Why the 4:3 aspect ratio, instead of 16:10 or some other?

Discussion in 'iPad' started by spinnerlys, Jan 27, 2010.

  1. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #1
    Why do you think Apple chose the 4:3 aspect ratio instead of the more common 16:10/9 aspect ratio or other ones?

    Is it because it is closer to 297mm : 210mm (A4 - ISO 216 - 297/210=1.4143, 4/3=1.3333, 16/10=1.6, 16/9=1.7778)?

    Or is it easier to handle that way?

    It looks slightly odd that way, but that may just be due to accustoming to 16:10/9 nowadays.


    [​IMG]
     
  2. maclook macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    #2
    my thoughts are that it is better for books and web browsing. i think the form factor works better (even though i obviously havent touched it). it's not a dedicated movie screen so i think it would be worse at 16:10 for general use
     
  3. calderone macrumors 68040

    calderone

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle
    #3
    Why the assumption that Apple chose 4:3? Given the emphasis on the panel tech (IPS) it is more likely that Apple wanted to go with a quality display. The one they found was a 4:3.

    IPS panels are hard to find these days with the advent for super cheap TNs.

    Another consideration would be the top heaviness of an elongated display. My Kindle DX suffers from this. The display is 9.7", but the added keyboard make it difficult to hold with one hand.

    Just a thought. It most likely came down to price, size, and quality. Apple chose based on what was most important.
     
  4. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #4
    Theres already a thread about this....
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=855209

    Basically widescreen displays in portrait mode look disproportionally long and elongated.

    A 4:3 picture in portrait mode looks more natural and is more akin to books and print.

    Simples....
     
  5. spinnerlys thread starter Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #5
    Food for my own illness - posting redundant posts.

    Didn't think of searching for the word widescreen, only 4:3, aspect ratio and 16.

    Thanks.
     
  6. kernkraft macrumors 68020

    kernkraft

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #6
    4:3 is good, it's underrated!

    Long live the 4:3!

    Seriously, I wish there were more external displays with 4:3 screens. It's much better for displaying long text files I think. Apart from the cinema aspect ratio argument, I think the only advantage of a widescreen display is that you can put various open windows next to each other.

    With a device of the size and portability of the iPad, 4:3 is so much more suitable.
     

Share This Page