Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why not adopt a universal aspect ratio of 16:10 for all Apple devices? 2560x1600 iPad

I

iPad 2

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 4, 2011
137
0
If Apple is going to increase the resolution and make things harder for developers, ideally, they should opt for a bigger than 4 inch screen with a resolution of 1280x720.

At a 1280x720 resolution, you could...

A) Stream the iPhone to your TV with a perfect aspect ratio
B) Playback 720p videos with a perfect 16:9 ratio with no scaling needed whatsoever and no black bars.

At 1152x640, it would be exactly 1.2 bigger and would have room for exactly one additional row.

At 1152x640, apps built for the older 960x640 resolution would take up the upper 5/6th of the screen while the home dock continues to display at all times taking up the bottom 1/6th of the screen.

Alternatively, they could double the resolution to 1280x960 on 4.5 screen so that you could watch 720p videos on the screen without any scaling.

Even a resolution of 1138x640 makes more sense than a resolution of 1136x640.

At 1138x640, you get an exact 16:9 ratio.

In fact, they could've just stuck with a 960x640 resolution screen but at 4-4.5 inches. It would still be a high enough pixel density to qualify as "retina."

But what they are doing now...

A very slight increase in resolution
A very modest increase in screen size
A resolution that doesn't make any sense (not 16:9, and not enough room for one additional row)
A pain in the ass for developers by introducing a new resolution

is the worst of all possible options.

If you're going to introduce a new resolution, make it count, and go with a 1280x720 or 1280x960 resolution on 4-5 inch screen. At the very least, use a resolution that makes sense.
 
B

briantaylor619

macrumors member
May 15, 2012
90
0
And why exactly didn't this post of yours go in the 1136x640 thread already on the front page of the forum?

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1374301/
 
R

romeo0119

macrumors 6502
Sep 20, 2007
325
3
Because we like to create more thread for the forum lol, why u hating? I'm sure a mod will merge it soon haha
 
chambone

chambone

macrumors 6502a
Dec 24, 2011
969
25
Netherlands
iPad 2 said:
If Apple is going to increase the resolution and make things harder for developers, ideally, they should opt for a bigger than 4 inch screen with a resolution of 1280x720.
Click to expand...
Um, no. That would make no sense unless they make the phone bigger. Which is undesirable for many of their customers. If you want a bigger phone check out Samsung. They make phones the size of a dvd case.

iPad 2 said:
In fact, they could've just stuck with a 960x640 resolution screen but at 4-4.5 inches. It would still be a high enough pixel density to qualify as "retina."
Click to expand...
Um, no. Increasing screen size without increasing resolution is stupid. Does this one even need explaining?
 
S

surjavarman

macrumors 6502a
Nov 24, 2007
645
2
chambone said:
Um, no. That would make no sense unless they make the phone bigger. Which is undesirable for many of their customers. If you want a bigger phone check out Samsung. They make phones the size of a dvd case.


Um, no. Increasing screen size without increasing resolution is stupid. Does this one even need explaining?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. At 4.3" you'd still have a pixel density of roughly 270ppi.You can't distinguish the pixels with your bare eyes at that ppi. So thats retina

Bigger screen means you'll have the same amount of text on screen yet its bigger. So its easier on the eyes. Or you can have more text with the same font size.
 
chambone

chambone

macrumors 6502a
Dec 24, 2011
969
25
Netherlands
surjavarman said:
No it doesn't. At 4.3" you'd still have a pixel density of roughly 270ppi.You can't distinguish the pixels with your bare eyes at that ppi. So thats retina

Bigger screen means you'll have the same amount of text on screen yet its bigger. So its easier on the eyes. Or you can have more text with the same font size.
Click to expand...
'Easier on the eye' might be the single worst reason to make a phone's screen bigger without increasing resolution. I don't have vision problems. And neither do people who need glasses and actually wear them. So why oh why would I want the exact same screen, but bigger?

If you want easy on the eye, go look at some billboards or something.
 
I

iPad 2

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 4, 2011
137
0
briantaylor619,

This deserves a separate thread because that news thread is about whether or not this rumor is true.

This thread serves a very different purpose, which is to discuss what specific resolution would make the most sense for Apple to adopt.

I've offered up plenty of good reasons why a resolution of 1280x720 on a larger than 4" screen makes the most sense.

With a resolution of 1280x720, it would bring the screen closer to the golden ratio, it would allow for seamless outputting of iPhone apps to monitors and HDTVs without any compression, and it would allow for playback of HD videos on the iPhone at their native resolution with no scaling required.

If Apple is going to force app devs to recode their apps to work for yet another resolution, this is the resolution they should opt to go with.
 
I

iPad 2

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 4, 2011
137
0
Why doesn't Apple adopt a universal aspect ratio of 16:10 for all Macs/Apple devices?

I don't understand why Apple doesn't just embrace one universal aspect ratio of 16:10 for all Apple devices.

