Aspect Ratio Calculator - Reduce, Identify and Scale Ratios
Aspect Ratio Calculator
| Simplified ratio | 16:9 |
| Decimal | 1.7778 |
| Ratio as a percentage of width | 177.78% |
| Greatest common divisor | 120 |
| Width : height | 1920 : 1080 |
Scale to a target width
Scale factor: 0.66667 (66.67%)
About the ISO A-series
The A, B and C paper series are all defined by a ratio of 1 to the square root of 2, roughly 1:1.4142, which means cutting a sheet in half along its long edge always yields the next smaller size. A4 is 210 by 297 millimetres because 210 times the square root of 2 is 297, and halving A4 gives A5 at 148 by 210. This is the only reason an A4 sheet and an A5 sheet have the same shape.
What Is
A ratio expresses the relative size of two quantities, and it is written as width to height with a colon between them. It describes a shape rather than a size, which is why 1920 by 1080 and 640 by 360 have the same ratio even though the second is a quarter of the linear size. Ratios have many equivalent forms, and reducing one to lowest terms means dividing both terms by their greatest common divisor, the largest number that divides into both exactly. 1920 and 1080 share a divisor of 120, so the pair reduces to 16:9, the form you see in video standards and display specifications. 1366 and 768 share only 2, so that screen reduces to 683:384, a pair of coprime numbers with no shorter name, which is the practical reason a laptop screen is described as 1366 by 768 rather than 16:9 even though it looks nearly identical. The greatest common divisor is computed by the Euclidean algorithm, repeatedly replacing the larger number with the remainder from dividing the smaller into it, until the remainder reaches zero and the last non-zero value is the answer. Alongside the reduced form, this calculator reports two other representations.
The decimal is simply width divided by height, so 16:9 becomes 1.7778 and 4:3 becomes 1.3333. It is the form CSS, design software and most APIs expect, but it is an approximation: the ratio 683:384 has no exact decimal expansion, so storing it as a float rounds at the twelfth place or so. The percentage is the same number multiplied by 100, giving 177.78 percent for 16:9, and it is how aspect ratios are often quoted in display specifications where a ratio of 1.78 to 1 is written as 178 percent. Orientation follows directly from the reduced ratio. When the width term is larger, as in 16:9, the shape is landscape and sits wider than tall; when the height term is larger, as in 9:16, it is portrait and is the shape phones and vertical video use; 1:1 is square. One subtlety worth knowing is that pixel aspect ratio and display aspect ratio are not the same thing. Pixel aspect ratio is the shape of one individual pixel, and most modern displays use square pixels so it is 1:1, but broadcast and early digital video used non-square pixels such as 12:11 or 4:3 to stretch images to fill a wider tube.
Display aspect ratio is the shape of the whole image as you see it. A 720 by 576 frame with 12:11 pixels has a display aspect ratio of 4:3 even though the pixel count ratio is 45:32. A related term is device pixel ratio, the number of physical device pixels per CSS pixel, written 1x, 2x, 3x or 4x, which is about rendering sharpness rather than geometry but is constantly confused with aspect ratio and is worth keeping separate in your head. Finally, there is one famous irrational ratio. The ISO A-series of paper, which includes A4 at 210 by 297 millimetres, is defined by a ratio of 1 to the square root of 2, approximately 1:1.4142. That value is not arbitrary: it means cutting a sheet in half along its long edge always produces the next size down with exactly the same shape, so A4 halved gives A5 at 148 by 210 millimetres, and A5 halved gives A6, and so on to A10. No rational ratio can have this property, which is why the dimension involves an irrational number and why a printer cannot reproduce the proportion exactly on a device that only addresses integer dots.
How to Use
- Open the Aspect Ratio Calculator in your browser. All arithmetic is done locally, so no dimension you enter is ever uploaded anywhere.
- Type your width into the Width field and your height into the Height field. Either may be a decimal, and the result table updates as you type.
- Choose the matching unit from the Unit menu, which offers Pixels, Percent, Inches, Centimetres and Millimetres. The unit is applied to the target height the tool reports.
