Many modern digital cameras by default shoot in 16:9
16:9 shooting is an option. Most of the cameras I've seen and used default to the maximum of what the image sensor is capable of capturing, generally 4:3.
When I shoot photos, I want to capture the maximum the camera I'm using is capable of. If I want, I can crop or work with them in Photoshop, though I prefer keeping the aspect ratio of my photos "as is".
16:9 shooting is an option. Most of the cameras I've seen and used default to the maximum of what the image sensor is capable of capturing, generally 4:3.
When I shoot photos, I want to capture the maximum the camera I'm using is capable of. If I want, I can crop or work with them in Photoshop, though I prefer keeping the aspect ratio of my photos "as is".
Compacts are usually 4:3. Most SLRs have a 3:2 native sensor, and many common photo print and frame sizes are also 3:2. However, I think they all crop to make 16:9, even HD camcorders crop down the image on a taller sensor.
Many modern digital cameras by default shoot in 16:9, because users want to be able to display fullscreen photos on their HDTVs.
Old cameras did 3:2 (half way between 4:3 and 16:9). Then digital cameras started with the 4:3 (going in the wrong direction) and I still haven't seen many default to 16:9. Mostly, 4:3 will work fine.
Quote:
It seems to me likely that almost all iPad users will use the devices for photo viewing, occasionally if not frequently, while relatively few will be giving presentations on external projectors.
That bumps against the key question really... what will most iPad users use the device for?
The internal slideshow of the iPad works when the iPad is docked vertically - so if the iPad was extra thin and tall it'd actually reduce the effectiveness of the slideshow. When reading pages (to replace newspapers or magazines), matching standard letter size makes sense. Those are arguments for 4:3.
What about reading mail or a website? For mail, we see that split interface with the list down the left and body of the message on the right - would that be more (or less) manageable if the landscape mode of this device was wider? I'm guessing less manageable.
As far as I can see, the screen aspect really comes down to watching movies.
Quote:
Therefore, I think that both the video output and the internal screen aspect ratios are an annoying mistake. 1280x720 should have been the default, with XVGA included as an option on the output. I don't believe that that would have increased the production costs for the iPad.
Definitely the video (component) output could have been made wide screen 1280x720. Similarly 1368x768 VGA output as an OPTION would make sense (though most projectors are 4:3). I can't see any reason not to offer widescreen output as an option. Perhaps the VGA output mirrors the display, rather than a separate display?
@jeffharris: My mistake?I'd misunderstood something I read. The native resolution of my Canon G11 (for example) does indeed give it a 4:3 aspect ratio, with cropped 16:9 as an option. I've been shooting in 16:9, but I guess I'll reform my ways in anticipation of the iPad, since I'm much more likely to regularly use that as a photo viewer than I am my HDTV.
@GregAlexander: Surely it cannot be that the iPad slideshow operates only in portrait mode.
Okay, any choice of aspect ratio for the iPad would compromise some application or other, but I concede that 4:3 is probably more generally useful. It's the folks who see the thing as primarily a movie screen who will likely object the most.
Compacts are usually 4:3. Most SLRs have a 3:2 native sensor, and many common photo print and frame sizes are also 3:2. However, I think they all crop to make 16:9, even HD camcorders crop down the image on a taller sensor.
The Panasonic Lumix cameras have 16:9 CCDs. Don't know about any of the others.
The Panasonic Lumix cameras have 16:9 CCDs. Don't know about any of the others.
I think some are, depends on the model. I have a couple recent Lumixes, each model introduced roughly six months ago, that have 4:3 native sensors, and they're CMOS.
I think some are, depends on the model. I have a couple recent Lumixes, each model introduced roughly six months ago, that have 4:3 native sensors, and they're CMOS.
Yes, I assume it does depend on the model. The LX2 I bought a couple of years ago does have the 16:9 CCD, which is one of the reasons why I chose it. This was considered to be their top-of-the line "prosumer" compact camera at the time, IIRC. Not cheap.
