**My question as an introduction:**
When a LaserDisc is marketed as a X format release (stated on the cover and/or the current LDDB entry) but the actual video transfer on the disc is a hybrid master measuring a Y real format, what is the best practice for updating the database?
Should we modify the main "Aspect Ratio" field to the closest standard value, or should we leave the theoretical ratio from the cover intact and document the actual measured ratio in the open "Comments" section?

**Here is my case study and my measurement methodology:**
While configuring my RetroTink 4K to optimize my LaserDisc setup, I noticed striking framing discrepancies for some movies between real and LDDB/cover's info. When comparing a transfer that strictly respects the 2.35:1 ratio with the PAL release of "Crocodile Dundee" movie (LDDB ref 510535), my 2.35:1 profiles no longer lined up. The image for "Crocodile Dundee" turned out to be much taller, shrinking the black bars compared to a theoretical Cinemascope format.
To eliminate any potential bias from my hardware chain, I applied a strict measurement protocol on a still frame, making sure to display the blanking lines at the top and bottom to expose the entirety of the native analog signal:

1. **Container Validation (4:3):** The dimensions recorded across the full displayed signal are 108cm (width) x 80.5cm (height). The resulting geometric ratio 108/80.5 approx 1.34 validates the perfect consistency of the 4:3 container and confirms that no distortion is being introduced by my video chain.
2. **Active Area Measurement:** Inside this validated frame, the vertical transition between the movie and the black bars is perfectly sharp, measuring 50.8cm in height. On the horizontal axis, measuring up to the physical edge of the image (including the signal transition zone on the lateral flanks), the total width is 104cm. Calculating the internal ratio 104/50.8 mathematically confirms an actual presentation of 2.05:1.

**Assumptions and Technical Interpretations:**
We can assume that we are dealing here with a common practice among transfer laboratories of that era. To avoid letterbox bars that were deemed too thick for household 4:3 televisions, the telecine technician likely opted for a hybrid compromise close to the 2.00:1 *Univisium* format. It appears that the top and bottom mattes were opened up while the sides were discreetly cropped, resulting in this intermediate format of 2.05:1, shifting away from the 2.35:1 announced on the entry for the movie here, "Crocodile Dundee" ref 510535.

**Conclusions and Database Evolution Suggestions:**
With the rise of modern scalers like the RetroTINK-4K, Lumagen, or MadVR, knowing the ratio that is actually encoded on the analog matrix has become a useful, if not essential, piece of technical information for our community—since a zoom profile calibrated for a true 2.35:1 will distort or crop a 2.05:1 image.

However, beyond just hardware calibration, this information takes on a whole new meaning from a collector and amateur archivist perspective. LaserDisc is a historical medium: documenting the actual ratio allows us to track, identify, and map out the various vintage transfer variations (such as hybrid masters or alternative *Open Matte* versions). For anyone interested in film preservation and physical media history, this empirical data is far more relevant and valuable than simply echoing the theoretical specs printed on the cover.

In the meantime, how does the moderation team prefer I handle this discrepancy for this specific entry, and what are your thoughts on introducing this type of granularity to improve the database's accuracy?

Thanks for your insights and feedback!

…most people just put the movie in and play it.

The idea that now because scalers exist this information is “essential” is a massive leap of logic. I speak only for myself…I will not allow others to ruin movies for me. What you’re doing turns fun into work.

“LaserDisc is a historical medium: documenting the actual ratio allows us to track, identify, and map out the various vintage transfer variations (such as hybrid masters or alternative *Open Matte* versions).” is a totally circular logic. It’s not really relevant in 2026 that a specific movie was released 40 years prior in multiple wrong ratios on super lossy format that nobody makes players for anymore. This is like collecting every single Coke can of the 1980s. It’s great if Coke cans of the 1980s are your favorite thing but useless to everyone who just likes Coke. “It’s historical because it can be documented and since it can be documented it MUST be documented”…I don’t go for it.

