16:9

Discussion in 'iPad' started by Doingthedo, Mar 2, 2010.

  1. Doingthedo macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    #1
    I am excited about the ipad, but can not believe that it will not use 16:9 display???:confused:
     
  2. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #2
    So?

    I, don't you think that would have altered the size of the device so that its unwieldly. Does apple offer 16:9 in any of its other computers? I think its was a safe and smart move on their part for those reasons and probably more that I'm not privy too.
     
  3. BruiserBear macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    #3
    Actually the new iMacs are exactly 16:9, and the MacBook Pro might be as well.
     
  4. Doingthedo thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    #4
    16:9

    no, it would not alter the size. Even the new toy pad computer by Dell does 16:9!!
     
  5. Chupa Chupa macrumors G5

    Chupa Chupa

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #5

    16:9 is a good ratio for movies and Web browsing, but not so good for displaying books and magazines. Apple had to make a compromise one way, and books/mags won out. Consumers are already accustom to letter boxed video so we are more likely to accept that vs. a scrunched book/mag layout. Thing how miserable a letter boxed book/mag would be to read.
     
  6. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #6
    It's a compromise just like 1.78 (16x9) was chosen by the ATSC as a compromise for HDTV standard. 1.78 is half way between 1.33 (3x4) (old standard TV and the iPad) and 2.35 (scope widescreen) and this is the reason it was chosen for HDTV. If you take the iPad's* height of 9.56" and switch to a 1.78 aspect ratio then the width would be only 5.35" while still getting the same size viewing picture area (using OAR). While 9.56"x5.35" would be better (no black bars) for viewing 1.78 (HDTV) and 1.85 (matted films) (you of course would still have black bars on 2.35 scope and window bars on older 1.33 TV) it would be awkward to set in your lap and would not be ideal for book reading, email, pictures, maps or internet.

    Another negative effect by going 1.78 would be the smaller case would have a smaller battery (or the case must be made thicker).

    *overall dimensions (not screen).
     
  7. t0mat0 macrumors 603

    t0mat0

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Home
    #7
    Seeing as TV is the right ratio, and books are similar to 4:3, and apps are currently a similar ratio, it is fairly useful.

    Got to compromise somewhere.
     
  8. Eso macrumors 68000

    Eso

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    #8
    A ratio of 16:9 would work fine for reading in landscape orientation, displaying two pages, which happens to be more natural for reading.

    With that ratio, however, it would probably be more awkward to handle in general. The iPad has the same ratio as the iPhone - if they changed it then they wouldn't have been able to copy/paste the entire OS right over to the iPad and call it a day either.
     
  9. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #9
    Because it's easy to view 16x9 on a larger 4:3 screen and have black bars than it is to have a 16:9 screen and lose a lot of image space going to 4:3.

    If they had done a 16x9 screen - people would be bitching how small their videos are on such a large screen.

    This is actually one of the best/better decisions Apple made regarding the iPad.
     
  10. Chupa Chupa macrumors G5

    Chupa Chupa

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #10
    Actually the iPhone has a 2:3 aspect ratio and the iPad is 4:3.
     
  11. Bytor65 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Location:
    Canada
    #11
    And a standard sheet of paper is right between those. As a tablet meant to be used heavily in portrait mode, 16:9 is just too skinny.

    Every time I see one of these 16:9 tablets in portrait mode it just looks so wrong.

    As usual Apple thought this through much more clearly than forum junkies.

    Who would have guessed. :rolleyes:
     
  12. 4DThinker macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    #12
    Get the Archos 9, Haleron iLet Hal, Archos 7 Home tablet, or any of the common netbooks out now if you need a 16:9 screen. Their biggest flaw shows up when you are NOT using them to play 16:9 movies. What percent of the time do you think iPhone/Touch users spend watching movies on their devices? My guess is tat Apple looked into at an realize a larger 4:3 screen would be far more useful for web browsing and the other apps could easily be written to to take advantage.
     
  13. EssentialParado macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    #13
    [​IMG]

    You'll just be getting a smaller screen. Would it really be worth it?

    TVs and computer screens make sense to be 16:9 because you're not rotating them. It's not the same case with the iPad.
     
  14. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #14
    I'd almost guarantee they probably did prototypes with both a 16:9 ratio and the iPhone's ratio, and decided that 4:3 worked out best.

    Personally, I'm actually happy. I have a LOT of 4:3 content that will look great on this, and I have to live with cropping or black bars on the iPhone and other 16:9 devices, so this is really not any different.
     
  15. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #15
    of course of this banter is moot since apple has already designed the device and its currently being manufactured.
     
