When Steve Jobs whipped out the iPad, the first thing I did was do a double-take on the screen’s 4:3 aspect ratio. At 1024×763 it’s what I used to have on my 2005 Windows XP CRT screen. It’s wide. It’s iPod “phatty” nano G3 [Wikipedia link] wide and that design only lasted 1 generation before Apple back-peddled to the long and slim. Apple used to default to 16:10, and the new iMac is 16:9, which is modern HDTV aspect ratio. (The iPhone and iPod touch are 3×2)
At 4×3 the iPad will require the same monstrous letterboxing on videos that old SD TVs required. (TUAW has a great post up on this). So what’s the deal?
First, unlike a TV where you sit across the room and the screen fills a relatively small part of your field of vision, like the iPhone, the iPad will be held much closer. Even with monstrous letterboxing, the video will still fill a large part of your field of vision.
Of course, the iPad isn’t only a video player. There are other forms of content to consume. For web browsing, even 16:10 sometimes feels too “short”, and you need to scroll more than you like. For books, a narrow page may not be ideal, and with a two-page spread, those pages will seem squat, squarish.
Now don’t get us wrong, if Apple added pixels and made it 16:10 (1280×800), TiPb wouldn’t complain (they could pillarbox the books!). If they took pixels away to make it 16:9 (1024×576), it might lose part of that “big screen iPod touch” infamy. And it might lose functionality for anything other than video.
It’s definitely a compromise, but is it a good one?
[Thanks Antony for bringing the counter-argument to our attention!]
This is a story by the iPhone Blog. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.
iPad 4:3 Screen – Bad for Movies, Good for Books and Web?
