Would rather have the black bars than the hardware trying to "stretch" the image to fill the screen like some LCD TV's.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do black bars bother you (movies)?
- Thread starter bubulol
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm against the grain on this point, in an Apple forum, but I prefer 16:9 aspect ratio for everything. 16:9 was literally invented to most efficiently contain all other aspect ratios. It's a big selling point of the Plus iPhone models, to me.
I've had 16:9 tablets (Nexus), and I never thought I wish this were a half inch wider in portrait (or whatever the actual difference is with 4:3, but it's minuscule).
I currently own a 16:10 tablet aswell, i have no complaint about tablet itself (Xperia Z3 Tablet), battery life is impressive (according GSMArena test, 13 hours of Full HD video and 18 of web browsing, i think it has better battery life than any iPad), light (270 gr), powerful and fast
Now i have some downsides:
- Web browsing isnt a pleasure, i know some users who prefer to use iPad instead of computer for web browsing content.
I dont, i got more comfort when i am web browsing on computer not because of bigger screen, because of ergonomic
There is something wrong with 16:10 tablet for web browsing purpose, its not pleasant at all
- Apps on android and android itself seem to be less optimized (in the other hands, my iPhone doesnt have any bug issues)
For multimedia purpose, i have no complaint, now i feel like my tablet is only good for that, not other task
Do you advice to switch on iPad even though its for watching movies?
Now i have some downsides:
- Web browsing isnt a pleasure, i know some users who prefer to use iPad instead of computer for web browsing content.
I dont, i got more comfort when i am web browsing on computer not because of bigger screen, because of ergonomic
There is something wrong with 16:10 tablet for web browsing purpose, its not pleasant at all
- Apps on android and android itself seem to be less optimized (in the other hands, my iPhone doesnt have any bug issues)
For multimedia purpose, i have no complaint, now i feel like my tablet is only good for that, not other task
Do you advice to switch on iPad even though its for watching movies?
So I'm not the only one.
The iPad's aspect ratio is fine, but I don't find it superior over a 16:9/10 tablet.
If your primary purpose is to watch movies, don't get an iPad. Use the best tool for the job. 16:9 or 16:10 displays are far superior for that use case. I'm pretty sure that's why Apple made their iPhones 16:9 in the end, rather than sticking with the original 4:3 on the iPhone 4 - people love watching movies on their phones while commuting on public transportation.
I doubt that's the main reason for going 16:9 on the iPhone. No mater how long a person's commute is, it is still not the majority of your day, and not the majority of the time you interact with your phone. And for every person who likes to watch movies during their commute, there is at least another who prefers reading ebooks or news articles. I think the 16:9 ratio for phones is to get more screen space while keeping it narrow enough to fit in clothing pockets, and also narrow enough to hold comfortably up to your ear for phone calls.
The iPhone's display pre-iPhone 5 was 3:2 which is still taller than the iPad's aspect ratio.
Well, in Singapore, most people commute via the local MRT "rail" or on buses. The vast majority of the time, people would be watching TV rather than reading books or news. I'm fairly certain this is the pattern for most Asian countries / public transit commuters - not conclusive, but I would not be surprised if appeal to this market was a major reason for the transition to a 16:9 ratio.
In addition, Apple eventually increased the overall screen width with the 4.7" model anyway, so "keeping it narrow" wasn't really an objective they carried through. Even if the objective was to "keep it narrow", why specifically pick 16:9 and not, say, 2:1 at the same width? I'm pretty sure the primary motivation was to match what was rapidly becoming an industry norm - smartphones that would play most movies in the correct aspect ratio without letterboxing.
Yes my mistake - I glanced at 480 x 320 and it looked like 4:3 to me. 3:2 would still letterbox 16:9 however - it's simply more pleasant to watch video on a screen that matches the aspect ratio - which is very likely the driving factor for a form factor shift to 16:9.
