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.
Macbook Pro with 16:9 and blu-ray
- Thread starter .Chris
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not all movies are delivered that way. There's plenty of movies out there that are cropped to 1.85:1 (Academy ratio) as well. Not to mention, 2:35:1 would be an incredibly dumb screen ratio for a computer that you would expect to do other things efficiently on.
At least on televisions, 16:9 provides a good compromise between 4:3 and the variety of super-wide film ratios still in use. Given that there's about six film ratios still in common use by the industry with no stringent standardization, it's impossible to have the best of all worlds unless you own a high-end projector and screen with an anamorphic lens and screen masking.
So from the posts in this thread:
- 16:10 is best for productivity and usability
- 16:9 "looks better" and is better for movie watching
And the 16:10 version of 1920·1080 is 1920·1200, a higher resolution.
I'm sure the other fine folks here have already pointed this out but:
16:9 is *not* better than 16:10 in a computer. I really hope they don't move to 16:9.
A more controversial view is that Blu-Ray is irrelevant, as is all optical media, and I hope the only optical drive on the new Macbook Pro is the same external one that comes with the Air.
Swallow *all* the Apple Kool-aid (iTunes, MobileMe etc) it is just better that way.
Optical must die.
16:9 is *not* better than 16:10 in a computer. I really hope they don't move to 16:9.
A more controversial view is that Blu-Ray is irrelevant, as is all optical media, and I hope the only optical drive on the new Macbook Pro is the same external one that comes with the Air.
Swallow *all* the Apple Kool-aid (iTunes, MobileMe etc) it is just better that way.
Optical must die.
I am not a couch potato and I say make 16:9 ratio standard on all Macs and Cinema Displays.
Apple should have switched to 16:9 ratio displays when they moved from 4:3 ratio.
That's why if there was a 15"/16"/17" MacBook Air with MacBook-level (or slightly better) components, I'd buy one in an instant.
I'm the same way. My dream machine is a 15" Macbook Pro with no optical drive, ~128 gb SSD, two usb, one FW400, one FW800, and 4gb RAM (soldered on ala MB Air). Different from the Air, I would like at least 8600M GT graphics and the 2.5 Core 2 Duo.
So basically, my MBP refresh wish list is to give it Air styling cues, add 4gb hard wired RAM and ditch the optical drive...and give it 1680x1050 resolution
OK Now I sound like a dreamer. But hey why not.
I'm the same way. My dream machine is a 15" Macbook Pro with no optical drive, ~128 gb SSD, two usb, one FW400, one FW800, and 4gb RAM (soldered on ala MB Air). Different from the Air, I would like at least 8600M GT graphics and the 2.5 Core 2 Duo.
So basically, my MBP refresh wish list is to give it Air styling cues, add 4gb hard wired RAM and ditch the optical drive...and give it 1680x1050 resolution
OK Now I sound like a dreamer. But hey why not.
Why would you ever want your RAM permanently soldered to the board? RAM failures aren't rare, and this would require sending it in for repairs when you could otherwise pop a stick out and continue until you got a replacement.
I don't think you need a "pro" machine. I'm also looking forward to the reason why 16:9 is good besides for video content.
Only because soldered RAM can make the machine lighter/thinner. I think the 'everything integrated' approach is the way of the future. Yes, it sucks when one thing breaks and the whole thing has to be fixed, but it is undeniable how much you can compact things by doing it.
I do need a 'pro' machine, Aperture/Photography and I do hobby work in iMovie/Final Cut express, as well as it being my primary business (By that I mean .DOC, .XLS, .PPT and Keynote) laptop. I couldn't be taken seriously at work with an oversized Nintendo DS.
And regarding why I think 16x9 is bad, this article sums it up pretty well:
http://lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/golden-ratio.html
http://lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/golden-ratio.html
I know it's unpopular, but as long as they put on 4gigs, it's a compromise I'm willing to make in the quest for size and weight.
Actually, to be quite honest that sounds like a MacBook would do you just fine. Maybe when the aluminum ones come out you can be taken seriously with them.
The golden ratio? I never thought about that before in terms of Macs. I bet Steve has! I studied that big time at University and it just gives me one more reason to love my Mac! I should have known.
Never change Apple....16:10 is the way to go!
+1 Agreed. I do not want to see this (16x9) trend continue with Apple. Seems quite a few of these being built by PC OEMs.
16:10 please
Another +1 for sticking with 16:10.
We got some Dell 24" 16:9 (1920x1080 res, so 1080p) monitors in last week and I was going to use one for myself, but couldn't get used to it, it looked too squat! Went back to my 22" 1680x1050 res 16:10 monitor.
Another +1 for sticking with 16:10.
We got some Dell 24" 16:9 (1920x1080 res, so 1080p) monitors in last week and I was going to use one for myself, but couldn't get used to it, it looked too squat! Went back to my 22" 1680x1050 res 16:10 monitor.
So, it's 58:30 for 16:9. Almost 2/3.
Can anyone give me an example of Apple actually listening to its customers?
Because I hope they'll stick with their usual practice of telling customers they want what Apple offers, in this case.
The only risk I can see - and unfortunately it isn't insignificant - is that screen manufacturers, obsessed with driving down the costs, will give up on 16:10. They only produce in mass quantities and also love to sell less as more (16:9 display with the same diagonal as 16:10 is smaller, thus being cheaper to produce). Maybe rising popularity of MacBooks (I mean all three lines) will provide enough demand for 16:10 screens, but I'm afraid it will not.
It's simply way more comfortable to read texts written in verses on higher screens. Most factories are in Asia, though, and don't they write in columns there..? Wow. I think I had just found the basis for yet another conspiracy theory.
Can anyone give me an example of Apple actually listening to its customers?
Because I hope they'll stick with their usual practice of telling customers they want what Apple offers, in this case.
The only risk I can see - and unfortunately it isn't insignificant - is that screen manufacturers, obsessed with driving down the costs, will give up on 16:10. They only produce in mass quantities and also love to sell less as more (16:9 display with the same diagonal as 16:10 is smaller, thus being cheaper to produce). Maybe rising popularity of MacBooks (I mean all three lines) will provide enough demand for 16:10 screens, but I'm afraid it will not.
It's simply way more comfortable to read texts written in verses on higher screens. Most factories are in Asia, though, and don't they write in columns there..? Wow. I think I had just found the basis for yet another conspiracy theory
.
Unfortunately, 16:9 screens on computers is quickly being adopted as the industry standard.
1600x900 on the 15" (16"?) MBP is very likely, however I would like to see a higher resolution than that.
Ideally I'd want a 15" 16:10 MBP with 1680x1050. But I don't think I will get it.
1600x900 on the 15" (16"?) MBP is very likely, however I would like to see a higher resolution than that.
Ideally I'd want a 15" 16:10 MBP with 1680x1050. But I don't think I will get it.
It's the other PC OEMs pushing the portable entertainment systems.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2328932,00.asp
Even the columnists are concerned enough to ask people to boycott these new displays.
Cheers,