This is blatantly obvious.Ī 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. Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.162.231 ( talk) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Reply 8:5 != 16:10 WTF Īn image and a display are not the same thing. 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. Not technically trained in this field or know to much of it. 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 analogueĪll this I write is for true 16:9 where also need to to have true pixels relation for accurate pixel videos. Or linked to a wiki page (onto the subject) where it is described in more detail 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.

When also played from dvd player via HDMI onto the digital LCD (or other) flat display. Recorded onto hard drive or other digital media, edited and dvd made from it. 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. Then displayed on a 16:9 display would this be 1:1 square pixels or 2:1 non square pixelsĭVD D2 704/396 chosen here as it is the highest 16:9 Aspect Ratio allowed for dvd. The player even when zoom to remove black bars still will be 1:1 square pixels. 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. Then should also be included for this fact.Ĭlarity also then would be needed for bt.601, bt.709. Since we all (high percent and growing) view video (film or other) now on 16:9 tv, displays, monitors and others. 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 if displayed on a 4:3 display (DAR = 4:3), has square pixels Maybe it can or should be called something else? VanBoek ( talk) 20:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Reply Storage vs Display aspect I agree that having a fixed image with this information would be better as it would be independent of viewer settings.Ī minor nitpick: most of these aspect ratios are not 'common'. I think this might be due to different browser rendering (such as choice of default font). Most of the text spills over into the next box making it extremely difficult to read. The box 'some common aspect ratios' does not display well. Also needed are 2.35:1 and 2.21:1, common aspect ratios for films. The Golden Ratio box does not fit in with these others agreed. 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) Reply The images that were being used before were a much better choice. 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.

2.39 1 aspect ratio calculator