or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple approves iPad apps, developers choose 'HD,' 'XL' names
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple approves iPad apps, developers choose 'HD,' 'XL' names - Page 3

post #81 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

What's the big deal bout not using all the pixels for video? I've nevr understood that.

I feel a movie is more immersive without letter-boxing. The borders distract me while I watch the movie. This is especially true on a glossy display as it's pure black, which reflects most clearly.

I like the 16:10 aspect ratio as you can zoom up 16:9 movies and not lose much. 4:3 crops out too much and it's not like you can zoom in a notch, it's full crop or no crop.

The iPad display shows 17% less than 720p. In term of movie size, it's more like the SD resolution 576p as in anamorphic widescreen DVD 1024 x 576. If you display a 16:9 movie, you'll only fit 1024 x 576 on screen.

I think to avoid confusion, XL is a more appropriate identifier but people know what HD means so I don't think it matters.
post #82 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

It all comes down to personal preference, and your aversion to 16:9 appears to more exception than norm as it's impossible to deny that 'widescreen' displays are the industry norm at this point on virtually all devices, handheld and otherwise.

How do you know that my aversion is the exception? You're making that up you know.

16:9 is often used because makers think it's the "cool" thing to do. Because it's new, they think it will sell more devices, because it looks so different from last years. That doesn't make them better, or more useful. The surveys for the iPad have shown that people will mostly be using it for the internet, which is simply not best at 16:9. Unless you want a much bigger device.

I don't want to use Pages, which I will be getting, at 16:9. That's terrible! And now, surveys are showing that many people will want this for work. Again, 16:9 is not best for that.

If you intend to mostly watch Tv and movies, then that's your thing. But so far, most people don't seem to have that at the top of their lists. It's much better to have unused pixels at the top and bottom of video than to try fit a page which is closer to 4:3, to a 16:9 screen, where many pixels on the top and bottom won't be used, ending up with a much smaller page which will be less readable if the device is the same length, as it will be narrower, or lower rez, if using 720. Neither is great.
post #83 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Actually, HD Radio means Hybrid Digital Radio, as it is an analog/digital hybrid solution for over-the-air audio broadcast.

No, it doesn't. It USED to mean that, but they took the definition away, so that now it means nothing.

From the Wikipedia article:

"iBiquity used the original name "Hybrid Digital". That was later dropped. "

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Radio
post #84 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I feel a movie is more immersive without letter-boxing. The borders distract me while I watch the movie. This is especially true on a glossy display as it's pure black, which reflects most clearly.

I like the 16:10 aspect ratio as you can zoom up 16:9 movies and not lose much. 4:3 crops out too much and it's not like you can zoom in a notch, it's full crop or no crop.

The iPad display shows 17% less than 720p. In term of movie size, it's more like the SD resolution 576p as in anamorphic widescreen DVD 1024 x 576. If you display a 16:9 movie, you'll only fit 1024 x 576 on screen.

I think to avoid confusion, XL is a more appropriate identifier but people know what HD means so I don't think it matters.

This is a general purpose device. It isn't a movie player. And the truth is that this screen size isn't going to be immersive no matter what the ratio. It's much too small for that.
post #85 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

How do you know that my aversion is the exception? You're making that up you know.

I never posted that your aversion to 16:9 IS the exception.

Here's what I posted, "your aversion to 16:9 appears more exception than norm", the key term here being 'appears', and it certainly does given the ratio of widescreen-to-4:3 devices currently on the market.

I hope that clears things up.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #86 of 151
From "i" and "e" to "HD" and "XL" on the iTAS? WTF?

post #87 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

So what? This isn't a movie viewer. It's a general purpose device. I'm not even happy that Apple went to 16:9 for the iMac.

I also think 16:9 on the new iMacs seemed weird when I found out. And seeing them felt even weirder. Giving that you have a dock and a menubar that take up space on the vertical. Though given the increased pixel density it may not be the issue I believe it could be for those used to the old 16:10 iMacs.

I'm personally glad I'm on 16:10. And my iMac is also SSD, so it's going to be with me for years to come.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #88 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's 3:2. In between.

No I beg to differ.
3:2 = 15:10 which is much closer to 16:9 than 4:3, thank you very much.
post #89 of 151
The iPad isn't 4:3, it's 16:12!

16:12 is 3 bigger than 16:9. It means you can fit a whole 16:9 movie in it and still have 3 left over to fit in the video controller.

You people complaining about it not being 16:9 clearly have no interest in using this device in portrait mode.

Now, there is is a legitimate complaint that the resolution of this device is only 1024 pixels wide, which isn't full HD, which means HD movies will need to be downsampled to fit, which is a shame and could reduce video quality.

