Nexus 9: 4:3 what's so bad?

[Paskell]

If this is true why is this so bad? Clearly they wouldn't do it if it was garbage

Posted via Android Central App

 

[dancing-bass]

4:3 is simply the aspect ratio of the picture. If it's 4 units wide, it will be 3 units tall. So, it's more square then 16:9. Just like 4:3. 16:9 is a ratio. If the picture is 16 units wide, it will be 9 units tall, so it's more rectangular. Most people prefer 16:9 because it fills the screen (smartphone, computer monitor, TV, etc), but if you use 4:3, you'll have black bars on either side of the picture.

However, 4:3 is a higher resolution then 16:9. On most smartphones, the 16:9 option simply chops out the top and bottom of the 4:3 picture to get the more rectangular 16:9.

This explains things in a nice simple picture. The 2nd one is more relevant to what I was trying to explain.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_1/images/plus-piano-projector-16-9-4-3-diagram.gif

 

[OUGrad05]

4:3 is simply the aspect ratio of the picture. If it's 4 units wide, it will be 3 units tall. So, it's more square then 16:9. Just like 4:3. 16:9 is a ratio. If the picture is 16 units wide, it will be 9 units tall, so it's more rectangular. Most people prefer 16:9 because it fills the screen (smartphone, computer monitor, TV, etc), but if you use 4:3, you'll have black bars on either side of the picture.

However, 4:3 is a higher resolution then 16:9. On most smartphones, the 16:9 option simply chops out the top and bottom of the 4:3 picture to get the more rectangular 16:9.

This explains things in a nice simple picture. The 2nd one is more relevant to what I was trying to explain.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_1/images/plus-piano-projector-16-9-4-3-diagram.gif

4x3 and 16x9 are not and have nothing to do with resolution. Saying one aspect ratio has higher resolution than another is false.

It simply depends on how the screen or panel was designed. Old tube TV sets were mostly 4x3 and mostly of inferior resolution to 16x9 sets but someone could certainly build a high res display in 4x3 or 16x9.

 

[dancing-bass]

4x3 and 16x9 are not and have nothing to do with resolution. Saying one aspect ratio has higher resolution than another is false.

Sorry for any confusion. I was not referring to the resolution of the screen itself but rather to camera resolution and aspect ratio. For example, the Galaxy S4 in my pocket advertises a 13 megapixel camera, but the only way to achieve a shot at full resolution is to shoot in 4:3 aspect ratio. To shoot in 16:9, the sensor crops out the top and bottom portions to get the more rectangular proportions of 16:9 aspect ratio. In cropping out those portions, you also lose resolution (megapixels), and the resulting image is now 9.6 megapixels.

When the OP asked about 4:3 vs 16:9 and why one may be considered "bad" I immediately assumed they were asking about the camera. Many of the higher-end Android phones already have a 16:9 aspect screen, or something that's much closer to that then 4:3 - which is why I made the assumption.

Screen resolution is usually expressed in qHD (quarter HD), 720p,1080p (Full HD), or in the case of the Note 4 and LG G3 - 2560x1440 - QHD aka Quad HD, since most if not all are already at or very close to the 16:9 ratio as I said before - that's pretty much assumed. Yes, they could make a high-resolution 4:3 display, but why? Most video content is in 16:9, or maybe even 16:10. Most consumers want to shoot at 16:9 so it fills the screen. Most websites are configured for a 16:9 display. So while it's possible, and someone COULD - the consumer market has pretty much settled on 16:9 as the aspect ratio of choice. The quality (resolution) of (especially mobile) displays has very rapidly gone from qHD (quarter HD) to HD and beyond in the last couple of years

 

[craZDude]

Sorry for any confusion. I was not referring to the resolution of the screen itself but rather to camera resolution and aspect ratio. For example, the Galaxy S4 in my pocket advertises a 13 megapixel camera, but the only way to achieve a shot at full resolution is to shoot in 4:3 aspect ratio. To shoot in 16:9, the sensor crops out the top and bottom portions to get the more rectangular proportions of 16:9 aspect ratio. In cropping out those portions, you also lose resolution (megapixels), and the resulting image is now 9.6 megapixels.

When the OP asked about 4:3 vs 16:9 and why one may be considered "bad" I immediately assumed they were asking about the camera. Many of the higher-end Android phones already have a 16:9 aspect screen, or something that's much closer to that then 4:3 - which is why I made the assumption.

