• 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?
<<
<
3 of 4
>>
>
zapod
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by John259:
“Standard paperbacks are narrower than A4.”

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.
John259
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by Stig:
“Measure one and tell us the ratio then. ”

110 mm x 178mm
( http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Standard_s...paperback_book )
The ratio is 1.618 (the Golden Ratio).
spang
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by Stig:
“Measure one and tell us the ratio then. ”

I grabbed a random book off my shelf, which happened to be Misery by Stephen King. It's paperback and the same size as all my other books.

It is 11cm wide by 17.5cm high.

Which is a ratio of roughly 1.59.
kidspud
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!”

I'm not asking you to explain about tv and monitors. I'm talking about a device that works on portrait and landscape. Just give a simple list of advantages, surely that isn't difficult?
zapod
05-10-2013
Print magazines, a lot of which are digital, are closer to 4:3

For example, on my desk right now Wired 1.35; T3 1.27; WhatCar 1.38; Star Trek: The Official Starships Collection 1.29
kidspud
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by John259:
“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.”

The iPad and a nexus (for example) do not have the same diagonal measurement, I assume that is why apple chose 7.9 for the mini. That size allows it to have no disadvantages over the 7 inch tablet market that it was pitched against.

I assume that some of the 8 inch tablets have been launch to try and counter that.
alanwarwic
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by zapod:
“Print magazines, a lot of which are digital, are closer to 4:3For example, on my desk right now Wired 1.35; T3 1.27; WhatCar 1.38; Star Trek: The Official Starships Collection 1.29”

To get the original you need PressReader.

However most tabloids and paperbacks are near as dammit 16:10, the size tablets have gravitated to.
However readership is often minuscule compared to video streams.
clonmult
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“The iPad and a nexus (for example) do not have the same diagonal measurement, I assume that is why apple chose 7.9 for the mini. That size allows it to have no disadvantages over the 7 inch tablet market that it was pitched against.

I assume that some of the 8 inch tablets have been launch to try and counter that.”

No disadvantages? Widescreen films don't even begin to fill the screen ... not necessarily a disadvantage, but damnably irritating.
kidspud
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by clonmult:
“No disadvantages? Widescreen films don't even begin to fill the screen ... not necessarily a disadvantage, but damnably irritating.”

A widescreen film, will not fill the screen on either a 16:9 or 4:3 device. However if you are watching the same film on an iPad mini or a nexus 7 the picture will be the same size, well actually slightly bigger on the mini.

If by filling the screen, you mean it leaves borders, well I find that when I watch a movie, I tend to focus on the thing I'm watching rather than everything around it.
cnbcwatcher
05-10-2013
Was in PC World today and had a play with the Nexus 7. I really like it. It's really small and light and easy to carry around and I didn't have any problems with the screen for the few minutes I played with it. I don't think I'll bother with the iPad Mini. I know a Mac user like me should be drooling over iPads but I think different My dad also had a look at the Surface Pro and he really likes it so I think he's gonna buy it.
alanwarwic
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“A widescreen film, will not fill the screen on either a 16:9 ....”

Anything 'delivered' in cinescope will look even more desperate on 4:3.
However much will is produced towards 16:9 as a compromise.

Bonanza looks great on the iPad.
Voynich
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“A widescreen film, will not fill the screen on either a 16:9 or 4:3 device. However if you are watching the same film on an iPad mini or a nexus 7 the picture will be the same size, well actually slightly bigger on the mini.

If by filling the screen, you mean it leaves borders, well I find that when I watch a movie, I tend to focus on the thing I'm watching rather than everything around it.”

Well. We're not in the movie forum but in the tablet forum so I'm not going to go into the basics about aspect ratios and just say that as long as you're happy with a 4:3 display for movies and TV content then that's all that ultimately counts I suppose.
Voynich
05-10-2013
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Anything 'delivered' in cinescope will look even more desperate on 4:3.
However much will is produced towards 16:9 as a compromise.

Bonanza looks great on the iPad.
”

Come now. Every TV program up to mid/late 1990s is ideal. I forget that proper aspect ratios and anamorphic content is something that isn't that important to some!
paulbrock
06-10-2013
Originally Posted by Stig:
“Measure one and tell us the ratio then. ”

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2012-10/why-get-ipad-mini-over-ipad
kidspud
06-10-2013
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Anything 'delivered' in cinescope will look even more desperate on 4:3.
However much will is produced towards 16:9 as a compromise.

Bonanza looks great on the iPad.
”

Can you explain what you mean by desperate. For example, if I put the same film on the iPad mini and the nexus 7 will I see different films? Will one show more than the other?
kidspud
06-10-2013
Originally Posted by Voynich:
“Well. We're not in the movie forum but in the tablet forum so I'm not going to go into the basics about aspect ratios and just say that as long as you're happy with a 4:3 display for movies and TV content then that's all that ultimately counts I suppose.”

