4:3 Aspect Ratio Screen: iPad's Neglected Charm.

Discussion in 'iPad' started by BergerFan, Dec 3, 2010.

  1. BergerFan macrumors 68020

    BergerFan

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Location:
    Mos Eisley
    #1
    I've not seen one review on a tech blog or video, comment on the iPads 4:3 aspect ratio. I think it's one of the best form factor decisions taken.
    Everyone seems to think that 16:9 is the way to go, but for a tablet, widescreen must surely suck in a vertical orientation.
     
  2. Zcott macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Belfast, Ireland
    #2
    As someone who lives on portrait mode, widescreen would be the death knell of this thing. Reading a book would be horrendous. Browsing the web would be terrible.

    One of the great things about 4:3 is that it works portrait and landscape. With 16:9 or 16:10 you're eliminating portrait mode entirely.
     
  3. Piggie macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #3
    I would like to make a very bold statement here

    Which may be wrong, but hey :D

    If Apple had made both 4:3 and 16:9 models of iPads.

    The 4:3 had a screen res of 1024x768
    The 16:9 a screen res of 1366x768

    I think more 16:9 models would have been sold.

    You may think I'm wrong, that's just my opinion :)

    I have seen a few surveys people have done on different forums, and on each one more people say they always use their iPads on Landscape than portrait, unless an app forces them to use portrait mode, such as a game.
     
  4. BergerFan thread starter macrumors 68020

    BergerFan

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Location:
    Mos Eisley
    #4
    You're probably right, but that's only because we've gotten into the "it's widescreen, so it surely must be superior." mindset, which is correct for horizontal-only devices (monitors, tv's, etc).
    I'm surprised that one of the rival tablet makers have caught on yet. :D
     
  5. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #5
    That would be a BIG iPad at about 13". Not sure how it would fly but 1.33 was chosen as the "*best" compromise for all media and size factor.

    *in Steve Jobs opinion (Apple doesn't use focas groups)
     
  6. samab macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    #6
    You can fit 2 pages into a 16:10 screen --- that's why it's used for computer monitors.
     
  7. vincenz macrumors 601

    vincenz

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    #7
    Hadn't noticed this at all myself.. Huh, I always assumed that it was 16:10. 4:3 makes a lot more sense though, just as an eReader.
     
  8. anjinha macrumors 604

    anjinha

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2006
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #8
    I doubt it. 16:9 only makes sense for movies and that's a very small part of what people use the iPad for. Apps would look weird, the software keyboard would cover even more of the screen...
     
  9. Akash.B macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    #9
    Agreed. Try flipping your monitor and have it in portrait mode. Browse the web and see how awkward it seems. 4:3 saved the device, I believe!
     
  10. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #10
    I don't think it matters. Both sizes/ratios have their advantages.
     
  11. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #11
    1.6 seems to be the past with most new monitors going to 1.78. Apple is even going to 1.78.
     
  12. innominato5090 macrumors 6502

    innominato5090

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    #12
    yeah, I think apple made the right decision. plus, 4:3 is the closer resolution to 3:2 and it make easier to developers to create the UI: they could the same ratio for the interface elements :)
     
  13. Zcott macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Belfast, Ireland
    #13
    [​IMG]

    16:9 vs 4:3. I know which one I'd rather have.
     
  14. newdeal macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    #14
    ...

    Agreed the 16:9 ratio is bad for both orientations, too long and skinny in portrait and not tall enough in landscape. I already feel like the ipad keyboard takes a good portion of the screen if it was 16:9 it would be horrible. This is one of the fatal flaws the competitors all seem to be making. That and using a screen that is simply too small. a 7" 16:9 screen is too small for anything, if its going to be for around the house then an ipad is perfect, if its to take with you it should be a 5" screen and not so thick as the Galaxy S so it has a chance at fitting in your pocket. Also with all the rage about cameras who the hell is going to whip out their monsterous galaxy S to take a snap shot? I know I would be embarrassed to do that. The Galaxy S is a large android phone, looking at it makes me think it was made in the 90s because most technology has slimmed down and gotten smaller and then you have this huge clunky tablet that is thick, squared off, and seemingly fills no niche in the market whatsoever
     
  15. Akash.B macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    #15
    Well said.
     
  16. Piggie macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #16
    The main thing I dislike about the 4:3 ratio is for video.

    When pretty much all movies and now TV shows are in one or another widescreen formats, on the iPad as it is, you either chop of the sides which no-one wants.

    Or only use about 500 lines and have giant black borders.

    For this use I'd much prefer a widescreen display.

    Also the web browser would be much nicer having the extra width and pixels 1366 of a widescreen display.

    At the moment, the current browser "Crunches" down a web page to fit into the 1024 width. the extra width would be much nicer.

    Note: I don't feel I HAVE to like anything just because of any company loyalty.
     
  17. Nausicaa macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    #17
    Only, 4x3 is better for landscape as well. Thinking about the dimensions of the device, if it were widescreen you would either have to add a few more inches to the iPad making it in practically long and difficult to hold in landscape or portrait. The other option is to keep the dimensions the same and shave off a few inches from the bottom (if oriented in landscape). This would significantly reduce the viewable area in virtually every use case. Typing would be more difficult like the iPhone where the keyoard takes up the entire screen and you can only see a sliver of what your doing.

    Even viewing movies, unless your going for the prohibitively large, option 1 above, is better on 4x3. Afterall, make the current iPad smaller to get 16x9, and the size of the video would be the same or smaller than on the 4x3.

    I'm sorry, but this is one area where I completely disregard the opinions of others and what they supposedly want. 4x3 is quite simply the right way to go on a tablet device and is objectively superior to 16x9 in every way. I agree with the OP that it was a bold (given all the **** 4x3 has taken in the last 10 years) and brilliant design choice, and basically makes the iPad as good as it is.
     
  18. Capt T macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2010
    #18
    The thing about the black borders is that most movies even on a 16:9 screen will have the black bars as most movies are not 16:9. TV shows that are newer are 16:9. So if you are watching a lot of movies it really doesn't matter 16:9 or 4:3 if the black bars are your issue as you will have them for most movies anyway, unless it is optimized for 16:9 screens.
     
  19. Nausicaa macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    #19
    THINK! If iPad were 16x9, your video would be the same size unless they made the iPad even larger. I'd much rather put up with black bars on the comparatively infrequent occasion I watch a movie than sacrifice all that screen space which makes the iPad so much better to use in every other scenario. Especially since, again, cutting off the black bars won't make the video itself any larger.
     

Share This Page