There is nothing to argue. 16x9 is not a ratio; 16:9 is.

Has anybody picked these sets up in 16:9? I'm considering getting them but would want to hang on to my old sets if the extras are different.

Can anyone confirm the extras are identical? Info about these widescreen sets seems pretty hard to come by for some reason.

Wrong. Although I definately see 16x9 and 16:9 used interchangably, I don't frequently see ratios written with colons, and this includes things like 2.35:1. Industry shorthand does not require the ":1" as it's assumed in this case.

What I see (both at the studio where I work and the production companies with which we do business) is more often:

1.33
1.66
1.77
1.78
1.77
1.85
2.35
2.40

and so on....

I also often see either 4x3 or 16x9 - which are often qualified by the previous list of ratios, like "4x3 Matted (1.85)"

You can say that I am "wrong", if you want to, but my point is that "4x3", a measurement in dimensions, and "4:3", a ratio that shows proportion, are being confused, and the distinction is being blurred. Language is living so of course, as this confusion continues to spread through popular usage, the technically correct way to transcribe a ratio, x:x, will die out.

Would anyone write "2:4" when describing a board that is 2 inches thick and 4 inches wide?

I think this is the perfect way to explain the difference. "2x4" (two-by-four) is an exact measurement whereas "2:4" (two-to-four... even though people still say "two-by-four") shows the proportion, or the relationship between side length.

I understand that within the industry they are used interchangeably, and while it is not a big deal to me because, really, who cares, I do understand that it's not exactly correct. Unless you happen to be watching a movie on a screen that's, say, 16 inches wide and 9 inches high.

Seriously? Boards are usually measured in finite units, the shape of a movie screen almost never is. I wouldn't expect people to use the same methods to describe them. Remind yourself that, while the term "Aspect Ratio" contains the word "Ratio", they aren't the same thing.

I wouldn't correct you for using your terminology, but I'd call you wrong for correctly that majority of people who don't.

The aspect ratio is the ratio of the screen aspect, width to height.

What did you think it meant?

If you read what I wrote (which would be a first for you), you'd see that I never said that Aspect Ratio's weren't a type of ratio, they just are not the same thing as a ratio.

Me: Squares "aren't the same thing" as rectangles.
Peanut gallery: Har har har!! You just said squares aren't rectangles. Har har har!
Me: Fail.

If an aspect ratio "isn't the same thing" as a ratio, then what is it?

Do even you think that you make sense?

Peep: Squares aren't the same thing as rectangles. Therefore, squares are circles.
Everyone else: That doesn't make sense.
Peep: Fail. lolz lololololol!!!!1!!!!111!!11!!

Wow, what a fountain of useful information this thread has become.

WTF??? It sounds like you're making my point for me. Judging by the differences in their definitions, even the diction agress that "Ratios" and "aspect ratios" are not the same thing. Aspect ratios are an instance (or a subset) of ratios. Aspect Ratios, according to your definitions, came into existance 250 years after ratios. Hmmmmm... Could there be differences in the way to express them? See, it's not rocket science.

Oh, and for the peanut gallery, rocket science is a science, but it is not the same thing as science.

Egon's Ghost, you can pick apart anything that I say to your heart's content, but you're still wrong to correct people who use industry standard terms to describe industry standards.

'nuff said.

WRONG!

he was using 'standard terms' which is different from 'industry standard terms'

this is fun.

now somebody else go

Not that it really matters anymore, but you're making no sense whatsoever. Aspect ratios are a form of ratios. Ratios are expressed with a colon between the two integers. Therefore, aspect ratios, being ratios, should be expressed with a colon.

"16x9" is not a ratio or an aspect ratio. It's a measurement. 16 inches by 9 inches, or 16 feet by 9 feet.

Who in the industry says "16x9"? Cite a source.

Cite a source? You're kidding, right? What do you want, people's names? Links?

You show me how commonplace 16:9 is. It's significantly less common than 16x9.

I don't know what the heck you're talking about. Ratios are ratios, whether it's the ratio of apples to oranges or goddamned aspect ratios, which is the ratio of the width to the height of a frame.

Fixed.

And to think, I thought it was pretty obvious that "16x9" was a measurement and "16:9" was an aspect ratio. Guess it wasnt so obvious.

Thanks for the enlightenment; you are the most pleasant person I've ever encountered on any message board anywhere. Where should I send your prize?

Uranus.

Anybody remember THE SHIELD???

I'll do it!

Google says 77,800,000 hits for "16:9."
And 1,880,000 for "16x9."

Of course, half of those are in this thread...

BTW, that's a ratio of 77,800,000x1,880,000.

Or, approximately 43:1 in favor of "16:9."

But maybe those 77,800,000 hits are on industry outsider pages.

/thread