Movies are usually not in 16:9 aspect ratio. That's why when you watch a BR on a BR player you still get black bars unless you use an odd zoom mode. Movies are not shot in 16:9. When you watch a movie in the cinema you won't be watching it in 16:9. Read the history of the aspect ratio that you love so much - it's just a compromise. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but it won't make your argument right. It's nonsensical to be arguing for an inferior standard, so I find it hard to understand why someone would do that, unless they were joking.
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.
Are you in favor of a 16x9 display on MacBooks?
- Thread starter Retina MacBook
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Linked again because OP doesn't get it.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/toshiba-satellite-u840w/
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/toshiba-satellite-u840w/
A lot of the movies you see on Netflix have to be shrunk from 21:9 to 16:9 so it's viewable on most widescreen TVs and computer displays.
I have a 16:9 external and watching youtube most videos are 16:10 which leaves horrible vertical bars (on the side). I'd much rather have horizontal bars. Though I like watching netflix/hd movies though since the whole screen gets filled up from being 16:9. Only thing 16:9 is good for imo is just watching movies. Browsing sites and doing some coding is better in 16:10 because you have more vertical pixels. Guess its just user preference My share of jellybeans
You need to think about it for a little while. 16:9 was nothing more than a compromise between 4:3 and the aspect ratios typically used in the movie theater (which are generally wider than 16:9). Example, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is 2.4:1.
I still have an old Thinkpad T60 with 2048 by 1536 display (4:3). Just a pure joy to edit word documents, read pdfs and i remember i used it quite a lot at my ex-job as a medical lab assistant where i worked with lots of graphs, charts, etc.
Pretty happy that the new retina MBP is 16:10, much better for productivity than a 16:9 display.
The point is some of us use the computer for REAL WORK and we don't give a **** about black bars in Youtube.
P.S. I think the ideal display for me would be 30-inch, 3:2, 3000x2000.
Pretty happy that the new retina MBP is 16:10, much better for productivity than a 16:9 display.
The point is some of us use the computer for REAL WORK and we don't give a **** about black bars in Youtube.
P.S. I think the ideal display for me would be 30-inch, 3:2, 3000x2000.
Last edited:
I had a view sonic 24" 4:3 for many years, it took a 30" widescreen monitor to replace it with more usable screen space.
And who ever watches movies on a laptop except perhaps on a plane? That's what tv's are for. A movie on a 15" monitor???
Not exactly, when 16:10 was introduced, people liked it because they could display 2 standard letter sized pages side by side without losing too much of the verticality that text flow requires.
16:9 became more commonly adopted because it's cheaper to produce and ultimately more marketable to consumers as HDTV became a standard. Most movies, however are closer to a 2.35:1 ratio.
Think about this for a while: computer displays aren't just used to watch videos. A laptop is capable of more than watching movies, why should it be constrained to an aspect ratio suited for such a singular purpose?