Talk:List of common display resolutions/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name

Surely the article should be named e.g. List of image resolutions (since 'resolution' has different meanings - not necessarily image related). I don't think it needs to say 'common' (many of them are not common); it could possibly say 'standard' though, i.e. List of standard image resolutions, since all of them are defined standards. 80.47.80.101 14:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a "list of standard resolutions" would be shorter than a "list of common resolutions." Btw, you would call these 'display resolutions' rather than 'image resolutions.' But, then, someone would come along and insert every bizarre resolution that ever existed (even more than are currently in here).

Merger with display resolution

Should this be merged with display resolution? Madda 16:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The table has little to do with "resolution" in the visual perception sense. It gives the grid patterns that pictures may be broken up into.

The table is very computer-world centric and reflects many different (and sometimes proprietary) solutions from individual companies and organisations rather than national and international standards.

There are some errors noted also that probably arise from confusion between compressed systems (eg MPEG) where the "active picture" line samples are given and uncompressed studio systems (in particular, 1.485Gbps HD SDI) where the number of samples per line also includes the blanking interval (- quite different for 50 and 60 Hz systems).

For example European HDTV entry in the table is wrong. Europe originally in the early '90s experimented with analog HD-MAC using 1250 line total, 1152 line interlace active picture (i.e. twice 625/576). Current DVB-S,-C,-T digital standards users from Europe, Australia, etc. are using or testing HDTV formats as listed in DVB's standard ETSI TS 101 154 V1.7.1 (2005-06) Annex A. (for a copy http://www.etsi.org/services_products/freestandard/home.htm ) In reality 3 HD formats (at 25 or 50 frames/s) are being broadcast or tested - 1280 x 720p; 1440 x 1080i and 1920 x 1080i - the latter being rare because the MPEG bitrate required is not available for low artefact pictures. Also most broadcasters use HDcam DVRs that have internal filtering to 1440 pixes per line. Note also that MPEG-2 uses 16 x 16 macroblocks but 1080 is not a complete number of 16 line samples - 1088 is, so the line number is sometimes quoted as 1088 although there's picture on only 1080 lines.--anon

• Yes. It more-or-less mirrors a section of "Display Resolution" (which is "Common Display Resolutions"). -Edlin2 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. -unknown 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spotted a minor error with the list

Found 1280x768, for a 16:10 resolution. According to http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php?title=Common_Widescreen_Resolutions it is 1280x800. There may be other mistakes...

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was merge.--Jorfer 01:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"i" and "p" suffixes could use explanation

I suggest that the suffixes "i" and "p" on some resolutions could use explanation. PeterWise9 (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The 'i' and 'p' are for 'interlaced' and 'progressive scan.' An interlaced image's odd-numbered lines are displayed first, then the even-numbers are displayed on the monitor's next refresh. A progressive-scanned image would display the entire image at once. However, while downloading, they would be displayed, appearing progressively downward, however, in an interlaced image's odd-numbered lines would still be displayed first. Also, an interlaced video's odd-numbered lines would be displayed in the first, even in its second, odd in its third, and so on. Doggitydogs (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

1920x1440

My pc lists 1920x1440 as a standard 4:3 resolution, should it be on this list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.133.27.147 (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Added, along with a few other 4:3 resolutions that I've seen from time to time. 71.116.111.36 (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

1280x768

Where is 1280x768? That's a common resolution on laptop computers using WXGA+. --65.8.156.221 19:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Added. Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't know that widescreen monitors were made in aspect ratios other than 8:5 and 16:9. 71.116.111.36 (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

1280x960

Wasn't 1280x960 in the listings until recently? That's preferred for 4:3 monitors over the more common 1280x1024, I thought.

Added. It has apparently earned the designation of "SXGA-", and I haven't seen it anywhere outside of Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force and a few wallpapers. 71.116.111.36 (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Display Aspect Ratio column

The "Display Aspect Ratio" column appears to assume a square pixel aspect ratio. A lot of these display formats do not have square pixels. Notably, 480-line CCIR 601 based formats have pixels shaped as 10:11 rectangles, the 320x200 PC formats are 5:6, and formats based on half the width of an NTSC subcarrier cycle (such as Apple IIe hi-res video) are 6:7. Is a new column for pixel aspect ratio needed? --Damian Yerrick (serious | business) 13:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be a fabulous idea if not for the fact that resolutions and pixel aspect ratios aren't bound to each other. 1280x1024, for example, can give either a 4:3 or 5:4 image depending on what kind of monitor you're using. That's why this is a list of resolutions, not a list of formats. 71.116.111.36 (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Digital film standards

The table breaks when a sort is applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainbrain27 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

should XDCam be added to the post production list?

