iPod touch 4G speed, camera, display measured against iPhone 4

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Apple's latest iPod touch update has been given a direct comparison to the iPhone 4, with new videos that demonstrate the speed, display, and video-taking quality of each device.



A trio of videos were posted this week by letemsvetemapplem.eu, which compare the iPhone 4 and fourth-generation iPod touch, as well as the iPhone 3GS and iPad. The iPhone 4, latest iPod touch and iPad all sport Apple's custom A4 processor, though the iPhone 4 has twice the RAM as the 256MB found in the iPod touch and iPad.



But in a comparison of startup times, the iPad was the clear winner, with a full startup achieved in just 19.04 seconds. Next was the fourth-generation iPod touch, which took 26.40 seconds to start, followed by the iPhone 4 at 28.64 seconds. Last year's iPhone 3GS started in 32.80 seconds.



A side-by-side comparison of the 720p video cameras on both the iPhone 4 and fourth-generation iPod touch was also conducted. In the videos, the iPod touch camera has a darker contrast than the video shot with the iPhone 4.



Finally, the most obvious disparity between the two devices is the display. Though the new iPod touch packs a high-resolution "Retina Display" packing the same 326 pixels per inch as the iPhone 4, the iPod touch screen does not have the same in-plane switching technology found in Apple's smartphone.



When viewed from sharp angles, the iPod touch display has distorted colors, while the iPhone 4 remains accurate. This is thanks to the IPS technology in the LCD display.



IPS technology was developed by Hitachi in 1996 to improve viewing angles and color reproductions on screens. Its first appearance in Apple's line of iOS devices came earlier this year, when the iPad was introduced.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    I gotta say, I like the wider angle of view and the much sharper, more stable, contrasty, saturated image of the iPod Touch video more. Are we sure they didn't get that backward? I heard that the iPhone was supposed to be the one with faster focusing and wider angle.
  • Reply 2 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    I gotta say, I like the wider angle of view and the much sharper, more stable, contrasty, saturated image of the iPod Touch video more. Are we sure they didn't get that backward? I heard that the iPhone was supposed to be the one with faster focusing and wider angle.



    IP4 video looks overexposed compared to iPod. But iPod white balance looks a bit off (a bit more magenta). I think if you could dial down video on IP4 a bit when shooting it'll be great.
  • Reply 3 of 32
    Couple statements in this article are not correct



    - Apple adopted IPS panel starting with the first aluminum 24inch iMac. Apple didn't market IPS until they unveiled the current generation of iMac. In their current lineup, iMac/iPad/iPhone uses IPS.



    - The video difference between iPhone and iPod Touch is not much. you don't say "dark contrast". While video is a little darker in iPod Touch, I actually think it has a HIGHER contrast. Video from iPhone looks washed out.



    I would like to have IPS on touch but I guess it's a cost cutting thing. I hope the color accuracy would be good (as demonstrated in current Macbook Pros, Apple can do great color even without IPS).
  • Reply 4 of 32
    At first I thought I liked the iPhone 4 video better because it looked brighter....but as I watched it, I realized I preferred the iPod touches video quality alot more. The color saturation was nicer. There was no jiggle or jello effect when panning, and I liked the wider angle view of the iPod more.



    All in all, I think the new touch rocks. Can't wait to get one....but I'm waiting until the rubber cases for it come out. So far the Apple stores here in NYC don't have any.
  • Reply 5 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    I gotta say, I like the wider angle of view and the much sharper, more stable, contrasty, saturated image of the iPod Touch video more. Are we sure they didn't get that backward? I heard that the iPhone was supposed to be the one with faster focusing and wider angle.



    The iPhone has a high-res camera, 2592x1936, making it great for still shots. For HD video (which is 1280x800) I’m led to believe it uses only the center of the sensor. Essentially, that crops the video view to a smaller angle than the iPhone 4’s still-shot view. (Which I believe is compensated for a little by the iPhone 4 camera having a wider FOV than previous iPhones. But don’t quote me.)



    The iPod Touch, on the other hand, has a smaller/thinner, lower-res camera, which doesn’t take the iPhone 4’s great stills. But it makes sense then that it would use the whole sensor for video, giving a larger FOV.



