Katie MarsalA trio of videos were posted this week by letemsvetemapplem.eu, which compare the iPhone 4 and fourth-generation iPod touch, as well as the iPhone 3GS and iPad. The iPhone 4, latest iPod touch and iPad all sport Apple's custom A4 processor, though the iPhone 4 has twice the RAM as the 256MB found in the iPod touch and iPad.
But in a comparison of startup times, the iPad was the clear winner, with a full startup achieved in just 19.04 seconds. Next was the fourth-generation iPod touch, which took 26.40 seconds to start, followed by the iPhone 4 at 28.64 seconds. Last year's iPhone 3GS started in 32.80 seconds.
A side-by-side comparison of the 720p video cameras on both the iPhone 4 and fourth-generation iPod touch was also conducted. In the videos, the iPod touch camera has a darker contrast than the video shot with the iPhone 4.
Finally, the most obvious disparity between the two devices is the display. Though the new iPod touch packs a high-resolution "Retina Display" packing the same 326 pixels per inch as the iPhone 4, the iPod touch screen does not have the same in-plane switching technology found in Apple's smartphone.
When viewed from sharp angles, the iPod touch display has distorted colors, while the iPhone 4 remains accurate. This is thanks to the IPS technology in the LCD display.
IPS technology was developed by Hitachi in 1996 to improve viewing angles and color reproductions on screens. Its first appearance in Apple's line of iOS devices came earlier this year, when the iPad was introduced.
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
AppleInsider Staff
Chip Loder
Malcolm Owen
32 Comments
I gotta say, I like the wider angle of view and the much sharper, more stable, contrasty, saturated image of the iPod Touch video more. Are we sure they didn't get that backward? I heard that the iPhone was supposed to be the one with faster focusing and wider angle.
I gotta say, I like the wider angle of view and the much sharper, more stable, contrasty, saturated image of the iPod Touch video more. Are we sure they didn't get that backward? I heard that the iPhone was supposed to be the one with faster focusing and wider angle.
IP4 video looks overexposed compared to iPod. But iPod white balance looks a bit off (a bit more magenta). I think if you could dial down video on IP4 a bit when shooting it'll be great.
Couple statements in this article are not correct
- Apple adopted IPS panel starting with the first aluminum 24inch iMac. Apple didn't market IPS until they unveiled the current generation of iMac. In their current lineup, iMac/iPad/iPhone uses IPS.
- The video difference between iPhone and iPod Touch is not much. you don't say "dark contrast". While video is a little darker in iPod Touch, I actually think it has a HIGHER contrast. Video from iPhone looks washed out.
I would like to have IPS on touch but I guess it's a cost cutting thing. I hope the color accuracy would be good (as demonstrated in current Macbook Pros, Apple can do great color even without IPS).
At first I thought I liked the iPhone 4 video better because it looked brighter....but as I watched it, I realized I preferred the iPod touches video quality alot more. The color saturation was nicer. There was no jiggle or jello effect when panning, and I liked the wider angle view of the iPod more.
All in all, I think the new touch rocks. Can't wait to get one....but I'm waiting until the rubber cases for it come out. So far the Apple stores here in NYC don't have any.
I gotta say, I like the wider angle of view and the much sharper, more stable, contrasty, saturated image of the iPod Touch video more. Are we sure they didn't get that backward? I heard that the iPhone was supposed to be the one with faster focusing and wider angle.
The iPhone has a high-res camera, 2592x1936, making it great for still shots. For HD video (which is 1280x800) I’m led to believe it uses only the center of the sensor. Essentially, that crops the video view to a smaller angle than the iPhone 4’s still-shot view. (Which I believe is compensated for a little by the iPhone 4 camera having a wider FOV than previous iPhones. But don’t quote me.)
The iPod Touch, on the other hand, has a smaller/thinner, lower-res camera, which doesn’t take the iPhone 4’s great stills. But it makes sense then that it would use the whole sensor for video, giving a larger FOV.
I do like that video coming from the Touch! But I find the iPhone 4’s video still looks amazing for most purposes, and I take still shots much more than I take videos. (Stills are great on the iPhone 4.)
But the Touch is a great device (and a LOT cheaper). It’s nice that those users get such good video recording.
iPhone 4 users might want to use the front camera sometimes for video too: no viewfinder, but lower pixel size might mean less wobble in situations where that looks bad. And definitely means less storage space! 640x480 is about DVD quality after all—not half bad. I’d like to see tests with the front cameras just for completeness.