Lower resolutions on iPhones. Does it matter?

[ChronoReverse]

My issue with the Asian text that you posted was that it's so blown up of course there's a difference.

Don't get confused by the fact it's blown up to show the difference more clearly. For those of us who actually read the text on the real-life non-magnified screens, 400ppi is definitely clearer and more legible than 325ppi. I'd say that 400-500ppi is the limit where going beyond doesn't noticeably improve clarity.

 

[mikegg]

OKay, so the reason why people(mostly Android users) complain about a lower iPhone resolution is because they can't read asian text as well on it. Am I getting this right? Again, I cannot see individual pixels on my iPhone 5s so why should I care if it has a higher resolution.

So I shouldn't hear any more arguments that the iPhone needs a higher resolution to compete. It doesn't. It has a great resolution for the form factor.

 

[Eug]

My issue with the Asian text that you posted was that it's so blown up of course there's a difference. I could show you the difference between 500 ppi and 1000 ppi with a microscope and it'd look alarming, but what about real world use? You're arguing for 400 or 500 ppi, but isnt retina ~320ppi or so? I guess what I'm trying to understand is if you're saying Apple's "retina" isn't true retina--that is the human eye can perceive more detail than Jobs claims.

Two things, both you've already touched upon.

1. Pentile needs higher pixel density to look good. Apple's ppi definition for Retina isn't sufficient for pentile IMO.
2. Retina depends on distance. Regardless of language, i see no noticeable pixelation at normal viewing distance for me on an iPhone. However I could see a few people holding things much closer occasionally so that's why I said 400 couldn't hurt although isn't necessary. OTOH, 500 has no justifiable reason to exist for a non-pentile screen.

 

[poofyhairguy]

So I shouldn't hear any more arguments that the iPhone needs a higher resolution to compete. It doesn't. It has a great resolution for the form factor.

The problem is that the form factor isn't so great. A 5 inch iPhone would be a great form factor, but you need a higher resolution to get to the same PPI.

That is where the resolution argument comes in. Not that a 4 inch iPhone needs more. More like a 4 inch iPhone being the flagship in 2014 is ridiculous.

 

[bearxor]

My issue with the Asian text that you posted was that it's so blown up of course there's a difference. I could show you the difference between 500 ppi and 1000 ppi with a microscope and it'd look alarming, but what about real world use? You're arguing for 400 or 500 ppi, but isnt retina ~320ppi or so? I guess what I'm trying to understand is if you're saying Apple's "retina" isn't true retina--that is the human eye can perceive more detail than Jobs claims.

The definition of "retina", as suggested by Jobs, isn't that the human couldn't discern more or less detail from the ppi of the screen. It's that, at a certain ppi, the human eye can't see the individual pixels. It's at that point that the pixels "disappear".

Watch until about 8:20 (video starts 7m42s in): iPhone 4 Retina Display Explanation

Just because your eyes can no longer see individual pixels doesn't mean your eye can't see better detail. And that's what we're talking about here. We've conquered Retina. But what we're looking for now, is more detail.

 

[mikegg]

The problem is that the form factor isn't so great. A 5 inch iPhone would be a great form factor, but you need a higher resolution to get to the same PPI.

That is where the resolution argument comes in. Not that a 4 inch iPhone needs more. More like a 4 inch iPhone being the flagship in 2014 is ridiculous.

But that's an entirely different argument all-together.

For example, I had a Galaxy Nexus but hated it because it was too big and I couldn't use it with one hand. I always needed 2 hands. And it felt very uncomfortable in my pocket. The iPhone's size is perfect for me.

But the screen resolution, we shouldn't hear Android users complain about it anymore. It doesn't matter for the form factor.

 

[sweenish]

But that's an entirely different argument all-together.

For example, I had a Galaxy Nexus but hated it because it was too big and I couldn't use it with one hand. I always needed 2 hands. And it felt very uncomfortable in my pocket. The iPhone's size is perfect for me.

But the screen resolution, we shouldn't hear Android users complain about it anymore. It doesn't matter for the form factor.

