On 8/15/14 6:29 PM, Gili wrote: > Behavior: when the user specifies 16/9 he means *exactly* 16/9, not > some approximation. The epsilon you mentioned might work today but > will break in unpredictable ways in the future (as implementations are > exposed to resolutions we did not foresee ahead of time, such as 4k). > In that case, the float comparison will fail and the system will > violate the principal of least surprise. Uh, no. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution#Resolutions Format Resolution Display aspect ratio <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_aspect_ratio> Pixels Ultra high definition television <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high_definition_television> 3840 × 2160 1.78:1 (16:9) 8,294,400 Ultra wide television <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_wide_television> 5120 × 2160 2.37:1 (21:9) 11,059,200 WHXGA 5120 × 3200 1.60:1 (16:10, 8:5) 16,384,000 DCI <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Initiatives>4K (native resolution <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_resolution>) 4096 × 2160 1.90:1 (19:10) 8,847,360 DCI 4K (CinemaScope <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope>cropped) 4096 × 1716 2.39:1 7,028,736 DCI 4K (flat <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnoldscope>cropped) 3996 × 2160 1.85:1 8,631,360 If anything, wikipedia tells us Harald's epsilon is too small, as it equates 16/9 = 1.78! So the display sky is not falling. .: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Friday, 15 August 2014 23:47:43 UTC