Last edited:
This is actually a very interesting point for discussion. In Singapore (and probably other Asian cities), before the iPad, "media players" were a big thing, mostly 16:9 or 16:10 ratio devices that people loved to use while commuting. When the iPad came around, there was also a surge of similar 16:9 Android tablets following the previous media player trend.
Watching video is such a big thing that Asian markets were really into the larger Note smartphones that Samsung popularized during the iPhone's heyday - it was a big draw because watching videos is inherently nicer with the right aspect ratio and a larger screen.
The end result is that there was a general drift from tablets (post-iPad 1/2 launch) back towards large-screen smartphones, because commutes, especially in cities, usually means a high chance of standing, where a smaller device is generally preferred in limited space.
Interestingly, this also made the more compact Android tablets also more useful for this specific use case - 16:9 7" devices and smaller were considerably easier to use in confined spaces as opposed to even the iPad mini. It's a reason why Sony's Xperia Z Ultra, a 6.4" phone, was able to gain traction for a wile.
Keep in mind, the decision to switch to 16:9 came with the 4" iPhone 5. Apple kept the same width, they just increased the height. The 16:9 aspect ratio is already an industry standard so no doubt that's the reason Apple decided to use the it for their new iPhone.
Doing the calculations, the 4.7" iPhone 6 display measures roughly around 2.3" x 4.1". If you wanted the same width as iP6 but in a 3:2 aspect ratio, then you'd get a display that's just 4.1" diagonal (2.3" x 3.4"). The 4" iPhone 5 display measures roughly 2" x 3.5" so you'd just be getting a phone that's roughly the height of the iPhone 5, just a bit wider.
Why continue using 16:9 when Apple went with bigger phones? New and updated iPhone apps are already being designed for that aspect ratio and given dynamic layout isn't prevalent in iOS apps, it just makes sense for Apple to stick to 16:9 for the bigger phone models. That way, they can just zoom in apps that haven't yet been updated for bigger displays without any letterboxing or pillarboxing.
Mind you, 2:1 is even wider (in landscape) than 16:9 (1.78:1).
2.35:1 - 21:9 (widescreen cinema)
1.78:1 - 16:9 (widescreen TV standard)
1.60:1 - 16:10 (older PC monitors, some Android tablets)
1.50:1 - 3:2 (older smartphones)
1.33:1 - 4:3 (iPad, traditional TV and monitor standard)
American comic books are roughly around 1.55:1 so 16:10 or 3:2 is actually pretty darned close to perfect for reading those in portrait.
Another thing to consider, most folks probably use their phones in portrait. When typing, etc, a "taller" display is of benefit so you see more of the screen without the keyboard blocking your view.
The 10" class or bigger tablets, I reckon, get used more often in landscape. If one does not have a physical keyboard, the software keyboard on a 10.1" 16:10 or 16:9 tablet blocks more of the view than the software keyboard on a 9.7" 4:3 tablet. I've owned a number of tablets and at 7-8" (e.g. Nexus 7), I find 16:10 or 16:9 quite comfortable. At 10" though, to me, the tablets start to feel off-balanced and not ideal unless all one does is watch widescreen videos in landscape and read comics in portrait.
That is very interesting, but still, how long is the longest commute? Can it be longer than 2 hours each way? I'd guess the average commute is less than that. 3-4 hours per day still leaves the majority of the day where you are using your phone for activities other than watching movies.
Correct me if i m wrong
Black bars at the end, i might be used to barely notice them, its like watching movies on cinema, black bars tend to bring immersion
Now the lack of lost display space would be less problematic than it actually does because smaller image size means better density pixel, movies would appear sharper on the iPad screen right?
Black bars at the end, i might be used to barely notice them, its like watching movies on cinema, black bars tend to bring immersion
Now the lack of lost display space would be less problematic than it actually does because smaller image size means better density pixel, movies would appear sharper on the iPad screen right?
The commutes aren't that long, typically around half an hour to an hour. However, before social media became a big thing on mobile, watching movies / TV shows was a critical way of passing the time on an otherwise tedious commute (I've done it many times, it's pretty depressing when it gets crowded, which it often does).
