Why aren't iMacs 16:10?

[lixuelai]

It was an extreme example, to make the point. You can always opt for extreme squinting and/or magnifying glasses, or for heavy pixelation by finagling UI / font size at a lower resolution. The resolution doesn't tell you if the screen shape and size is meeting your needs for single-tasking, multi-tasking, etc.

Personally I find that 16:10 is better a single-tasking, and 16:9 is better at multi-tasking, simply because I like the shapes of the 2 maximized side-by-side windows better, and I'm a little finicky about not showing the desktop when I'm doing something.

I am not saying you are wrong, all I am saying is whoever you quoted is not wrong either.

 

[Thunderbird]

As I said. 16:9 is a wider aspect ratio than 16:10.
Thats obvious because the proportional length in 16:9 is longer in 16:9 than 16:10.

I'm not disagreeing with you. The ratio is wider.

16:10 is a higher aspect ratio than 16:9.
Thats obvious because the proportional height in 16:10 is longer in 16:10 than 16:9.

Agreed

You cant claim that one aspect ratio is bigger than another because they simply cant.

Where did I claim this?

You cant claim that one aspect ratio has more pixels than another because they simply cant.

Where did I claim this?

Aspect ratio is just a ratio, the proportional relationship between the length and height. And thats only. Nothing else.

Agreed.

If you compare the size or the amount of pixels between a 24" 1920x1080 16:9 monitor and a 24" 1920x1200 16:10 you dont compare the aspect ratios; you compare those specific screens.

No, you compare both, if you are someone who likes more vertical space or perfers one ratio to another.

You need to do some math or apply some geometry...

1) Screen real estate is obviously not the same when 1 format (16:10) has 120 vertical pixels in your example while having the same # of horizontal pixels.

Agreed. I know that, but I meant to say horizontal GUI real estate (apologies for not stating this in my post)

2) Between 2 rectangles of same diagonal length, the one that is closer to a square (16:10 in this case) will have larger surface area and therefore be "larger". You can multiply the numbers if you doubt this.

Agreed.

 

[Napelm]

Actually it is the only logical way to compare them.

The only logical way to compare them is the shape of the rectangle cause thats the only thing aspect ratio is about.

If you cant handle abstract thinking thats your problem.

----------

No, you compare both, if you are someone who likes more vertical space or perfers one ratio to another.

Depends on what you mean.

16:10 offer relatively more vertical space.
16:9 offer relatively more horizontal space.

 

[lixuelai]

The only logical way to compare them is the shape of the rectangle cause thats the only thing aspect ratio is about.

If you cant handle abstract thinking thats your problem.

----------



Depends on what you mean.

16:10 offer relatively more vertical space.
16:9 offer relatively more horizontal space.

Lol it is ironic that you accuse me of being unable to handle abstract thinking when in the second quote you use the same basis that you were originally disagreeing with. Too funny.

 

[ThatGreekMacGuy]

16:9 has been tested many times and it's been proved that it delivers the best quality to the viewer. All the new 3D/LED/HD TV's use 16:9.

 

[Thunderbird]

16:9 has been tested many times and it's been proved that it delivers the best quality yo the viewer. All the new 3D/LED/HD TV's use 16:9.

Source?

 

[ThatGreekMacGuy]

Source?

Well, I hate doing this but go to any electronic store and ask for the display ratio of any LED 3D TV you like. You'll notice that EVERY new Full HD TV has a ratio of 16:9 just like iMacs.

 

[splitpea]

Well, I hate doing this but go to any electronic store and ask for the display ratio of any LED 3D TV you like. You'll notice that EVERY new Full HD TV has a ratio of 16:9 just like iMacs.

What delivers the best quality to a television viewer may not be the same thing that delivers the best usability to a computer user.

 

[forty2j]

Well, I hate doing this but go to any electronic store and ask for the display ratio of any LED 3D TV you like. You'll notice that EVERY new Full HD TV has a ratio of 16:9 just like iMacs.

I'm sure he was asking for the studies on viewer experience, not the current inventory of retailers.

For example, 3D is for the most part a bad viewer experience, but most HD TVs come with that too.

 

[tech4all]

it is the golden ratio... it is used all across apple's designs. it is 1.6:1 --or in this case 16:10


here are some.
http://paulmmartinblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/apple-and-the-golden-ratio/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

if 16 is the large number then according to the Golden Ratio the smaller number would be 9.88 or 9.9 if you round up. So 16:10 is closer the GR than 16:9 is.