Yes, I assume it does depend on the model. The LX2 I bought a couple of years ago does have the 16:9 CCD, which is one of the reasons why I chose it. This was considered to be their top-of-the line "prosumer" compact camera at the time, IIRC. Not cheap.
They have even more expensive models that are 4:3. Even their regular SLR is 4:3, which is a little unusual for SLR. LX3 uses a 3:2 sensor, crops vertically for 16:9, horizontally for 4:3.
They have even more expensive models that are 4:3. Even their regular SLR is 4:3, which is a little unusual for SLR. LX3 uses a 3:2 sensor, crops vertically for 16:9, horizontally for 4:3.
What we're seeing here I think is a function of the generally less than enthusiastic embrace of the HD standard by the public, and hence by manufacturers. Given how poorly this standard has been received, it comes as no surprise to me that Apple hasn't designed the iPad around it, which seems to be what some people expected.
What we're seeing here I think is a function of the generally less than enthusiastic embrace of the HD standard by the public, and hence by manufacturers. Given how poorly this standard has been received, it comes as no surprise to me that Apple hasn't designed the iPad around it, which seems to be what some people expected.
I don't think that explains it. The uptake of HDTVs seems pretty thoughrough right now. I haven't seen a TV for sale that was anything other than 16:9 in a long time. I don't think people think of using TVs to look at photos very often.
They may just be a lot more directed about what this device is used for, namely its function that is new to Apple devices, paper-based media. I think 16:9 would be too wide for anything other than videos anyway, small screens like that seem way too constrained when not used for movies. I thought 3:2 would have been a better choice all around (like the iPhone), but hey.
I don't think that explains it. The uptake of HDTVs seems pretty thoughrough right now. I haven't seen a TV for sale that was anything other than 16:9 in a long time. I don't think people think of using TVs to look at photos very often.
They may just be a lot more directed about what this device is used for, namely its function that is new to Apple devices, paper-based media. I think 16:9 would be too wide for anything other than videos anyway, small screens like that seem way too constrained when not used for movies. I thought 3:2 would have been a better choice all around (like the iPhone), but hey.
Agree with you here.
I really don't think Apple had any reasons for this or that aspect ratio other then it feeling right for the device at hand. Mind that, all that is being discussed is fed into such a decision. At the 10" size, I bet that they felt 16:9 and 3:2 didn't feel natural in both portrait or landscape orientations. In portrait orientation, I bet it felt unnaturally tall and skinny for the overall reading experience (web page, book, image, etc). Then in landscape, 16:9 is too wide and short for the overall reading experience. The feeling of just right drove them to 4:3.
On the iPhone and iPod touch, going to 16:9 may not have a lot to gain due to this, and 3:2 maybe be it.
In fact, I think 16:9, 16:10 is a fairly crappy aspect ratio for computer monitors. 4:3 is just right. If I had to go wide, I'd go 8:3, but only for horizontal use.
I don't think that explains it. The uptake of HDTVs seems pretty thoughrough right now. I haven't seen a TV for sale that was anything other than 16:9 in a long time. I don't think people think of using TVs to look at photos very often.
They may just be a lot more directed about what this device is used for, namely its function that is new to Apple devices, paper-based media. I think 16:9 would be too wide for anything other than videos anyway, small screens like that seem way too constrained when not used for movies. I thought 3:2 would have been a better choice all around (like the iPhone), but hey.
Can you buy any other kind of TV anymore? The TV makers may be on board (even if the HD "standard" is far from standardized), but I'm actually thinking of the content being provided, which is still overwhelmingly 4:3 SD. People are watching that on their HDTVs stretched and cropped (which also happens to be several steps backwards in quality).
I agree with what you're saying about the iPad screen ratio. My addition is that the people who are arguing that Apple was dumb for not making it 16:9 because that's supposedly the new "standard" could not have looked at the reality of broadcast content recently, or they'd know better. It's a huge mess of standards out there.
