The widescreen iPhone -- not so widescreen

You know how Steve Jobs and Apple like to boast of the iPhone's ability to function as a "widescreen iPod?" Well, anyone who sat in Moscone Center to witness the holy unveiling surely noticed the screen cropping (letterboxing) that occurred when Steve played Pirates of the Carribean. That's because the iPhone isn't "widescreen" as the term is customarily understood outside of the reality distortion field -- it is not a 1.78:1 (16x9) aspect ratio. Rather, the display utilizes a 1.5:1 aspect ratio. That puts the iPhone somewhere in the proprietary zone between the NTSC or PAL television standard 1.33:1 (4x3) and a proper widescreen 1.78:1 (16x9) aspect ratio like that thrown off Apple's new Apple TV. As demonstrated during the Jobsnote, true widescreen videos can be zoomed to fill the iPhone's screen but only at the expense of cropping the left and right-hand side video. Will this, uh, clarification or other nits prevent the first batch from selling out? Oh hells no. But at least now you know the truth.

[Leonard Nimrod @ Jan 17th 2007 9:50AM]

That is a horrible touch interface. It allowed you to use gestures and could recognize two fingers for certain actions but the usability and intuitive fulid motions weren't not there. That Onyx demo wouldn't have been impressive BEFORE the iPhone launch, and certainly come close to the iPhone in any way.

Try again, applesucksLeo. Maybe one day you'll have an ati-Apple post that actually holds water.

[Rich @ Jan 17th 2007 10:21AM]

You call that better? Give me a break.

[chuck @ Jan 17th 2007 8:27AM]

This iPhone stuff is getting really old, and I'm an Apple fanboy. Could you at least file this stuff under engadget mobile?

[Kirt @ Jan 17th 2007 12:08PM]

Its just like watching a widescreen movie on a 16x9 television, you still get cropping on the top and bottom of the screen, very few movies are truly 16x9, and those are mostly animated films.

[Z @ Jan 17th 2007 8:32AM]

Another mark against the iPhone. Boo hoo hoo.

[Mike @ Jan 17th 2007 8:36AM]

Movies released on PSP were either left letterboxed at their original aspect ratio (just like the Pirates screenshot above) or were zoomed/cropped. At least iPhone gives you a choice...

[Jonathan Keim @ Jan 17th 2007 8:38AM]

This is crazy. If the phone was 16x9 it would be a skinny rectangle. All other widescreens (lcd monitors, tvs, portable players) are in this "half wide, half regular" aspect ratio

[Benson @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:00AM]

Wrong. _Most_ of them are in about 1.5 ratio (HVGA (480x320), for example, or some others), just like the iPhone.

But not _all_; the Nokia 770, N800, and N810 internet tablets have 800x480 (16:9.6) displays, so they're between TV widescreen (16:9) and PC widescreen (16:10), and capable of displaying 16:9 video stretched to full-screen with little distortion.

As these devices do overlap some in market segment with the iPhone and iPod touch, Apple is actually promoting a less wide-screen product as "wide-screen", and the everyone-else-does-it defense no longer applies.

[Joe V @ Jan 17th 2007 8:40AM]

The first "widescreen" PowerBooks were the same way: "wider" than standard 4:3, but not as wide as 16:9. I think it only became feasible when they released a 17" model. Not sure if it's the same way on the MacBook Pros.

However, for the record, the "Pirates" movies are shot at the even wider 2:35:1 aspect ratio (to look more epic), so there would really be no way to watch this particular movie in its original format without the dreaded black bars.

[thuzzles @ Jan 17th 2007 8:42AM]

I have to say the screen shots are quite misleading. The lower video image is not a 16:9 image. Its probably closer to 2.5:1. So its a bit rich to be referring to the 'truth'.

[Brian @ Jan 17th 2007 8:51AM]

@thuzzles

2.35:1 is one of the most common ratios for movies so I'm not sure how you think the shots are misleading. Personally given the form factor etc. I'd be watching move TV (which of course is 4:3 or 16:9) so this would not be AS big of an issue for me though. I can't see myself sitting staring at the tiny screen for a full length film.

[Chris @ Jan 17th 2007 8:44AM]

At 2.35:1, most movies are significantly wider than "widescreen" (16:9 or 1.78:1) anyway, so even if the iPhone was 16:9, it'd still have to do the zoom+crop thing if you wanted to use the full height of the screen at the expense of losing the sides.
Viewing a 16:9 video will result in black stripes top and bottom, but much less significant than in the 2.35:1 example shown.

