This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The search term OAR should not lead here. It should lead to a disambiguation page, as it could pertain to a paddle or "Of a Revolution" as well as this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.41.139 ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 10 November 2005
I uploaded a new version of the 4_3 and 16_9 example files. The old ones were too small and fuzzy.
Thewikipedian 4 Jul 2005
Modern anamorphic films are 2.39 - see Anamorphic widescreen, under the section entitled "2.35, 2.39, or 2.4?" before making any further addenda w/r/t this issue. Thanks. -- Girolamo Savonarola 12:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
-- Ummm... said article has no such section. However, according to http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report/production_a_z/anamorphic.htm, the number is 2.35; additionally, you'll find all three numbers on the backs of various DVD cases. For example, Jaws claims a ratio of 2.35:1, whereas Ghostbusters claims 2.40:1. What say we drop this mess and say that the true number is a point of contention? (G-Max) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.125.132 ( talk) 04:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Why represent a decimal value like 1.3 as 1.33? I know they represent the same value, however, is the redundant ".3" necessary for clarity? Gatortpk ( talk) 05:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to ask if inserting "(exactly 2.370)" or "(exactly 2.370370)" in the discussion of 21:9 ratio (third paragraph) would be a bit too much? That is, changing "though the resolution is more precisely 2560x1080 = 2.37" to "though the resolution is more precisely 2560x1080 = 2.37 (exactly 2.370)". Gatortpk ( talk) 05:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the seperate spherical 2.35 and anamorphic 2.35 (and it really would have to be done for both 2.35 and 2.39) sections from the historically used list, since the origination method ultimately has nothing to do with the way they are projected - whether anamorphic, Super 35, or Techniscope, all prints intended to be shown in a full widescreen projection wind up as an anamorphic print. I think that discussion of origination methods would be better suited to separate articles. -- Girolamo Savonarola 15:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Might this line be more clearly stated? -- Jeremy Butler 12:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Was desiring to learn more about aspect ratios and made Wikipedia, as usual, my first research choice. But I noticed the aspect ratio on which I was looking at the page (3:2) was not listed under commonly used. This is the aspect ratio for my (and, as far as i know, all) Apple Powerbook G4s. My resolution is 1280x854, but I could bump it down to 1152x768 (an extended version of the extremely common 4:3 display resolution of 1024x768). I've added this ratio, but as I do not own many computers, I do not know which manufacturers use this ratio besides Apple. Atchius 22:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This article must maintain a neutral point of view. It is not the place to make arguments for or against widescreen. Several recent edits need to be modified to make the article adhere to NPOV. -- Jeremy Butler 13:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I've come up with an equal-area image spec, as follows:
Image size: 640x359
4:3 (red) | 478x359 | 171602 pixels 16:9 (orange) | 552x311
2.39 (blue) | 640x268 | 171520 pixels
At this rate, I think this resolution is OK for now. Last Avenue 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that we should ditch most of the material here relating to paper sizes. First of all, it's already covered in paper size much better than we do, and we do link to that article already. Second, the aspect ratios image for that (the gray rectangles one) is badly placed and has little bearing on the subject discussed here. AND is written improperly - the 4:3 box is actually 3:4, and I can see that very well could be confusing and counter productive for this article. (The image was created for a separate article on the .de Wikipedia, IIRC, so that would explain a lot...)
I'm also a bit split on whether or not so much of the computer material should be here. What do y'all think? Girolamo Savonarola 01:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Image:Columbia widescreen.jpg has some distortion on the right side -- a greenish vertical stripe. It should be fixed or replaced. -- Jeremy Butler 13:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the last edit today b/c 1) it is both very POV and factually inaccurate to call 1.78 "common widescreen". Common video widescreen, yes, but among film not even close. 2) I think you're just making the 2.35/2.39 issue way more confusing, and furthermore the issue is discussed already on the page (and the anamorphic widescreen page). Encouraging people to continue to use the 2.35 misnomer only creates less clarity about which one is truly being discussed/used. For instance, hard matted Super 35/Techniscope films are still hard matted to 2.39, NOT 2.35. But because you call it 2.35, it only breeds confusion. Are the films being shot today 2.39? Yes. So let's call it 2.39 and talk about those films there. Girolamo Savonarola 22:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Poster1: There are current three aspect ratios used for movies. The first is 4:3... The second is 1.85:1... The third is 2.35:1. This has pretty much become the "de facto" standard for very wide-screen theatrical movie projection... Poster2: Extremely minor correction #3: as of 1971, this was changed to 2.39:1, though the "2.35:1" label sticks for some reason. (The image's height was slightly reduced to hide bad splices.) Poster3: Extremely minor, tiny, minuscule and otherwise not really a correction. The 2.39:1 ratio is often referred to as 2.40:1. These are film makers, not mathematicians Poster4: Considering the margins of error involved in theatrical projection it's moot anyway.
Also, AVSforum.com is not disreputable and is larger than cinematography.com by hits, and they follow the 2.35 designation anyway. 2.35 is therefore just a naming convention, and readers should be able to find what they are looking for first, and then be informed about the details. Part of being NPOV is representing different points of views, including the ones which are popular but wrong, and say so (assuming of course that they are wrong, which in this case we're not in disagreement). If erroneous ideas could not be elaborated on, however popular they are, many of the articles on this site would not exist, including many sections about religions and mythologies. It is arguably irresponsible for us to treat the 2.39 designation as if it was a standard terminology when the reality is not so.
I also received the following feedback: "They are both correct, sorta. The exact frame from a scope element is 2.34 and change, rounded to 2.35:1. The SMPTE projection aperture is 2.39 and change, rounded to 2.40:1 (this to cover the errant splice line). If you are talking about the film frame, it is correct to call it 2.35:1. If you are talking about the projected frame, or perhaps even the widescreen video transfer if it is done to SMPTE framing, then 2.39 or 2.40:1 is correct."
The following is what I think the 2.35 section needs: clearly pointing out that the number in practice refers to one of several things, along with a link to Anamorphic_widescreen#2.35.2C_2.39.2C_or_2.4.3F. Since the issue is complicated, we should simply say so and guide the reader to the full explanation. Shawnc 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I added this line :
It also can be blown up to 35 mm for theatrical release and therefore is also used for feature films.
Please cleanup if needed(english is not my native language)
... and hello to everybody, my first contribution... EDIT : It was,but posted in head instead of bottom sorry. Laurent.a — Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 28 January 2006
"Academy flat" is not an actual standard-practice term - to my knowledge, it started to circulate online on cinephile websites. However, Academy ratio is 1.37, and "flat" ratio is usually defined as 1.85, and each of these are terms commonly used. "Flat" actually originates from the 1950's, when Cinerama and competing formats oftentimes were projected on curved screens (including the original anamorphic format, Cinemascope, IIRC...). Since the Academy ratio died out almost overnight, "flat" quickly became associated with the 1.85 ratio, as it became the de facto ratio projected on a flat screen back then. The curved screens died out within about a decade, but the name stuck largely because the only other ratio regularly in usage by then was anamorphic. Hence most commercial cinemas today are only equipped to show "scope" (2.39) or "flat" (1.85). Academy has absolutely nothing to do with it, and with Super 35 and 3-perf there's a very good chance that many, if not most, of today's 1.85 films were never even originated in an Academy ratio frame intended to be soft-matted to begin with. I hope that clarifies the matter. Girolamo Savonarola 18:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there may be some confusion with 1.33 and 1.37, although I will yield to those with more expertise. It makes sense that 35mm films without sound tracks were originally 1.37. When space from the side of the picture was taken for the optical sound trcaks, it made the picture narrower to 1.33 (not wider from 1.33 to 1.37). Online articles are all over the place on this. I have no idea where magnetic tracks entered the picture and how/if they affected this. Vince Stone 75.75.46.195 ( talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following section from the "Original aspect ratio" section of the article:
First off, because the film
Once Upon a Time in Mexico was in two different aspect ratios does not eliminate the OAR of the film. James Cameron often shot movies in Super 35 mm so that he could have a 2.40:1 (not 2.39:1) theatrical release, but a full frame 1.33:1 video release with no pan and scan
The Abyss is one such example. Cameron has been quoted as saying, on video - he preferrs the 1.33:1 version. That does not eliminate the original aspect ratio (OAR) of the film. Directors and cinematographers VERY OFTEN have to "protect" for multiple aspect ratios - but it is only really possible to compose for one. If a film is getting a theatrical release, that one ratio is the theatrical ratio.