Can you buy any other kind of TV anymore? The TV makers may be on board (even if the HD "standard" is far from standardized), but I'm actually thinking of the content being provided, which is still overwhelmingly 4:3 SD. People are watching that on their HDTVs stretched and cropped (which also happens to be several steps backwards in quality).
I agree with what you're saying about the iPad screen ratio. My addition is that the people who are arguing that Apple was dumb for not making it 16:9 because that's supposedly the new "standard" could not have looked at the reality of broadcast content recently, or they'd know better. It's a huge mess of standards out there.
For video aspect ratios (not counting film), there are only two, and 4:3 is legacy now, I think it's just a matter of time before it settle out of use for broadcast, except for reairs of classic shows. Local news organizations have been moving over if they haven't already, every news station in my area has switched. I haven't seen any prime time entertainment that is 4:3 in quite some time. Outside of prime time, it might be different, but I think that's a matter of time too.
For video aspect ratios (not counting film), there are only two, and 4:3 is legacy now, I think it's just a matter of time before it settle out of use for broadcast, except for reairs of classic shows. Local news organizations have been moving over if they haven't already, every news station in my area has switched. I haven't seen any prime time entertainment that is 4:3 in quite some time. Outside of prime time, it might be different, but I think that's a matter of time too.
It's been a matter of time for a long time now. Of the channels on my cable box, probably 80% are SD broadcasts. Even the premium channels are still overwhelmingly SD, and I can count the number of HD channels that have been added during the last two years on the fingers of two hands. Even the channels that are HD, they still broadcast much of their content letterboxed (vertically and horizontally), and some of it stretched. It's bizarre, it's confusing, it's a mess. This transition has been ugly and interminable and I'd expect it to remain ugly for the foreseeable future, if only because the broadcasters don't seem to care, and many of the content providers don't seem to care either.
For the last time the iPad outputs 16:9 720p video-out, or it can output 1024x768 (Mirror Mode)
I can't make it any clearer.
I appreciate the information, I missed it on your earlier post.
Have you got any thoughts on how this reconciles with Apple's iPad specs page?
Support for 1024 by 768 pixels with Dock Connector to VGA Adapter; 576p and 480p with Apple Component AV Cable; 576i and 480i with Apple Composite AV Cable
I appreciate the information, I missed it on your earlier post.
Have you got any thoughts on how this reconciles with Apple's iPad specs page?
Support for 1024 by 768 pixels with Dock Connector to VGA Adapter; 576p and 480p with Apple Component AV Cable; 576i and 480i with Apple Composite AV Cable
I guess my first question is - which cable does it use for 720p output?
2nd question - can the external and built-in display operate simultaneously and independently?
btw: I know the apple specs aren't always accurate. The AppleTV still says 720p24 is the limit, where 720p25 (PAL standard) works fine and always has.
Using the iPod Dock Connector to component cables is likely how you output to 720p. If it's like the iPhone/iPod it's not mirrored and will only show a static image on the device when playing video through those cables. You can double click the static image to switch from full image to crop. I've never tried it on a widescreen TV, only 4:3 in hotels but it can't imagine working much differently.
just a few days ago I was engineering sound in one of the country's top theaters.
Someone came in to do a lecture on a balcony type foyer and had brought her asus netbook.
The thing accidentally started doing updates, got unresponsive and neither her or my supervising engineer were able to get it to output video on its VGA output....
Thanks for the post.
Agreed. Windows tends to let me down when it counted the most (eg, I had to print several copies of a document within a few minutes; and that's when the laptop decided to slow down and take its time waking up. In all other times it wakes up ok. Figures.)
Comments
Many modern digital cameras by default shoot in 16:9
16:9 shooting is an option. Most of the cameras I've seen and used default to the maximum of what the image sensor is capable of capturing, generally 4:3.
