2048x1536

[Dinner]

It's all rather meh. Honestly, it's not much of an improvement at all and I'd wait to see what competitors are offering because Apple doesn't seem very concerned with raising the bar on this one.

Not that I'd bother buying a tablet as I still don't see why the **** I'd want one or what they're good for.

[Asher]

The display is nice but a dual-core 1GHz is weak.

My smartphone has more horsepower.

[Dinner]

I use a 23" monitor (1080p) in portrait mode daily at work. It fits tons more code on the screen without scrolling. It's amazing.

At home I use a 23" monitor (1080p) in landscape mode for gaming. No one uses 4:3 monitors at home or at work for a reason.

I love my ViewSonic 24" LED wide screen monitor while the old 4:3 LCD from Dell I had before just wasn't in the same category.

[N35t0r]

Don't tell me you do not know why computer screens went from 4:3 to 16:9. It hasnothing to do with human preferences.

While screen with the same diagonal size have a larger area the closer to a square they get (thus, a 13" 4:3 screen will have a larger area than a 16:9 one), and that is a reason why most manufacturers jumped onto the bandwagon relatively early (that is, as soon as it became feasible to manufacture and sell one).

However, widescreen came into being much much earlier than PC screens and Plasma/LCD tvs: have you gone to the cinema recently? Did you remember the 'This film has been altered from the original to fit your TV screen' notice present at the beginning of many films on SD? This is because 16:9 is more natural for humans to watch, and thus is what movies were filmed in. When home TVs were invented, for the cathode ray to be in focus on every point of the screen, the screen had to be at the same radial distance from the cathode ray emmitter. The only way to manage this was to have the screen be spherical, with the tube on the sphere's center, and the closer to square the screen was, the larger it could be without the curvature at the edges being too great, and thus they settled for 4:3.

[Vanguard]

However, widescreen came into being much much earlier than PC screens and Plasma/LCD tvs: have you gone to the cinema recently? Did you remember the 'This film has been altered from the original to fit your TV screen' notice present at the beginning of many films on SD? This is because 16:9 is more natural for humans to watch, and thus is what movies were filmed in. When home TVs were invented, for the cathode ray to be in focus on every point of the screen, the screen had to be at the same radial distance from the cathode ray emmitter. The only way to manage this was to have the screen be spherical, with the tube on the sphere's center, and the closer to square the screen was, the larger it could be without the curvature at the edges being too great, and thus they settled for 4:3.

Nonsense. All movies before 1953 were also in 4:3. Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, Citizen Kane, Fort Apache---- all are in GLORIOUS NARROW-SCREEN! Nobody back then complained that these films were "unnatural" due to their square picture shape. They still don't, 60 years later.

Nor was wide-screen introduced because it was more "natural". It was introduced because television adopted 4:3 and movie makers were losing a lot of business to it. Wide screen was something TV couldn't do, so theater owners thought introducing it might put some bums back in their seats.

[N35t0r]

https://www.google.com.ar/search?hl=...AaT50gHDp53IDw

Go and count monitors high, and monitors wide. We are more used to seing wide than seing high/low.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nor was wide-screen introduced because it was more "natural". It was introduced because television adopted 4:3 and movie makers were losing a lot of business to it. Wide screen was something TV couldn't do, so theater owners thought introducing it might put some bums back in their seats.

Hey, look, we have wide screen - come back to the theaters! Really? This is your explination? Let me ask you is your peripheral vision greater to the sides or up & down?

[Jon Miller]

I don't really like the small wide screens. The 21 inch ones, for example.

When it starts getting 'high enough' then wide screens are better.

JM

[N35t0r]

Hey, look, we have wide screen - come back to the theaters! Really? This is your explination? Let me ask you is your peripheral vision greater to the sides or up & down?

Or, are your eyes side by side or one on top of the other?

[Vanguard]

Hey, look, we have wide screen - come back to the theaters! Really? This is your explination? Let me ask you is your peripheral vision greater to the sides or up & down?

No, that is not my explination. It is the explanation. That is the historical record of what happened during the introduction of CinemaScope, Vistavision, Panavision etc.

My peripheral vision extends both up and down and sideways. Because my pupils are round.

What shape are yours?

[loinburger]

Your pupils are round, but your eyes are placed side-by-side, not one-atop-the-other. The human binocular visual field is 200-degrees (w) x 135-degrees (h)

[Jon Miller]

Still, if it is small I would prefer 4:3 because I don't want to waste vertical visual space.

If the screen is big, than I would prefer 16:9 (or even more) because I have broader vision than high (as noted) and it is easier to turn my head left/right than up/down.

If the screen is smaller than ~27inch (maybe ~24inch), I would prefer 4:3, if it is larger I would prefer 16:9.

I like iPhone the way it is due to fitting in my pocket.

JM

[onodera]

Your pupils are round, but your eyes are placed side-by-side, not one-atop-the-other. The human binocular visual field is 200-degrees (w) x 135-degrees (h)

That's including their peripheral vision. The FOV of direct attention is much narrower. I don't even want to go into details how even this fov is simulated by the brain and the real one is even narrower.

[loinburger]

I always get a kick out of reading about ways that the brain simulates vision

[Vanguard]

Binocular vision is not especially relevant when considering a 10' screen held 16" from your eyes.

[loinburger]

Try trolling some MrFun threads instead, he's extremely gullible.

[Vanguard]

Try trolling some MrFun threads instead, he's extremely gullible.

