Never miss an update Follow AppleInsider
Wednesday, September 15, 2010, 10:30 am
iPod touch 4G speed, camera, display measured against iPhone 4
Apple's latest iPod touch update has been given a direct comparison to the iPhone 4, with new videos that demonstrate the speed, display, and video-taking quality of each device.A 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.
On Topic: iPod
- Apple's online store now offering refurbed 7th Generation iPod Nanos, cheaper refurbed iPads
- Apple Online Store now offering refurbished 5th-gen iPod touch for $240
- Rumor: Ex-Adobe exec Kevin Lynch heading Apple team of former iPod employees
- Apple now collecting twice as much from iTunes, software & services as from iPod sales
- Users experiencing issues updating 5th-gen iPod touch to iOS 6.1
Previous Comments View All
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton 
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
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.
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.
Comparisons of startup time don't in any way reflect usage results. SSD's tout this a ton, but really, how often do you start these devices?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kopuschen
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.
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.
And yours continue to be incorrect. They were using IPS panels way before the aluminium 24" iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbonner
Comparisons of startup time don't in any way reflect usage results. SSD's tout this a ton, but really, how often do you start these devices?
Comparisons of startup time don't in any way reflect usage results. SSD's tout this a ton, but really, how often do you start these devices?
Its indicative of the overall performance of the HW since these devices are using essentially the same SW. Of course, the Touch and iPad dont have cellular HW and SW to deal with, but that is factorable.
If that was the ONLY test, then Id understand your point, but there are plenty of others testing GPU speed, app launches, and website rendering. If you are a 3GS user (which is a Cortex-A8) considering moving to an iPhone 4 (which is also a Cortex-A8) you get a feel for the increased performance the new iPhone can offer. Whether this is from more optimized code, the A4 tweeking, and/or from a higher clocked CPU due to the larger battery that can handle it I cant say, but it does show a marked improvement .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor
And yours continue to be incorrect. They were using IPS panels way before the aluminium 24" iMac.
And yours continue to be incorrect. They were using IPS panels way before the aluminium 24" iMac.
I dont recall that being the case. I thought the 16:9 ratio iMacs were the first Macs to use an iPS display, with the iPad and iPhone 4 following suit. Id love to see an IPS display on a MBP, but they do tend to use more power so unless that hurdle can tackled for a 13 to 17 display then well likely have to wait a bit longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
The iPod Touch, on the other hand, has a smaller/thinner, lower-res camera, which doesnt take the iPhone 4s great stills.
The iPod Touch, on the other hand, has a smaller/thinner, lower-res camera, which doesnt take the iPhone 4s great stills.
Here's Steve's take from a year ago:
Mr. Jobs reiterated what Phil Schiller, the marketing vice president, had said earlier in the onstage presentation: that Apple is really pitching the iPod Touch as a game machine these days. And to do that, you have to make it as inexpensive as possible.
Originally, we werent exactly sure how to market the Touch. Was it an iPhone without the phone? Was it a pocket computer? What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine, he said. We started to market it that way, and it just took off. And now what we really see is its the lowest-cost way to the App Store, and thats the big draw. So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199. We dont need to add new stuff. We need to get the price down where everyone can afford it.
I guess it decided that, this time around, it would not get the price down to where everyone can afford it, but instead, would include a camera in last-year's vacant spot. Or something like that.
I love it how Steve keeps us guessing.
Darker picture contrast?
Did tester notice the most important difference? It looks like focal lengths are different! Check the same subject sizes.
You get different amount of light to iPhone4 and iPod Touch (due to different focal length of optical element) hence they show different level of brigness and contrast. Simple.
Latest Apple Headlines
-
Apple's iAd first major mobile ad-network to get Media Ratings Council accreditation
~24 minutes ago -
Dubai hotel provides guests with iMacs, 24-karat gold iPad
~55 minutes ago -
Evernote gains reminders, Telltale's poker comes to iOS & Angry Birds Space goes free
~2 hours ago -
Apple announces WWDC 2013 keynote for Monday, June 10
~3 hours ago -
Half of Apple's MacBook Air lineup now sold out at Amazon ahead of WWDC
~4 hours ago - more...
Want to write for AppleInsider? Submit your application now!
| Model | White | Black | |
|---|---|---|---|
| iPad mini (WiFi only) | |||
| 16GB WiFi |  |
$329.99 | $329.99 |
| 32GB WiFi | |
$429.99 | $429.99 |
| 64GB WiFi | |
$529.99 | $529.99 |
| iPad mini (WiFi + 4G) | |||
 |
 |
 |
|
| 16GB 4G White | $459.99 | $459.99 | $459.99 |
| 32GB 4G White | $559.99 | $559.99 | $559.99 |
| 64GB 4G White | $659.99 | $659.99 | $659.99 |
| 16GB 4G Black | $459.99 | $459.99 | $459.99 |
| 32GB 4G Black | $559.99 | $559.99 | $559.99 |
| 64GB 4G Black | $659.99 | $659.99 | $659.99 |
Lowest Prices Anywhere!
| Model | Price | You Save |
|---|---|---|
| Core i5 MacBook Pros w/ Retina | ||
| 13" 2.5GHz/8GB/128GB | $1,406.48 | $292.52 |
| 13" 2.5GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,479.99 | $519.01 |
| 13" 2.5GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,699.99 | $799.01 |
| Core i7 MacBook Pros w/ Retina | ||
| 13" 2.9GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,599.99 | $599.01 |
| 13" 2.9GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,799.99 | $899.01 |
| 15" 2.3GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,899.99 | $299.01 |
| 15" 2.6GHz/8GB/512GB | $2,299.99 | $568.01 |
| 15" 2.7GHz/16GB/768GB | $2,699.99 | $499.01 |
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.