If HDCam is in there, it makes sense for XDCam to be there too. It's full raster 1920 * 1080 with a PAR of 1:1 stib (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Aspect ratio ratios

I think it's a mistake to convert some of the aspect ratios to lowest terms. In particular, the ratio referred here as 8:5 is far more widely known as 16:10.

But I don`t think converting the aspect ratios to lowest numbers is a mistake because 16:10 is just a marketing term, it is used by some sales representatives to swindle customers that 8:5 is better than 16:9. UU (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

936x702

Hi, I found 936x702 in my website's browsing stats, any idea what it is? If you find this comment irrelevant just erase it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.68.99.51 (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably an unmaximized browser on a screen at least 1024x768 (XGA). --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeating the merger plea (for 9 overlapping articles)

This List of common resolutions article, while certainly helpful, is running in parallel with 8 other articles:

• Computer display standard
• Display resolution
• Aspect ratio (image)
• Widescreen
• High-definition display resolutions
• Template:Widescreen monitor resolutions
• Template:Monitor resolutions
• Template:HD resolutions

Also look at these:

• Computer monitor
• Aspect ratio

It's one of those cases where authors should be looking beyond the page they've landed on or maintained, and come together in a way that will strengthen everybody's work and deepen everyone's insights. I don't know how the merger process is authorized, but this is a plea to get this thematic mess organized.

Please see the talk pages on each of those pages for ALL comments related to this issue.

Thanks for your attention. A.k.a. (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree that there's a lot of lists with a lot of duplication, but I'd like to put forth a defense of this list and its table. I've added a number of res.'s before, put in some more just now, and think I'll keep adding in the future. The simple table format allows for it to hold a zillion without confusion and any elaboration, if needed, can be in separate articles. But if there's one problem that's becoming evident, it's the "common" part of the title. Some of these resolutions are extremely obscure, some even only ever having been used in a single device. Some may think that that justifies removal to which I say: DON'T. YOU. DARE. I would argue that some of the more obscure resolutions are actually more justified because of their obscurity; It adds notability. Take 2560×1920 (one of my additions). It's a very obscure resolution because hardly anything supported it, but it's important to list as it is the highest 4:3 resolution possible on CRT's. To those potential deletionists who would purge this list of several or dozens of entries, ask yourself: Would this article and it's easy-to-read table somehow benefit from being massively trimmed? Should a resolution not have a needed reference, then simply find and add one, but let's not get rid of what's here in the mistaken belief that the list need be short and hence less informative. Besides, if the list ever were purged, one obscure res. that would be on the chopping block would be 1280×720. Yep. It may be a common video resolution, but it's very rare on displays (Though I happen to own such a Gateway LCD) So if there's anything wrong with this article as it stands, it's only the name, not the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.87.187 (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for 128x160

Please add 128x160 resolution Samsung YP-K5 MP3 player have such http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Samsung_YEPP#YP-K5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.105.206 (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

NTSC resolution?

NTSC's resolution 640 x 480 non-square pixels (like a television), giving a 720 x 480 pixel image when resampled for square pixels (like a computer monitor). PAL is 640 x 576 non-square pixels. Claiming that either one is 720 pixels wide is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.116.132 (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

702, 704, or 720 pixels across is CCIR 601, a digital standard. Actual NTSC and PAL signals are analog video, and analog video signals don't have discrete horizontal pixels. But one can define an effective pixel count as the number of samples needed to reconstruct the video signal. Multiply the 4.2 MHz (J and M systems) or 5.0 MHz (B and G systems) video bandwidth listed in Broadcast television systems, the scanline period of approximately 52 µs in both systems, and the Nyquist theorem's upper bound of 2 samples per cycle, and you get 437 pixels in J and M ("NTSC") or 520 pixels in B and G ("PAL"). This estimate assumes perfect 2D comb filtering of chroma. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You forgot Kell factor. To convert from analog resolution to an approximate equivalent pixel count, you have to account for Kell factor, which is about 0.7. This gets you to 624 pixels, approximated as 640 as it's a nice easy number. Not coincidentally that is 4/3 of 480, a nice round approximation to the number of scan lines. So 640 x 480 does give you square pixels. It is NTSC DV's 720x480 that uses non-square pixels.