    I do like that video coming from the Touch! But I find the iPhone 4’s video still looks amazing for most purposes, and I take still shots much more than I take videos. (Stills are great on the iPhone 4.)



    But the Touch is a great device (and a LOT cheaper). It’s nice that those users get such good video recording.



    iPhone 4 users might want to use the front camera sometimes for video too: no viewfinder, but lower pixel size might mean less wobble in situations where that looks bad. And definitely means less storage space! 640x480 is about DVD quality after all—not half bad. I’d like to see tests with the front cameras just for completeness.
  • Reply 6 of 32
    Comparisons of startup time don't in any way reflect usage results. SSD's tout this a ton, but really, how often do you start these devices?
  • Reply 7 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kopuschen View Post


    Couple statements in this article are not correct



    - Apple adopted IPS panel starting with the first aluminum 24inch iMac. Apple didn't market IPS until they unveiled the current generation of iMac. In their current lineup, iMac/iPad/iPhone uses IPS.



    And yours continue to be incorrect. They were using IPS panels way before the aluminium 24" iMac.
  • Reply 8 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbonner View Post


    Comparisons of startup time don't in any way reflect usage results. SSD's tout this a ton, but really, how often do you start these devices?



    It?s indicative of the overall performance of the HW since these devices are using essentially the same SW. Of course, the Touch and iPad don?t have cellular HW and SW to deal with, but that is factorable.



    If that was the ONLY test, then I?d understand your point, but there are plenty of others testing GPU speed, app launches, and website rendering. If you are a 3GS user (which is a Cortex-A8) considering moving to an iPhone 4 (which is also a Cortex-A8) you get a feel for the increased performance the new iPhone can offer. Whether this is from more optimized code, the A4 tweeking, and/or from a higher clocked CPU due to the larger battery that can handle it I can?t say, but it does show a marked improvement .





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Londor View Post


    And yours continue to be incorrect. They were using IPS panels way before the aluminium 24" iMac.



    I don?t recall that being the case. I thought the 16:9 ratio iMacs were the first Macs to use an iPS display, with the iPad and iPhone 4 following suit. I?d love to see an IPS display on a MBP, but they do tend to use more power so unless that hurdle can tackled for a 13? to 17? display then we?ll likely have to wait a bit longer.
  • Reply 9 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post




    The iPod Touch, on the other hand, has a smaller/thinner, lower-res camera, which doesn?t take the iPhone 4?s great stills.



    Here's Steve's take from a year ago:



    Mr. Jobs reiterated what Phil Schiller, the marketing vice president, had said earlier in the onstage presentation: that Apple is really pitching the iPod Touch as a game machine these days. And to do that, you have to make it as inexpensive as possible.



    ?Originally, we weren?t exactly sure how to market the Touch. Was it an iPhone without the phone? Was it a pocket computer? What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine,? he said. ?We started to market it that way, and it just took off. And now what we really see is it?s the lowest-cost way to the App Store, and that?s the big draw. So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199. We don?t need to add new stuff. We need to get the price down where everyone can afford it.?



    I guess it decided that, this time around, it would not get the price down to where everyone can afford it, but instead, would include a camera in last-year's vacant spot. Or something like that.



    I love it how Steve keeps us guessing.
  • Reply 10 of 32
    Darker picture contrast?



    Did tester notice the most important difference? It looks like focal lengths are different! Check the same subject sizes.



    You get different amount of light to iPhone4 and iPod Touch (due to different focal length of optical element) hence they show different level of brigness and contrast. Simple.
  • Reply 11 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I don?t recall that being the case. I thought the 16:9 ratio iMacs were the first Macs to use an iPS display, with the iPad and iPhone 4 following suit. I?d love to see an IPS display on a MBP, but they do tend to use more power so unless that hurdle can tackled for a 13? to 17? display then we?ll likely have to wait a bit longer.



    Well, you recall incorrectly. I can assure you that the Apple Cinema Display 20" ADC that I bought in 2003 had an S-IPS panel.
  • Reply 12 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Londor View Post


    Well, you recall incorrectly. I can assure you that the Apple Cinema Display 20" ADC that I bought in 2003 had an S-IPS panel.



    I was talking about Macs, not their professional ACDs. I don?t anything about them. As stated, I don?t think any Mac desktop, notebook or iDevices have had them until this last group of releases.
  • Reply 13 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I was talking about Macs, not their professional ACDs. I don?t anything about them. As stated, I don?t think any Mac desktop, notebook or iDevices have had them until this last group of releases.



