What's your guess on the Apple Watch screen resolution?
Spec numbers don't matter compared to the quality you see in actual use, but I'm curious.
The metal case (not screen) is 38 or 42mm tall (not diagonal) which is about 1.5" or 1.65".
Measuring in Photoshop tells me the 42mm model's display portion is about 1" wide by 1.2" tall. (About 1.56" diagonal.) And the aspect ratio is 4:5 portrait.
320x400 would put the large size JUST under the PPI of the iPhone 4/5/6 retina display (320 PPI instead of 326). The smaller size would have higher PPI than an iPhone 4/5/6.
Lower DPI isn't ideal for a device you view up close, but 320 PPI is still very good, and more pixels means more power drain and slower performance. (More pixels to be processed by the CPU/GPU. For some display tech, more pixels also means dimmer—and power is needed to compensate.) Also if the phone is streaming imagery to the watch for any reason (maps, or Apple Watch apps that offload processing to the iPhone) then more pixels calls for more bandwidth: more drain, slower response.
So that's my guess! Chop 80 pixels off the bottom of an iPhone 3GS (320x480) and you have it.
We'll see. 400x500 would work too, but seems like overkill.
(EDIT: For comparison, the old watch-style iPod Nano had a 1.55" diagonal screen at 240x240. That's 1.1" square.)
Spec numbers don't matter compared to the quality you see in actual use, but I'm curious.
The metal case (not screen) is 38 or 42mm tall (not diagonal) which is about 1.5" or 1.65".
Measuring in Photoshop tells me the 42mm model's display portion is about 1" wide by 1.2" tall. (About 1.56" diagonal.) And the aspect ratio is 4:5 portrait.
320x400 would put the large size JUST under the PPI of the iPhone 4/5/6 retina display (320 PPI instead of 326). The smaller size would have higher PPI than an iPhone 4/5/6.
Lower DPI isn't ideal for a device you view up close, but 320 PPI is still very good, and more pixels means more power drain and slower performance. (More pixels to be processed by the CPU/GPU. For some display tech, more pixels also means dimmer—and power is needed to compensate.) Also if the phone is streaming imagery to the watch for any reason (maps, or Apple Watch apps that offload processing to the iPhone) then more pixels calls for more bandwidth: more drain, slower response.
So that's my guess! Chop 80 pixels off the bottom of an iPhone 3GS (320x480) and you have it.
We'll see. 400x500 would work too, but seems like overkill.
(EDIT: For comparison, the old watch-style iPod Nano had a 1.55" diagonal screen at 240x240. That's 1.1" square.)
Last edited: