Why do people write ratios wrong? (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Kleist]

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

 

[NickSo]

ive never seen anybody write 2:3 pulldown, or 1:1.85 AR

 

[Thik Nongyow]

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.

 

[DaveF]

2:3 pulldown is just outright wrong

Well... 3 frames, then 2 frames, then 3 frames... which is 2:3
Seriously, it's because, for most people these aren't ratios, but are jargon used to refer to some aspect of consumer electronics.

 

[TheoGB]

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"...

 

[ken thompson]

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".

 

[David Susilo]

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.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

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

 

[David Susilo]

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).

 

[Holadem]

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!

Either way is correct, hence the heavy emphasis on reducing fractions to the smallest integers. 4:3 and 1:0.75 are correct. 8:6 or 160000 : 120000 are not
--
Holadem

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

The ":" sign infers the word "to". the "x" symbol infers the word "by".

As long as we're getting all technical, I think you mean that the ":" sign implies the word "to" - not infers. (Actually it indicates the word, doesn't merely imply it.) Something is inferred when it is deduced from indirect evidence. That is you infer a hidden meaning from something someone else says. The person making the indirect reference or planting the clue is implying something, not inferring it.

Regards,

Joe

 

[ken thompson]

I infer that you are implying something here. Is my inferrence of your implication correct?

 

[TheoGB]

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!

Isn't the idea that one of the units is 1, so that you'd get: 16:9 -> 1.78:1 and 4:3 1.33:1 ?? Oh yes. That kinda looks familiar, doesn't it?

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Is my inferrence of your implication correct?

Yes.
(Actually, no, since I wasn't implying anything, I was saying it flat-out. )
Regards,
Joe

 

[Henry Carmona]

Dayum! Are people afraid to talk to you guys?

 

[Mark Larson]

My 2 cents...
4 by 3 is 4 divided by 3. (which is 1.33:1), and 16 by 9 the same way is 16 divided by 9.
1.85:1 is pronounced as 1.85 is to 1. This is just the way i was taught, and that's the way i pronounce it.

Thus, 16:9::1.78:1 (or something - i'm confusing myself here! :p) )