# Why do people write ratios wrong?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Jeff Kleist, Jun 24, 2002.

1. ### Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

Joined:
Dec 4, 1999
Messages:
11,267
0
Trophy Points:
0
Things like it's 1:1.85, 2:3 pulldown

For one thing, the screen aspect ratios look horribly lopsided that way, and width x height is the established way to write a ratio in this case.

And it's 3:2 pulldown because it's 3 repeated frames, then 2, so 2:3 pulldown is just outright wrong

2. ### NickSo Producer

Joined:
Jul 2, 2000
Messages:
4,260
0
Trophy Points:
0
Real Name:
Nick So
ive never seen anybody write 2:3 pulldown, or 1:1.85 AR

3. ### Thik Nongyow Stunt Coordinator

Joined:
Jun 3, 2002
Messages:
189
0
Trophy Points:
0
It may show how ignorant these people may be regarding aspect ratios. I think it is strange for some people to write "4:3" (standard TV aspect ratio) or "16:9" (widescreen TV aspect ratio) as "4x3" and "16x9" respectively.

4. ### DaveF Moderator Moderator

Joined:
Mar 4, 2001
Messages:
18,454
1,702
Trophy Points:
9,110
Location:
One Loudoun, Ashburn, VA
Real Name:
David Fischer

5. ### TheoGB Screenwriter

Joined:
Jun 18, 2001
Messages:
1,744
0
Trophy Points:
0
Columbia Tristar continually put 1:1.85 and 1:2.35 on the backs of their boxes and it is wrong!!!!!
DaveF: If you talk about a ratio then it is across and down (or up) - map reading gets very hard if you don't obey this method of grid reference. I can't believe you've never noticed this?
Thik: 4x3 and 16x9 comes from referring to multiplication of (say) 2 x 3 as "multiplying 2 by 3...", hence 4x3 is literally read by me as "four by three"...

6. ### ken thompson Second Unit

Joined:
Jun 5, 2000
Messages:
251
0
Trophy Points:
0
Exactly. kinda like how you would refer to a 2x4 piece of lumber when writing it. It wouldn't be a 2:4 The ":" sign infers the word "to". the "x" symbol infers the word "by".

7. ### David Susilo Screenwriter

Joined:
May 8, 1999
Messages:
1,197
0
Trophy Points:
0
Actually, the pronounciation being used is wrong.

The ratio is written as 16:9 but people mispronounced it by saying "16 by 9". It's supposed to be "16 to 9"

3:2 pulldown, even by the industry standard, also called 2:3 pulldown. It's because of the sequence 3 - 2 - 3 - 2 and there is no telling whether the '3' or the '2' that comes first. So either writing (3:2 or 2:3) are acceptable.

8. ### Glenn Overholt Producer

Joined:
Mar 24, 1999
Messages:
4,203
0
Trophy Points:
0
Ok, but who's the wise guy that came up with 16? When referring to a ratio, shouldn't the base unit be one (1)?

This would make a 16:9 - 1:.5625, or a 4:3 1:.75. That makes a lot more sense to me!

Glenn

9. ### David Susilo Screenwriter

Joined:
May 8, 1999
Messages:
1,197
0
Trophy Points:
0
I agree with you, Glenn. AFAIK, from every single one of my math classes, the base ratio should be 1, not 9 or 3.

Mathematically speaking, though, there are two 'groups' in defining ratio. One is basing all ratio to 1, the other is basing the ratio to whatever number as long as both numbers are round number (no decimal point).

Joined:
Nov 4, 2000
Messages:
8,967
0
Trophy Points:
0

11. ### Joseph DeMartino Lead Actor

Joined:
Jun 30, 1997
Messages:
8,311
13
Trophy Points:
5,610
Location:
Florida
Real Name:
Joseph DeMartino

12. ### ken thompson Second Unit

Joined:
Jun 5, 2000
Messages:
251
0
Trophy Points:
0
I infer that you are implying something here. Is my inferrence of your implication correct?

13. ### TheoGB Screenwriter

Joined:
Jun 18, 2001
Messages:
1,744
0
Trophy Points:
0

14. ### Joseph DeMartino Lead Actor

Joined:
Jun 30, 1997
Messages:
8,311
13
Trophy Points:
5,610
Location:
Florida
Real Name:
Joseph DeMartino

15. ### Henry Carmona Screenwriter

Joined:
Feb 7, 2000
Messages:
1,299
0
Trophy Points:
0
Location:
San Antonio
Real Name:
Henry Carmona
Dayum! Are people afraid to talk to you guys?

Joined:
Mar 3, 2002
Messages:
537