|
||||||||
Which 7" tablet? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 656
|
Quote:
Standard paperbacks are narrower than A4.
It will always be 1.50 or thereabouts. Which is closer to 4:3 than 16:9. |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 14,285
|
Quote:
Measure one and tell us the ratio then.
![]() ( http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Standard_s...paperback_book ) The ratio is 1.618 (the Golden Ratio). |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 501
|
Quote:
Measure one and tell us the ratio then.
![]() It is 11cm wide by 17.5cm high. Which is a ratio of roughly 1.59. |
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 656
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
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 assume that some of the 8 inch tablets have been launch to try and counter that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
Quote:
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
1.29However 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,291
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
No disadvantages? Widescreen films don't even begin to fill the screen ... not necessarily a disadvantage, but damnably irritating.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: At college, in L.A.'s office
Posts: 54,216
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
Quote:
A widescreen film, will not fill the screen on either a 16:9 ....
However much will is produced towards 16:9 as a compromise. Bonanza looks great on the iPad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Western Scotland
Posts: 13,586
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Western Scotland
Posts: 13,586
|
Quote:
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wapping, London
Posts: 16,222
|
Quote:
Measure one and tell us the ratio then.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
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. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
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.
Anyhow, I notice that no disadvantages have been listed which is hardly surprising. |
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
Quote:
I forget that proper aspect ratios and anamorphic content is something that isn't that important to some!
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Western Scotland
Posts: 13,586
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wapping, London
Posts: 16,222
|
Quote:
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?
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: At college, in L.A.'s office
Posts: 54,216
|
How did my thread asking for advice on which tablet to buy end up as a discussion on screen aspect ratios?
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Western Scotland
Posts: 13,586
|
Quote:
How did my thread asking for advice on which tablet to buy end up as a discussion on screen aspect ratios?
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
how about an 8" 4:3 tablet vs 8" 16:9 tablet?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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: At college, in L.A.'s office
Posts: 54,216
|
Quote:
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!".
![]()
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:29.






1.29
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!
how about an 8" 4:3 tablet vs 8" 16:9 tablet?