For those who don't know, the Golden Ratio is getting the smaller number and multiplying it be 1.618. So 10 x 1.618 = 16.18.

 

[ThatGreekMacGuy]

What delivers the best quality to a television viewer may not be the same thing that delivers the best usability to a computer user.

No. It's exactly the same for both iMac and HD TV's as iMacs are famous for the extraordinary performance and quality when it comes to HD films and editing. =)

----------

16:9 is the best display ratio. Every HD/LED/3D TV on the market is using 16:9. End of.

 

[theSeb]

16:9 has been tested many times and it's been proved that it delivers the best quality to the viewer. All the new 3D/LED/HD TV's use 16:9.

Must be why 4K and IMAX cinemas show movies in 16:9... no, wait. That's not right at all.

16:9 has become the standard for TVs based on a compromise between the different film formats.

When the 16:9 (1.77:1) aspect ratio was proposed by Kerns H. Powers, a member of the SMPTE Working Group On High-Definition Electronic Production, nobody was creating 16:9 videos. The popular choices in 1980 were: 1.33:1 (based on television standard's ratio at the time), 1.66:1 (the European "flat" ratio), 1.85:1 (the American "flat" ratio), 2.20:1 (the ratio of 70 mm films and Panavision) and 2.39:1 (the CinemaScope ratio for anamorphic widescreen films).

Powers cut out rectangles with equal areas, shaped to match each of the popular aspect ratios. When overlapped with their center points aligned, he found that all of those aspect ratio rectangles fit within an outer rectangle with an aspect ratio of 1.77:1 and all of them also covered a smaller common inner rectangle with the same aspect ratio 1.77:1.[1] The value found by Powers is exactly the geometric mean of the extreme aspect ratios, 4:3 (1.33:1) and 2.35:1, which is coincidentally close to 16:9 (1.77:1). Applying the same geometric mean technique to 16:9 and 4:3 yields the 14:9 aspect ratio, which is likewise used as a compromise between these ratios.[2]

 

[splitpea]

No. It's exactly the same for both iMac and HD TV's as iMacs are famous for the extraordinary performance and quality when it comes to HD films and editing. =)

Right, because nobody ever uses an iMac for anything but viewing and editing HD footage.

And nobody ever wants additional space for their palettes and menu bars and clip trays and scrubbers when editing HD footage, either.

 

[Thunderbird]

I'm sure he was asking for the studies on viewer experience, not the current inventory of retailers.

....bingo.

 

[DisMyMac]

Powers cut out rectangles with equal areas, shaped to match each of the popular aspect ratios. When overlapped with their center points aligned, he found that all of those aspect ratio rectangles fit within an outer rectangle with an aspect ratio of 1.77:1 and all of them also covered a smaller common inner rectangle with the same aspect ratio 1.77:1.[1] The value found by Powers is exactly the geometric mean of the extreme aspect ratios, 4:3 (1.33:1) and 2.35:1, which is coincidentally close to 16:9 (1.77:1). Applying the same geometric mean technique to 16:9 and 4:3 yields the 14:9 aspect ratio, which is likewise used as a compromise between these ratios.

Talk about cutting the baby in half... All he did was create a whole new standard. That's not a "compromise" between anything.

 

[thekb]

Because 16:9 is better.

It is a personal preference.

From a non bias point of view neither 16:9 or 16:10 can be said to be better. It is a matter of personal opinion.

So is it better or not?

 

[Ping Guo]

The only logical way to compare them is the shape of the rectangle cause thats the only thing aspect ratio is about.

If you cant handle abstract thinking thats your problem.

Says the guy who can't comprehend basic geometry.

The closer a rectangle is to a square (1:1), the more area it has per given diagonal size (Pythagorean Theorem).

iMacs were 16:10. They switched to 16:9 in 2009, most likely to cut costs.

 

[albabe]

Someone should really clear this up so people who don't understand this situation (like me) and bump into this thread, will not be misinformed by a certain someone into buying the wrong monitor for the wrong reasons.

I am by far, not an expert, but I'm decent at math. So here's my stab...

16:9 is the same as 16 X 9, which the same as 16 "by" 9, which is the same as 16 TIMES 9.

