Why is 16:10 not called 8:5? It's basically the equivalent

To give a point of comparison against a well-known widescreen aspect ratio, 16:9.

16:10 was made in response to 16:9. While 8:5 is technically correct, the point was to compare it to the other wide-screen standard

>>60085760
This. You already know this already of course OP, but you're autistic and felt like making a useless thread in order to shit post.

>>60085771
Maybe he's an Amazon shill trying to push my Echo Look thread off the front page before it gains traction.

Guys.
4:3 is also 16:12.
I did all the math.
( •_•)

>>60085820
4:3 is a smaller square than 16:12 though

File: High_Guy.gif (958KB, 631x339px) Image search: [Google]

958KB, 631x339px

>>60085828

>>60085820
I did the math and can conclude that your mother's mass is incalculable.

>>60085828
It's not even half as big.

>>60085820
>4:3 is also 16:12.
unironically made me think

>not using 16:11

>>60087353
>not using 16:13

>using

>>60085743
Why not use a standard everyone can understand?

48:30
40:30