    Again you're wrong. The original 20" iMac G5 had an IPS panel and then the Intel plastic iMac 24" also had an IPS panel.
  • Reply 14 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Apple's latest iPod touch update has been given a direct comparison to the iPhone 4, with new videos that demonstrate the speed, display, and video-taking quality of each device....



    Not to be too negative, but this seems like a total waste of time to me. For starters, the iPad should have been excluded since it's running a different version of the OS and the comparison is therefore useless (hello? start up times?).



    Also, informal tests like this just show that this one particular iPod touch is the way it is. With the relatively vast amount of manufacturing flaws we have seen in all the iOS product lines this year, and the fact that batches of devices are made at this factory or that with various screen parts, and at various times, it's really quite meaningless to test a single device like this and come to any solid conclusions. Especially on such subtle details and differences.
  • Reply 15 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Londor View Post


    Again you're wrong. The original 20" iMac G5 had an IPS panel and then the Intel plastic iMac 24" also had an IPS panel.



    No, i?m not wrong, unless you?re claiming that I did think that Apple used IPS displays on previous consumer devices and lying about it.



    After some research I found a review to back up your claim that Apple used IPS in earlier ACDs. Next time, you might want to try to be more productive with your posts instead of getting defensive and destroying any chance for a civil conservation or debate.
  • Reply 16 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Also, informal tests like this just show that this one particular iPod touch is the way it is. With the relatively vast amount of manufacturing flaws we have seen in all the iOS product lines this year, and the fact that batches of devices are made at this factory or that with various screen parts, and at various times, it's really quite meaningless to test a single device like this and come to any solid conclusions. Especially on such subtle details and differences.





    You seem to have a much lower opinion of Apple's QA than average. I would think that the factors you cite would make no meaningless difference in performance, and that the specs would be tight enough so that individual performance variations would be minimal.
  • Reply 17 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    No, i’m not wrong, unless you’re claiming that I did think that Apple used IPS displays on previous consumer devices and lying about it.



    After some research I found a review to back up your claim that Apple used IPS in earlier ACDs. Next time, you might want to try to be more productive with your posts instead of getting defensive and destroying any chance for a civil conservation or debate.



    Yes, you were wrong to think that any Mac desktop, notebook or iDevices didn't have them until this last group of releases because they did.



    The ACD in that anadtech review isn't the ADC model, it's the next version.



    As for "getting defensive and destroying any chance for a civil conservation or debate", well, serious case of pot calling the kettle black.
  • Reply 18 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Newtron View Post


    Here's Steve's take from a year ago:



    Mr. Jobs reiterated what Phil Schiller, the marketing vice president, had said earlier in the onstage presentation: that Apple is really pitching the iPod Touch as a game machine these days. And to do that, you have to make it as inexpensive as possible.



    ?Originally, we weren?t exactly sure how to market the Touch. Was it an iPhone without the phone? Was it a pocket computer? What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine,? he said. ?We started to market it that way, and it just took off. And now what we really see is it?s the lowest-cost way to the App Store, and that?s the big draw. So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199. We don?t need to add new stuff. We need to get the price down where everyone can afford it.?



    I guess it decided that, this time around, it would not get the price down to where everyone can afford it, but instead, would include a camera in last-year's vacant spot. Or something like that.



    I love it how Steve keeps us guessing.



    Yes, feeble minds quiver at every turn.
  • Reply 19 of 32
    xgmanxgman Posts: 152member
    This really makes the iphone 4 look bad.
  • Reply 20 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kopuschen View Post


    couple statements in this article are not correct



    - apple adopted ips panel starting with the first aluminum 24inch imac. Apple didn't market ips until they unveiled the current generation of imac. In their current lineup, imac/ipad/iphone uses ips.



    - the video difference between iphone and ipod touch is not much. You don't say "dark contrast". While video is a little darker in ipod touch, i actually think it has a higher contrast. Video from iphone looks washed out.



    I would like to have ips on touch but i guess it's a cost cutting thing. I hope the color accuracy would be good (as demonstrated in current macbook pros, apple can do great color even without ips).



    pva..
Sign In or Register to comment.