iPhone 7

[Kazukian]

iPad Pro 12.9

 

[Red Storm]

I have mine set up that nothing shows on the lock screen but the time, and the player controls. It's in Settings > Touch ID & Passcode. At the bottom, "Allow Access When Locked".

That's where it was, thanks. Disabling Today View took care of it.

 

[sxr7171]

I'm beginning to think every device is a transition device for one feature or another. The second gen fingerprint sensor was much better than the first. Touch and haptics were primitive on 6s and blossoming on 7 (I hope they allow it everywhere - dial pad included).

Also for me the battery is a lifesaver. On the 6s I had to put it low battery mode right in the morning and maybe get through a day. But with this in regular mode I can get through and have some to spare. I think the little cores are handling a lot of background stuff more efficiently.

 

[Glo.]

Here there is no noticeable edge bleed in Paprika's fur at the top of her head, but that may be because the background is close behind her.

Who cares about the edge bleed, the cat is gorgeous

 

[Kazukian]

Wrong forum & thread, whoops.

 

[Eug]

I went out with the family today apple picking and tried a lot of portrait shots. I got some decent shots, but a lot of them just didn't turn out for the portrait mode. It seems the software sometimes has a really hard time determining what the true edge is.

This isn't some sort of weird blurring artifact on the edge. What it is, is that the blurring actually occurs a few pixels over. If you actually compare directly against the non-blurred version, the sparkly looking bits are actually bits of grass that didn't get the extra blur treatment.

I think that's why Apple wants to focus in on faces, cuz it probably fails with other stuff more often.

 

[Eug]

With my Canon 7D dSLR and 60 mm macro, the background blur worked much better obviously, but the phone actually had more consistent exposure than the dSLR, and I liked the colour balance of the phone better in some instances.

 

[Ichinisan]

I was in the club, but I'm selling my sealed phone on eBay because some people want it way more. iPhone 7 Plus 256GB Jet Black unlocked with AppleCare+

Closed for $1,925.00, but it was a fake buyer. I'm keeping it.

 

[Eug]

Instead of doing the eBay or Kijiji thing, I'm trying selling my 3 year-old iPhone 5S on Orchard this time. The estimated price is reasonable, and was similar to my target quick-sale Kijiji price for my iPhone 5S so there's no downside (unless Orchard decides the condition isn't up to snuff after they examine it). I wasn't prepared to deal with yet another round of Kijiji dickheads.

BTW, I just ran MotionMark on my iPhone 7 Plus:

 

[sxr7171]

No, IMO. The iPhone 4 screen locked in the Retina pixel density for years to come. Yes, the size changed, but the ppi stayed the same. Even now, the 7 still has the same pixel density as the 4, despite being 6 years newer. Only the Plus variants have a change in the pixel density.

The 4 was the beginning of a new iPhone era. The 7 is the end of its era. That said, I still bought the 7 Plus because despite being a transition product, it's still excellent, and I was overdue for a new phone (as my previous one was 3 years old). I'm not as enthused about the regular 7 though.

But pixel density has no reason to get higher. As it stands you can read it close enough to your face that you can't focus on it anymore. Even with myopia you can bring it much closer to your face and it's very clear.

They are all transition devices for one feature or another.

I do agree that the 3G, 4, 6 and in the future 8 represent eras of the phone but that's because they all represented form factor changes. They weren't ready for the next one so we got yet another 6.

 

[Eug]

But pixel density has no reason to get higher. As it stands you can read it close enough to your face that you can't focus on it anymore. Even with myopia you can bring it much closer to your face and it's very clear.

They are all transition devices for one feature or another.

I do agree that the 3G, 4, 6 and in the future 8 represent eras of the phone but that's because they all represented form factor changes. They weren't ready for the next one so we got yet another 6.

Pixel density on the 4.7" iPhones could use an improvement, particularly for Asian languages.

It's fine on the 4.7" iPhones, but it's not perfect. I can definitely see the pixel structure up close. It's not really a big issue for the 5.5" iPhones though. Much harder to see the individual pixels.

P.S. I just put up my 5S for sale. Still keeping my iPhone 4, as an iPod. It doesn't have that irritating interface in Music that iOS 9 & 10 have (as a consequence of poorly integrated Apple Music).

 

[sxr7171]

Pixel density on the 4.7" iPhones could use an improvement, particularly for Asian languages.

It's fine on the 4.7" iPhones, but it's not perfect. I can definitely see the pixel structure up close. It's not really a big issue for the 5.5" iPhones though. Much harder to see the individual pixels.