Your right, we are talking about a tablet format so I'm not sure why the starting point would be displays that are used in landscape when a tablet needs to be used in both.

Anyhow, I notice that no disadvantages have been listed which is hardly surprising.
alanwarwic
06-10-2013
Originally Posted by Voynich:
“I forget that proper aspect ratios and anamorphic content is something that isn't that important to some!”

I was stuck into reading that magazine.

Yes, I said prior with tablets that once you get into HD the benefit of 4:3 is erased.
So the 2012 Nexus 7 with minimum width of 800 pixels and that Tesco Hudl/Nook HD with 900 do not need 4:3.

And the iPhone jumped to 16:9(phone standard) when it went 4" size., though that was as much to keep width the down.
kidspud
06-10-2013
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“I was stuck into reading that magazine.

Yes, I said prior with tablets that once you get into HD the benefit of 4:3 is erased.
So the 2012 Nexus 7 with minimum width of 800 pixels and that Tesco Hudl/Nook HD with 900 do not need 4:3.

And the iPhone jumped to 16:9(phone standard) when it went 4" size., though that was as much to keep width the down.”

I'm not sure why you keep jumping around referring to (now) resolution. The number of pixels has nothing to do with the actual width of the screen on the device.

A simple example would be to look at the demos on YouTube of an iPad mini and nexus 7 side by side. It shows web browsing, movies, home pages. I can see no disadvantage of the mini over the nexus 7.

I'll state again, I like the nexus but I spent several hours with both before I chose the iPad mini and screen real estate was one of the deciding factors.
Voynich
06-10-2013
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“I was stuck into reading that magazine.

Yes, I said prior with tablets that once you get into HD the benefit of 4:3 is erased.
So the 2012 Nexus 7 with minimum width of 800 pixels and that Tesco Hudl/Nook HD with 900 do not need 4:3.

And the iPhone jumped to 16:9(phone standard) when it went 4" size., though that was as much to keep width the down.”

This idea that movies and video are better suited to 4:3 displays has nothing to do with how it looks or technical details like the aspect ratio of modern content and everything to do with the fact it's Apple. I've only ever encountered that 4:3 argument from Apple fans and only after the iPad was released! Of course with web browsing and reading it's just a matter of personal preference as there are no real advantages or disadvantages.
kidspud
06-10-2013
Originally Posted by Voynich:
“This idea that movies and video are better suited to 4:3 displays has nothing to do with how it looks or technical details like the aspect ratio of modern content and everything to do with the fact it's Apple. I've only ever encountered that 4:3 argument from Apple fans and only after the iPad was released! Of course with web browsing and reading it's just a matter of personal preference as there are no real advantages or disadvantages.”

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. I am not suggesting that watching tv or movies at a 4:3 ratio is a good idea, and I never do it.

However, a 16:9 tv show looks no different on an iPad mini than it does on a nexus 7.

There appears to be no disadvantage under any circumstance.
paulbrock
06-10-2013
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“
However, a 16:9 tv show looks no different on an iPad mini than it does on a nexus 7.”

how about an 8" 4:3 tablet vs 8" 16:9 tablet?
cnbcwatcher
06-10-2013
How did my thread asking for advice on which tablet to buy end up as a discussion on screen aspect ratios?
Voynich
06-10-2013
Originally Posted by cnbcwatcher:
“How did my thread asking for advice on which tablet to buy end up as a discussion on screen aspect ratios? ”

That's easy! Since almost all android and windows tablets are 16:9, it's just a way of saying "buy Apple, it's the best!".
kidspud
06-10-2013
Originally Posted by paulbrock:
“ how about an 8" 4:3 tablet vs 8" 16:9 tablet?”

Yes, you would then get a bigger picture.

I already said in an earlier post, I expect that is why apple chose the screen size they did and why you are seeing 8" 16:9 tablets now.

The iPad mini was released to compete with the nexus 7 size tablets.

That still doesn't give any disadvantage to the 4:3 screen on the mini, assuming we accept the nexus is a useable size screen.

The trade off is the iPad is slightly bigger, but it has helped that they have made the bezel narrow.
cnbcwatcher
06-10-2013
Originally Posted by Voynich:
“That's easy! Since almost all android and windows tablets are 16:9, it's just a way of saying "buy Apple, it's the best!".”

So it's a way to trick me into buying an iPad Mini, even though I'm leaning more towards the Nexus 7 and even more so since playing with it in PC World yesterday?
<<
<
3 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