Why is the ipad 4:3 and not 16:9?

[mobi1]

Why should it be 16:9? I find 4:3 much better. Most cameras take photos in 4:3 which fits nicely into the screen.

 

[sjleworthy]

16:9 is great for movie/animations.
4:3 is great for traditional vdu viewing, ie, for general computer use.

the movie facility on the ipad is a small part of it's usage. most of the ipads functions are 4:3 based, which is correct of course. if all you want is a movie player with 16:9 then the ipad isn't for you. if Apple did do it all with a 16:9 screen there'd be many more complaints i'm sure.

 

[madhatter61]

Other than watching movies, in what way is a 16:9 screen better than a 4:3?

Sure I watch an occasional movie on the iPad. Doesn't mean I want to hold a mini HD TV wantabe in my hands. 4:3 is a useful and versatile proportion. It's also comfortable in the hands.

I'm perfectly happy to leave 16:9 screen for the bigger devices that have enough room to accurately display non-16:9 stuff undistorted and at great resolution.

Tapmyapple ... what makes TV cinema format more modern than 4:3? The format of the display is perfect for its overall use and multiple functions. It is also important so that the apps don't all have to be re-written for different screen sizes. For typing you get to see more of what you are writing.

 

[donka]

4:3 makes portrait use for practical imho. Have you tried rotating a Xoom to portrait and seen how long it takes the screen to re-orientate? They definitely set the Android devices up for landscape use but the iPad makes good use of both orientations depending on the task at hand.
My preference is for reading (forums, apps, books etc.) in portrait and movies/typing in landscape. I spend probably around 70% of the time in portrait. I would not use a 16:9 device for this very reason.

 

[madsquabbles]

i'd prefer 16x10, kinda in-between both worlds. i hate that everything's going 16x9. you get less real estate for your money. a 10" 4x3 offers more sq in than 10" 16x10 or a 10" 16x9, but they'll all be priced the same.

 

[Tapmyapple]

Other than watching movies, in what way is a 16:9 screen better than a 4:3?

Sure I watch an occasional movie on the iPad. Doesn't mean I want to hold a mini HD TV wantabe in my hands. 4:3 is a useful and versatile proportion. It's also comfortable in the hands.

I'm perfectly happy to leave 16:9 screen for the bigger devices that have enough room to accurately display non-16:9 stuff undistorted and at great resolution.

Tapmyapple ... what makes TV cinema format more modern than 4:3? The format of the display is perfect for its overall use and multiple functions. It is also important so that the apps don't all have to be re-written for different screen sizes. For typing you get to see more of what you are writing.

Reading documents, surfing the web is all better and easier on the eyes in 16:9. I couldn't imagine is my maxbookpro and 24" monitor are 4:3. It would feel like I went back 10 years.

Why would anyone want to use portrait mode anyways? I see no benefit or advantage. Reading a book sure, but that's the only thing a 4:3 screen in portrait is good for.

 

[Catfiend]

Reading documents, surfing the web is all better and easier on the eyes in 16:9. I couldn't imagine is my maxbookpro and 24" monitor are 4:3. It would feel like I went back 10 years.

Why would anyone want to use portrait mode anyways? I see no benefit or advantage. Reading a book sure, but that's the only thing a 4:3 screen in portrait is good for.

We're definitely different people I use portrait mode for a fair bit of what I use the iPad for. It's easier to hold, for one, and quite a few of the websites I frequent have a very vertical layout, which makes it easier to scan through in portrait mode.

And, yes, the external monitor for my laptop is still 4:3 (1600x1200) for the moment. That works really well in portrait mode for writing code - few lines of code are all that long but it's nice to be able to see more of the program as a whole in one go.

 

[sjleworthy]

I prefer portrait and 4:3 modes too

 

[Diane B]

And a few "universal" apps are portrait only. I'd dislike them a lot in 16:9. I actually do a lot in landscape because I use the Propup which makes sitting on my lap in landscape really nice for reading but switch back and forth. 4:3 works so nicely for written word, web pages, viewing lots of photos which, for the most part, are either 4:3 or 3:2, few in 16:9--mainly only a few landscapes.

