Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So, how long until the rest of Apple's hardware moves to 16:9?
- Thread starter Brien
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
supinternet
macrumors newbie
Hopefully never. Vertical space is generally much more useful in normal use than horizontal space.
gr8tfly
macrumors 603
+1 on that. 16:10 is a good compromise between horizontal (facing pages) and vertical. My first thought was they were catering to "black bar" haters (playing 16:9 on 16:10). Based on my own movie collection, I'd say at least half are "wider" than 16:9 anyway. Go figure. 🙄
I'll have to say the 27" does look impressive, though.
16:9 is bad
What's more, 4:3 should become the standard again
The place where this is most annoying is in laser TVs, which thanks to their dynamic resolution, would be ideal to watch all formats. But no, they make them 16:9, too. 😡
What's more, 4:3 should become the standard again
The place where this is most annoying is in laser TVs, which thanks to their dynamic resolution, would be ideal to watch all formats. But no, they make them 16:9, too. 😡
sammich
macrumors 601
With a username like yours, I'd expect you to be championing a 1:1 aspect ratio 😛
And god, I hope not (16:9), especially not in a laptop. It's okay for a larger screen with more vertical pixels to compensate for the loss.
Dr.Pants
macrumors 65816
16:9 is funny looking if you ask me. A few of my friends have Acers with that same ratio... Personally I think if Jobs got handed a 16:9 Macbook case prototype, he would scream out in a horrific fashion that would awaken Jimmy Hoffa from his unknown grave.
16:9 just makes for an overly-long computer case. For a monitor its alright, but a laptop... Everything gets spaced out too wide, if you ask me. Considering how the 27" can cater out with its exemplary video input, I would imagine that like several people have said, its for the black-bar haters who demand 1080p no matter what. On the other hand, a laptop generally will not have 1900x1080 unless its HUGE, ergo the only viable model for a change would be the 17", and I think that the change would piss off more users then the ones that would adopt it.
16:9 just makes for an overly-long computer case. For a monitor its alright, but a laptop... Everything gets spaced out too wide, if you ask me. Considering how the 27" can cater out with its exemplary video input, I would imagine that like several people have said, its for the black-bar haters who demand 1080p no matter what. On the other hand, a laptop generally will not have 1900x1080 unless its HUGE, ergo the only viable model for a change would be the 17", and I think that the change would piss off more users then the ones that would adopt it.
Actually, maybe it's easier to sell 1:1 screens to the dumb masses than 4:3, as it would be something new.
Then everybody can buy Hasselblads 🙂
Then everybody can buy Hasselblads 🙂
sammich
macrumors 601
Oh yeah, because everyone wants to watch their blu-ray movies on a 1920x1920 display. Wow, imagine how many pixels are wasted on that thing.
But everyone wants to watch SD content in 4:3 as big as possible.
But yes, 4:3 would be cheaper than 1:1, like 16:9 is cheaper than 16:10
sammich
macrumors 601
But just about all content these days are in some format wider than 4:3. Just about everything except the smaller devices like the 3GS. Consumer camcorders are in 16:9 just about.
In these cases, 4:3 would make that media look *smaller* than on a wider aspect.
There's a TON of content in 4:3. Not only video, but also classic films that could be rereleased in Blu Ray.
And none of the pixels would we wasted on a computer monitor.
A 4:3 display doesn't make wide media look worse when it has the right amount of pixels.
And laser TVs just give you the exact number of nice pixels for all formats.
sammich
macrumors 601
Yes, that's why 16:10 is a good compromise. If you're watching 4:3 content on that aspect, 16.7% of pixels are letterboxes. If you're are watching 16:9 content on a 4:3 screen, 33.3% of pixels are rendered black.
Yes, while using the screen as a computer display, I find it far more productive to be able to have documents side by side, while on a 4:3, you wouldn't be able to achieve this without some part of the screen being wasted).