Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > DVD Talk
Reload this Page >

The Shield Seasons being released in 16x9??!

DVD Talk Talk about DVDs and Movies on DVD including Covers and Cases

The Shield Seasons being released in 16x9??!

Old 03-31-08, 01:53 PM
  #51  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Other Side
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bluetoast
...the ridiculousness of arguing the semantics of how to properly write an aspect ratio.
There is nothing to argue. 16x9 is not a ratio; 16:9 is.
Old 06-13-08, 05:13 AM
  #52  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Living Dead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Graveyard
Posts: 3,205
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Old 06-13-08, 05:54 PM
  #53  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,337
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Egon's Ghost
There is nothing to argue. 16x9 is not a ratio; 16:9 is.
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)"
Old 06-23-08, 03:39 PM
  #54  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Other Side
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
Old 06-23-08, 06:46 PM
  #55  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Detroit
Posts: 3,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Egon's Ghost
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.
Old 06-23-08, 07:25 PM
  #56  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,337
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Egon's Ghost
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?
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.
Old 06-23-08, 09:04 PM
  #57  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,302
Received 33 Likes on 25 Posts
Originally Posted by Peep
Remind yourself that, while the term "Aspect Ratio" contains the word "Ratio", they aren't the same thing.
The aspect ratio is the ratio of the screen aspect, width to height.

What did you think it meant?
Old 06-23-08, 10:56 PM
  #58  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,337
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Josh Z
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.
Old 06-24-08, 07:08 AM
  #59  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,302
Received 33 Likes on 25 Posts
Originally Posted by Peep
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.
If an aspect ratio "isn't the same thing" as a ratio, then what is it?

Do even you think that you make sense?

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.
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!!

Last edited by Josh Z; 06-24-08 at 08:31 AM.
Old 06-24-08, 08:54 AM
  #60  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Other Side
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Peep
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.
Main Entry: aspect ratio
Function: noun
Date: 1907

: a ratio of one dimension to another: as a: the ratio of span to mean chord of an airfoil b: the ratio of the width of a television or motion-picture image to its height
Main Entry: ra·tio
Pronunciation:
\ˈrā-(ˌ)shō, -shē-ˌō\
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural ra·tios
Etymology: Latin, computation, reason — more at reason
Date: 1660

1 a: the indicated quotient of two mathematical expressions b: the relationship in quantity, amount, or size between two or more things : proportion
Old 06-24-08, 09:05 AM
  #61  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Randy Miller III's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 4,711
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Wow, what a fountain of useful information this thread has become.
Old 06-24-08, 11:34 AM
  #62  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,337
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Egon's Ghost
...Main Entry: aspect ratio...Main Entry: ra·tio...
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.
Old 06-24-08, 11:41 AM
  #63  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Peep

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
Old 06-24-08, 12:14 PM
  #64  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,302
Received 33 Likes on 25 Posts
Originally Posted by Peep
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.
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.

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.
Who in the industry says "16x9"? Cite a source.
Old 06-24-08, 04:03 PM
  #65  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,337
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Josh Z
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.

Last edited by Peep; 06-24-08 at 04:06 PM.
Old 06-24-08, 04:05 PM
  #66  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Other Side
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Peep
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.
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.

Last edited by Egon's Ghost; 06-24-08 at 04:08 PM.
Old 06-24-08, 04:07 PM
  #67  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,337
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Egon's Ghost
I don't know what the heck I'm talking about.
Fixed.
Old 06-24-08, 04:08 PM
  #68  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
jjcool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 6,731
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Old 06-24-08, 04:09 PM
  #69  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Other Side
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Peep
Fixed.
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?
Old 06-24-08, 04:35 PM
  #70  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,337
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Egon's Ghost
Where should I send your prize?
Uranus.
Old 06-25-08, 08:20 AM
  #71  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Billerica MA
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Anybody remember THE SHIELD???
Old 06-25-08, 08:26 AM
  #72  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bleddyn Williams
Anybody remember THE SHIELD???
Old 06-25-08, 09:09 AM
  #73  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: closer than you'd like
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Peep
You show me how commonplace 16:9 is. It's significantly less common than 16x9.
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.
Old 06-25-08, 09:11 AM
  #74  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Cheato
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
Old 06-25-08, 09:30 AM
  #75  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Other Side
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.