 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2  Previous Next
|
|
"Exact" aspect ratios |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Can I please make another plea for NOT using "exact" aspect ratios? I've just encountered a couple of new contributions using stuff like 2.38:1, and it has always been my belief that we don't do that - that we round 'em off to the nearest standard. The rules say: "Use the Ratio drop down list to enter the aspect ratio of the main feature". And also: "Use the Video specified on the DVD Cover unless you can verify there is a discrepancy between that and the actual Video included on the disc." As I understand it, that last comment doesn't include "discrepancies" of 0.01 or 0.02... I certainly hope we're not going down this route, because it would mean that about half of our profiles are going to need updating to some strange value like this - hardly any 1.85:1 disc is really 1.85:1 - they can just as well be 1.83:1, 1.84:1, 1.86:1 or 1.87:1. I sincerely hope we're not going to do that - especially since measuring these is not an "exact science"...  |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 3,830 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quote:
especially since measuring these is not an "exact science" neither is the dvd cover! | | | | Sources for one or more of the changes and/or additions were not submitted. Please include the sources for your changes in the contribution notes, especially for cast and crew additions. | | | | Last edited: by ? |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I will repeat what i have said previously, Tim, not for your benefit...you know i agree with you. Stay with the industry standards. An error of as litle 3 pixels could completely change the AR and make it 2.38 instead of 2.35 or 2.40. Any user who can claim that they are precise to the pixel, is just plain smoking something and I want it. So stay with the published data, unless you are talking a major error, which every one of us can see, like published data of 2.35 and you can tell by looking at the picture that it is 1.85. This an area rife for ping-ponging as users battle for precise instead of simple INDUSTRY STANDARDS. I have the tools to measure AR, but I would not enter anything but industry standards, not would I pretend that my exact measurement would be 100% accurate, even IF I thought it was.I do not measure AR unless I see an obvious discrepancy, which does happen, like the Original release of Lord of war which listed as 2.35 but was in fact 1.78. Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Giga Wizard: Quote:
Quote:
especially since measuring these is not an "exact science"
neither is the dvd cover! That I agree with, of course. And I'd wholeheartedly support any contribution that corrects an incorrect aspect ratio from the cover to the actual, correct aspect ratio measured from the DVD - while rounding off such very minor deviations to the nearest standard. What I meant with the "it's not an 'exact science'" comment is that there's no universal way to measure this. Your measuring antics may result in a ratio of 1.84:1, while mine may results in 1.83:1. Who's to say who's right? If we both use the very near drop-down standard of 1.85:1, there's no need for endless ping-ponging over such issues. Edit: I see that Skip already beat me to it...  | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,029 |
| | Posted: | | | | If I remember correctly, the "exact" aspect ratio is a quite important piece of information for certain projection systems. I'm not an expert on this, though - so, personally, I agree with T!M. | | | | Matthias |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Precisely correct, Tim.
Let's take an image of 1.85 720X390 (and even this is due to rounding) an error of 3 pixels changes the result 1.87+.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 3,830 |
| | Posted: | | | | So I wonder how a profile would have a 2:40 aspect ratio in a profile?
Contribution can always be verified, you have to enter a brief description of the changes you've made:
2.40:1 > 2.35:1 (calipers 1013x431) I always did it this way and was always approved. | | | | Sources for one or more of the changes and/or additions were not submitted. Please include the sources for your changes in the contribution notes, especially for cast and crew additions. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Very simple if the published data says 2.40 stay with it. An error of 10 pixels in ONE dimension, that, in this case would say 5 pixels top and bottom, changes your 2.35 to 2.40, Giga. 10 pixels!!!! Surely you arenot going to profess to be absolutely flawless in your measurement, or that you could not be off by a few pixels. I am dealing with an error in only one dimension, but we have TWO dimensions, which could gum up your results real quick. So, I will tell you point blank, stop it, your eye cannot diustinguish between industry standards of 2.35, 2.39 and 2.40 and i don't buy any claims of flawless measurement.
