Quote:
Originally Posted by Namekuseijin
What the fuss is about? 16:9 simply allows for more content on screen at once, be it video or text -- not narrow reading, just more text down there. Case closed.
|
The amount of content you can put on screen at once depends on two things: the amount of pixels in the viewing area, and how well the aspect ratio of the screen conforms to the aspect ratio of the content.
A 16:9 aspect ratio conforms very well to current video standards, and very poorly to page standards. If I try to view a full page of a PDF game rulebook on a 16:9 screen in portrait mode, I find a lot of blank space above and below the rendered page.
A 4.3 aspect ratio screen conforms much more closely to the page size of my game rulebooks, and so I can use almost the entire screen in full-page view.
The end result is that I get my choice of either less content, or the same content at a smaller size, by going to a 16:9 aspect ratio.
Page display is limited by the smallest dimension of the screen - not the aspect ratio.
Compare a 7" Nook Color to a 6" Sony Reader or Kindle.
The NC has a 1024x600 screen with dimensions of 6"x3.5"
The Sony has an 800x600 screen with dimensions of 4.8"x3.6
If I take a standard US letter size sheet (1.294) and try to display that on the Sony I get an image that's 4.65" high and 3.6" wide with only 0.15" of wasted space.
If I take the same sheet and try to display it on the Nook color I get an image that's 4.5" high and 3.5" wide and 1.5" of wasted space at the top and bottom of the image.
Bigger screen - less usable space.
When it comes to meeting my needs, any widescreen resolution is significantly less viable than a 4:3 ratio screen.