The popularity of doing this made it become a more critical feature than the "majority of the day" where you'd be actually doing something at work rather than fiddling with your phone. Again, this was before the ubiquity of social media on mobile, although there really is little reason to move away from 16:9 since there is a "standard format" for screen sizes of social media apps.
Maybe things were different in Singapore, but I can't remember a time when there were smartphones but no social media. Maybe when people had Blackberrys? But those screens were so tiny, I would never have attempted to watch any movies or tv on that.
All good points. I don't disagree sticking with 16:9, especially since it is an industry standard. It makes sense to kill 2 birds with one stone - switching to an industry standard while maintaining the same width ergonomics-wise, and increasing available screen space.
I had originally figured that the 16:9 decision was motivated more by making it an industry standard at which videos are played with, with the larger area @ the same width as being a secondary advantage as the outcome, since it seemed a major selling point (no unwasted space during video playback) for existing competing smartphones at the time.
However, now that I look at the math more closely, I think I'm wrong. Apparently a 16:9 phone only gains a 10% advantage over a 3:2 phone due to letterboxing for the 16:9 video.
Agreed. I appreciate your detailed analysis, thanks for the insight.
[doublepost=1471639048][/doublepost]
Not so much no social media - but it was mostly SMS / Whatsapp. FB and other apps on mobile weren't really a big thing yet. Video was generally more engaging. IMO it still is, but you can "zombie out" more easily with FB, Instagram, Snapchat , Youtube etc. nowadays with better processors / apps / bandwidth etc.
I use all tablets in portrait except to type. If I need to type a long message on my iPad Air 2, I switch it to landscape, type on it like a regular keyboard, then switch it back to portrait. If I'm typing and browsing back and forth, then I'll stick to landscape. Otherwise, I use my iPad almost exclusively in portrait.
I think this is very much dependent on the size of the device you're using. Phones are naturally easy to use one handed, so portrait is the preferred mode. This generally follows up to the iPad mini, which is very usable as a portrait device, even one handed, although you still often need another hand when typing / tapping.
The normal iPad is a bit of a mix, but the 13" iPad Pro in particular is pretty unwieldy in portrait.
That's actually another thing I forgot to mention in my earlier post. I find the more squarish form factor of the iPad lends itself well to switching back and forth between portrait and landscape. With a 10.1" 16:10 Android tablet (got an Asus Transformer TF700), it's too narrow in portrait and actually quite difficult to balance. While in landscape, it's too short and you've got the keyboard blocking more than half the display when typing.
It's not any more narrow than a 4:3 tablet with the same width. You just get more on the screen at a time, so less scrolling.
In landscape, if there's enough room left over to see what I'm typing, that's all I need. I don't use tablets in landscape except to type so that doesn't bother me and I actually prefer 16:10 screens for portrait web browsing.
I also have the TF700T and have rarely used it in portrait mode - my preference was landscape with it. But I also had the clamshell keyboard case for when I had much typing to do. If the performance wasn't so poor - even with the many different custom ROMs I tried - it would be a great tablet. But the Air 2 - my first Apple product - blows it away. It didn't take me long to get used to the different display aspect ratio and majority of use in portrait mode.
Lol, the TF700T pretty much ended up being a dedicated video player for watching in bed. Also have the clamshell keyboard but it adds to the weight and honestly, it felt like it defeated the purpose of using a tablet.
Funnily enough, I had an iPad 3 at the same time and as maligned as the iPad 3 was, even that was better than the TF700T. Really, the only Android tablet I actually liked was the Nexus 7 (2013). Too bad it had limited storage and no microSD slot. My main gripe with Android tablets is manufacturer skins tend to ruin the experience. The Nexus tablets are nice but then you get the issue of limited storage expansion similar to iPads.
Yep, I have the 2012 and 2013 Nexus 7 and agree with your comments. The TF700T does make a nice video player - a good screen and I like the USB port in the clamshell case for plugging in a small HDD with videos on it.