[John @ Jan 17th 2007 8:47AM]

Um so? Watching DVDs on a TV does the same thing, and if you want it to do fullscreen you have to zoom in, but at the same time it crops the image.

Besides, the movie theaters also do the letterboxing.

[JinKazama @ Jan 17th 2007 8:49AM]

The more and more I hear about the iPhone the more skeptical I get. Once you get past the initial WOW factor there are a couple things that will prevent me from buying.

1. All signs point to cingular charging through the nose monthly to use all the phones features

2. Phone only available with a 2 year agreement

3. Not unlockable

4. No 3G

The iphone looks to be a great device but I'll be passing on the first generation

[MPG @ Jan 17th 2007 9:12AM]

"1. All signs point to cingular charging through the nose monthly to use all the phones features"

Which signs? Which features? During the whole presentation, I didn't see a single feature that Cingular could charge for specifically.

"2. Phone only available with a 2 year agreement"

I am not going to complain about this before I see the contract conditions.

"3. Not unlockable"

I'm really curious as to who started that rumor.

"4. No 3G"

But WLAN. I still consider WLAN the better choice at this point. I can surf the web for free over WLAN when I'm at home. If I have a 3G-phone without WLAN (like the Treo), I _always_ have to pay for surfing the web.

There's WLAN service on many flights nowadays. Show me a flight where you are allowed to use your 3G phone to surf the web.

[Nick @ Jan 17th 2007 10:21AM]

@ JinKazama

1. Please back up stupid statements with urls to fact driven articles.. before you continue to pass along BS information. I dont see why they would charge more for phone and internet service for iPhones than the Blackjack.. or anyother bundle.. The idea that Cingular would be the one controlling the functionality of the iPhones is completely obsurd.. You think Apple would let the carrier determine how users are gonna use Apples device? Apple through them a bone by officially going with them. Apple could have chosen what ever carrier they wanted.

2. Last time i checked Cingular only does 2 year contracts. New Hi-Tech phones never come out as pay as you go...and very few carriers offer 1 year contracts (another reason i like Tmobile).

3. Umm from what im informed it is the Law that the phone be able to be unlocked, i assume to prevent a monopoly.

4. "No 3G"... this is the only solid proper argument that you've listed and that people have been complaining about since they saw/heard that fact... Congrats!

[jeff harrision @ Jan 17th 2007 12:33PM]

Ummm...all Cingular contracts are two years. Apple has nothing to do with this

[Jonathan Keim @ Jan 17th 2007 8:51AM]

Tell me of one screen on the market that is 16x9

[Sam @ Jan 17th 2007 9:18AM]

"Tell me of one screen on the market that is 16x9"

The Cowon A2 is 16x9

[Mike Botros @ Jan 17th 2007 9:18AM]

I was under the impression that the PSP's screen was 16:9 WS.

[fredo @ Jan 17th 2007 12:19PM]

also the creative zen vision w

[Jason Smith @ Jan 17th 2007 9:00AM]

Actually, LCD monitors and laptops with the widescreen label are generally 16:10, not 16:9. The aspect ratios were expanded vertically to allow PCs to comfortably show two-page spreads in a word processor. Televisions and HDTV signals, on the other hand, use 16:9. A little math shows that the iPhone has a comparative screen ratio of approximately 16:10.33, which makes it a little taller than an equivalently sized PC monitor, but not too far off.

As Joe V mentioned, many movies are filmed at 2.35:1, which is why a lot of films still have letterboxing even when played back on a widescreen television. They're really not a friendly size for any display smaller than a projector.

[Thomas Ricker @ Jan 17th 2007 9:04AM]

Thuzzles,

Those are the screen shots straight from Jobs' keynote. Interestingly, if the film had been sourced from iTunes as you might expect from a Disney film used in a Macworld keynote, then it would have a 640x480 resolution or 1.33:1 (4x3) aspect ratio on the iPhone. As such, the black bars would be left and right of the film, not top and bottom.

Thomas

[Matt @ Jan 17th 2007 9:05AM]

And i still want one.. maybe ill wait till the second generation..

[SoulEaterWChicken @ Jan 20th 2007 2:47PM]

@ MPG
Show me a plane that flies at a height where you can pick up a WLAN Signal!

[PEZ @ Jan 17th 2007 9:20AM]

FIC has a linix phone that was releazsed (annoinced) last year, and its cool and if you dont like it then you bang a koala bear!

[TVGenius @ Jan 17th 2007 9:22AM]

Alright iPhone fanboys, quit trying to justify it. Yes, PotC is shot at 2:35.1, and just like every other movie put on DVD, will still have black bars when shown in 16:9. But the fact remains that the iPhone DOES NOT have a widescreen display. In the interest of disclosure, I use Macs at home (by choice) and at work (video editing), but once in a while you have to accept the fact that not everything Apple puts out is perfect.