When I shoot photos, I want to capture the maximum the camera I'm using is capable of. If I want, I can crop or work with them in Photoshop, though I prefer keeping the aspect ratio of my photos "as is".
16:9 shooting is an option. Most of the cameras I've seen and used default to the maximum of what the image sensor is capable of capturing, generally 4:3.
When I shoot photos, I want to capture the maximum the camera I'm using is capable of. If I want, I can crop or work with them in Photoshop, though I prefer keeping the aspect ratio of my photos "as is".
Compacts are usually 4:3. Most SLRs have a 3:2 native sensor, and many common photo print and frame sizes are also 3:2. However, I think they all crop to make 16:9, even HD camcorders crop down the image on a taller sensor.
Many modern digital cameras by default shoot in 16:9, because users want to be able to display fullscreen photos on their HDTVs.
Old cameras did 3:2 (half way between 4:3 and 16:9). Then digital cameras started with the 4:3 (going in the wrong direction) and I still haven't seen many default to 16:9. Mostly, 4:3 will work fine.
It seems to me likely that almost all iPad users will use the devices for photo viewing, occasionally if not frequently, while relatively few will be giving presentations on external projectors.
That bumps against the key question really... what will most iPad users use the device for?
The internal slideshow of the iPad works when the iPad is docked vertically - so if the iPad was extra thin and tall it'd actually reduce the effectiveness of the slideshow. When reading pages (to replace newspapers or magazines), matching standard letter size makes sense. Those are arguments for 4:3.
What about reading mail or a website? For mail, we see that split interface with the list down the left and body of the message on the right - would that be more (or less) manageable if the landscape mode of this device was wider? I'm guessing less manageable.
As far as I can see, the screen aspect really comes down to watching movies.
Therefore, I think that both the video output and the internal screen aspect ratios are an annoying mistake. 1280x720 should have been the default, with XVGA included as an option on the output. I don't believe that that would have increased the production costs for the iPad.
Definitely the video (component) output could have been made wide screen 1280x720. Similarly 1368x768 VGA output as an OPTION would make sense (though most projectors are 4:3). I can't see any reason not to offer widescreen output as an option. Perhaps the VGA output mirrors the display, rather than a separate display?
@GregAlexander: Surely it cannot be that the iPad slideshow operates only in portrait mode.
Okay, any choice of aspect ratio for the iPad would compromise some application or other, but I concede that 4:3 is probably more generally useful. It's the folks who see the thing as primarily a movie screen who will likely object the most.
Compacts are usually 4:3. Most SLRs have a 3:2 native sensor, and many common photo print and frame sizes are also 3:2. However, I think they all crop to make 16:9, even HD camcorders crop down the image on a taller sensor.
The Panasonic Lumix cameras have 16:9 CCDs. Don't know about any of the others.
@GregAlexander: Surely it cannot be that the iPad slideshow operates only in portrait mode.
I don't know.
But the iPad sits in its dock (or keyboard dock) in a portrait mode, and the screen saver is a slideshow.
I would guess a slideshow works in regular mode too when held in the hand.
The Panasonic Lumix cameras have 16:9 CCDs. Don't know about any of the others.
I think some are, depends on the model. I have a couple recent Lumixes, each model introduced roughly six months ago, that have 4:3 native sensors, and they're CMOS.
I think some are, depends on the model. I have a couple recent Lumixes, each model introduced roughly six months ago, that have 4:3 native sensors, and they're CMOS.
Yes, I assume it does depend on the model. The LX2 I bought a couple of years ago does have the 16:9 CCD, which is one of the reasons why I chose it. This was considered to be their top-of-the line "prosumer" compact camera at the time, IIRC. Not cheap.
Yes, I assume it does depend on the model. The LX2 I bought a couple of years ago does have the 16:9 CCD, which is one of the reasons why I chose it. This was considered to be their top-of-the line "prosumer" compact camera at the time, IIRC. Not cheap.