It's related; you can't discuss one sanely without considering the other.

Because it's not the resolution that's really being discussed, it's the density.

And has been stated, you may not see the pixels, but that doesn't mean the image quality can't still be improved on.

 

[magomago]

The only real way this will be resolved is if its tested and people notice a difference between a 1600p screen vs a 720p (or 1080p) screen.

There will be a point of diminishing returns, but until we can see really really high resolution 4" screens it will be purely a theoretical exercise of what we can perceive.

I used to think 480p screens looked great and wonderful until I saw a 720p screen. Now its a pain for me to look at a 480p screen on a 3.5" screen because I notice all the dots everywhere. I also think 1080p screens definitely look better than 720p screens, but 720p still looks great. But what if I saw a 4K screen, would that give me the same impression of progress compared to a 1080p screen? What about a 1600p or 2000p screen?

Ultimately if people notice a difference, and they will pay for that difference, then the market will make those products and we'll laugh at what we thought our limits were.

edit: and as people noted; resolution isn't purely a cost of glass problem - its about having the the processing power, and, in turn, the energy reserves to power something like that. Its already amazing to me that a 5" screen can have the same resolution as my 22" monitor...so even if higher much ppi was noticable for a person, the technology may hold us back a while until energy demands are controlled...i.e. higher performance/watt processors and lower power displays.

 

[zerogear]

iPhone 5S has 325 PPI and that's pretty good. My Nexus 5 has 450 PPI and it's great. And I can see a small difference in the smoothness of fonts between the two. But it's not much.

Supposedly there are phones with almost 600 PPI coming out this year. Ummm... I'll be really curious if I'll be able to see a difference between 450 and 600. I think now we are starting to get into the realm of pointlessness. We'll see.

That's what I thought going from 720p to 1080p, and yet here we are. I'll withhold my opinions until they come out.

 

[mikegg]

It's related; you can't discuss one sanely without considering the other.

Because it's not the resolution that's really being discussed, it's the density.

And has been stated, you may not see the pixels, but that doesn't mean the image quality can't still be improved on.

Okay so if it's image quality/density, then the iPhone 5s is still great. For example, according to Anandtech's iPhone 5s review, its brightness is double that of the Galaxy S4 and Galaxy Nexus.

I can attribute to this stat because I had a very hard time seeing my Galaxy Nexus outside in the sun but have no problems with my iPhone 5s.

Of all the charts in Anandtech's review, the iPhone 5s is either at the top or close to the top.

I just don't see the argument that the iPhone 5s' screen isn't competitive. I don't think I'll notice a difference between a Retina display and an even higher DPI display. I feel like at a certain point, a raw increase in resolution is just for marketing.

Sorry, I'm not buying the fact that the iPhone needs a bigger screen or a higher resolution. I think it's perfectly fine as it is and competes very well. I know having owned a Galaxy Nexus and now an iPhone 5s, the iPhone's display is far superior in quality.

 

[magomago]

Okay so if it's image quality/density, then the iPhone 5s is still great. For example, according to Anandtech's iPhone 5s review, its brightness is double that of the Galaxy S4 and Galaxy Nexus.

I can attribute to this stat because I had a very hard time seeing my Galaxy Nexus outside in the sun but have no problems with my iPhone 5s.

Of all the charts in Anandtech's review, the iPhone 5s is either at the top or close to the top.

I just don't see the argument that the iPhone 5s' screen isn't competitive. I don't think I'll notice a difference between a Retina display and an even higher DPI display. I feel like at a certain point, a raw increase in resolution is just for marketing.

Sorry, I'm not buying the fact that the iPhone needs a bigger screen or a higher resolution. I think it's perfectly fine as it is and competes very well. I know having owned a Galaxy Nexus and now an iPhone 5s, the iPhone's display is far superior in quality.

You'll find out when even higher resolution displays come out.

 

[zerocool84]

Okay so if it's image quality/density, then the iPhone 5s is still great. For example, according to Anandtech's iPhone 5s review, its brightness is double that of the Galaxy S4 and Galaxy Nexus.

