Hello

I normally verify the aspect ratio of a film by viewing the DVD via my computer screen, setting the software to display the picture in its original aspect ratio and then measuring the displayed picture’s size (the number of pixels) using JRuler Pro.  (If you’re as short-sighted as I am, you can easily see the individual rows of pixels on the screen).  This gives me a very accurate pair of numbers from which to calculate the aspect ratio.  Normally the results are close to one of the options offered by the aspect ratio drop-down box.  Occasionally the results can be quite different and not really reflect any of the options.

The database appears to accept and hold a wide range of Aspect Ratios; it seems to simply add “:1” to whatever number is typed into the box, even if the options in the drop-down box are not selected from.

When contributing aspect ratios, is it generally acceptable to contribute a figure that isn’t available via the drop-down boxes, or should we always pick the one nearest to the verified (measured) one.  The rules suggest to me that we only pick from the choices offered, but I was just wondering if this is a correct assumption?

Rule:  Use the Ratio drop down list to enter the aspect ratio of the main feature.

I seem to remember there being some sort of discussion about this not so long ago, but I was just looking and couldn’t find it again.

Thank  you.  Paul

I think it all depends on how far out the aspect ratio is to what it is labelled as.
If a film is identified as 1.85:1 but is actually 1.77:1 (no black bars) I think that's important.
If a film is identified as 2.35:1 but is actually 2.40:1 I think that less important and less likely to mark the difference in the profile.
So if a film measures as 2.37:1 I would simply choose 2.35:1 from the drop-down, but if it's way off like 2.6:1 - I would type that in.

couple things as well...  I hate it when the High def DVD versions ( from Warner Bros) come out and state 2.4:1  instead of 2.40:1  ..     

The trimmed 1:85 with bars are cropped tighter for the anamorphic 16 x 9 = 1.777777777777777778

or 1.78  ,,  as well  , I'm always mystified at some of Disney's prints  @ 1.75  ??

and Yes Skip has them all,  except for 2:76.1 instead of 2.70:1  ( Ben Hur)  as well as the new one recently 2.89:1  .... .......    ( HTWWW)  ..   

and wasn't Goodfellas  in 1.9:1  (laser disc)  ?? and The Good the Bad and The Ugly in 2.60:1  ??

Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
couple things as well...  I hate it when the High def DVD versions ( from Warner Bros) come out and state 2.4:1  instead of 2.40:1  ..     

Maybe I am missing something but, because those two ratios are exactly the same...2.4=2.40=2.400=2.4000...I don't understand why that would bother anybody. 

Well, that's a little different.  I can understand being bothered by the fact that the voters don't seem to know that they are the same, it's the being upset with WB that I didn't.

Quoting Grendell:

Quote:
This gives an EXACT aspect ratio of what is actually on the disc, and is factual, mathematical, indisputable data.

I agree with that. After all, it is in the spirit of rules to match EXACTLY with what is on disc (credits, audio and subtitles...) or on cover when not on disc (scans, overviews...). So why not be EXACT in this case ?

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:

So why not be EXACT in this case ?

OK, let's assume that the measured amount of pixels is 1920*1080. Now, could you please tell me how do you present that EXACTLY in DVDP? 

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
I don't believe that ajy of you or myself included can claim to be accurate enough to gived credible calculations relative to the AR, and for those of you who have seen the BD GWTW then you know the level of visual detail I refer to and that was only because of 5 measly pixels. o stop with pretending a level of skill which you simply do not possess, it;s pure unmitigated BULL

I am not pretending, anyone can do it to down to the pixel by using the "zoom" function in any image editing program. How can people not be aware of this. It boggles my mind.