Big fat no.

I want the profile to represent the image area of the film content.

BTW, since you know that every Blu-ray is "widescreen" I don't see why you need Profiler to tell you so. But do as you please locally and lock it, no one will complain if you do.

Absolutly not... my blu-rays who are in a full frame format doesn't take all the screen space (centered on my TV screen). Wich is pretty much a given that they aren't widescreen.

Quoting Kulju:

Quote:
Absolutely NO! we're after Movie aspect ratio, not media frame aspect ratio. Or can you tell which media has Pan&Scan frame? 

This.  A hundred times this.

As for the poll, I also skipped it as the options don't make any sense to me. 

Quoting Mithi:

Quote:
Well, to be honest, I never had much use for this terminology. I always thought that the aspect-ratio was the interesting thing and that it of course should be the original-aspect-ratio.

True. I think of it in theatrical terms: A full screen or full frame film is equivalent to what is sometimes called the academy ratio (or at least a close enough approximation) which was the common film format until the 1950s. In this process the whole image area of the film negative was exposed to the camera, hence a full frame. Later it was matted to produce a wider frame or anamorphic lenses were used for a similar effect. Thus widescreen refers to any film with a wider frame than the original academy ratio. So the screen ratio of the home video media is irrelevant in this sense. But that's just my way of internally rationalizing why the terminology is still being used. It's a bit of an anachronism today.

Information is not useless. I understand what the OP is asking for, but the program really doesn't support it.

For example, I have seen DVD's that are 16x9 anamorphic for full screen content. This is basically a mastering error because it's wasting pixels. That means, the ONLY way to get the proper aspect ratio is to set your TV or scaler to 16x9 mode.

For Blu-Ray, you could have 1:33 content that is stretched to full (wide) resolution, then set your TV or scaler to a full screen mode. Even though this would use more pixels, they would be redundant since you're down scaling.

In the end though, what would really really be handy (at least to me) in a DVD database program is TWO fields, 1) the actual aspect ratio of the disc, and 2) how the screen aspect appears when displayed in "full" on a 16x9 display. However, this would create so much confusion it will probably NEVER be implemented.

Example:

- DVD could be 1:85 aspect, 16x9 enhanced. When displayed full ("stretched") on a 16x9 screen, it appears as 1:85 when taking the black bars into consideration.

- DVD could be 1:33 aspect, 16x9 enhanced. When displayed full ("stretched") on a 16x9 screen, it appears as 1:33 when taking the black bars into consideration. (This is technically a mastering error, but is necessary on discs where you have some 1:33 screens where the majority of the material is say 1:85.)

- DVD could be 1:33 aspect, not 16x9 enhanced. When displayed full ("stretched") in a 16x9 screen, it appears as 1:78, but is "stretched" (is that a technical term?). The TV or scaler needs set to "full" or "1:33" mode to display this content with black bars on the side to show the correct aspect. This is actually the correct way to master full frame material on DVD.

- For a Blu-Ray, full frame source material is almost always 1:78 aspect with native black bars on the sides, and is not 16x9 enhanced (Blu-ray's are 1:78 native, which even confused me up until very recently!). When displayed full on a 16x9 screen, it appears as 1:33 when taking the black bars into consideration.

- Like I said, you could (though I've never seen it) have a Blu-Ray that's 1.78 aspect and contains full frame content, but is "stretched" natively! So, it would be 1:78 aspect, not 16x9 enhanced. When displayed on a 16x9 screen, it appears as 1.78, but is "stretched". So that would mean setting your TV or scaler to "full" or "1:33" should downscale and correct this to display it at the correct aspect ratio.

Anyway, I don't see this data as useless, just that I guess what it comes down to is you would need a second field that would 1) only be there to correctly document mastering errors, and 2) generally confuse a lot of people.

Completely agree with what Voltaire53 said above.

I agree with Voltaire53 as well.

Quoting eommen:

Quote:

- Full widescreen, includes 16:9, 1:1.78, 1:1.85, no horizontal or vertical sidebars

1.85:1 has horizontal sidebars on 16:9 screen.