Unofficial Mackie User Forums > DL1608/DL806/DL32R/ProDX Mixers

iPad Air

<< < (3/3)

Greg C.:
Ok. so let's say they made the iPad in a 16:9 aspect. Would you prefer to crop the size of the screen and loose the current screen real estate or stretch the thing out making it longer/larger? I can see why they left it the way they did. With the Retina display, you're not loosing pixel resolution keeping the 4:3 screen aspect doing a 16x9 mask for HD video. If they simply cropped the sides, there would a lot less room for app icons and e-readers where the more square aspect is nicer. If they went the other route, it would be a lot larger keeping the side to side length the same and stretching to 16x9 in the vertical plane.

WK154:
OK lets make the comparison simpler. The new 16:9 vs the old 12:9. Keeping the the height (vertical or 9) gets you 1/3 more screen real-estate and yes I would go for that but that's me. With 33% more display area I could certainly show more relevant data. It increases the length (horizontal) by 2.6" still within the DL footprint. Check your post something doesn't add up (what's vertical). Pixel resolution is not in the picture on aspect ratio. The production of 16:9 already outstrips 4:3 by leaps and bounds and Apple will have no choice anyway. Have you tried to find a 4:3 monitor lately? They're pricey if you can find them. Most phones including the iPhone are close to 16:9 as well. Let's face it it's a 16:9 world today.

sam.spoons:
In my opinion, 16:9 is great for films and rubbish for nearly everything else (okay for the mixer it would allow more channel strips to be visible at one time but only at the expense of a bigger iPad or smaller faders which could be done now).

Greg C.:

--- Quote from: WK154 on October 25, 2013, 02:41:07 AM ---OK lets make the comparison simpler. The new 16:9 vs the old 12:9. Keeping the the height (vertical or 9) gets you 1/3 more screen real-estate and yes I would go for that but that's me. With 33% more display area I could certainly show more relevant data. It increases the length (horizontal) by 2.6" still within the DL footprint. Check your post something doesn't add up (what's vertical).
--- End quote ---

As far as vertical, I'm referring to when the iPad is held with the home button at the bottom in "portrait mode."


--- Quote from: WK154 on October 25, 2013, 02:41:07 AM ---Pixel resolution is not in the picture on aspect ratio. The production of 16:9 already outstrips 4:3 by leaps and bounds and Apple will have no choice anyway. Have you tried to find a 4:3 monitor lately? They're pricey if you can find them. Most phones including the iPhone are close to 16:9 as well. Let's face it it's a 16:9 world today.
--- End quote ---

I'm well aware that pixel resolution and aspect ratio are independent items. I've been in TV/film post production & broadcast industry for over 25 years and currently am an engineer at a well respected pro video hardware manufacturer. What I was referencing is that with the high pixel density of the iPad's Retina display, you are not degrading the resolution of 1920x1080 the native HD raster when you view HD material on said iPad where the top and bottom of the image is being masked with black. So the fact that the iPad is 4:3 doesn't really affect the quality of HD video viewing and gives additional real estate for other apps as well as basic OS stuff. I realize you're posting in the context of the DL, but there are many other uses of the iPad outside of the DL.

I hear you about 4:3 displays in general though. Unfortunately the Avid Venue I work on still uses 4:3 aspect for it's graphics output. I had to find an old NEC display to use with it when I got it or I'd have to have a stretched display which I loath. In that sense, since Avid's uses VNC for remote control of the desk, I'm grateful the iPad is 4:3 when I'm controlling the desk remotely. When I'm using my iPhone 5 with the 16:9 aspect ratio to control the Venue, it sucks having a 4:3 VNC screen inside the 16:9 display. Even the new Avid SL3 desk uses 4:3 output which is silly. I guess Apple isn't the only one behind the times as far as your view on aspect ratios ;)

WK154:
Got it on your reference to pixel resolution and screen orientation (reread it slower). Don't shot the messenger on the FCC/Broadcast/Computer industry decision it only took them 10 years of arguments and the FCC finally gave up and threw it back to industry. Being in the business you probably know all this. Now that it's all set it's technically obsolete (referring to 1920x1080). Back in the 70's we had 4Kx4K 12" p10 displays (mono) on the electron microscopes I was dealing with, now that's resolution. Your right about my focus on the iPad usage totally DL/X32 etc. control surface oriented. I'm holding on to some of my 4:3 monitors and tablets/laptops for now.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page