The top portion of the section I cut is a note for the Once Upon a Time in Mexico article, as trivia, that Rodriguez himself approved the new aspect ratio for the video release - it does not create a new category. As for the second passage, I'm not familiar with the common usage of "Theatrical Aspect Ratio" at all ("Original Aspect Ratio" is the common term to define the theatrical aspect ratio). If you can cite sources that this term is in use, then this second half of the section belongs back in the article. LACameraman 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Mr Troy - I never ment to imply that the terms needed to be official cinematographic terms - they certainly aren't. They just need to be verifiable and in common use, per Wikipedia standards. Just because a specific term might be more applicable, if you're inventing it and it's not used by home theater magazines, critics, online reviewers - then it's not a real term. OAR is a term that is now ubiquitous in reviews and in technology publications discussing video releases of theatrical films. I don't know Rodriguez's story - but you certainly can't use him as a reliable example as Rodriguez is the exception to nearly every rule in filmmaking. If the term isn't in common usage, it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Citing sources. LACameraman 20:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
That's actually a solid point. Perhaps MAR should not be in the article, either. LACameraman 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
"Unless you can find an example where the DVD is released before the theatrical print in a different ratio, I don't see how you can overcome that simple fact." The original Battlestar Galactica from 1978 was shown on TV in 4:3 before a shortened version was released in US theaters. Algr
Can we make a decision about this matter? I've given 2 sources that use the term theatrical aspect ratio, with Google you can find hundreds of forums the term is used on (doesn't prove that it's a valid term, but does prove the term is in wide use), and I've given examples in which the theatrical aspect ratio differs from the OAR (Once Upon a Time..., Dr. Strangelove). I think if MAR deserves a spot in the article, TAR does even more. MrTroy 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the relevance of the "two four oh" bit? It appears to me just to be the phonetic representation of "2.40". It's certainly not a written term (Googling "two four oh" returns no results using the term in reference to the aspect ratio). And I think most English speaking people know how to pronounce 2.40... MrTroy 21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well... How 4:3 and 16:9 is pronounced? I don´t know how the ":" is pronounced. "for"? "by"? "to"? "colon"? Sorry, but I´m not an English native, so I need this type of explanation. I think that LACameraman helped when said how "2.40" is pronounced because I think that this article is not meant to be viewed only by the people that has the field experience to write it. I would pronounce "2.40" as "two point forty". JeffersonRyan 10:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I have been a projectionist for nearly 20 years - and during this time, I have known many projectionists who have been around longer than that. 2.39 is not rounded to 2.40, as that would indicate a different aspect ratio. Colloquially, the nickname "scope" (short for "CinemaScope") is often used in place of the actual (numeric) aspect ratio. However, it must be pointed out that "scope" really only indicates that the image must be projected via an anamorphic lens. The projected image need not have the 2.39:1 aspect ratio. For example, 2.35 was once the common 35mm "scope" aspect ratio (eventually replaced by 2.39) and 16mm "scope" is 2.66. (Most of "Biutiful" is not 2.39 and yet the entire film is "scope.") So, the numerical expression remains the most explicit indication of any aspect ratio. If SMPTE wanted a 2.40AR they certainly had the authority and opportunity to have specified it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.48.226 ( talk) 18:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed the following recent addition:
"The choice of 16:9 HDTV was intended as a middle ground between TV's 4:3 aspect ratio, and 1.85:1. 2.40:1 was not often used in the 1980s and 1990s, but ironically has become more common today."
Unfortunately the information is incorrect. 16:9 was NOT an aesthetic compromise between 4:3 and widescreen - it was the limitation of tube technology that did not allow the safe creation of a wider picture tube than 1.78:1. It was a BRAND NEW aspect ratio that had NEVER been utilized prior - purely as a technological limitation. It is not an irony that it has become "more common" since the late 80s as it was INVENTED in the late 80s and forced upon the industry as a defacto HDTV standard. Now we're stuck with it. LACameraman 17:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
"...and forced (16:9) upon the industry as a defacto HDTV standard." Whereas everyone agreed on Univisium?
After reviewing this article again - I would vote for a deletion of this section. Without reputable resources for these opionions, it has a weird non-neutral POV. It also makes a wierd arguement much more biased to broadcast of the images rather than origination, which - in my opinion - is backwards. LACameraman 23:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The horizontal vs. vertical comparison of pictures in "normal" and widescreen mode is biased by the fact that the photographer may either choose a different lens, or choose another position, to capture any given scene. Thus the nose and tale of the shuttle, or the panoramic view of the palace, doesn't necessarily have to be cropped off when viewed in different aspect ratios.
Although there is consensus that Widescreen is better for panoramic pictures, and Academy format is better for portraits, the illustrations (the shuttle and the palace) in this article show this rather vaguely. This way their intent is easily interpreted as subjective, and I'm not sure that was the original meaning. Thus such differences is better "shown" by written explanation rather than by illustrations. The real difference between Widescreen and Academy format is of course the actual plane of the rectangels (superbly illustrated by the circle with different sized rectangles), and not what they illustrate - the latter which is completely subjective anyway.
The photographic illustrations do lighten up the article, but without a written explanation clarifying these important facts, the article would work better without them. -- Kebman 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
In response to recent re-added entries in the list which I have subsequently deleted: these were deleted because it is a not a list of generic ratios or even aspect ratios in general. The article is about imaging technology aspect ratios - photography, film, and video. Perhaps a separate article on generic aspect ratios would be germane. Linking to the golden ratio or silver ratio probably is better done in the See also section instead, as these are not directly germane to the topic of this article but have some indirect relation to it.
I've reverted the 16:9 ratio from 1.777....:1 to 1.78 because it is common and standard industry practice to round the ratio to two significant digits beyond the decimal. The full ratio is given in the integer form in the description. You'll also find that virtually all aspect ratios are also rounded like this - see list of film formats and do the math on the dimensions; very few formats actually divide perfectly into a ratio with two or less post-decimal digits.
