1) There is no wasted real estate when you scale the content.
True, but I am no fan of pan and scan, nor am I a fan of squashed or stretched content. Watching widescreen content on a narrow screen results in a small picture and wasted screen real estate. I don't care about the black bars. Instead, I care about the small picture. That's why I got a 16:9 TV instead of a 4:3 TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
2) You are throwing around and interchanging terms like SD and HD as if the content and displays are designed in unison, when they aren't, not to mention that iPad isn't an SD panel.
Fair enough. I thought my meaning was clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
3) a ratio is a distraction for you? Seriously? Most CE, especially when it comes to video, is designed to be a distraction, a time waster or time replacer.
The antique aspect ratio is not a distraction for me. So your point is misplaced.
As I have said, the small picture is the dealbreaker for me. If normal content was 4:3, like it used to be in the before times, it would not be a problem. But an antique aspect ratio is sub-optimal for one of my main uses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
4) Instead of taking a myopic view of the world-o-tech by being surprised by it, perhaps you should look at it from an objective viewpoint for once. Apple doesn't have 16:9 on their iPhone or Touch yet people have been watching video on that 3.5" display for years now so I think watching video on a 10" display will work out just fine.
:
A phone is a compromise product. And the iPhone is closer to a modern aspect ratio than the 'Pad.
I'm not looking for a big compromise in a tablet computer. So I'll wait until somebody else does it right.
IMO, a compromise wouild have been a compromise: Somewhere between 4:3 and 16:9. Just like the iPhone.
This was not a compromise, instead, it was an all-or-nothing kind of a deal. And it makes the device laughably insufficient for movie consumption. YMMV.
YOU MISSED THE POINT--THE iPAD IS MORE THAN A DEVICE FOR WATCHING MOVIES--GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE.
I added the details to the comments you made. Don't be made because I pointed out that many movies use a 2.35:1 aspect ratio which makes even the widescreen TVs require letterboxing.
You said I was waiting for a 2.35 aspect ratio. That was a total fabrication.
You're better than that, even if you do it almost constantly. I think it is from your difficulty understanding what is said, rather than from any malicious intent. You need to read more carefully and think before you type.
so go watch hd on tv and GTFO....who cares whiny baby..go buy something THAT DOES NOT EXIST except in your own head. Maybe you can find a company that will build JUST FOR YOU, a magical unicorn sparkly device for you lil princess. Because we all know the world revolves around you...
IMO, a compromise wouild have been a compromise: Somewhere between 4:3 and 16:9. Just like the iPhone.
This was not a compromise, instead, it was an all-or-nothing kind of a deal. And it makes the device laughably insufficient for movie consumption. YMMV.
Why don't you just stop and think about things before allowing your drivel out?
Do you think that Apple would have though that 4:3 was the way to go when the iPhone and Touch were already 3:2? Can you think of a good reason why they ended up compromising on 4:3? Go on, think. Still thinking???
Now, why don't you go and find me the best price for an IPS panel that has 720 pixels or more vertically (when held in landscape orientation), and a 3:2 ratio. That'll be 1080x720. Or maybe a 1152x768 (WXGA+, I think) screen.
Had any luck? There aren't many are there? And certainly not in 10" (or even 12"). IIRC the Powerbook G4 Ti had a 15" 1152x768 panel. They weren't cheap, where they?
So, either you pay a fortune for an iPad with a custom made 3:2 panel. Or you buy some off the shelf (maybe even IPS) 16:9 panels for the iPad. The snag then is that using it in portrait mode is like reading from a scroll. Fine for the Romans, but I think we've moved on a bit since then.
So, I'm glad Apple chose a high quality 4:3 screen. It means the price is sensible, and it's useful for things other than widescreen HD movies.
And 'iSore'? Oh, my sides. That's a hilarious name for the iTunes Store. So clever. You really are a genius, aren't you?
EDIT: found a URL for a Powerbook G4 WXGA+ panel. It's $440. Now I'm sure Apple could get a better deal than that; but I'd bet that it's still a hell of a lot more than they're paying for the 4:3 panel.
YOU MISSED THE POINT--THE iPAD IS MORE THAN A DEVICE FOR WATCHING MOVIES--GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE.
For what I want, and have wanted for years, the 'Pad is fatally deficient. I've wanted a tablet for surfing the 'web and consuming content primarily.
And for these two primary functions, the 'Pad is fatally deficient. Had I wanted an eBook reader, it might fit the bill.
But for 'web and video, it is unacceptable to me. Thus, I am extremely disappointed and will continue to wait until somebody does it right. I'm watching Dell, Archos and others to see what they come up with. And from what I have seen. many new companies will introduce tablets soon, with a variety of capabilities and deficiencies.