Let's give you an error in two dimensions 5 pixels in one and 6 in the other, 1018x425 now your result is an industry standard of 2.39.<shrugs>
As I said a major area which we can all see like 1.78 versus 2.35 or something of that nature fine, otherwise stay with the published data and industry standards. If I ever see a measurement claim changing 2.35 to 2.40 or vice versa, i will vote No immediately.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 3,830 |
| | Posted: | | | | 1) you can't enter 2.40:1 from the drop down menu. 2) Quoting T!M: Quote:
Measured aspect ratio to be 2.40:1 this while the cover states 2.35. | | | | Sources for one or more of the changes and/or additions were not submitted. Please include the sources for your changes in the contribution notes, especially for cast and crew additions. | | | | Last edited: by ? |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | If I recall correctly, 2.39:1 is the current industry standard and 2.35 and 2.40 (or 2.4) is just a convention used by the studios (different for different studios) when in fact they mean the same thing.
However, for Profiler purposes, I think it's enough to list what's on the cover, unless you can prove very clearly that it is wrong. And I don't mean by a pixel or two... | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 | | | | Last edited: by Nexus the Sixth |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 3,830 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
>8>8 So, I will tell you point blank, stop it, your eye cannot diustinguish between industry standards of 2.35, 2.39 and 2.40 and i don't buy any claims of flawless measurement.
>8>8 Any reasonable photo editor, can measure in pixels at pixel level and zoom in at pixel level. | | | | Sources for one or more of the changes and/or additions were not submitted. Please include the sources for your changes in the contribution notes, especially for cast and crew additions. |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Giga Wizard: Quote:
Any reasonable photo editor, can measure in pixels at pixel level and zoom in at pixel level. That may very well be, but the edges of the average DVD picture often contain a few blurry/off-color pixels: do you include those when measuring the aspect ratio, or don't you? Well, there you go: these are exactly the few pixels that are making the difference, and since there's no universal standard for this, different users will arrive at slightly different results. That means it's decidely not a good idea to let that kind of stuff into the online database. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: June 3, 2007 | | Posts: 333 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Giga Wizard:
Quote:
Any reasonable photo editor, can measure in pixels at pixel level and zoom in at pixel level.
That may very well be, but the edges of the average DVD picture often contain a few blurry/off-color pixels: do you include those when measuring the aspect ratio, or don't you? Well, there you go: these are exactly the few pixels that are making the difference, and since there's no universal standard for this, different users will arrive at slightly different results. That means it's decidely not a good idea to let that kind of stuff into the online database. I agree 100%. We should stick with the industry standard ratios, the one off the case if it is there. We should only deviate from that when the dfference is significant. Not .01 or .02. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Giga Wizard: Quote:
1) you can't enter 2.40:1 from the drop down menu.
2) Quoting T!M: Quote:
Measured aspect ratio to be 2.40:1 this while the cover states 2.35. Notice I didn't say anything about the drop down menu, Giga. I said INDUSTRY Standards this would include 2.55 and 2.70. And they are not included in the list EITHER, Giga. But there are films extant using both of those ARs. Why are you arguing the point? Just simply stay with the published data unless there is a substantial error as described. You may have confidence in your screen measurement abilities, I don't, nor as I already stated I don't trust my own to be correct particularly when such small errors can produce significant changes. To me, my friend, you seem to be trying to defend a position which is virtually impossible to defend. I understand your rationale relative to accuracy but baring the errors which we all know about, hair-splitting accuracy serves no useful function and is not achievable. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 5,734 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Stay with the industry standards. An error of as litle 3 pixels could completely change the AR and make it 2.38 instead of 2.35 or 2.40. Any user who can claim that they are precise to the pixel, is just plain smoking something and I want it. So stay with the published data, unless you are talking a major error, which every one of us can see, like published data of 2.35 and you can tell by looking at the picture that it is 1.85. Evaluating message (Optional) Reason: [ ] [Vote Yes]Quote:
I do not measure AR unless I see an obvious discrepancy, which does happen, like the Original release of Lord of war which listed as 2.35 but was in fact 1.78. | | | | Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played. [Ken Cole, DVD Profiler Architect] |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |