Tablets 16:9 tablets any good?

[cynics]

Again, at a given resolution and size, the 4:3 will still have more pixels available, so you will see the exact same thing as on a 16:9 monitor. What's happened is that the tv industry is so large that 16:9 screens are much cheaper than alternative sizes. On a tv, which is dedicated to use that is almost entirely 16:9 that makes sense. On a computer, where most content is not 16:9 it is being done because it is cheaper for the manufacturers, not because it is better for consumers.

Things looks the same on my iPad 2 as they do on my iPad 3 despite the resolution. Things are crisper on the iPad 3 however.

What use is more content if its in unused places of a game or in black bars of a movie?

 

[zhenya]

Things looks the same on my iPad 2 as they do on my iPad 3 despite the resolution. Things are crisper on the iPad 3 however.

What use is more content if its in unused places of a game or in black bars of a movie?

That's a matter of how Apple has chosen to architect things. The iPad defines content elements by points rather than pixels. All iPads use 1024x768 point displays. Some are mapped with a 1:1 pixel to point ratio, some use a 4:1 ratio using the extra pixels for extra sharpness rather than extra real estate.

The black bars are there, yes, but the size of the content displayed would be the same. I would wager it is not the norm in computers or tablets that most people use them for movies most of the time.

 

[cynics]

That's a matter of how Apple has chosen to architect things. The iPad defines content elements by points rather than pixels. All iPads use 1024x768 point displays. Some are mapped with a 1:1 pixel to point ratio, some use a 4:1 ratio using the extra pixels for extra sharpness rather than extra real estate.

The black bars are there, yes, but the size of the content displayed would be the same. I would wager it is not the norm in computers or tablets that most people use them for movies most of the time.

You are probably right as far as usage. However its not like browsing the web is bad. It's no different then my PC or MacBook Pro. I think most people wouldn't fault either in regards to web browsing.

Just like FPS games and movies aren't bad on the iPad.

I actually think 4:3 was great on the iPhone. For a phone I like a little wider, no one is going that route though.

 

[Samtb]

What's 16:10 like? Is that like in between 4:3 and 16:9?

 

[zhenya]

What's 16:10 like? Is that like in between 4:3 and 16:9?

Exactly, although closer to 16:9 than 4:3.

In familiar resolutions, 1920x1080 is 16:9 while 1920x1200 is 16:10. 4:3 would be 1920x1440.

 

[cynics]

What's 16:10 like? Is that like in between 4:3 and 16:9?

Yeah, it's not a huge difference but enough to notice. In portrait it's not very good. But it's not like you are looking through a little slit or something. Imagine an iPhone 5 but a little wider in portrait.

Resolution of N10 is 2560x1600 whereas my iPad 3 is 2048x1536

 

[TheMTtakeover]

Again, at a given resolution and size, the 4:3 will still have more pixels available, so you will see the exact same thing as on a 16:9 monitor. What's happened is that the tv industry is so large that 16:9 screens are much cheaper than alternative sizes. On a tv, which is dedicated to use that is almost entirely 16:9 that makes sense. On a computer, where most content is not 16:9 it is being done because it is cheaper for the manufacturers, not because it is better for consumers.

Serious question: why is it cheaper for them to produce 16:9 than 4:3?

 

[zhenya]

Serious question: why is it cheaper for them to produce 16:9 than 4:3?

As far as I know it's because the production lines are set up for producing 16:9 sizes; 4:3 is effectively custom unless you are as large as Apple where you can use an entire factory's production.

It hasn't hurt that 'widescreen' and 'full HD' have become buzzwords that can be used to differentiate a mature product line (laptops) and help to prop up sales.

 

[SeanR1]

As far as I know it's because the production lines are set up for producing 16:9 sizes; 4:3 is effectively custom unless you are as large as Apple where you can use an entire factory's production.

It hasn't hurt that 'widescreen' and 'full HD' have become buzzwords that can be used to differentiate a mature product line (laptops) and help to prop up sales.

Kind of like the buzzword "retina"

 

[zhenya]

Kind of like the buzzword "retina"

Eh, except Retina was an obvious improvement. Looked at an iPhone 3G or non-retina iPad lately?

 

[Liquorpuki]

Being able to dock and use multiple apps at once on Windows 8.

This is what I was thinking too. That extra space is useful when you're running two apps side by side

In portrait mode that extra space is also useful when you're taking notes w/ a stylus

 

[zhenya]

This is what I was thinking too. That extra space is useful when you're running two apps side by side

In portrait mode that extra space is also useful when you're taking notes w/ a stylus

I have a surface pro. the fact that it is so narrow makes note taking in portrait a poor experience.

there is no reason you can't keep the width while also adding height.

 

[cynics]

Eh, except Retina was an obvious improvement. Looked at an iPhone 3G or non-retina iPad lately?

I'd hardly call "Full HD" more of a buzzword then the proprietary trademark of "retina".

Now if you have a higher PPI then retina Apple has trained people its overkill. When in fact you can see better quality on newer HTC devices at normal viewing distances side by side.

 

[zhenya]

I'd hardly call "Full HD" more of a buzzword then the proprietary trademark of "retina".

Now if you have a higher PPI then retina Apple has trained people its overkill. When in fact you can see better quality on newer HTC devices at normal viewing distances side by side.

The point was that with a buzz-word like 'full-hd' they were intentionally obfuscating the fact that they were selling you less for more. Full HD 1920x1080 screens by and large replaced the previously more common 1920x1200 screens.

Same at lower level where we went from 1680x1050 screens to 1600x900.

 

[cynics]

The point was that with a buzz-word like 'full-hd' they were intentionally obfuscating the fact that they were selling you less for more. Full HD 1920x1080 screens by and large replaced the previously more common 1920x1200 screens.

