*spin-off* Personal Aspect Ratio Issues

[Squilliam]

nope, that's what the other monitor is for. Although I'm now down to two landscape monitors, since my other one died a couple of days ago.

As America rushes off to work, bkilian waits. As we check our watches to see if it's time for lunch, bkilian waits. As we gripe about the cost of IT equipment, bkilian waits. As we watch news footage of Microsoft employees by the thousands forced to use slow obsolete hardware whilst Steve's Pet shop down the street gets by on the latest core i7 processors, bkilian waits.

For just $1.20 a day you can sponsor a Microsoft employee to have the latest hardware so they don't have to wait anymore.

 

[bkilian]

As America rushes off to work, bkilian waits. As we check our watches to see if it's time for lunch, bkilian waits. As we gripe about the cost of IT equipment, bkilian waits. As we watch news footage of Microsoft employees by the thousands forced to use slow obsolete hardware whilst Steve's Pet shop down the street gets by on the latest core i7 processors, bkilian waits.

For just $1.20 a day you can sponsor a Microsoft employee to have the latest hardware so they don't have to wait anymore.

Hehe. Nice. No, I don't need any sponsors, it's just my new monitor doesn't rotate.

 

[Arwin]

I prefer two landscape monitors, assuming they are big enough. My field of view works like that, and if I find I'm writing functions that benefit from more horizontal space, I've already lost.

Heck, if resolution proves a little (1620x1050 currently), one screen could be enough.

 

[green.pixel]

also I'll note in the old days a lot of arcade games were in portrait

Many home ports of modern arcade games support the TATE mode, which allows the player to rotate the display so the playing field is viewed vertically.

 

[idsn6]

This is a slide from an internal Samsung document addressing reasons for returns of the Galaxy Tab.

 

[zed]

Nice find. Ouch that is pretty damming (& supports what Ive been saying),
they admit except for movie viewing 4:3 is better
So why did they go for 16:10
Im guessing to differentiate from the ipad, and who suffers? the customers.
Look where MS is going with the surface 16:9! Im guessing to even further differentiate from the ipad. Will noone think of the customers.

OT - Apple is prolly the worse infringers on this, eg in the mac os theres so many things in windows/linux which are better but its like apple wont add them cause they dont want to appear like theyre copying, eventually they do add them years later by stealth.

eg some famous examples
-right mouse button
-maximize window button
-enter key to press a button
-border resize on all borders
etc

 

[I.S.T.]

To be honest, I'd prefer a 16:10 or 16:9 ratio myself simply to make TV and movie viewing easier if I had a tablet.

Who is to say what customers prefer unless you poll them? That document does not appear to have done that, so we cannot say either way.

 

[zed]

Ive spoken about watching video before, so wont repeat what I said
couldnt really find any real good data (except this) about what ppl do on a tablet

shocked 12% watch video though (higher than I thought, I guessed perhaps 5%)
But anyways its only a minor thing, honestly is anyone surprised by this, you watch video/tv on a tv thats what gives you the best experience. the ipad is actually quite heavy (grrr metal) holding it on your lap for 90mins to watch a film

heres another survey, this is what I think happens most often, ppl use it on the couch

now if someone can give some actual evidence that a large number of ppl watch video on a tablet I perhaps will change my mind, but as it stands now its a minor feature

 

[AlphaWolf]

Perhaps they use a stand (convertible cover) instead of holding it...and watching TV and watching video at the same time (your second survey) seems unlikely doesn't it?

I don't watch a lot of movies on my PlayBook but I view quite a lot of video (YouTube etc).

 

[idsn6]

Who is to say what customers prefer unless you poll them? That document does not appear to have done that, so we cannot say either way.

The "VOC" label on the slides stands for "voice of the customer". The report is the result of surveys and interviews with customers and store employees.

 

[zed]

Bump for the Surface Pro 3 reveal
Congrats MS for finally realizing that 16:9 was not a good ratio
It only took 3 iterations of the device [facepalm]

Over the last few years MS have made so many bad design choices that have been obvious to many like myself, You've gotta wonder what is up?

 

[RedVi]

I'm very happy with the move to 3:2, I'll probably end up buying a Surface Pro 3 and the new size and aspect is a big part of that decision.

I've noticed a few negative comments around the web regarding the move away from 16:9 purely for content consumption purposes. Anyone who has such complaints is looking at the wrong tablet. Consumption comes second on a surface pro.

