| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 736 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with Kulju on the Varies option. Many short film collections have varying aspect ratios, not so much in their individual short, but from film to film. There might be 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 on the same disc. Since we can't do individual profiles for each short (yet!), the only way to currently accurately label the Video Format option is by leaving it blank (which makes it look like it hasn't been entered, rather than displaying what's on the disc). A Varies option could easily solve this – until we can properly handle each individual short or episode. |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Agree that television should be moved out of the genre field. I'd like a new original format option or something to replace it. Three slots is not enough for genre with non-genres like television and animation crowding legit entries out. We've never been able to list Futurama properly, which is an animated sci-fi comedy for television. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 79 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting synnerman: Quote:
Since we can't do individual profiles for each short (yet!), the only way to currently accurately label the Video Format option is by leaving it blank (which makes it look like it hasn't been entered, rather than displaying what's on the disc). Actually, the aspect ratio field allows alphanumeric input. In the cases you mention I usually put "Var." which displays as "Var. : 1". Not ideal but better than leaving it blank. It can be contributed as well. | | | | Last edited: by Exiled |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,746 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting mreeder50:
Quote:
If you measure the actual image presented, you will find that even though a film is listed as 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 most are not exactly that AR and vary all over the place, mostly to the minus side. I wish the industry would get their crap together or list the actual AR. Or for DVDP, we could contribute the actual ARs.
Do you often find yourself choosing to watch a film (or not) because of it's aspect ratio? I get kind of tired of contributions that change the aspect ratio from 2.40:1 to 2.39:1 and vice versa.
--------------- No, I just like accurate data, but I know that would open up a yo-yo can of worms we don't want. I generally will not watch a film that has been modified from the it's theatrical widescreen to Pan & Scan. That to me detracts from the way the filmmakers wanted me to see the film, not to mention what's missing. Even worse to me is when they shoot in 35mm then mat it for widescreen cropping some vertical and horizontal. Then for the Pan & Scan they open up the vertical and crop the horizontal, but that's just me. | | | | Marty - Registered July 10, 2004, User since 2002. |
|
 | W0m6at | | You're in for it now Tony |
| Registered: April 17, 2007 |  Posts: 1,091 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mreeder50: Quote:
...but that's just me. No it's not. It's me too. | | | | Adelaide Movie Buffs (info on special screenings, contests, bargains, etc. relevant to Adelaideans... and contests/bargains for other Aussies too!) |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,637 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Winston Smith: Quote:
So do I Scott. Go with the cover, unless we see something obvious like a 235 film in a cover marked 185. For those who say they are AR about ar tty an experiment. Find out how many pixels it takes to go from 1.77 to 1.78 or even 235 to 239. I think you will find very small numbers, well within any rational margin of error. So don't ever try and convince me that you can correctly measure each and every time without fail...I will say one word..bull. It's actually pretty easy to do although not everyone may know how or have the capability to exactly measure the AR. How are you measuring by the way, hope it's not by placing a ruler up to the screen.  |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting rdodolak: Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:
Quote:
So don't ever try and convince me that you can correctly measure each and every time without fail...I will say one word..bull.
It's actually pretty easy to do although not everyone may know how or have the capability to exactly measure the AR. And if the time spent measuring the AR was instead spent watching the film it wouldn't matter. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,637 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:
Quote:
So don't ever try and convince me that you can correctly measure each and every time without fail...I will say one word..bull.
It's actually pretty easy to do although not everyone may know how or have the capability to exactly measure the AR.
And if the time spent measuring the AR was instead spent watching the film it wouldn't matter.
--------------- Yes, but the same could be said about any piece of information that is contributed to DVDProfiler. It's not like any of us, at least I hope not, spend every waking moment glued to the screen watching films.  |
|
| Registered: May 26, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,878 |
| | Posted: | | | | I really hope that, with the addition of 2 more CoO fields, there will be countries that are currently not available. I have numerous films from countries that aren't currently available. | | | If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
-- Thorin Oakenshield | | | | Last edited: by Danae Cassandra |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting rdodolak: Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:
Quote:
So do I Scott. Go with the cover, unless we see something obvious like a 235 film in a cover marked 185. For those who say they are AR about ar tty an experiment. Find out how many pixels it takes to go from 1.77 to 1.78 or even 235 to 239. I think you will find very small numbers, well within any rational margin of error. So don't ever try and convince me that you can correctly measure each and every time without fail...I will say one word..bull.
It's actually pretty easy to do although not everyone may know how or have the capability to exactly measure the AR.
How are you measuring by the way, hope it's not by placing a ruler up to the screen. Rdo No and bull Do the math, seriously. Being off by as little as 3 pixels can yield a completely different answer. 3 pixels certainly within margin of error. I'm good but ill never lay claim to that kind of accuracy. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,637 |
| | Posted: | | | | No bull at all. It's actaully easy to do measurements on a computer. In fact you can have it tell you the dimensions of a specific area of an image. Yes, it's accurate down to the pixel, no margin of error. It's not like you have to manually sit their and count each pixel manually. Of course, you could do that as well if you chose to do so but your margin of error can go up.  EDIT: For example, the Eagle Pictures, Italian, blu-ray release of Equilibrium is 1920 (W) x 820 (H) pixels which is equivalent to an aspect ratio of 2.3414634146341463414634146341463 (or 2.34 rounded to the second decimal place). The Sony Pictures US blu-ray release of Friends with Benefits is 1920 (W) x 803 (H) pixels or 2.3910336239103362391033623910336 (2.39:1 for short). As you can see most films aren't spot on when compared to an aspect ratio of two decimal places. Thus even if you where off by one pixel, due to an error in manual counting, it's not significant to make a difference. However, if you use a computer you'll always be accurate down to the pixel. | | | | Last edited: by rdodolak |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting rdodolak: Quote:
No bull at all.
It's actaully easy to do measurements on a computer. In fact you can have it tell you the dimensions of a specific area of an image. Yes, it's accurate down to the pixel, no margin of error. It's not like you have to manually sit their and count each pixel manually. Of course, you could do that as well if you chose to do so but your margin of error can go up. He didn't mean that the problem lies in math or counting the pixels, but within the decision; "Is this pixel row part of the image or not"? This has been discussed sooo many times that could we please leave this thread alone. This issue has nothing to do with subject or any of the requests mentioned in this thread. |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,637 |
| | Posted: | | | | Sorry, I guess I don't get your point as the decision should be easy. For example, with blu-rays the black bars (if any) are part of the image. Either the row of pixels is part of the picture or it isn't, there isn't a gray area here. Now if you're looking at the title screen which has a black background then I can see that you wouldn't be able to discern where the image starts with bars that are also black. However, if you look at a normal frame you can clearly differentiate whether it's part of the image (picture) or not; there is no "is it or isn't it". It's not hard when viewing an image on a computer monitor, you can even blow the picture up if you're unsure which will make it even clearer. Sorry to ruffle any feathers but I wasn't aware of any past discussions on this topic.  |
|