Same at lower level where we went from 1680x1050 screens to 1600x900.

What screens were 1920x1200 that are now 1080?

I've had HDTV's since a 720p HD came in a 4:3 aspect ratio (CRT TV), still have one actually.

My phones and tablets have maintained the same aspect with increase resolutions in all dimensions.

I'm not too familiar with computer monitors though. I went from 4:3 like SVGA (lol) to 16:9 that I don't know the resolution off the top of my head.

 

[zhenya]

What screens were 1920x1200 that are now 1080?

I've had HDTV's since a 720p HD came in a 4:3 aspect ratio (CRT TV), still have one actually.

My phones and tablets have maintained the same aspect with increase resolutions in all dimensions.

I'm not too familiar with computer monitors though. I went from 4:3 like SVGA (lol) to 16:9 that I don't know the resolution off the top of my head.

Prior to the takeover of 16:9 screens, 16:10 was the first move away from 4:3.

My 24" iMac, for example, is 1920x1200. The current 21.5" model is 1920x1080. We have Thinkpads in the office where the old ones are 1680x1050 while the new ones are the 'improved' 1600x900.

Even a few years ago it was not hard to find 16:10 screens; today it is a much more limited market, and those that are available are expensive.

 

[Abazigal]

Are the black bars really that distracting? I have never really found them to be of any issue.

 

[cynics]

Are the black bars really that distracting? I have never really found them to be of any issue.

Not really once you get used to it. But compare them to the black bars on my N10.

You'll be surprised with how much bigger the video is.

----------

Here is a easy to see example of 4:3 compared to 16:9 in gaming.

Angry birds space

4:3

16:9

You can clearly see which has the clear advantage. And most games at like this. You will do better if you can see what you are doing. Typically games that don't benefit from more horizontal length are games you don't need it too like words with friends or sudoku etc etc.

First person shooters are no contest. 4:3 is like having blinders on.

Edit, That's iPhone 4S compared to a Nexus 10. I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. I'm not around my iPad but if someone has angry birds space and can post a screen shot of lvl 1-1 that would be helpful...

Edit edit. I'm finding it to be a moot point in angry birds because you can zoom in and out...and the aspect ratio is different but for the worse (for the iPad) in this example anyway.

 

[Liquorpuki]

I have a surface pro. the fact that it is so narrow makes note taking in portrait a poor experience.

there is no reason you can't keep the width while also adding height.

For me it's replaced the 6x9 notepads I used to carry around

Though I guess if you're used to writing all the way to the margins I can see why that would be an issue

 

[Sedrick]

16:9 screens suck for browsing.

For almost everything in fact.

I agree, and I also I wonder why everyone (fanboys at least) thinks it's such a genius move to make the tiny iPhone 5 16:9? I much prefer the aspect ratio of the iPad and the 3.5" iPhone. That's the main reason I won't go near the iPhone 5.

 

[sentinelsx]

That's a matter of how Apple has chosen to architect things. The iPad defines content elements by points rather than pixels. All iPads use 1024x768 point displays. Some are mapped with a 1:1 pixel to point ratio, some use a 4:1 ratio using the extra pixels for extra sharpness rather than extra real estate.

The black bars are there, yes, but the size of the content displayed would be the same. I would wager it is not the norm in computers or tablets that most people use them for movies most of the time.

And yet i see tons of people watching movies on iPads/Android tablets and laptops. I bet 50% of the class when i was in university was busy watching a movie on their laptops in a boring lecture.

A portable movie player is pretty tempting thing.

 

[cynics]

I agree, and I also I wonder why everyone (fanboys at least) thinks it's such a genius move to make the tiny iPhone 5 16:9? I much prefer the aspect ratio of the iPad and the 3.5" iPhone. That's the main reason I won't go near the iPhone 5.

Shhhhhhh!

We aren't talking about the iPhone 5 here. That 16:9 is perfect for browsing. We are Android 16:9 which is terrible.

 

[SeanR1]

Shhhhhhh!

We aren't talking about the iPhone 5 here. That 16:9 is perfect for browsing. We are Android 16:9 which is terrible.

lol, exactly.

 

[hyteckit]

Here is a easy to see example of 4:3 compared to 16:9 in gaming.

Angry birds space

4:3

16:9

You can clearly see which has the clear advantage. And most games at like this. You will do better if you can see what you are doing. Typically games that don't benefit from more horizontal length are games you don't need it too like words with friends or sudoku etc etc.

Depends on what screen ratio the game is optimize for. If it's optimize for 4:3 ratio, then the 4:3 ratio is better. I'm assuming most iOS games are optimize for the iPad screen or iPhone screen before the iPhone 5.

First person shooters are no contest. 4:3 is like having blinders on.

Yes, I do watching movies and playing First person shooters in 16:9.

However, that's not the main use of the tablet for me. I use it mainly for web browsing, checking mails, reading PDFs/eBooks, and so forth.

 

[cynics]

Depends on what screen ratio the game is optimize for. If it's optimize for 4:3 ratio, then the 4:3 ratio is better. I'm assuming most iOS games are optimize for the iPad screen or iPhone screen before the iPhone 5.



Yes, I do watching movies and playing First person shooters in 16:9.

However, that's not the main use of the tablet for me. I use it mainly for web browsing, checking mails, reading PDFs/eBooks, and so forth.

Well YOUR (our) use is obviously the most important thing to consider.

iPad is far superior for PDF's when viewing. Ironically the main reason I ever bought an android device is so I could email multiple PDF files in a single email which iOS can't (won't) do.

I use PDF files at work quite a bit and on occasion contain a schematic I'll need to look at. It can be VERY annoying on 16:9 if the schematic is large because I'll need to zoom in to see it but also need to keep the entire thing on the screen to avoid confusion of tracing a wire while side scrolling.