But seriously. If this was a square panel you could still watch wide screen movies in it. The dimensions of the screen are a complete red herring. (Also, 16:9 isn't some magic screen ratio. Almost every single movie released to theaters is in a wider ratio that that. 16:9 is just the standard that HDTV has settled on. Watch a movie on your HD television in proper widescreen format and it will have black bars above and blow it.)
post #90 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

I never posted that your aversion to 16:9 IS the exception.

Here's what I posted, "your aversion to 16:9 appears more exception than norm", the key term here being 'appears', and it certainly does given the ratio of widescreen-to-4:3 devices currently on the market.

I hope that clears things up.

That's pretty much the same thing.

Companies do bad things. the fact that they do them doesn't make it good. 16:9 was developed as a compromise between widescreen and SD. It does neither any good. Movies on 16:9 are still cropped vs the theatrical version, or are letterboxed on the screen. Tv shows work well.

But, again, that format is not good for anything else. The lack of height, or width, depending on the orientation, allows less information on the screen. Look at what MS is doing with their new Windows Phone 7 Series. They know they can't get much info on a single screen, so they have it slide between two screens, with words and images cut off to force you to horizontally scroll. Terrible! The Zune HD (Hmm! another HD that isn't) did that earlier. This is supposed to be oh so cool. I wonder how good it will be once the newness wears off.

http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?1002
post #91 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD View Post

No I beg to differ.
3:2 = 15:10 which is much closer to 16:9 than 4:3, thank you very much.

*********

"Much closer"?????

4:3 = 48:36
3:2 = 48:32
16:9 = 48:27

Therefore *****, 3:2 is slightly closer to 4:3 than to 16:9.
Effectively it's in the middle.

Sorry about the ranting about you all being idiots. But this is the one of stupidest argument I've ever seen.
post #92 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD View Post

No I beg to differ.
3:2 = 15:10 which is much closer to 16:9 than 4:3, thank you very much.

It comes out to 13.5:9.

4:3 comes out to 12:9.

So it's closer to 4:3 than to 16:9.
post #93 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

I understand your position, but...

Given the iPad's pixel density, 2 pages could rather easily be read side-by-side with the device held horizontally, and not much would be compromised using a widescreen resolution of 1280×720 while still affording a much more pleasurable video/widescreen viewing experience i.e. no thick black bars at the top/bottom.

I guess it is what it is at this point.

This has been discussed by people "in the know" and they all come to the conclusion, as with their opinion on the large bezel that a lot of other people have complained about, the 4:3 aspect ratio was chosen for ergonomic reasons.

The aspect ratio closely matches that of a piece of paper and traditional printed materials. It also balances better in the hands when held in landscape mode.

The bezel exists because the device is too large to just lay in your hand as you can an iPhone. You will have to use your thumb to hang onto it. Without the bezel, your thumb would touch the display and fire off an input event.

After all is said and done, I'm sure Apple has done their homework and research on both of these and have come to the conclusion that this is the best device they could make, for now anyway. They obviously knew people would watch movies and video, but they must've figured for a device that will more than likely sit within arms reach, watching movies at that size (even letterboxed) would still be a great experience.


As far as using the HD initials, seems a little weird, but most people associate it with higher quality more than they do high definition. Most people don't even know what they stand for. HD has become the new XL, which was popular 20 years ago. Both of which connote something better than normal.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #94 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's pretty much the same thing.

Companies do bad things. the fact that they do them doesn't make it good. 16:9 was developed as a compromise between widescreen and SD. It does neither any good. Movies on 16:9 are still cropped vs the theatrical version, or are letterboxed on the screen. Tv shows work well.

But, again, that format is not good for anything else. The lack of height, or width, depending on the orientation, allows less information on the screen. Look at what MS is doing with their new Windows Phone 7 Series. They know they can't get much info on a single screen, so they have it slide between two screens, with words and images cut off to force you to horizontally scroll. Terrible! The Zune HD (Hmm! another HD that isn't) did that earlier. This is supposed to be oh so cool. I wonder how good it will be once the newness wears off.

http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?1002

As you seem pretty set on demonizing virtually all things widescreen/16:9 regardless of their proliferation throughout the consumer electronics world (sans overwhelming consumer complaint), I'll just agree to disagree.

Enjoy
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #95 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by dak splunder View Post

The iPad isn't 4:3, it's 16:12!

16:12 is 3 bigger than 16:9. It means you can fit a whole 16:9 movie in it and still have 3 left over to fit in the video controller.

You people complaining about it not being 16:9 clearly have no interest in using this device in portrait mode.

Now, there is is a legitimate complaint that the resolution of this device is only 1024 pixels wide, which isn't full HD, which means HD movies will need to be downsampled to fit, which is a shame and could reduce video quality.