The image was also removed from the article mainly because it assumes the longer dimension to be the vertical one, which is incorrect for the ratios in the list as used in image technology. It also is more a comparision with non-image ratios mentioned above. Given the subject, it doesn't actually supply information useful for the topic. IIRC, that graphic was created for a different subject on the German Wikipedia? What probably would be an ideal graphic is one which is extremely wide (4.00:1 or greater) and shows all of the listed aspect ratios either from a common center or perhaps even more usefully, with a common side. If left as an open graphics format, this would also allow future editors to add more aspect ratios in usage to it and thus avoid obsolescence. Girolamo Savonarola 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Then move the article to aspect ratio (imaging technology), and let the old article have a full list. - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The caption for the common aspect ratios image could be better. While it's technically true that the red square is the largest in area and the blue the smallest, it's not apparent to someone not familiar with basic geometry. Why not simply state the ratios of the three boxes leaving out whether they're more used in tv or cinematography... Focomoso 23:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following from the list of common aspect ratios:
I think this 0.27% difference from 1.5:1, which amounts to eight pixels wider than 1.5:1 in a 3008x2000 image, is too insignificant to give notice to here. A quick check on dpreview.com for exact camera image dimensions showed that Canon cameras (of the six or so I tested) were always right on the nail at 1.5:1 but cameras from other makers, mostly using Sony sensors, had pixel dimensions a few tenths of a percentage point off from the exact ratio. This is trivia, perhaps worthy of note in a footnote at the bottom of the articles on those cameras if at all but certainly not in a general list of aspect ratios. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 09:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Why was 16:9 chosen over other ratios? I heard that it was the same as a human v isual perception aspect ration (no source). Could anyone write an explanation? thx -- sin-man 06:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the method shown in the diagram gives the quite different result of 2.04, it cannot be what Kerns Powers intended. According to http://www.cinemasource.com/articles/aspect_ratios.pdf cited as an external link at the bottom of the article, Powers did not normalize the various rectangles as shown in the diagram to constant diagonal length but rather to constant area. The aspect ratios of the resulting "inner" and "outer" rectangles are therefore exactly the geometric mean of the two extremes used, 4/3 and 2.35, or 1.77, which is only coincidentally close to 16/9 or 1.78. The article seems to suggest that the rectangle to be protected is the inner rectangle in Powers's scheme as superimposed on the screen dimensions to be used. This obviously produces an unnecessarily small protected area. There is no reason why the protected area cannot be the largest rectangle of the prescribed aspect ratio that will fit on the screen used. Nor need that rectangle be centered on the screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.81.214 ( talk) 03:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
When the 1.85:1 standard was new, cameras continued to record 1.33 images, while etchings in the finders showed the camera operator the 1.85 borders within the taller frame. Films were then shown on 1.33 projectors with metal masks in their apertures to display only the area within the 1.85 borders. Some camera people did not understand this system and thought the 1.85 etchings actually framed off microphones and even the top of one set (The U.S. Senate chamber in a Roger Corman film I've now forgotten) which were duly displayed when the films were shown on 1:33 TV. Jim Stinson 02:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
An excellent article overall. Thanks for all the TLC, head-scratching, agonizing, and research. Jim Stinson 02:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I came here looking to find out whether India uses 16:9 or 4:3 as a TV standard - I couldn't find it on this page, or on any other pages! Tried looking at PAL / NTSC / TV Standards etc... Maybe there should be a section here dedicated to aspect ratio usage internationally? -- Tomhannen 09:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
There should be a section that describes how to calculate the aspect ratio of a given resolution. Could someone who knows how to do that please add it?-- Allthenamesarealreadytaken 00:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
But how do you actually calculate the ratio? For example, given a resolution of 1024x768, how does one perform the calculations that result in the correct ratio of 4:3? In other words, show all the necessary mathematical steps to come up with a result that is an aspect ratio. -- Allthenamesarealreadytaken 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This section is supposed to contain two images to compare between the two aspect ratios. Since the vertical starting point and ending point is indeed the same, why on earth do the images contain a slight size difference? Again, I'm referring to the vertical pixel size. This would contradict the notice saying that they have the same vertical size and would definitely mislead anyone who views this, since the difference in size could be taken as a narrower vision in the 4:3 image, while a quick check of the vertical starting and ending point would lead people to believe the images are the same size. I see no good reason why the 16:9 image would be 10% vertically bigger than the 4:3 one. If appropiate, someone should fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victordelpanno ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Update: "Two aspect ratios compared with images using the same diagonal (because comparing formats on the basis of the same horizontal or vertical size gives a false impression of one format superior to the other):" I think the same area would be more appropriate than same diagonal, but these images don't satisfy either. They have the same vertical dimension; the 4:3 one is just cropped from the 16:9 one. Rather than uploading new images (someone feel free to do this if you think you can make good ones), I'm going to change the description so at least that is accurate. -- 74.46.213.148 ( talk) 14:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Actually I noticed the thumbnails were sized differently, but still did not have the same diagonal (perhaps error in calculation?), so I changed them to be approx. the same area, which I think works well for comparison's sake. This section still needs work though (or possibly just removal), because the original images still give the wide ratio an unfair advantage, as the narrower one is simply cropped from the wider one and hence is smaller, both in pixel dimensions (does not apply to thumbnail) and in field of view (applies to both). -- 74.46.213.148 ( talk) 15:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The horizontal line that the roof forms misleads one to think the wide format is better because you can see more of the building, and there is a vertical row of chairs that would be a good representation of the 4:3 aspect ratio but is left out of the 4:3 photograph. If the original could be cropped to emphasize the chairs in the 4:3 and the building in the 16:9 this would not mislead the reader, but would show strong suits of both formats. 204.155.56.3 ( talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Aspect ratio should always be measured by width, with height being static (for direct comparisons). So (4:3) 1.333333333:1, (16.9) 1.7777777777778:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1 and so on. Thus the wider image should have same height but wider view. I have corrected this in the article. Do not confuse aspect ratio with different resolutions with different aspect ratios. This article is about aspect ratio, and not the resolution of the actual image. Remember, aspect ratio is x:1 and anything else would just confuse people who read the article to learn about it, there is enough linked articles that dive deeper into resolution and aperture and film size so they can dig deeper if they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.16.112 ( talk) 09:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be good to add a 2.39:1 graphic to the svg-pictures at the beginning. I think this format is as improtant as 3:2. I cannot add it because I don't have any program installed to create .svg images. -- Qaywsxedc ( talk) 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is the Aspect ratio (image)#Previous and presently used aspect ratios table so contentious?
Jhawkins contends that the whole number ratios do not belong because the article is about movies. Crissov contends that the article is more than movies and both decimal and whole number ratios should be present.
Nevermind Dicklyon called Crissov's edits vandalism, which is so completely ridiculous that I have trouble with that whole "assume good faith" bit.
I have to side with Crissov in that the article is clearly not just about movies. If it is then the article name is completely wrong. Subject content aside I still think whole number ratios should be present specifically because THEY ARE SYNONYMOUS. 4:3 and 1.33:1 mean the exact same thing. It's entirely preference and to say one belongs and one does not is so completely a violation of NPOV.
Nevermind that the {{ main}} link to List of common resolutions is whole numbers and the other {{ main}} to List of film formats is decimal. Clearly both are used and both should be represented. And I completely disagree with Jhawkins that it promotes confusion and makes it hard to read. If there is, then a 2 sentence blurb before the table can dispel any confusion easily. Cburnett ( talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Aspect ratio | Description | |
---|---|---|
1.66 | 5:3 | 35 mm European widescreen standard; native Super 16 mm frame ratio. Sometimes expressed more accurately as 1.67. |
1.75 | 7:4 | Early 35 mm widescreen ratio, primarily used by MGM, and since abandoned. |
1.78 | 16:9 | Video widescreen standard, used in high-definition television, One of three ratios specified for MPEG video compression. |
Aspect ratio | Description |
---|---|
1.66:1 | 35 mm European widescreen standard; native Super 16 mm frame ratio. (5:3, sometimes expressed more accurately as "1.67".) |
1.75:1 | Early 35 mm widescreen ratio, primarily used by MGM, and since abandoned. |
1.78:1 | Video widescreen standard (16:9), used in high-definition television, One of three ratios specified for MPEG-2 video compression. |
I'd like to Support including both the decimal and integer ratios in the table as listed above. I find that version of the table perfectly clear, and more useful. It is a simple fact of life that some aspect rations are usually referred to in integers, (4:3, 16:9) and others are usually referred to in decimal. (2.39) The 'motion picture context' notion does not seem useful to me, because the aspect ratios for TV and Film have always been connected, and most discussion about aspect ratio involves how movies look on video. The only time most people have to think about aspect ratios is when they are playing DVDs on their TVs, or choosing what mode to set their camcorder to. Algr ( talk) 07:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried to understand why the ratios are as provided, the table didn’t help much. The normalised decimal fractions are helpful if you want to compare ratios and perhaps when you deal with them every day, but not at all if you want to understand how they came to be. For example “1.37” makes more sense if you know it’s actually 1.375 or 11:8. Simple mathematical conversions, even if they are not obvious on first sight, are not considered original research, by the way. I still don’t understand 2.21/2.20:1, so I shouldn’t have included 11:5. I’m not sure whether the removal of all the “:1” is acceptable.
