Related
Now that wide screen displays are used everywhere on TV, Laptop, Tablet (except Apple) then surely Apple made a blunder when they chose the almost square 4:3 aspect ratio on the iPad. Apple still calls the iPad screen wide screen in the specification (see ink) but it is not.
http://www.vexite.com/2012/ipad-resolution-7-good-reasons-buying-upgrading/
Gaugerer said:
Now that wide screen displays are used everywhere on TV, Laptop, Tablet (except Apple) then surely Apple made a blunder when they chose the almost square 4:3 aspect ratio on the iPad. Apple still calls the iPad screen wide screen in the specification (see ink) but it is not.
http://www.vexite.com/2012/ipad-resolution-7-good-reasons-buying-upgrading/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, technical definitions aside, it's hard to call 3 million units sold in one weeked a "blunder".
burhanistan said:
Well, technical definitions aside, it's hard to call 3 million units sold in one weeked a "blunder".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Brain washing and herd instinct does funny things to people, but the iPad will eventually become wide screen, but it might take a while as it did with the TV.
To be fair, industry standards does not mean that said specific standard is actually superior. Granted almost very media source is now 16:9. Many standards are not quite the "best" possibility. I will say that I am not bothered by wide screen but the 4:3 tablet aspect has its own positives too.
Just to be clear, the Tab 7.7 (as with most android tablets) is not 16:9, its 1280x800 resolution is 8:5 or 16:10. It is still wider than the iPad relatively, but there is still some letterboxing when watching [Full]HD content.
Many users in the Windows tablet community lament about the changeover to 16:9. 4:3 is preferred because there is decent screen real estate in either "landscape" or "portrait mode".
Guess which ratio is closer to a standard sheet of paper? There's your answer.
To me, it all comes down to comfort. At 9 inch or more, the 4:3 aspect ratio is actually more comfortable to hold. In either orientation.
I tried the SGT 10.1 and it feels totally wrong. May be we are trained to size of a piece of paper. But I think it is the opposite. A4 and Letter size paper are their size and ratio because humans are most comfortable with it. That why Legal size paper is not popular
chan005 said:
To me, it all comes down to comfort. At 9 inch or more, the 4:3 aspect ratio is actually more comfortable to hold. In either orientation.
I tried the SGT 10.1 and it feels totally wrong. May be we are trained to size of a piece of paper. But I think it is the opposite. A4 and Letter size paper are their size and ratio because humans are most comfortable with it. That why Legal size paper is not popular
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 7.7, with its 16:10 aspect ratio screen, is approximately A5 in size. There is no automatic inference from the aspect ratio of the screen to the aspect ration of the device as a whole.
TonyBigs said:
Many users in the Windows tablet community lament about the changeover to 16:9. 4:3 is preferred because there is decent screen real estate in either "landscape" or "portrait mode".
Guess which ratio is closer to a standard sheet of paper? There's your answer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On PC in landscape MsWord fit 2 pages nicely in 16:9, It is very useful when I translate something with source side by side. I'm loving it ^^
On 7.7 in portrait mode, I can view a lot websites in one page without sliding down (I prefer smaller text).
---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------
Theory said:
The 7.7, with its 16:10 aspect ratio screen, is approximately A5 in size. There is no automatic inference from the aspect ratio of the screen to the aspect ration of the device as a whole.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"I think" may be it is about our eyes viewing angles.
We use smaller or 4:3 screen in portrait while we use larger or 16:9,10 in landscape because our viewing angles cover more horizontal than vertical.
If you use large 16:9,10 screen in portrait you'll have to nod you head more often lol
I find the 4:3 aspect ratio better for everything else except movies.
Why all these apple threats here, this is the Galaxy tab 7.7 topic?
I'm not interested in apple, if so I would have bought one and go to the apple forum.
To be clear, everyone, the 7.7's aspect ratio is actually 16:10, not 16:9. 1280*800 resolution = a 1.6 ratio (16:10). 1280*720 resolution = 1.77777 ratio (16:9).
