Rumor: Apple considering going back to 'glass-to-glass' touch panels for 2016 iPhones

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 55
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    jbdragon wrote: »
    Exacly!!!  These Super High Resolution screens are crazy.  What's the point other then then say you're better then your Android Competition or better then the iPhone.  When in reality, you can't see a large percentage of the pixels.  Instead you have a screen that sucks up more power and slowing performance because the CPU/GPU has to work a hell of a lot harder moving a bunch of pixels on screen you can't even see.
    ...

    A 4K smartphone would have roughly 800ppi (phone also has a 3430mAh battery)

    Is there a point to it? Saying the eye can't see that DPI is a completely misleading track. There IS a point to it, but not the one we think it is. These screens are going to end up in devices like the Oculus Rift, where the screen is 3" from the eye, where yes it would be relevant. Google Cardboard it is not. In fact that Sony 4K smartphone is likely made of the same parts going into their VR headset, but may need to wait for the next generation console that can actually drive it.

    But on the smartphone front, unless people are sticking it right in front of their face, no the practicality of a 4K screen isn't very high. At one point a HD screen in a 15" laptop was considered stupid, but then we saw 1080p HD screens go into smartphones. Considering we do not yet have 4K or 8K laptops, I'd consider a 4K smartphone to have rather dubious performance.
  • Reply 42 of 55
    Pretty much. The current 6 screen is so small the resolution is already excessive. If Apple's now firmly in the spec chasing game then that's another strike.

    I can easily tell the difference between 336 ppi and say a 540 ppi display. It is clearly shown watching 1080p or higher video content.
  • Reply 43 of 55
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    They won't be advertising that "feature" in the U.S., those scumbags.

    I wonder if Apple has a trademark on force touch? What's really pathetic is all the news outlets reporting that Huawei "beat" Apple to the punch. Um no. Apple is selling products today that use "force touch". But there's absolutely no doubt in my mind Huawei stole the force touch marketing term so the media would write these stories.

    I noticed the new Huawei phone comes in champagne and rose gold. I'm sure that's just a coincidence too. :rolleyes:

    Huawei_Mate_S_Colors.jpg
  • Reply 44 of 55
    Pretty much. The current 6 screen is so small the resolution is already excessive. If Apple's now firmly in the spec chasing game then that's another strike.

    I don't think they ever enter the spec racing game.
    As for 4k recording on a phone: I understand that there is a trend towards bigger displays and that you like to have images as sharp and crisp as possible. But wouldn't you then take the length and use a more professional recording device? One with at least much better optics? And until I'm convinced otherwise I even see the expected jump to 12MP photo cam as annoying as I don't picture quality to increase significantly. But the space my pics will take up will (more free iCloud storage, anyone).

    As for higher ppm on the screen: that's just waste and unnecessary.
  • Reply 45 of 55
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    I wonder if Apple has a trademark on force touch? What's really pathetic is all the news outlets reporting that Huawei "beat" Apple to the punch. Um no. Apple is selling products today that use "force touch". But there's absolutely no doubt in my mind Huawei stole the force touch marketing term so the media would write these stories.



    I noticed the new Huawei phone comes in champagne and rose gold. I'm sure that's just a coincidence too. image



    Better phone than Apple supposedly.

  • Reply 46 of 55
    A 4K phone would be ridiculous. But if 4k is the new standard after HD, and there's plenty of screens around, and it's cheaper than doing a custom size then go for it. You probably could write the software to not even resolve at 4k to save on gpu power unless you were to need the 4k for some reason, like mirroring to a larger screen or something.
  • Reply 47 of 55
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,986member
    [/LIST]
    harry wild wrote: »
    I can easily tell the difference between 336 ppi and say a 540 ppi display. It is clearly shown watching 1080p or higher video content.

    No you can't. When resolution is beyond the ability of humans to resolve it, no matter what some claim, they can't see the difference. I get tired of people making preposterous claims.
  • Reply 48 of 55
    melgross wrote: »
    [/LIST]
    No you can't. When resolution is beyond the ability of humans to resolve it, no matter what some claim, they can't see the difference. I get tired of people making preposterous claims.

