I am very much attracted by it, and I think it will be the wave of the future as far as computer displays go in the industry. You might want to get used to it.
You'll notice that virtually all sizes of computer display are standardizing around a 16:10 ratio, and yes, it is more pleasing to some. It's also more useful, a little extra vertical space helps in a lot of ways. Room for menubars, full pages, less scrolling.
HDTV is 1.78:1 (16:9), but this comprimise is meant to emphasize the widescreen effect while not distorting the prodigious library of 4:3 material too much. (as a side note, it's amazing how many anorexic hollywood actors look just about normal when 4:3 is stretched to fit 16:9, haha...)
Film is available in a few popular aspect ratios, and they're all over the map.
1.33:1 (4:3) prior to 1950, but there are some notables afterwards as well.
1.66:1 Lotsa euro films
1.78:1 and 1.85:1
2.35:1 big panavision epics
and there's more coming, digital aquisition formats like 2K and 4K have been proposed that are 2:1
It goes on and on...
None of them are right or wrong as a way of creating and presenting content, so for a computer display, the ratio is steered more by the kind of work that one will do on the display. The are plenty of people who will just as well appreciate a little more vertical space as the would width. Graphic designers, photographers, architects... all depends on what you're doing.
16:10 is perfect for computer displays, that also display HDTV content, and it's very nice for larger laptop screens -- keeps them from getting too tall. 16:9 is good for the next 20-30 year's worth of HDTV programming, but that doesn't mean the computer displays will standardize to it. In fact, editors working on 16:9 content may like a good old 4:3 display. Imagine 1920x1440? Not only do you display the entire frame, you can keep some significant UI control visible beneath it...
I wonder if the 1900x1200 resolution 17-inch PowerBook is coming tomorrow at the Apple NAB conference. I notice on the MacPrices site that the 17-inch PowerBook is out of stock with a 4-6 day wait.
I would really like to see 16:9 in the 30 inch display.
I believe it has reached its vertical "limit."
Who knows, they may put 16:9 into a mid-sized display. Apple has a tendancy to surprise where possible. Or maybe, but far less likely in my opinion, they will allow the current displays to letter box as 16:9 in the main system. Or maybe they are just showcasing how beautiful their new HD H.264 will be and further videos, trailers will be in this ratio.
I wonder if the 1900x1200 resolution 17-inch PowerBook is coming tomorrow at the Apple NAB conference. I notice on the MacPrices site that the 17-inch PowerBook is out of stock with a 4-6 day wait.
I've been holding off on upgrading my Powerbook for this!
My plans have been to buy a 15" Powerbook, since I've always been of the mind that the 17" is just too big. The only thing that will get me to make the jump to the 17" is if it has this high-res screen.
Comments
Originally posted by m01ety
I despise this aspect ratio.
I am very much attracted by it, and I think it will be the wave of the future as far as computer displays go in the industry. You might want to get used to it.
HDTV is 1.78:1 (16:9), but this comprimise is meant to emphasize the widescreen effect while not distorting the prodigious library of 4:3 material too much. (as a side note, it's amazing how many anorexic hollywood actors look just about normal when 4:3 is stretched to fit 16:9, haha...)
Film is available in a few popular aspect ratios, and they're all over the map.
1.33:1 (4:3) prior to 1950, but there are some notables afterwards as well.
1.66:1 Lotsa euro films
1.78:1 and 1.85:1
2.35:1 big panavision epics
and there's more coming, digital aquisition formats like 2K and 4K have been proposed that are 2:1
It goes on and on...
None of them are right or wrong as a way of creating and presenting content, so for a computer display, the ratio is steered more by the kind of work that one will do on the display. The are plenty of people who will just as well appreciate a little more vertical space as the would width. Graphic designers, photographers, architects... all depends on what you're doing.
16:10 is perfect for computer displays, that also display HDTV content, and it's very nice for larger laptop screens -- keeps them from getting too tall. 16:9 is good for the next 20-30 year's worth of HDTV programming, but that doesn't mean the computer displays will standardize to it. In fact, editors working on 16:9 content may like a good old 4:3 display. Imagine 1920x1440? Not only do you display the entire frame, you can keep some significant UI control visible beneath it...
Just a few thoughts...
I wonder if the 1900x1200 resolution 17-inch PowerBook is coming tomorrow at the Apple NAB conference. I notice on the MacPrices site that the 17-inch PowerBook is out of stock with a 4-6 day wait.
Year of HD, indeed. Wonder what they're up to?
By the by, here's another clip just put up on Apple's site demonstrating Apple's new version of Final Cut Pro announced at NAB today.
Again another 16:9 clip scaled down from 1280 x 720 ? the dimensions of a display not in Apple's Current Product line - up
I believe it has reached its vertical "limit."
Who knows, they may put 16:9 into a mid-sized display. Apple has a tendancy to surprise where possible. Or maybe, but far less likely in my opinion, they will allow the current displays to letter box as 16:9 in the main system. Or maybe they are just showcasing how beautiful their new HD H.264 will be and further videos, trailers will be in this ratio.
Nutrix
Originally posted by DHagan4755
True, Matsu.
I wonder if the 1900x1200 resolution 17-inch PowerBook is coming tomorrow at the Apple NAB conference. I notice on the MacPrices site that the 17-inch PowerBook is out of stock with a 4-6 day wait.
I've been holding off on upgrading my Powerbook for this!
My plans have been to buy a 15" Powerbook, since I've always been of the mind that the 17" is just too big. The only thing that will get me to make the jump to the 17" is if it has this high-res screen.
I wish they'd hurry it up.