How does Warner Bros. get away with lying about the aspect ratio of almost every 1.85:1 movie they put on Blu-ray? The packaging says it's 1.85:1 however they are really 1.78:1. In case you can't tell, I am very annoyed by not seeing what the director and DoP wanted me to see and being lied to.

I have sent messages to them about this a couple times, but they never answer.   OK, rant over.

Covers are full of inaccuracies, not just with regard to aspect ratios, but also audio tracks, subtitles, running times, region coding etc. - which is why I try to make a point of verifying cover data before contributing.

And Gunnar's aspect ratio tool is very helpful! 

Probably not cropped, just opened up a bit.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
Covers are full of inaccuracies

Well, I don't think it's the inaccurate cover that bothers Marty, but the fact that these movies were indeed composed for 1.85:1 and thus have been cropped. (And yes - I used AspectGuide to measure them)

Well, he's talking about the packaging, isn't he? 

But you're right about the cropping/"opening up", too. In fact, there are two problems with what Warner is doing.

Hm, that doesn't quite seem to fit with "I am very annoyed by not seeing what the director and DoP wanted me to see". If they composed for 1.85:1 they obviously didn't want you to see 1.78:1. 

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Hm, that doesn't quite seem to fit... 

You misunderstand, first, I wish all movies were presented with the theatrical cropping and matting. But, if there is the lesser of 2 evils, opening up the frame is much less offensive to me. What I absolutely hate is the  cropping and downright lie that Warner Bros. presents by saying 1.85:1 on the cover and giving 1.78:1 on disc. That is nothing less than false advertising and that really, really, really, really offends me. I read packaging before I buy because of the times I was burned, mainly by MGM on DVD. When we got to Blu-ray, I thought it was over, but alas, it's not.  

I agree with everything you say. Technically there are two errors, though.

First of all, you have a notational error. You use colon where you should use point. For example, 1:78 would mean an image that is 78 times as high as it is wide. What you mean is 1.78:1, which means an image that is 1.78 times wider than it is high. Since it’s a convention to use 1 on the right side of the expression, sometimes this is dropped and one just uses 1.78. The meaning is still clear because of the context.

The other error is a bit more controversial. If I take the liberty of correcting your notation, what you say is that “2.4 is the same as 2.40”. Well, if this was mathematics, that would be quite true. In a digital sense 2.4 and 2.40 is the same thing.

But when it comes to physical measures we are talking analog, and then they are not the same. They have different precision. 2.4 means anything between 2.35 and 2.45 (a span of one tenth), while 2.40 means anything between 2.395 and 2.405 (a span of one hundredth).

I think that Warners are probably just as confused about this as many Profiler users, and that they actually mean 2.40. So if you can measure the ratio and verify that it is indeed within the 2.40 span, you should enter that in the contribution notes. Not that I think that it would make much difference, unfortunately.

Thus endeth the lesson for today. But please note that these are all technicalities. Like I said, I agree with you.

Quoting iPatsa:

Quote:
Modern scope films are shot in 2.39:1. 2.4:1 is a correct mathematical approximation of this, unlike 2.40:1.

Sure, if you'r satisfied with an approximation down to one decimal. If it's 2.39:1, why not enter it as such?