I am optimistic that within 12 months, there will be a tablet computer that makes the 'Pad look like a toy.
As I have said, the small picture is the dealbreaker for me.
Fact: Every phone and tablet has a small picture means that they are -- and always will be -- a deal breaker for you regardless of the aspect ratio or pixel count. There is no point in commenting on the other aspects when the size is already a dealbreaker.
Do you think that Apple would have though that 4:3 was the way to go when the iPhone and Touch were already 3:2? Can you think of a good reason why they ended up compromising on 4:3? Go on, think. Still thinking???
The compromise means that it is unacceptable for one of my primary uses. Had I wanted an ebook reader, it would have made more sense.
YMMV. The aspect ratio is not an area that I want to compromise on. It is too basic to my intended use.
And since when does Apple release do-it-all products that contain fatal compromises? What happened to "do one thing really really well"?
Fact: Every phone and tablet has a small picture means that they are -- and always will be -- a deal breaker for you regardless of the aspect ratio or pixel count. There is no point in commenting on the other aspects when the size is already a dealbreaker.
You misunderstand. A small screen that is properly shaped is a small screen - it is what it is. A small screen with an improper shape is both a small screen and a waste. I'll wait for a proper screen rather than compromise on a misdesigned compromise.
There are plenty of 4:3 TVs too, but I'm not in the market for them. YMMV.
4:3 leaves a lot of wasted real estate when watching normal video content, and results in a sub-HD tiny picture.
No, I don't think so. Displaying a 16:9 video on the iPad will use 1024 x 576 pixels. No "wasted" horizontal pixels and only 192 "wasted" vertical pixels.
BTW, a 1024 x 576 video on a 10" IPS LCD screen at 1.5 to 2 feet away will look fantastic.
I was also impressed that in order to explain the lack of a camera in the iTouch, iSteve said that they were engineering it to meet a price point. This was the first time I've heard Apple say anything like that. Steve's statements, put together, are evidence that maybe a new strategy is in the offing.
You just made that up as I don't believe Steve has ever linked the two together.
Steve said the iPod touch was engineered to meet the crucial $199 price point, but didn't say it had anything to do with the missing camera; you do realize that the camera is missing on the more expensive iPod touches as well, though a videocamera is included on the cheaper iPod nanos.
No, I don't think so. Displaying a 16:9 video on the iPad will use 1024 x 576 pixels. No "wasted" horizontal pixels and only 192 "wasted" vertical pixels.
BTW, a 1024 x 576 video on a 10" IPS LCD screen at 1.5 to 2 feet away will look fantastic.
Hey, that sounds like DVD quality (PAL, anyway). Sounds perfect when I'm only a few centimetres away from the screen. And I can watch all my (ahem) Handbrake ripped DVDs at full resolution.
Fact: Every phone and tablet has a small picture means that they are -- and always will be -- a deal breaker for you regardless of the aspect ratio or pixel count. There is no point in commenting on the other aspects when the size is already a dealbreaker.
BTW, just to put numbers to it, the iPad screen is equivalent to a 8.9 inch 16:9 display, when it is displaying 16:9 content, according to http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi
A 10 or 12 inch 16:9 screen is equivalent to, well, a 10 or 12 inch normal ratio screen.
For any equivalent diagonal measurement, the proper screen shape results in a much bigger widescreen picture.
I'm watching Dell, Archos and others to see what they come up with. And from what I have seen. many new companies will introduce tablets soon, with a variety of capabilities and deficiencies.
I am optimistic that within 12 months, there will be a tablet computer that makes the 'Pad look like a toy.
You just made that up as I don't believe Steve has ever linked the two together.
Steve said the iPod touch was engineered to meet the crucial $199 price point, but didn't say it had anything to do with the missing camera; you do realize that the camera is missing on the more expensive iPod touches as well, though a videocamera is included on the cheaper iPod nanos.
Comments
But a better alternative would be a different tablet - one that does everything it 'Pad will do, AND will display standard modern content full-screen.
Whatever.
1) There is no wasted real estate when you scale the content.
True, but I am no fan of pan and scan, nor am I a fan of squashed or stretched content. Watching widescreen content on a narrow screen results in a small picture and wasted screen real estate. I don't care about the black bars. Instead, I care about the small picture. That's why I got a 16:9 TV instead of a 4:3 TV.
2) You are throwing around and interchanging terms like SD and HD as if the content and displays are designed in unison, when they aren't, not to mention that iPad isn't an SD panel.
Fair enough. I thought my meaning was clear.
