I got a press release yesterday from Ematic, one of the smaller tablet makers. They’ve just announced a 9.7″ Android tablet, the eGlide Pro X, making it their second budget 10″ tablet to be launched in only a few months.
The Pro X has much the same specs as Ematics’ other 10″ tablet (and pretty much all the latest budget Android tablets on the market). It’s running Android 4.0 on a 1GHz CPU with a graphics chip, bevy of ports, cheap camera, card slot, and a minimum of storage.
That pretty much describes Ematic’s last tablet, the eGlide XL Pro II. In fact, I can see only one way major difference between the 2 devices: the screen. The older tablet has a 10″ screen with a resolution of 1024×600, while the newer tablet has a 9.7″ screen with a resolution of 1024×768.
Now, neither screen size is uncommon, but this is the first time I know of where a tablet maker released 2 new devices with similar specs this close to each other which differed by little more than the dimensions of the screen. One is noticeably longer and narrower than the other, and it raised a question in my mind. Do people prefer one screen shape or the other?
It’s not a trivial question; there are some use cases which fit one screen geometry better. For example, I’ve been told that comics work better on a 4:3 screen, and I certainly think that browsing might be better on that screen as well. But for portability, the narrower 16:9 screen on many 7″ tablets wins out over the wider 4:3 screen geometry. You can slip a Galaxy Tab or Nook Color in to your pocket because it’s so narrow. It also more closely resembles a book, making it a slightly better choice for use as an ereader.
So what do you think about the shape of a screen?
RSS
Email
Facebook
Twitter
Feedly
or one of the retailers on
Having used both aspects on multiple size screens, I have no real preference. Portability is a small factor, but pixel density is more important to my than actual resolution. However, I’m extremely disappointed with the display industry. LCD innovation came to a screeching halt when 16:9 HDTV caught on. I want my 4:3 high-res computer screens back! Or if 16:9 really is the future, try adding horizontal pixels instead of chopping off the bottom of a decent screen!
/rant
I really miss the 1600×1200 20 inch screen of my old Viewsonic CRT display, but not the dent it left in my desk. I saw a Playbook the other day and was amazed at how small the screen was, and how lines of text were either too short in portrait or too long in landscape. I do think I would prefer to browse or read magazines or comics on a 1024×768 10 screen like the iPad or lePan2. I’m pretty happy with the screen size of my 6 inch 800×600 e-ink reader for ordinary novels and short stories.
16:9 is a terrible aspect ratio for anything, including film. 16:9 doesn’t approximate visual perception field in any way, it’s just hugely too wide. If turned vertically, it’s too narrow. 4:3 or 3:2 are both better for just about anything.
Unlike retina fanboi I’m not a resolution queen.
I like the 16:9 factor, perversely, because the empty space at the top and bottom can contain meta information (page, title, progress bar, notification bar) without obscuring the content. I much prefer the Transformer’s 10.1″ (1280×800) screen over the HP Touchpad 9.7″ (1024×768) screen in that the pixel density is just higher enough to be unnoticeable. Strangely enough 10.1″ (1024×600) work well for me as well.
That said, on the lower end, the 8″ (800×600) screens blow away the 7″ (800×480) screens
for comics and manga. The 480 pixel width is pretty much marginal for any comics with fine print.
I might feel differently if I were using a larger tablet, but for my purposes I prefer a 7″ widescreen. I mostly use it for reading and watching video. Seven inches is really too small for comic books and web browsing anyway, and all current TV and movies are in widescreen.
7 inch tablets are not small enough to carry around in your pocket like a phone. And would you when you have keys, wallet and a phone already in your pockets? I dismiss the usability of 16:9 on those grounds (not actually practical as stated).
For watching hd video yes I’ll grant you the widescreen ratio is perfect.
I mostly browse the net, and read ebooks. For both uses the wider ratio of 4:3 which imitates 8.5:11 paper is much better for portrait mode reading.
The higher the aspect ratio for the same diameter, the less area the screen has. Those 7 inch 16:9 tablets are around half the area of a 10 inch 4:3 tablet. I really wish that pc monitors and android tablets had not decided foolishly that 16:9 was the perfect aspect ratio– IT IS NOT.
A good compromise for video and reading is 16:10, it is sad to see those sizes in pc monitors disappear.
I carried my Samsung Galaxy Tab in my right front pocket while I was on the convention floor at SID Display Week.
16×9 (1.78:1) was designed for television. It was determined to be the best compromise for displaying all of the various movie and TV formats that have been used over the past century. Some of these are wider (aka Cinemascope and Panavision at 2.35:1) and some are narrower (Most pre-2009 TV and pre-1954 movies were 1.33:1). The 16×9 shape minimizes the black bars on the top for wider formats and minimizes bars on the sides for narrower formats. Applying the widescreen TV format to reading devices is just a marketing gimmick, because widescreen is “cool” today.
I prefer 4×3 for tablets. One reason: A 4×3 shape has about 12% more real estate than a 16×9 shape with the same diagonal measurement. Most people don’t realize that. The other reason: More of a web page can be seen in landscape mode.
I think that a 16:9 ratio is perfect for a 7 inch or even 10 inch tablet. I do not really have a very strong argument for this because it’s all opinionated, but I prefer a widescreen layout rather than portrait.
16:9 is madness and a big problem to cinematography. You can notice the chopping of heads and lower chest by the camera man. Or placing focus pictures on the side of the screen. 4:3 or 14:9 is better.but manufacturers are trying to force their stupidty on us.let them allow production of 14:9 tv and see if 16:9 tv will sell a single unit
whose stupid idea was it to have 16:9 for computer monitor?
i rather buy a second hand 4:3 old monitor than those 1080p craps.
16:9 is a terrible aspect ratio for a touch screen tablet. When you type using the on screen keyboard in the landscape mode, there is so little real estate left for viewing what you have typed that it becomes impractical to use to type long paragraphs. In the portrait mode, it is too narrow to type anything. 4:3 is FAR superior. I believe that the manufacturers are pushing for 16:9 because they use the diagonal as the measurement for screen size. For the same diagonal size 16:9 is MUCH smaller than 4:3, but most people don’t seem to be aware of it.
It all depends on what the tablet is used for. For browsing the web, reading magazines or comics, and e-reading, the 4:3 ratio works better, as it’s a bit more natural. Surprisingly, the 3:2 ratio of the older iPod touch and the new Nook HD+ works quite nicely as well. For multimedia, 16:9 or 16:10 is king… unless you’re viewing an old 4:3 movie or TV show.