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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Did you flunk Math?
Work it out for yourself, and show it here.
Work it out for yourself, and show it here.
He may have seen your original post...
Which one was that?
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.