I’m sorry I considered the changes small and uncontroversial, so didn’t provide an edit summary (and also didn’t use preview enough). Anyhow, I do not care that much about this article, so if it hadn’t been for the accusation of vandalism, I probably wouldn’t have noticed the unexpected reversion at all. — Christoph Päper 13:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The pictures used in the comparision are not NPOV, they are clearly in favour of widescreen. Usually, the cameras i've seen will only cut off a bit in the upper and lower parts of the picture to make a 16:9-picture, including some filmcameras, modern ones. I have seen a few cameras that (When changing from 4:3 to widescreen) will remove some parts from the upper edges and add some parts to the right and left (On almost every wide-screen standard camera I've seen, it is like this). This version used, when widescreen adds a bit extra in the left-right edges is clearly POV, and not standard. It should therefore be changed. Nisseman ( talk) 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't 16:10 included? It's widely used in computer screens and is very close to the golden ratio! I had it included a while ago and someone deleted the entry saying "it's a resolution, not a format", but the fact is most wide computers screens are physically 8:5 (or 16:10). Rnbc ( talk) 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't this list be much better suited for a separate Broadcast/TV standards article where 16:9 as well as HDTV adoption around the world is covered? With a map and whatnot even. I do not see much use in the list here in this article though, this article is messy enough as it is. 80.202.16.112 ( talk) 11:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I came here seeking information on 2.35:1 but you guys have it listed as 2.39 - I've gone over this article three times and cannot find any information on why DVD's have it listed as such, even those the standard is 2.39. I know you guys want to be technical and elitist but an explanation of this would be nice. Thanks. 66.108.167.71 ( talk) 06:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If your screen is vertically constraint you can't emphasize vertical dimsnsion. Period. A story about one "innovating" filmmaker cropping the sides of the screen to make a dramatic effect is just an anegdote. If the effect was real it would be widely copied (I'm looking for scientific word "reproduce" here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.183.58 ( talk) 12:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I think whoever wrote 2.39:1 instead of 2.35:1 has a special case of compulsively adding .04 to aspect ratios, since according to Bordwell & Thompson's Film Art , Academy Ratio is stated to be 1.33:1 and NOT 1.37:1, an AR I've never heard of, to be honest. Armadillo01 ( talk) 05:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The raster image comparing the aspect ratios should be re-created as a vector image and uploaded on commons. » Swpb τ • ¢ 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
When did most televisions shows start shooting 16:9? Anecdotally, I can say it was mid-nineties. Babylon 5 and ER started in 1994 and was always shot wide (though effects were not done wide in B5's case). The X-Files switched in 1997. Buffy, which started in 1997, was always shot wide. Other shows seem to still be shot 4:3 today. Is 1994 the earliest use of 16:9? The article doesn't really establish a timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace of Sevens ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't help thinking the five separate hatnotes are a bit confusing, not to mention untidy. Is there a way to rationalise them? Bob talk 19:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are people using U+003A COLON (:) instead of U+2236 RATIO (∶) which is the correct codepoint for expressing ratios like this? Would anyone object to it being changed? — Nicholas ( reply) @ 19:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the current article that says
Anamorphic transfers onto DVD horizontally squeeze the original widescreen image to store the information into a 4:3 aspect ratio DVD frame.
My understanding is that the usual NTSC situation is that the DVD frame is 3:2 - specifically 720x480 - and that DVD players either morph that into 16:9 or 4:3 -- as directed by a flag -- upon playback. Could someone with knowledge of this issue correct that section of the article? Thanks, Stuart H. Alden ( talk) 20:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Critical content or graphics are framed to fit within the 1.33 raster space, generally working since centered information or characters aren't often perceived as photographically distracting though certain elements especially motion graphics can feel oddly centered or placed for the 16:9 audience.
The above sentence appeared in the second paragraph from section Aspect ratio (image)#Why 16:9 was chosen by the SMPTE is unclear, so I tagged it with {{ clarify}}. I rewrote it as follows with added citation requests. Could an expert check it says what the above intended?
- 84user ( talk) 17:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
1.25 ratio is not included in this topic whatsoever yet google links me here as if it were. I have no interest in arguing that its not included because its usually a computer screen resolution more than anything else, but what, no camera on earth uses 5:4 or something? every single 1280 x 1024 image is an edit? why so picky? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.228.193 ( talk) 13:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
What do you think about the idea to discuss the topic of wrong aspect ratio? AR often gets messed up; this is not only common on youtube but also can be seen on TV and DVD productions, resulting in unpleasantly stretched or squeeshed pictures. There are people (such as myself) who are are movie and video fans and who are bothered by distorted pictures. Apparently, there also are people who not only are not bothered by that but also don't notice at all, that the picture is distorted. There are two blogs dedicated to this topic, which I would like to bring to your attention:
Yes I'm interested and bothered by these problems. Hope this can be developed. For example are 1.85 films actually squashed into 16:9? Are 1.37 films squeezed into 1.33 DVDs? And when converting DVDs to video, how to set it to get the right result ... George Slivinsky ( talk) 17:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This Aspect ratio (image) article, while certainly helpful, is running in parallel with 8 other articles:
Also look at these:
It's one of those cases where authors should be looking beyond the page they've landed on or maintained, and come together in a way that will strengthen everybody's work and deepen everyone's insights. I don't know how the merger process is authorized, but this is a plea to get this thematic mess organized.
Please see the talk pages on each of those pages for ALL comments related to this issue.
Thanks for your attention. A.k.a. ( talk) 17:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm a technical writer, movie lover, and once-serious amateur photographer. The main article not only has spots of bad writing and confused exposition, but leaves more questions answered than unanswered, especially for someone (such as myself) who /thought/ he had a good understanding of aspect ratios. I found it both thin and confusing. Though I'm tempted to make a few changes, this article has problems that cannot be fixed with a light edit -- one of the most-significant being the issue of scope (ar-ar). This article is more about the history of motion-picture aspect ratios, which deserves an article of its own. If the author would like, I'd be happy to work with him, if only to point out the problems in detail. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 12:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Please stop adding back that list of stations broadcasting in 16:9. Almost all stations have already switched to 16:9, so I see really no point in keeping that list.-- Ancient Anomaly ( talk) 18:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
So you don't know world-wide and the same goes for Europe because is not true the majority of countries and stations are 16:9 already. Let's keep the lists as they are now, with countries with their majority of stations already switched to 16:9 just citing the exceptions and countries with a mix citing what stations are 24h or only some programs or even 'bad' 16:9 transmissions. Pointless is just what you did erasing a great part of an article because you felt like. if the question is 16:9 on TV all around the world the lists have to be there. And if you need sourcing go to stations' respective articles as C.Fred said. Please stop vandalizing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.58.113 ( talk) 19:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Where in Europe is 16:9 not the main aspect ratio?-- Ancient Anomaly ( talk) 01:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Quite predictably, the stations' articles do not note 16:9 broadcast, as it is not notable...-- Ancient Anomaly ( talk) 01:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Well like Spain, Italy, Portugal, a lot of Eastern European countries... a lot of channels there are still on 4:3 aspect ratio or only a few programs on them are 16:9. So the lists about the channels have all sense. Please somebody stop this guy from vandalizing Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.58.113 ( talk) 18:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The search term OAR should not lead here. It should lead to a disambiguation page, as it could pertain to a paddle or "Of a Revolution" as well as this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.41.139 ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 10 November 2005
I uploaded a new version of the 4_3 and 16_9 example files. The old ones were too small and fuzzy.
