This is even less of a world-ender of an issue than... well, much of all that I've brought up in this forum over the years, but I'm curious if the image dimension ratios (4:3, 16:9, etc) have to be exactly right down to the umpteenth decimal place, or if a few pixels one way or the other qualified as "close enough".

post #1149990 in particular prompted this question, though I've seen similarly close dimensions in the past.

2 decimal places generally gives you what you want. ratio:1.33 for 4:3, ratio:1.78 for 16:9, etc. There is a little leeway in the results allowing images slightly off the ratio to still show up (eg. 4:3 is actually 1.[o]33[/o], not 1.33 yet 4:3 images show up if you search 1.33).

Note: A vinculum (the horizontal line) over a number or number pattern means it repeats forever, so 1.[o]33[/o] is actually 1.33333333333_{3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333...Yeah, I think he gets it, mate.}

BlueDingo said:
vinculum

Yay I learned a new word.

Edit: 2 new words

I just uploaded a post with width:1111 height:1110 and it bothers the heck out of me!