|
||||||||
Which 7" tablet? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 391
|
Quote:
Most are now 16:10 which in higher resolution are great for both landscape and portrait mode.
4:3 is a throwback to low resolution screens. VGA was 640x 480 4:3 and when computers took off SVGA 800x600 was prevalent until we got xga 1024x768 4:3. Everything 4:3 pretty much stopped there and we moved to widescreen usually keeping that same 768 height until 1080p arrived. Wait for the Retina iPad Mini and A7X CPU, it will blow all the other 7" tablets out of the water. The new Nexus 7 looks good on paper, but it does suffer from a pretty unresponsive screen and slightly dodgy wifi, but overall it's the best buy if you are on a budget. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,438
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sandy Heath, Beds. UK
Posts: 10,379
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
Quote:
I have to disagree with you here. The 4:3 ratio is much better in portrait than 16:9.
16:10 1080p HD in portrait is fantastic for the web. You scroll 3 times as less than with a cheap 4:3 screen. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 14,285
|
Quote:
In addition, movies are never produced in 16:9
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
But they're a lot closer to 16:9 than 4:3, and all modern television is 16:9.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wapping, London
Posts: 16,222
|
some of the most popular websites (or related apps) in the world work better in portrait mode.
Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Google, ebay, tumblr, reddit, digitalspy(!) .... anything presenting a list of items benefits from greater screen height. |
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sandy Heath, Beds. UK
Posts: 10,379
|
Quote:
some of the most popular websites (or related apps) in the world work better in portrait mode.
Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Google, ebay, tumblr, reddit, digitalspy(!) .... anything presenting a list of items benefits from greater screen height. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
some of the most popular websites (or related apps) in the world work better in portrait mode.
Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Google, ebay, tumblr, reddit, digitalspy(!) .... anything presenting a list of items benefits from greater screen height. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Newbury
Posts: 6,749
|
Quote:
You must block ads then, because the front page of Digital Spy in portrait mode is unusable due to the stupid ads down the sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wapping, London
Posts: 16,222
|
Quote:
You must block ads then, because the front page of Digital Spy in portrait mode is unusable due to the stupid ads down the sides.
Quote:
Why would you go to the front page anyway? My bookmark is set to take me straight to the forums.
I'm the same Jeff, no adblocking here.
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Western Scotland
Posts: 13,586
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,760
|
Nexus 7.2. Simply the best tablet display EVER :P
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Western Scotland
Posts: 13,586
|
Quote:
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sandy Heath, Beds. UK
Posts: 10,379
|
Quote:
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!
Having used tablets with both ratios I know which I prefer. |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 14,285
|
Quote:
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
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sandy Heath, Beds. UK
Posts: 10,379
|
Quote:
Printed books tend to be closer to 16:9 portrait than 4:3 portrait. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 656
|
Quote:
16:10 1080p HD in portrait is fantastic for the web. You scroll 3 times as less than with a cheap 4:3 screen.
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 656
|
Quote:
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. Precisely why the iPad screen is great for browsing through PDFs, which tend to be ISO 'A' proportioned. |
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 14,285
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 656
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sandy Heath, Beds. UK
Posts: 10,379
|
Quote:
Standard paperbacks are narrower than A4.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:29.





I'm the same Jeff, no adblocking here.
but imagine having to put up with the borders left and right on a 16:9 screen. Oh the horror... the horror