  16. nutmac macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #16
    Here's how iPad stacks up:
    • 1.25:1: Most published books
    • 1.30:1: US letter/A4 paper size
    • 1.33:1 (4x3): SDTV, older Macs/PC displays, most point & shoot cameras, most magazines, iPad, Kindle, Nook, most Sony readers
    • 1.46:1: Kindle DX
    • 1.50:1 (3x2): iPhone, iPod touch, SLR cameras
    • 1.60:1: Most Macs (except iMac), many PC displays
    • 1.70:1: Sony PRS-900
    • 1.78:1 (16x9): iMac, HDTV, many mainstream PC displays
    • 1.85:1: Movies
    • 2.35:1: Movies
     
  17. johndango macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    Location:
    Redmond, Wa
    #17
    There will probably be a widescreen version someday. "iPad HD" or something. I like it's size and shape now thank you.
     
  18. smetvid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    #18
    The 4x3 screen shape does make sense when you consider the fact that it could be rotated. 9x16 is just sort of odd for pretty much any purpose and would result in almost nobody using the device in portrait mode. With that said I have rotated 16x9 HDTV's but it was more or less for a kiosk type device for museums and so forth. It is kind of ironic that we have been using 16x9 touch screen monitors in this way for years but Apple felt it was wrong.

    The thing I do not like about the Ipad however is it's very limited VGA connection. First of all I thought the world was moving away from VGA? Why not mini display port and then let users decide what adapter they want. That way they could have used all of their adapters from their Mac computers.

    I'm also not very happy about the VGA connection being limited to 1024x768. If this thing is such a great 720p HD device then why not allow the vga device to display at least 1280x720 16x9? As it stands right now it would be much better to render HD video for the Ipad as 1024x768. To be honest I think the only real use for the VGA connection is going to be with the keynote app and may be the sole reason why it is there.

    16x9 video on the Ipad will playback as 1024x576 or basically what 16x9 PAL SD resolution is if it would use square pixels instead of anamorphic pixels. The horizontal resolution will be a bit higher then PAL SD but the vertical will be about the same.

    How is this going to affect hooking up the device to pretty much every monitor on the planet that is now 16x9 or 16x10? Your Ipad output is going to be stretched and not look very good. Change your 16x9/16x10 Mac resolution to 1024x768 to see how the Ipad display will look.

    What about the SD component video adapter? That appears to be 4x3 as well which makes it pretty darn worthless unless you still happen to have a 4x3 TV.

    So the Ipad itself being 4x3 is not a problem at all but the vga adapter is pretty much useless because of it.
     
  19. blackNBUK macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    Pedant Mode On ;)

    A4 paper doesn't have the same aspect ratio as US Letter paper. The aspect ratio for A4 is approximately 1.414 or exactly √2. As A4 is a bit narrower than 4:3, this probably explains why the iPad looks a touch fat to my UK eyes.

    The nice thing about A4 paper is that if you cut a piece into 2 equal portions, each piece will have the same 1.414 aspect ratio. This page has a lot more information if anyone is interested.
     
  20. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #20
    ...and besides 1.85 and 2.35 movies can come in 1.37 (Academy), 1.43 (IMAX) 1.66 (European Widescreen) and 2.76 (Ultra Panavision) too.:D
     
  21. t0mat0 macrumors 603

    t0mat0

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Home
    #21
    Informative post on the ratio nutmac.
    And nice picture EssentialParado - much easier to show with a picture!

    There's a certain volume that the ipad could be, and a certain minimum thickness. These can also dictate size, resolution. Apple's likely to have plans beyond this - we'll see more about why the screen size as the year goes on.
     
  22. Alfuh macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    #22
    Best post on the subject. This should end the thread ...

    You would either have a narrower iPad at the same height or an awkwardly long iPad at the same width ... neither is better
     
  23. bluehaze013 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    #23
    10" 16:9 will be too small 4:3 will be a luxury in something so small.
     
  24. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #24
    While I agree that 16:9 would have been a poor choice, I feel like the 3:2 ratio of the iPhone would have been nice. It's a good compromise between book/paper size and TV/movie size. It's hard to say if it would have looked/felt "right" compared a 4:3, but I have a feeling it would have.
     
  25. johndango macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    Location:
    Redmond, Wa
    #25
    I've been some of my DVDs ready to watch on the iPad and I've been choosing widescreen. One of the movies was fullscreen and when I checked to make sure it looked right, it looked like crap. I hate full screen. Gimme the black bars any day.

    That said, I'm happy the device didn't cater to that 16:9 ratio. I will be using it for movies a fraction of the time that I will use it for everything else.
     

Share This Page