Now, having said that, factoring in the menu bar, your usable screen resolution is actually 1280*752 (in landscape) = 1.702 ratio or 80:47, or 800*1232 (in portrait) = 1.54 ratio or 77:50
paqbro said:
Why all these apple threats here, this is the Galaxy tab 7.7 topic?
I'm not interested in apple, if so I would have bought one and go to the apple forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, there are some interesting comparisons to be had about the new iPad's display versus SAMOLED on the 7.7, but for the most part they are very different devices. I have both because I'm spoiled, and the 7.7 goes everywhere with me. I find myself reaching for my iPad at home for most things except ebooks.
Meanwhile, my poor "old" Galaxy 10.1 is just sitting on a desk not getting any love.
GOF007 said:
On PC in landscape MsWord fit 2 pages nicely in 16:9, It is very useful when I translate something with source side by side. I'm loving it ^^
On 7.7 in portrait mode, I can view a lot websites in one page without sliding down (I prefer smaller text).
---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------
"I think" may be it is about our eyes viewing angles.
We use smaller or 4:3 screen in portrait while we use larger or 16:9,10 in landscape because our viewing angles cover more horizontal than vertical.
If you use large 16:9,10 screen in portrait you'll have to nod you head more often lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe. But the text block of a typical A4/letter page is closer to around 1.5:1 than the 1.33:1 (i.e., 4:3). And add in the bottom status bar, the 7.7 actually displays a typical A4/letter page for me quite comfortably. Especially when the text is zoomed to maximize the display (second pict). In fact, I am most comfortable reading in portrait on the 7.7. If I have a 16:10 screen as large as a real A4 page, I would still read in portrait mode--exactly as I would the A4 page itself. It's only when the screen is larger than that--e.g., my 1920x1200 24" monitor--that reading in portrait mode becomes less than ideal (though even then, a lot will depend on the angle and distance to the screen).
But to each his own, I suppose.
i have both a touchpad and a 7.7...the most use i get out of the 7.7 is netflix and honestly because of the 16:10, widescreen shows are ALMOST as large on the 7.7 as they are on the 4:3 9.7"...the thing is, the touchpad feels much too large to bring anywhere..so for people who watch videos (which should be everyone that uses the 7.7 because thats what it seems to have been made for), the aspect ratio argument comes right back to portability.
one thing is for certain though, anamorphic (2.35:1) theatrical movies look absolutely ridiculous on a touchpad/ipad
I find the aspect ratio of the 7.7 to be just fine and the 4:3 of the iPad not very good. In addition, the iPad is just too big for MY tastes. The next generation Android tablet had better move to higher resolution and when/if they do the resolution of choice, in my opinion, would be 1920x1200. 1900x1080 would be another option but I do think that ratio is getting a little bit too elongated, particularly if the side bezel is reduced relative to the top and bottom bezels.
I'm not really impressed with the unending fixation on making things thinner and thinner. The 7.7 is, in my view, too thin and if it were up to me I'd have made it about 1mm thicker and included an even bigger battery. I'd also have made the sides a little squarer with smaller bezel so that it would be even easier to hold by the side edges between your thumb and fourth and fifth fingers. I might also like to see what a rubberized band might do to help holding it.
For me, if you're going to carry something as big as the iPad then you might as well have a small laptop...
Brian
The goal on the 7.7 was to make it the most portable tablet.. adding more battery gives it more weight.
EarlZ said:
The goal on the 7.7 was to make it the most portable tablet.. adding more battery gives it more weight.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, and they could have made it lighter by using a smaller battery. As I said, I think it's too thin and if it were about 1mm thicker with the sides less rounded and the side bezels smaller so the width is less it would be easier to hold even if it weighted a few grams more...
Brian
it's a matter of taste. I came from the playbook, where the dimensions were the same (except thickness), and I actually enjoy the smaller size and weight.
of course, I have smaller hands so I can grip it easier...