3) a ratio is a distraction for you? Seriously? Most CE, especially when it comes to video, is designed to be a distraction, a time waster or time replacer.
The antique aspect ratio is not a distraction for me. So your point is misplaced.
As I have said, the small picture is the dealbreaker for me. If normal content was 4:3, like it used to be in the before times, it would not be a problem. But an antique aspect ratio is sub-optimal for one of my main uses.
4) Instead of taking a myopic view of the world-o-tech by being surprised by it, perhaps you should look at it from an objective viewpoint for once. Apple doesn't have 16:9 on their iPhone or Touch yet people have been watching video on that 3.5" display for years now so I think watching video on a 10" display will work out just fine.
:
A phone is a compromise product. And the iPhone is closer to a modern aspect ratio than the 'Pad.
I'm not looking for a big compromise in a tablet computer. So I'll wait until somebody else does it right.
IMO, a compromise wouild have been a compromise: Somewhere between 4:3 and 16:9. Just like the iPhone.
This was not a compromise, instead, it was an all-or-nothing kind of a deal. And it makes the device laughably insufficient for movie consumption. YMMV.
YOU MISSED THE POINT--THE iPAD IS MORE THAN A DEVICE FOR WATCHING MOVIES--GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE.
I added the details to the comments you made. Don't be made because I pointed out that many movies use a 2.35:1 aspect ratio which makes even the widescreen TVs require letterboxing.
You said I was waiting for a 2.35 aspect ratio. That was a total fabrication.
You're better than that, even if you do it almost constantly. I think it is from your difficulty understanding what is said, rather than from any malicious intent. You need to read more carefully and think before you type.
so go watch hd on tv and GTFO....who cares whiny baby..go buy something THAT DOES NOT EXIST except in your own head. Maybe you can find a company that will build JUST FOR YOU, a magical unicorn sparkly device for you lil princess. Because we all know the world revolves around you...
I have reported this insulting post.
IMO, a compromise wouild have been a compromise: Somewhere between 4:3 and 16:9. Just like the iPhone.
This was not a compromise, instead, it was an all-or-nothing kind of a deal. And it makes the device laughably insufficient for movie consumption. YMMV.
Why don't you just stop and think about things before allowing your drivel out?
Do you think that Apple would have though that 4:3 was the way to go when the iPhone and Touch were already 3:2? Can you think of a good reason why they ended up compromising on 4:3? Go on, think. Still thinking???
Now, why don't you go and find me the best price for an IPS panel that has 720 pixels or more vertically (when held in landscape orientation), and a 3:2 ratio. That'll be 1080x720. Or maybe a 1152x768 (WXGA+, I think) screen.
Had any luck? There aren't many are there? And certainly not in 10" (or even 12"). IIRC the Powerbook G4 Ti had a 15" 1152x768 panel. They weren't cheap, where they?
So, either you pay a fortune for an iPad with a custom made 3:2 panel. Or you buy some off the shelf (maybe even IPS) 16:9 panels for the iPad. The snag then is that using it in portrait mode is like reading from a scroll. Fine for the Romans, but I think we've moved on a bit since then.
So, I'm glad Apple chose a high quality 4:3 screen. It means the price is sensible, and it's useful for things other than widescreen HD movies.
And 'iSore'? Oh, my sides. That's a hilarious name for the iTunes Store. So clever. You really are a genius, aren't you?
EDIT: found a URL for a Powerbook G4 WXGA+ panel. It's $440. Now I'm sure Apple could get a better deal than that; but I'd bet that it's still a hell of a lot more than they're paying for the 4:3 panel.
http://www.priorityelectronics.com/apple/661-2539.htm
YOU MISSED THE POINT--THE iPAD IS MORE THAN A DEVICE FOR WATCHING MOVIES--GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE.
For what I want, and have wanted for years, the 'Pad is fatally deficient. I've wanted a tablet for surfing the 'web and consuming content primarily.
And for these two primary functions, the 'Pad is fatally deficient. Had I wanted an eBook reader, it might fit the bill.
But for 'web and video, it is unacceptable to me. Thus, I am extremely disappointed and will continue to wait until somebody does it right. I'm watching Dell, Archos and others to see what they come up with. And from what I have seen. many new companies will introduce tablets soon, with a variety of capabilities and deficiencies.
I am optimistic that within 12 months, there will be a tablet computer that makes the 'Pad look like a toy.
don't put words in my mouth. Only jackasses do that.
seriously CHILL OUT
I'm bailing from this thread until things cool
As I have said, the small picture is the dealbreaker for me.
