Talk:Aspect ratio (image)

message: The 16:9 aspect ratio is stated to have its "roots in the APS film camera" but the camera is said to have been "first produced in 1996." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System
I've found conflicting information, stating that the original 16:9 concept was developed earlier, by Kerns Powers in a SMPTE Working group. As stated via the footnotes of the following page, "In 1984, this concept was unanimously accepted by the SMPTE working group." (from a PDF referenced in the footnote). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9#History
Peter Fagan (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  16:9 and the APS film camera 

message: About half this article is now about 16:9 and its history and adoption. This should be split off into its own article. —Pengo 21:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As there were no comments or objections, I've created a 16:9 article now. —Pengo 21:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 16:9 into its own article 

message: As there seems to be plenty of diagrams and pictures, I propose to delete the reqdiagram tag. Egmason (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reqdiagram 

message: The box at the top-right of the article was replaced with a div tag solution and as a result looks a lot worse now. The images that were being used before were a much better choice . Can new images be made? If not can these boxes (with unnecessary clutter about the golden ratio etc) be removed? 202.46.138.86 (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just made info box collapsible and also added grey background to the individual boxes so they do not look like a text box.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common aspect ratios box 

message: I'm trying to check whether the picture is ever distorted slightly in DVDs by squeezing the image.
The article says "Some films which were made in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, such as the U.S.-Italian co-production Man of La Mancha, fit quite comfortably onto a 1.77:1 HDTV screen and have been issued anamorphically enhanced on DVD without the black bars."
What the hell does that mean? It says that 1.85 was squeezed into 1.77 and that this looks perfectly comfortable to the producers.
Understanding SAR and having it decoded properly when ripping a DVD seems to be problematic.
George Slivinsky (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storage vs Display aspect 

message: I've been suspicious for a long time. Now I used a ruler to measure what was a square box, and my monitor is displaying it with a height 10 and width 9. What in the world is that about? We need more challenges with AR?
(RCA HD)  George Slivinsky (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monitor AR 

message: [1] For example, a 640 × 480 VGA image has a SAR of 640/480 = 4:3
Using any Calculator
640/480 = 1.3333333333333333333333333333333 (1.3333333333333333333333333333333 to 1 <> 4:3 Aspect Ratio)
Also I agree it would be 1:1 square pixels
[2] if displayed on a 4:3 display (DAR = 4:3), has square pixels
Then would it not be the opposite for when displayed on a 16:9 display would it then be then 2:1 non square pixels as shown here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_aspect_ratio
Since we all (high percent and growing) view video (film or other) now on 16:9 tv, displays, monitors and others. Then should also be included for this fact.
Clarity also then would be needed for bt.601, bt.709.
When viewing bt.601 on 16:9 would it always be 1:1 square pixels (I'm sure would be framed within black bars at side or around the video. The player even when zoom to remove black bars still will be 1:1 square pixels.
Other details that would be useful to include
704/396 = 1.7777777777777777777777777777778 (1.7777777777777777777777777777778 to 1 <> 16:9 Aspect Ratio)
Then displayed on a 16:9 display would this be 1:1 square pixels or 2:1 non square pixels
DVD D2 704/396 chosen here as it is the highest 16:9 Aspect Ratio allowed for dvd. 
where for example 2:1 no square pixels would also be
1920/1080 = 1.7777777777777777777777777777778 (1.7777777777777777777777777777778 to 1 <> 16:9 Aspect Ratio)
This is a 2:1 non pixels
The first is bt.601 and the second is bt.709 though wouldn't they also both be 2:1 non square pixels when never have been analogue always digital. Recorded onto hard drive or other digital media, edited and dvd made from it. When also played from dvd player via HDMI onto the digital LCD (or other) flat display.
While also would be good to mention whether the macro-blocks that make a pixel are also 1:1 or 2:1 in when analogue only, anologue that has been digitised and digital only. Or linked to a wiki page (onto the subject) where it is described in more detail
There needs to be a distinction for analogue and digital, Where would be analogue bt.601 when all digital becomes something else that isn't bt.601 analogue
All this I write is for true 16:9 where also need to to have true pixels relation for accurate pixel videos.
Not technically trained in this field or know to much of it. Reading from bystander and giving feedback that I hope you may find helpful to making this Aspect Ratio page better for us all to understand.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.162.231 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Distinctions 

