Why 4:3? Why not wide-screen?

[lifevicarious]

How can this be true? PC applications on widescreen monitors (16:10) are twice as good as standard monitors (4:3), which is the very reason standard monitors are going the way of the floppy drive. Wider view is always better when working in 99% of applications, especially in landscape mode. The extra real estate would come in handy in far more applications than just movies. Mail, Websites, Video, Games, I can't think of any landscape application that wouldn't be better on a 16:10 screen.

What websites would be better in 16:9?? The reason PC monitors are going widescreen is because they are multimedia and are now designed to play movies and television shows which are primarily shot in 16x9. Websites and documents are much closer to 4:3. I have a widescreen iMac but for documents and websites the reason I like it better is becasue I can have two windows open at the same time, it has nothing to do with the shape of the window. And if reading documents, they will look stupid in landscape on a 16:9 as I have to scroll to read one page.

If this was primarily a movie watching device I could agree, but given that websites and books which are a huge part of this device are not, it makes no sense to me to go 16:9.

I completely disagree. When viewing websites (end especially forums), the wider the display the more data you see, period. This forum is an example. Many web developers/designers are making their web page widths overall percentages of screen size, instead of fixed pixels... and even when they are fixed pixels they are usually 1200px +. Widescreen devices are hear to stay and the web as a whole is updating itself to that format.

Wider display means far less scrolling.

Different strokes for different folks I guess as I completely disagree with you. Although on this site you can certainly widen it, it has a minimum width. The apple site has white bars on both sides regardless of how wide you make it. As does cnn, espn, msnbc, fox, nytimes, etc.

The standard web page design is 1024 x 768 which happens to be what AR? Oh, that's right, 4:3.

 

[Brad Groux]

The standard web page design is 1024 x 768 which happens to be what AR? Oh, that's right, 4:3.

Most sites are designed for optical viewing at anywhere from 900-1200 horizontal pixels, the vertical pixels are irrelevant. Although a great portion of sites are going to % width because of large displays. 1024x768 hasn't been the 4:3 standard since 17" monitors (and lower) were the size of choice, which was around 2003 if I recall. 1280x1024 is the standard 4:3 resolution of today, for example it is the default for systems with 4:3 monitors running Windows Vista/7.

Designers are no longer designing for higher resolutions because of netbooks, smartphones and tablets, which run at fewer horizontal pixels. But this is a main reason that netbooks and laptops continue to use 16:10 displays, because they give you a comparable horizontal scaling option to desktops. Simply because the iPad is 4:3 doesn't all the sudden make 4:3 the go-to standard of choice again. The iPad's pinch and zoom make actual pixel displays less of an issue anyway.

I just find it laughable that people are trying to defend Apple's reasoning for using a 4:3 display because 4:3 is conducive to working better within applications. I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous argument. More real estate in an application is a good thing. Apple chose 4:3 because it is cheaper, quicker to manufacture because of fewer materials and scaling iPhone apps up doesn't look as bad as if it were on a widescreen. Now having used an iPad for about 8 hours I can say that not having widescreen isn't a deal breaker, but it would certainly be nice.

Some more food for thought. The iPad and the iPod Classic are the ONLY 4:3 devices Apple makes, that alone should tell you something. Just imagine a 16:10 iPad that had multitasking and had a Windows 7-like snap feature, where you could snap two applications to each side of the screen where they take up exactly 50% of the screen. Now THAT would rule.

 

[lifevicarious]

I just find it laughable that people are trying to defend Apple's reasoning for using a 4:3 display because 4:3 is conducive to working better within applications. I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous argument. More real estate in an application is a good thing. Apple chose 4:3 because it is cheaper, quicker to manufacture because of fewer materials and scaling iPhone apps up doesn't look as bad as if it were on a widescreen. Now having used an iPad for about 8 hours I can say that not having widescreen isn't a deal breaker, but it would certainly be nice.