By the way, NTSC luma bandwidth is only limited to 4.2 MHz in analog broadcast. Even over lowly old composite video it can have far higher luma bandwidth than that. Of course in the vertical dimension it is absolutely limited to 480 scan lines (originally 486; hence, after Kell factor, about 340 lines of vertical resolution) so there is little point in making the horizontal res much better. The horizontal analog res is also about the same value per picture height (your 437, multiplied by 3/4 to account for the difference in screen width vs. height, = 327). This isn't a coincidence; it was recognized way back in the RS170 days that there was no point in making the H res much better than the V. Jeh (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A good source for more resolutions

For what it's worth: [1]

An odd place to find it, but pretty much the top hit in searches for cell phone resolution lists. This list in time could become further categorized for cell phones, graphing calculators, handheld games, watches, portal media players, netbooks, desktop resolutions, and so forth, though this could lead to a huge duplicate listings with lotsa overlap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.83.136 (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

1792x1344

I am using 1792x1344 @75Hz. on my CRT screens, doesn't sound like neat numbers, but seems to be a standard in one and maximum resolution on my other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.164.124 (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What's "common"?

Exactly what qualifies a resolution for inclusion in this article? Is a resolution implemented by exactly one product "common"? What if it's no longer implemented by any current product and hasn't been for five years? What if it's 15 years? ... etc. Jeh (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If you ask me, this article should be kept as-is and renamed to "List of possible resolutions". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume this question was instigated by seeing the recent addition of the 432x128 Samsung Gear Fit. I saw that addition and said to myself "That's not a common resolution". But, then I realized we don't have any specified definition of common. further, there are a good number of resolutions on the list already which I would consider to not be "common". Thus, we need a definition.

The solution of renaming the page may be the appropriate one, unless we come up with some specific definition of common. My problem with the "possible" word is that ALL resolutions are possible which provides an infinite set. Some alternate possibilities:

1. List of implemented resolutions
2. List of implemented physical resolutions
3. List of display resolutions implemented in consumer products
4. List of display resolutions implemented in products
5. List of display resolutions
6. List of native display resolutions
7. List of native display resolutions implemented in consumer products

Feel free to add to this list inline to make collaboration easier. --Makyen (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Totally agreed, I also saw the addition of Samsung Gear Fit's resolution and "what's going to be the next weird resolution" immediately came into my mind. Sure thing, "possible" is by far not a good choice, and I'd vote for List of display resolutions but that page already exists as a disambiguation page, hm? Also, Graphics display resolution article is already there, just look at that thing! So, we have supposedly common resolutions not listed in an article aiming to list all available resolutions. Of course, List of displays by pixel density article adds to the mix, too... Am I the only one concluding this is quite a mess? :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

> I assume this question was instigated by seeing the recent addition of the 432x128 Samsung Gear Fit.

Yep! And frankly I don't think WP needs a list of every resolution ever implemented on anything. (Do we include the Monsanto MAN-2 5x7 dot matrix LED?) If a device is notable it will have an article and its resolution can be listed there. If it isn't notable and its resolution is unique, then it's hardly "common." Jeh (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

16:10 vs. 8:5

I realize that 8:5 is the smallest reduction of 16:10, however I was always under the impression that it was referred to as 16:10 in order to contrast it with 16:9, 17:9, and 17:10. Is there any particular reason that it is referred to as 8:5 here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.125.163 (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

SAR?

Why does the "Computer and handheld screens" table have a column for SAR? These are displays. What's being stored? Where is it being stored? How is it being stored? --MarkFilipak (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Storage media is not Digital TV

Why does the "Digital TV standards" table have storage media in it? Storage media is not digital TV. Video CD? UMD? China Video Disc? SVCD? DVD? Blu-ray? These have nothing to do with digital TV. Too many people already have these subjects all mixed up in their minds. This chart reinforces bad (and limiting) concepts. --MarkFilipak (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Counter-Intuitive Information Ordering for Encyclopedic Knowledge on Common Resolutions

First should be listed the actual resolutions, organized by ratio. Each ratio should be listed and then common resolutions for that ratio listed with it. As such, the article would actually be about Common Resolutions not common devices, historical devices, and manufacturer specifications.