But seriously. If this was a square panel you could still watch wide screen movies in it. The dimensions of the screen are a complete red herring. (Also, 16:9 isn't some magic screen ratio. Almost every single movie released to theaters is in a wider ratio that that. 16:9 is just the standard that HDTV has settled on. Watch a movie on your HD television in proper widescreen format and it will have black bars above and blow it.)

Thank you for that- all this time nobody debunkt that "so- called" fact. That makes it much more appealing. I'm glad I'm not responsible for that statement.
post #96 of 151
And yet another example...
.4:3 = 1.33:1
. . . . . . . .difference is 17
.3:2 = 1.50:1
. . . . . . . .difference is 28
16:9 = 1.78:1
What's sadly funny about all this is these goofballs actually think that the 600px high 16:9 TN display with cheap low-nit backlights will make for a better user experience simply because the black borders will be a little smaller than on the iPad. It's also funny that they can't discern how one ratio doesn't fit all usage types and keep referring to an aspect ratio as a technology in and of itself, like vacuum tubes, or something else that is actually antiquated. These can't be real people!
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #97 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It comes out to 13.5:9.

4:3 comes out to 12:9.

So it's closer to 4:3 than to 16:9.

Did you flunk Math?
post #98 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

As you seem pretty set on demonizing virtually all things widescreen/16:9 regardless of their proliferation throughout the consumer electronics world (sans overwhelming consumer complaint), I'll just agree to disagree.

Enjoy

I'm not demonizing anything. Certainly not any more than you are doing with the 4:3 screen format. Remember I'm responding to what you've been complaining about.
post #99 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD View Post

Did you flunk Math?

Work it out for yourself, and show it here.
post #100 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Work it out for yourself, and show it here.

He may have seen your original post... \ I hope not, I'd like to see what happens.

Which one was that?
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
post #101 of 151
How did this become an argument about HD? Can't you start a new thread somewhere else instead of hijacking this one?

The "HD" is obviously for titles that appear both on the iPhone and iPad and should be used to signify which version is for which device... "Pocket God" for iPhone / iPod touch and "Pocket God HD" for iPad. The same would be true for the XL moniker, but used for non-graphics oriented applications.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #102 of 151
To me the iPad can reasonably be called HD (in the video sense) if it can accept 720p content and show it at full res on external monitors.
The iPad screen itself is too small to notice the difference at a typical handheld viewing distance so 1024x576 will still look razor sharp. As long as it can output 720p to a TV it is legitimately HD. Black bars are a preference issue. I feel it is more "filmic" to since any decent movie DVD or HD movie channel will show the 1.95:1 or 2.35:1 version that is still letterboxed on a 16:9 screen. Just my 2c. 16:9 just feels TV'y

Now 720p is not great HD but it is as good as most people are getting through HD cable/Satellite and worlds better than SD which for the vast majority of users is as much as they want. I have no doubt that when Apple and the dev community have had some experience at coding for multiple screen res or Apple develops some res independence features, the iPhone res will increase too and maybe even the shape, though probably not to 16:9 (Droid is 1.66:1).
post #103 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It comes out to 13.5:9.

4:3 comes out to 12:9.

So it's closer to 4:3 than to 16:9.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Work it out for yourself, and show it here.

15:10 is not closer to 16:9 than 12:9? You're not serious - are you?
What is so difficult to see - that you are unequivocally wrong?
Better yet- look at your iPhone- does that look more like a TV ratio or a widescreen ratio?
post #104 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD View Post

15:10 is not closer to 16:9 than 12:9? You're not serious - are you?
What is so difficult to see - that you are unequivocally wrong?
Better yet- look at your iPhone- does that look more like a TV ratio or a widescreen ratio?

It's not "15:10" it's 13.5:9.
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
post #105 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsNly View Post

It's not "15:10" it's 13.5:9.

WRONG>
3:2 = 15:10.
What is so difficult about that?
post #106 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD View Post

WRONG>
3:2 = 15:10.
What is so difficult about that?

http://www.mathsisfun.com/equivalent_fractions.html
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
post #107 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD View Post

15:10 is not closer to 16:9 than 12:9? You're not serious - are you?
What is so difficult to see - that you are unequivocally wrong?
Better yet- look at your iPhone- does that look more like a TV ratio or a widescreen ratio?

Stop using 15:10. That makes it look different than what it is in comparison. You have to convert it to either :9 or both to :1. Or you can convert 16:9 to 3.56:2.

What's your problem with this. Several others have already shown you to be wrong. You're refusing to do the simple arithmetic.

It doesn't matter what you think the screen LOOKS like. The numbers are correct all the time.
post #108 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD View Post

WRONG>
3:2 = 15:10.
What is so difficult about that?