[Joe V @ Jan 17th 2007 10:26AM]

You think "every other movie put on DVD" is in 2:35:1 aspect ratio? That's absurd!

And you're a video editor? Either you're lying about your job, or you must not be very good at it.

[Mark @ Jan 17th 2007 9:24AM]

OK, who here could not figure out that 480x320 does not equal 16:9? Maybe he should have called it a wider-screen iPod.

[Brandon Smith @ Jan 17th 2007 9:36AM]

At May's release of iPhone, I bet iTunes Music Store re-releases their video lineup optimized at 1.5:1

[Peter @ Jan 17th 2007 9:28AM]

There is no way to "optimize" 16:9 material to 1.5:1. It would have to be pan and scanned to do that.
16:9 material is optimally viewed at 16:9. The real problem is the iPhone and iPod display is just to small to really appreciate some films either in 16:9 or 4:3.

[wenz @ Jan 17th 2007 9:37AM]

UM...what crap is this? Engadget is always blatantly anti-Apple its ridiculous. And it gets sickening how much they boys love Microsoft, even if they make crappy products. If any screen is opitmized for 16:9 you know how crap 4:3 TV will look? I don't see how this is even Apple's problem...its a pretty standard "widescreen" display ratio and they didn't try to hide it during the presentation. And like someone before already said...at least they added a zoom function for those who insist on filling up their screens.

[iamsheep @ Jan 17th 2007 9:45AM]

UM...what crap is this? Engadget is always blatantly anti-Apple its ridiculous. And it gets sickening how much they boys love Microsoft, even if they make crappy products. If any screen is opitmized for 16:9 you know how crap 4:3 TV will look? I don't see how this is even Apple's problem...its a pretty standard "widescreen" display ratio and they didn't try to hide it during the presentation. And like someone before already said...at least they added a zoom function for those who insist on filling up their screens.

[GadgetGav @ Jan 17th 2007 9:46AM]

Why is this new or news? Since Jobs himself demonstrated it at the Keynote, it's hard to make out that this is some kind of shortcoming or sneaky trick on Apple's part.
Please can we lay off the iPhone until at least April..?
I really hope Apple have some kind of big announcement next month to divert all the blog space from the iPhone.

[Brad Johnson @ Jan 17th 2007 10:35AM]

That's what I'm talking about. Why is this news now, when it was demonstrated last week as part of the iPhone presentation? Engadget is losing my respect as a tech news source and is just trying to stir up a controversy to boost buzz. You call this journalism??? I call it a sacrificing your true opinion of a product to generate more buzz. You don't have integrity. This week you say it's cool and next week you say it's crap and the next week you'll say it's cool. You guys at Engadget have turned into buzz whores and can't be relied on anymore for speaking your true opinion. I think I'll look for a better tech blog that I can trust.

[bbydon @ Jan 17th 2007 9:49AM]

This report is retarded..... IN THE KEYNOTE STEVE SHOWED THIS.
Why is this news....why is this news 2 weeks later.

[chris @ Jan 17th 2007 9:51AM]

I'm just so glad I won't have to see the fanboys with yet another Apple money suck around here, Vermont does not and likely will not have Cingular until 2009. So, if you are a Vermont AppleFanfoy, no iPhone for you.

[IndianMonk @ Jan 17th 2007 9:52AM]

Good call, Engadget.

[shirizaki @ Jan 17th 2007 10:04AM]

What gets me is the size, 8GB. That's laughable for being a "widescreen video iPod".

Otherwise I'm not surprized. Most widescreen monitors aren't 16x9, they're 16x10. And most films are recorded in anamorphic widescreen, so they can fit on various sized outputs.

And 16x9 isn't considered the "Standard widescreen". It's the majority, but not the standard.

[pepelu @ Jan 17th 2007 10:11AM]

Does anybody know if there is a widescreen "video iPod only" planned? I dont care about the phone/internet functionality and I was watining for the next gen iPod :(

[Matt @ Jan 17th 2007 10:13AM]

APPLE BASHING ALERT
Call the police
Call the SWAT team
These blasphemous goons must be put away for LIFE!!!!!!

[Galley @ Jan 17th 2007 10:14AM]

What's the big deal? PDAs have been 1.5:1 for years.

[raphael.cohen @ Jan 17th 2007 10:14AM]

The point which is stated in this article is that the iPhone is NOT Widescreen. Just because the screen of any phone or media player is "wide" doesn't mean you can advertise it to "widescreen". Widescreen = 16:9.