This article is, as it stands, not helpful to those who are searching for an actual list ofList of common resolutions. E.G. finding an actual spread on 16:9 resolutions so I can, precompression, format an RBG raw avi from 1080p to a lower resolution made me scroll through most of the article and then search to find useful information. Please rewrite this article and put the list of devices in a far lower priority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.116.44 (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of common resolutions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120416004839/http://pocketcalculatorshow.com:80/nerdwatch/fun2.html to http://pocketcalculatorshow.com/nerdwatch/fun2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Needs verifiable sources

There are a lot of entries on this list that do not have sources and appear to be uninformed guesses. For instance, all computers that produce NTSC video at low resolution and are capable of artifacting have the same pixel aspect ratio, because they have to be producing pixels with the same dot clock that is twice the color subcarrier (7.14MHz). Yet, we have on this page:

• Atari 400/800: 1:1 PAR
• Amiga OCS NTSC Lowres, Apple IIgs LoRes: 0.833 PAR
• Apple II HiRes (1 bit per pixel): 0.914 PAR

This is nonsense. All three of these devices have the same PAR in NTSC. The Atari 400/800 entry is also doubly wrong because it overlooks that NTSC and PAL Ataris have different pixel aspect ratios -- PAL is nearly but not quite square pixels while NTSC is most definitely not, as anyone who has tried to draw a circle on an NTSC machine can attest. One source of these errors is that the page template computes the PAR from the SAR and the DAR, and while the SARs are generally correct, the DARs are often wrong, such as 4:3 for Apple II hires. This derivation is backwards. Often the only verifiable and reliable fact is the dot clock (pixel clock), which must be compared against the accepted square pixel clock for the video standard to derive the PAR, and then the PAR and SAR can be combined to derive the DAR. For Apple II hires this gives a DAR of (5:6) * (280:192) = (175:144).

I would like to fix these errors, but I can't do so without falling under original research.

The Commodore 64 VIC-II Hires entry also appears to be wrong. It is listed as having the same PAR as the Amiga and Apple IIgs, but an NTSC C64 uses a faster dot clock of 8.18MHz instead of 7.14MHz. Also, again, NTSC and PAL C64s differ. This page uses a dot clock based methodology and derives a PAR of 0.75:1 for an NTSC C64, not 0.833:1: http://hitmen.c02.at/temp/palstuff/

24.130.133.67 (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Way too much junk

The title is "List of COMMON resolutions", so why does it list the resolution of every single display under the sun? Who cares that the Nokia E90 Communicator had a 25:11 SAR? Look, I just breadboarded a 3x3 LED matrix, do I get an entry now?

Someone needs to take an axe to this chart.

Hornpipe2 (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Where do you suggest the line between "common" and "not common" be drawn? Indrek (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "industry standard" or even ad-hoc-standard is a good qualification. Defined by a standard, used by more than one company, or in a large-ish product line. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of common resolutions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120621065434/http://www.crvd.com:80/ to http://www.crvd.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

16:10 resolutions

All of the 16:10 resolutions are improperly labeled as 8:5. I think it may be a bug with the mediawiki software itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.213.18.119 (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of common resolutions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100405000736/http://www.forum.nokia.com/devices/5800_XpressMusic/ to http://www.forum.nokia.com/devices/5800_XpressMusic
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104213056/http://www.apple.com/uk/iphone-4s/specs/index.html to http://www.apple.com/uk/iphone-4s/specs/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crvd.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319172631/http://www.avielo.com/press/optix-SuperWide235-for-cedia2010.pdf to http://www.avielo.com/press/optix-SuperWide235-for-cedia2010.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219010522/http://www.cloudburl.com:8080/showItem/showDetail/9289381.html to http://www.cloudburl.com:8080/showItem/showDetail/9289381.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of common resolutions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120709225642/http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=12163331 to http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=12163331

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Checked. Indrek (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not 21:9

Why the aspect ratio of some devices is shown as 21:9, when the reduction to coprime integers demonstrates that the ratio is 64:27?

Why abusive use of commercial denominations, when the table is clearly technical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.102.147.249 (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Why the aspect ratio of some devices is shown as 21:9, when the reduction to coprime integers demonstrates that the ratio is 64:27? Which devices, exactly?

