Uniform aspect ratios

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I'm always having a headache with the different fractions for aspect
ratios. TV ratios are 4:3, 16:9 and who knows what else. Movie
aspects are usually normalised to 1 e.g., 2.35:1.

Let us please choose one notation standard. We can choose any number
to normalise to, but 1 is a good choice, as is 9.

12:9 (obsolete TV format)
16:9 (new TV format)
16.65:9 (Some movies)
21.15:9 (Movie format)

Alternatively, the :1 format is useful; would 2 or 3 (or more?)
significant digits be better?

1.33:1 (obsolete TV format)
1.77:1 (New TV format)
1.85:1 (Some movies)
2.35:1 (Movies)

I prefer the :1 notation. Please vote.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"T. Pascal" <t_pascal@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2611b663.0406140737.43050962@posting.google.com...
: I'm always having a headache with the different fractions for aspect
: ratios. TV ratios are 4:3, 16:9 and who knows what else. Movie
: aspects are usually normalised to 1 e.g., 2.35:1.

========================
Then re-adjust your brain.
========================
:
: Let us please choose one notation standard. We can choose any number
: to normalise to, but 1 is a good choice, as is 9.
:
: 12:9 (obsolete TV format)
: 16:9 (new TV format)
: 16.65:9 (Some movies)
: 21.15:9 (Movie format)
:
: Alternatively, the :1 format is useful; would 2 or 3 (or more?)
: significant digits be better?
:
: 1.33:1 (obsolete TV format)
: 1.77:1 (New TV format)
: 1.85:1 (Some movies)
: 2.35:1 (Movies)
:
: I prefer the :1 notation. Please vote.

======================
Any version works. Get rational!
======================

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

T. Pascal wrote:
> Let us please choose one notation standard.
Too late. There are many standards out there. This isn't going to change.

> 16:9 (new TV format)
This is also known as 1.78:1

> 1.33:1 (obsolete TV format)
Not quite obsolete. Probably still the majority currently on televison.
There is plenty of stuff on televison still being produced in 1.33:1.
There is a quite large number of films that were done in this format
before widescreen was introduced. Most of the consumer DV digital
camcorders out there still use this format. The format may be old, but
not obsolete.

> 1.77:1 (New TV format)
Actually it's 1.78:1 and the same thing as saying 16x9

> 1.85:1 (Some movies)
Not "some movies", but most movies. The majority are usually 1.85:1.

> 2.35:1 (Movies)
Not exclusive to the blockbuster, it is usually a
Director's/Cinematographer's choice to go with this format over 1.85:1.
for large action/effects heavy films. It is simply another option for
them to make. You won't find too many comedies done with 2.35:1.

I think your headache will get even bigger since you forgot 2.20:1
(which is a favorite choice of Vittorio Storaro - Coppola's DP)

Also 1.66.1 which is a mainstay in Europe but used here in the US as well.

There are plenty of other formats used. IMAX anyone? There's nothing
"standard" about filmmaking. There are many choices to choose from.

The future will only bring MORE, not less.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Steve K." <steve@nodamnspam.com> wrote in message news:holzc.4703> I think
your headache will get even bigger since you forgot 2.20:1
> (which is a favorite choice of Vittorio Storaro - Coppola's DP)


Just to add to the confusion...you are wrong about Storaro. His Unimvision
(spelling?) aspect ratio he is pushing is actually 2:1 not 2.20:1.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Steve K." <steve@nodamnspam.com> wrote in message news:<holzc.4703$Wr.1025@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> T. Pascal wrote:
> > Let us please choose one notation standard.
> Too late. There are many standards out there. This isn't going to change.
>
I propose a standard notation; just normalise the ratios to some
number. I don't care if you normalise them to e or c, or 5.5.

> > 1.77:1 (New TV format)
> Actually it's 1.78:1 and the same thing as saying 16x9
>
I didn't round up, sorry.

> I think your headache will get even bigger since you forgot 2.20:1
> (which is a favorite choice of Vittorio Storaro - Coppola's DP)
>
> Also 1.66.1 which is a mainstay in Europe but used here in the US as well.
>
> There are plenty of other formats used. IMAX anyone? There's nothing
> "standard" about filmmaking. There are many choices to choose from.
>
> The future will only bring MORE, not less.