And I find it laughable when people equate screen real estate to aspect ratio. Screen Real estate is based on area. A 9.7" diagonal 4:3 screen has MORE area then a 16:10 9.7" diagonal screen (45.15 vs. 42.25).

And what on earth makes you think 4:3 is cheaper then 16:10 on the iPad? Do you think they put this together with off the shelf parts? If Apple is known for one thing it is their design. If they thought it would have been better as a 16:9 device, they would have made it 16:9. As I demonstrated above, the actual area is smaller on the same size 9.7" screen and therefore it should be cheaper. But I'd love to see some of your numbers on this.

Some more food for thought. The iPad and the iPod Classic are the ONLY 4:3 devices Apple makes, that alone should tell you something. Just imagine a 16:10 iPad that had multitasking and had a Windows 7-like snap feature, where you could snap two applications to each side of the screen where they take up exactly 50% of the screen. Now THAT would rule.

Your right, that would rule. That's what I do with my iMac. But when I snap two windows together on a 16:10 screen what is the AR window of each window? Each window would be 1280:1440 which is 1.125 to 1 and 4:3 is 1.33 to 1 where as 16:10 is 1.6 to 1. Interesting how your perfect screen gives you two screens closer to 4:3 then 16:9 . I don't know about you but I certainly don't ever expect to snap two windows together on such a small screen, thats what my desktop is for.

But maybe you snap your screens together horizontally vs. vertically. I guess one could do that but to me that is far less useful and requires a lot more scrolling, especially on web pages and standard 8.5 x 11 documents (which surprise surprise are 1:29 to 1, pretty darn close to 4.3's 1.33 to 1).

 

[Bremen]

For a multi-purpose device the aspect ratio is perfect. If it were a single use device (eReader, movie viewer, music player, email client, web browser....etc) then you would manufacture it to be best for it's one use. Since the iPad is used for all those things and more, it makes no sense to force everything into "movie mode".

The Archos 9 pic posted a few pages back would be tough for me to read s book on..... It just did not look right...

The good news is the first wave of "iPad killers, lol" will be on us soon, and I bet you can have your dream screen soon...

 

[mcbrew]

Movies are widescreen because that's roughly the shape of a 35mm film. Since people nowadays dpwatch a lot more movies than television, it makes sense for TV screens to be that size. Now TV has followed in their tracks and make just about everything wide. If black bars drive you nuts, then you'd better get fitted for a straight jacket, because not all movies are shot in 16:9, so there are going to be black bars on many movies even if they are cinematic.

Movies are widescreen because movie studios wanted a reason to draw people to the theaters after TV was invented. Standard 35MM film is 6x4 AR.

No. 35mm cameras take a 4:6 image... but movies are shot sideways on the film and are approximately 16:9. There is nothing inherent about the film itself that decides what the aspect ratio is. That is all up to the camera.

 

[mcbrew]

I completely disagree. When viewing websites (end especially forums), the wider the display the more data you see, period.

Also, the taller the display, the more data you see. 4:3 screens are taller and therefore show more information than a 16:9 screen of the same width. The logic works either way. The only thing you can say for sure is that the screen would be larger if it were larger.

 

[gentlefury]

I completely disagree. When viewing websites (end especially forums), the wider the display the more data you see, period.

Also, the taller the display, the more data you see. 4:3 screens are taller and therefore show more information than a 16:9 screen of the same width. The logic works either way. The only thing you can say for sure is that the screen would be larger if it were larger.

Guess that depends on your pov. For me a small wide display would show less data. I tend to use it in landscape a lot...therefore I would be scrolling a lot more. I have been using portrait for reading articles and such a lot, which means a small wide display would display text very small so You would have to zoom in and potentially scroll side to side.

As for 16:10 equalling a larger display, you are right and wrong. If they kept the same height the display would be very narrow and when the keyboard popped up you would have no more screen. If they kept the same width it would be too long (see joojoo). Again, the device was very well thought out in every way, and hardware wise I wouldn't change a thing.

