Are you in favor of a 16x9 display on MacBooks?

[terraphantm]

Nope. I'd be more intrigued by a high res 4x3 than 16x9 though. 4x3 makes more sense for a lot of things, like portraits, text documents, 99.9% of the internet, & email. More situations seem to benefit from an increase in vertical pixels. Most movies are shot anamorphic so it's cut off on any screen or letter-boxed. Does it really matter if a significant portion of the monitor is unused when you watch a movie? Not in my view. For most people a laptop is not the primary movie screen anyway.

I think for 90% of work tasks 4x3 is better.

For a 4:3 laptop to use a similar footprint to its 16:10 counterpart, you will almost always sacrifice horizontal resolution rather than increas vertical.

1600x1200 vs 1920x1200 - would the former be better for you, and if so why? Cant you theoretically just run at 1600x1200 with the black bars and have the same workspace?

I much prefer 16:10 for text documents. With a sufficiently high resolution (1680x1050 and above), you can display 2 pages side by side without the font being unreadable.

 

[dusk007]

It will really remove the annoying black bars when watching movies and YouTube videos.

How are black bars annoying.
What to they matter?
What matters is the total width of the screen. I never ever was annoyed by black bars. I don't get it.

 

[theSeb]

much better proportion of screen real-estate

I was bummed when the retina wasn't 16x9 :/

Why? 16:10 is far better for productivity. There is no argument for 16:9 on a computer. The only reason for 16:9 monitors is that the panels are cheaper.

 

[borisiii]

About five years ago at work I had a desktop with an NEC 24" 1600x1200 4:3 monitor that you could rotate so it was portrait or landscape. Putting it in portrait for web browsing and working on documents was great - truly the most productive setup I have used.

 

[thekev]

Why? 16:10 is far better for productivity. There is no argument for 16:9 on a computer. The only reason for 16:9 is that the panels are cheaper.

That's how we got 27" displays. 25.5" displays were the same height. They were marketed as 26" due to rounding. Those were 16:10. Widen it slightly and market as 27" displays, now 16:9. The current size is about as big as most people will really put on a desk, so I don't see them getting much larger outside of niche markets that already had 30" displays in a different aspect ratio years ago. It's fully possible that you'll see resolution start to creep up rather than an increase in real estate. As you get too big, navigation becomes an annoying issue. With a mouse it's a lot of scrolling. With a graphics tablet your mapping becomes extremely scaled. I didn't adopt this opinion when Apple started the "retina" trend and trademark. I expected things to drift in this direction long ago.

About five years ago at work I had a desktop with an NEC 24" 1600x1200 4:3 monitor that you could rotate so it was portrait or landscape. Putting it in portrait for web browsing and working on documents was great - truly the most productive setup I have used.

I'm fairly certain NEC never had a 24" in this aspect ratio. If they did, I would have bought it. They had 20" and 21" displays both in 1600x1200. When the 24" displays started to come out, they were 1920x1200. Are you sure it wasn't a 21"? Those would have the same height dimension as a later 24".

Personally 24" 16:10 is a good size for me. Having things spread out over even more real estate slows me down at times. I prefer the 24" with the most minimal ui possible. It's easier to manage. I didn't mind 1600x1200. 1920x1200 works too on the 24" displays. Something about that height dimension works quite well as it's easy to take in.

 

[Retina MacBook]

How are black bars annoying.
What to they matter?
What matters is the total width of the screen. I never ever was annoyed by black bars. I don't get it.

It just doesn't feel right to watch a 16:9 movie on a 16:10 display.

 

[theSeb]

It just doesn't feel right to watch a 16:9 movie on a 16:10 display.

Oddly enough, watching movies is hardly the main purpose of a $2000+ computer.

 

[Retina MacBook]

Oddly enough, watching movies is hardly the main purpose of a $2000+ computer.

Of course not. But the ones I make from Final Cut is. And I want to see the videos I make in it's full glory. Without the bars.

 

[Pressure]

Of course not. But the ones I make from Final Cut is. And I want to see the videos I make in it's full glory. Without the bars.

Face it, you are just a very vocal minority.

The rest of us who do an actual living working with media has a preview screen to watch the media on.

With the Retina display you can watch a full screen 16:9 movie in full resolution without using the entire screen. Very nice when editing.

 

[sireShonBohn]

Of course not. But the ones I make from Final Cut is. And I want to see the videos I make in it's full glory. Without the bars.

You are viewing in it's full glory, you're just tricking yourself into thinking you aren't.

 

[Slivortal]

You do realize any screen change would require a drastic change in the chassy of the MBP, right? If you went to 16:9, you'd have to have wider laptops. The reason that this is fine with the 11" MBA is because it's so small, but I'm pretty sure those dimensions would be pretty strange on a full-sized laptop.

I mean, you could increase the bezel size to keep the same ratio, but then you just get "black bars" for everything.

Considering the MBP's black bezel, I think the "black bars" on 16:9 film are relatively unnoticeable. And you still get a large amount of screen space.

I think it's mostly a minor issue that revolves more around good laptop design than actually considering the screen.

 

[Aodhan]

I really dislike 16:9 notebook displays. One of the best things about MBPs are their 16:10 displays. I have a tv for watching movies, I want my MBP for getting stuff done, and 16:10 is superior to 16:9 for getting stuff done.

 

[theSeb]

Of course not. But the ones I make from Final Cut is. And I want to see the videos I make in it's full glory. Without the bars.

That just makes no sense at all.

 

[ixodes]

One of the major advantages Apple maintains is the 16:10 aspect ratio for their MBP's.

16:9 doesn't sound like much of a reduction in available work space, until you use one.

