960 by 540 Resolution iPhone screen- this has existed for over a year at 2"

[iansilv]

http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/25/casio-goes-insane-with-2-inch-960-x-540-pixel-lcd/

Funny- I remember this- Casio was demonstrating this resolution, similar to the one Gruber rumored today, and it was even smaller than the expected size range for a new iphone screen. It was 2"- and this was in September of 2008!!!

So- the whole argument about this resolution not being possible just went out the window in my book.

 

[Sneakz]

Never any doubt in my mind that it could happen. But can it be done cost effectively? How much will one of these display cost in terms of components? Seems like they would be much more expensive than those in current iPhones.

 

[vizkiz]

http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/25/casio-goes-insane-with-2-inch-960-x-540-pixel-lcd/

Funny- I remember this- Casio was demonstrating the exact resolution Gruber rumored today, and it was even smaller than the expected size range for a new iphone screen. It was 2"- and this was in September of 2008!!!

So- the whole argument about this resolution not being possible just went out the window in my book.

Funny you mention that, cus Gruber said 960x640, not 540.

 

[uneek1]

I wouldn't think it would cost any more than the price of every newer iPhone would cost. SJ doesn't like to increase prices on existing hardware.

And true, the 'HD' iPhone is a 100 pixels taller in resolution.

 

[matticus008]

http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/25/casio-goes-insane-with-2-inch-960-x-540-pixel-lcd/

Funny- I remember this- Casio was demonstrating this resolution, similar to the one Gruber rumored today, and it was even smaller than the expected size range for a new iphone screen. It was 2"- and this was in September of 2008!!!

It's a proof of concept, no different in reality to medium- and large-format OEL and SED displays, 110" plasma TVs, and 8K Super Hi Vision resolutions. Saying that it "exists" is not really accurate in the sense of having it available for purchase or integration into actual devices. Testbed prototypes are not generally considered to be products, as concept cars are not considered to exist in a market sense until they go into production.

So- the whole argument about this resolution not being possible just went out the window in my book.

It's not a commercially viable product by any means, so it doesn't really do anything about arguments regarding products actually in development for consumer sale.

 

[koolkat]

Both the viewfinder and back screen on one of my cameras are LCD with a resolution of 1.4 megapixels (1440x960) and the viewfinder screen that produces this is about 2/3 inch diagonal and main display 3 inch diagonal (ie similar to iphone) so on the basis of viewfinder pixel density a screen the size of the iphones could conceivably have 25 times as many pixels (about 35 megapixels or about 7000x4800 pixels!!). Note my camera only cost $US600 and I would imagine the viewfinder screen and main screen would only account for a minor part of this (max $100 or so) so I fail to see why a similar resolution on the iphone would even spark debate.

If they don't increase screen resolution to at least 960x640 it can only hurt the iPhone sales given the opposition are leaving it in the dust in hardware specifications. I note the OS 4 finally catches up to what most smartphones have been doing for years. The combination of the spectrum of apps, apples "cool gadget" status, and the new hardware/OS would make the iPhone hard to beat.

 

[ThatsMeRight]

But that one was/is not for commercial use. Just like 3D TVs have existed like since the beginning of this millenium, but only now it's more affordable to sell to costumers.

 

[doubleatheman]

You say it's going to cost them more to make the iPhone with the new screen, but Apple has been using the same screen for three years now (or it's almost the same each time.)

The same screen has to be getting cheaper and cheaper over time.

The new larger Rez screen probably costs now what the first iphone screen cost in 2007.

Look at the parts in the mac book in 2007? they still using the same screen on it? NO, is it still the same price as in 2007? Yes.

 

[matticus008]

so on the basis of viewfinder pixel density a screen the size of the iphones could conceivably have 25 times as many pixels (about 35 megapixels or about 7000x4800 pixels!!).

It doesn't work like that, and you misunderstand the specs of your camera. The viewfinder has 1.4M dots equivalent--not pixels or even pixels equivalent. The actual pixel count is much, much lower, irrelevant to the main LCD monitor on the camera, and certainly irrelevant to the iPhone.

On the basis of a typical desktop computer monitor density, a 60" TV "could" have eight times the resolution of 1080p. On the basis of your viewfinder, it "could" have well over five hundred times the resolution of 1080p (if your viewfinder actually had 1.4MP, the TV "could" have over 1400 times the pixels). But it can't. We have no way of mass producing such panels at any price, let alone one that anyone could afford.

Making a viewfinder at a certain density with acceptable yields is very different from making a larger unit with the same pixels. Cost increases exponentially with pixel count, and QC-passing yields drop in an equally nonlinear fashion.

so I fail to see why a similar resolution on the iphone would even spark debate.

Because it does not exist.

The new larger Rez screen probably costs now what the first iphone screen cost in 2007.

No, the higher resolution screen will absolutely cost more than that. Prices have not fallen much, if at all. That's not really the point though. The question is what supplier will be able to provide such a display. Postage stamp sized screens for niche markets have absolutely no bearing on what can be physically manufactured in volume at 3.5-4", just like your cell phone screen has absolutely no bearing on what can be manufactured for your laptop, just as your laptop has no bearing on what can be manufactured for your television.