- From: Gili T. <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:45:38 -0400
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, public-media-capture@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAPeFFaC67VbxjB-D1phN5k-S+Q2bh7NAWv7y4dxytS1P3zbh5w@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Harald, Can you please explain how an epsilon of 1/1000 equates to one pixel in HD? What able future proofing? What happens when we want 4k resolution in the future? Thanks, Gili On Aug 13, 2014 1:11 PM, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > On 08/13/2014 12:11 PM, Gili T. wrote: > > And I'll repeat that different ratios will need different epsilons. > Epsilons imply inaccuracy and there is no one number that will work for > every use case. Why not just go with "numerator/denominator", parse it to > two integers and compare with 100% accuracy? > > > Did you intend for this to go to me only? > > 1/1000 is one pixel in HD. We don't need more precision. > > > Gili > On Aug 13, 2014 8:50 AM, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > >> On 08/12/2014 06:17 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: >> >>> On 8/11/14 6:17 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >>> >>>> On 11 August 2014 14:34, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Actually, the spec already says: "The exact aspect ratio (width in >>>>> pixels >>>>> divided by height in pixels), represented as a double rounded to the >>>>> tenth >>>>> decimal place" [1] >>>>> >>>>> So we effectively have our epsilon already: .0000000001 >>>>> >>>>> So no action required it seems. >>>>> >>>> Oh, that's good, there's an epsilon; but it's bad. 1.777777778 isn't >>>> the same as 16/9 based on that. Nor is 1.7777777777. Add a single >>>> digit to either and it would match. I may have counted wrong. I'm >>>> sure that others will too. >>>> >>> >>> Feel free to propose a different epsilon I suppose. >>> >>> I presume this would have nothing to do with inaccuracies inherent in >>> floating-point math then (or we could have picked an epsilon much closer to >>> everyone's worst machine epsilon), but instead from a desire to accommodate >>> people handwriting rounded decimal numbers for aspect. Just so we're clear >>> on the properties we seek. >>> >> >> I'll repeat my suggestion of an epsilon of 1/1000. >> >> >>> .: Jan-Ivar :. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2014 15:46:06 UTC