Do you simplify aspect ratios?

[jasonwj322a]

I've seen people saying that retailers/brands often use 16:8 instead of 1:2 to attract customers and 1:2 is the correct way. People said you should always simplify aspect ratios when you can is it true? 

 

Edit: Typo

[kelvinhall05]

16:9 is as simplified as it can be, without going into fractions/decimals.

[jasonwj322a]

Just now, kelvinhall05 said:

16:9 is as simplified as it can be, without going into fractions/decimals.

Ah shoot i meant 16:8

[kelvinhall05]

3 minutes ago, jasonwj322a said:

Ah shoot i meant 16:8

Well, I've never heard of that being used as an aspect ratio, so IDK.

[Tenadisic]

Yes you should simplify aspect ratios because they are just ratios which are like fractions

[Froody129]

I don't think 16:8/1:2 is an aspect ratio, or if it is, not one used for consumer displays

[DexterSmythe]

Another example is 21:9 could be 7:3 simplified, but it is not marketed that way.

[You_are_a_cunt]

16:8 would be 2:1 and it's not a common aspect ratio for anything.

16:9 or 16:10 are the most common afaik

 

And yes, you simplify.

[Tenadisic]

1 minute ago, revsilverspine said:

16:8 would be 2:1 and it's not a common aspect ratio for anything.

16:9 or 16:10 are the most common afaik

 

And yes, you simplify.

so then the question is, why don't we simplify 16:10

 

[You_are_a_cunt]

2 minutes ago, Tenadisic said:

so then the question is, why don't we simplify 16:10

 

marketing, mostly

[elfensky]

I think a lot of it has to do with the 16 or 9 part of the equation. People are very used to the 16:9 ratio, so keeping one or the other number provides an easier (mentally) way to compare/think of what the display and ratio means.

 

If the first number is bigger it's wider than what you're used to, if the second number is bigger it's a more square-ish display and so on.

[Aphexxis]

I downsample to 15:9, in games like Mass Effect it leaves a slight border at both left and right sides, so it looks slightly closer to 16:10.

[LAwLz]

It depends on what you want to do with the number. Since 16:9 is the most common ratio used today, and is as simplified as it can be, it makes sense to try and match the 16 or 9 part for other resolutions so that you have an easy point of reference.

 

It's easier to compare 18:9 to 16:9, than it is comparing 2:1 to 16:9.

[typographie]

1 hour ago, Tenadisic said:

so then the question is, why don't we simplify 16:10

I think it's just because it has to be compared against 16:9, and it's far easier to compare 16:10 against that than 8:5. I guess you can say that's a "marketing reason," but it's not a particularly cynical one.

[PrimeSonic]

I don't just because it's not so much about the number itself as it is about what the number means to the industry and the consumer.

 

Ex:

16:9 is now the common widescreen format and anyone looking at displays might be familiar with this.

The industry chose the number 21:9 for ultra-wide format, instead of the simplified 7:3, because it is intended to be compared to 16:9.

 

At a glance, you know that 21:9 is wider than 16:9 without having to do any mental math.

Same goes for when comparing 16:10 to 16:9, you can tell it's got a bit more height without having to mentally convert it from "8:5".

 

So no, I don't simplify these fractions because they become less useful when simplified as they are harder to mentally compare to each other.

[Glenwing]

If I want to be "proper" then I'll just use decimal form (1.60, 1.77, 2.37, etc.), otherwise I just use common terms (16:10, 16:9, 21:9). I don't see any reason to simplify really. If you're concerned about being "sheep" to the marketing machine of bigger numbers, just use decimal form, it's both more proper and better for comparison, so you get the best of both worlds.