Lol. Fine. Go ahead and pay $600 for a Transformer Prime then. It's your money.

My new tablet arrives Friday. Got to go look at some apps.

[loinburger]

It's all well and good to say "I prefer a different screen resolution." It's retarded to say "according to some fake science that I pulled out of my ass, my preferred screen resolution is the 'correct' screen resolution." Based on the .9-repeating=1 thread, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you're trolling; the alternative is that you're retarded.

[Vanguard]

It's all well and good to say "I prefer a different screen resolution." It's retarded to say "according to some fake science that I pulled out of my ass, my preferred screen resolution is the 'correct' screen resolution." Based on the .9-repeating=1 thread, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you're trolling; the alternative is that you're retarded.

I think if you re-read the thread you will find that it was not me who provided "fake science" to support their preference. It was Asher. Why don't you yell at him for trolling?

All I did was debunk the idea that a 16:9 ratio is better for tablets because it is more "natural", something which is patently absurb for anything except movies. Why should 16:9 be considered more natural for reading text? Is the text supposed to expand to the corners of your vision, giving you a sense of wide open spaces? Or maybe the words will slowly move in your peripheral vision and give you a sense of motion? Or what?

Complete nonsense.

Even for movies, the "naturalness" of 16:9 is a dubious assertion, since people have watched television and Acadamy ratio movies happily for 80 years. But since movies are in widescreen, a 16:9 ratio makes perfect sense for HDTVs (and reasonable sense for monitors). When have I ever said anything different?

Tablets however are not devices for watching movies. They are reading devices that also play movies. As such, they should be optimized for reading, not for providing a awesome widescreen experience, which they can't do anyway, because they are only 9" wide.

[loinburger]

I think if you re-read the thread you will find that it was not me who provided "fake science" to support their preference. It was Asher. Why don't you yell at him for trolling?

I didn't criticize Asher because Asher didn't say

My peripheral vision extends both up and down and sideways. Because my pupils are round.

What shape are yours?

[Vanguard]

It is a perfectly true statement.

And my field of vision certainly extends to edge of any tablet---- in both directions. It even extends out onto the bezel.

[Vanguard]

Ugh. Just talking about this stuff has made my eyes feel all weird. I keep looking around to see how far my peripheral vision extends.

Also, whenever I try to go to sleep I see rotating faces.

Make it stop!

[DanS]

Vanguard's correct on the history. But the context doesn't end there. The golden age of US cinema was during the 4:3 era of film. It tends to be a better format for more personal dramas (I assume it is because a human face is framed better in 4:3). That said, I like me some 70mm 2.35:1 film, such as Lawrence of Arabia. Sweeping vistas look awesome in the widest aspect ratios.

Ironically, we might be going back to the 4:3 sooner or later, given that IMAX is 70mm 4:3, IIRC.

As an aside, the first film where I've seen something like 16:9 in portrait is 2001: A Space Odyssey. IOW, you can thank Stanley Kubrick for the idea.

[Asher]

I think if you re-read the thread you will find that it was not me who provided "fake science" to support their preference. It was Asher. Why don't you yell at him for trolling?

All I did was debunk the idea that a 16:9 ratio is better for tablets because it is more "natural", something which is patently absurb for anything except movies. Why should 16:9 be considered more natural for reading text? Is the text supposed to expand to the corners of your vision, giving you a sense of wide open spaces? Or maybe the words will slowly move in your peripheral vision and give you a sense of motion? Or what?

Complete nonsense.

Even for movies, the "naturalness" of 16:9 is a dubious assertion, since people have watched television and Acadamy ratio movies happily for 80 years. But since movies are in widescreen, a 16:9 ratio makes perfect sense for HDTVs (and reasonable sense for monitors). When have I ever said anything different?

Tablets however are not devices for watching movies. They are reading devices that also play movies. As such, they should be optimized for reading, not for providing a awesome widescreen experience, which they can't do anyway, because they are only 9" wide.

Tablets are for consuming content. They're not for "reading" or "watching movies" or "playing games". They're for any of the above.

Here's what I would do on a tablet:
- Email
- Surf web
- The odd app

Now when I search the web, I'm perfectly happy with a portrait mode widescreen tablet. You know why? Because it is epicly ****ing pointless to have a super HD screen with a zillion pixels wide if websites are optimized to work with 1024 pixels. You can still fit all of the content on the screen comfortably when in portrait mode on a 16:9 HD screen -- and further still, I can actually fit more content on it since it is "taller".

Most people prefer reading narrower columns than wider as well. It's less tiring on the eyes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And Asher wasn't the one who went all apeshit that someone else prefered another aspect ratio. That was you with the "humans perfer 4:3" after Asher's comment that he was waiting for a 16:9 tablet that started all this.

FWIW, tablets are horrible reading devices compared to e-ink devices. Tablets are touchscreen computers without the clunky CPU and keyboard. Every computer I've seen in the last few years has been widescreen, including Apple's.

[Asher]

FWIW, I now have an "iPad 3" for use at work to hold me over until some decent Android HW comes out.

[onodera]

FWIW, I now have an "iPad 3" for use at work to hold me over until some decent Android HW comes out.

What hw do you expect to come out soon? Ten inch amoled plus from Samsung?

[Asher]

I'm thinking the tablet Nexus that's rumoured.

[onodera]

I'm thinking the tablet Nexus that's rumoured.

That's going to be a low-cost 7-incher, isn't it? I'm looking for a 10-incher.

[Sava]

it's peruvian