The 7.7 is about 5.25 inch wide and if they had gone with smaller bezels on the side it could have been made less than 4.75 inch wide, maybe even 4.5 inch wide, and been even easier to hold by the side edges. But, the very thin and rounded sides actually make it harder to hold by the edges so making it a tad thicker and less rounded would, in my view, make it easier to hold by the edges.
As far as weight is concerned ... making it 0.5-0.75 inches narrower would likely offset the weight increase of the bigger battery and thicker package -- it might not weight any more than it does now...
Brian
I've noticed when I connect the N10 to my LCD TV with native resolution of 1368x768 using a micro-HDMI to HDMI cable that the image doesn't stretch all the way to the edge of the display. Instead it leaves black bars on either side of probably 75-100 pixels. Does anyone else notice this?? Is there a setting I'm missing to be able to scale the display to fill the entire screen?
Doesn't fill my TV either, the issue, I guess is that it's mirroring so it won't change aspect, that may be different for videos but I haven't tried.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
alfer said:
I've noticed when I connect the N10 to my LCD TV with native resolution of 1368x768 using a micro-HDMI to HDMI cable that the image doesn't stretch all the way to the edge of the display. Instead it leaves black bars on either side of probably 75-100 pixels. Does anyone else notice this?? Is there a setting I'm missing to be able to scale the display to fill the entire screen?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only way to change the aspect ratio is through your TV. My 50in Philips LCD HD, has settings option to change the display view. Maybe in later firmware updates they may include HDMI options through the device.
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
Yep, its the aspect ratio. TVs have standardized on 16:9. Android phones and 7" tablets are also 16:9, but since 10" tablets are meant to be held in landscape Google's set the standard to be 16:10 so the soft keys dont take too much of the display away from actual content.
Put in laymans terms, the Nexus has more height per width than your TV, so it either must use black bars, stretch, or crop. Black bars look the best of those options.
Good to know its not just me or my HDMI cable. If this issue is important to you to get resolved, please check out this link and star the issue. With enough votes Google might provide us more options to scale the mirrored output or select a custom resolution in a future release of Android.
It fills your screen when you watch a Movie or TV show though right?
So it is definitely possible for the Nexus to send the signal.
Could it be possible to "unlock" the camera app of the later Z* phones (in my case Z2) to support filming in 4:3 in 720p or 1080p? Shouldn't it be technically possible, considering how the 1280x720/1920x1080 recording is just a cropped picture of 4:3.
I personally would rather film in 4:3 and get the full picture that the sensor can grab instead of this pseudo-widescreen. Perhaps 1280x960 or 960x720.. anything above that VGA 640x480, really
Maybe I'm alone with this, lol...
Why would you want to film in 4:3 when every screen on the planet is now widescreen?
Incanity said:
Why would you want to film in 4:3 when every screen on the planet is now widescreen?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because if I want to crop my video/pictures, I don't need the source to be cropped, I can easily do so in my videoplayer or by videoediting later on.
I like being able to capture as much as the sensor supports and most sensors are 4:3 so I don't need this pseudo-widescreen
Do you also use the Sony stabilization function? Just incase you want to crop your image even further, ha.
Has anyone heard the native aspect ratio for the camera sensors? On the Nexus 6 it was 16:9 on the front but 4:3 on the back. I can handle the front being 16:9, but if the back isn't 4:3 I will be seriously annoyed. I was hoping for a jump to 16mp so this would further hurt my pictures because I would be forced to crop down to 4:3.
If you know, please link to a source.
I may have answered my own question doing a search for sample photos turns up this:
http://cdn02.androidauthority.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/IMG_20150928_202643.jpg
It has a resolution of 4032x3024 which equates to 12,192,768 pixels. So that seems perfect for 4:3. Good job google.