“How many times did they get Crocodile Dundee wrong before they got it right?” Is that really into anyone needs?

Having an accurate ratio listed in LDDB would be better than not having it, yes, but you’re probably the only person on earth excited about the project. Not very many people are going to measure what’s on their TV with a ruler.

Hi Signofzeta,

I completely understand your point of view, and it is clear that I poorly framed my initial idea by focusing too much on the technicalities of scalers and mesurments. That is undoubtedly a professional habit coming from my Engineering and IT background.

The goal here is not to turn the enjoyment of watching movies into chores, but rather to accept that we do not all share the same expectations when it comes to the LaserDisc medium.

You used a Coca-Cola analogy, and it is a very accurate one. For the general public who simply wants to "consume the movie," LaserDisc makes zero technical sense today. Modern formats (4K Blu-ray, streaming) offer audio and video quality that is lightyears ahead of what an analog LD could ever produce. Those who just want the "taste of Coke" will buy the modern, cleaned-up, and restored versions without worrying about the old recipe.

In my view, LaserDisc holds true value today primarily for what makes it unique and impossible to find elsewhere: movies that were never re-released (lost rights, destroyed masters), uncensored theatrical cuts, or original mixes that were altered on subsequent modern formats. Crocodile Dundee was merely a technical case study to illustrate an anomaly, not the core of my preservation interest.

Some enthusiasts believe that watching an old movie must be done on a period-accurate CRT television. I do not experience Home Cinema that way, but I am not going to tell them that they are "the only person on Earth" doing it or that they are ruining their own fun. On a planet of 9 billion people, it is a good thing that our approaches differ.

This is precisely where the accuracy of a database like LDDb comes into play. If we follow your analogy, the consumer who just wants to "drink their Coke" without worrying about the authenticity of the version, the aspect ratio (4:3, letterbox, etc.), or censorship cuts does not really need a highly detailed database; a simple alphabetical list would suffice. On the other hand, for those with a collector or amateur archivist mindset, data accuracy is the very foundation of a database's integrity. And the guarantor of a successful search.

I never suggested that the community should go through the entire database with a ruler to fix every entry. I was simply suggesting that when a user notices and measures a blatant discrepancy between the jacket and the disc, they should be able to log it cleanly. Coming from the Discogs ecosystem (the equivalent database for vinyl records), I am just noticing that LDDb lacks that level of descriptive rigor, which I find unfortunate for the historical preservation of the medium.

Adding additional fields seemed like a clean, visual solution to allow everyone to find what they need, without forcing a technical perspective onto those who just want to enjoy the movie. Let’s remain courteous and accept that our ways of consuming and archiving this medium are different, yet complementary.

I think adding notes to specific release versions (as is already done) is fine. People who truly want to find 2.39:1 versus 2.35:1 versions of movies, as an example, will certainly read "all of the fine print" for every version on every format they find. More-casual collectors or viewers will likely be happy enough with "widescreen" compared to "pan and scan", or similar.

Adding a database field for fine distinctions like this would, right from the start, cause a big problem: How do you "fill in" the information, after the fact, for the tens of thousands of movies in the database? (Do you leave it blank until "updated", or copy the existing aspect-ratio data until "updated"? Either way, 99% or 99.9% of listings would be either inaccurate or incomplete for a long time.)

I just looked up the USA version of "Ghostbusters 2", the one movie I had that I know was done wrong. Sure enough, the exact details are in the listing already, in the Notes area.

Thank you for this very insightful feedback.
Looking at it from that perspective, you are completely right: adding a dedicated database field could be counterproductive for the tens of thousands of existing entries. It would leave too many listings blank, or worse, it might confuse less-technical users into filling it with random or inaccurate values out of misunderstanding.

​I will follow your advice and trust your experience with the platform: I will log my measurements and findings directly into the 'Notes' section of the relevant entries. This is definitely the best compromise to keep this information available for archivers and collector users without cluttering or breaking the site's structure.