- Use the preset buttons for 16:9, 4:3, 3:2, 1:1, 21:9, 9:16, 3:4, 5:4 and 2:1 to fill both fields at once and confirm the shape with the preview block on the left.
- Read the Simplified ratio row to get the pair reduced to lowest terms, and the Greatest common divisor row if you want to know by how much both sides were divided.
- Check the Known as line beside the large ratio. It names the format only when your dimensions reduce to one of the common presets exactly.
- Compare the Decimal and percentage rows when you need a CSS value, a specification figure or a width expressed as a proportion of height.
- Type the width you actually need into the Target width field. The tool returns the height that preserves the ratio, plus the scale factor and its percentage.
- Open the About the ISO A-series panel to see why 210 by 297 millimetres and 148 by 210 millimetres share a shape but no common factor.
Examples
Input: Width 1920, height 1080, target width 1280
Process:
GCD of 1920 and 1080 is 120, so 1920/120 and 1080/120; scale factor 1280/1920 = 0.66667Result: Simplified ratio 16:9, decimal 1.7778, 177.78 percent, target height 720 at 66.67 percent scale
Input: Width 1366, height 768
Process:
GCD is only 2, so both terms stay large and the format name does not matchResult: Simplified ratio 683:384, decimal 1.7786 — a 16:9 screen with a one pixel shortfall
Input: Width 3000, height 2000, target width 1280
Process:
GCD 1000 gives 3:2; scale factor 1280/3000 = 0.42667, height 2000 × 0.42667Result: Target height 853.33 at 42.67 percent scale, decimal 1.5, 150 percent
Input: Width 210, height 297 in millimetres
Process:
GCD 3 gives 70:99; the decimal 210/297 is the reciprocal of the square root of 2Result: Decimal 0.7071, which is the A-series constant — the same shape as A5 at 148.5 by 210
Related Searches
People also search for: aspect ratio calculator, reduce ratio to lowest terms, simplify ratio, width to height ratio, greatest common divisor, 16:9 ratio.
aspect ratio calculatorreduce ratio to lowest termssimplify ratiowidth to height ratiogreatest common divisor16:9 ratio4:3 ratioratio as decimalratio as percentagescale image to widthkeep proportions when resizingportrait vs landscapepixel aspect ratiodisplay aspect ratiodevice pixel ratioiso a series ratioa4 aspect ratiosqrt2 paper sizemissing height calculatorscreen resolution ratio
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an aspect ratio and why is it written width first?
An aspect ratio states the relative width of a shape to its height, written as two numbers separated by a colon, and it describes the shape rather than the size. Writing width first is a convention that became dominant because screens and images are discussed in landscape, so 16:9 always means sixteen units wide for every nine units tall. The order matters: 16:9 and 9:16 describe genuinely different shapes, the first landscape and the second portrait, which is why video platforms ask you to state both when you upload the same footage. Because the ratio is scale-free, any two rectangles sharing a ratio are similar figures with identical angles, which is exactly what lets you scale a 3000 pixel photograph down to a 300 pixel thumbnail with no distortion of shape.
How do I reduce a ratio like 1920:1080 to its simplest form?
Find the greatest common divisor of the two numbers and divide both by it. For 1920 and 1080 the greatest common divisor is 120, since 1920 divided by 120 is 16 and 1080 divided by 120 is 9, giving 16:9. The quickest way to get the divisor is the Euclidean algorithm: repeatedly replace the larger number with the remainder of dividing the smaller into it. So 1920 divided by 1080 leaves remainder 840, then 1080 divided by 840 leaves 240, then 840 divided by 240 leaves 120, then 240 divided by 120 leaves zero, so the last non-zero value, 120, is the divisor. Reducing matters whenever you want to name a format rather than describe one particular resolution. It also exposes near misses: 1366 by 768 reduces to 683:384 because the divisor is only 2, so that screen is not truly 16:9 even though it looks close, and the 5 pixel difference is real.
