Hey there!
Welcome to the Digital Spy forums. If you’d like to join in, please sign in or register.
Sign In Register
Quick Links
- Categories
- Recent Discussions
- Best Of...
Steffan_Leach Posts: 4,669 Forum Member ✭✭✭
19/07/15 - 11:16 in Tablets and e-Readers #1
I wish more tablets were made in a 4:3 (ie non widescreen) aspect ratio.
I am looking for a tablet to replace my 2013 7 inch
Google Nexus 7 with an aspect ratio of 16:10. I am interested in basically just one thing. The 4:3 aspect ratio.
As far as I know, apart from the popular iPad (which has always been 4:3)
the only two android tablets to use a 4:3 aspect ratio are the Google Nexus 9 (9 inch) and the Samsung Galaxy Tab A (availbale in 8 or 9.7 inches).
I love the 4:3 aspect ratio on tablets, it feels so much
better than 16:9 or 16:10. 4:3 feels like just the correct
proportions for a tablet (or for any screen in my
opinion). I know we have moved towards widescreen but I
and many others believe that 4:3 is better on a tablet.
There are several reasons for this.
1. Diagonal Size. A 4:3 tablet with the same advertised
size as a 16:9 tablet will actually have more screen area.
2. A 4:3 screen is more aesthetically pleasing on a tablet
than 16:9. 16:9 feels too tall and skinny. It feels too
narrow in portrait mode and too short in landscape mode.
Apps fit naturally better in the 4:3 ratio.
3. As 4:3 gives more space than 16:9 or 16:10 for the same
diagonal size, apps will either give you more screen real
estate, or it will display it larger. It also means you
get more vertical space in landsacpe mode, meaning you
have to scroll less when browsing the web or reading an
ebook/pdf. In portrait mode, reading feels more natural
and more akin to a book, than 16:9 or 16:10. The lines
will be wider, or bigger. Also, in portrait, for a webpage
to fit on a 16:9 or 16:10 screen, the webpage has to be
shrunk quite a bit, but on a wider 4:3 screen, the webpage
can be bigger.
Sure, there are a few minor disadvantages to 4:3, such as
black bars on widescreen videos and movies, but I guess it
depends on what you do most. Almost everything apart from
widescreen content will look better on a 4:3 tablet, and
lets not forget older 4:3 tv shows and movies.
In conclusion, unless you are a movie buff, in my opinion
you should try and get a 4:3 tablet over a 16:10 or a 16:9
one. 4:3 just feels better for everything other than
movies.
I wish more tablets were made in the 4:3 aspect ratio. I
guess maybe the reason is money and to have a screen more
similar to phones (most of which are 16:9) so it's easier
to get phone apps to fit on a 16:10 screen which most
android tablets currently have. For now I guess we are
stuck with the 16:10 compromise unless you get a Google
Nexus 9 or a Sanmsung Galaxy Tab A 
oilman Posts: 4,529
Forum Member
✭✭✭
19/07/15 - 14:46 #2
I think most people use tablets for surfing and watching tv or videos. For surfing, you can really use either but for most tv or video 16:9 is the best.
Actually in portrait mode, I think 16:9 is also better as on screen keyboard is less intrusive.
if you like 4:3, then answer is to buy a bigger 16:9 (ok 16:10 really).
If you had 4:3 screen, people would need bigger ones to see 16:9.
Point is either is a compromise. I do not see the manufacturers having two types as that would be expensive.
At one time before analogue tv came along, transmissions were often in 14:9 i.e. only small bars at side for 4:3 (12:9) pictures, or small bars at top and bottom for 16:9 pictures.
So perhaps the ideal tablet would be 14:9?
d'@ve Posts: 45,338
Forum Member
✭
19/07/15 - 15:13 #3
Steffan_Leach wrote: »
I and many others believe that 4:3 is better on a tablet.
There are several reasons for this.