>
The ones you mentioned are all normalised to 1. I can handle that. I
propose that as the standard normalisation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Hi, I still would like to know the actuall dimensions of the screen size for
a 30` widescreen? verticle and horozontal..and from corner to corner . has
anyone measured this please post. {just simple measurment of screen size}
thanks, {{RDS}}
"T. Pascal" <t_pascal@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2611b663.0406140737.43050962@posting.google.com...
> I'm always having a headache with the different fractions for aspect
> ratios. TV ratios are 4:3, 16:9 and who knows what else. Movie
> aspects are usually normalised to 1 e.g., 2.35:1.
>
> Let us please choose one notation standard. We can choose any number
> to normalise to, but 1 is a good choice, as is 9.
>
> 12:9 (obsolete TV format)
> 16:9 (new TV format)
> 16.65:9 (Some movies)
> 21.15:9 (Movie format)
>
> Alternatively, the :1 format is useful; would 2 or 3 (or more?)
> significant digits be better?
>
> 1.33:1 (obsolete TV format)
> 1.77:1 (New TV format)
> 1.85:1 (Some movies)
> 2.35:1 (Movies)
>
> I prefer the :1 notation. Please vote.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Rdsmusic" <rdsmusic@optonline.net> wrote in
news:QQmzc.14719$uh1.5650841@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:

> Hi, I still would like to know the actuall dimensions of the screen
> size for a 30` widescreen? verticle and horozontal..and from corner
> to corner . has anyone measured this please post. {just simple
> measurment of screen size} thanks, {{RDS}}
>

Pythagoras knows...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:17:04 GMT, "Rdsmusic" <rdsmusic@optonline.net>
wrote:

>Hi, I still would like to know the actuall dimensions of the screen size for
>a 30` widescreen? verticle and horozontal..and from corner to corner . has
>anyone measured this please post. {just simple measurment of screen size}
>thanks, {{RDS}}

http/www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

T. Pascal wrote:
> The ones you mentioned are all normalised to 1. I can handle that. I
> propose that as the standard normalisation.

Good for you ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras wrote:
> Just to add to the confusion...you are wrong about Storaro. His Unimvision
> (spelling?) aspect ratio he is pushing is actually 2:1 not 2.20:1.

Yeah.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Rdsmusic wrote:

> Hi, I still would like to know the actuall dimensions of the screen
> size for a 30` widescreen? verticle and horozontal..and from corner
> to corner.

The size of a screen is given by its diagonal ("from corner to corner")
measure, so you already know that number. For a 16:9 ("widescreen")
aspect ratio, the height is half of that and the width is 7/8 of that.

diagonal 30
width 7/8 of 30 = 26-1/4
height 1/2 of 30 = 15

The fractions come from junior high math. The diagonal measurement is
the hypoteneuse of a right triangle, and the aspect ratio is the ratio
of the lengths of the other two sides--the screen width and height.

(The actual scale factors are closer to 0.490 and 0.872, but 1/2 and 7/8
are close enough, and easier to remember.)

T. Pascal wrote:

> I'm always having a headache with the different fractions for aspect
> ratios. TV ratios are 4:3, 16:9 and who knows what else. Movie
> aspects are usually normalised to 1 e.g., 2.35:1.
>
> Let us please choose one notation standard.

Why? They're just fractions. Your "one notation standard" is really a
requirement to use a single denominator, which misses the whole point of
expressing the aspect as a ratio.

You can compare them in decimal form (your ":1 format") if fractions
give you a headache. But most of the decimals aren't exact. The ratios
with different denominators express the aspect *exactly*, as a fraction
in simplest form (numerator and denominator having no common factors).

- Ernie http/home.comcast.net/~erniew

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:38:21 GMT, "Steve K." <steve@nodamnspam.com>
wrote:

>You won't find too many comedies done with 2.35:1.

But Zoolander is one example. There actually are many comedies done in
2.35:1!

>There are plenty of other formats used. IMAX anyone?

IMAX is 4:3, IIRC.