Why abusive use of commercial denominations, when the table is clearly technical? Wikipedia is not a technical publication and the Manual of Style does not mandate the use of coprimes for expressing ratios (see MOS:RATIO). Further, spurning widely used notations like 16:10 and 18:9 as "commercial" or "marketing" and calling their use in Wikipedia articles "abusive" is counter-productive. Indrek (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Cinema TV from Philips and Vizio, Dell UltraSharp U2913WM, ASUS MX299Q, NEC EA294WMi, Philips 298X4QJAB, LG 29EA93, AOC Q2963PM, Ultra-Wide 5K (UW5K) and Ultra-Wide 10K (UW10K). Their resolutions are multiples of 64:27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.102.147.249 (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the 21:9 ratio for those rows comes from the Resrow template (which probably rounds the 64:27 that the article specifies), so you'll have to take it up on the template's or its author's talk page. Indrek (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Approximating ratios is common practice, this seems like an incredibly trivial thing to be outraged about. 1366×768 is not exactly 16∶9, it was a widescreen extension of the common 1024×768 resolution, but 768 isn't divisible by 9, so an exact 16∶9 format isn't possible. 1366 (or sometimes 1360, especially in TVs) is a close approximation. Shall we edit every page to say 683∶384 instead of 16∶9? Or what about the DCI formats, lkke 2048×1080? 19∶10 isn't exact, should we edit every page to say 256∶135? Are there any industry sources that use this notation regularly, or is 19∶10 the accepted norm? Although, the cinema industry commonly uses decimal form, so 1.90∶1... This is the same problem though, since it is a repeating decimal in this form, 1.8962. Should every page be edited to say that?

So yes, 21∶9 is an approximation. Also consider that ultrawide formats are not all exactly the same ratio. 2560×1080 is 64∶27 (21.3∶9), but 3440×1440 is 43∶18 (21.5∶9), again due to uneven divisions (1440 is not divisible by 27, so an exact 64∶27 ratio is not possible, so they chose a slightly wider ratio). It is common practice to consider these two formats as part of the same category (ultrawide ratio), so they are lumped under the same general approximation, which is 21∶9, the same way that 1366×768 is generally considered part of the 16∶9 category even though it is technically a different ratio.

Lastly keep in mind Wikipedia is intended to be read and understood by normal people, it is not a technical reference manual. Terminology should match the terminology that people encounter in the real world. Approximated ratios are common and acceptable. GlenwingKyros (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

18:9 vs. 2:1

I'll try and address the arguments for using 2:1 over 18:9 that have been put forth so far in various comments and edit summaries, as I understand them:

1. That 18:9 is "commercial" and "marketing". This is wrong, 18:9 is commonly used in relevant literature, device specifications (both by manufacturers and third-party sites), news, reviews, etc. Use of that notation on Wikipedia does not constitute marketing in any way, nor does using it imply any sort of conflict of interests.
2. That 2:1 is technically / mathematically correct. Irrelevant because, like I've said, the Manual of Style (specifically, MOS:RATIO) doesn't mandate the use of coprimes for expressing ratios. Standard practice is to follow the notation most commonly used by reliable sources, which would be 18:9 (same with 16:10 vs. 8:5).
3. That 2:1 is better because Univisium. Again, largely irrelevant, because the table lists display resolutions, not film standards. Also, there are other driving forces behind the adoption of such aspect ratios on smartphones, like VR.
4. That the table sorts better that way. Incorrect, the table already sorts mathematically equivalent ratios next to each other.
5. That more information is better. The immediately adjacent DAR column already has 2:1 for the disputed rows.
6. That it's easier to compare current smartphones to some old devices. 18:9 is more easily comparable to other contemporary ratios like 16:9 and 21:9, not to mention the various almost-but-not-quite-18:9 ratios used in phones. There's a reason why all those ratios are written with the same denominator, so if anything, it makes more sense to update those couple of older devices to say 18:9 as well. Oh look, GSMArena is doing it already.

I would like to ask the anon(s) pushing the 2:1 notation to seriously consider how it actually improves this article and others, when readers are significantly more likely to encounter 18:9 elsewhere. Indrek (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Amiga SuperHiRes

The article seems to be missing the Amiga SuperHiRes resolutions.

NTSC:

• SuperHiRes: 1280 × 200, aspect ratio 32:5, total pixels 256000
• SuperHiRes laced: 1280 × 400, aspect ratio 16:5, total pixels 512000

PAL:

• SuperHires: 1280 × 256, aspect ratio 5:1, total pixels 327680
• SuperHires laced: 1280 × 512, aspect ratio 5:2, total pixels 655360

See for example this page for a reference. JIP | Talk 21:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

analog film

film section needs analog formats like 2.35 : 1 anamorphic, etc. --Johnny Bin (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

And which resolutions would that include? Indrek (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)