P.S. I just put up my 5S for sale. Still keeping my iPhone 4, as an iPod. It doesn't have that irritating interface in Music that iOS 9 & 10 have (as a consequence of poorly integrated Apple Music).

300ppi is print resolution - yes even for Asian languages. Magazines are printed at that. If I try to focus on the smallest detail on the screen with the smallest type size with my glasses on there is no way I can see pixels. With my glasses off that's a different story. With myopia you can focus on objects as near as 5cm from the eye. I can then see pixels but it's no where near an issue. It is possible you have 20/10 vision which is rare (1%) and that would be the only way a person with normal or corrected vision can possibly see pixels on a 4.7" iPhone.

Pixel inflation is pet peeve of mine. Such as 4k TVs that make no difference at all in the living room. It's like when they sold those 24bit/96KHz files for $30 an album and they still do. There are charts for this stuff given distances away from the screen and 20/20 vision. Maybe if you have 20/10 vision and that's pretty rare (1% of people). Again I have no problem with progress, 24/96 audio is great for recording/mastering and archival. 4K will be useful when 80"+ displays become commonplace. But throwing money into this stuff when it has no benefits or content is where I draw the line. There is still almost no 4K content beyond some samples and demos. Nothing beats contrast after resolution is satisfied. OLED is the next revolution in displays. I want it everywhere, on my phone, on my laptop, TV. Even the 1080p LG OLED looks unbelievable.

Apple did the analysis and settled on a ppi that exceeds print. If they went higher in the plus it wasn't to target a ppi it was just convenient to source 5.5" 1080p screens as that's a standard resolution. The resulting ppi is a side effect. They can go higher 1440p, 2160p etc. but that's more like a phallus swinging contest. That's the Samsung game of one upping the competition with bigger numbers. Basic optometry and audiology define the limits of useful advances.

I still think the 4/4S was the last luxury iPhone. That phone was built like a true luxury product almost reminded me of the Nokia 8600 Luna which was Swiss watch level of build. The stainless steel band was almost unbendable and didn't scratch. The glass front and back were pure luxury. The only drawback was the weight. I also think they do need to make a second "Classic" interface to music. This is a company that made iPod Nano and very simple interfaces for their music which worked really well. Just a lighter interface for downloaded and synced music and playback. I doubt it would happen because they are pushing these subscriptions really hard.

 

[Eug]

300ppi is print resolution - yes even for Asian languages. Magazines are printed at that. If I try to focus on the smallest detail on the screen with the smallest type size with my glasses on there is no way I can see pixels. With my glasses off that's a different story. With myopia you can focus on objects as near as 5cm from the eye. I can then see pixels but it's no where near an issue. It is possible you have 20/10 vision which is rare (1%) and that would be the only way a person with normal or corrected vision can possibly see pixels on a 4.7" iPhone.

Yes, 300 ppi is print resolution... yet the iPad Air 2 is 264 ppi. Are you saying the iPad Air 2 is not good enough then? And even worse, the Retina 5K iMac is only 218 ppi. To put it another way, if you're going to use 300 ppi as the gold standard, then Retina iPads, Retina MacBooks, Retina MacBook Pros, and Retina iMacs all fail to meet that standard. Furthermore, the printed page is sized more comparably to an iPad and MacBook than an iPhone.

Oh and 300 dpi is not even the gold standard for print. For high quality photo stuff, people will print at 600 dpi.

The difference here is that some people sometimes hold phones way closer, and part of the reason is that the font sizes are so small on some sites with small phones.

In my case with an iPhone 5S with its tiny font size in Safari on many sites I have a hard time reading it with my glasses on because I have to hold the phone at usual moderate arms' length. The benefit is I see no pixel grid. The downside is I can't read it.

So, if I take my glasses off and hold it closer to read the tiny fonts I can see the pixel grid. However, back in the old days of the 2010 iPhone 4 even with my glasses on I could make out the pixel grid, albeit just barely. Amazing what a difference 6 years makes in terms of close focusing. Imagine if I were 20 years younger.

It also makes a difference how your optometrist corrects your vision. For a myopic patient, some optometrists will occasionally consider very slightly undercorrecting the myopia, to aid reading without reading glasses in mildly presbyopic patients.

As for Asian print, just about nobody prints text at the sizes you often see on phones, unless you're talking about food item ingredients or stuff like that. Books and newspapers, no. Yet Asian kids will read text that small on phones, even if their parents can't.

