Talk:Aspect ratio (image)

If this article requires additional illustrations, use {{Reqdiagram}} and describe your request this talk page.

16:9 and the APS film camera

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)

Not to mention the fact that 30.2 x 16.7mm is NOT a 16:9 aspect ratio. Did people's calculators run out of batteries? 30.2/16.7 = 1.8084. That's more of a 9:5 aspect ratio (9/5 = 1.8) than a 16:9 aspect ratio (16/9 = 1.777...). Gistya (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Split 16:9 into its own article

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)

As there were no comments or objections, I've created a 16:9 article now. —Pengo 21:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Reqdiagram

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)

Common aspect ratios box

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 [1]. 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)

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)

The Golden Ratio box does not fit in with these others; agreed. Also needed are 2.35:1 and 2.21:1, common aspect ratios for films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.81.189.241 (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The box "some common aspect ratios" does not display well. Most of the text spills over into the next box making it extremely difficult to read. I think this might be due to different browser rendering (such as choice of default font). I agree that having a fixed image with this information would be better as it would be independent of viewer settings.

A minor nitpick: most of these aspect ratios are not "common". Maybe it can or should be called something else? VanBoek (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Storage vs Display aspect

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)

Monitor AR

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)

Re: Distinctions

[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)

8:5 != 16:10 WTF

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)

2 perf pull down

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

1.77???

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)

Do Not Merge Image Aspect Ratio with Display Aspect Ratio Articles - They Are Different

An image and a display are not the same thing. This is blatantly obvious.

A square pixel image with a 4:3 image aspect ratio will display just as correctly in a square pixel video mode with a 16:9 display aspect ratio as in a square pixel video mode with a 4:3 display aspect ratio.

This suggestion is very confused or has too much time on its hands.

The Wikipedia articles on image processing and displays are excellent, widely referenced, and provide conscise information that is historically valuable and scientifically correct. Leave them alone or expand them into new articles, but do not consolidate independent problem domains, or articles become damaged.

Suggesting that something is too technical or too confusing generally is a confused non-technical suggestion to those of us who depend on Wikipedia to refresh our memories, and we recoil in horror when damage is suggested.

Thanks.

Bill Buckels (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Bill

Your argument, "an image and a display are not the same thing" belongs to a discussion purporting to merge Image and Display. But in this case, both Aspect ratio (image) and Display aspect ratio are talking about the exact same thing.

And as far as I can see, this article (Aspect ratio (image)) needs a lot more footnotes and its external links borderline on spam. Seriously, did you read the article?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, do you understand the article? Let's try again to understand...

Please see: Aspect ratio (image)#Distinctions

Please also see: Pixel aspect ratio

Image Aspect Ratio is also known as storage aspect ratio (SAR).

Display Aspect Ratio (DAR) and Storage Aspect Ratio (SAR) are not the same.

For example, when an image is prepared for a Rectangular Pixel Display Mode like IBM-PC 320 x 200 MCGA which has a Pixel Aspect Ratio (PAR)of 8:5 and a DAR of 4:3 then is displayed on a Square Pixel Display Mode like IBM-PC 320 x 240 ModeX which has a PAR of 1:1 and a DAR of 4:3, the SAR will be different than the DAR.

They are not the exact same thing.

Your other comments are your opinions, and may be correct... but what is SPAM to you may be all the author had time to do. But you are not correct to say that Image Aspect ratio and Display Aspect Ratio are the same.

Seriously.

By the way, my use of the word "mode" is in the context of "graphics mode" and means that an aggregate of one or more hardware settings has been used to set the resolution and other display attributes (properties). This is old terminology.

Also, the idea of a device dependent bit-mapped graphics image is from a time when graphics images were often just a copy of screen memory. See my article on BSAVEd images for more info about what we used to do: BSAVE (bitmap format)

Until I did this article, this information was really never documented in one place. Now this article has gone viral.