Screen resolution is usually expressed in qHD (quarter HD), 720p,1080p (Full HD), or in the case of the Note 4 and LG G3 - 2560x1440 - QHD aka Quad HD, since most if not all are already at or very close to the 16:9 ratio as I said before - that's pretty much assumed. Yes, they could make a high-resolution 4:3 display, but why? Most video content is in 16:9, or maybe even 16:10. Most consumers want to shoot at 16:9 so it fills the screen. Most websites are configured for a 16:9 display. So while it's possible, and someone COULD - the consumer market has pretty much settled on 16:9 as the aspect ratio of choice. The quality (resolution) of (especially mobile) displays has very rapidly gone from qHD (quarter HD) to HD and beyond in the last couple of years

You have to remember the OP was asking about 4:3 vs 16:9 in regards to the new Nexus tablet. She/He was asking this not because they were wondering about the camera, but rather because the screen is going to be 4:3 on this tablet.

So to answer the OP, nothing is inherently wrong with 4:3. In fact, the iPad family has always been 4:3 and it has always been dominant in the tablet market. Yes, video content is in 16:9, meaning you would get black bars above and below the picture. On the other hand, on a smaller screen, it is way more useful to have a 4:3 screen for productivity purposes such as editing documents and spreadsheets.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[Paskell]

Yes I was referring to the screen not the camera.but lots of good info from everyone. Thanks for the answers. I think either way from what was told to me it will be a great tablet so I'll be snaggin one

Posted via Android Central App

 

[I Can Be Your Hero]

IMO 4:3 is better for larger screened tablets. It means you can hold the tablet in any orientation and it'll still be comfortable and usable. I had a Galaxy Tab 10.1 which is a 10" tab 16:9 and it was unusable in portrait mode. Absolutely hated it in portrait and you're forced to use it in landscape all the time.

I'm glad the tab will be 4:3. Will make it usable in any orientation. Yeah, you get black bars when you're watching something on Youtube, but who cares? Of the tens of millions of people who have purchased iPads, I've never heard of the bars being so disruptive that people just can't use them.

People are just crying about 4:3 because they want 16:9. If it's that bad, then don't purchase the tablet. There are plenty of other 16:9 or 16:10 android tablets for you to get.

 

[jstwondrng]

I agree. I don't see where it is a problem. It is hard pleasing everyone but that is the nice part of having choice when it comes to purchasing products. If it doesn't "please" you, you have more money in your pocket!

 

[Shilohcane]

I hate Apple but I think Android gave up and moved to Apple aspect ratio of 4x3 that is the standard. Most Application content are made for Apple in the 4x3 aspect. With the Cast screen and a Chromecast I am not going to watch a lot of long movies on my Nexus 9 since movies are the only reason we have 16:9 format.

Most Android tablets use a 16:10 aspect ratio, which is better for widescreen videos, but also makes for a narrower screen in portrait mode. The iPad's 4:3 ratio gives you a wider portrait mode, but is still great in landscape.

Take a look at any newsstand. Most magazines you’ll find are in roughly 4:3 format. This is true not only for the US, but French and British magazines as well, and it’s close to being an industry standard. Newspapers will also be more readable in 4:3 than widescreen. And look at books: most hardcovers are around 4.5:3, as are most trade paperbacks.

This article tells you why iPad are 4:3 and MacBooks are 16:9 http://www.macworld.com/article/1146035/ipad_screen.html

 

[Ivan Shingler]

I think this should have been qhd display, this has less pixel density than the n7

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[too lame to come up with a good username]

I think Google hit gold with the 3:2 aspect ratio of the Chromebook Pixel. I think 3:2 is the best compromise between 16:9 and 4:3, and they should have stuck with that ratio for the Nexus 9. 3:2 looks better while watching movies and it's still square enough for reading magazines or PDF's. Also, a 3:2 ratio would have set the Nexus 9 apart and made it that much more unique.

 

[neonworm]

I think Google hit gold with the 3:2 aspect ratio of the Chromebook Pixel. I think 3:2 is the best compromise between 16:9 and 4:3, and they should have stuck with that ratio for the Nexus 9. 3:2 looks better while watching movies and it's still square enough for reading magazines or PDF's. Also, a 3:2 ratio would have set the Nexus 9 apart and made it that much more unique.