Fact: Every phone and tablet has a small picture means that they are -- and always will be -- a deal breaker for you regardless of the aspect ratio or pixel count. There is no point in commenting on the other aspects when the size is already a dealbreaker.
Do you think that Apple would have though that 4:3 was the way to go when the iPhone and Touch were already 3:2? Can you think of a good reason why they ended up compromising on 4:3? Go on, think. Still thinking???
The compromise means that it is unacceptable for one of my primary uses. Had I wanted an ebook reader, it would have made more sense.
YMMV. The aspect ratio is not an area that I want to compromise on. It is too basic to my intended use.
And since when does Apple release do-it-all products that contain fatal compromises? What happened to "do one thing really really well"?
Fact: Every phone and tablet has a small picture means that they are -- and always will be -- a deal breaker for you regardless of the aspect ratio or pixel count. There is no point in commenting on the other aspects when the size is already a dealbreaker.
You misunderstand. A small screen that is properly shaped is a small screen - it is what it is. A small screen with an improper shape is both a small screen and a waste. I'll wait for a proper screen rather than compromise on a misdesigned compromise.
There are plenty of 4:3 TVs too, but I'm not in the market for them. YMMV.
4:3 leaves a lot of wasted real estate when watching normal video content, and results in a sub-HD tiny picture.
No, I don't think so. Displaying a 16:9 video on the iPad will use 1024 x 576 pixels. No "wasted" horizontal pixels and only 192 "wasted" vertical pixels.
BTW, a 1024 x 576 video on a 10" IPS LCD screen at 1.5 to 2 feet away will look fantastic.
I was also impressed that in order to explain the lack of a camera in the iTouch, iSteve said that they were engineering it to meet a price point. This was the first time I've heard Apple say anything like that. Steve's statements, put together, are evidence that maybe a new strategy is in the offing.
You just made that up as I don't believe Steve has ever linked the two together.
Steve said the iPod touch was engineered to meet the crucial $199 price point, but didn't say it had anything to do with the missing camera; you do realize that the camera is missing on the more expensive iPod touches as well, though a videocamera is included on the cheaper iPod nanos.
The compromise means that it is unacceptable for one of my primary uses. Had I wanted an ebook reader, it would have made more sense.
YMMV. The aspect ratio is not an area that I want to compromise on. It is too basic to my intended use.
And since when does Apple release do-it-all products that contain fatal compromises? What happened to "do one thing really really well"?
For likely over 5 million people in the next 8 months, there is no "fatal compromise" in the iPad.
By the way, Apple has graduated to having products that do many things really really well. It started back in 2005. Where have you been?
No, I don't think so. Displaying a 16:9 video on the iPad will use 1024 x 576 pixels. No "wasted" horizontal pixels and only 192 "wasted" vertical pixels.
BTW, a 1024 x 576 video on a 10" IPS LCD screen at 1.5 to 2 feet away will look fantastic.
Hey, that sounds like DVD quality (PAL, anyway). Sounds perfect when I'm only a few centimetres away from the screen. And I can watch all my (ahem) Handbrake ripped DVDs at full resolution.
Fact: Every phone and tablet has a small picture means that they are -- and always will be -- a deal breaker for you regardless of the aspect ratio or pixel count. There is no point in commenting on the other aspects when the size is already a dealbreaker.
BTW, just to put numbers to it, the iPad screen is equivalent to a 8.9 inch 16:9 display, when it is displaying 16:9 content, according to http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi
A 10 or 12 inch 16:9 screen is equivalent to, well, a 10 or 12 inch normal ratio screen.
For any equivalent diagonal measurement, the proper screen shape results in a much bigger widescreen picture.
I'm watching Dell, Archos and others to see what they come up with. And from what I have seen. many new companies will introduce tablets soon, with a variety of capabilities and deficiencies.
I am optimistic that within 12 months, there will be a tablet computer that makes the 'Pad look like a toy.
No need to wait. What you want is here!:
Ezy Tablet PC
You're not just an obtuse troll, but a crass one too. So what else is new.
Why all the bickering?
BTW, a 1024 x 576 video on a 10" IPS LCD screen at 1.5 to 2 feet away will look fantastic.
The 'Pad does not have a 10 inch screen, but I know what you are saying.
The 'Pad displays widescreen content at the same physical size as a 8.9 inch screen of the normal aspect ratio.
You just made that up as I don't believe Steve has ever linked the two together.
Steve said the iPod touch was engineered to meet the crucial $199 price point, but didn't say it had anything to do with the missing camera; you do realize that the camera is missing on the more expensive iPod touches as well, though a videocamera is included on the cheaper iPod nanos.
Look it up.