So, how long until the rest of Apple's hardware moves to 16:9?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Brien, Oct 20, 2009.

  1. Brien macrumors 68020

    Brien

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #1
    Is the new iMac a sign of things to come? The rest of the line-up is still 16:10, so it is either going to be the sole "HD" display, or they are going to be revamping the Cinema Display and notebook lines again.
     
  2. MattZani macrumors 68030

    MattZani

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    Im surprised the MacBook didnt go 16:9, but i doubt anything Pro, or the ACD will become 16:9
     
  3. supinternet macrumors newbie

    supinternet

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
  4. kasakka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #4
    Hopefully never. Vertical space is generally much more useful in normal use than horizontal space.
     
  5. gr8tfly macrumors 603

    gr8tfly

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Location:
    ~119W 34N
    #5
    +1 on that. 16:10 is a good compromise between horizontal (facing pages) and vertical. My first thought was they were catering to "black bar" haters (playing 16:9 on 16:10). Based on my own movie collection, I'd say at least half are "wider" than 16:9 anyway. Go figure. :rolleyes:

    I'll have to say the 27" does look impressive, though.
     
  6. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #6
    16:9 is bad

    What's more, 4:3 should become the standard again

    The place where this is most annoying is in laser TVs, which thanks to their dynamic resolution, would be ideal to watch all formats. But no, they make them 16:9, too. :mad:
     
  7. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #7
    With a username like yours, I'd expect you to be championing a 1:1 aspect ratio :p

    And god, I hope not (16:9), especially not in a laptop. It's okay for a larger screen with more vertical pixels to compensate for the loss.
     
  8. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #8
    Actually, I really thought that would be even better.
     
  9. Dr.Pants macrumors 65816

    Dr.Pants

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #9
    16:9 is funny looking if you ask me. A few of my friends have Acers with that same ratio... Personally I think if Jobs got handed a 16:9 Macbook case prototype, he would scream out in a horrific fashion that would awaken Jimmy Hoffa from his unknown grave.

    16:9 just makes for an overly-long computer case. For a monitor its alright, but a laptop... Everything gets spaced out too wide, if you ask me. Considering how the 27" can cater out with its exemplary video input, I would imagine that like several people have said, its for the black-bar haters who demand 1080p no matter what. On the other hand, a laptop generally will not have 1900x1080 unless its HUGE, ergo the only viable model for a change would be the 17", and I think that the change would piss off more users then the ones that would adopt it.
     
  10. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #10
    It's very bad for a monitor too, it's a waste of space.
     
  11. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #11
    Actually, maybe it's easier to sell 1:1 screens to the dumb masses than 4:3, as it would be something new.

    Then everybody can buy Hasselblads :)
     
  12. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #12
    Oh yeah, because everyone wants to watch their blu-ray movies on a 1920x1920 display. Wow, imagine how many pixels are wasted on that thing.
     
  13. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #13
    But everyone wants to watch SD content in 4:3 as big as possible.

    But yes, 4:3 would be cheaper than 1:1, like 16:9 is cheaper than 16:10
     
  14. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #14
    But just about all content these days are in some format wider than 4:3. Just about everything except the smaller devices like the 3GS. Consumer camcorders are in 16:9 just about.

    In these cases, 4:3 would make that media look *smaller* than on a wider aspect.
     
  15. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #15
    There's a TON of content in 4:3. Not only video, but also classic films that could be rereleased in Blu Ray.

    And none of the pixels would we wasted on a computer monitor.

    A 4:3 display doesn't make wide media look worse when it has the right amount of pixels.

    And laser TVs just give you the exact number of nice pixels for all formats.
     
  16. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #16
    Yes, that's why 16:10 is a good compromise. If you're watching 4:3 content on that aspect, 16.7% of pixels are letterboxes. If you're are watching 16:9 content on a 4:3 screen, 33.3% of pixels are rendered black.

    Yes, while using the screen as a computer display, I find it far more productive to be able to have documents side by side, while on a 4:3, you wouldn't be able to achieve this without some part of the screen being wasted).
     
  17. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #17
    There's never vertical waste on a computer monitor.

    And IMAX is 1.43:1 (4.29:3)
     

Share This Page