There's a contribution right now that changes the aspect ratio for a film from 2.4:1 to 2.40:1. No other info provided. I am a bit ambivalent about what to think about that.

Pro: All predefined aspect ratios use two decimals.
Con: The info on the back cover says "2.4:1". Also, while the two are mathematically the same, when applied to measurements they are not. It's a matter of different precision.

If the contributor had actually measured the aspect ratio and found it to be exactly 2.40:1, then I would probably have leaned towards accepting the change. But since he hasn't I am more inclined to stay with the cover info.

A minor issue, to be sure, but I would be interested to hear what others think about it.

Oh, I didn't realize that there was a filter for that. In that case it does make some sense. I know, though, that my old physics teacher would have been very upset at the thought of automatically adding precision to a measurement.

Theoretically 2.4 can mean anything between 2.35 and 2.45. Anything that would be rounded to 2.4. But perhaps the studios aren't smart enough to know that, so when they put 2.4 they actually mean 2.40?

Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
all updates are supposed to add significant value to the database

Yeah, well, nobody seems to pay much attention to that. Perhaps because everybody has their own definition of what "significant value" is. I could give many examples of updates that I don't consider adding significant value, but that would just derail this thread... 

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Yeah, well, nobody seems to pay much attention to that. Perhaps because everybody has their own definition of what "significant value" is.

The difference between 2.4:1 and 2.40:1 is not significant.

Even the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 is not significant, even though some here may mistakenly think it is.

---------------

Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
There's a contribution right now that changes the aspect ratio for a film from 2.4:1 to 2.40:1. No other info provided.

all updates are supposed to add significant value to the database - see the following in the contribution rules

Make sure your contributions add significant value to the database. For example, contributions that only re-order the information within a certain section should not be submitted. These unnecessary changes are highlighted in the rules. Please do not make a separate contribution for them; however, they may be acceptable if you are making wider corrections to a profile

therefore you should vote against.

I have seen this rule mentioned many times over the years. Everyone that brings up this rule seems to miss a very important part of the rule...

Quote:
Make sure your contributions add significant value to the database. For example, contributions that only re-order the information within a certain section should not be submitted. These unnecessary changes are highlighted in the rules. Please do not make a separate contribution for them; however, they may be acceptable if you are making wider corrections to a profile

See the sentence I put in bold... If it is not highlighted in the rules that it is an unnecessary change... then per how the rules are written it is considered "significant"... and this rule can not be used to vote no on the contribution.

I haven't been over all the rules in a long time to say if there is any others currently noted in the rules. But I do remember another that was in the rules... until we got it removed. They also used to say no adding alternate disc ids by themselves as well. But thankfully we got that one changed... since Invelos wanted all the disc ids... and sometimes you had to do them alone to get them in.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Oh, I didn't realize that there was a filter for that. In that case it does make some sense. I know, though, that my old physics teacher would have been very upset at the thought of automatically adding precision to a measurement.

Theoretically 2.4 can mean anything between 2.35 and 2.45. Anything that would be rounded to 2.4. But perhaps the studios aren't smart enough to know that, so when they put 2.4 they actually mean 2.40?

IMHO, I disagree. 2.4 means exactly 2.4, and as a number is exactly equal to 2.40. That is, if the aspect ratio is merely a specification or description.

I think the aspect ratio is SET, not measured. And the setting is accurate to whatever tolerance the production equipment or software allows. Lacking a statement of precision (e.g., with a +,- 0.05), I think it is reasonable to treat the specification as simply a number, rather than as a measurement, so it makes absolute sense to change the FORMAT of the number to match the database standard. (Ok, don't you dare bring quantum aspects into this!  )

BTW, this is simply an academic discussion for me. I don't really care about the decision.

So if a profile was 'perfect', with the exception of the Aspect Ratio, it would never be 'fixed' in the online because it is an 'unnecessary' change?

It's not a big deal to me, but I'd vote yes to keep the data uniform.