Skip to Content

Followup: Some mockups of a 4-inch iPhone screen

by Chris Rawson Feb 18th 2011 at 3:00PM

After reading about the math behind a 4-inch iPhone screen, readers said the comparisons between different screen aspect ratios would be a lot more helpful with additional mockups aside from the 16:9-screened iPhone we put up. After hacking and slashing my way through a photo editor, I've created a gallery of mockups using the existing iPhone 4 handset as a template. You'll see the current iPhone 4 compared against the same handset with a 4-inch screen in several formats, including its current 3:2 aspect ratio, the iPad's 4:3 format, the 16:10 ratio used in the MacBook and MacBook Pro and the 16:9 format from the "doing the math" post.

I'm not an expert photo manipulator by any means, and these pictures won't be as pixel-precise as the math was. Still, these pics should give you a better concept of how the iPhone would need to change in order to accommodate a 4-inch screen. Check out the gallery below, where you'll find iPhones in versions ranging from drool-worthy to terrifyingly bad.

A 4-inch iPhone screen in various aspect ratios

  • The iPhone 4, today
  • 3:2 aspect ratio
  • 4:3 aspect ratio
  • 16:10 format
  • 16:9 screen



View Tags

Related Stories

Categories

iPhone

After reading about the math behind a 4-inch iPhone screen, readers said the comparisons between different screen aspect ratios would be a...
 

Add a Comment

Sign in »
*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

17 Comments

Filter by:
bluemonq

Does not work in Chrome, Opera, or Firefox on Windows for me. Perversely, it works fine in IE.

February 18 2011 at 5:42 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Eric Swinson

I'm too tired to do the pixel count, but would the 16:9 screen add enough vertical pixels that the home button could be on the screen and not a physical button? That may help address another rumor..

February 18 2011 at 5:20 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Eric Swinson's comment
Eric Swinson

thinking about it for a moment makes me think not... it would also be an issue when the screen is in landscape mode.. but then again "gestures"

February 18 2011 at 5:23 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Marcos

If they went 16:9 but kept the same resolution as today, you'd get a 640x1138 screen.
But (unless my math is wrong) would have a diagonal size of 4.515 inches. The phone may need to be a little longer to accomodate it, but it would be sweet: more real estate and existing apps work for the most part at the same size.

February 18 2011 at 4:29 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Marcos's comment
Marcos

So to clarify: Keep the pixel density the same (retina display), keep the width the same (640 pixels) but stretch the screen for a 16:9 ratio. You get a 2.21 in X 3.93 in screen (4.51 diagonally).

February 18 2011 at 4:31 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Marcos

Broken on Chrome for Windows (at work).

February 18 2011 at 4:19 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Marcos's comment
Eric Swinson

broken on chrome mac at home...

February 18 2011 at 5:21 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
ratking

16:9 is the new 16:10. Macbook Air 11" is 16:9, so are the new iMacs... I bet MacBook Pros will be next week.

Bonus: 16:9 makes a better case for calling it iPhoneHD with a true 720p.

But is the "HD" moniker too overused for Apple?

February 18 2011 at 4:15 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to ratking's comment
Charli

It isn't so much the notion of using HD, but rather what that means. To many diehards it means 1080 and not a pixel less. So they are rather irked with Apple claiming to have HD anything.

Myself, I have no issue with it because I tend to view HD as HighER Def. When I speak of 1080 I am generally doing so in relation to blu-ray quality video paired with at least 5.1 sound and will typically label it as 'blu-ray quality', digital blu-ray' or some other similar term

February 18 2011 at 8:31 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
aleonell.10

720 is HD , 1080 is full HD

February 19 2011 at 1:06 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Matt Bland

16:9 is definitely the best option. Keep the same horizontal resolution and extend the display up and down a bit. Makes it easier for the OS and for Apps to adjust to different models. It is also the most atheistically pleasing to my eye.

February 18 2011 at 4:00 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Brad

Thanks for the mock-ups. My vote for the 16:9 aspect ratio. The others look, well... odd.

February 18 2011 at 3:47 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
tuaw

I love the 16:9 concept, and simply adding pixels to the height would allow every single current app to run as it does today with the same pixel count and screen size.

February 18 2011 at 3:32 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Almisael

The gallery is totally broken in Chrome for Mac, can't click next, shows the same picture.

February 18 2011 at 3:27 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Almisael's comment
Kevlar

Yep. COMPLETELY BROKEN.

February 18 2011 at 5:28 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
benjaminsmiles7

Gallery isn't working in Chrome.

February 18 2011 at 3:22 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Buy an ad here

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.