For info on ModeX see: Mode X

I have code that I wrote in the 80's for ModeX that would be good examples to improve that article. And I have other production code that would improve many Wikipedia articles on computer graphics having spent over 30 years developing computer graphics software. But no time and little patience for doing so, and less patience for trying to make my content match encylopedic standards. I also believe that capturing this information before it disappears is important. Several of my articles here have been edited mercilessly, and important content removed. Wikipedia is probably not the place for archiving this type of material given my past (and present) experience.

Wikipedia is generally still the best, regardless. But it is no substitute for experience and understanding before developing an opinion.

Seriously.

All the best,

Bill Buckels (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bill Buckels

First, I urge you to stop putting word in mouth; you are doing copiously. For example: But you are not correct to say that Image Aspect ratio and Display Aspect Ratio are the same. I never said such a thing. What I said is: Both Aspect ratio (image) and Display aspect ratio are talking about the exact same thing. And they are. They are both talking about both DAR and SAR.

Now, I do not have enough technical confidence to talk about pixel aspect ratio. So, I'd like to invite the top two contributors to that article. FleetCommand and Cybercobra, would you mind telling what do you think of what Bill said about pixel aspect ratio?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Purely technical and completely off-topic. I didn't read other stuff thoroughly but from what I read, they don't seem to be any better either.

I myself am not interested in this merger discussion. But just for the records, sufficient similarity of the subjects and prose sizes are grounds for merger. Make of that what you will. Fleet Command (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the merger discussion petered out 14 months ago, without any clear consensus, I suggest we might want to remove the merger tag from this article. Regards --Jeremy Butler 13:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• 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 {{dead link}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Why sould we merge them?

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Portal:Wide image listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Common image aspect ratios table

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)

Etymology of "aspect ratio"?

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)

"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)

Visual comparisons

Does anybody speak up for keeping the section visual comparisons? Does this add any insight into the article? It definitely adds vertical space, which I do not see as an advantage, given that this article is on my screen in a standard display size already 9.5 window heights long. Further, why is the left picture in the second row a slightly different crop than in the other three rows? Looking into the history, this is more or less is present since 2008, and digging into the history of the talk page, it was a compromise so that everybody got in his pet comparison. I would strongly propose to delete that section. Seattle Jörg (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody spoke up within three months, so I went ahead. Seattle Jörg (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The section mentioned above was a 2x4 stack of example photos. At some point since its deletion, a "Common image aspect ratios" box has been added to the top of this article, with 26 examples that take up over three times the vertical space of the section mentioned above, and which a user on mobile would have to scroll past before being able to read the first sentence of the article. I've removed it on the grounds that this too is excessive vertical height. --Belbury (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@MrSwedishMeatballs: Seeing that you're now working on this box, do you think there's a useful way to scale it down or reshape it? Could it become an image? --Belbury (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury I can try whipping up a concept in Inkscape later today or tomorrow. MrSwedishMeatballs (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

One more thing before I start: Do you think the design should preserve height, width, diagonal length, or area between the different rectangles? MrSwedishMeatballs (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No strong view here, whatever you think works. Thanks for taking a swing at it. Belbury (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I whipped this quick and dirty image up, with uniform width for ratios below 1 and uniform height for ratios above 1. All ratios are exact except for the irrationals (square root of 2, golden ratio, silver ratio)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aspect_Ratios.svg MrSwedishMeatballs (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice one, much more readable than the current table, and a good call on alternating black and white. To meet the top-level ideal of MOS:COLOR the grey background should technically be a little lighter (#000000 on #818181 doesn't meet WCAG AAA), but it looks good to go. Belbury (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Made a new one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aspect_Ratio_Chart.svg

Now with

- WCAG AAA compliant background

- A border

- Lined up text MrSwedishMeatballs (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Still photography: print sizes

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)

Why are there two lists?

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)

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

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)

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)

Pronunciation

Could someone please write out how to pronounce aspect ratios, such as 2.35:1 and 2.21:1? Nosehair2200 (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)