| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 452 |
| | Posted: | | | | Full-Frame on HD-DVD/Blu-ray is actually 1.78:1, not 1.33:1. However if I check Full-Frame on a Blu-ray it'll still say 1.33:1.
Shouldn't this be adressed? |
|
| Registered: April 6, 2007 |  Posts: 153 |
| | Posted: | | | | Interesting question about what constitutes full frame on HD, not sure I'm brave enough to have an opinion on that.
However, back to technicalities, clicking the "full frame" checkbox does not change the aspect ratio data automatically, you need to do that manually. | | | ---
¡Hola! |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 |  Posts: 582 |
| | Posted: | | | | Full Frame refers to the aspect ratio of 1.33:1. It's a "standard" from when 4x3 TVs were the standard. So for aspect ratio from 1.66:1 and "upwards" should be noted as widescreen formats. | | |  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Johan1FS: Quote:
However, back to technicalities, clicking the "full frame" checkbox does not change the aspect ratio data automatically, you need to do that manually. However, in the DVDP window it will display as 1.33:1 whatever aspect ratio you enter WRT the original topic I say you wouild measure the aspect ratio of the actual 'watched image' and that Full Frame refers to 'old style' TV Full Frame so is by definition 1.33:1. The HD image at 1.78:1 is 'full' wrt its format but widescreen wrt the TV/monitor its displayed on and therefore to DVDP. | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong | | | | Last edited: by Voltaire53 |
|
| Registered: April 6, 2007 | | Posts: 153 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Voltaire53: Quote:
However, in the DVDP window it will display as 1.33:1 whatever aspect ratio you enter
Jip, true. Interesting how if you stick to using the programme somewhat conventionally, you don't pick these things up. I've always just had widescreen & full-frame together, never thought of clicking full-frame for a widescreen format. Reading the other comments, I tend to agree that full-frame refers only to 4:3 aspect ratios. I don't have many blu-ray discs, and most of them are new movies and programmes, so all are indeed in widescreen format. Could anyone confirm if they have HD discs with traditional 4:3 material on them? How does that work? | | | ---
¡Hola! |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Posts: 582 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Johan1FS: Quote:
I don't have many blu-ray discs, and most of them are new movies and programmes, so all are indeed in widescreen format. Could anyone confirm if they have HD discs with traditional 4:3 material on them? How does that work? Sure. Almost all movies pre-1953 were 4x3 (1.37:1 to be exact) and these are shown with black bars on each side. (The bars are hard-coded within the image) | | | |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Peter von Frosta: Quote:
Full-Frame on HD-DVD/Blu-ray is actually 1.78:1, not 1.33:1. However if I check Full-Frame on a Blu-ray it'll still say 1.33:1.
Shouldn't this be adressed? Peter: Full Frame has a meaning in Hollywood that has NOTHING to do with Television screening. 1.33 IS and always will be the correct Aspect Ration for Full Frame/Full Screen. I have never, nor do I expect to EVER see anything in film that would change that definition. 1.78 is a Widescreen Format. Hollywood might surprise me, it wouldn't be the first time but.... Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 452 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Quoting Peter von Frosta:
Quote:
Full-Frame on HD-DVD/Blu-ray is actually 1.78:1, not 1.33:1. However if I check Full-Frame on a Blu-ray it'll still say 1.33:1.
Shouldn't this be adressed?
Peter:
Full Frame has a meaning in Hollywood that has NOTHING to do with Television screening. 1.33 IS and always will be the correct Aspect Ration for Full Frame/Full Screen. I have never, nor do I expect to EVER see anything in film that would change that definition. 1.78 is a Widescreen Format. Hollywood might surprise me, it wouldn't be the first time but....
Skip No sir, you have to face it but for once you're wrong. Full Frame refers to the picture format being stored in a way without black borders and not being anamorphic. 1.33:1 on Blu-ray is stored as 1.78:1 and black borders on both sides of the screen. Remember, this is Blu-ray profiler not film stock profiler. If this still doesn't convince you please think about where that came from. Right, having the film negative used without any black borders. | | | | Last edited: by Peter von Frosta |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | No sir, Peter. I understand your logic and what you are saying, but that is not Hollywood's way. Pure and simple. Full Frame has NOTHING to do with Television screening, you can piss about it all you want but you are wrong. Show me ONE title using an AR of 1.78 that the filmmaker calls Full frame, you can't because it doesn't happen. You don't create your own definitions to suit yourself, except for locally. 1.78 is a WIDESCREEN format. Attempting to call it anything else would fly in the face of DATA. Geeeez I try to provide INFORMATION and you pick a fight...give me a break Peter, but you are still dead WQRONG. Since our product is FILM based it will of necessity coinform to whatever standards are applied by the film industry for the Online, as I said if you want to call it something else locally that is YOUR business.<muttering to self> Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Posts: 582 |
| | Posted: | | | | Agree with Skip. Full Frame does not refer to anything else than a 1.33:1 image. That's how filmmakers and the Hollywood Studios use the term, so it's not really anything to discuss.
The reason has nothing to do with Hi-Def encoding. The widescreen term was introduced in the 50s to describe the new formats (eg. Cinemascope) which were wider than anything else seen before. | | | |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 452 |
| | Posted: | | | | Boys, this is DVD-Profiler and not Hollywood-Profiler. We say 2.40:1, Hollywood says Cinemascope.
We say 1.85:1, Hollywood says Academy Flat.
This product is not about the movie theaters nor is it about Film, it's about homecinema, TVs and little acryllic discs. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Peter von Frosta: Quote:
Boys, this is DVD-Profiler and not Hollywood-Profiler. We say 2.40:1, Hollywood says Cinemascope.
We say 1.85:1, Hollywood says Academy Flat.
This product is not about the movie theaters nor is it about Film, it's about homecinema, TVs and little acryllic discs. Sorry Peter... it even states it clearly in the Rules... Rules Quote: Quote:
Pan & Scan Films that were shot at an aspect wider than 1.33:1, and then cropped to 1.33:1 for presentation on the DVD.
Full Frame Films that were filmed at 1.33:1 or Academy Ratio and presented as such.
Films presented in Open Matte and TV series, unless otherwise noted.
Computer generated animation re-rendered to 1.33:1 (even if the original theatrical release was widescreen). So for DVD Profiler purposes it is indeed for 1.33:1 aspect ratio. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 302 |
| |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 235 |
| |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 452 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
we use the industry definitions not yours. Yes, we do. I just question if it's not better to change that since our medium is DVD/Blu-ray not film  |
|