Skip to tool
ecech.
🎨 Design & Color

Aspect Ratio Calculator That Tells You the Real Ratio, Not the Nearest Famous One

1280×800 reduces to 8:5, and a modern phone is 422:195 — a ratio with no name. Get the exact ratio, the nearest standard one, and the error between them.

Exact ratio

reduced by the GCD

As a decimal

Nearest standard

Megapixels

Shape


Resize keeping the same ratio

Common sizes at this ratio

Advertisement

How the calculation works

The reduced ratio is often not the name people use 1920 × 1080 16:9 the familiar name is also the reduced form 1280 × 800 8:5 usually called 16:10, which is the same shape 2532 × 1170 422:195 a phone screen; no standard name exists Calling something 16:9 when it is 1.9% off is how images end up quietly stretched.

How to Use This Tool

Enter any two dimensions to get the exact ratio, then use the lower box to resize while keeping the proportions.

The exact ratio and the named one

Dividing both numbers by their greatest common divisor gives the ratio in lowest terms. Sometimes that matches the familiar name — 1920×1080 really is 16:9. Often it does not: 1280×800 reduces to 8:5, which is the same shape as 16:10, just written smaller.

And some dimensions reduce to nothing recognisable. A phone screen at 2532×1170 is 422:195, because it was designed around a camera cutout rather than a broadcast standard. Naming it "roughly 19.5:9" is a convention, not a measurement.

This matters when you assume a ratio and then scale to it. If your source is 1.9% off 16:9 and you force it into a 16:9 frame, everything stretches by 1.9% in one direction. Nobody consciously notices, and faces look subtly wrong.

Rounding is a real decision

Scale 1920×1080 to a width of 1000 and the height is 562.5. Pixels are whole numbers, so you get 562 or 563, and neither is exactly 16:9. That half-pixel is usually irrelevant — but it is why a resized image sometimes has a one-pixel line of background at an edge, and why tiling several resized images can leave gaps.

Where it must be exact, pick dimensions that divide cleanly. For 16:9 that means multiples of 16 and 9: 1920×1080, 1600×900, 1280×720, 640×360 all work without rounding.

Two ways to put one ratio inside another contain cover contain — whole image fits, bars appear cover — frame fills, edges are cut off There is no third option. Something is added or something is lost.
The choice is bars or cropping, and CSS object-fit names them contain and cover.

The ratios worth knowing

  • 16:9 — video, most screens, YouTube. 1.778.
  • 4:3 — older screens, many camera sensors, iPad. 1.333.
  • 3:2 — 35mm film and most DSLR sensors. 1.5.
  • 1:1 — square, social posts.
  • 4:5 — vertical social posts; takes the most feed space without being cropped.
  • 9:16 — full-screen vertical video.
  • 1.91:1 — Open Graph link previews, 1200×630.
  • 2.39:1 — anamorphic cinema widescreen.

A note on non-square pixels

Everything here assumes square pixels, which is true of everything digital you are likely to touch. Older broadcast formats did not: DV PAL is 720×576 pixels displayed as 4:3, so the pixels themselves are rectangular and the storage ratio and display ratio differ. If you are working with legacy video and the shape looks wrong, that is usually why.

Advertisement

Frequently Asked Questions

What aspect ratio is 1280x800?
8:5 in lowest terms, which is the same shape as 16:10 — the familiar name is just the unreduced form. Both describe a decimal ratio of 1.6, so nothing is wrong with either, but 8:5 is what dividing by the greatest common divisor actually gives.
How do I resize an image without distorting it?
Fix one dimension and multiply the other by the same factor. Scaling 1920×1080 to a width of 1000 gives a height of 562.5, which has to round to 562 or 563 — so the result is very slightly off the original ratio. Choose dimensions that divide cleanly when it has to be exact.
What is the difference between contain and cover?
Contain fits the whole image inside the frame, leaving bars where the ratios differ. Cover fills the frame completely and crops whatever does not fit. There is no third option: either you add something or you lose something, and CSS object-fit uses exactly these two names.
Why is my phone screen ratio not a nice number?
Because it was designed around hardware constraints rather than a broadcast standard. A 2532×1170 screen reduces to 422:195, which has no conventional name — descriptions like 19.5:9 are approximations chosen because they sound like the familiar ratios.
What size should a social media image be?
1200×630 for link previews, which is about 1.91:1. For in-feed posts, 1080×1080 square and 1080×1350 at 4:5 are standard, with 4:5 taking the most vertical space without being cropped. Vertical video is 9:16.
Does a small ratio error matter?
It matters more than it sounds. Forcing a source that is 2% off 16:9 into a 16:9 frame stretches everything by 2% in one direction, which nobody consciously notices but which makes faces look subtly wrong. Checking the exact ratio before scaling avoids it.

Related tools in Design & Color

Browse all Design & Color tools
The Mac mini the ecech. site is built on, beside a handwritten note reading ecech.com.

Made by one person

ecech. is not a content farm. Every tool here is written and checked by hand, one at a time, by someone who wanted the tool to exist and could not find a version that showed its working.

No accounts and no sign-in, and nothing you type reaches a server — every calculation on this page runs inside your browser. The ads are served by Google and do set their own cookies, which is set out in full on the privacy page. More about the site.