| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,491 |
| | Posted: | | | | which is usually the 2.40 Or in the case of Blu 2.4 .  | | | In the 60's, People took Acid to make the world Weird. Now the World is weird and People take Prozac to make it Normal.
Terry |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Unfortunately there are some that DO list 2.39, talk about your basic splitting hairs but... | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,732 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Unfortunately there are some that DO list 2.39 Still 2.40:1. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Nope, not if the data says 2.39 it's not Tim. 2.39 is an industry standard, just as 2.40 is. Follow the data, my friend, don't turn something into what it is NOT. and i certainly don't trust myself, you or anyone else to be able to really and truly resolve that, you are talking about a 2 pixel error to change the AR. So, in this case if it says 2.39 so be it, that's the data. Close may be good enough for you but to me it's IMDb, close only counts in Nukes and Hand grenades.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: January 1, 2009 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,087 |
| | Posted: | | | | Wikipedia to this "... anamorphic frame (actually 2.39:1) is described (rounded) as 2.40:1 or 2.40" So yes, it's 2.39 but I would also use 2.40 for this. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | The boxset I have coming I see listed as anamorphic widescreen... but it don't give a aspect ratio... since it says anamorphic is there a way to say what the aspect ratio is without measuring then? I never did understand aspect ratios!  | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting VirusPil: Quote:
Wikipedia to this
"... anamorphic frame (actually 2.39:1) is described (rounded) as 2.40:1 or 2.40"
So yes, it's 2.39 but I would also use 2.40 for this. Tell that to the ACTUAL data. Just keep dragging the online further into inaccuracy. The data says 2.39 it's NOT 2.40.  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
The boxset I have coming I see listed as anamorphic widescreen... but it don't give a aspect ratio... since it says anamorphic is there a way to say what the aspect ratio is without measuring then? I never did understand aspect ratios! Not really, Pete. What is the movie, MAYBE I can help. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Posts: 823 |
| | Posted: | | | | I can take a screenshot of any contribution and show its precise aspect ratio using Photoshop. The data is the data, there is only one correct answer, and I think it's a shame the program can't be used to document the REAL aspect ratio of titles for the online database for everyone to refer to. What is the point of rounding, it results in INCORRECT data. | | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | ROFLMAO, Grendell, I wouldn't trust your results, my results or anyone else's. You don't have to be off by much, stay with the INDUSTRY standards, not what you think. Just use a dartboard it will be as accurate. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: January 1, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,087 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Quoting VirusPil:
Quote:
Wikipedia to this
"... anamorphic frame (actually 2.39:1) is described (rounded) as 2.40:1 or 2.40"
So yes, it's 2.39 but I would also use 2.40 for this.
Tell that to the ACTUAL data. Just keep dragging the online further into inaccuracy. The data says 2.39 it's NOT 2.40. Just wanted to say if 2.4 doesn't exist but is normally used for 2.39, why not using it also in DVDP if the program gives us this as standard?  But personally nevermind! If I can see the big differences in the aspect ratios for me it's enough. (If it's 2.34 or 2.35 I can't see on the screen, perhaps even not the difference between 2.35 and 2.4  ) |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Posts: 823 |
| | Posted: | | | | Here's Phantasm letterbox. I zoomed in and found EXACTLY where the black pixels are and took a precise measurement using Irfanview and VLC Player, both free programs.  There is nothing inaccurate here, this is not an issue about "trust," as shown by the screenshot, the data is the data, it just is. 708 / 406 = 1.7438, or 1.74:1. Yet you are telling me I am supposed to enter this INCORRECTLY as 1.75, which is INCORRECT. I am sorry but that is totally and completely stupid. | | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." |
|
| Registered: February 10, 2008 | | Posts: 244 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
ROFLMAO, Grendell, I wouldn't trust your results, my results or anyone else's. You don't have to be off by much, stay with the INDUSTRY standards, not what you think. Just use a dartboard it will be as accurate. Problem then is, how to tell what industry standard is used... and if the movie on disc is still in this standard and not cropped in any way... you sure can't trust the cover printing... |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Grendell: Quote:
Here's Phantasm letterbox. I zoomed in and found EXACTLY where the black pixels are and took a precise measurement using Irfanview and VLC Player, both free programs.
There is nothing inaccurate here, this is not an issue about "trust," as shown by the screenshot, the data is the data, it just is.
708 / 406 = 1.7438, or 1.74:1. Yet you are telling me I am supposed to enter this INCORRECTLY as 1.75, which is INCORRECT.
I am sorry but that is totally and completely stupid. Nothing inaccurrate according to you, Grendell. If you are off by just a few pixels you get a completely different result. Follow the REAL data, don't try to convince me or anyone else that you are PERFECT, because I for one won't buy it. I am not perfect and i won't try and tell anyone i am. Forum Moderator: RemovedSkip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Forum Moderator |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | Many covers incorrectly(?) list 1.78:1 as 1.77:1. I always enter what's on the cover but I use 1.78:1 locally for consistency.
And if the cover says 2.21:1 I'm not going to dispute that and enter 2.20:1. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting MakoDeth: Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
ROFLMAO, Grendell, I wouldn't trust your results, my results or anyone else's. You don't have to be off by much, stay with the INDUSTRY standards, not what you think. Just use a dartboard it will be as accurate.
Problem then is, how to tell what industry standard is used... and if the movie on disc is still in this standard and not cropped in any way... you sure can't trust the cover printing... Mako: Terry listed all of the industry standards for AR except for the one I pointed out to him. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|