The MacBook Pro is ... ready? .... a C O M P U T E R !

NOT an iToyz device.

If you mainly use your MBP for movies, you don't need a computer.

Or if you must, buy a cheap dell, don't influence Apple to do something so stupid.

They just might, with their new priority being mass market consumer entertainment.

At this point I'm beginning to wonder just what the hell they are thinking besides money, money, money, money.

 

[pgiguere1]

16:10. I have a 11" MBA and hate its 16:9 ratio.

 

[jcpb]

No the logical expansion would be a 1600x900 display times four, in other words a 3200x1800 display instead of a 2880x1800 display. It would be no taller and only marginally wider.

3200 x 1800 is smaller than 2000v (3200 x 2000 in 16:10).

I'd rather use 4K than 4 X 1080p.

I see where you're going, you're trying to tell me that going to 16:9 is like 1280:800 to 1280x720 with the loss of 80 pixels.

But that isn't what I was talking about. Instead of losing 80 pixels, you gain more pixels by making the resolution 1440x810. This is achieved through making the screen larger and increasing pixel density (to avoid making it too small).

In short, it will not be any taller or shorter. Just wider.

No, it's not, and 1440 x 810 is smaller than the 900v displays that both the 13" Macbook Air and 15" Macbook Pro (standard config) ship with.

This laptop is an even better preview display than the 16:9's you are using right now. Some widescreen movies are not 16:9. If you see an actual, true Letterbox-formatted movie, you'll still get black bars on a 16:9!
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/toshiba-satellite-u840w/

I have a difficult time going through your logic of treating a loss of screen resolution as a net gain.

It just doesn't feel right to watch a 16:9 movie on a 16:10 display.

Fail.

Of course not. But the ones I make from Final Cut is. And I want to see the videos I make in it's full glory. Without the bars.

I'll be royally non-plussed if Apple discontinues using 16:10 on its portable Macs, especially when a 15" MBP/R can pull double duty as a mobile audiovisual editing system as it currently stands.

 

[auhlixer]

rather have slightly wider than how tall it is now.

Why? 16:10 is far better for productivity. There is no argument for 16:9 on a computer. The only reason for 16:9 monitors is that the panels are cheaper.

 

[jcpb]

rather have slightly wider than how tall it is now.

If you think 16:10 is too tall, wait until you have actually used a 4:3 laptop.

 

[TSE]

Anymore wide than 16:10 becomes more and more useless.

 

[borisiii]

I'm fairly certain NEC never had a 24" in this aspect ratio. If they did, I would have bought it. They had 20" and 21" displays both in 1600x1200. When the 24" displays started to come out, they were 1920x1200. Are you sure it wasn't a 21"? Those would have the same height dimension as a later 24".

That model would probably be about 8 years old now - I think it was one of the first ones that rotated. This was in Japan though, so maybe that model never made it to market where you are?

 

[spdntrxi]

16x10 is better... sure 16x9 is good for movies but that is probably the least likely thing I will be doing on my laptop.... I don't have a 65" Plasma and THX setup for nothing.

 

[thekev]

That model would probably be about 8 years old now - I think it was one of the first ones that rotated. This was in Japan though, so maybe that model never made it to market where you are?

That's fully possible. I have an old 2190 here. It was demoted to secondary/backup display a couple years ago. It just has too many hours on it to remain perfect, but the damn things are practically immortal. The rotation is still smooth. NEC really kicks Apple's collective ass when it comes to making a quality display. I don't totally hate 16:10. It's a bit wide for me. Anything wider becomes useless. In the older aspect ratio 21" was fine. The reason is that height navigation becomes irritating due to mouse pad or tablet real estate. On any desk I've ever sat in, forward and back has always been a more awkward range of motion across a flat surface. This is an issue as I do a lot of drawing, and it's not like a drawing table or easel where I could angle the thing.

 

[Retina MacBook]

Anymore wide than 16:10 becomes more and more useless.

That's what they said before with 4:3. Guess the majority of the aspect ratios now.

----------

That just makes no sense at all.

Basically, it means that whenever I make a video from FCP, it is in 16:9 aspect ratio. It is not in full screen when I watch it because there's black bars in the top. By full glory, I mean that I want to see it perfectly fit in the display.


Besides, if you guys REALLY think that 16:10 is perfect, then why were movies in 16:9 aspect ratio? Think about that for a while.

----------

Face it, you are just a very vocal minority.

The rest of us who do an actual living working with media has a preview screen to watch the media on.

With the Retina display you can watch a full screen 16:9 movie in full resolution without using the entire screen. Very nice when editing.

Isn't this the exact same thing people said before about 16:10? They loved 4:3 so much.

 

[parish]

Why? 16:10 is far better for productivity. There is no argument for 16:9 on a computer. The only reason for 16:9 monitors is that the panels are cheaper.

Agreed! My main use of my MBP is Aperture working with 3:2 photos from a dSLR. On a 16:10 screen I get black bars down the side, but with 16:9 I'd get even wider black bars so, for the same screen size, I'd have less usable area with 16:9.

Even with HD movies, wouldn't 16:!0 be better as the app could push the video to the top of the screen and use the bar at the bottom for controls so they don't overlay the movie? Don't know if any apps do this though?

 

[jcpb]

Basically, it means that whenever I make a video from FCP, it is in 16:9 aspect ratio. It is not in full screen when I watch it because there's black bars in the top. By full glory, I mean that I want to see it perfectly fit in the display.

If I do make a 16:9 video from FCP, I'm not watching it on my MBP/R, I have a 42" 1080p LCD TV expressly for that purpose!

Let it go. You're not going to convince a lot of us that 16:9 is better than 16:10. Ever.