4:3 is not a good aspect ratio for a tablet display. It doesn't provide enough variation when switching from portrait to landscape mode. The desktop, laptop, cinema and TV worlds have all gone widescreen. 4:3 is terrible for viewing widescreen movies full screen. The e-ink display kindles just look wrong to me, the 3:4 aspect ratio seems too squashed. I prefer the standard aspect ratios of paperback books (11:18, 13:20, 5:8) for reading.
16:9 or 16:10 are far better aspect ratios for modern displays than the archaic 4:3 from the days of silent movies.
I have both an iPad and a 16:9 tablet, and I think that the 4:3 iPad is a much more usable ratio. In portrait mode, 16:9 is far too tall and thin for reading web pages for ebooks. Even when watching Netflix on the iPad I zoom in to the 4:3 mode.
I fancy a 7" tablet to replace an original iPad, and I'm going for the iPad Mini.
I have to disagree with you here. The 4:3 ratio is much better in portrait than 16:9.
As I already said, most are 16:10 so that ends up sounding a bit desperate. People can adapt though. As they do with watching those extra tall Netflix people in zoomed 4:3.
16:10 1080p HD in portrait is fantastic for the web. You scroll 3 times as less than with a cheap 4:3 screen.
As I already said, most are 16:10 so that ends up sounding a bit desperate. People can adapt though. As they do with watching those extra tall Netflix people in zoomed 4:3.
16:10 1080p HD in portrait is fantastic for the web. You scroll 3 times as less than with a cheap 4:3 screen.
That is bordering on one of the most desperate comments I've ever heard you make, and boy have you made some.:rolleyes:
The iPad mini has an excellent aspect ratio which allows you to browse the web, read documents and watch any aspect tv/movie that you wish. There is also nothing wrong with the aspect ratio of the nexus, but it provides zero advantage over the iPad.
4:3 is not a good aspect ratio for a tablet display. It doesn't provide enough variation when switching from portrait to landscape mode. The desktop, laptop, cinema and TV worlds have all gone widescreen. 4:3 is terrible for viewing widescreen movies full screen. The e-ink display kindles just look wrong to me, the 3:4 aspect ratio seems too squashed. I prefer the standard aspect ratios of paperback books (11:18, 13:20, 5:8) for reading.
16:9 or 16:10 are far better aspect ratios for modern displays than the archaic 4:3 from the days of silent movies.
It is interesting that you mention desktop, laptop, tv and movies. None of which are used or designed to be used in portrait, so how it can be claimed to be the best aspect ratio is nonsense.
In addition, movies are never produced in 16:9, so that is also not a suitable aspect ratio to use, so you are also after a compromise.
But they're a lot closer to 16:9 than 4:3, and all modern television is 16:9.
Yes, but it makes no difference. An iPad mini can still display a 16:9 screen, and because it has a slightly bigger screen that the nexus also displays it slightly bigger. I have nothing against 16:9 tablets if that is want people want, however, they provide no advantage.
This old argument about how good 4:3 is? There's nothing wrong with it, however we all know that if the iPad screen was 16:9 or 16:10 like the overwhelming majority of TV screens, phones and monitors, we wouldn't be having the argument about the supposed superiority of old 4:3. It's definitely one of the strangest things I read that Apple fans put forward...or put "backward",pardon the pun.
This old argument about how good 4:3 is? There's nothing wrong with it, however we all know that if the iPad screen was 16:9 or 16:10 like the overwhelming majority of TV screens, phones and monitors, we wouldn't be having the argument about the supposed superiority of old 4:3. It's definitely one of the strangest things I read that Apple fans put forward...or put "backward",pardon the pun.
I'm not arguing it is superior, I saying there are no advantages of 16:9 over 4:3. If you believe there are, I assume you can tell me
I'm not arguing it is superior, I saying there are no advantages of 16:9 over 4:3. If you believe there are, I assume you can tell me
It's really no use me trying to explain to you the reasons as to why modern televisions, monitors and now tablets have overwhelmingly all opted to use a 16:9 ratio. Maybe when Apple eventually ditch 4:3 I'll explain!