1. Diagonal Size. A 4:3 tablet with the same advertised
size as a 16:9 tablet will actually have more screen area.Only in practice if the tablet shape is also 4:3, which is unlikely (books aren't 4:3 for a reason!). With a given tablet width and the usual longish oblong shape, often 3:2, the largest possible screen area will be pushed more towards 16:9 than 4:3
4:3 is a throwback to the manufacturing constraints of CRT tubes back in the old days of Analogue TV and isn't a natural shape for the human eye... though obviously there are some exceptions to this but will manufacturers allow for such exceptions? Not at the same price point, that's for sure!
Tassium Posts: 31,639
Forum Member
✭✭✭
19/07/15 - 15:52 #4
The main reason will be copy-cat manufacturers not wishing to take a risk with 4:3 in any great numbers.
16:9/16:10 is selling, so only if there is a slow down in sales may 4:3 appear in a big way.
Steffan_Leach Posts: 4,669
Forum Member
✭✭✭
19/07/15 - 16:12 #5
oilman wrote: »
I think most people use tablets for surfing and watching tv or videos. For surfing, you can really use either but for most tv or video 16:9 is the best.
Actually in portrait mode, I think 16:9 is also better as on screen keyboard is less intrusive.
if you like 4:3, then answer is to buy a bigger 16:9 (ok 16:10 really).
If you had 4:3 screen, people would need bigger ones to see 16:9.
Point is either is a compromise. I do not see the manufacturers having two types as that would be expensive.
At one time before analogue tv came along, transmissions were often in 14:9 i.e. only small bars at side for 4:3 (12:9) pictures, or small bars at top and bottom for 16:9 pictures.
So perhaps the ideal tablet would be 14:9?
The 4:3 aspect ratio has worked for the iPad for the five years since it's launch, why can't more android tablets use it.
I can tell you that in landscape on a 16:10 tablet the keyboard is far more intrusive than that on a 4:3 one. You get almost no vertical space to work with. Also the keyboard gets quite small on 16:10 in portrait as there isn't as much width. On 16:10 you get a very big keyboard in landscape and a small one in portrait, whereas on 4:3 it's more even.
And 4:3 is much better for web browsing in landscape on the internet. As websites scale to the width of the device, 4:3 shows more vertical space.
Anyway, I'm sure most people would rather watch tv and movies on their tv or computer screen than on their tablet. The content won't really be any smaller, you'll just get black bars on the top and bottom - not too much of an issue.
Why should I have to buy a bigger 16:9 or 16:10 device only too find it's much longer and will no longer fit in my coat/jacket pocket?
In my opinion 16:10/16:9 on a tablet feels too much like an oversized phone.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but I think my vision is closer to 4:3 than 16:9 (excluding peripheral vision). Sittting in front of my 22 inch 16:9 full hd monitor, the monitor is filling my horizontal field of view (excluding peripheral vision) but not filling my vertical. I can see just above the top of my monitor down to the keyboard. When I had my old 4:3 monitor and sat close to it it filled my field of vision (excluding peripheral vision).
14:9 or 3:2 may be a good compromise, but I'd still rather see more 4:3 ones.
Steffan_Leach Posts: 4,669
Forum Member
✭✭✭
19/07/15 - 16:32 #6
d'@ve wrote: »
Only in practice if the tablet shape is also 4:3, which is unlikely (books aren't 4:3 for a reason!). With a given tablet width and the usual longish oblong shape, often 3:2, the largest possible screen area will be pushed more towards 16:9 than 4:3
4:3 is a throwback to the manufacturing constraints of CRT tubes back in the old days of Analogue TV and isn't a natural shape for the human eye... though obviously there are some exceptions to this but will manufacturers allow for such exceptions? Not at the same price point, that's for sure!
3:2 is closer to 4:3 than 16:9. And have you ever seen a book in the tall skinny shape of 16:9, I haven't. Books are closer to 4:3 than 16:9. And if an e-book doesn't fill the screen, that space at the bottom can be used for navigation controls such as next page, previous, zoom etc. without covering the content.
I disagree that 4:3 isn't a natural shape to the human eye. I
think my vision is closer to 4:3 than 16:9 (excluding
peripheral vision). Sittting in front of my 22 inch 16:9
full hd monitor, the monitor is filling my horizontal
field of view (excluding peripheral vision) but not
filling my vertical. I can see just above the top of my
monitor down to the keyboard. When I had my old 4:3
monitor and sat close to it it filled my field of vision
(excluding peripheral vision).
