4:3 vs 16:9 aspect ratio - what's your preference?

[MrPLD]

I just had to replace my screen... alas, I could only get a 16:9 in the required timeframe/situation and while it's tollerable at 24" (1920x1080) I still really do miss those extra 120 pixels in height compared to the 1920x1200 24" I had, especially when working on datasheets and CAD.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

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.

PDF is only standard for printed books. Digital displays demand reflowing formats like html and epub.

Screen state can clearly benefit from reflowing content, even to the point of allowing four pages on screen in the case of 16:9 PC displays, as long as you've got good resolutions for the reduced font sizes. On mobile devices, it's portrait mode all the way, with more content per page.

[Piper_]

I hate 16:9 for laptop screens and monitors, but for my e-reader I prefer it to 4:3.

I can read books in portrait mode (short lines reduce eye fatigue),
and look at web sites or PDF in landscape mode (can zoom in more before I hit horizontal scrolling).

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

PDF is only standard for printed books. Digital displays demand reflowing formats like html and epub.

Screen state can clearly benefit from reflowing content, even to the point of allowing four pages on screen in the case of 16:9 PC displays, as long as you've got good resolutions for the reduced font sizes. On mobile devices, it's portrait mode all the way, with more content per page.

From your response I gather you do not play pen and paper RPGs.

Many of the publishers of these games make their game rulebooks available in both paper and electronic form - but only in PDF. We're not talking novels, which reflow easily, but rulebooks with complex formatting including but not limited to charts, tables, sidebars, multiple columns, and illustrations.

It just doesn't reflow easily or well.

It also doesn't work with comics. There are a lot of public domain comics out there in CBR/CBZ format that have not been processed for panel by panel viewing, and are best viewed as full pages.

It's another case where 16:9 works very poorly and does not allow for more content on the screen.

It works fine for text - but it doesn't work for everything - and it certainly cannot be said that 16:9 will always put more content on the screen than 4:3 would.

Compare the Velocity Cruz Reader and the Velocity Cruz Tablet, both with 7" Diagonal screens:

The 4:3 aspect ratio Cruz Reader at 800x600 resolution has about 23.5 square inches of screen on a 7" diagonal.

The widescreen Cruz Tablet at 800x480 resolution has about 21.6 square inches of screen on a 7" diagonal.

Both 7" devices. Both from the same manufacturer. The 4:3 device displays more content than the widescreen. Widescreen does not always mean more content.

[The Terminator]

I think for TV the wider the better like the new Phillips cinema 21:1

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

complex formatting including but not limited to charts, tables, sidebars, multiple columns, and illustrations. It just doesn't reflow easily or well.

such features work well enough in html. I'm sorry if your favorite publishers favor pdf...

It also doesn't work with comics.

I'd say at least for comic strips 16:9 is better than 4:3.

both with 7" Diagonal screen

Irrelevant when 4:3 got more resolution than the 16:9.

[Nexutix]

16:9, landscape mode on my tablet. It's really "smooth experience"

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I prefer 4x3. One of the reasons I chose a PB IQ as my Android toy.
For multipurpose devices, the best compromise would be 16x10 but even that will have issue.

the upcoming Xoom and GalaxyTab 2 Android tablets are 16x10

[Filark]

I voted "other" because, as has been clearly explained already, it depends.

If we could have a screen that changed size/aspect ratio to best fit content, that would be ideal! As it is our content has to adapt to our screen, and sometimes it just can't . . . ;(

[Jellby]

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

For the same short side (height in landscape, width in portrait), yes. For the same long side, not. For the same area, not.

If they have 16:9 and 16:10 now, maybe we can get them (the manufacturers) to make 16:12 too?

[LCF]

Originally Posted by Jellby

For the same short side (height in landscape, width in portrait), yes. For the same long side, not. For the same area, not.

If they have 16:9 and 16:10 now, maybe we can get them (the manufacturers) to make 16:12 too?

They probably won't notice it.

[nrapallo]

I had gone through a similar evaluation of content vs aspect ratio when migrating from 4:3 TV screens to HDTV screens. In the end, the landscape nature of viewing TV/Movies allows one to enjoy the content better on a 16:9 display.

However, most books are read in a portrait orientation, and as a result, that's the way my ebook device should display page content, IMHO. But is the 4:3 aspect ratio the optimal screen size? Historically it is, but what should the BEST aspect ratio be?

I voted for Other!

Perhaps a bit of math may shed the light on our ultimate reading enjoyment, namely that Golden Ratio. Using a Golden Ratio calculator, to retain the same width more or less, I would like to see current 5" and 6" e-ink use a screen size of 633 x 1024 while larger e-ink devices could use say 742 x 1200 (or 791 x 1280). These all retain the Golden Ratio!!!

I've summarized various sources/uses of page content as well as which current ebook readers best suit them in the following table:

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

such features work well enough in html. I'm sorry if your favorite publishers favor pdf...

I agree that a reflowable format such as HTML would be superior - or not trying to slavishly imitate the printed page - but we live in a world which is imperfect.

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

I'd say at least for comic strips 16:9 is better than 4:3.

But not for comic books.

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Irrelevant when 4:3 got more resolution than the 16:9.

Actually that's my entire point. In your first post in this discussion you stated as fact that 16:9 allowed more content to be displayed on screen.

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.

That's incorrect for the very reason you stated above. If a 4:3 screen of a given diagonal measurement (which is what's used as the selling point) has a greater resolution (and viewable area) than a 16:9 screen of the same diagonal measurement then the 4:3 screen is going to display more content.

Some content works better on 16:9, other content works better on 4:3, while yet other content reflows and so total screen size (resolution and viewable area) is the only factor that matters.

Which one is better for any given user depends on the content they wish to consume. P prefer 4:3 because it's a better fit for the content I consume on a device. I don't require 4:3, but I do prefer it.

Content is, as always, king.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

the upcoming Xoom and GalaxyTab 2 Android tablets are 16x10

And as if on cue:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...?taxonomyId=15

Samsung 10.1" tab, 1280 x 800.

Graham

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

the upcoming Xoom and GalaxyTab 2 Android tablets are 16x10

I'm looking forward to see how they work out.
(Assuming they are 16x10 physically and not just in pixel count. Stranger things have happened in the display business. )
I think there's at least one 16x10 Win7 tablet in the pipeline.
(Not sure who it is right now... I think it's Acer...)