| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,667 |
| | Posted: | | | | I was refering to what's entered in the contribution. We should use actual aspect ration, not what the company puts on the back cover. So it shouldn't matter if the print 2.4 or 2.40 if it's actually 2.39 as you say. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,493 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
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.
exactly ... my fingers and thought process mismatched ... | | | 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: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
I was refering to what's entered in the contribution. We should use actual aspect ration, not what the company puts on the back cover. So it shouldn't matter if the print 2.4 or 2.40 if it's actually 2.39 as you say. Maybe but I would never change and contribute 2.40 to 2.39 just for the sake of it. First nobody is going to notice a difference and secondly I don´t trust anyone who claim they can measure the difference with an accuracy of .01. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,746 |
| | Posted: | | | | It isn't a question of what you notice, it's a question of what it is. Me, I like accurate information, not just close. | | | | Marty - Registered July 10, 2004, User since 2002. |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,637 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting iPatsa: Quote:
Maybe but I would never change and contribute 2.40 to 2.39 just for the sake of it. First nobody is going to notice a difference and secondly I don´t trust anyone who claim they can measure the difference with an accuracy of .01. It's a simple matter of pixels, which is a fixed amount, either it has picture (color; 1) or it doesn't (0). |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | You're welcome to submit the data if you think it is essential. And I'll continue to ignore it and I'm sure as hell not going to start counting pixels. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mreeder50: Quote:
I am very annoyed by not seeing what the director and DoP wanted me to see and being lied to. We never see the entire frame of film at the theater or on home video anyway, so I don't think very many directors or DoP would get "annoyed" over the difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1, and I think the number of people complaining to WB about the "lies" on their packaging can be counted on the fingers of one hand. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mreeder50: Quote:
It isn't a question of what you notice, it's a question of what it is. Me, I like accurate information, not just close. I'm surprised not knowing the running times down to the exact frame count doesn't keep you up nights. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,746 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting mreeder50:
Quote:
I am very annoyed by not seeing what the director and DoP wanted me to see and being lied to.
We never see the entire frame of film at the theater or on home video anyway, so I don't think very many directors or DoP would get "annoyed" over the difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1, and I think the number of people complaining to WB about the "lies" on their packaging can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
--------------- Yes, but we see what they wanted us to see after editing or while they were shooting with rectangles on the view finder. | | | | Marty - Registered July 10, 2004, User since 2002. |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mreeder50: Quote:
Yes, but we see what they wanted us to see after editing or while they were shooting with rectangles on the view finder. The 3% difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 is a triviality most people can happily ignore. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,746 |
| | Posted: | | | | And just how is it that you know what most people want, you're too busy trying to get me going. There, I hope you're happy, you drew me in.   | | | | Marty - Registered July 10, 2004, User since 2002. |
|
| Registered: June 29, 2007 | | Posts: 17 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
...difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 is a triviality most people can happily ignore. A triviality with or without black bars... so very easy to identify. And how can you know what "most people" want? We have also here people who love movies... |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting drouvre: Quote:
And how can you know what "most people" want? You're right. I don't know how I missed the news about the riots and executions at WB over this issue. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,637 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting iPatsa: Quote:
You're welcome to submit the data if you think it is essential. And I'll continue to ignore it and I'm sure as hell not going to start counting pixels. You don't have to count pixels but at the end of the end how do you know what the aspect ratio is unless you measure it? Anything else is simply a guess and is a flawed assessment. GIGO. |
|