Thewikipedian 4 Jul 2005
Modern anamorphic films are 2.39 - see Anamorphic widescreen, under the section entitled "2.35, 2.39, or 2.4?" before making any further addenda w/r/t this issue. Thanks. -- Girolamo Savonarola 12:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
-- Ummm... said article has no such section. However, according to http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report/production_a_z/anamorphic.htm, the number is 2.35; additionally, you'll find all three numbers on the backs of various DVD cases. For example, Jaws claims a ratio of 2.35:1, whereas Ghostbusters claims 2.40:1. What say we drop this mess and say that the true number is a point of contention? (G-Max) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.125.132 ( talk) 04:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Why represent a decimal value like 1.3 as 1.33? I know they represent the same value, however, is the redundant ".3" necessary for clarity? Gatortpk ( talk) 05:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to ask if inserting "(exactly 2.370)" or "(exactly 2.370370)" in the discussion of 21:9 ratio (third paragraph) would be a bit too much? That is, changing "though the resolution is more precisely 2560x1080 = 2.37" to "though the resolution is more precisely 2560x1080 = 2.37 (exactly 2.370)". Gatortpk ( talk) 05:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the seperate spherical 2.35 and anamorphic 2.35 (and it really would have to be done for both 2.35 and 2.39) sections from the historically used list, since the origination method ultimately has nothing to do with the way they are projected - whether anamorphic, Super 35, or Techniscope, all prints intended to be shown in a full widescreen projection wind up as an anamorphic print. I think that discussion of origination methods would be better suited to separate articles. -- Girolamo Savonarola 15:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Might this line be more clearly stated? -- Jeremy Butler 12:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Was desiring to learn more about aspect ratios and made Wikipedia, as usual, my first research choice. But I noticed the aspect ratio on which I was looking at the page (3:2) was not listed under commonly used. This is the aspect ratio for my (and, as far as i know, all) Apple Powerbook G4s. My resolution is 1280x854, but I could bump it down to 1152x768 (an extended version of the extremely common 4:3 display resolution of 1024x768). I've added this ratio, but as I do not own many computers, I do not know which manufacturers use this ratio besides Apple. Atchius 22:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This article must maintain a neutral point of view. It is not the place to make arguments for or against widescreen. Several recent edits need to be modified to make the article adhere to NPOV. -- Jeremy Butler 13:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I've come up with an equal-area image spec, as follows:
Image size: 640x359
4:3 (red) | 478x359 | 171602 pixels 16:9 (orange) | 552x311
2.39 (blue) | 640x268 | 171520 pixels
At this rate, I think this resolution is OK for now. Last Avenue 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that we should ditch most of the material here relating to paper sizes. First of all, it's already covered in paper size much better than we do, and we do link to that article already. Second, the aspect ratios image for that (the gray rectangles one) is badly placed and has little bearing on the subject discussed here. AND is written improperly - the 4:3 box is actually 3:4, and I can see that very well could be confusing and counter productive for this article. (The image was created for a separate article on the .de Wikipedia, IIRC, so that would explain a lot...)
I'm also a bit split on whether or not so much of the computer material should be here. What do y'all think? Girolamo Savonarola 01:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Image:Columbia widescreen.jpg has some distortion on the right side -- a greenish vertical stripe. It should be fixed or replaced. -- Jeremy Butler 13:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the last edit today b/c 1) it is both very POV and factually inaccurate to call 1.78 "common widescreen". Common video widescreen, yes, but among film not even close. 2) I think you're just making the 2.35/2.39 issue way more confusing, and furthermore the issue is discussed already on the page (and the anamorphic widescreen page). Encouraging people to continue to use the 2.35 misnomer only creates less clarity about which one is truly being discussed/used. For instance, hard matted Super 35/Techniscope films are still hard matted to 2.39, NOT 2.35. But because you call it 2.35, it only breeds confusion. Are the films being shot today 2.39? Yes. So let's call it 2.39 and talk about those films there. Girolamo Savonarola 22:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Poster1: There are current three aspect ratios used for movies. The first is 4:3... The second is 1.85:1... The third is 2.35:1. This has pretty much become the "de facto" standard for very wide-screen theatrical movie projection... Poster2: Extremely minor correction #3: as of 1971, this was changed to 2.39:1, though the "2.35:1" label sticks for some reason. (The image's height was slightly reduced to hide bad splices.) Poster3: Extremely minor, tiny, minuscule and otherwise not really a correction. The 2.39:1 ratio is often referred to as 2.40:1. These are film makers, not mathematicians Poster4: Considering the margins of error involved in theatrical projection it's moot anyway.
Also, AVSforum.com is not disreputable and is larger than cinematography.com by hits, and they follow the 2.35 designation anyway. 2.35 is therefore just a naming convention, and readers should be able to find what they are looking for first, and then be informed about the details. Part of being NPOV is representing different points of views, including the ones which are popular but wrong, and say so (assuming of course that they are wrong, which in this case we're not in disagreement). If erroneous ideas could not be elaborated on, however popular they are, many of the articles on this site would not exist, including many sections about religions and mythologies. It is arguably irresponsible for us to treat the 2.39 designation as if it was a standard terminology when the reality is not so.
I also received the following feedback: "They are both correct, sorta. The exact frame from a scope element is 2.34 and change, rounded to 2.35:1. The SMPTE projection aperture is 2.39 and change, rounded to 2.40:1 (this to cover the errant splice line). If you are talking about the film frame, it is correct to call it 2.35:1. If you are talking about the projected frame, or perhaps even the widescreen video transfer if it is done to SMPTE framing, then 2.39 or 2.40:1 is correct."
The following is what I think the 2.35 section needs: clearly pointing out that the number in practice refers to one of several things, along with a link to Anamorphic_widescreen#2.35.2C_2.39.2C_or_2.4.3F. Since the issue is complicated, we should simply say so and guide the reader to the full explanation. Shawnc 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I added this line :
It also can be blown up to 35 mm for theatrical release and therefore is also used for feature films.
Please cleanup if needed(english is not my native language)
... and hello to everybody, my first contribution... EDIT : It was,but posted in head instead of bottom sorry. Laurent.a — Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 28 January 2006
"Academy flat" is not an actual standard-practice term - to my knowledge, it started to circulate online on cinephile websites. However, Academy ratio is 1.37, and "flat" ratio is usually defined as 1.85, and each of these are terms commonly used. "Flat" actually originates from the 1950's, when Cinerama and competing formats oftentimes were projected on curved screens (including the original anamorphic format, Cinemascope, IIRC...). Since the Academy ratio died out almost overnight, "flat" quickly became associated with the 1.85 ratio, as it became the de facto ratio projected on a flat screen back then. The curved screens died out within about a decade, but the name stuck largely because the only other ratio regularly in usage by then was anamorphic. Hence most commercial cinemas today are only equipped to show "scope" (2.39) or "flat" (1.85). Academy has absolutely nothing to do with it, and with Super 35 and 3-perf there's a very good chance that many, if not most, of today's 1.85 films were never even originated in an Academy ratio frame intended to be soft-matted to begin with. I hope that clarifies the matter. Girolamo Savonarola 18:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there may be some confusion with 1.33 and 1.37, although I will yield to those with more expertise. It makes sense that 35mm films without sound tracks were originally 1.37. When space from the side of the picture was taken for the optical sound trcaks, it made the picture narrower to 1.33 (not wider from 1.33 to 1.37). Online articles are all over the place on this. I have no idea where magnetic tracks entered the picture and how/if they affected this. Vince Stone 75.75.46.195 ( talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following section from the "Original aspect ratio" section of the article:
First off, because the film
Once Upon a Time in Mexico was in two different aspect ratios does not eliminate the OAR of the film. James Cameron often shot movies in Super 35 mm so that he could have a 2.40:1 (not 2.39:1) theatrical release, but a full frame 1.33:1 video release with no pan and scan
The Abyss is one such example. Cameron has been quoted as saying, on video - he preferrs the 1.33:1 version. That does not eliminate the original aspect ratio (OAR) of the film. Directors and cinematographers VERY OFTEN have to "protect" for multiple aspect ratios - but it is only really possible to compose for one. If a film is getting a theatrical release, that one ratio is the theatrical ratio.
