Author |
Message |
Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,934 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting rdodolak: Quote: Quoting The Movieman:
Quote: So this has cropped up (so to speak). There's a submission changing the aspect ratio from 2.35 to 2.36. Has there been an official ruling on this from Ken? I find these minuscule changes to be unnecessary but not sure what kind of consensus there was (if any).
This is in regards to one of my submissions (Session 9 Blu-ray). I realize people may have different opinions but the way I viewed it, accurate information should be submitted; not pseudo-accurate information. I don't see how this is any different than anything else we contribute such as replicating typos in the overview and cast/crew or the DVD title which may be different from the actual film title. I agree, accuracy is always desired. going from 2.35 to 2.36 is minuscule indeed. As MediaDog said, how can you be sure that the codecs and the hardware are not causing the difference. if I measured it on my system, would I get 2.34 instead. Would Movieman actually measure 2.35. I would say that this is within the "margin of error". |
|
Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,639 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote: I agree, accuracy is always desired. going from 2.35 to 2.36 is minuscule indeed. As MediaDog said, how can you be sure that the codecs and the hardware are not causing the difference. if I measured it on my system, would I get 2.34 instead. Would Movieman actually measure 2.35.
I would say that this is within the "margin of error". Yes, if someone else measures it correctly it would be the same. This was measured from the individual frames that were taken directly from the disc which is independent from any differences in codecs/hardware. |
|
Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,934 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting rdodolak: Quote: Quoting CharlieM:
Quote: I agree, accuracy is always desired. going from 2.35 to 2.36 is minuscule indeed. As MediaDog said, how can you be sure that the codecs and the hardware are not causing the difference. if I measured it on my system, would I get 2.34 instead. Would Movieman actually measure 2.35.
I would say that this is within the "margin of error".
Yes, if someone else measures it correctly it would be the same. This was measured from the individual frames that were taken directly from the disc which is independent from any differences in codecs/hardware. There is still hardware and software involved. Everything from the BD.DVD palyer to the graphics processor, to the monitor. Including the software that pulled the image from the drive. To much to instill errors. I will trust that you are confident about your measurements. They very well may be accurate. I still say that they are awful close, and we should err on the side of caution... |
|
| T!M | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 8,736 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting rdodolak: Quote: There's a submission changing the aspect ratio from 2.35 to 2.36. I still feel the way I felt back when we talked about this seven years ago: I'd keep it at 2.35:1. |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 4,678 |
| Posted: | | | | I have found that when I measure the aspect ratio on PowerDVD, I get different values in normal mode and in fullscreen mode. It's a very small difference, but still it indicates to me that it's iffy to trust these measurements blindly. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users. Gunnar |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Posts: 5,734 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting The Movieman: Quote: There's a submission changing the aspect ratio from 2.35 to 2.36. Ridiculous. | | | Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played. [Ken Cole, DVD Profiler Architect] |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 3,197 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote: I have found that when I measure the aspect ratio on PowerDVD, I get different values in normal mode and in fullscreen mode. It's a very small difference, but still it indicates to me that it's iffy to trust these measurements blindly. Of course. As soon as any kind of scaling is involved you can't trust the result. You need to perform the measurement on a 1:1 pixel frame. But even then I wouldn't trust anyone who claims they can measure to an accuracy of .01. Too much room for error imo. Especially since you could have variations between individual frames especially for films made in the pre-digital era as a result of the telecine process. | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 4,678 |
| |
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 4,678 |
| Posted: | | | | I just noticed that the AR for Mysterious Island (811956-020925) has been changed from 1.66:1 to 1.67:1. In all fairness, I checked it myself with AspectGuide on PowerDVD 13 and I did get 1.67:1 in 3 different screen sizes. Two of those tests were done using Auto Resize, which measures down to pixel level. But I'm still leery about such a minute change. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users. Gunnar | | | Last edited: by GSyren |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,494 |
| Posted: | | | | as far as I am concerned ( IMO) the chart should read as follows: 1:19:1 /1.25:1 /1.33:1 /1.37:1 / 1.66:1 / 1.75:1 / 1.85:1 / 1.90:1 / 2.00:1 / 2.20:1 / 2.30:1 / 2.35:1 /2.40:1 /2.55:1 /2.59:1 / 2.76:1 / 2.89:1 first would be the early type "pre Chaplin films " , the last would be smilebox .. did I miss any ? | | | In the 60's, People took Acid to make the world Weird. Now the World is weird and People take Prozac to make it Normal.
Terry |
|
Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,715 |
| |
Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,639 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting iPatsa: Quote: Quoting GSyren:
Quote: I have found that when I measure the aspect ratio on PowerDVD, I get different values in normal mode and in fullscreen mode. It's a very small difference, but still it indicates to me that it's iffy to trust these measurements blindly.
Of course. As soon as any kind of scaling is involved you can't trust the result. You need to perform the measurement on a 1:1 pixel frame. But even then I wouldn't trust anyone who claims they can measure to an accuracy of .01. Too much room for error imo. Especially since you could have variations between individual frames especially for films made in the pre-digital era as a result of the telecine process. Unless you measure the frames which have been extracted 1:1 and haven't been manipulated (i.e. stretched, squished, etc.). Blu-rays have are native 1920x1080 pixels so anything more or less has been altered. As along as the frame is the original 1920x1080 pixels the measurement is good, unless one believes the black bars or picture area was manipulated prior to measurement. |
|
Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,851 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote: I just noticed that the AR for Mysterious Island (811956-020925) has been changed from 1.66:1 to 1.67:1. In all fairness, I checked it myself with AspectGuide on PowerDVD 13 and I did get 1.67:1 in 3 different screen sizes. Two of those tests were done using Auto Resize, which measures down to pixel level. But I'm still leery about such a minute change. If you can't tell the difference without a measuring tool then it's a difference not worth noting IMO. --------------- |
|
Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,639 |
| Posted: | | | | One way to please everyone is for the program to allow us to contribute the more accurate data as we do today but also provide the option to those that want their local database to round to the closest fixed aspect ratio when displayed. Seems like that would be a win-win situation. |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 3,197 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting widescreenforever: Quote: as far as I am concerned ( IMO) the chart should read as follows:
1:19:1 /1.25:1 /1.33:1 /1.37:1 / 1.66:1 / 1.75:1 / 1.85:1 / 1.90:1 / 2.00:1 / 2.20:1 / 2.30:1 / 2.35:1 /2.40:1 /2.55:1 /2.59:1 / 2.76:1 / 2.89:1
first would be the early type "pre Chaplin films " , the last would be smilebox ..
did I miss any ? 1.55:1 Otherwise you pretty much covered the Wikipedia list. | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,494 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting AiAustria: Quote: ... only less important
1,78:1 your're right .. ! I was thinking along lines of theatrical films .. But yes there are some made for TV DVD releases at 1.78:1 and more importantly the 1.85 and 1.75 films are issued in 1.78 | | | In the 60's, People took Acid to make the world Weird. Now the World is weird and People take Prozac to make it Normal.
Terry |
|