Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tallest Skil 
I don't know if it's true either, but this just popped into my head when I read that:
Since 16:9 frames are shorter than 4:3 frames, the physical length of the film require to shoot 16:9 is shorter than the same movie in 4:3, so it would save money on film.
Theoretically, at least. This theory having been created by me five seconds ago. 
The pixel density is generally less (not gonna go looking this up, but generally same screen sizes went from 1440x900 -> 1336x768 / 1680x1050 -> 1600x900 / 1920x1200 -> 1920x1080)
The physical screen is generally smaller also.
Cheaper to make the screens (see above). PLUS you can use them as a marketing term. Note that 16:10 and 4:3 screens do not have anything like "widescreen" (That i know of).
And of course they are much less productive when viewing things side by side (excluding 1920x1080, which doesn't make much of a difference tbh). That being said i wish Apple made something like Windows 7's making windows cover half of screen easily.... Maybe it does exist, i cannot find it :)
