2 ms·
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 t
by dagw 1y ago
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.
- moefh 1y agoI 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 1y agoI 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.
- nayuki 1y agoYeah, it did get similar responses. https://www.nayuki.io/page/pixel-is-a-unit-of-length-and-area https://www.nayuki.io/page/pixel-is-a-unit-of-length-and-are... , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43769478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43769478
- NikolaNovak 1y agoYes, and many of us find it silly :-)
- hunter2_ 1y agoThe 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.