Personally, I let that depend on how big the devation to the closest standard ratio is. If it's just a few pixels, I'll round up or down to the nearest standard - heaven forbid I need to start tracking which films really are 1.83:1 or 1.84:1 instead of 1.85:1... But for the odd one out with a really significant deviation, I might be inclined to enter the exact ratio.

Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
The adjustment or type of the screen can always influence the ratio a little bit, so imo the closest standard ratio should be used.

I'd be inclined to think this way also. How could you develop confidence that after all the codecs and other processing in your home equipment, that you can measure something that is more "accurate" than what is claimed? I guess you could calibate with a reference standard video? I don't make many contributions, but the technical aspects of this are interesting.

I agree with T!M.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
I don't think there are many special film types that have a special ratio.

It's rare alright, but there are exceptions to every rule. This one (UPC 014381499957) is 2.00:1, for instance. Now I wouldn't round that down to 1.85:1 or up to 2.20:1. Again, give or take a few pixels, I'm all in favour of using the closest standard aspect ratio. But there are cases, such as this one, where I feel it's more appropriate to enter the actual aspect ratio.

I never said there is no possibility that this can happen. Like you say: exceptions to every rule.
This is one of the cases where the standard ratios are not this close, but where draw the line? (I also wouldn't round up or down in this case)

Btw, i think Caligula was filmed absolutely untypical, not just the ratio, also the speed is nothing standard, but that's not the matter of this thread. 

Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
The type of camera lens would reflect on the true aspect ratio., Keeping in mind that the true aspect ratio
for Apocalypse Now is and always has been 2.00:1, and

Oh, that's not true.  Storaro has become a notorious liar about such things in his quixotic quest to make everything 2.00:1----when it CLEARLY wasn't.  Just look at the butcher job he did on Tucker; there are cases where speaking people are hacked in two by the pan & scan he did on the DVD to make it conform to his imagined standard of 2.00:1 and he still insists that it was always meant to be seen that way.  A lot of directors seem to go along with the joke because he's a great cinematographer, but he's very obviously lost his marbles on this point.

So do I.

I believe Caligula Aspect ratio is 1.95:1 ,, in the middle of both Tim's examples.

Quoting The Movieman:

Quote:
So this has cropped up (so to speak). There's a submission changing the aspect ratio from 2.35 to 2.36. Has there been an official ruling on this from Ken? I find these minuscule changes to be unnecessary but not sure what kind of consensus there was (if any).

This is in regards to one of my submissions (Session 9 Blu-ray).  I realize people may have different opinions but the way I viewed it, accurate information should be submitted; not pseudo-accurate information.  I don't see how this is any different than anything else we contribute such as replicating typos in the overview and cast/crew or the DVD title which may be different from the actual film title.