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.
4.7-Inch iPhone 6 Screen Put Under Microscope as New 1472 x 828 Resolution Emerges
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Those young people didn't have too sharp an eye to see a pixel on less than 5" screen with more than 300 PPI resolution at a foot away.
I had been young once.
It is sad that this thread has gone on so far and you are the ONLY person to point out the obvious: This photo shows, as you said, about 12 to 13px per millimeter - which is between 700 and 760 horizontal resolution for 4.7" display.
I never believed in a 1706x960 resolution. The DPI is to high. Apple does not waste a single cent in over engineering.
If this is a really the 4.7" screen, then the only resolution that makes sense is 752 x 1336 as you have said. This resolution not only fits the microscope picture, it fits perfectly in that its a 17.5% increase in pixel count on a display that is 17.55% physically larger dimensioned.
This means that they will not have to 'zoom' older apps. They will simply have a 17.5% border - and they will display at identical phsyical size and resolution as they do on the current iphone5.
As you have also pointed out 828x1472 does fit for a 5.5". It would also mean the zooming/scaling is not needed for previous iphone apps. The display is 37.5% bigger in width/length, while the pixel count grows by 29.3%. This means the original iphone5 apps will be shown as is about 8% larger with a think border around them, possibly with a 25% zoom as an option. It does however mean that the DPI has reduced, but its still over Jobs magic '300' number.
However the problem with this theory of 752 x 1336 and 828x1472 is that this is two more resolution to support. Rather than just one new resolution at two display sizes (like ipad and ipad mini).
I guess we still have to wait and see....
Firstly, I never stated a standard TV broadcast resolution, no idea where you got that from, Apple have a standard IPAD resolution across the Mini and Air. And no there's nothing magical about 1080p but the fact is you CAN tell the difference between the resolutions on a phone screen. It is a typical Apple fan defense to try and claim otherwise, or try and rubbish 1080p as meaningless, so going by your thinking Apple should ditch the higher than 1080P resolutions on tablets too then because people can't possibly tell the difference...
iPhone screens do look great, but it's about time they also had the resolution too.
Hmm so your claim is that people only watch movies on a tablet and never on a phone. Wrong, plenty of people only have a smartphone out and about with them and they DO watch sports or programmes or films on them.
Last edited:
Those young people didn't have too sharp an eyes to see a pixel on less than 5" screen with more than 300 PPI resolution at a foot away.
I had been young once.
Have you considered the possibility that you just didn't see as well as your friends when you were younger? Oh and did 5" cell phone screens with more than 300 PPI exist back then?
I'm in the minority, but I think it is good news. I'd rather have lower resolution but actually have more usable space. 1472x828 at 2x gives us more vertical and horizontal resolution. I was hoping it wouldn't be the 3x 1706X960 which would just blow up the UI.
You know.. what we discussed here isn't something special or just being discovered. Folks at HiFi/Videophile forums discussed this.. since how many years ago. And I can't remember if there was actually a single case which went beyond what we know scientifically, that can be proved to be real.
I just leave it at this.
We have printers that can print 300 dpi for a very long time (I mean in printing business, not some kinds of inkjet of course)
Nice try, but you can't fool anyone with a standard level of reading comprehension that I haven't made myself perfectly clear before.
If I misunderstood you then I apologize (I may not have read all your posts though, so it's possible). I thought you said 720p and 1080p are the phone standard.
The thing is... the picture clearly shows a horizontal resolution somewhere around 700 to 760. So both of those resolution are out - or the image is a fake.
The image *does* look a lot like a generic 4.8" 1280x720p panel... maybe its a fake image all along. After all the person who posted it calcuated the resolution as 1706x960, which does not match the picture at all!
Computers and software evolved to use the RAM. Our eyeballs ain't gonna evolve. (Once you're born you're stuck with 'em)
Couldn't possibly matter less than any other aspect of the display or of the phone for that matter. But yea, keep that camp alive. As if anyone actually cares about the display being specifically 1920 x 1080.
Its just so crazy. There is this tiny, yet extremely vocal, camp of bloggers that must watch 1080p video on their phone A LOT, and for some reason think its OK to accommodate that while comprising the rest of the entire OS and every App on the App Store, so that they can watch Star Trek in all 4 inches of pixel for pixel glory.
I'm sorry but its not even an argument. If you were a high level team member at Apple and suggested that, you'd probably be thrown out of the building for having such a narrow scope of thought.
that's what I've said
Apart from the SOC, the iPhone doesn't propose a good battery
, a full HD screen , 2GB RAM .... so not really different from middle range android smartphones----------
even with a resolution smaller than HD the iPhone5S battery life doesn't last a full day...
And if apple would have proposed a fullhd resolution in their iPhone devices it would have been 'cool', as they did with the ipad retina, double standards
Last edited:
Why does it have to compromise anything? Plenty of android phones have achieved 1080p displays and don't compromise anything. And I'm not here for 'oh android phones have crap batteries' or the android OS is laggy and has performance issues because it's simply not true.
