[reemas]

hows the screen in terms of quality? i know its 1.5inches which is tiny. anyone use it yet? please let me know. i'm hoping the resolution is sharp as well. and is it viewable from many angles?

[Drakino]

It's one of the best color screens in any device this size, better then most cell phones. Viewing angle seems to be 160-170 both horizontal and vertical. Resolution is hard to gauge, but seems more then enough for what the player is.

[reemas]

is it comparable to the screens on the back of most decent digital cameras? just asking cause photo thumbnails must be tiny on this device

[Parky]

It's better that any screen I have seen on a digital camera, the resolution is MUCH higher.

Ian

[uicandrew]

according to apple's website, the nano has 176 x 132 pixel resolution, .168-mm dot pitch, while the regular ipod photos have 220 x 176 pixel resolution, 0.18-mm dot pitch.

[ort888]

The screen looks great. Photos look sharp and crisp. The only problem is that the album art is so small that a lot of times it doesn't really look like much more then a colored square.

Still, it's nice. Photos look good so I wouldn't worry about it.

[yongfook]

resolution is good, but colour is not so great. I don't know how many colours it can show on-screen but some of my pictures get gif-ified if you know what I mean, colours get dithered so subtle colour gradients etc show up as dithered dots. Hard to explain.

Anyone who says that the colour on the nano's screen compares to that of a digital camera's is just plain wrong. The nano's screen is just very BRIGHT, which gives the illusion of it being high quality.

[hakstooy]

I think you mean the color depth isn't that high, which is to be expected.

[yongfook]

indulge me, why should that be "expected"?

Apple made photo browsing a function of the nano, I'm saying that it doesn't really do it that well. You can almost get away with saying colour-depth isn't an issue in the regular iPod, since you can hook the iPod up to the TV and display photos that way, with better colour depth, but I understand you can't do that with the nano. All we have on the nano is on-screen viewing, and it's not great at it.

I still love my nano, but I just don't see myself using it for photos for the above reason. I think Apple just put it in and would rather it be there and people (like me) whine about it's shortcomings, than not put it in at all and make everyone whine about it not being there in the first place.

[alligator]

This is certainly not a photo device. Apple couldn't release it without photo support after all other iPods had photos support (except the shuffle).