It doesn't matter on a tablet anyway, as it doesn't fill your field your vision vertically or horizontally (unless you hold it really close to your face).I think it's just to save money so they can still advertise the same sized screen but actually give you less screen! I think all reatilers and manufacturers should be forced to give the height and width measurements, not just the diagonal, that should put a stop to all this widescreen madness!
For example, imagine two tablets offer the same diagonal sized sat nav but one screen is a 4:3 and the other a 16:9. To the average consumer they'd appear the same size, but if they were told the Height and width meaurements they'd think differently.
In the case of a 4:3 and 16:9 8 inch tablet heres what the difference would be:
Stig Posts: 12,446
Forum Member
✭✭
19/07/15 - 17:19 #7
The newer Microsoft Surface tablets are 3:2 ratio. Like Apple, it seems MS recognise this is a more useful ratio than 16:9.
oilman Posts: 4,529
Forum Member
✭✭✭
19/07/15 - 22:23 #8
Stig wrote: »
The newer Microsoft Surface tablets are 3:2 ratio. Like Apple, it seems MS recognise this is a more useful ratio than 16:9.
Of course 3:2 equals 13.5:9 which is pretty close to the old analogue tv compromise of 14:9 - halfway between 16:9 and 4:3 (12:9) so 3:2 can be considered to be a pretty good compromise format.
d'@ve Posts: 45,338
Forum Member
✭
19/07/15 - 23:52 #9
Steffan_Leach wrote: »
The 4:3 aspect ratio has worked for the iPad for the five years since it's launch, why can't more android tablets use it.
Presmably because the existing ones sell. Anyway my Android is 16:10 and it's fine.
If you like 4:3 get an iPad.
anthony david Posts: 14,378
Forum Member
✭✭
20/07/15 - 11:32 #10
The o/p has a thing about 4X3, especially TV broadcasts, and this is just the latest of several threads by him on the subject.
Anika Hanson Posts: 15,622
Forum Member
✭✭
20/07/15 - 19:02 #11
d'@ve wrote: »
Presmably because the existing ones sell. Anyway my Android is 16:10 and it's fine.
If you like 4:3 get an iPad.
I think that most of the android tablets are going to move towards 4:3 aspect ratios going forward. The nexus 9 already has a 4:3 aspect ratio and now the tab S 2 series by Samsung have just been announced with 4:3 ratios.
Steffan_Leach Posts: 4,669
Forum Member
✭✭✭
20/07/15 - 19:36 #12
Anika Hanson wrote: »
I think that most of the android tablets are going to move towards 4:3 aspect ratios going forward. The nexus 9 already has a 4:3 aspect ratio and now the tab S 2 series by Samsung have just been announced with 4:3 ratios.
Good. Will the same thing happen with phones as well? I had heard of one foreign 5 inch phone with a 4:3 ratio, but many said it was too big. I think my dream smartphone would be a 4 inch in a 4:3 aspect ratio. 4 inches wide, 3 inches tall, whats not to like?
I have just found some phones with a 4:3 aspect ratio:
http://www.gsmarena.com/pantech_pocket_p9060-4245.php
http://www.techhive.com/article/2049244/lg-vu-3-smartphone-goes-extra-wide-with-a-4-3-aspect-ratio.htmlalanwarwic Posts: 28,396
Forum Member
✭✭✭
23/07/15 - 14:33 #13
I think 1024 x 768 were pretty much the last PC screen that had 4:3 as a majority.
As to tablets having 4:3, there are two reasons. The first being cost. The 16:10 Nexus 10 has 30% more pixels than the 9 thus making the 4:3 Nexus 9 cheaper to make.
The 2nd is to differentiate the market from laptops, helping tablets maintain a separate identity whilst hindering their natural progression to being hybrids.
4:3 is retro, cheaper, and gives massive black bars for video unless you are watching video stuff from the 80s.So, if your Android tablet has 4:3, just remember that you are short-changed on pixels, with that 9" screen feeling more like a tiny 7" when watching any video.