A >400 PPI is nowhere near 'too high', it's the sweet spot. As a result, I don't think it's over-engineering.
It is sad that this thread has gone on so far and you are the ONLY person to point out the obvious: This photo shows, as you said, about 12 to 13px per millimeter - which is between 700 and 760 horizontal resolution for 4.7" display.
I never believed in a 1706x960 resolution. The DPI is to high. Apple does not waste a single cent in over engineering.
If this is a really the 4.7" screen, then the only resolution that makes sense is 752 x 1336 as you have said. This resolution not only fits the microscope picture, it fits perfectly in that its a 17.5% increase in pixel count on a display that is 17.55% physically larger dimensioned.
This means that they will not have to 'zoom' older apps. They will simply have a 17.5% border - and they will display at identical phsyical size and resolution as they do on the current iphone5.
As you have also pointed out 828x1472 does fit for a 5.5". It would also mean the zooming/scaling is not needed for previous iphone apps. The display is 37.5% bigger in width/length, while the pixel count grows by 29.3%. This means the original iphone5 apps will be shown as is about 8% larger with a think border around them, possibly with a 25% zoom as an option. It does however mean that the DPI has reduced, but its still over Jobs magic '300' number.
However the problem with this theory of 752 x 1336 and 828x1472 is that this is two more resolution to support. Rather than just one new resolution at two display sizes (like ipad and ipad mini).
I guess we still have to wait and see....
----------
I'm thinking Apple has probably tested a variety of screens and resolutions. Even if the screen were real, it might not end up in the iPhone 6.
Like said, ~300 dpi/ppi is the bare minimum for even pretending that individual pixels aren't visible. I guess we can all agree on that if you can see the pixels, we aren't talking about a "retina" or any other market name high resolution display? And since studies tell us that basically everyone can tell the difference between 300 and 500 ppi, and most people can tell 1000 ppi from 500 ppi, it is safe to say that 500 ppi would be a meaningful "standard". That doesn't mean that higher would not be better, but 500-600 ppi seems to be the point where we are starting to get diminishing returns.
Also, why people keep fixating on "seeing the pixels" (or perhaps more correctly, *not* seeing the pixels) is beyond me. "Pixel peeping" would be a meaningful criteria if the human vision would consist of a digital camera mounted on an extremely sturdy tripod. Alas, it is not. Humans do not see in terms of pixels. What we have is a continuously refocusing sweeping scanner that feeds data to an incredibly complex image enhancement and processing system. Thus the whole point of even thinking in dpi when it comes to human vision is totally flawed to begin with.
----------
Yes, and those studies tell us that between 500 and 1000 dpi is where most people can easily spot differences in image quality.
Yet they "over engineer" every other aspect of the phone, and throw in things like 64-bit cpus yet skimp on the only obvious benefit from it, which is being able to address more than 3 GB of RAM.
The thing is that if I'm putting down good money for what is essentially the most expensive smartphone on the market, I don't expect to get "good enough" quality and performance out of it. I can get that for 200 euros, there had better be something else than shiny covers in it for the additional 500 to 800 euros they are going to charge me.
Most content does display that way.
But what you mean is you want to watch 1080p video, doubled pixel for doubled pixel, without black bars.
That is a very niche bit of content on the iPhone. There is a lot of other content in millions of other Apps, built-in and 3rd party, including the OS itself, that do not necessarily benefit from 1080p specifically.
We heard the same story when the iPad was first announced and "people" weren't happy with the shape of the display because it was not the best possible shape for widescreen video. And as it turned out, that doesn't matter so much, as it was a much more optimal shape for millions of other things.
I've actually looked for this proof of this claim that 1000 ppi is discernible by most, but found none. About 20-25% of the population will distinguish 400 (which is already more than most displays) from 600 But, not in all types of displayed materials. going from 600 to 800, maybe a 1-2 percent could detect it with a blind test with certainty (but I'm guessing that from reading the various studies, no substial tests yet).
Screens try to hit the average view, not the hawk eye view because of tradoffs in luminosity and battery life in going for a higher resolution. On average, with current tech, around 400 is probably the sweet spot for displays (closer to 550 for pentile displays).
The last LG G3 went for overkill and lost on other metrics with their display (its not a major improvement despite the higher resolution), so not sure it was worth it for them.
Very high resolution best use is for static display material, like text, drawings and UI elements.
Yeah, they made a bad decision with the G3. With current technology, a display with a resolution that high in a phone is overkill and hurts the display in other aspects too much. That extreme ppi G3 display has poor contrast, soso viewing angles and low brightness. I'd take a good 1080p display in a 5 inch phone any day instead of this display.
I do think Apple is going a little too low with this rumored resolution though. Just make it not 6 mm thick or something, 8.5 is fine! Give it a slightly bigger battery and a 400-450 ppi and I'd be happy!
I do think Apple is going a little too low with this rumored resolution though. Just make it not 6 mm thick or something, 8.5 is fine! Give it a slightly bigger battery and a 400-450 ppi and I'd be happy!