    Well, we were just talking about how much sense makes a 8k display in another thread. There, it was stated that while there are obviously studies showing the limit of the human eyes' ability to discern pixels on a still pic, there appear to be none on movies pictures. So _maybe_ the limits are higher for movies. Personally, I'm with you.
  • Reply 49 of 55
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,986member
    Well, we were just talking about how much sense makes a 8k display in another thread. There, it was stated that while there are obviously studies showing the limit of the human eyes' ability to discern pixels on a still pic, there appear to be none on movies pictures. So _maybe_ the limits are higher for movies. Personally, I'm with you.

    Well, this was my business for many years, and I've got a masters in bio. I studied vision. Unfortunately, a number of the studies people point to have major flaws. The one that's usually referenced to when talking about resolution is so flawed, I faile to see, no pun intended, how it got past peer review.

    That study used a Commodore computer to test visual resolution. The big problem is that the screen was green. As many people know, we're most sensitive to green. We get much of our resolution from green light. So using a green screen wasn't the best idea. Trying the same test with red or particularly blue light, would have resulted in much lower scores.

    Another error is in assuming that special circumstances resulting in our ability to detect fine objects theoretically smaller that our vision permits, is an indicator of the maximum resolution we can see. That's not true. If we have a bright point source light against a black background, we will see that point, because the brightness of it will stimulate the cells. But we can't resolve the point source, which is what resolution is all about. It's like looking up at the sky at night and seeing the stars. We see the bright point sources, but can't resolve them. Telescopes can "see" stars, but can't resolve them, because they're too far way for the max resolution of the telescope.

    What this means is that if we had a field with black and white dots as point sources we would just see it as grey. That's how all screens work. It's easily proven. Look at a screen with an even grey. Can you see the individual red, green and blue dots? No? Then you can't resolve the screen. Now, those dots are much smaller than the pixels themselves. But if you can't resolve them in a 1920 X 1080 screen, then you will never resolve the pixels in a 4K screen whose pixels are about the size of the individual sub pixels of RGB in the lower res model.

    But people will believe what they want to believe, if it makes them feel good.

    As far as movies go, we have far less ability to see detail. This is something I dealt with a lot. Take a 70mm frame from IMAX. That's very high resolution film. My company needed to make prints from some frames of movies occasionally, for the movie companies. We had high resolution wide field cameras. The stills didn't look anywhere as sharp as the projected movie did. That's because still frames are easily analysed by us, where, in a movie, they wizz past. The movie actually looks sharper than the individual frames making it up.
  • Reply 50 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    Well, this was my business for many years, and I've got a masters in bio. I studied vision. Unfortunately, a number of the studies people point to have major flaws. The one that's usually referenced to when talking about resolution is so flawed, I faile to see, no pun intended, how it got past peer review


    That study used a Commodore computer to test visual resolution. The big problem is that the screen was green. As many people know, we're most sensitive to green. We get much of our resolution from green light. So using a green screen wasn't the best idea. Trying the same test with red or particularly blue light, would have resulted in much lower scores.





    Another error is in assuming that special circumstances resulting in our ability to detect fine objects theoretically smaller that our vision permits, is an indicator of the maximum resolution we can see. That's not true. If we have a bright point source light against a black background, we will see that point, because the brightness of it will stimulate the cells. But we can't resolve the point source, which is what resolution is all about. It's like looking up at the sky at night and seeing the stars. We see the bright point sources, but can't resolve them. Telescopes can "see" stars, but can't resolve them, because they're too far way for the max resolution of the telescope.



    What this means is that if we had a field with black and white dots as point sources we would just see it as grey. That's how all screens work. It's easily proven. Look at a screen with an even grey. Can you see the individual red, green and blue dots? No? Then you can't resolve the screen. Now, those dots are much smaller than the pixels themselves. But if you can't resolve them in a 1920 X 1080 screen, then you will never resolve the pixels in a 4K screen whose pixels are about the size of the individual sub pixels of RGB in the lower res model.



