Screen Quality

Seeing as the new iPod Nano screen is so very different looking, it’s a little pointless to mention that the screen size was greatly increased since it is larger than 1.5-2” (approximately twice the old display size). Not satisfied with having a nice big screen (it occupies approximately 30% of the face), Apple sweetens the deal with its other characteristics.

The screen’s resolution is 320 x 240, which is no less than the iPod Classic even though its surface area is larger by a third. The screen’s resolution is particularly important, with a display of completely satisfactory precision. The inconvenient part is that it displays the characters in a very small font. The Classics’s screen is far more convenient. However the performance is remarkable and as long as you aren’t myopic the Nano’s screen is a genuine delight.

The praise doesn’t stop here; the screen brightness is also excellent. It’s impressive, if not as good as the Classics. However, the colours displayed by the Nano seem to be better than those on the Classics and don’t suffer from any particular discolouration. The viewing angles are quite good, or at least they’re never inconvenient. It’s even possible to read the screen in bright daylight.

From a technical point of view, it is perfect. The only problem is that our exemplary test screen was not perfectly fitted. It leans slightly to the left; it’s far from being bothersome but it’s still regrettable, especially from a manufacturer such as Apple, which usually takes such care of the design and finishing of its products. Apparently, this problem isn’t isolated, judging from several similar experience comments on forums. Apple has yet to recognize the problem and eventually rectify it.

A small summary of the new iPod nano

From a technical standpoint, the Nano seems to address the major criticisms levelled at its predecessors. It’s a very compact device, with a successful design that seems particularly well-equipped thanks to its remarkable new screen.

Now let’s see what happens once the mp3 player is turned on! Or rather once the two mp3 players are switched on, as both are, in reality nearly identical (notably due to the screens having identical resolutions).

The iPod interface has been a major factor in the brand’s success; thanks to its simplicity and clarity, the use of the players is made particularly intuitive. The fact the Apple has brought in a modification to it is not harmful and is mostly an update that effects most Apple products (including the iPhone and Mac OSX Leopard).

The great album art debacle

Corverflow has made its appearance in the new iPods. For anyone who doesn’t know, Coverflow is a 3D menu in which the cover art of your albums is displayed as though on a shelf. Its effectively a purely visual feautre; navigation is carried out through a series of images rather than text, with all the visual and functional richness that this principle can bring. Exploring the covers is carried out by simple stroke of the Click-wheel; once the album is chosen, you can go back and display it’s content by tracks, then you can select the track as usual to play it.

The navigation is accompanied by smooth animations, the aesthetics are reinforced by reflection effects. However great the results are on an iPhone, or in an iTunes library, we can’t say the same for the iPod. Firstly, you’ll have to say goodbye to Coverflow’s black background, and especially to the fluidity of its animations.

This is true for the Nano as well as the Classic; the resources available just don’t seem to be enough for a convincing 3D animation. Even worse, on the Classic, there’s some delay in displaying album covers (due to the artwork being poorly placed on the hard disk).

Logically enough, Coverflow can only display the covers of albums you’ve actually got artwork for. It goes looking for the information on the music files present in memory. Your files have to be well organised and have to have an album cover in iTunes.

While iTunes is theoretically capable of getting the album covers automatically, sometimes it can leave up to half of your library without any artwork. This half then receives a Coverflow default illustration, which really limits the interest. In brief, it’s not very fluid and of debatable use. You can ask yourselves, what’s the point of Coverflow? Certainly mostly to show off and I’m sure marketing love it!

Send link to this page by email :

Your email address *

Your name *

Recipient address *

Send

* The email addresses collected via this form are not recorded on our servers and are only used for the sending request