Other: Winner winner, chicken dinner

Wait, I think I have learned something not said here in this way:

A given resolution can only be of one aspect ratio.

But a given aspect ratio can be any number of resolutions.

Is that correct?

16:9 can be: 1024×576, 1152×648, 1280×720, 1366×768, 1600×900, 1920×1080, 2560×1440 or 3840×2160.

But those resolutions can only be 16:9.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Resolution and aspect ratio have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. It cannot be stated any simpler than that.
1920x1080 and 3840x2160 are both 16:9. Bu they are not the same resolution. Get it?
Click to expand...

JPNola said:
I was told the following by someone who professionally teaches these things:

“ This discussion boils down to two concepts: 1) Resolution and 2) Aspect Ratio.
One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.
Why is that so difficult to understand?”

I am trying to understand how it is true that resolution and aspect ratio have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, which I am told should be easy to understand.

I’m being told both: that they have no relation AND they have an irrefutable mathematic relation.
Click to expand...

That is because Doug, while it appears he understands the different between aspect ratio and resolution, is mistaken in his choice of language to explain the concept.

Resolution & Ratio are two distinct concepts, but they are inherently connected. Ratio is essentially a measurement of the width/height proportion of any given resolution.

1920x1080 is 1.77777 times wider than it is tall, because 1920 is 1.7777 times 1080. But we don't express it like that. Instead, we express it via ratio.

1920 divides by 120 16 times. 1080 divides by 120 9 times. Therefore the ratio is 16:9. 2160x1080 would be an 18:9 aspect ratio, which would reduce to a 2:1 aspect ratio. Another way of saying this would be that 2160x1080 is twice as wide as it is tall.

1920x1080 is *almost* twice as wide as it is tall, but not quite - 1.77777 times. Or, as we say in the industry, 16:9 (or usually rounded to 1.78).

A 16:9 aspect ratio can be a great number of resolutions.

However, 4096x2160 cannot be 16:9 simply because of math. 4096 is 1.8962 times wider than 2160p, not 1.77777 times wider.

4096x2160 has an aspect ratio slightly of 256:135 but that is a mouthful, so we don't say that. Rather I've seen it expressed as 1.9 (1.8962 rounded off). You can see this handy sheet here:

https://www.wearethefirehouse.com/aspect-ratio-cheat-sheet

Regarding Doug being obligated or helpful, I mean, it's a voluntary forum Doug. The idea is to post something when you decide I want to be helpful, and to abstain when you don't want to bother. You've implied that JPNola can't do 5th grade math, which besides being slightly rude, is problematic when you say something like:

Doug Jensen said:
Resolution and aspect ratio have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
Click to expand...

They have everything to do with each other.
 
JPNola said:
Wait, I think I have learned something not said here in this way:

A given resolution can only be of one aspect ratio.

But a given aspect ratio can be any number of resolutions.

Is that correct?

16:9 can be: 1024×576, 1152×648, 1280×720, 1366×768, 1600×900, 1920×1080, 2560×1440 or 3840×2160.

But those resolutions can only be 16:9.
Click to expand...

Yes. The common denominator of 1024 and 576 is 64. There are 16 sets of 64 in 1024; 9 sets of 64 in 576. 1024 is 1.7777777 times wider (rounded to 1.78) than 576. All of these share the same ratio of width pixels to height pixels (16 to 9), or 1.777777 (1.78). (16 is 1.777777 more than 9).
 
JPNola said:
‘Why are you so stupid as to not see that resolution and aspect ratio have NO relation??”

then..

“Why are you so stupid as to not see that math dictates a resolution be an exact aspect ratio?? A 5th grader could understand it! Sheesh!”


:huh:
Click to expand...

I just want to point out that those are your own quotes. I don't believe anyone has said those thing to you on this thread . . . except you. Your use of "quotation marks" in this manner is completely misleading and irresponsible.

You are embarrassing yourself and you should step back and take a breath.
Now, you can quote me on that if you'd like.
 
To give another use case of ratio, the concept applies in craft coffee brewing in a similar way.

For a long time in coffee brewing, people would use "grams per liter" because many were batch brewing coffee for multiple people. So you might brew 65g of coffee per 1000g (1 liter) of water, or 60g/L, or 70g/L. This relationship would change the resultant coffee extraction. Well, this doesn't work well for many because if you are a home user brewing a single cup, you want to drink about 20g of water, or maybe 15g or 25g depending on how strong you like your coffee. So "60g/L" is a crappy way of communicating that if you aren't brewing for 3-4 people, because 60g/L ties you to using 1000g of water and 60g of coffee, which is a lot.