They have even more expensive models that are 4:3. Even their regular SLR is 4:3, which is a little unusual for SLR. LX3 uses a 3:2 sensor, crops vertically for 16:9, horizontally for 4:3.
They have even more expensive models that are 4:3. Even their regular SLR is 4:3, which is a little unusual for SLR. LX3 uses a 3:2 sensor, crops vertically for 16:9, horizontally for 4:3.
What we're seeing here I think is a function of the generally less than enthusiastic embrace of the HD standard by the public, and hence by manufacturers. Given how poorly this standard has been received, it comes as no surprise to me that Apple hasn't designed the iPad around it, which seems to be what some people expected.
What we're seeing here I think is a function of the generally less than enthusiastic embrace of the HD standard by the public, and hence by manufacturers. Given how poorly this standard has been received, it comes as no surprise to me that Apple hasn't designed the iPad around it, which seems to be what some people expected.
I don't think that explains it. The uptake of HDTVs seems pretty thoughrough right now. I haven't seen a TV for sale that was anything other than 16:9 in a long time. I don't think people think of using TVs to look at photos very often.
They may just be a lot more directed about what this device is used for, namely its function that is new to Apple devices, paper-based media. I think 16:9 would be too wide for anything other than videos anyway, small screens like that seem way too constrained when not used for movies. I thought 3:2 would have been a better choice all around (like the iPhone), but hey.
I don't think that explains it. The uptake of HDTVs seems pretty thoughrough right now. I haven't seen a TV for sale that was anything other than 16:9 in a long time. I don't think people think of using TVs to look at photos very often.
They may just be a lot more directed about what this device is used for, namely its function that is new to Apple devices, paper-based media. I think 16:9 would be too wide for anything other than videos anyway, small screens like that seem way too constrained when not used for movies. I thought 3:2 would have been a better choice all around (like the iPhone), but hey.
Agree with you here.
I really don't think Apple had any reasons for this or that aspect ratio other then it feeling right for the device at hand. Mind that, all that is being discussed is fed into such a decision. At the 10" size, I bet that they felt 16:9 and 3:2 didn't feel natural in both portrait or landscape orientations. In portrait orientation, I bet it felt unnaturally tall and skinny for the overall reading experience (web page, book, image, etc). Then in landscape, 16:9 is too wide and short for the overall reading experience. The feeling of just right drove them to 4:3.
On the iPhone and iPod touch, going to 16:9 may not have a lot to gain due to this, and 3:2 maybe be it.
In fact, I think 16:9, 16:10 is a fairly crappy aspect ratio for computer monitors. 4:3 is just right. If I had to go wide, I'd go 8:3, but only for horizontal use.
I don't think that explains it. The uptake of HDTVs seems pretty thoughrough right now. I haven't seen a TV for sale that was anything other than 16:9 in a long time. I don't think people think of using TVs to look at photos very often.
They may just be a lot more directed about what this device is used for, namely its function that is new to Apple devices, paper-based media. I think 16:9 would be too wide for anything other than videos anyway, small screens like that seem way too constrained when not used for movies. I thought 3:2 would have been a better choice all around (like the iPhone), but hey.
Can you buy any other kind of TV anymore? The TV makers may be on board (even if the HD "standard" is far from standardized), but I'm actually thinking of the content being provided, which is still overwhelmingly 4:3 SD. People are watching that on their HDTVs stretched and cropped (which also happens to be several steps backwards in quality).
I agree with what you're saying about the iPad screen ratio. My addition is that the people who are arguing that Apple was dumb for not making it 16:9 because that's supposedly the new "standard" could not have looked at the reality of broadcast content recently, or they'd know better. It's a huge mess of standards out there.
Can you buy any other kind of TV anymore? The TV makers may be on board (even if the HD "standard" is far from standardized), but I'm actually thinking of the content being provided, which is still overwhelmingly 4:3 SD. People are watching that on their HDTVs stretched and cropped (which also happens to be several steps backwards in quality).
