Don't you iOS devs wish apple had one universal aspect ratio across all devices?

Discussion in 'iOS 6' started by iPad 2, Jun 20, 2012.

  1. iPad 2, Jun 20, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2012

    iPad 2 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    #1
    16:10 is really the perfect aspect ratio for nearly all purposes. I wish apple adopted this ratio for the iPad, iPhone, Monitors and the upcoming Apple TV. One universal aspect ratio and just three resolutions for ALL Apple devices. 960x600 or 1280x800 for iPhone. 1920x1200 for pretty much everything else. 2880x1800 for anything they want to brand as retina other than the iPhone.

    I find 16:9 aspect ratio is way too narrow. 4:3 is good vertically but looks off horizontally and it's not great for watching movies and not as universal.

    16:10 also happens to be very close to the golden ratio considered ideal for the human eye. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

    I really wish Apple would just bite the bullet and switch over to this ratio for their next generation of devices so that it will become the one universal standard by iOS 8.
     
  2. CyBeRino macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    #2
    No.


    16:9 is what the movie industry standardised on long before computers were wide-screen. Adding another screen format is ridiculous.

    And I don't find my 16:9 screen 'too narrow'. The difference isn't that huge anyway.
     
  3. iPad 2 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    #3
    It doesn't sound like you understood my post at all.
     
  4. The DRis macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Location:
    Oceanside, CA
    #4
    Your response made me lol. That happens frequently around here. ;-)
     
  5. GreyOS macrumors 68030

    GreyOS

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    #5
    I'm not an iOS dev but I do agree with 16:10 as a good aspect ratio for devices, and do cringe a bit at all mismatched sizes available. The rumours of a 4" 16:9 with the same 640 pixels across confuse me. I mean (640/9)*16 isn't even a whole number of pixels, so it couldn't even be exactly 16:9. If keeping at least one of the dimensions the same is necessary to keep devs happy, I would much rather see a 4" 16:10 phone which is 640*1024. This would see a drop in PPI but it'd still be above 300. I'm not sure if this would technically qualify as Retina by Apple's own standards, but it wouldn't really matter - the hype over a bigger screen would cloud that, and most people still wouldn't see the pixels. The benefit here, for me, is a nicer aspect ratio and a screen size that's bigger in BOTH directions.

    Anyway, I'm just fantasizing...
     
  6. APlotdevice, Jun 20, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2012

    APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #6
    I disagree with 4:3 being "off" in landscape. The way I see it you don't have to scroll as much when web browsing. Of course to me watching videos is only a minor function of my iPad.
     
  7. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #7
    The movie industry actually uses 2.39:1 or 1.85:1. 16:9 (1.77:1) is a TV standard and the successor of 4:3.
     
  8. kurosov macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    #8
    No.

    I did prefer 16:10 for the iMacs until they got boosted with the 21.5 & 27" displays. Now they have the best of both.

    The iPhone has the perfect aspect ratio for a phone and a great size that allows you to use it single handed AND two handed in both portrait and landscape comfortably.

    The iPad aspect ratio is pretty much spot on too. Anything longer would just feel wrong.

    I'm sure developers would rather have platform that allows them to build more intuitive interfaces than have an easy way out by having all devices share aspect ratio. The UI of a mac, iPad & iPhone version of an app should never have the same interface anyway so non matching aspect ratio isn't an issue.
     
  9. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #9
    And it's looking like 16:9 will be succeeded by 21:9.
     
  10. CyBeRino macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    #10
    Well, movies are shot both in 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 (also known as 16:9). Mostly big hollywood movies get the former treatment and smaller independent movies the latter.

    Anyway. Philips has a tv that is 2.35:1 (http://crave.cnet.co.uk/televisions/photos-philips-cinema-219-ultra-widescreen-tv-49300823/) and that is just too much for a computer screen. 16:9 is a nice compromise between wide and still having a useful height. Sure, 16:10 works too, but having multiple different ratios that are nearly, but not quite, the same, I don't think is all that useful.
     
  11. Menel macrumors 603

    Menel

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    ATL
    #11
    No, there are currently 2 aspect ratios across iOS devices, that's easy to manage. If a 3rd is launched this fall, that is not excessive and the old one will deprecate in 2-3 years anyway.

    PC's are more flexible and has less UI constraints by resolution/ratio, restricting ratio needlessly could drive up cost.
     
  12. Small White Car macrumors G4

    Small White Car

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Washington DC
    #12
    No, I can't think of an aspect that I'd want for both my phone and my tablet.

    You can argue forever about which ratio you want for which device, but no matter how long I think I can't find one that I'd want for both.
     
  13. Pompiliu macrumors 6502a

    Pompiliu

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    #13
    LOL. NO.

    3:2 is way better for a phone than 16:9.
    And on tablets, 16:9 looks ridiculous. Have you seen the android tablets? Just retarded. 4:3 is perfect, especially for portrait mode.

    For computer monitors, 16:10 is ideal. I really hate the 16:9 they put in the thunderbolt displays.:mad:
    At least the new retina macbook is 16:10.
     
  14. Zcott macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Belfast, Ireland
    #14
    Finally, someone who sees sense! Anything apart from 4:3 for tablets in portrait mode is awful. Sometimes I think I'm the only portrait mode user out there.
     
  15. Pompiliu macrumors 6502a

    Pompiliu

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    #15
    Yeah, lol. Sometimes i think that too.
    Just loke at this toshibas. 1:08 and 2:35 are just ridiculous!
     
  16. Tea-Aholic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #16
    I doesn't have to be exactly a whole number. A popular 16:9 resolution is 854X480 and (480/16) x 9 is 853.3333333 reoccurring. Engineers just round it 1 pixel up to make sure all pixels fit within the resolution of there is some left over the 0.33333333...
     

Share This Page