Michael Critz

Feb 16

16:9

mrgan:

There’s nothing magical about the 16:9 aspect ratio. It is suitable for one thing and one thing only: video. And even there, it’s not the Holy Grail. Some of the greatest movies of all time were shot in 4:3. Your theater most likely shows movies in 2.39:1. You want epic? Try Ultra-Panavision 70 at 2.75:1 or Polyvision at 4:1. None of these show “more” or “less” than each other; that depends on the screen size, not the aspect ratio.

In landscape orientation, anything between 4:3 and 2.39:1 feels natural to humans. Now switch to portrait - 16:9 feels pretty weird. Legal-sized paper and certain issues of the ACME Novelty Library fit oddly in your hands, and so would a skinny screen.

Every aspect ratio is a compromise. If a device is ever to be used in portrait mode - and my guess is that people will use the iPad in this book-like mode most of the time - that compromise must result in something closer to 4:3.

I’m ambivalent to 16:9 vs 4:3 in the iPad.

However, I actually prefer the old iMacs to the new “16x9 iMacs” because the screen was 1:1.62 — the Golden Ratio.

In fact, many Apple products are Golden: the screen on the iPhone, MacBooks, Airport Express, Apple mice. In general Apple takes care of the proportion of their products. Think: Cube.

  1. gorczycajexp593398 reblogged this from mrgan
  2. towsonsiff8404 reblogged this from mrgan
  3. grindsports reblogged this from mrgan
  4. onomatronic reblogged this from mrgan
  5. vortech reblogged this from mrgan
  6. curtmerrill reblogged this from mrgan
  7. mcritz reblogged this from mrgan and added:
    I’m ambivalent to...iPad. However, I actually prefer...old...
  8. mymymydesign reblogged this from mrgan
  9. eportelance reblogged this from mrgan and added:
    Neven Mrgan gets it. There...no “standard” aspect ratio, just different ones
  10. mrgan posted this