Don't you seem to understand that 15:10 IS 13.5:9?

You asked if I failed math, but you seem to have failed forth grade arithmetic.
post #109 of 151
Awesome ... this is the best AppleInsider argument since the one about the definition of "decade"!
post #110 of 151
I decided to check out AI before going to bed. Now I have a huge knot in my ribs from laughing so hard at this debate about aspect ratios.
post #111 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

This has been discussed by people "in the know" and they all come to the conclusion, as with their opinion on the large bezel that a lot of other people have complained about, the 4:3 aspect ratio was chosen for ergonomic reasons.

The aspect ratio closely matches that of a piece of paper and traditional printed materials. It also balances better in the hands when held in landscape mode.

The bezel exists because the device is too large to just lay in your hand as you can an iPhone. You will have to use your thumb to hang onto it. Without the bezel, your thumb would touch the display and fire off an input event.

After all is said and done, I'm sure Apple has done their homework and research on both of these and have come to the conclusion that this is the best device they could make, for now anyway. They obviously knew people would watch movies and video, but they must've figured for a device that will more than likely sit within arms reach, watching movies at that size (even letterboxed) would still be a great experience.


As far as using the HD initials, seems a little weird, but most people associate it with higher quality more than they do high definition. Most people don't even know what they stand for. HD has become the new XL, which was popular 20 years ago. Both of which connote something better than normal.

Well said, and so obvious. I don't understand why the 4:3 ratio is so hard to understand, or the need for the wide bezel. All kinds of people are going to use the iPad, not just those of us with decent dexterity. I'm sure that Apple tested this.
post #112 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtownfan View Post

I have found some others:

In entertainment
A+ Records: Shake It! SP
A+ Records: Hotdog Eating Sp
Action Bricks SP
Action Bubble SP
Adrenaline Racer SP

Just a few pages search. I bet there have been many approved

Looks like along with HD and XP, SP is another extension being used

i would go with X D!
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
post #113 of 151
Please.
Stop.
Quoting.
The.
Trolls.
post #114 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by arlomedia View Post

Awesome ... this is the best AppleInsider argument since the one about the definition of "decade"!

Yes, this is like the nerd version of HolyTaco's "Drunken Argument Friday" series.

But it's even better because A.) it's about tech, B.) it's not Friday, and C.) people here are presumably sober (heck I think the majority of commenters are under the legal drinking age).

Hilarious!



Keep it up, guys!

The more you post, the lower your chances are of getting laid, which increases my odds!

Thanks in advance!

post #115 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

That's a TS not an.

What goes around...

"an" HD is correct..

a huge H is used there. and pronounced as "EH-CH"

"E" is a vowel, so "an" is used.


a BMW M3, an M3, an audi S4, an S4.
post #116 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitlnoize View Post

I dare anyone to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a screen that size. With a good encoding, I can hardly do it on my 50" plasma from 15 feet.

Not everything in life is about the specs.

I agree.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #117 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

No-one's 'quibbling' over anything, we're merely discussing the subject, and HD is far more than just a label, it's an Industry Standard, and what doesn't matter to you is not the least bit reflective of the entire world's consumers..

Deal With It -

Hmmmmm

What is the resolution of the HTC HD2?

Hasn't HD been users for years in smartphones to indicate 640x480 and 800x480 resolutions on smartphones?

And the industry standards for high-definition video are not "HD", they are 720p, 1080i, 1080p, etc.

Deal with it!!!
post #118 of 151
I don't care about res as long as it is 29.97 fps
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
post #119 of 151
no one is asking the most obvious question in all this....

WHY DO I HAVE TO RE-PURCHASE MY APPS????

steve jobs said during the media event the iPad will run almost all the apps in the app store....
post #120 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Don't you seem to understand that 15:10 IS 13.5:9?

You asked if I failed math, but you seem to have failed forth grade arithmetic.

You failed Math and Basic Logic .
You are multiplying each ratio by different variable and think you are correct??
First you multiply 4:3 by 3 and come up with 12:9 but then you multiply 3:2 by 4.5 and get 13.5:9 and expect me to fall for your flawed reasonings?
OMG- I can't believe what I've been reading here at AI!

The correct proof is as follows:

4:3 times 3= 12:9
3:2 times 3= 9:6

or better

4;3 times 5 = 20;15
3:2 times 5 = 15:10

In both cases you can clearly see that 3:2 is a ratio where one side is 1 1/2 longer than the other whereas 4:3 is not.
Conclusion 3:2 is much closer to 16:9 than 4:3.

But Dude - look at the iPhone does it look squarish or rectagularish? I can't believe you actually think otherwise???

NOw I am late for school disproving your beliefs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple approves iPad apps, developers choose 'HD,' 'XL' names