 

[Seadog]

Let's put a few things in perspective. The aspect ratio for the iPad is 1.33:1. The Xoom and other similar tablets are 1.78:1. Sounds impressive until you realize that a CinemaScope standard movie format is 2.39:1. So neither allow you to see a movie in it's full glory. So what about the price difference? A 10.1" tablet in 16:9 has 43.56 square inches of screen. In the 4:3 format, a 9.7" tablet has 45.19 square inches. Since cost is based on area, not format, the iPad is actually more expensive to manufacture. It has amazed me about the number of people that have said the like the Android or Windows tablets because they have a bigger screen. To be a bigger screen, they would have to be closer to 11" diagonal. Hey, that's a MacBook Air!

 

[Thphilli]

Let's put a few things in perspective. The aspect ratio for the iPad is 1.33:1. The Xoom and other similar tablets are 1.78:1. Sounds impressive until you realize that a CinemaScope standard movie format is 2.66:1. So neither allow you to see a movie in it's full glory. So what about the price difference? A 10.1" tablet in 16:9 has 43.56 square inches of screen. In the 4:3 format, a 9.7" tablet has 45.19 square inches. Since cost is based on area, not format, the iPad is actually more expensive to manufacture. It has amazed me about the number of people that have said the like the Android or Windows tablets because they have a bigger screen. To be a bigger screen, they would have to be closer to 11" diagonal. Hey, that's a MacBook Air!

CinemaScope? People buy content in 720p or 1080p. That content fills every single square inch of a 16:9 screen and only fills about 34 square inches of the iPad and iPad2. So a quarter of your screen is a waste on the ipad when you play HD video. Thats disappointing.

 

[Seadog]

No matter how you look at it, you cannot watch an entire movie on any tablet or computer. It will still be cropped. And 720 vs 1080 has nothing to do with screen size. Your arguments are just BS as usual. If you have a 16:9 ratio screen, then every video in 4:3 is going to have black bands on both sides. It costs very little to buy a DVD player in 16:9. If all you want is to watch widescreen videos, buying an iPad is wasting your money. If you just want to argue about everything, go away child.

 

[graywolf]

No matter how you look at it, you cannot watch an entire movie on any tablet or computer. It will still be cropped. And 720 vs 1080 has nothing to do with screen size. Your arguments are just BS as usual. If you have a 16:9 ratio screen, then every video in 4:3 is going to have black bands on both sides. It costs very little to buy a DVD player in 16:9. If all you want is to watch widescreen videos, buying an iPad is wasting your money. If you just want to argue about everything, go away child.

He wasn't arguing about everything. He just made one comment. Some people on this forum get way too mad, way too fast.

 

[Studor13]

Why? Because Steve says so.

And don't worry about which century it is. Steve is way ahead of us.

BTW, I am a photographer and there's no way that a 16:9 format would make sense to me.

Most cameras are 3:2 format. They have finally worked out that 4:3 is a better format and that's why these cameras are selling like iPads.

Somethings are for 16:9 and some, like the iPad, are not.

 

[Thphilli]

No matter how you look at it, you cannot watch an entire movie on any tablet or computer. It will still be cropped. And 720 vs 1080 has nothing to do with screen size. Your arguments are just BS as usual. If you have a 16:9 ratio screen, then every video in 4:3 is going to have black bands on both sides. It costs very little to buy a DVD player in 16:9. If all you want is to watch widescreen videos, buying an iPad is wasting your money. If you just want to argue about everything, go away child.

Jesus calm down.

First of all, yes, you absolutely can watch an "entire movie" on "any tablet or computer", what are you even talking about? Even my phone plays almost exactly full screen 720p as its aspect ratio is 16:9.6. All of the Android tablets have 16:9 screens so far at a resolution of 1280x800 minus 80 pixels for the bottom bar for an effective resolution of 1280x720. Every LCD sold within the last several years is some sort of 16:9 or 16:10 variant. Every tablet that has been announced that will not carry an Apple logo is 16:9 or 16:10.

No one said anything about 720p or 1080p having anything to do with screen size. It certainly comes into play with screen aspect ratio.

No one buys a device with the capability to display HD resolutions and worries about what SD video will look like on it. Also, its 2011.

I think this is the second or third time you have mentioned DVD players in response to one of my comments. May be mistaken, but I am pretty sure.

Also, no need to call me a child because I correct many false things that are said, many of which seem to come from you.