Notice the Bluetooth keyboard is the exact same width? I'm sure that was a consideration, so the onscreen keyboard had the same spacing.

 

[[email protected]]

Question

I don't understand what is meant by windscreen?

 

[lifevicarious]

I don't understand what is meant by windscreen?

They are wondering why the screen isn't shaped like a HD tv (widescreen) but rather shaped like an older television (4:3)

 

[Brad Groux]

I don't understand what is meant by windscreen?

Widescreen is in reference to the pixel ratio of the LED display. For instance, most HDTVs are 16:9 ratio while widescreen computer monitors are 16:10. The iPad is 4:3 resolution ratio which is like older "square" TVs and computer monitors. "HD" resolutions are considered widescreen. 1280x720 = 720p / 1920x1080 = 1080p

The iPad is 1024x768 which is 4:3 ratio, the first number in the ratio is the width while the second number is the height. One thing the iPad screen does have going for it is the fact that it is 132 pixels per inch (ppi), which is very dense and creates a crystal clear image. So, when people say the iPad should have a widescreen display they are saying that it should have probably come with a 1280x720 display (16:9) or 1280x800 (16:10), and thus been true HD.

1024 x 768 = 786432 Pixels
1280 x 720 = 921600 Pixels
1280 x 800 = 1024000 Pixels

I would have personally preferred a widescreen resolution.

 

[gentlefury]

I don't understand what is meant by windscreen?

Widescreen is in reference to the pixel ratio of the LED display. For instance, most HDTVs are 16:9 ratio while widescreen computer monitors are 16:10. The iPad is 4:3 resolution ratio which is like older "square" TVs and computer monitors. "HD" resolutions are considered widescreen. 1280x720 = 720p / 1920x1080 = 1080p

The iPad is 1024x768 which is 4:3 ratio, the first number in the ratio is the width while the second number is the height. One thing the iPad screen does have going for it is the fact that it is 132 pixels per inch (ppi), which is very dense and creates a crystal clear image. So, when people say the iPad should have a widescreen display they are saying that it should have probably come with a 1280x720 display (16:9) or 1280x800 (16:10), and thus been true HD.

1024 x 768 = 786432 Pixels
1280 x 720 = 921600 Pixels
1280 x 800 = Pixels

I would have personally preferred a widescreen resolution.

Actually "true HD" would be 1920x1080

 

[Brad Groux]

Actually "true HD" would be 1920x1080

BUZZ! Wrong answer. 720p is "True HD" just as much as 4320p is... there are simply varying qualities of HD, but they are all HD.

Don't think 720p is HD? The entire television and gaming industries disagree, along with the HD standards. 16:10 displays can display all of the pixels of HD playback, it simply has black bars... so they are also capable of displaying HD. High Definition standards are dependent on the medium in which you are watching. Theoretically any resolution that maintains a 16:9 aspect ratio with at least a 720 pixel vertical height is considered HD, although the "supported standards" are the ones listed in the graph above... but that number is bound to expand as technology catches up.

 

[gentlefury]

Actually "true HD" would be 1920x1080

BUZZ! Wrong answer. 720p is "True HD" just as much as 4320p is... there are simply varying qualities of HD, but they are all HD.

Don't think 720p is HD? The entire television and gaming industries disagree, along with the HD standards. 16:10 displays can display all of the pixels of HD playback, it simply has black bars... so they are also capable of displaying HD. High Definition standards are dependent on the medium in which you are watching. Theoretically any resolution that maintains a 16:9 aspect ratio with at least a 720 pixel vertical height is considered HD, although the "supported standards" are the ones listed in the graph above... but that number is bound to expand as technology catches up.

It is technically higher definition that standard definition, but 720p is not considered true HD. I have worked in film and video production for a while now and I have never once delivered ANYTHING in 720p. It is a broadcast middle ground.