The top portion of the section I cut is a note for the Once Upon a Time in Mexico article, as trivia, that Rodriguez himself approved the new aspect ratio for the video release - it does not create a new category. As for the second passage, I'm not familiar with the common usage of "Theatrical Aspect Ratio" at all ("Original Aspect Ratio" is the common term to define the theatrical aspect ratio). If you can cite sources that this term is in use, then this second half of the section belongs back in the article. LACameraman 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Mr Troy - I never ment to imply that the terms needed to be official cinematographic terms - they certainly aren't. They just need to be verifiable and in common use, per Wikipedia standards. Just because a specific term might be more applicable, if you're inventing it and it's not used by home theater magazines, critics, online reviewers - then it's not a real term. OAR is a term that is now ubiquitous in reviews and in technology publications discussing video releases of theatrical films. I don't know Rodriguez's story - but you certainly can't use him as a reliable example as Rodriguez is the exception to nearly every rule in filmmaking. If the term isn't in common usage, it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Citing sources. LACameraman 20:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
That's actually a solid point. Perhaps MAR should not be in the article, either. LACameraman 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
"Unless you can find an example where the DVD is released before the theatrical print in a different ratio, I don't see how you can overcome that simple fact." The original Battlestar Galactica from 1978 was shown on TV in 4:3 before a shortened version was released in US theaters. Algr
Can we make a decision about this matter? I've given 2 sources that use the term theatrical aspect ratio, with Google you can find hundreds of forums the term is used on (doesn't prove that it's a valid term, but does prove the term is in wide use), and I've given examples in which the theatrical aspect ratio differs from the OAR (Once Upon a Time..., Dr. Strangelove). I think if MAR deserves a spot in the article, TAR does even more. MrTroy 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the relevance of the "two four oh" bit? It appears to me just to be the phonetic representation of "2.40". It's certainly not a written term (Googling "two four oh" returns no results using the term in reference to the aspect ratio). And I think most English speaking people know how to pronounce 2.40... MrTroy 21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well... How 4:3 and 16:9 is pronounced? I don´t know how the ":" is pronounced. "for"? "by"? "to"? "colon"? Sorry, but I´m not an English native, so I need this type of explanation. I think that LACameraman helped when said how "2.40" is pronounced because I think that this article is not meant to be viewed only by the people that has the field experience to write it. I would pronounce "2.40" as "two point forty". JeffersonRyan 10:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I have been a projectionist for nearly 20 years - and during this time, I have known many projectionists who have been around longer than that. 2.39 is not rounded to 2.40, as that would indicate a different aspect ratio. Colloquially, the nickname "scope" (short for "CinemaScope") is often used in place of the actual (numeric) aspect ratio. However, it must be pointed out that "scope" really only indicates that the image must be projected via an anamorphic lens. The projected image need not have the 2.39:1 aspect ratio. For example, 2.35 was once the common 35mm "scope" aspect ratio (eventually replaced by 2.39) and 16mm "scope" is 2.66. (Most of "Biutiful" is not 2.39 and yet the entire film is "scope.") So, the numerical expression remains the most explicit indication of any aspect ratio. If SMPTE wanted a 2.40AR they certainly had the authority and opportunity to have specified it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.48.226 ( talk) 18:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed the following recent addition:
"The choice of 16:9 HDTV was intended as a middle ground between TV's 4:3 aspect ratio, and 1.85:1. 2.40:1 was not often used in the 1980s and 1990s, but ironically has become more common today."
Unfortunately the information is incorrect. 16:9 was NOT an aesthetic compromise between 4:3 and widescreen - it was the limitation of tube technology that did not allow the safe creation of a wider picture tube than 1.78:1. It was a BRAND NEW aspect ratio that had NEVER been utilized prior - purely as a technological limitation. It is not an irony that it has become "more common" since the late 80s as it was INVENTED in the late 80s and forced upon the industry as a defacto HDTV standard. Now we're stuck with it. LACameraman 17:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
"...and forced (16:9) upon the industry as a defacto HDTV standard." Whereas everyone agreed on Univisium?
After reviewing this article again - I would vote for a deletion of this section. Without reputable resources for these opionions, it has a weird non-neutral POV. It also makes a wierd arguement much more biased to broadcast of the images rather than origination, which - in my opinion - is backwards. LACameraman 23:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The horizontal vs. vertical comparison of pictures in "normal" and widescreen mode is biased by the fact that the photographer may either choose a different lens, or choose another position, to capture any given scene. Thus the nose and tale of the shuttle, or the panoramic view of the palace, doesn't necessarily have to be cropped off when viewed in different aspect ratios.
Although there is consensus that Widescreen is better for panoramic pictures, and Academy format is better for portraits, the illustrations (the shuttle and the palace) in this article show this rather vaguely. This way their intent is easily interpreted as subjective, and I'm not sure that was the original meaning. Thus such differences is better "shown" by written explanation rather than by illustrations. The real difference between Widescreen and Academy format is of course the actual plane of the rectangels (superbly illustrated by the circle with different sized rectangles), and not what they illustrate - the latter which is completely subjective anyway.
The photographic illustrations do lighten up the article, but without a written explanation clarifying these important facts, the article would work better without them. -- Kebman 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
In response to recent re-added entries in the list which I have subsequently deleted: these were deleted because it is a not a list of generic ratios or even aspect ratios in general. The article is about imaging technology aspect ratios - photography, film, and video. Perhaps a separate article on generic aspect ratios would be germane. Linking to the golden ratio or silver ratio probably is better done in the See also section instead, as these are not directly germane to the topic of this article but have some indirect relation to it.
I've reverted the 16:9 ratio from 1.777....:1 to 1.78 because it is common and standard industry practice to round the ratio to two significant digits beyond the decimal. The full ratio is given in the integer form in the description. You'll also find that virtually all aspect ratios are also rounded like this - see list of film formats and do the math on the dimensions; very few formats actually divide perfectly into a ratio with two or less post-decimal digits.
