| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,749 |
| | Posted: | | | | I am a big fan of accurate data, so actual ARs are what I like. If anyone else likes them, I will continue to upload them, but if not, I will stop and keep them local.
Remember, you can choose not to download them. | | | | Marty - Registered July 10, 2004, User since 2002. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 4,245 |
| | Posted: | | | | My take is that unless there's a huge difference than whatever is in the current profile is ok. Something like 1.85 to the actual 2.35 ratio.
Also if the current profile states 2.35, but the actual is 2.36 we should keep what's in the current profile.
Similar to how we treat the SRP. If it's just a few cents don't change it. |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Aspect ratio is one of the rare cases where rules allow to contribute correct data, and do not oblige us to recopy errors. So please, continue your good job.  | | | | Images from movies |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | Depends. Changing 1.78:1 to 1.77:1 is not helpful. Changing 1.85 to 1.78 is. So maybe a minimum difference of say .05 to prevent pointless changes? | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 | | | | Last edited: by Nexus the Sixth |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,639 |
| | Posted: | | | | I say continue to upload them as the database is only as good as the information in it. If the AR is wrong, regardless how small the difference is, then the information isn't accurate. |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting iPatsa: Quote:
Depends. Changing 1.78:1 to 1.77:1 is not helpful. Changing 1.85 to 1.78 is. So maybe a minimum difference of say .05 to prevent pointless changes? This. For minimal devations I very much prefer to use the closest standard values as listed in the dropdown-menu. I, too, am not interested in having various profiles listed as 1.76:1, 1.77:1, 1.78:1, 1.79:1 and 1.80:1 - such minute deviations are just too small, invisible to the naked eye, and, most of all: so small that different people using their own measuring methods often come up with slightly different results. Some people can't even agree on whether something is 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 - note that borders aren't always razor-sharp, which causes different people measuring it to arrive at different results. Often, one more pixel here, and one pixel less there, and you arrive at a different (alledged) aspect ratio. I think the database can well do without back-and-forths like that. But if an aspect ratio that is truly significantly different from one of the standard options, then yeah, I'd be happy to have it. But not so small that it's literally just about a few pixels - then use a standard ratio. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting iPatsa:
Quote:
Depends. Changing 1.78:1 to 1.77:1 is not helpful. Changing 1.85 to 1.78 is. So maybe a minimum difference of say .05 to prevent pointless changes?
This. For minimal devations I very much prefer to use the closest standard values as listed in the dropdown-menu. I, too, am not interested in having various profiles listed as 1.76:1, 1.77:1, 1.78:1, 1.79:1 and 1.80:1 - such minute deviations are just too small, invisible to the naked eye, and, most of all: so small that different people using their own measuring methods often come up with slightly different results. Some people can't even agree on whether something is 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 - note that borders aren't always razor-sharp, which causes different people measuring it to arrive at different results. Often, one more pixel here, and one pixel less there, and you arrive at a different (alledged) aspect ratio. I think the database can well do without back-and-forths like that. But if an aspect ratio that is truly significantly different from one of the standard options, then yeah, I'd be happy to have it. But not so small that it's literally just about a few pixels - then use a standard ratio. This indeed. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Agree with Tim as well. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would contribute what's on the cover unless there's a visibly discernable difference.
--------------- |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | Covers are notoriously unreliable for this sort of data. So I always verify the video format before submitting, just like I do for running time, audio tracks, subtitles and region coding (the latter for DVDs, for blu-ray it's beyond my abilities).
BTW I agree with T!M as well. | | | | Last edited: by dee1959jay |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
..., am not interested in having various profiles listed as 1.76:1, 1.77:1, 1.78:1, 1.79:1 and 1.80:1 ... This example is just stupid as those cases never happen. We are in the case where there is no black bar on a 16/9 format (anamorphic DVD or Blu-ray). 1.76 and 1.80 never exist just because DVD or blu-ray makers adjust the frame to fit the screen and never leave such small black bars. So we have 16/9=1.777777777=1.78, and there is never discussion about this ratio. But I have seen many covers with 1.78 instead 2.35, or 1.33 instead 1.66, and those wrong ratios must be corrected, which is (surprisingly) allowed by rules (which generally prefer to recopy errors). | | | | Images from movies |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,639 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
This example is just stupid as those cases never happen. We are in the case where there is no black bar on a 16/9 format (anamorphic DVD or Blu-ray). 1.76 and 1.80 never exist just because DVD or blu-ray makers adjust the frame to fit the screen and never leave such small black bars. So we have 16/9=1.777777777=1.78, and there is never discussion about this ratio.
But I have seen many covers with 1.78 instead 2.35, or 1.33 instead 1.66, and those wrong ratios must be corrected, which is (surprisingly) allowed by rules (which generally prefer to recopy errors). TT's Titus BD release is 2.31:1 rather than an OAR of 2.39:1 and their The Blue Max BD release has an AR or 2.36:1 rather than an OAR of 2.35:1. And those are just a few examples. Also, Disney's The Jungle Book 2 BD has an aspect ration of 1.69:1 rather then the OAR of 1.75:1. | | | | Last edited: by rdodolak |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting dee1959jay: Quote:
Covers are notoriously unreliable for this sort of data. So I always verify the video format before submitting. Whether a film is 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 makes no difference to me. Whether it's 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 also makes no difference. These ratios are so close to one another as to have no impact on my enjoyment of a film, and so I'm not interested in nitpicking about screen pixels. But I know some people are obsessed with minutiae and want to make sure everyone else knows about it. I suppose it's a benign compulsion. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | I already said I agree with T!M on that, so what are you quoting me for? Not t mention the fact that I was addressing a totally different point.  | | | | Last edited: by dee1959jay |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 554 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'd go with the next best fit "standard" aspect ratio. No need to whip out the measuring tools and add funky aspect ratios like 2.36:1 because it came up to 2.3567193:1 or something. If it's as rdodolak says and the aspect ratio of Titus is in fact 2.31:1 on BD, then fine. Seems different enough and far away enough from a regular AR to include. | | | My DVD/Blu-ray Collection
My Letterboxd Page |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Posts: 823 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CubbyUps: Quote:
My take is that unless there's a huge difference than whatever is in the current profile is ok. Something like 1.85 to the actual 2.35 ratio.
Also if the current profile states 2.35, but the actual is 2.36 we should keep what's in the current profile.
Similar to how we treat the SRP. If it's just a few cents don't change it. This... this is on of the main reasons I lost faith and stopped using the online long ago. This attitude. | | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." |
|