I'm not saying the pixel density on 3.5", 4", and 4.7" iPhones is terrible. Far from it. It's actually very good, and good enough for most people. However, the pixel density on the 5.5" iPhones is better, and in certain circumstances with a certain segment of the population, it is noticeably so. For that reason, I don't think it's wrong for some people, particularly young people who want to read Asian languages, to prefer a higher pixel density. And it turns out that age demographic represents a large chunk of people who are willing to spend top dollar for their phone addiction.

All that being said, I don't think we can directly compare the claimed pixel densities of current OLED screens to iPhone pixel densities, since they're not a 1:1 comparison.

 

[sxr7171]

Those other screens are held further than you would a magazine typically. You can take can take an iphone 6/6s/7 about as close as a person with normal eyesight can and never see pixels. That is about 15cm. Nobody uses their phone at 15cm. Any closer and it will go out of focus. The eye cannot accommodate it. The closest I use my phone is about 30cm. But even at 15cm the pixels are not visible. The resolution of the non retina iPhones was pretty poor by today's standards. But 300 or 326 is more than enough. People do print at 600ppi but it is generally acknowledged that 300ppi in 3 colors (300ppi for each color) is the standard for print which we all know and see in all the print media we have been using for years. Nobody has complained about it. Now people will complain as manufacturers need something to advertise and "savvy" people will buy that stuff saying that their old 326ppi phone was not enough. It's the same story as this chick bragging about her $200 bottle of vodka. "I can tell" is what I heard coming from her mouth. As a recovering audiophile I too said "I can tell". It was stupidity. Either you can or can't see the grid. I'd like anyone of any age to take a look at a 4.7" iPhone screen with corrected vision and tell me they can see the grid. I know I can only uncorrected because I can then focus at less than 15cm. I also know corrected I'm between 20/15 and 20/20 as I just got tested a few weeks ago. If you can bring the phone close enough to see the grid then it would indicate uncorrected myopia.

The 5k Mac from where a person uses it at a desk is pretty darn great. I've put my face up against and maybe I could discern a grid. Uncorrected I can see the grid as I can focus at really close distances. So even 218ppi up close corrected is almost enough to not discern a grid. So saying 326ppi is not enough to avoid discerning a grid is hard to believe.

I'm saying I've never seen the grid at all on a 4.7" iPhone unless I take off my glasses and bring it about 8cm to my face. Nobody uses it at 8cm. That's because a myopic eye has a different range of accommodation. Which in my uncorrected state is 5-30cm. The correction is a virtual image at infinity focus or in my case 30cm. They slightly under-correct myopia because they want your eyes to rest at infinity focus instead of closer which would slightly strain the focusing muscles. Presbyopia is not a concern for younger people and they still slightly under-correct even for school age kids. That certain segment of the population that may benefit from the ppi on the plus is less than 1% at best assuming they hold their phones 12cm from their face. I'm pretty sure that's not a use case anyone develops a product for. The pixel inflation is just a product of how easy it is throw on more pixels. It's almost trivial to keep adding pixels. So they market the heck out of that fact because it what they can deliver cheaply. It doesn't mean it actually benefits anyone. They are working on 8K now. Because again it's trivial increase pixel density. Such is the situation of semiconductor manufacturing. Stuff gets smaller. More stuff can be put in a given area. But I don't care for 8K unless literally I can have a 180" diagonal swath of my wall covered by this 8K display because then it might be useful. That's not an easy problem to solve. So they sell you more pixels in the same size stuff. It's pretty much free for them to supply you with it but they'll market it and make you pay for it. Again the increased ppi of the plus is one such free "upgrade" it was just cheaper to source 1080p panels. Nothing more, nothing less. Not that any human with 20/20 vision would notice. But they can brag that they do.

That odd resolution Apple came up with the 4.7" models was well thought and slightly higher than print at 300ppi which in itself is considered higher than really needed but includes a margin for people with 20/15 or 20/10 vision.

I'm not talking about pixel density in OLED I'm talking about static contrast. Which at this point in commonly found resolutions/pixel density is far more important than increasing resolution further.

 

[Eug]

And I'm saying that I could see the grid albeit just barely, even when the iPhone 4 came out. Just because you can't with your usage preferences doesn't mean you're right here, as people will use these phones differently than you do.

I've never complained about the pixel density of the iPhone 4 or 6s, but I can fully understand why someone why might legitimately want more pixel density.