Poke_N_PDA said:
I may have answered my own question doing a search for sample photos turns up this:
http://cdn02.androidauthority.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/IMG_20150928_202643.jpg
It has a resolution of 4032x3024 which equates to 12,192,768 pixels. So that seems perfect for 4:3. Good job google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
in a world becoming far more dependent on pictures being viewed on 16:9 screens instead of being printed on paper, i find 4:3 to be highly annoying.
indianajonze said:
in a world becoming far more dependent on pictures being viewed on 16:9 screens instead of being printed on paper, i find 4:3 to be highly annoying.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can change it to 16:9 but you lose a lot of pixels
yeah thats the problem. it's been a struggle since nexus 5 for me
16:9 is good for Video and smartphone screens. Nothing else. It is horrible for framing a single photo.
just my 2 cents.
Hi guys
Noticed that on the 6p, the pixel were much lower if u choose 16:9
Which do u perfer to shoot with? 4:3 with more pixel, or 16:9 with less pixel?
and why you do it?
Thanks.
I prefer the 16:9 just because it fills the entire screen. It would be nice if we could have it both ways though.
murphyjasonc said:
I prefer the 16:9 just because it fills the entire screen. It would be nice if we could have it both ways though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
but the 16:9 has a lesser pixel? do u notice the picture in 16:9 have a lesser quality compare to 4:3?
I also like that the 16:9 fill the entire screen, but the quality to me is important too
mousefai0922 said:
but the 16:9 has a lesser pixel? do u notice the picture in 16:9 have a lesser quality compare to 4:3?
I also like that the 16:9 fill the entire screen, but the quality to me is important too
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've been using both off and on. To me the difference is minimal. The 4:3 seems to be a little better in low light but in bright light I can't tell the difference. I've been using open camera app to shoot 16:9 and google camera to shoot 4:3. I haven't settled on one or the other as my main shooter yet though. I'm debating on trying pro camera to see how it does. It won't be the first couple of dollars I've wasted if it isn't any better. I'm trying to find a good one that will shoot stills while taking video. I got used to that coming from my note 3 and then G4.
murphyjasonc said:
I've been using both off and on. To me the difference is minimal. The 4:3 seems to be a little better in low light but in bright light I can't tell the difference. I've been using open camera app to shoot 16:9 and google camera to shoot 4:3. I haven't settled on one or the other as my main shooter yet though. I'm debating on trying pro camera to see how it does. It won't be the first couple of dollars I've wasted if it isn't any better. I'm trying to find a good one that will shoot stills while taking video. I got used to that coming from my note 3 and then G4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm in the same boat. While I enjoy 16:9 mostly, I prefer to get as much quality to my pictures as possible with the 4:3 before any processing. That said - ProShot looks pretty nice, but unfortunately it's reported changing EV has been disabled? What a dumb move by Google...
murphyjasonc said:
I've been using both off and on. To me the difference is minimal. The 4:3 seems to be a little better in low light but in bright light I can't tell the difference. I've been using open camera app to shoot 16:9 and google camera to shoot 4:3. I haven't settled on one or the other as my main shooter yet though. I'm debating on trying pro camera to see how it does. It won't be the first couple of dollars I've wasted if it isn't any better. I'm trying to find a good one that will shoot stills while taking video. I got used to that coming from my note 3 and then G4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the full screen disply on 16:9 is one of the main reason i choose to use it. It just kinda weird to have black space on the side.....
i havent try any other camera software.. any recommendation u have?
mousefai0922 said:
the full screen disply on 16:9 is one of the main reason i choose to use it. It just kinda weird to have black space on the side.....
i havent try any other camera software.. any recommendation u have?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've tried several that are in the play store. For me open camera works the best out of the free ones. Search for open camera in the play store and give it a try. It had way more options than the google camera app.
Camera sensors are generally 4:3, even professional ones most the time are.
16:9 crops the sensor, hence lower megapixelsis
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
ALWAYS use 4:3 because only this way you will get all the pixels. You can resize it later and cut it down to whatever ratio you want - but you can never do it the other way round (without losing quality).
Yeah, the 4:3 vs 16:9 thing has been on my mind lately too... I like 16:9 pictures better, but when I compare the pictures I take, the only difference I notice is the 16:9 is basically zoomed in. You get no "wider" view, it just basically crops the top and bottom of the image off. There is a camera app or two that I've used that does make it wider, but those don't seem quite as nice as an image.
tele_jas said:
Yeah, the 4:3 vs 16:9 thing has been on my mind lately too... I like 16:9 pictures better, but when I compare the pictures I take, the only difference I notice is the 16:9 is basically zoomed in. You get no "wider" view, it just basically crops the top and bottom of the image off. There is a camera app or two that I've used that does make it wider, but those don't seem quite as nice as an image.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well the aspect ratio of the sensor is 4:3, so it cuts of pixels until you get 16:9. Changing the aspect ratio without interpolation is only possible by cropping. Interpolation is what happens in the apps you mention which leads to decreased quality.
mousefai0922 said:
but the 16:9 has a lesser pixel? do u notice the picture in 16:9 have a lesser quality compare to 4:3?
I also like that the 16:9 fill the entire screen, but the quality to me is important too
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't get lesser quality when shooting in 16:9, it's the exact same quality. The only difference is the image is cropped at the top and bottom to achieve the 16:9 aspect ratio.
What's weird is the S6, Note5, and G4 have the full resolution at 16:9, where the 4:3 was a cropped version of 16:9.
I shoot in 4:3 to have the full 12.2MP image. I can always crop it later.
italia0101 said:
Camera sensors are generally 4:3, even professional ones most the time are.
16:9 crops the sensor, hence lower megapixelsis
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what do u mean by crop the sensor?
Valynor said:
ALWAYS use 4:3 because only this way you will get all the pixels. You can resize it later and cut it down to whatever ratio you want - but you can never do it the other way round (without losing quality).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
but let say i shoot in 4:3, how can i cut it down to 16:9?
tele_jas said:
Yeah, the 4:3 vs 16:9 thing has been on my mind lately too... I like 16:9 pictures better, but when I compare the pictures I take, the only difference I notice is the 16:9 is basically zoomed in. You get no "wider" view, it just basically crops the top and bottom of the image off. There is a camera app or two that I've used that does make it wider, but those don't seem quite as nice as an image.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i do noticed that too
So to clarify, 4:3 has a wider angle and 16:9 is zoomed in right?
i just like the feeling that 16:9 takes up ur whole screen when viewing on photo app
Heisenberg said:
You don't get lesser quality when shooting in 16:9, it's the exact same quality. The only difference is the image is cropped at the top and bottom to achieve the 16:9 aspect ratio.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so like other user are saying, is good to take it as 4:3 since u can edit later on but u cant edit when u shoot on 16:9 right?
mousefai0922 said:
but let say i shoot in 4:3, how can i cut it down to 16:9?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Use any picture editor that features a "crop" function and remove part of the top and bottom of the original 4:3 picture until you get a 16:9 ratio or any other ratio you like (e.g. 3:2 is also common). Done.
It's the same as taking the shot in 16:9 but this way you can decide later which parts of the 4:3 you want to cut off (only top, only bottom or part of both).
mousefai0922 said:
so like other user are saying, is good to take it as 4:3 since u can edit later on but u cant edit when u shoot on 16:9 right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well you technically could edit a 16:9 image down to a 4:3 ratio by cropping the sides off the image. Doing this will result in an image containing even less pixels though. If you're really worried about it just take photos in the 4:3 ratio and crop them to 16:9 if you need to. I just have mine set to 16:9 all the time, I don't like the look of images in the 4:3 ratio. Using 16:9 allows the images to fill the screen on my phone, my tv, and my laptop (mostly).
Heisenberg said:
Well you technically could edit a 16:9 image down to a 4:3 ratio by cropping the sides off the image. Doing this will result in an image containing even less pixels though. If you're really worried about it just take photos in the 4:3 ratio and crop them to 16:9 if you need to. I just have mine set to 16:9 all the time, I don't like the look of images in the 4:3 ratio. Using 16:9 allows the images to fill the screen on my phone, my tv, and my laptop (mostly).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yea, the only reason i will consider taking in 16:9 is that it fills the entire 6p screen