Timeline based editing programs for video and audio do benefit from a wider view more so than higher to an extent, but with the size and resolution increase, I don't see the shift to be a step back for anyone aside from the 'black bar hating' consumption crowd. I'd hazard a guess that the original Surface Pro screen may actually come close to fitting inside the new Pro 3 screen in all dimensions, even close to pixel to pixel - but that's just a guess.

 

[zed]

The funny thing is I watch all my films on my 16:9 phone in portrait mode since its easier to hold for a longer time

Heres the last 5 films I watched and their ratio, OK my viewing habits arent normal since Im not a person that saiz, OMG that films from last century Im not watching that old crap

Jungfrauen-Report (1972) 1.66:1
Wither (2012) 2.35 : 1
Happy Feet Two (2011) 2.35:1
Don't Go to Sleep (1982) 1.33:1
Citizen X (1995) 1.33:1

3:2 seems a decent compromise, its also the most common aspect for camera photos

 

[Grall]

Timeline based editing programs for video and audio do benefit from a wider view more so than higher to an extent, but with the size and resolution increase, I don't see the shift to be a step back for anyone aside from the 'black bar hating' consumption crowd.

A 3:2 very high-res display is going to be far superior for video editing than a 16:9 display, especially one with much lower resolution, purely because the 3:2 display can comfortably fit a user interface in addition to the video.

As for being inferior somehow for WATCHING video compared to 16:9, I find myself asking myself if I really want to watch video - 16:9 aspect or not - on a tiny screen I have to hold in my hand, or rather on a really BIG screen that stands on its own, and where I can sit back comfortably and have use of my hands to grab a snack as I watch. Now add to the fact that most feature movies tend to not be native 16:9 format, but rather even wider, so you'll end up with black bar regardless.

So as far as screen goes I think the choice is really, really easy here, unless one is an idiot or something... (Or maybe that bringing along a 12" 3:2 tablet would simply be too cumbersome for whatever reason - that is also a valid argument.)

 

[Alexko]

A 3:2 very high-res display is going to be far superior for video editing than a 16:9 display, especially one with much lower resolution, purely because the 3:2 display can comfortably fit a user interface in addition to the video.

As for being inferior somehow for WATCHING video compared to 16:9, I find myself asking myself if I really want to watch video - 16:9 aspect or not - on a tiny screen I have to hold in my hand, or rather on a really BIG screen that stands on its own, and where I can sit back comfortably and have use of my hands to grab a snack as I watch. Now add to the fact that most feature movies tend to not be native 16:9 format, but rather even wider, so you'll end up with black bar regardless.

So as far as screen goes I think the choice is really, really easy here, unless one is an idiot or something... (Or maybe that bringing along a 12" 3:2 tablet would simply be too cumbersome for whatever reason - that is also a valid argument.)

I would imagine that people who watch videos on tablets do so primarily in trains/metros/buses, where 50" TVs aren't really an option.

 

[wco81]

And planes.

About to go on an international flight Saturday.

Loading up my iPad Mini Retina, which is likely to have a better screen than the entertainment system on the plane, even though I will be flying business class.

 

[Grall]

I would imagine that people who watch videos on tablets do so primarily in trains/metros/buses, where 50" TVs aren't really an option.

Then you have to acknowledge that your viewing conditions already are far from ideal, so why get so worked up about black bars on your device? 16:9 tablets are great for NOTHING except watching 16:9 video; a tablet that can actually be great at other stuff as well would therefore be a better choice.

 

[AlNom]

It just needs an AR that gives the best balance for one-handed operations

Spoiler

reading, you twats.

 

[Alexko]

Then you have to acknowledge that your viewing conditions already are far from ideal, so why get so worked up about black bars on your device? 16:9 tablets are great for NOTHING except watching 16:9 video; a tablet that can actually be great at other stuff as well would therefore be a better choice.

For some, watching videos might be their tablet's primary function. I can certainly see that happening for people with long commutes. I guess browsing in portrait mode would also be fine with a 16:9 display. Ars Technica, for example, fits perfectly on a 9:16 display.

 

[Malo]

The funny thing is I watch all my films on my 16:9 phone in portrait mode since its easier to hold for a longer time

Heres the last 5 films I watched and their ratio, OK my viewing habits arent normal since Im not a person that saiz, OMG that films from last century Im not watching that old crap

Jungfrauen-Report (1972) 1.66:1
Wither (2012) 2.35 : 1
Happy Feet Two (2011) 2.35:1
Don't Go to Sleep (1982) 1.33:1
Citizen X (1995) 1.33:1

3:2 seems a decent compromise, its also the most common aspect for camera photos

You watch a 2.35 : 1 movie in portrait mode on a phone? How do you see anything, it's probably a couple of centimetres high??