Is 16:9 the same as 1.7778?
Almost, but not exactly, and the distinction matters when you are writing code or specifying hardware. Sixteen ninths equals 1.7777777777777777 repeating, so 1.7778 is a rounded approximation that is off by about 0.0000222. For a 1080 pixel tall image that error is roughly 0.024 pixels, entirely invisible. For anything measured in points or millimetres it accumulates into a visible discrepancy over long edges. The safe practice is to keep the ratio in fractional form, 16 / 9, wherever the language or format allows it, since that form is exact by definition. Use the decimal when an external system demands a number, and use the reduced integer pair when a human needs to recognise the format. The percentage form, 177.78 percent, is simply the decimal multiplied by 100 and is the form most display specifications quote.
How do I scale an image or video without distorting it?
Fix the dimension you control and let the other follow from the ratio. If your source is 3000 by 2000 and you need a width of 1280, the scale factor is 1280 divided by 3000, which is 0.42667, and the height becomes 2000 multiplied by that factor, giving 853.33. In this calculator you type the required width into the Target width field and the matching height and scale factor appear immediately. The same logic works in reverse when height is the constraint. Two practical warnings. First, the computed height may not be a whole number, and most software will round it, which introduces a very slight error in the final ratio; if exactness matters, choose a target width that is a multiple of the divisor. Second, rounding the height down rather than to nearest slightly changes the shape, so for repeated resizes prefer scaling from the original file instead of resizing an already resized copy.
What is the difference between pixel aspect ratio and display aspect ratio?
The pixel aspect ratio is the shape of a single pixel, usually written as two small numbers, while the display aspect ratio is the shape of the whole picture as viewed. They differ because early broadcast and digital video deliberately used non-square pixels to fill wider screens with fewer transmitted lines. A 720 by 576 frame whose pixels are 12:11 has a pixel aspect ratio of 45:32 once you combine them, but because each pixel is taller than it is wide, the displayed image looks like 4:3, which is its display aspect ratio. Modern displays and nearly all digital content use square pixels, so the pixel aspect ratio is 1:1 and the distinction has largely disappeared, but you will still meet it in DVD frame rate tables, archival video documentation and camera sensor mode descriptions. Keep it separate from device pixel ratio as well, which is the count of physical screen pixels per layout pixel, written 2x or 3x, and is about rendering sharpness rather than geometry.
Why is A-series paper 1 to the square root of 2?
Because ISO chose the one ratio that lets you halve a sheet and get a smaller sheet of exactly the same shape. A4 measures 210 by 297 millimetres, and 210 multiplied by the square root of 2 is 297, so the ratio of the short side to the long side is 1 to 1.41421. Cut A4 across the middle and you get two sheets of 148.5 by 210 millimetres, which is A5 to within rounding, and its ratio is still 1 to 1.41421 because halving preserves the proportion by construction. Any other ratio would fail this test, which is why the dimension involves an irrational number. Two consequences follow. The area halves cleanly, so A4 is 1/16 of a square metre and A5 is 1/32 of it. And the proportion can never be reproduced exactly on a device that only addresses whole dots, so print services round the millimetre dimensions and accept a microscopic error.
What ratio does 1366 by 768 have, and why is it not 16:9?
Because the greatest common divisor of 1366 and 768 is only 2, so the reduced form is 683:384, and 683 is not divisible by 16. A true 16:9 panel at 768 pixels tall would be 1365.33 pixels wide, which no display can address, so manufacturers settled on 1366 and accepted a ratio of 1.7786 against the ideal 1.7778, a difference of about one part in a thousand, or roughly a single pixel across the whole width. The calculator surfaces exactly this: entering 1366 and 768 gives a simplified ratio of 683:384, a decimal of 1.7786 and no known-format label, whereas entering 1920 and 1080 gives 16:9 and the label to match. Recognising that distinction matters when you are cropping content for a specific screen, since forcing a true 16:9 crop from a 1366 by 768 source either trims two pixels of width or shifts the frame very slightly.