It's really no use me trying to explain to you the reasons as to why modern televisions, monitors and now tablets have overwhelmingly all opted to use a 16:9 ratio. Maybe when Apple eventually ditch 4:3 I'll explain!
TVs are used to watch video nearly all the time. Tablets are used for browsing, reading, games etc. which don't always suit a 16:9 screen.
Having used tablets with both ratios I know which I prefer.
I'm not arguing it is superior, I saying there are no advantages of 16:9 over 4:3. If you believe there are, I assume you can tell me
For the same diagonal screen size measurement, a 16:9 screen will display a much larger image of a 16:9 or wider video than a 4:3 screen.
Most web sites and other software is now designed for 16:9 landscape laptops and monitors.
Printed books tend to be closer to 16:9 portrait than 4:3 portrait.
4:3 goes back to the days of early CRT televisions, when it was only possible to manufacture television tubes with round faces. Very early BBC television broadcasts were 5:4, even closer to square.
I've also been catching up on old Dr Who episodes and Trek on Netflix on iPad. These fill the screen nicely but imagine having to put up with the borders left and right on a 16:9 screen. Oh the horror... the horror
Comments
16:9 or 16:10 are far better aspect ratios for modern displays than the archaic 4:3 from the days of silent movies.
I fancy a 7" tablet to replace an original iPad, and I'm going for the iPad Mini.
As I already said, most are 16:10 so that ends up sounding a bit desperate. People can adapt though. As they do with watching those extra tall Netflix people in zoomed 4:3.
16:10 1080p HD in portrait is fantastic for the web. You scroll 3 times as less than with a cheap 4:3 screen.
That is bordering on one of the most desperate comments I've ever heard you make, and boy have you made some.:rolleyes:
The iPad mini has an excellent aspect ratio which allows you to browse the web, read documents and watch any aspect tv/movie that you wish. There is also nothing wrong with the aspect ratio of the nexus, but it provides zero advantage over the iPad.
It is interesting that you mention desktop, laptop, tv and movies. None of which are used or designed to be used in portrait, so how it can be claimed to be the best aspect ratio is nonsense.
In addition, movies are never produced in 16:9, so that is also not a suitable aspect ratio to use, so you are also after a compromise.
Yes, but it makes no difference. An iPad mini can still display a 16:9 screen, and because it has a slightly bigger screen that the nexus also displays it slightly bigger. I have nothing against 16:9 tablets if that is want people want, however, they provide no advantage.
Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Google, ebay, tumblr, reddit, digitalspy(!) .... anything presenting a list of items benefits from greater screen height.
Agreed, and in portrait I believe the nexus 7 and iPad mini are more or less the same size (with the iPad have the advantage of a wider screen)
DS has a front page?! I'm the same Jeff, no adblocking here.
I'm not arguing it is superior, I saying there are no advantages of 16:9 over 4:3. If you believe there are, I assume you can tell me
It's really no use me trying to explain to you the reasons as to why modern televisions, monitors and now tablets have overwhelmingly all opted to use a 16:9 ratio. Maybe when Apple eventually ditch 4:3 I'll explain!
TVs are used to watch video nearly all the time. Tablets are used for browsing, reading, games etc. which don't always suit a 16:9 screen.
Having used tablets with both ratios I know which I prefer.
Most web sites and other software is now designed for 16:9 landscape laptops and monitors.
Printed books tend to be closer to 16:9 portrait than 4:3 portrait.
4:3 goes back to the days of early CRT televisions, when it was only possible to manufacture television tubes with round faces. Very early BBC television broadcasts were 5:4, even closer to square.
Really? If you calculate the ratios:
4:3 = 1.33
A4 page = 1.41
16:9 = 1.78
So 4:3 is much closer to the proportions of a printed page.
This is quite the most ridiculous thing I've read on the interwebs. Well, today at least.
Exactly.
Precisely why the iPad screen is great for browsing through PDFs, which tend to be ISO 'A' proportioned.
Measure one and tell us the ratio then.
Your argument is flawed. Take any hardback, paperback except for those with obviously wacky proportions and work out the ratio.
It will always be 1.50 or thereabouts. Which is closer to 4:3 than 16:9.