I'll agree that most that most people asking for it are just looking st specs, but that doesn't make it any less legitimate for those who can actually discern the difference. And even if the percentage were as low as you would suggest, that would still mean millions of smartphone users every year.

 

[sxr7171]

No doubt they will make the next 4.7" or probably actually even 5" phone 1080p. I welcome it but. I know I can't see the grid with my corrected vision. Somebody out there might. So good for them.

Finally if they get rid of the bezel 5" would fit in the same size device. Maybe even smaller.

 

[Eug]

It's likely the iPhone 2017 will be inspired by the iPhone 4, with its steel frame and glass body. That so far has been my all-time favourite iPhone design by the way, so I'm really looking forward to seeing what the iPhone 2017 has to offer. Whatever they do though, hopefully Apple can reduce the size of those damn bezels. I've been saying since the iPhone 6 that they need to shrink the bezels.

However, considering the iPhone 7 Plus is so damn fast and has 3 GB RAM, I likely won't buy in 2017, unless Orchard can get me a decent deal for the used market. Or, if the 6s starts to slow, I'll get a 2017 for the wife and wait until 2018 for myself. I don't expect the 6s to slow too much though, since it does contain 2 GB RAM. I suspect the 6 will really start to feel its age though, and the 6 Plus even more so. It's a shame those shipped with only 1 GB RAM.

 

[Ichinisan]

I got an Apple USB-C 29W charger (the same one that charges the MacBook 2015) and a USB-C to Lightning cable. I wonder if the 7 Plus will charge faster with these, like the iPad Pro does...?

Gonna do some testing with my iPhone 7 Plus 256GB Jet Black. This cable is pretty short though...

 

[Eug]

I got an Apple USB-C 29W charger (the same one that charges the MacBook 2015) and a USB-C to Lightning cable. I wonder if the 7 Plus will charge faster with these, like the iPad Pro does...?

Gonna do some testing with my iPhone 7 Plus 256GB Jet Black. This cable is pretty short though...

Do you have a Kill-A-Watt? With my 12 Watt charger and the iPhone 7 Plus, I can draw 11 Watts according to my Kill-A-Watt.

BTW, I wonder how fast you can transfer files with the USB-C LIghtning cable from the computer. The iPhone 7 Plus is know to be USB 3 capable.

 

[Ichinisan]

Do you have a Kill-A-Watt? With my 12 Watt charger and the iPhone 7 Plus, I can draw 11 Watts according to my Kill-A-Watt.

BTW, I wonder how fast you can transfer files with the USB-C LIghtning cable from the computer. The iPhone 7 Plus is know to be USB 3 capable.

I actually do plan to purchase a Kill-a-Watt device.

 

[Red Storm]

I got an Apple USB-C 29W charger (the same one that charges the MacBook 2015) and a USB-C to Lightning cable. I wonder if the 7 Plus will charge faster with these, like the iPad Pro does...?

Gonna do some testing with my iPhone 7 Plus 256GB Jet Black. This cable is pretty short though...

What do storage size and color have to do with charging time?

Interested to see your results though. I wish Apple would have just gone with USB C across the board with Macs/iPads/iPhones, but with the 7 now relying on Lightning headphones, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

[TheStu]

What do storage size and color have to do with charging time?

Interested to see your results though. I wish Apple would have just gone with USB C across the board with Macs/iPads/iPhones, but with the 7 now relying on Lightning headphones, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

USB-C is physically larger than Lightning, and offers Apple less control. So it's lose-lose from their perspective.

 

[Red Storm]

USB-C is physically larger than Lightning, and offers Apple less control. So it's lose-lose from their perspective.

Except for the Macbook, which is what's weird.

 

[TheStu]

Except for the Macbook, which is what's weird.

And USB-C will come to the rest of the Macs with time, just as USB3 did (eventually). But that doesn't mean that it will ever come to iDevices, at least not on the iDevice itself, but certainly on the computer end.

 

[Eug]

And USB-C will come to the rest of the Macs with time, just as USB3 did (eventually). But that doesn't mean that it will ever come to iDevices, at least not on the iDevice itself, but certainly on the computer end.

Exactly. I expect USB C MacBook Pros soon. My question is if they will be all USB C or if they will include a regular USB 3 port as well.

And yes, Apple sells USB C to Lightning cables. My question is whether or not a USB C - Lightning cable will give faster than USB 2 file transfer speeds for the iPhone 7 Plus, because it's known to be USB 3 capable like the iPad Pro 12.9".