Why is 4:3 the only ratio completely simplified?

Why is 4:3 the only ratio completely simplified?

>16:9
>16:10
>18:9

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Qhh0igzqtqY
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>16:9
how tf do you want to simplify that
>16:10
to show the relationship to 16:9 for normies that don't want to or can't do some mental math
>18:9
see above, though ihave yet to see that, everyone. just uses the 2:1 notation

Consumers are stupid and don't know what these numbers mean.
They only understand 1 thing

BIGGER NUMBER BETTER
I WANT THE ONE WITH MORE GIGABYTES

>MOAR MEGAPIXELS
>tf is ISO? chromatic aberration? sensor size? aperture? focal length range?
words can't describe how i hate that shit

>simplified
what do you mean?

16:9 is completely simplified. Fucking idiot.
16:10 simplifies to 8:5 too.
18:9 is 2:1.

:9
>how tf do you want to simplify that
42:32

it's not
green
it isn't
definitely

>Greentexting is so 2016

oh shit nigga

>Why not simplify 16:9
Because 8 : 4.5 sounds retarded...

>to show the relationship to 16:9
But they end up not understanding aspect ratios and thinking it's bigger

>16:9
It's literally the square of 4:3.
>16:10
If you can't do this one, there is no hope for you.
>18:9
It's the same as 2:1.

Who is this qt

bacharu yuuchuuba kizuna ai dess!

but 4:2.25 works wonders

2:1.25 is for real professionals.

>42:32
that equals to 21:16 which is not 16:9

(4:3)^2? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>It's literally the square of 4:3.
So what? You can't simplify the same exponents

(4:3)^2

Give me some genuinely weird aspect ratio that don't involve laptop resolutions of 1360, 1366, or 768

>w-we need 16:9 for movies!
>all professional cinema productions are in 1:1.85 flat, 1:2.35 cinemascope or rarely in 1:1.37 academy ratio

>Hello, I'm a pedo! Answer me!
Go to hell.

Share your magic then.

Anime website

youtube.com/watch?v=Qhh0igzqtqY

not pedo website

How did you manage to write
>16:9
>16:10
>18:9
without turning the text green?

>just like this

i presume some whitespace
〉did it work?
>...

...

maybe something like  

>〉
>using fake meme arrows

Ohhhh

>newfags can't greentext

>i
>m
>p
>l
>y
>i
>n
>g

21:10 tho

>>62028667
>i
>m
>p
>l
>y
>i
>n
>g

I don't know how you did it :^(

Let's test this myself
>test

>test
somehow, there's a " " between the
and the meme arrow.
Maybe the same space as the "newfag can't triforce" meme

>with the triforce meme space

Everybody knows n:(n-1) ratios are the only sane ratios for anyone who does real work

Another attempt at non-green text.
>there I go

Why is ai chan so cute?

>C-S-u 003e

I saw you

what is green text?

>C-S-u a0 C-S-u 003e

>t. retard

What is this thread

lit

>dfdfdgerger

>test

>zxcvrpvmfrvp

you're not meant to simplify them

>asdf
>asdf
>asdf

>z
>z
>
>z

≥fuck
≥this
≥shit

>all the new in this thread

Okay lemme try

>greentext
>no greentext

No user, like this
>greentext
>no greentext

well that was unfortunate

>0005

5:4 was best ratio
I'm sad I'll have to trash my 1280x1024 screen soon.

I think I get it now

>greentext
>memetext

>>
>>
>>
> >
> >

>not wanting to greentext
pleb

>REEE

maybe if you have only one eye

>

>

8.75:7 is best ratio

That's not 1:sqrt(2)

>
asdf

>tfw I can't into non breakable spaces on ooboontoo

>>asdf

quality thread

ctr-shift-u [utf code]

>wanting to greentext

All those ratios are redundant. You need just one number to represent the ratio.

...

▲
▲▲

>test1234

>benis

>green

▲
▲▲

it's not complex enough

next should be 64:27

>what

These are "filtered" by Sup Forums
[C-S-u a0][C-S-u a0][C-S-u a0]>foo
>foo

a>

▲
▲▲

▲
▲▲

>what

>18.5:9

>test

>wait a minute

>

>even the mongolian vowel separator?

>test2

▲
▲ ▲