| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
Quoting Kulju:
Quote:
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? 
In dvdprofiler format x.xx : 1, the answer is 1.78 : 1 (the closest value in this format). You really needed the answer ????? Yes, because you wrote EXACT with capitals. 1.78:1 is far from exact and that was my point. You almost always have to round the number anyway and 2 pixels can make a differense between 2.39:1 and 2.40:1 so why bother? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting SpikyCactus: Quote:
The last line of pixels can sometimes be a bit faded (which RHo has given a nice example of above), but so far when I’ve done the relevant calculation using two slightly different figures to take this into account, it hasn’t been that critical in terms of selecting a ‘best-fit’ to the drop-down box options. There are also some DVDs that can be a bit more of a mess around the edges, but again on the few where this has been an issue, the range of measurement possibilities hasn’t caused a problem in terms of determining which ‘drop-down’ box choice to use. If it did I’d just go with what’s on the sleeve. Absolutely! But then I have seen users trying to change 1.85:1 into 1.78:1 only because their measurement has resulted to 1.81:1 which is so much closer to 1.78:1 even when the cover says 1.85:1 and there is clearly a small black border seen in the frame. And some minority even wants to enter 1.81:1 into the profile, since their exact measurement clearly shows that we have to deal with a non standard aspect ratio. |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 |  Posts: 823 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
And some minority even wants to enter 1.81:1 into the profile, since their exact measurement clearly shows that we have to deal with a non standard aspect ratio. But.... that's what it is. | | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Grendell: Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
And some minority even wants to enter 1.81:1 into the profile, since their exact measurement clearly shows that we have to deal with a non standard aspect ratio.
But.... that's what it is. Actually, their measurement is not as exact as they believe. See my previous post with the image. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
And some minority even wants to enter 1.81:1 into the profile, since their exact measurement clearly shows that we have to deal with a non standard aspect ratio. I thought 1.81:1 was only used in still photography. | | | 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 15, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting bigdaddyhorse: Quote:
I can never spot the diff in 2.35 to 2.4 even playing side by side If I remember my industry history correctly, that's because there is no difference between the 2 ratios. The ratio 2.35 was printed on the cover for DVDs (and videos) to take into account the overscan that a lot of TVs had at the time. Now that most TVs don't have overscan the more accurate 2.4 ratio is printed. |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Posts: 823 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Quoting bigdaddyhorse:
If I remember my industry history correctly, that's because there is no difference between the 2 ratios.
The ratio 2.35 was printed on the cover for DVDs (and videos) to take into account the overscan that a lot of TVs had at the time. Now that most TVs don't have overscan the more accurate 2.4 ratio is printed. Source for this info? Most TV's I see, even recent models, still have around 5% overscan. | | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Grendell: Quote:
Most TV's I see, even recent models, still have around 5% overscan. My new Panasonic (TC-P50S2) has 0 overscan. It's awesome!  | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here.
Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,436 |
| | Posted: | | | | Mine is definitely in the 5% range  I have never seen small black bars when watching a 1:85:1 ratio film  Otherwise totally satisfied with my Sharp though... | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Even in the cinema you can't see the full image. Usually it is masked to get sharper and steadier edges. | | | | Last edited: by RHo |
|