By the way your chart is wrong. 2k resolution is 2048x1556, at least it has been for every feature film I've worked on.

Oh and you said anything 16:9 is considered HD, so what about 2k square scan which is 2048x2048?

And 4k is 4096x3112 btw...

All the visual fx work I do is in Nuke, and 720p isn't even a standard option....since it is never actually used in production.

 

[Brad Groux]

It is technically higher definition that standard definition, but 720p is not considered true HD. I have worked in film and video production for a while now and I have never once delivered ANYTHING in 720p. It is a broadcast middle ground.

By the way your chart is wrong. 2k resolution is 2048x1556, at least it has been for every feature film I've worked on.

Oh and you said anything 16:9 is considered HD, so what about 2k square scan which is 2048x2048?

And 4k is 4096x3112 btw...

All the visual fx work I do is in Nuke, and 720p isn't even a standard option....since it is never actually used in production.

I shoot pictures in 4000x3000 resolution... but that size is worthless to just above anyone as it is 4mb a picture in JPEG format. So what do I do? I scale those images down in a more manageable size to upload to the web or email. Production is always in the highest possible format across nearly every medium, that is nothing new and completely irrelevant to the argument. For example, CGI was created in super-high definition for the new Star Wars films, but the film was shot and delivered on 1920x1080, so even that CGI work would have been scaled down to match the footage.

That produced work is worthless if you don't have an easily distributable standard to get it to customers. Master copies of albums are much higher quality than iTunes or CDs, but the industry delivers the product to the masses in easily distributable formats.

Most new movies that are shot with digital cinematography are done so at 1920x1080, but that video is scaled down to 720p for far more people that it is kept at 1080p for. 720p is currently that easily distributable format when it comes to video. Currently, there are very few avenues outside Blu-ray to watch videos in 1080p. BitTorrent, Xbox Live, Amazon streaming rentals (and similar) or sites like YouTube and Vimeo are about it. It's safe to say that 95% of HDTV and on-demand is delivered 720P, so excuse me if I don't agree with your view that 720p isn't considered true HD.

 

[gentlefury]

It is technically higher definition that standard definition, but 720p is not considered true HD. I have worked in film and video production for a while now and I have never once delivered ANYTHING in 720p. It is a broadcast middle ground.

By the way your chart is wrong. 2k resolution is 2048x1556, at least it has been for every feature film I've worked on.

Oh and you said anything 16:9 is considered HD, so what about 2k square scan which is 2048x2048?

And 4k is 4096x3112 btw...

All the visual fx work I do is in Nuke, and 720p isn't even a standard option....since it is never actually used in production.

I shoot pictures in 4000x3000 resolution... but that size is worthless to just above anyone as it is 4mb a picture in JPEG format. So what do I do? I scale those images down in a more manageable size to upload to the web or email. Production is always in the highest possible format across nearly every medium, that is nothing new and completely irrelevant to the argument. For example, CGI was created in super-high definition for the new Star Wars films, but the film was shot and delivered on 1920x1080, so even that CGI work would have been scaled down to match the footage.

That produced work is worthless if you don't have an easily distributable standard to get it to customers. Master copies of albums are much higher quality than iTunes or CDs, but the industry delivers the product to the masses in easily distributable formats.

Most new movies that are shot with digital cinematography are done so at 1920x1080, but that video is scaled down to 720p for far more people that it is kept at 1080p for. 720p is currently that easily distributable format when it comes to video. Currently, there are very few avenues outside Blu-ray to watch videos in 1080p. BitTorrent, Xbox Live, Amazon streaming rentals (and similar) or sites like YouTube and Vimeo are about it. It's safe to say that 95% of HDTV and on-demand is delivered 720P, so excuse me if I don't agree with your view that 720p isn't considered true HD.

Well I work in production for a living, I work from the highest film scan to the crappiest video, and I have only delivered 720p once. SD standard is 720x480, HD Standard is 1920x1080....ever seen a 720p Blu-Ray?