Quoting JTh:

Quote:
The most common used aspect ration for movies between 1932 and 1953 is missing, which is 1:37:1.

You can always enter the AR manually, and if memory serve that is perfectly okay. If the picture on the disc really is 1.37:1 I would enter it as such.

cya, Mithi

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting JTh:

Quote:
what about 2:59:1 and 2:76:1, although they were rarely used....

They are never used.

According to Wikipedia:

2.59:1 (~13:5): Cinerama at full height (three specially captured 35 mm images projected side-by-side into one composite widescreen image).

2.76:1 (~11:4): Ultra Panavision 70 (65 mm with 1.25× anamorphic squeeze). Used only on a handful of films between 1962 and 1966, for some sequences of How the West Was Won (1962) with a slight crop when converted to three strip Cinerama, and films such as It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963) and Battle of the Bulge (1965).


So, they "are" never used, but they were. Anyway, Mithi's point still stands and the quantity of movies these apply to may be too small to warrant their own drop-down entry...

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting ya_shin:

Quote:
So, they "are" never used, but they were.

JTh didn't mention 2.59:1 or 2.76:1.

---------------

He mentioned both....  Am I missing something?  Or are you just being obtuse in regards of using a : instead of a .?

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:

Also consider that people measuring screen ratios with computer software are measuring pixels, not film ratios.

---------------

If done correctly, there's no difference.

Quoting DoubleDownAgain:

Quote:
Am I missing something?

No, you saw the same thing I did.  Was that ratio supposed to be 2:59.1 or 2.59:1?


Quoting mreeder50:

Quote:
Just curious, is that supposed to mean it's inaccurate and if so, how?

Pixel counting is like splitting hairs and is beyond trivial, but as with most neuroses this one is harmless.

---------------