• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • Tablets and e-Readers
Which 7" tablet?
<<
<
2 of 4
>>
>
Jack_Duncan
04-10-2013
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“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.”

I have to disagree with you here. The 4:3 ratio is much better in portrait than 16:9. The only benefit of 16:9 is for watching videos, which is why Apple stuck with 4:3. The 4:3 iPad 4 is 2048x1536 pixels, which really pushed modern screen resolutions into the future. If it wasn't for Apple I doubt we would have made it past 1080p.

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.
IanP
05-10-2013
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.
Stig
05-10-2013
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.
alanwarwic
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by Jack_Duncan:
“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.
kidspud
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“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.

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.
kidspud
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by IanP:
“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.
John259
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“In addition, movies are never produced in 16:9”

But they're a lot closer to 16:9 than 4:3, and all modern television is 16:9.
kidspud
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by John259:
“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.
paulbrock
05-10-2013
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.
Stig
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by paulbrock:
“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.”

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.
kidspud
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by paulbrock:
“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.”

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)
JeffG1
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by Stig:
“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.”

Why would you go to the front page anyway? My bookmark is set to take me straight to the forums.
paulbrock
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by Stig:
“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.”

Originally Posted by JeffG1:
“Why would you go to the front page anyway? My bookmark is set to take me straight to the forums.”

DS has a front page?! I'm the same Jeff, no adblocking here.
Voynich
05-10-2013
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.
shadowassassin
05-10-2013
Nexus 7.2. Simply the best tablet display EVER :P
kidspud
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by Voynich:
“ 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
Voynich
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“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!
Stig
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by Voynich:
“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.
John259
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“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.
Stig
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by John259:
“
Printed books tend to be closer to 16:9 portrait than 4:3 portrait.”

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.
zapod
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“16:10 1080p HD in portrait is fantastic for the web. You scroll 3 times as less than with a cheap 4:3 screen.”

This is quite the most ridiculous thing I've read on the interwebs. Well, today at least.
zapod
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by Stig:
“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.”

Exactly.

Precisely why the iPad screen is great for browsing through PDFs, which tend to be ISO 'A' proportioned.
John259
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by Stig:
“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.”

Standard paperbacks are narrower than A4.
zapod
05-10-2013
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
Stig
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by John259:
“Standard paperbacks are narrower than A4.”

Measure one and tell us the ratio then.
<<
<
2 of 4
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map