I agree with what you're saying about the iPad screen ratio. My addition is that the people who are arguing that Apple was dumb for not making it 16:9 because that's supposedly the new "standard" could not have looked at the reality of broadcast content recently, or they'd know better. It's a huge mess of standards out there.
For video aspect ratios (not counting film), there are only two, and 4:3 is legacy now, I think it's just a matter of time before it settle out of use for broadcast, except for reairs of classic shows. Local news organizations have been moving over if they haven't already, every news station in my area has switched. I haven't seen any prime time entertainment that is 4:3 in quite some time. Outside of prime time, it might be different, but I think that's a matter of time too.
For video aspect ratios (not counting film), there are only two, and 4:3 is legacy now, I think it's just a matter of time before it settle out of use for broadcast, except for reairs of classic shows. Local news organizations have been moving over if they haven't already, every news station in my area has switched. I haven't seen any prime time entertainment that is 4:3 in quite some time. Outside of prime time, it might be different, but I think that's a matter of time too.
It's been a matter of time for a long time now. Of the channels on my cable box, probably 80% are SD broadcasts. Even the premium channels are still overwhelmingly SD, and I can count the number of HD channels that have been added during the last two years on the fingers of two hands. Even the channels that are HD, they still broadcast much of their content letterboxed (vertically and horizontally), and some of it stretched. It's bizarre, it's confusing, it's a mess. This transition has been ugly and interminable and I'd expect it to remain ugly for the foreseeable future, if only because the broadcasters don't seem to care, and many of the content providers don't seem to care either.
I can't make it any clearer.
For the last time the iPad outputs 16:9 720p video-out, or it can output 1024x768 (Mirror Mode)
I can't make it any clearer.
I appreciate the information, I missed it on your earlier post.
Have you got any thoughts on how this reconciles with Apple's iPad specs page?
Support for 1024 by 768 pixels with Dock Connector to VGA Adapter; 576p and 480p with Apple Component AV Cable; 576i and 480i with Apple Composite AV Cable
http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
I guess my first question is - which cable does it use for 720p output?
2nd question - can the external and built-in display operate simultaneously and independently?
btw: I know the apple specs aren't always accurate. The AppleTV still says 720p24 is the limit, where 720p25 (PAL standard) works fine and always has.
I appreciate the information, I missed it on your earlier post.
Have you got any thoughts on how this reconciles with Apple's iPad specs page?
Support for 1024 by 768 pixels with Dock Connector to VGA Adapter; 576p and 480p with Apple Component AV Cable; 576i and 480i with Apple Composite AV Cable
http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
I guess my first question is - which cable does it use for 720p output?
2nd question - can the external and built-in display operate simultaneously and independently?
btw: I know the apple specs aren't always accurate. The AppleTV still says 720p24 is the limit, where 720p25 (PAL standard) works fine and always has.
Using the iPod Dock Connector to component cables is likely how you output to 720p. If it's like the iPhone/iPod it's not mirrored and will only show a static image on the device when playing video through those cables. You can double click the static image to switch from full image to crop. I've never tried it on a widescreen TV, only 4:3 in hotels but it can't imagine working much differently.
Personally, I have to admit I fail to figure out where the idea of iPad being a ATV replacement comes from.
i brought that up
a larger home ipadian model will one day be a harddrive less ATV
just a few days ago I was engineering sound in one of the country's top theaters.
Someone came in to do a lecture on a balcony type foyer and had brought her asus netbook.
The thing accidentally started doing updates, got unresponsive and neither her or my supervising engineer were able to get it to output video on its VGA output....
Thanks for the post.
Agreed. Windows tends to let me down when it counted the most (eg, I had to print several copies of a document within a few minutes; and that's when the laptop decided to slow down and take its time waking up. In all other times it wakes up ok. Figures.)