    But people will believe what they want to believe, if it makes them feel good.



    As far as movies go, we have far less ability to see detail. This is something I dealt with a lot. Take a 70mm frame from IMAX. That's very high resolution film. My company needed to make prints from some frames of movies occasionally, for the movie companies. We had high resolution wide field cameras. The stills didn't look anywhere as sharp as the projected movie did. That's because still frames are easily analysed by us, where, in a movie, they wizz past. The movie actually looks sharper than the individual frames making it up.

     

    Thanks for the good answer.

     

    OT: I have to say that sounds like an interesting field of work. It was also amongst my favorites until I finally decided to take a different route.

    The closest I got to bio and vision was when I was loosely connected to the development of ASICS for a system that would (near)blind people help to get their vision back (http://www.tagblatt.de/Home/nachrichten/tuebingen_artikel,-Blinde-koennen-mit-Chip-teilweise-wieder-sehen-_arid,116215.htmlhttp://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/retinachip-blinder-kann-wieder-sehen-fotostrecke-49969-6.html sorry for the links to be in German, but maybe they are of interest to you).

    However, I know enough about publications with flawed tests. Actually, one of my Profs had a bet going on: Wherever he went, he'd enter a library and pick a publication from a volume of proceedings at random from medical field. The bet was that there would be every time minimum one mistake in the setup or evaluation and interpretation of the tests presented. He never lost this bet over the many years I had contact with him.

     

    Regarding the test you described, I wonder if it doesn't make sense to use a green monitor, as therefore it represents somehow a "worst-case" scenario. If you use the resolution you get from the test you'd be fail-safe, in the sense that even for pictures with a very large amount of green you would be sure that no pixels can be differentiated.

     

    For the rest, you basically confirm that there is not really a reason to go beyond 4k, at least in the usual home applications. I try to remember: Isn't color, brightness and movement detected through three different area of the eye/brain?

    I remember years back I was trying to get some good stills from a movie clip which definitely looked sharp to my eyes when running at normal speed. But there simply was not one single frame that might have been usable for a still. Thanks for reassuring me that it was not depending on me and the inability to select the proper frame - even it comes years late ;-)

     

    On the other hand, I was a bit surprised when I found that taking stills during a movie on my iPhone results in quite good pics. It seems they are not just taking individual frames from the movie and export them as photo.

     

     

  • Reply 51 of 55
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,986member

    It's an interesting field, but I didn't do much with it. Using green is close to a best case because of our sensitivity to green. In fact, it's so important to resolution for us that most camera sensors have two green sensing sites for every red and blue site, thus giving the image more apparent resolution.

    Really, a resolution test for our eyes needs to be in greyscale. The lower the contrast, the lower the resolution. That's why definitive numbers are wonky. It depends on the colors that are together, and the contrast of those colors. Draw something with a fully saturated blue against a black background, and make it one pixel thick, and you may not see it. Try it with other colors as well as white. The difference in visibility is startling.
  • Reply 52 of 55
    4K is the standard for display technology going forward for smartphones except for Apple iPhones! Apple has an up to 1K standard. 4.7" is 3/4K!
  • Reply 53 of 55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Harry Wild View Post



    4K is the standard for display technology going forward for smartphones except for Apple iPhones! Apple has an up to 1K standard. 4.7" is 3/4K!



    Can you explain please what the advantage of 4K vs. 1K on a phone display is?

  • Reply 54 of 55
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,986member
    harry wild wrote: »
    4K is the standard for display technology going forward for smartphones except for Apple iPhones! Apple has an up to 1K standard. 4.7" is 3/4K!

    It might also be a dead end. It serves no purpose. But you know that, and you're just trolling, aren't you? You also don't seem to understand the "standards". 1920 X 1080, which Apple uses for the larger 6+ isn't 1k, as you state, it's 2k.
Sign In or Register to comment.