I can attribute to this stat because I had a very hard time seeing my Galaxy Nexus outside in the sun but have no problems with my iPhone 5s.

Of all the charts in Anandtech's review, the iPhone 5s is either at the top or close to the top.

I just don't see the argument that the iPhone 5s' screen isn't competitive. I don't think I'll notice a difference between a Retina display and an even higher DPI display. I feel like at a certain point, a raw increase in resolution is just for marketing.

Sorry, I'm not buying the fact that the iPhone needs a bigger screen or a higher resolution. I think it's perfectly fine as it is and competes very well. I know having owned a Galaxy Nexus and now an iPhone 5s, the iPhone's display is far superior in quality.

And a Galaxy Nexus is old with an old display type as well. Everybody with a current high end phone would say the Galaxy Nexus display sucks in comparison no matter if it was an iPhone, HTC, Samsung, LG, etc.

 

[mikegg]

And a Galaxy Nexus is old with an old display type as well. Everybody with a current high end phone would say the Galaxy Nexus display sucks in comparison no matter if it was an iPhone, HTC, Samsung, LG, etc.

According to Anandtech's brightness test, the S4 is barely better than the Galaxy Nexus and pretty much half bright(if I understand the benchmark correctly) as the iPhone 5s. This is a major no no for me. I couldn't see my phone well in broad daylight using a Galaxy Nexus and I don't think I will with a Galaxy S4.

 

[mikegg]

You'll find out when even higher resolution displays come out.

I'd much rather save battery life on my phone than to try to notice a higher DPI.

According to wikipedia, a retina display is...

a pixel density high enough that the human eye is unable to discern individual pixels at a typical viewing distance.

So why would it matter if my 4" phone has a higher DPI? I get that once Apple makes a bigger phone, they'll increase the resolution.

 

[zerocool84]

I'd much rather save battery life on my phone than to try to notice a higher DPI.

According to wikipedia, a retina display is...



So why would it matter if my 4" phone has a higher DPI? I get that once Apple makes a bigger phone, they'll increase the resolution.

Actually "Retina" means whatever Apple wants it to mean. iPad screens don't fit that definition and if they do, that means the original Motorola Droid/Milestone is Retina as well.

 

[jpeyton]

Why would I need a higher resolution phone?

You always, ALWAYS, need to put a little disclaimer in statements like this so it reads:

Why would I need more/higher/better ______, at this point in time?

Without that last little bit, you'll eventually end up sounding like a luddite.

Technology always progresses. Display devices always strive for "true to life" images, and since real life has no pixels, display devices will always move towards infinitely smaller pixels.

You don't need 4k right now, but in 10 years, you'll have 4k in your pocket. 10-15 years ago, 1080p was an expensive luxury.

 

[RaistlinZ]

4 years from now today's smartphone screens will look like grainy, pixelated crap. That's just the way it goes. We'll be laughing at how we thought 1080p was "enough" for a high end smartphone.






I'm laughing already.

 

[sweenish]

The only real way this will be resolved is if its tested and people notice a difference between a 1600p screen vs a 720p (or 1080p) screen.

There will be a point of diminishing returns, but until we can see really really high resolution 4" screens it will be purely a theoretical exercise of what we can perceive.

I used to think 480p screens looked great and wonderful until I saw a 720p screen. Now its a pain for me to look at a 480p screen on a 3.5" screen because I notice all the dots everywhere. I also think 1080p screens definitely look better than 720p screens, but 720p still looks great. But what if I saw a 4K screen, would that give me the same impression of progress compared to a 1080p screen? What about a 1600p or 2000p screen?

Ultimately if people notice a difference, and they will pay for that difference, then the market will make those products and we'll laugh at what we thought our limits were.

edit: and as people noted; resolution isn't purely a cost of glass problem - its about having the the processing power, and, in turn, the energy reserves to power something like that. Its already amazing to me that a 5" screen can have the same resolution as my 22" monitor...so even if higher much ppi was noticable for a person, the technology may hold us back a while until energy demands are controlled...i.e. higher performance/watt processors and lower power displays.