In my view an aspect ratio of 16:10 would be an IDEAL resolution for the iPhone, iPad, Macbooks, iMacs and the upcoming Apple TV.

A 1280x800 resolution iPhone
A 2560x1600 resolution iPad
A 2560x1600 resolution Macbook and iMac
A 3840x2400 resolution Apple TV (would be 2 time 1920x1200 resolution and 3 times 1280x800 resolution)

16:10 is very close to the golden ratio. This golden ratio been studied to be the ideal ratio for the human eyes.


Everything about Apple screams elegance, and I can think of nothing more elegant than adopting one universal golden ratio among all apple devices so that all apps are cross compatible across multiple devices.

A 16:10 ratio ipad would be a pleasure to hold either horizontally or vertically. 16:10 ratio laptops and computer montors looks absolutely gorgeous. The rumored iPhone 5 will have an aspect ratio of 1.77777 while the current iPhone has an aspect ratio of 1.5. 1.6 would have been the perfect compromise between the two.

And having one universal aspect ratio across all apple devices would carry a number of advantages...

1. All apps would be universal apps since all iOS and OSX devices would share the same aspect ratio and would simply need to be zoomed in or out.

2. You would be able to stream the iPhone to your 16:10 Apple TV, your iPad or Mac and vice versa with a perfect aspect ratio and no black bars.

3. With a resolution of 1280x800, your iphone could play 720p videos with a perfect 16:9 ratio with no scaling needed whatsoever and two slim black bars.

If you're going to introduce a new aspect ratio for the iPhone 5, make it count, and go with a 1280x800 resolution on 4-5 inch screen. Then steadily switch over all other Apple devices over to that same golden ratio so that they all share that in common.
 
Last edited:
APlotdevice

APlotdevice

macrumors 68040
Sep 3, 2011
3,145
3,861
I prefer the current aspect ratio on my iPad. The vertical mode is pretty much ideal for most comics, magazines, and PDFs. And in the horizontal mode I like that I don't have to scroll webpages quite as much.
 
archurban

archurban

macrumors 6502a
Aug 4, 2004
918
0
San Francisco, CA
16:10 isn't standard. when you have it, you can still see black bars each up and down side. 16:9 is perfect for HD age. excepting Apple mac, all others PC are 16:9. it's not just HD contents which apply. when you play game, video setting mode usually support 16:9 rather than 16:10. Apple should change HD ratio which should be equal to PC standard.
 
K

kot

macrumors regular
Sep 10, 2011
161
0
16:9 is ugly and artificial. It came into existence only because of film restrictions in cinema. Computers are not for film. I love my MacBook Pro's 16:10 where the screen actually looks like the height and width are in harmony. 16:9 looks like a thin stripe, ugly to look at and too little vertical space.

I hate it on the iMac and that is why I have a MacBook Pro. If Apple ever changes it to 16:9 that'll be my saddest day.

when you have it, you can still see black bars each up and down side.
Click to expand...
Some people not only watch movies on their computers. Some people actually do work and 16:10 is very pleasing to the eyes and gives more vertical space.
 
W

WestonHarvey1

macrumors 68030
Jan 9, 2007
2,789
2,241
archurban said:
16:10 isn't standard. when you have it, you can still see black bars each up and down side. 16:9 is perfect for HD age. excepting Apple mac, all others PC are 16:9. it's not just HD contents which apply. when you play game, video setting mode usually support 16:9 rather than 16:10. Apple should change HD ratio which should be equal to PC standard.
Click to expand...

When you're editing video on a 1200 line 16:10 panel, you can display a full screen 1080P source and still have room at the bottom for controls. You can't do that on the equivalent 1080 line 16:9 panel.

Also, I really miss the 30" cinema display. But if you want HDCP support on a giant Apple monitor you have to bite the bullet and get its shorter replacement.
 
T

theturn

macrumors newbie
May 12, 2012
28
0
I wholeheartedly don't want apple to do this, it is a bad idea that bases itself way too much on tech journalism elaborating on resolution sizes these days. what difference does a resolution really make to the end user?? black bars, scaling, really?
 
J

jabingla2810

macrumors 68020
Oct 15, 2008
2,271
938
Every device is different. They are used in different ways, held in different ways and have different purposes.

To have one ratio to fit all would mean some devices would offer a sub optimal experience, just for the sake of everything matching.
 
K

kot

macrumors regular
Sep 10, 2011
161
0
First it was 1600x1200 (4:3)
Then they added a bit to the sides and it became 1920x1200 (16:10)
Then they cut off a portion at the upper part and it became 1920x1080 (16:9)

Those who are for 16:9 are just poor victims of commercial b....t think that 16:9 is good. Someone can't see the difference between "add" and "cut"?

Do you want a normal display or a mutilated one?

The answer is above.

The standard sheet can be cut right into 100 16:9 pieces. If you cut it into 16:10 you will have only 92 and some of it left unused.
That's why they are pushing for 16:9, because it saves them money. Not for consumer's benefit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom