|
I said other, because it really depends. Since I come from a film background, to me 4:3 and 16:9 translate to "flat" and "scope" (also known as widescreen, panorama, and so on depending on where you are). When film was the only option, there were both the content factor and the price factor, which affected everything from pre-production to final delivery (exhibition), and then on to TV delivery, which gave birth to pan-and-scan and some bizarre letterboxing approaches and messages about being edited to fit your TV. Some people are tremendously happy that everything is "HD FTW!" because they've believed for years that everything should be wide screen. But IMO, content is King and some content works better in one format than in the other; the choice isn't always cost concerns. But perception is a strong force to be reckoned with, as I learned the first time I tried to explain that a 4:3 full frame projected image really is bigger than 16:9 when the screen is designed to show both formats.
When we move away from film and video and into more static content delivery such as text, I find there's two issues - screen real estate and (again) perceptual size. My 11z has a much smaller screen overall but it's an HD-resolution display. So, technically, I can fit "more stuff" on the screen than my old Dell 15" but everything is smaller. It "feels" bigger than it is. The strange thing is, my Kindle vs. my Literati gives me the opposite impression - the Literati his a screen that's about the same width as my Kindle, but it's taller. Instead of seeming larger than the Kindle, it seems smaller. The text seems cramped. Logically it makes no sense, but perceptually it seems too narrow. I *know* that more text can fit on the screen, but I *perceive* that there is less.
Overall, I prefer 4:3 for reading, 16:9 for computer screens, and whichever suits the content for video.
|