message: The pictures on the right imply that 8:5 is somehow different from 16:10...
(Or even worse - in some ways - that 16:10 is a decent simplification for 1.618:1, the golden ratio, which might be fine in some contexts, but not when discussing aspect ratios... as 16:10 is very commonly used for proper 1.6:1, which is the same as 8:5, which is introduced one box above...)
Who made those graphics?
88.217.107.26 (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  8:5 != 16:10 WTF 

message: I think that the 2 perf pull down for making wide screen should be mentioned here.Longinus876 (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 perf pull down 

message: Since the ratio is 1.77777777777....., it is not "sometimes" rounded up to 1.78; it is always rounded up rather than down (at least, in my U. S. experience). Jim Stinson (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.77??? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Aspect ratio (image). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7608_7-1016109-4.html#calculator
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090624175845/http://www.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/AspectRatios/ to http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/aspect-ratios-explained-part-one.html
*Added  tag to http://www.screenlight.tv/aspect-ratio-calculator/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I dont see the point in merging two different things in one, last day I tried merging my apple with my banana ant it didnt work, why should we try mergin display aspect ratio and image aspect ratio?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.180.52.129 (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why sould we merge them? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aspect ratio (image). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123073441/http://techtree.com/India/News/Panasonic_Introduces_2_New_Cameras/551-97953-893.html to http://www.techtree.com/India/News/Panasonic_Introduces_2_New_Cameras/551-97953-893.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090624175845/http://www.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/AspectRatios/ to http://www.equasys.de/aspectratio.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Wide image. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:Wide image listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: At the top of the article there is a table of "Common image aspect ratios". However, "4:1" specifies that it is, "Used only in Napoléon (1927)". "1.6180:1" (golden ratio) and "2.414:1" (silver ratio) are included, but without examples. Perhaps some of the ratios should be removed or the table heading should be rewritten. Hyacinth (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Common image aspect ratios table

message: What's the etymology of this term? I get that it's a ratio of width to height, but what does the word "aspect" have to do with it? Aaronfranke (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "aspect" means 'appearance, look, view', so it is the ratio of the appearance/view of the thing. Latin "aspectus" from "ad" ('to/at') and "specio" ('look/observe'). — al-Shimoni (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of "aspect ratio"? 

message: With the exception of direct positives (e.g. photographic slides),
prints are generally produced, and there are several sizes of
photographic prints available (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_print_sizes).
There are several commonly-used aspect ratios when the entire
paper area is used for the image (called "full-bleed"),
including 7:5, 14:11, and 6:5 (as for 20x24 inch prints),
which are not mentioned in the still photography section
(5:4, which covers 8x10 and 16x20 inch sizes is mentioned).
As the paper sizes generally do not match the negative (or
positive in the case of slides) aspect ratios, either a portion
of the image is used by cropping, or a fraction of the print
paper is used with borders around the image, or a combination
of the two techniques is used.
It may be worth mentioning these issues, and adding a link to
the Photo_print_sizes page (which is distinct from the "paper size"
linked page, which primarily covers stationery, and only addresses
photographic paper sizes in a cursory and incomplete manner).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.227.60 (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still photography: print sizes 

message: Why are there two lists of aspect ratios? The first one goes into more detail, and the second one has more obsolete formats, but there is still a lot of overlap. I think the article would work better with a single list. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there two lists? 

message: so in that aspect ratio they also add the lines of the "black bars" for the total resolution of 1080p?  --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No. 1920x800 is what it is. No black bars. scope film on a 2K DCP will be 2048 x 858 ( = 2.3869... =~ 2.39:1), but on BluRay it will be resized and cropped to 1920 x 800 = 2.40:1. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blu-ray Disc film releases may use only 800 instead of 803 or 804 lines of the 1920×1080 resolution, resulting in an even 2.4:1 aspect ratio