Quackers Posts: 4,830
Forum Member
✭✭✭
23/07/15 - 15:00 #14
I would appear Samsung is now coming round to Apples way of thinking.
http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-tab-s2-officially-announced-626779/
latest Tab will be 4:3.
When ever i use to see people with Galaxy Tabs i always thought the widescreen just looked stupid.
Anika Hanson Posts: 15,622
Forum Member
✭✭
23/07/15 - 19:17 #15
Quackers wrote: »
I would appear Samsung is now coming round to Apples way of thinking.
http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-tab-s2-officially-announced-626779/
latest Tab will be 4:3.
When ever i use to see people with Galaxy Tabs i always thought the widescreen just looked stupid.
The 16:9 ratio is great for watching videos but not for much else. I much prefer 4:3.
alanwarwic Posts: 28,396
Forum Member
✭✭✭
23/07/15 - 21:44 #16
Anika Hanson wrote: »
I think that most of the android tablets are going to move towards 4:3 aspect ratios going forward. The nexus 9 already has a 4:3 aspect ratio and now the tab S 2 series by Samsung have just been announced with 4:3 ratios.
Most are 16:10.
3:2 is 15:10 so the 2 are close.But yes they might move to 4:3. It makes little long sense whatsoever to give 30% more pixels whilst retailing for less.
The Jam lyric 'the public wants what the public gets' very much fits here.
Me. Well I'd have the extra pixels instead TYVM.goldenface Posts: 1,063
Forum Member
✭✭✭
27/07/15 - 21:43 #17
I much, much prefer 16:9 for tablets. It's much better for watching video and more natural on the eyes and having black strips on the screen is just a waste of valuable and expensive screen estate that you've already paid for.
Television ditched 4:3 ratio years and years ago because films just look rubbish on them. It looks antiquated.
Also, in portrait mode it makes an excellent e-reader, especially with the lighter tablets like the Z3 tablet compact.
I've never understood why OEMs go to all that effort to acquire screens with amazing colours and performance for 4:3 tablets, which are obviously geared towards displaying apps rather then video.
OEMs are providing 4:3 screens because it's always good to give the consumer options.
Stig Posts: 12,446
Forum Member
✭✭
28/07/15 - 07:12 #18
goldenface wrote: »
I much, much prefer 16:9 for tablets. It's much better for watching video and more natural on the eyes and having black strips on the screen is just a waste of valuable and expensive screen estate that you've already paid for.
Television ditched 4:3 ratio years and years ago because films just look rubbish on them. It looks antiquated.
Also, in portrait mode it makes an excellent e-reader, especially with the lighter tablets like the Z3 tablet compact.
I've never understood why OEMs go to all that effort to acquire screens with amazing colours and performance for 4:3 tablets, which are obviously geared towards displaying apps rather then video.
OEMs are providing 4:3 screens because it's always good to give the consumer options.
If you are watching video on your tablet most of the time, the maybe 16:9 is perfect for you. However, unlike a TV, most people don't spend most of their time watching video on a tablet; they use it for web browsing, email etc.
I'm also not convinced that 9:16 makes a good portrait screen for reading - it's way too tall and thin compared to a book.
psionic Posts: 20,188
Forum Member
✭✭✭
28/07/15 - 08:15 #19
alanwarwic wrote: »
Most are 16:10.
3:2 is 15:10 so the 2 are close.But yes they might move to 4:3. It makes little long sense whatsoever to give 30% more pixels whilst retailing for less.
The Jam lyric 'the public wants what the public gets' very much fits here.
Me. Well I'd have the extra pixels instead TYVM.Assuming we're comparing displays of the same PPI a 10" 4:3 surely has far more pixels and viewable area then a 10" 16:10 for example?
IvanIV Posts: 30,267
Forum Member
✭✭✭
28/07/15 - 11:52 #20
Surface 3 Pro is 3:2 and it has enough pixels to present 16:9 in Full HD. That's what I care for as for multimedia and for everything else I find this aspect ratio better.
Sign In or Register to comment.
