Originally Posted by onlysublime
people spent a lot of money getting rid of all their 4:3 displays in favor of 16:9 displays. kind of weird that apple fans are towing the company line toward 4:3 displays.
I like 16:9 because it's better for reading. whether it's a comic book:http://www.avsforum.com/content/type/61/id/96030/width/500/height/1000
or whether it's reading important stuff:http://www.avsforum.com/content/type/61/id/96033/width/500/height/1000
and of course, it's better for video.
you should check out some of the new windows 8 machines out there like the Samsung which does have the stylus pen. As Windows 7 PCs get sold out of the channel and the channel gets stuffed with Windows 8 models, things will start getting really excited. There are a lot of upcoming Windows 8 machines that look really slick.
I'm thinking Windows 8 will definitely win out over Windows RT, at least in the short term. Maybe in 5 years, things will be more toward RT. But not until the marketplace is big enough that people can give up their traditional Windows software.
The reason Apple are using 4:3 displays for their tablets, is because it's a much more comfortable aspect ratio to hold in either the landscape or portrait orientation.
16:9 or 16:10 devices are very top-heavy when used in the portrait orientation, which is why there's been a trend of those devices shrinking to the smaller 7" size, rather than the full 10" size tablets.
"Full size" 16:9 or 16:10 tablets like the Surface or ASUS' Transformer series are really only made to be used in the landscape orientation, because they're uncomfortable to hold for long periods of time in portrait.
Because there is a limit on the size of the devices based on what's actually portable, the 4:3 aspect ratio actually gives you a lot more screen space, as you get extra width for the same height. The 7.9" iPad mini is just as portable as 7" Android devices because it's the same height, but has 35% more screen area, because it's got that extra width.
I don't read comics, but 4:3 is also a lot closer to the aspect ratio of traditional books, magazines and printed documents than 16:9 or 16:10 is.
4:3 is right in-between the US Letter and A4 Paper aspect ratios, whereas 16:9 or 16:10 are considerably taller.
16:9 in green.
4:3 in blue.
Paper sizes in red. (US letter is smaller)
If you were to scale based on height, rather than width, the 16:9 tablet would be a much smaller device than a 4:3 one. (which is how things are with the 7" tablets at least)
About the only thing 16:9 or 16:10 is useful for, is watching TV content. Films are 2.37:1 so they will be letterboxed no matter if you are watching on a 16:9 or 4:3 tablet.
Maybe it's just been a coincidence, but it actually seems that I'm encountering 4:3 video on my iPad more than 16:9 or 2.37:1 content. For the same width of tablet, 16:9 or 2.37:1 content is going to be the same size whether it's displayed on a 16:9 or 4:3 device, but 4:3 content will be a lot larger on the 4:3 device.
Honestly, having black bars, or the size of them, has never bothered me. I would be happy if televisions had stayed 4:3, especially now that black levels are starting to get better.
And personally, I think it was a mistake for Apple to switch the iPhone from its 3:2 aspect ratio to 16:9. Now the phone is too tall to use one-handed, just like Android devices, even though it "only" has a 4" screen compared to 5" or more.
One of the great things about the old screen is that 3:2 is the same aspect ratio the majority of cameras use. The 3.5" 3:2 aspect ratio screen had a lot of research and thought put into it. The 16:9 one feels like they just gave up and decided to conform with what everyone else was doing. I'm never going to be watching films or other long videos on my phone, why should I care if its aspect ratio is better for that?