This is testable (theoretically) right now. The test you propose is size agnostic. You'd just have to find screens that are the same in everything but density.

 

[Zaap]

4 years from now today's smartphone screens will look like grainy, pixelated crap. That's just the way it goes. We'll be laughing at how we thought 1080p was "enough" for a high end smartphone.

I don't know if I'd go quite that far, but I do know virtually every time I've heard people insist "We'll never need more than x!" it's pretty much always turned out wrong.

I guess time will tell. Meanwhile, I'm too busy enjoying glorious 1080p at 5.7".

 

[postmortemIA]

According to Anandtech's brightness test, the S4 is barely better than the Galaxy Nexus and pretty much half bright(if I understand the benchmark correctly) as the iPhone 5s. This is a major no no for me. I couldn't see my phone well in broad daylight using a Galaxy Nexus and I don't think I will with a Galaxy S4.

it is difference between LCD and AMOLED technologies... I had one of these SLCD screens ( HTC Rezound) that is supposed to have better brightness than AMOLED, and it really does not.

 

[number29ag]

The gist of this is, right now, the iPhone doesn't need a higher resolution display. It already has a screen where you can't discern pixels from a normal viewing distance. If/when Apple increases the display size, the resolution will go up accordingly so that it maintains the 326ppi figure. I understand that ios7 is a huge step towards resolution independence too.

 

[mikegg]

The gist of this is, right now, the iPhone doesn't need a higher resolution display. It already has a screen where you can't discern pixels from a normal viewing distance. If/when Apple increases the display size, the resolution will go up accordingly so that it maintains the 326ppi figure. I understand that ios7 is a huge step towards resolution independence too.

I think this was my whole point. I don't understand why Android users keep attacking the iPhone's resolution. Criticizing the screen size, I get(even though I won't buy a phone any bigger than the iPhone).

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

It's related; you can't discuss one sanely without considering the other.

Because it's not the resolution that's really being discussed, it's the density.

And has been stated, you may not see the pixels, but that doesn't mean the image quality can't still be improved on.

But we're talking about resolution/density. When you talk about image quality, that also speaks to contrast, RGB accuracy, etc. People are pushing 1600p screens for the sake of bragging about specs. What I'm talking about is whether or not it will be noticeable in terms of sharpness. There's a point where the human eye can't perceive any improvement anymore.

For everyone who's just saying technology progresses, blah blah blah, this isn't the same argument as 640kb of memory. 640kb of memory was enough for applications then, but that was not accounting for software improvements, etc.

The only way I could see us going higher resolution and having it actually matter is if we start using our phones totally differently in that we hold it 3 inches from our face OR we get bionic eyes.

 

[GTRagnarok]

It looks like this is the year of 2560x1440 phones. 2012 was 1280x720. 2013 was 1920x1080. Next year might be 3200x1800, and then 3840x2160 in 2016. It's pointless after 1080p IMO, but I don't see the trend stopping. If Apple makes a 5" phone, I wonder if they'll quadruple the resolution again and go for a 2272x1280 panel.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

The way I see it is that technology progresses, but it doesn't always make sense. You can make faster and faster cars, but at the expense of fuel consumption. It's not like we're driving much faster than we were 20 years ago.

The same with planes. All jetliners are still subsonic. It doesn't make sense to go supersonic. Who cares if military jets are getting faster and faster. The 787 cruises at the same speed as a 30 year old 747-400.

Like some people push bigger better, blah blah blah, but there's a limit. We kept going bigger and bigger with phones until someone realized it doesn't make sense anymore. It's not like you couldn't build a tablet 3 years ago that was 6 inches and call it a phone. Remember the HTC Flyer? Now people are realizing ergonomics matters, and Motorola went with a small 4.7" form factor with minimal bezels. Maybe someone will realize that pushing 2560x1600 might not make sense until we get battery technology to be half decent.