The image was also removed from the article mainly because it assumes the longer dimension to be the vertical one, which is incorrect for the ratios in the list as used in image technology. It also is more a comparision with non-image ratios mentioned above. Given the subject, it doesn't actually supply information useful for the topic. IIRC, that graphic was created for a different subject on the German Wikipedia? What probably would be an ideal graphic is one which is extremely wide (4.00:1 or greater) and shows all of the listed aspect ratios either from a common center or perhaps even more usefully, with a common side. If left as an open graphics format, this would also allow future editors to add more aspect ratios in usage to it and thus avoid obsolescence. Girolamo Savonarola 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Then move the article to aspect ratio (imaging technology), and let the old article have a full list. - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The caption for the common aspect ratios image could be better. While it's technically true that the red square is the largest in area and the blue the smallest, it's not apparent to someone not familiar with basic geometry. Why not simply state the ratios of the three boxes leaving out whether they're more used in tv or cinematography... Focomoso 23:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following from the list of common aspect ratios:
I think this 0.27% difference from 1.5:1, which amounts to eight pixels wider than 1.5:1 in a 3008x2000 image, is too insignificant to give notice to here. A quick check on dpreview.com for exact camera image dimensions showed that Canon cameras (of the six or so I tested) were always right on the nail at 1.5:1 but cameras from other makers, mostly using Sony sensors, had pixel dimensions a few tenths of a percentage point off from the exact ratio. This is trivia, perhaps worthy of note in a footnote at the bottom of the articles on those cameras if at all but certainly not in a general list of aspect ratios. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 09:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Why was 16:9 chosen over other ratios? I heard that it was the same as a human v isual perception aspect ration (no source). Could anyone write an explanation? thx -- sin-man 06:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the method shown in the diagram gives the quite different result of 2.04, it cannot be what Kerns Powers intended. According to http://www.cinemasource.com/articles/aspect_ratios.pdf cited as an external link at the bottom of the article, Powers did not normalize the various rectangles as shown in the diagram to constant diagonal length but rather to constant area. The aspect ratios of the resulting "inner" and "outer" rectangles are therefore exactly the geometric mean of the two extremes used, 4/3 and 2.35, or 1.77, which is only coincidentally close to 16/9 or 1.78. The article seems to suggest that the rectangle to be protected is the inner rectangle in Powers's scheme as superimposed on the screen dimensions to be used. This obviously produces an unnecessarily small protected area. There is no reason why the protected area cannot be the largest rectangle of the prescribed aspect ratio that will fit on the screen used. Nor need that rectangle be centered on the screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.81.214 ( talk) 03:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
When the 1.85:1 standard was new, cameras continued to record 1.33 images, while etchings in the finders showed the camera operator the 1.85 borders within the taller frame. Films were then shown on 1.33 projectors with metal masks in their apertures to display only the area within the 1.85 borders. Some camera people did not understand this system and thought the 1.85 etchings actually framed off microphones and even the top of one set (The U.S. Senate chamber in a Roger Corman film I've now forgotten) which were duly displayed when the films were shown on 1:33 TV. Jim Stinson 02:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
An excellent article overall. Thanks for all the TLC, head-scratching, agonizing, and research. Jim Stinson 02:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I came here looking to find out whether India uses 16:9 or 4:3 as a TV standard - I couldn't find it on this page, or on any other pages! Tried looking at PAL / NTSC / TV Standards etc... Maybe there should be a section here dedicated to aspect ratio usage internationally? -- Tomhannen 09:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
There should be a section that describes how to calculate the aspect ratio of a given resolution. Could someone who knows how to do that please add it?-- Allthenamesarealreadytaken 00:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
But how do you actually calculate the ratio? For example, given a resolution of 1024x768, how does one perform the calculations that result in the correct ratio of 4:3? In other words, show all the necessary mathematical steps to come up with a result that is an aspect ratio. -- Allthenamesarealreadytaken 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This section is supposed to contain two images to compare between the two aspect ratios. Since the vertical starting point and ending point is indeed the same, why on earth do the images contain a slight size difference? Again, I'm referring to the vertical pixel size. This would contradict the notice saying that they have the same vertical size and would definitely mislead anyone who views this, since the difference in size could be taken as a narrower vision in the 4:3 image, while a quick check of the vertical starting and ending point would lead people to believe the images are the same size. I see no good reason why the 16:9 image would be 10% vertically bigger than the 4:3 one. If appropiate, someone should fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victordelpanno ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Update: "Two aspect ratios compared with images using the same diagonal (because comparing formats on the basis of the same horizontal or vertical size gives a false impression of one format superior to the other):" I think the same area would be more appropriate than same diagonal, but these images don't satisfy either. They have the same vertical dimension; the 4:3 one is just cropped from the 16:9 one. Rather than uploading new images (someone feel free to do this if you think you can make good ones), I'm going to change the description so at least that is accurate. -- 74.46.213.148 ( talk) 14:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Actually I noticed the thumbnails were sized differently, but still did not have the same diagonal (perhaps error in calculation?), so I changed them to be approx. the same area, which I think works well for comparison's sake. This section still needs work though (or possibly just removal), because the original images still give the wide ratio an unfair advantage, as the narrower one is simply cropped from the wider one and hence is smaller, both in pixel dimensions (does not apply to thumbnail) and in field of view (applies to both). -- 74.46.213.148 ( talk) 15:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The horizontal line that the roof forms misleads one to think the wide format is better because you can see more of the building, and there is a vertical row of chairs that would be a good representation of the 4:3 aspect ratio but is left out of the 4:3 photograph. If the original could be cropped to emphasize the chairs in the 4:3 and the building in the 16:9 this would not mislead the reader, but would show strong suits of both formats. 204.155.56.3 ( talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Aspect ratio should always be measured by width, with height being static (for direct comparisons). So (4:3) 1.333333333:1, (16.9) 1.7777777777778:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1 and so on. Thus the wider image should have same height but wider view. I have corrected this in the article. Do not confuse aspect ratio with different resolutions with different aspect ratios. This article is about aspect ratio, and not the resolution of the actual image. Remember, aspect ratio is x:1 and anything else would just confuse people who read the article to learn about it, there is enough linked articles that dive deeper into resolution and aperture and film size so they can dig deeper if they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.16.112 ( talk) 09:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be good to add a 2.39:1 graphic to the svg-pictures at the beginning. I think this format is as improtant as 3:2. I cannot add it because I don't have any program installed to create .svg images. -- Qaywsxedc ( talk) 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is the Aspect ratio (image)#Previous and presently used aspect ratios table so contentious?
Jhawkins contends that the whole number ratios do not belong because the article is about movies. Crissov contends that the article is more than movies and both decimal and whole number ratios should be present.
Nevermind Dicklyon called Crissov's edits vandalism, which is so completely ridiculous that I have trouble with that whole "assume good faith" bit.
I have to side with Crissov in that the article is clearly not just about movies. If it is then the article name is completely wrong. Subject content aside I still think whole number ratios should be present specifically because THEY ARE SYNONYMOUS. 4:3 and 1.33:1 mean the exact same thing. It's entirely preference and to say one belongs and one does not is so completely a violation of NPOV.
Nevermind that the {{ main}} link to List of common resolutions is whole numbers and the other {{ main}} to List of film formats is decimal. Clearly both are used and both should be represented. And I completely disagree with Jhawkins that it promotes confusion and makes it hard to read. If there is, then a 2 sentence blurb before the table can dispel any confusion easily. Cburnett ( talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Aspect ratio | Description | |
---|---|---|
1.66 | 5:3 | 35 mm European widescreen standard; native Super 16 mm frame ratio. Sometimes expressed more accurately as 1.67. |
1.75 | 7:4 | Early 35 mm widescreen ratio, primarily used by MGM, and since abandoned. |
1.78 | 16:9 | Video widescreen standard, used in high-definition television, One of three ratios specified for MPEG video compression. |
Aspect ratio | Description |
---|---|
1.66:1 | 35 mm European widescreen standard; native Super 16 mm frame ratio. (5:3, sometimes expressed more accurately as "1.67".) |
1.75:1 | Early 35 mm widescreen ratio, primarily used by MGM, and since abandoned. |
1.78:1 | Video widescreen standard (16:9), used in high-definition television, One of three ratios specified for MPEG-2 video compression. |
I'd like to Support including both the decimal and integer ratios in the table as listed above. I find that version of the table perfectly clear, and more useful. It is a simple fact of life that some aspect rations are usually referred to in integers, (4:3, 16:9) and others are usually referred to in decimal. (2.39) The 'motion picture context' notion does not seem useful to me, because the aspect ratios for TV and Film have always been connected, and most discussion about aspect ratio involves how movies look on video. The only time most people have to think about aspect ratios is when they are playing DVDs on their TVs, or choosing what mode to set their camcorder to. Algr ( talk) 07:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried to understand why the ratios are as provided, the table didn’t help much. The normalised decimal fractions are helpful if you want to compare ratios and perhaps when you deal with them every day, but not at all if you want to understand how they came to be. For example “1.37” makes more sense if you know it’s actually 1.375 or 11:8. Simple mathematical conversions, even if they are not obvious on first sight, are not considered original research, by the way. I still don’t understand 2.21/2.20:1, so I shouldn’t have included 11:5. I’m not sure whether the removal of all the “:1” is acceptable.
