| ▲ | gwd 2 days ago |
| > Aspect ratio is a ratio. Right, but in this case they only give you one of the two numbers. Imagine being told that your TV had an aspect ration of ":16", and you just have to magically know what the other number means in the context. And sometimes ":16" actually means ":4", because quadratic mumble mumble, and sometimes the number is scaled according to some other "how big it seems to humans" factor; all of which you also just have to know in context. |
|
| ▲ | dagw 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Imagine being told that your TV had an aspect ration of ":16" We kind of have that with people talking about a screen or image being "2k" and then expect you to infer what the actual resolution and aspect ratio is from context. |
| |
| ▲ | hunter2_ 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The real absurdity of 2k/4k/etc is that those refer to approximate horizontal pixel counts, when "lines" (vertical pixel count) such as 480/525/1080/etc has been the typical dimension for such a long time. Why the switch? In the 16:9 world, ~2k horizontal is close enough to ~1k (1080) vertical, and ~4k horizontal is close enough to ~2k (2160) vertical, etc. so it can't be that the horizontal numbers round to the nearest k better than the vertical numbers. | |
| ▲ | moefh 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think the difference is that if you write a blog post complaining about the silliness of these labels, you don't get people telling you that no, you don't get it, it's totally fine, these are just aspect ratios. | | |
| ▲ | oasisbob 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I remember a recent post about the ambiguous nature of a pixel, and extended to aspect rations, that garnered VERY similar responses to what you described. | | |
| |
| ▲ | NikolaNovak 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, and many of us find it silly :-) |
|
|
| ▲ | vrc 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 4:3 only makes sense to you because you know which is length and width a priori. I for example, always have to recheck that. So if it was written as 1.33 or 4/3 it makes the same difference to me, and is similar in that way to dB |
|
| ▲ | megous 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Ratio is just a single number. 4:3 can be expressed as 1.3333~ and it just says how much bigger one number is compared to another. RE: Yes, I was able to read and understand the article. I also have 8 years of EE. Ratio is still a single number in the end. You can have an actual size of a monitor 1600 x 1200 and the ratio of sides is 1600/1200, which is just a single number. You can express it in multiple ways. You still need at least one size + understanding of what the aspect ratio is used to describe in a particular situation (units (mm, px, ...), ...) to be able to calculate the complete dimensions of a monitor screen. Same issue with % or ppm, or whatever. You always need a defintition to understand what the numbers are abstracting in any particular situation. |
| |
| ▲ | gwd 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, and 10db means "10x more power". But: 1. 10x more power than what? It changes, and you Just Have to Know. 2. It's 10x more power; so if you're measuring power, like pascals, then 10db means 10x more pascals. But if you're measuring something like voltage, then it's not 10x more voltage, it's something else. 3. And if you're talking about sound, you may be talking about objective power; or you might be talking about how much more powerful it seems to humans. | | |
| ▲ | nayuki 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Sure, and 10db means "10x more power". But: 1. 10x more power than what? It changes, and you Just Have to Know. That gives me an idea - explicitly state the basis and multiply. So the current notation "3 dBm" should instead be "1 mW × 3 dB". Furthermore, any addition in the logarithmic domain must be grouped, like: "3 dBm + 5 dB" --> "1 mW × (3 dB + 5 dB)". |
| |
| ▲ | ants_a 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | So my display aspect ratio is 2.5dB. Or is it 5dB because it's not measuring power? |
|
