Peter:

I am sorry but it was you who insulted me first as I noted. Itried to offer you a helpful answer and you responded with attitude and surliness. the system may not make any sense to you but I understand it completely and it makes perfect sense. I don't care if you have a different opinion than i, that's irrelevant and would be very boring if we all thought alike, but you can do so respectfully. For my part i apologize.

Skip

skip it's not my intention to insult you but a discussion with you usually goes like this:

Someone makes a point, sometimes it makes sense sometimes it doesn't.
You then come in and just tell everybody how it is and what the rules say and that whoever made the point is utterly wrong.

And that's it. You don't even try to understand why the rule may be wrong or doesn't appear to make sense, you just keep telling "because that's the way it is".

You keep telling me that full-frame is a hollywood standard and I acknowledge that. But you did not even take the time considering if this really makes sense with the profiler or if this section could use some overhaul. You didn't even acknowledge my last suggestion changing the section with a more simple aspect ratio approach.

Where is the discussion? Can't you see why people get so frustrated with you?

on HD-Media only 16:9 is not letterboxed, because the display is full of frame -> has no black bars

Quoting madacid:

Quote:
and there is no "anamophic" on hd-media at the moment.

Yes, I meant in general. You need anamorphic for DVD.

Quoting Peter von Frosta:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
All of this confusion could have been avoided had Profiler used the proper terms.

Full Frame is not a video format, it is a cinematography term that refers to the use of the full film gate at maximum width and height for 35 mm film cameras.

You never use the full frame on film because the edges are most of the time just garbage.

I never said you did.  What I said was, Full Frame is a term used in cinematography that refers to how it was shot.  It has nothing to do with how it is displayed.

Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:

I beg to differ.., play that back thru a channel 3 coaxial and you'll get black bars..  Play it back on a convential 4:3.1 TV picture tube, thru any type of connection cable and you'll get black bars..
don't forget 16:9 is the same as 1.78:1    .

On a DVD, native image is 768x576 pixels, or 1024x576 if anamorphic.
On a blu-ray, native image is 1920x1080 pixels.

On that whole image, there is the "movie" image and horizontal or vertical black bars to fill what is missing.

For examples, on DVD, "Abyss"  ratio 2.35, non anamorphic, has a movie image of 768x326 and horizontal bars
"Casablanca", ratio 1.33, non anamorphic, has a movie image of 768x576, without any black bars
"Ben Hur", 2.70, anamorphic, has a movie image of 1024x380, and horizontal black bars.

On blu-ray, "Abyss" would be 1920x820 and horizontal black bars, and Casablanca 1436x1080 and vertical black bars.

This is what is sent by DVD or blu-ray player.

Now, what is sent by the player can be read on a 4/3 or a 16/9 TV. This acts as a window, which keeps obligatory its own ratio, filling the gap with sent image with black bars. With a zoom function, you can remove part of the movie image. For example, "Casablanca" can be seen on a 16/9 TV without vertical black bars, but you loose top and bottom of the movie image. "Ben Hur" can be seen on a 16/9 TV without horizontal bars, but you loose right and left part of the movie image...

So with the movie ratio and the indication of anamorphic or not for DVDs, you have all what is necessary to know how is the native image. The image on your TV depends if it is 4/3 or 16/9, and the zoom you use.

Hope this helps.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
On blu-ray, "Abyss" would be 1920x820

And I can't wait for that one! 

Quoting Peter von Frosta:

Quote:
skip it's not my intention to insult you but a discussion with you usually goes like this:

Someone makes a point, sometimes it makes sense sometimes it doesn't.
You then come in and just tell everybody how it is and what the rules say and that whoever made the point is utterly wrong.

And that's it. You don't even try to understand why the rule may be wrong or doesn't appear to make sense, you just keep telling "because that's the way it is".

You keep telling me that full-frame is a hollywood standard and I acknowledge that. But you did not even take the time considering if this really makes sense with the profiler or if this section could use some overhaul. You didn't even acknowledge my last suggestion changing the section with a more simple aspect ratio approach.

Where is the discussion? Can't you see why people get so frustrated with you?

Peter:

As I said I understood your logic. But itys simple you were incorrect. Full Frame and Full Screen both have defdinitions that were put in place by the film industry, not by ME. Both definitions have nothing to do with television of any format Widescreen or CRT. I simply pointed that out to you, your retort was to tell me that i did not know what I was talking about. Now have patience but the error IS yours not mine. You or I don;t set the definition of what something means or does not mean. Anamorphic meas something entirely different from Widescreen and does not apply at all in BD format as far as I know. But each term has its own distinct definition. If you want to Full Frame a 1.78 image for yOUR purposes locally that is fine and I won't tell you no, that is your data. But when you cross over and want to change a definition to suit you that is not based on anything other than your own definition then I have to say NO. The industry does not call a 1.78 image Full Frame and yoiu will NOT a single instrance of such ANYWHERE on ANY movie or Tv Series anywhere in the world, it does NOT exist. 1.78 is a WIDESCREEN image plain and simple.

What I see you asking for Peter, is that you want to go to a user-defined setup based on YOUR definition. instead of soem sort of industry defined system and I will always oppose ANY kind of user-definition for ANYTHING. You can't set the standard for anyone but yourself. You have a definition in your mind and along comes another user and wants to use his definition and so on and so forth. it simply won't work, myfriend. Control what you can control for YOURSELF, but don't try and impose your definition on 500,000 other users, most of whom don't come here.

Skip