Dat username.

 

[RickInHouston]

Ding. Ding., Ding. You are correct.

Web is optimized for 4:3 because of the popularity of apple's tablet. This is a FANTASTIC move on Google's part. Every manufacturer will have two screen ratios to sell next year.

I applaud this. I look forward to owning one.

 

[rews]

Ding. Ding., Ding. You are correct.

Web is optimized for 4:3 because of the popularity of apple's tablet. This is a FANTASTIC move on Google's part. Every manufacturer will have two screen ratios to sell next year.

I applaud this. I look forward to owning one.

Totally agree. It's far more comfortable surfing the Web and apps and reading in portrait mode on a 4.3 ratio.

 

[Closingracer]

IMO 4:3 is better for larger screened tablets. It means you can hold the tablet in any orientation and it'll still be comfortable and usable. I had a Galaxy Tab 10.1 which is a 10" tab 16:9 and it was unusable in portrait mode. Absolutely hated it in portrait and you're forced to use it in landscape all the time.

I'm glad the tab will be 4:3. Will make it usable in any orientation. Yeah, you get black bars when you're watching something on Youtube, but who cares? Of the tens of millions of people who have purchased iPads, I've never heard of the bars being so disruptive that people just can't use them.

People are just crying about 4:3 because they want 16:9. If it's that bad, then don't purchase the tablet. There are plenty of other 16:9 or 16:10 android tablets for you to get.

Yes but how many are Nexus Tablets? The Nexus 7 is to small for my Taste and for a 4:3 aspect ratio device I prefer the iPad Mini with it's 8 inch display personally just based on form factor and nothing with OS or apps or etc. For 10 inch Tablets The only Nexus Device in a 16:10 Aspect ratio is the Nexus 10 which is pretty old in specs and isn't sold on Google's website and not going to buy on Ebay. I love my Samsung Galaxy Tab S 10.5 But would love to get a New Nexus 10 or even a 9 in the 16:9/16:10 aspect ratio. Might end up selling my Tab S 10.5 Because ill take 4:3 to get a Nexus but 4:3 isn't doing itself any favors for me imo

 

[Shilohcane]

Ding. Ding., Ding. You are correct.

Web is optimized for 4:3 because of the popularity of apple's tablet. This is a FANTASTIC move on Google's part. Every manufacturer will have two screen ratios to sell next year.

I applaud this. I look forward to owning one.

I agree that everything other than movies is better in 4:3 than 16:9. I own a 2012 and 2013 Nexus 7 and have purchased movies from the Playstore but I always watch them over my Chromecast on my 16:9 HD TV. I have never watched a movie on my Nexus 7 but I sure have been anoyed by trying to read 4:3 documents and newspapers on a 16:9 Nexus 7 screen moving the page left and right to read the whole sentence. Great move Google I am on the Web or reading and I have a HD TV for movies.

 

[Carrtman]

We bought two of them off EBay (Thanks, Mr. Anonymous!) and I had to drive two hours both ways to get them at 1am. Fun times.

It was a good thing we did it that way, though, because we don't live in a 3G area and they wouldn't have been sold at local stores.

Agreed other than watching movies I'm not a big fan of 16:9

reading is much better on a 4:3 ratio although I really like the surface pro 3 ratio feels a bit like reading from a block. Though I would never spent over 1 grand for a consumption device.

 

[jerrykur]

I actually prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio. I wish more devices had not hopped on the 16:9 ratio. I develop so hate that my 24 and 27 inch monitors are really wide and short. I rotated one horizontally so I could see more lines of code.

 

[minnemike]

4:3 = better for internet browsing and reading of multiple forms of media - useful in both vertical and horizontal.

16:9 = really only better for HD movie ratios. Usually forced to go landscape/horizontal when browsing the interwebz.

 

[ollieg]

Could one of you provide a website you call 4:3? I'm not sure of what you mean. Most pages are boardered with ads and or white space. I use the long 16:9 ratio as a way to have more relevant content on screen.

eBook reading can be easier when reading line to line doesn't require scanning back across the width of a wider 4:3 screen. Also Android browsers can re-wrap a page to fit your 16:9 screen. So I'm trying to visualize what people are talking about when dissing the existing Nexus/Android screen ratios.

I want a Nexus 9 as well but feel like I'll be giving up on some of the usability I'm accustomed with using the Nexus 7's