| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | edit | | | | Last edited: by lyonsden5 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
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.
Skip I'm  How can rounding up to the closest industry standard be using REAL data?!? Isn't using what is actually there the "real data? Rounding up would be "close enough" data, but not real.  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,491 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Terry listed all of the industry standards for AR except for the one I pointed out to him.
Skip actualy I did miss one .. 1.19:1 for some/the early Chaplin films and other early films from pre 1930 .. | | | 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 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,491 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lyonsden5: Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
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.
Skip
I'm
How can rounding up to the closest industry standard be using REAL data?!? Isn't using what is actually there the "real data? Rounding up would be "close enough" data, but not real. Don't forget we are DVD profiler not movie profiler.., so the manufacturing and transferring of these films to digital DVD can take on new aspect ratio's for 'some' titles but not all . | | | 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 | | | | Last edited: by widescreenforever |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting widescreenforever: Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
Terry listed all of the industry standards for AR except for the one I pointed out to him.
Skip
actualy I did miss one .. 1.19:1 for some/the early Chaplin films and other early films from pre 1930 .. Yeow  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
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. It is a cheap 12 movie boxset of '70s and '80s comedies...  Too Cool for SchoolThis was in one of the reviews... actually from one of the members here!  The Beach Girls - anamorphic widescreen - 91 minutes Cavegirl - anamorphic widescreen - 81 minutes Coach - anamorphic widescreen - 96 minutes Hunk - anamorphic widescreen - 102 minutes Jocks - anamorphic widescreen - 91 minutes Malibu Beach - anamorphic widescreen - 90 minutes My Chauffeur - fullframe - 97 minutes My Tutor - anamorphic widescreen - 97 minutes The Pom Pom Girls - anamorphic widescreen - 85 minutes Tomboy - anamorphic widescreen - 90 minutes The Van - fullframe - 89 minutes Weekend Pass - anamorphic widescreen - 89 minutes | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: February 10, 2008 |  Posts: 244 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
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 I read that... and of course the industry standards should be used if possible... The point I was trying to make is, you can't say if the somewhere (cover, imdb or other movie-sites) given data is correct on a specific release without measuring yourself. I got some covers saying 1.85:1 but measuring on screen shows it's 1.78:1, same for 2.40 and 2.35 and vice versa... usually I measure on various time marks of the movie to verify the change... But how is a user to know if it's 2.39:1 or 2.40:1? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,491 |
| | Posted: | | | | I can almost guarantee there are all 16 x9 ( 1.78 ) except of course for My Chauffeur
Most of them I looked at seems to be 'technical specs' of 35 mm .. sounds like 1.85 to me .. | | | 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 | | | | Last edited: by widescreenforever |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting widescreenforever: Quote:
Don't forget we are DVD profiler not movie profiler.., so the manufacturing and transferring of these films to digital DVD can take on new aspect ratio's for 'some' titles but not all . I understand that 100% What I don't understand is how rounding anything is real data. It's not... it's rounded off data. I don't care one way or another and am OK with rounding it off but you can't argue the point by saying to use the actual, real data... it doesn't make sense, even in DVD Profiler land |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,491 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting MakoDeth: Quote:
I got some covers saying 1.85:1 but measuring on screen shows it's 1.78:1, same for 2.40 and 2.35 and vice versa... usually I measure on various time marks of the movie to verify the change...
The artwork is taking the on screen movie house film strip aspect ratio .. The DVD is most often differant when it comes to this tight area of 1:66 to 1:85 is anamorphically rounded out to 16 x 9 which divided is 1.7777777777777777777777777777778 | | | 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 | | | | Last edited: by widescreenforever |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,946 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lyonsden5: Quote:
Quoting widescreenforever:
Quote:
Don't forget we are DVD profiler not movie profiler.., so the manufacturing and transferring of these films to digital DVD can take on new aspect ratio's for 'some' titles but not all .
I understand that 100% What I don't understand is how rounding anything is real data. It's not... it's rounded off data.
I don't care one way or another and am OK with rounding it off but you can't argue the point by saying to use the actual, real data... it doesn't make sense, even in DVD Profiler land Yes, but missing one or two pixels either horizontally, or vertically will give you something like 1.82 in stead of 1.85, so how can you be sure you haven't missed a pixel. In this case rounding of to the nearest official standard is not entering false data, it's compensating for wrong measurements. | | | View my collection at http://www.chriskepolis.be/home/dvd.htm
Chris |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting cvermeylen: Quote:
Yes, but missing one or two pixels either horizontally, or vertically will give you something like 1.82 in stead of 1.85, so how can you be sure you haven't missed a pixel. In this case rounding of to the nearest official standard is not entering false data, it's compensating for wrong measurements. And that is a very compelling argument as to why we should always round to the nearest standard. You can't say 'We only use real data... rounded off' But as you say 'To compensate for any errors in measuring we use the closest standard to whatever your measurements are' works.  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting MakoDeth: Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
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
I read that... and of course the industry standards should be used if possible...
The point I was trying to make is, you can't say if the somewhere (cover, imdb or other movie-sites) given data is correct on a specific release without measuring yourself.
I got some covers saying 1.85:1 but measuring on screen shows it's 1.78:1, same for 2.40 and 2.35 and vice versa... usually I measure on various time marks of the movie to verify the change...
But how is a user to know if it's 2.39:1 or 2.40:1? Mako: While sometimes what you say is true, it's not all thast often and it's going to be something really obvious, like the cover says 2.35 and the picture is actually a 1.85 or 1.78, this happens.You are not going to be able to distinguish between 2.39 and 2.40, I doubt seriously if you could distinguish between 2.35 and 2.40. So, in such cases simply follow the data. This is not hard to do or understand. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting widescreenforever: Quote:
I can almost guarantee there are all 16 x9 ( 1.78 ) except of course for My Chauffeur
Most of them I looked at seems to be 'technical specs' of 35 mm .. sounds like 1.85 to me .. I agree. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Quoting widescreenforever:
Quote:
I can almost guarantee there are all 16 x9 ( 1.78 ) except of course for My Chauffeur
Most of them I looked at seems to be 'technical specs' of 35 mm .. sounds like 1.85 to me ..
I agree. OK... sorry I am a little confused. Does that mean (other then the couple that are Full Framed) they should be 1.78 or 1.85? | | | | Pete |
|