Enter the ratio, a universally applicable way to communicate. Rather than saying 60g/L (that is, 60g of coffee per 1000g of water) you compute the ratio to 1:16.6666. Many will round off and use a ratio of 1:16, 1:16.5, 1:17 - these are the most common you will see, and are all ratio expressing water to coffee. Essentially, 16x or 16.5x or 17x the amount of water per gram of coffee.

This means if I am brewing 15g of coffee at a 1:17 ratio I can just multiply 15x17 and know to use 255g of water. Or 20g for a 1:16 ratio? 320g. Much, much easier to communicate with a water to coffee ratio rather than with 60g/L or 65g/L, which requires a lot of math for every new recipe.

Point of this is full circle, the importance of ratios is cross industry and cross practice. Ratios are a relationship between variable X and variable Y. For Coffee, X = coffee and Y = water. For video resolutions, X = width and Y = height.

What is the relationship between X and Y? We express it via ratio. 16:1 would mean "x" is 16 times more than "y". But we aren't working with resolutions that wide.

I think it is valid to ask "we don't we just say 1.7777778:1 instead of 16:9"? It's the same thing, right? It is, but 16:9 was the lowest number to get clean divisibility. And we sometimes say 1.78, which is rounding and simplifying 1.77777:1.

At the end of the day, I do personally prefer the cleaner expression of this via 1.78 or 2.35 or 1.85.
 
filmguy123 said:
That is because Doug, while it appears he understands the different between aspect ratio and resolution, is mistaken in his choice of language to explain the concept.
Click to expand...

No, I am not wrong. You may choose to describe it differently than I do, but that does mean my language is "mistaken".
Resolution and aspect ratio have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, and can be shown with simple 5th grade math.

There, I've said it again. If you find that rude or insulting, that is your problem not mine. Don't shoot the messenger.
 
eA2OQU9.jpg
 
filmguy123 said:
Regarding Doug being obligated or helpful, I mean, it's a voluntary forum Doug. The idea is to post something when you decide I want to be helpful, and to abstain when you don't want to bother.
Click to expand...

If you will take the time to look back at this thread you will see that I replied a couple of times to the comments of other people by adding my own point of view. Do you have a problem with that?

I never said a word to Mr. Nola. It was he who chose to call me out with a rude an insulting reply to one of my posts. As he has done time and time again. Am I just supposed to ignore his post and not answer the questions he has posed to me directly? Am I supposed to feel sorry for him when he can't understand the many helpfult posts he has been given and wants to throw a trantrum when he can't process the information? Then he goes and makes up quotes that I never said, in an attempt to make himself look like he has been bullied. You fell for his acting. I predict this post will be deleted and the thread cleaned up just as it has time and time again when Mr. Nola gets his feelings hurt and got run over in the road. It his no wonder he hides behind a fake name and won't identify himself. He has said before that he is afraid clients will read his posts so he wants to stay hidden, while being free to throw insults at others and show his ignorance about the most basic concepts of video production. That speaks volumes about his maturity and professionalism.
 
Donny 123 said:
I thought Netflix demand 17-9 and not accept 3840 .. ? Ive shot corporate for them and even that they demanded 17-9 .. unless they are referring to down sampled 3840 from something like the fx9 ? that the only "true" 4k that Ive heard referred to ..
Click to expand...

https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000579527-Cameras-and-Image-Capture

"Resolution Requirements
Camera must have a true 4K UHD sensor (equal to or greater than 3840 photosites wide)"

(AND JUST BECAUSE IT'S KINDA FUN RELATING TO THIS THREAD):

"Aspect ratio is a creative decision and must be evaluated and discussed with Netflix for approval."
 
CharlesPapert said:
https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000579527-Cameras-and-Image-Capture

"Resolution Requirements
Camera must have a true 4K UHD sensor (equal to or greater than 3840 photosites wide)"

(AND JUST BECAUSE IT'S KINDA FUN RELATING TO THIS THREAD):

"Aspect ratio is a creative decision and must be evaluated and discussed with Netflix for approval."
Click to expand...

Ok thanks .. I questioned when they asked for 17-9 for a mid level corp shoot , and did they mean 16-9 3840 , and was told no .. had to be 17-9 .. but that was quite a few years back .. it seems a lot of Netflix originals are using 2-1 these days .. again ..3840 "true " 4K when its resolution from a 4k sensor is about 2,700K .. sort of goes to show what a crock of shite the whole 4k thing is .. I got a 2-1 request for a nat geo doc recently , first time , smallHD monitor had the lines but not my camera (fx9) a bit surprised as its quite a relatively new model camera ..its a very nice aspect ratio. actually as a halfway house between 16-9 and 2.4 :1 ..
 
And...

The requirements only apply to fictional, Netflix original productions.

It appears, given my experience and that of Donny, that employees of Netflix at times do not fully understand the Netflix content requirements, some thinking the requirements apply to any and all content on Netflix. Possibly they are uncertain and thinking better safe than sorry have applied the requirement where it was not intended.
 
Donny 123 said:
Ok thanks .. I questioned when they asked for 17-9 for a mid level corp shoot , and did they mean 16-9 3840 , and was told no .. had to be 17-9 .. but that was quite a few years back .. it seems a lot of Netflix originals are using 2-1 these days .. again ..3840 "true " 4K when its resolution from a 4k sensor is about 2,700K .. sort of goes to show what a crock of shite the whole 4k thing is .. I got a 2-1 request for a nat geo doc recently , first time , smallHD monitor had the lines but not my camera (fx9) a bit surprised as its quite a relatively new model camera ..its a very nice aspect ratio. actually as a halfway house between 16-9 and 2.4 :1 ..
Click to expand...

I haven’t laid hands on an Fx9, but it may have a menu item called “User Box” or something similar. Our broadcast cameras(like my VariCam) and some cine cameras(like my F55) have the option to basically create a box of virtually any size and aspect ratio you want to overlay in the VF(and monitor out) in addition to the predefined markers available to you. So you could create your own custom frame markers. I used that option when we had to still shoot 16x9 and 4x3 simultaneously.
 
Run&Gun said:
I haven’t laid hands on an Fx9, but it may have a menu item called “User Box” or something similar. Our broadcast cameras(like my VariCam) and some cine cameras(like my F55) have the option to basically create a box of virtually any size and aspect ratio you want to overlay in the VF(and monitor out) in addition to the predefined markers available to you. .
Click to expand...

Not only does the FX6 have that very handy User Box function, you can also create a custom aspect ratio marker with any dimensions you want and display it either as lines or a mask with variable opacity. As far as I know, it is the first Sony camera to offer that power. User Box and the aspect ratio marker can even be used together if you want.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Not only does the FX6 have that very handy User Box function, you can also create a custom aspect ratio marker with any dimensions you want and display it either as lines or a mask with variable opacity. As far as I know, it is the first Sony camera to offer that power. User Box and the aspect ratio marker can even be used together if you want.
Click to expand...

that sounds like an absolute must-have for today's crazy world of multi-format delivery. such as editing 16x9, 4x5, and 9x16 all from the same shoot. (although you likely won't be grabbing your 9x16 frame from the center of your 16x9 frame all the time, so perhaps a grid of 9x16 boxes would be more useful)
 
Doug Jensen said:
Not only does the FX6 have that very handy User Box function, you can also create a custom aspect ratio marker with any dimensions you want and display it either as lines or a mask with variable opacity. As far as I know, it is the first Sony camera to offer that power. User Box and the aspect ratio marker can even be used together if you want.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm remembering wrong, I believe I was on a shoot with the Sony Venice that could do the same.
 
Run&Gun said:
I haven’t laid hands on an Fx9, but it may have a menu item called “User Box” or something similar. Our broadcast cameras(like my VariCam) and some cine cameras(like my F55) have the option to basically create a box of virtually any size and aspect ratio you want to overlay in the VF(and monitor out) in addition to the predefined markers available to you. So you could create your own custom frame markers. I used that option when we had to still shoot 16x9 and 4x3 simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Yes whats I did , put up a chart with the small HD monitors built in 2:1 marker , and matched up the marker lines with the user box..and stored the height number if I have to do it again ..I mean its still recording 16-9 so there is room for wiggle in post ..maybe it will be in the list with V3 or the custom aspect ratio feature will be included .. just thought 2:1 might have already been included , there is a whole bunch of preset marker lines but not 2:1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top