16x9 Aspect Ratio Coming?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Okay.. maybe this is nothing, but I just noticed...



On the new movies Apple has posted to their website about MacOS X. Each movie shows the mac desktop at a 16 x 9 ratio.



Is this a hint that this ratio might soon be coming?



Anyways.. whatever! Just something I thought I'd pass along.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,258member
    16x9 has been here.



    Widescreen QT files and Apple Cinema Displays. Or are you talking about something different?
  • Reply 2 of 27
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    16x9 has been here.



    Widescreen QT files and Apple Cinema Displays. Or are you talking about something different?




    Apple's displays are not 16:9 - they are 16:10.
  • Reply 3 of 27
    erbiumerbium Posts: 354member
    Yeah..



    I was commenting on the fact that Apple does not yet make a laptop or a display that can utilize this aspect ratio.



    I just thought it seemed weird that they'd showcase tiger at this ratio.
  • Reply 4 of 27
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,258member
    Yes I know. That's why I said "Widescreen" because even if we have 16x10 it meets the minimum requirements for 16x9.
  • Reply 5 of 27
    erbiumerbium Posts: 354member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Yes I know. That's why I said "Widescreen" because even if we have 16x10 it meets the minimum requirements for 16x9.



    Well not without two nice black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.



    What I am trying to say.. Apple does not make a true 16x9 display (YET), and yet they show this capability on their website. Any display, even ones at a 4x3 ratio, can display 16x9 content. However you're gonna get black borders.



    Yes its probably nothing. I just thougtht it was worth mentioning.
  • Reply 6 of 27
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    I hope not. 16:10 is as wide as I would want to see it. many here wanty to be able to swivel the screen into portrate mode so going wider would be the wrong way around.
  • Reply 7 of 27
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by erbium

    Well not without two nice black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.



    What I am trying to say.. Apple does not make a true 16x9 display (YET), and yet they show this capability on their website. Any display, even ones at a 4x3 ratio, can display 16x9 content. However you're gonna get black borders.



    Yes its probably nothing. I just thougtht it was worth mentioning.




    Now why would Apple want to go away from 16:10 which was specifically designed that way so you could edit 16:9 formats and still have room for toolbars in editing programs?



    What's more important, a few black pixels at the top and bottom of a screen while Johnny watches the Matrix? Or pissing off all the content creators by not letting them see the full image while they have their tools running?
  • Reply 8 of 27
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JLL

    Apple's displays are not 16:9 - they are 16:10.



    This is so the dock and menu bar can fit nicely while you're editing HD footage.



    Moving on, the golden ratio is approximated by 1.618:1, or 34:21, or more loosely 16:10. I think the 16:10 aspect ratio is a good one.



    Lastly, is there anything wrong with black bars? I'd rather watch black bars than plastic bezel.
  • Reply 9 of 27
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    This is so the dock and menu bar can fit nicely while you're editing HD footage.



    ... which doesn't really leave you enough space for controls, does it?



    Maybe I'm exaggerating but when I'm surfing Apple fan forums I can't avoid the feeling some people would rather take a widescreen display than an equally wide 4:3. I like widescreens myself, but it's not like I am going to turn down extra pixels, wherever they are...
  • Reply 10 of 27
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    16:10 is a nicer proportion anyway. (Oops, missed Splinemodel's comment.) If it's good enough for Palladio, it's good enough for me.



    Plus, when the menubar is on screen, it soaks up the extra bit of height. (Oops, missed Splinemodels' comment again! )
  • Reply 11 of 27
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gon

    ... which doesn't really leave you enough space for controls, does it?



    Maybe I'm exaggerating but when I'm surfing Apple fan forums I can't avoid the feeling some people would rather take a widescreen display than an equally wide 4:3. I like widescreens myself, but it's not like I am going to turn down extra pixels, wherever they are...




    When you're actively editing, generally you're not viewing it fullscreen, but are seeing a 1/4th size version. The editing panes take up space. But everyone plays back snippets full screen during the editing process. Since the Apple monitor can deliver full 1920x1080 without obfuscating the GUI, it's a good thing.
  • Reply 12 of 27
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,150member
    The clips are a scaled down version of a 1280 x 720 display. Apple does not have such a display in its line-up presently.



  • Reply 13 of 27
    kormac77kormac77 Posts: 197member
    YES! It is hint.



    1280 x720
  • Reply 14 of 27
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,150member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kormac77

    YES! It is hint.



    Oh, Mr. Soothsayer, known as Kormac, to what product line are you referring?
  • Reply 15 of 27
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kormac77

    YES! It is hint.



    1280 x720




    Holy shit it's Kormac! Hide the children!
  • Reply 16 of 27
    pismoxpismox Posts: 7member
    But it is the resolution used by many wide-screen LCD displays across the consumer electronics market. Many LCD and DLP projectors use that resolution as well, not to mention several HD-TVs I have seen.
  • Reply 17 of 27
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,150member
    So you're saying Apple doesn't eat their own dog food with respect to its displays?
  • Reply 18 of 27
    erbiumerbium Posts: 354member
    Wow.. I never expected this much response to something I thought could easily have been "nothing"..



    AND I SURE didn't expect to get an appearance from KORMAC in this thread.. wow.. truly amazing.



    Anyways.. Maybe we'll be seeing Apple go even wider from where the are now? Wasn't there a rumor that we'd see a new low end 17" size display?
  • Reply 19 of 27
    defjefdefjef Posts: 62member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pismox

    But it is the resolution used by many wide-screen LCD displays across the consumer electronics market. Many LCD and DLP projectors use that resolution as well, not to mention several HD-TVs I have seen.



    The background image looks pretty tightly designed for the resolution... yes it could just be a higher resolution of Apple's next blue desktop for Tiger that has been centered, but it is something to take into account.

    I know I'm going to compare the desktop images more carefully. I'll report back if I find anything.
  • Reply 20 of 27
    m01etym01ety Posts: 278member
    I also noticed this on the Tiger movies, and I despise this aspect ratio. The one employed by the current Cinema Displays is far more pleasing to the eye... Can't stand 16:9 for a computer.
Sign In or Register to comment.