I’m sorry I considered the changes small and uncontroversial, so didn’t provide an edit summary (and also didn’t use preview enough). Anyhow, I do not care that much about this article, so if it hadn’t been for the accusation of vandalism, I probably wouldn’t have noticed the unexpected reversion at all. — Christoph Päper 13:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The pictures used in the comparision are not NPOV, they are clearly in favour of widescreen. Usually, the cameras i've seen will only cut off a bit in the upper and lower parts of the picture to make a 16:9-picture, including some filmcameras, modern ones. I have seen a few cameras that (When changing from 4:3 to widescreen) will remove some parts from the upper edges and add some parts to the right and left (On almost every wide-screen standard camera I've seen, it is like this). This version used, when widescreen adds a bit extra in the left-right edges is clearly POV, and not standard. It should therefore be changed. Nisseman ( talk) 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't 16:10 included? It's widely used in computer screens and is very close to the golden ratio! I had it included a while ago and someone deleted the entry saying "it's a resolution, not a format", but the fact is most wide computers screens are physically 8:5 (or 16:10). Rnbc ( talk) 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't this list be much better suited for a separate Broadcast/TV standards article where 16:9 as well as HDTV adoption around the world is covered? With a map and whatnot even. I do not see much use in the list here in this article though, this article is messy enough as it is. 80.202.16.112 ( talk) 11:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I came here seeking information on 2.35:1 but you guys have it listed as 2.39 - I've gone over this article three times and cannot find any information on why DVD's have it listed as such, even those the standard is 2.39. I know you guys want to be technical and elitist but an explanation of this would be nice. Thanks. 66.108.167.71 ( talk) 06:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If your screen is vertically constraint you can't emphasize vertical dimsnsion. Period. A story about one "innovating" filmmaker cropping the sides of the screen to make a dramatic effect is just an anegdote. If the effect was real it would be widely copied (I'm looking for scientific word "reproduce" here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.183.58 ( talk) 12:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I think whoever wrote 2.39:1 instead of 2.35:1 has a special case of compulsively adding .04 to aspect ratios, since according to Bordwell & Thompson's Film Art , Academy Ratio is stated to be 1.33:1 and NOT 1.37:1, an AR I've never heard of, to be honest. Armadillo01 ( talk) 05:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The raster image comparing the aspect ratios should be re-created as a vector image and uploaded on commons. » Swpb τ • ¢ 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
When did most televisions shows start shooting 16:9? Anecdotally, I can say it was mid-nineties. Babylon 5 and ER started in 1994 and was always shot wide (though effects were not done wide in B5's case). The X-Files switched in 1997. Buffy, which started in 1997, was always shot wide. Other shows seem to still be shot 4:3 today. Is 1994 the earliest use of 16:9? The article doesn't really establish a timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace of Sevens ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't help thinking the five separate hatnotes are a bit confusing, not to mention untidy. Is there a way to rationalise them? Bob talk 19:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are people using U+003A COLON (:) instead of U+2236 RATIO (∶) which is the correct codepoint for expressing ratios like this? Would anyone object to it being changed? — Nicholas ( reply) @ 19:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the current article that says
Anamorphic transfers onto DVD horizontally squeeze the original widescreen image to store the information into a 4:3 aspect ratio DVD frame.
My understanding is that the usual NTSC situation is that the DVD frame is 3:2 - specifically 720x480 - and that DVD players either morph that into 16:9 or 4:3 -- as directed by a flag -- upon playback. Could someone with knowledge of this issue correct that section of the article? Thanks, Stuart H. Alden ( talk) 20:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Critical content or graphics are framed to fit within the 1.33 raster space, generally working since centered information or characters aren't often perceived as photographically distracting though certain elements especially motion graphics can feel oddly centered or placed for the 16:9 audience.
The above sentence appeared in the second paragraph from section Aspect ratio (image)#Why 16:9 was chosen by the SMPTE is unclear, so I tagged it with {{ clarify}}. I rewrote it as follows with added citation requests. Could an expert check it says what the above intended?
- 84user ( talk) 17:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
1.25 ratio is not included in this topic whatsoever yet google links me here as if it were. I have no interest in arguing that its not included because its usually a computer screen resolution more than anything else, but what, no camera on earth uses 5:4 or something? every single 1280 x 1024 image is an edit? why so picky? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.228.193 ( talk) 13:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
What do you think about the idea to discuss the topic of wrong aspect ratio? AR often gets messed up; this is not only common on youtube but also can be seen on TV and DVD productions, resulting in unpleasantly stretched or squeeshed pictures. There are people (such as myself) who are are movie and video fans and who are bothered by distorted pictures. Apparently, there also are people who not only are not bothered by that but also don't notice at all, that the picture is distorted. There are two blogs dedicated to this topic, which I would like to bring to your attention:
Yes I'm interested and bothered by these problems. Hope this can be developed. For example are 1.85 films actually squashed into 16:9? Are 1.37 films squeezed into 1.33 DVDs? And when converting DVDs to video, how to set it to get the right result ... George Slivinsky ( talk) 17:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This Aspect ratio (image) article, while certainly helpful, is running in parallel with 8 other articles:
Also look at these:
It's one of those cases where authors should be looking beyond the page they've landed on or maintained, and come together in a way that will strengthen everybody's work and deepen everyone's insights. I don't know how the merger process is authorized, but this is a plea to get this thematic mess organized.
Please see the talk pages on each of those pages for ALL comments related to this issue.
Thanks for your attention. A.k.a. ( talk) 17:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm a technical writer, movie lover, and once-serious amateur photographer. The main article not only has spots of bad writing and confused exposition, but leaves more questions answered than unanswered, especially for someone (such as myself) who /thought/ he had a good understanding of aspect ratios. I found it both thin and confusing. Though I'm tempted to make a few changes, this article has problems that cannot be fixed with a light edit -- one of the most-significant being the issue of scope (ar-ar). This article is more about the history of motion-picture aspect ratios, which deserves an article of its own. If the author would like, I'd be happy to work with him, if only to point out the problems in detail. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 12:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Please stop adding back that list of stations broadcasting in 16:9. Almost all stations have already switched to 16:9, so I see really no point in keeping that list.-- Ancient Anomaly ( talk) 18:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
So you don't know world-wide and the same goes for Europe because is not true the majority of countries and stations are 16:9 already. Let's keep the lists as they are now, with countries with their majority of stations already switched to 16:9 just citing the exceptions and countries with a mix citing what stations are 24h or only some programs or even 'bad' 16:9 transmissions. Pointless is just what you did erasing a great part of an article because you felt like. if the question is 16:9 on TV all around the world the lists have to be there. And if you need sourcing go to stations' respective articles as C.Fred said. Please stop vandalizing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.58.113 ( talk) 19:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Where in Europe is 16:9 not the main aspect ratio?-- Ancient Anomaly ( talk) 01:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Quite predictably, the stations' articles do not note 16:9 broadcast, as it is not notable...-- Ancient Anomaly ( talk) 01:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Well like Spain, Italy, Portugal, a lot of Eastern European countries... a lot of channels there are still on 4:3 aspect ratio or only a few programs on them are 16:9. So the lists about the channels have all sense. Please somebody stop this guy from vandalizing Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.58.113 ( talk) 18:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)