| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Erik: Quote:
Yes they are the same, but 2.4:1 (rounded value) can be a bit tricky to type into the Aspect Ratio box in the program. And for db accuracy, all these ratios are used... Not just: "2.40, close enough to 2.4:1 or 2.39:1." Since we don't use the ratio from the cover, but the real ratio on the disc, 2.4:1 is not needed , even if Warner likes to spell 2.40:1 like this. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,414 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think Warner has changed over time; some of its early HD DVDs were listed as 2.40:1 but now they seem to be using 2.4:1, which strikes me as ungainly and inconsistent with every other aspect ratio listing. | | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quick! Someone find a movie with another 2.x0:1 ratio and see if the zero is used! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,414 |
| | Posted: | | | | On the Fox DVD of Oklahoma! it's stated as 2.20:1 for the Todd-AO version. | | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | There ya go. Might as well keep the x.xx:1 format to keep things consistent. Or someone could put it up for a vote!  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr. Killpatient: Quote:
There ya go. Might as well keep the x.xx:1 format to keep things consistent. Or someone could put it up for a vote! <gasp> Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Personally, I think we should stick with 3 significant digits for all aspect ratios, since, mathematically speaking, 2.4 technically could mean anything from 2.35 to 2.44, which includes multiple 3-digit common aspect ratios.
As for 1.77, unless there is some very slight window boxing, it is an improper rounding of the full 16x9 frame (1 and 7/9), which should be rounded to 1.78 when using 3 significant figures.
Isn't one of our mantras here "Just because it's on the box doesn't mean its right" when it comes to technical specs?
EDIT: Sorry, but when I read this thread, my mostly unused minor in mathematics kicked in. | | | | Last edited: by nolesrule |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,436 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Since we don't use the ratio from the cover, but the real ratio on the disc, 2.4:1 is not needed , even if Warner likes to spell 2.40:1 like this. I usually go by cover (or disc) first. If what I see on screen appears blatantly different, only then I will measure and see if I get a different result and then still choose something from the dropdown if available (like, if I measure 2.34 I'll choose 2.35). Example: Masters of Horror Season 1 These discs had 1.77 written on the cover. Any measurement on screen will have an error margin, so I would use that value (rather than the 1.78 from the dropdown) as I have clear proof. I hope I am making some sort of sense here... | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,623 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ya_shin: Quote:
These discs had 1.77 written on the cover. Any measurement on screen will have an error margin, so I would use that value (rather than the 1.78 from the dropdown) as I have clear proof. Just out of curiosity, where do you think the figure 1.77 came from? Isn't that also a measurment that will have some margin of error? In my mind, that's close enought to 1.78 to warrant using the standard value from the dropdown list. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
Quoting ya_shin:
Quote:
These discs had 1.77 written on the cover. Any measurement on screen will have an error margin, so I would use that value (rather than the 1.78 from the dropdown) as I have clear proof.
Just out of curiosity, where do you think the figure 1.77 came from? Isn't that also a measurment that will have some margin of error? In my mind, that's close enought to 1.78 to warrant using the standard value from the dropdown list. I wouldn't ever enter something as 1.77. I would assume a rounding error and correct it to 1.78. Even if I measured it to 1.77, I'd probably just make life easier and put it at 1.78. But that's just me.  | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here.
Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,436 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well, I think discussing whether 0.01 difference is that important is probably not necessary, as we'll agree. I simply stated my approach.
I personally prefer 1.77 as written on the cover over 1.78 because that happens to be the value in the dropdown. As always, where to draw the line? Is 1.76 still close enough? How about 1.75.
Again, I am not saying that a proifle would need correction based on this, it's just how I approach a new profile. If that profile has 1.78 in it, I am not going to change that, just like hopefully no one would feel that 1.77 needs to be changed to 1.78 because it's a "standard". | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ya_shin: Quote:
If that profile has 1.78 in it, I am not going to change that, just like hopefully no one would feel that 1.77 needs to be changed to 1.78 because it's a "standard". On that we can certainly agree. I've never once changed an aspect ratio unless it was way off. For example, every once in a while someoe will change Star Trek VI: Special Collectors Edition to 2.35 I believe because that's how it was theatrically. But the DVD is actually 2.00:1. But if I changed something from 1.77:1 to 1.78:1, I would hope it would get voted down for being a stupid change. | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here.
Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | These are the standard aspect ratios and 1.77:1 is not one of them so I would never use this myself. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 452 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Erik: Quote:
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Quoting Erik:
Quote:
At the very least 2.40:1 and 2.4:1 should be added due to their frequent use, IMO...
As SpaceFreakMicha pointed out, 2.4 and 2.40 is the same figure.
[Edit]Martin beat me to it[/Edit]
Not just: "2.40, close enough to 2.4:1" But it is exactly the same... |
|
  | Erik | | It's a strange world. |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 422 |
| | Posted: | | | | Arguing and opinions on redundancy aside, does everyone at least agree that "2.40:1" should be added?
As a 'replacement' for the rarely-used 2.20 for instance... | | | Erik
"Has it ever occurred to you, man, that given the nature of all this new stuff, that, uh, instead of running around blaming me, that this whole thing might just be, not, you know, not just such a simple, but uh - you know?" -- The Dude, The Big Lebowski
 |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,623 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Erik: Quote:
Arguing and opinions on redundancy aside, does everyone at least agree that "2.40:1" should be added?
As a 'replacement' for the rarely-used 2.20 for instance... I have no problem with that. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|