So, trying to be clear here: 19:9 has LESS "Relative" Surface Area than 16:10. For instance, if you assign inches (or any size designation) to the ratio, you would have 16 inches by 9 inches, as opposed to 16 inches by 10 inches. The 16:10 has more relative surface area.

So, if the pixels are the same size, there is less information in 16:9 than 16:10 (which is why the last Number is smaller).

16X9 = 144
16X10 = 160

Basically, 16X9 is NOT "Wider" than 16X10. But it is "proportionately" Wider when compared to 16:10.


9-6-13
Just FYI: Sorry, man. Typo. I changed the "Are" to "Area..." Just so it doesn't keep you up at nights.

9-30-13
Oops... There was an unwanted "S" after my 16X9 count. Sorry, man. I realize it'll likely make, at least, one of you a bit sociopathic... so I removed it. (No letter "S's" were harmed making this post).

 

[aggri1]

I can't believe that this thread has reached three pages!

So, trying to be clear here: 19:9 has LESS "Relative" Surface Are than 16:10.

I'll assume that "Are" means "area". Then: no. Your comment is not strictly true. The screen with a 19:9 ratio could be larger than the screen with a 19:10 ratio. Perhaps you mean less vertical space "Relative" to horizontal space, but that's not what you wrote.

By the way, I'm not picking on this comment out of malice, it was just the last one, that's all.

I do wish that English was taught better in schools.

 

[throAU]

it is the golden ratio... it is used all across apple's designs. it is 1.6:1 --or in this case 16:10


here are some.
http://paulmmartinblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/apple-and-the-golden-ratio/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

That.

16x9 sucks, anyone who prefers it is just watching video, basically.

 

[Shane1905]

Wasn't working out the area of a square something they teach in the first few years of school? Its simple maths! You multiply one number....by another number 16 times 9 equals 144. 16 times 10 equals 160. Guess which one has a larger screen area?

 

[aggri1]

Wasn't working out the area of a square something they teach in the first few years of school? Its simple maths! You multiply one number....by another number 16 times 9 equals 144. 16 times 10 equals 160. Guess which one has a larger screen area?

Your question is not supported by your maths.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

I can't believe that this thread has reached three pages!

Though it does make for an epic read selling nerd-rage over 16:9 vs 16:10.

The logic in this thread is simply awesome.

My 2 cents:
16 = Equals the number most people turn when they think of buying apple, 100% of people over the age of 17 have been 16 so in essence this screen ratio appeals to them far more.
9 was a really interesting movie, people like movies thus the choice was easy.

Or we could just deduct from the majority of suppliers out there, 16:9 is the norm now because that's what suppliers are making at the best possible pricing point. This is why Apple, (shock horror) Dell and HP are also going down this road.

 

[albabe]

Hey Pompous Comment-out-of-Malice Guy:

Are you implying that because I typoed "Area" as "Are," that my "edumacation" in English was inadequate?

All other variables being equal - 16:10 has more real estate than 16:9.

xo

I can't believe that this thread has reached three pages!



I'll assume that "Are" means "area". Then: no. Your comment is not strictly true. The screen with a 19:9 ratio could be larger than the screen with a 19:10 ratio. Perhaps you mean less vertical space "Relative" to horizontal space, but that's not what you wrote.

By the way, I'm not picking on this comment out of malice, it was just the last one, that's all.

I do wish that English was taught better in schools.

----------

Yours is the Best "Logic" applied thru this thread. Thoroughly enjoyed! Thanx.

Though it does make for an epic read selling nerd-rage over 16:9 vs 16:10.

The logic in this thread is simply awesome.

My 2 cents:
16 = Equals the number most people turn when they think of buying apple, 100% of people over the age of 17 have been 16 so in essence this screen ratio appeals to them far more.
9 was a really interesting movie, people like movies thus the choice was easy.

Or we could just deduct from the majority of suppliers out there, 16:9 is the norm now because that's what suppliers are making at the best possible pricing point. This is why Apple, (shock horror) Dell and HP are also going down this road.

 

[bluescale]

So, trying to be clear here: 19:9 has LESS "Relative" Surface Area than 16:10. For instance, if you assign inches (or any size designation) to the ratio, you would have 16 inches by 9 inches, as opposed to 16 inches by 10 inches. The 16:10 has more relative surface area.

I'm assuming when you wrote 19:9 above (bolded), you really meant 16:9? Otherwise, your math is wrong, and you don't mention 19 anywhere else in this post.

Am I missing something?