only a tool would say otherwise).

And you admit about arguing strictly over a MINUTE measurment? For what purpose? Just to screw with me?

I'm done arguing with you and your hard head. 3 one-thousandths is simply not enough measurement to argue over. It's close enough to 16:9 that calling it 16:9 is reasonable and anybody that argues otherwise is simply trolling.

Your location gives away your motivation:

Location: far away from an Apple store

Congrats, you've just made the ignore list. It's been a long time since anyone has been inducted.

 

[Bezetos]

Yes, please give it a break. You are right, it's not exact. It's 3 one-thousandths off. Only a tool argues that point to death. It's close enough to 16:9 that it will not be noticeable to anyone.

Exactly! So why are you still arguing?

And nobody ever said it was 720p, that was never part of the conversation.

Of course nobody did! I've never claimed it is 720p, only that I prefer it to be. Stop making things up.

And you admit about arguing strictly over a MINUTE measurment? For what purpose? Just to screw with me?

You're the one arguing.

I'm done arguing with you and your hard head. 3 one-thousandths is simply not enough measurement to argue over.

Exactly! So stop arguing.

 

[Roessnakhan]

I wonder if they'll also supply larger thumbs. I already have trouble reaching to the other end of the screen with phone holding hand on the current design. Let alone if it were taller.

Damn, how small are your hands? Mine are medium-sized and my thumb still extends past the top of the phone when holding it.

 

[thekb]

I do loves me some internets.

I don't have time to read the entire thread arguing about the resolution, but please let me know who wins.

 

[diamond.g]

Edit: Let me ask you this, if you ask someone what the price of gas is per gallon and they answer $3.99....do you correct them and say "NO! It's $3.999!"

For every 10 gallons you put in you pay an extra penny. So it wouldn't be out of line to round up by a penny (in most cases).