[Tony @ Jan 17th 2007 10:43AM]

So... According to your logiv, all those millions of 16:10 LCD notebooks and monitors out there are no longer "widescreen"?

[JinKazama @ Jan 17th 2007 4:10PM]

Wooooooow, Steve Job's nerd army is out in force...

@Nick

"1. ...I dont see why they would charge more for phone and internet service for iPhones than the Blackjack..."

If they planned to charge the same why didn't they just come out and say so? According to them the rate plans are to be announced at a later date. The URL at your request...

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cingular-kicking-rear-and-taking-names-for-iphone/

which to me says they'll be a little different/higher! Offering the current data plan rates for the iphone would be a selling point, the fact that no pricing has been announced speaks volumes.

"2. Last time i checked Cingular only does 2 year contracts. New Hi-Tech phones never come out as pay as you go...and very few carriers offer 1 year contracts (another reason i like Tmobile)."

As a proud owner of a Cingular ONE YEAR CONTRACT you're wrong. All carriers I have ever dealt with have one year contracts (cingular, Verizon, Alltel) They are located in the fine print or not advertised at all. You have to ask for a one year deal, the caveat is you pay $50-$100 more for yor phone.

"3. Umm from what im informed it is the Law that the phone be able to be unlocked, i assume to prevent a monopoly."

The digital rights copyright law you speak of has many, many loopholes that carriers have already begun to get around i.e. the link below.

See "Availability" and "Critical Must Know"
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cingular-kicking-rear-and-taking-names-for-iphone/

did you read the part about only able to work on the cingular network...which means yeah you can unlock it but it'll be USELESS! I have a joke for you, "What is an unlocked phone that can only be used by one carrier called?"...LOCKED!!

Got anymore smart a@@ responses?

[sxt173 @ Jan 17th 2007 10:34AM]

Agreed. Almost no wide-screen TV or Gadget is actually movie-widescreen. LCD's and Plasma's can do 16:9, but movies are shot in 2.35:1, so 99% of TV's will show a letterbox on top and bottom unless you crop the sides.

[netposer @ Jan 17th 2007 10:41AM]

I wish Apple would release a newer Video iPod without a phone. The iPhone will sell but not as many as most think.

I don't need another phone and I sure as hell don't want to bundle my phone with my iPod. I have a BB 8700c that my employer pays for with unlimited data--so I wonder if Mr. Jobs plans on releasing a non-phone iPhone-ish product?

[Tony @ Jan 17th 2007 10:42AM]

I want to echo what other have said about your iPhone's "widescreen" bashing. Is it wider than 4:3? Yes. And noticibly so. Gee, guess that means it's a WIDESCREEN. It may not be 16:9, but it's damn close, and to the best of my knowledge, the iPhone has never claimed to have a specific screen ratio.

"Pirates" aspect ratio is among the WIDEST of movie film standards of formatting at 2.35:1 and no one on the planet supports that ratio natively, producing edge-to-edge, undistorted viewing on a fixed screen's full display area. You WILL get black bars top and bottom, even with the most expensive HDTV in the world. About the only way you can successfully accommodate is with custom modifications or a front projection system splashed onto a wall.

I guess this makes good blogging fodder for Engadget though.

[raphael.cohen @ Jan 17th 2007 10:55AM]

I'm sorry but I don't agree. Widescreen is a specific ratio, a screen not respecting this ratio must not be called widescreen, and i don't see why any portable or mobile based media player cannot respect this ratio, we are not talking about the screen resolution but about the ratio. To have full screen on the iPhone playing a 16:9 or 4:3 movie, you'll have to convert the movie before.

[JeffDM @ Jan 17th 2007 1:44PM]

Sorry, but I don't understand why widescreen is supposed to be a specific aspect ratio. Maybe people assume it is, but it isn't true, many of the same people complain that their Cinemascope-filmed movies don't "fit" their widescreen HDTV. Go check out some movie dimensions, the two major movie formats are around 2.35:1 and 1.85:1, and there are several others, I think Cinemascope can be as much as 2.5:1, but 2.35:1 is generally the one that's most accepted.

HDTVs are often 1.77:1. Most "widescreen" computer monitors are 1.6:1, and many portable devices are 1.5:1. If you want to say that widescreen is a specific aspect ratio, then please tell me which one is "truly" widescreen. I really don't think using the common LCD 1.5:1 panels disqualifies it from being widescreen, and I think Palm and other PDA makers have promoted them as such. I don't know of any movie that was made to these "device widescreen" aspect ratios before the devices of that size existed.