Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Yea, the choices seem to be one and the same.

Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played.

Quoting bbbbb:

Quote:
Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played.

It's not confusing.  "While the film is playing" strictly includes content within the film, and "when the film is played" may include additional content succeeding the film.

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

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting bbbbb:

Quote:
Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played.

It's not confusing.  "While the film is playing" strictly includes content within the film, and "when the film is played" may include additional content succeeding the film.

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

Additional content, such as trailers before the menu, does not add to the film or TV show's running time.

Easiest way to tell is wait until the film starts and press the 'display' (or equivalent, such as time/text) button on your remote or a program like VLC on your computer. That tells you the running time.

I don't know if bbbbb is deliberately obtuse, but I sense there may be a relevant question in the original post.

The commonly accepted method to determine runtime is to check the encoded length of the main track.
However, this can include extra added info such as restoration credits, dubbing credit or whatever. This makes the encoded runtime longer than the actual runtime for the movie. So I think bbbbb is asking if we should check the time when the actual movie ends instead of relying on the encoded time.

To make matters even more confusing, the main track can include logos for the media companies added before the actual movie.

The runtime for the movie itself can be interesting for checking if the movie is uncut or not. However, while the encoded length of the main track is objectively exact, any timing of the actual movie will be subjective. You cannot always be sure what is part of the movie and what is not. And since we have always used the encoded length, any attempt to change this convention would result in confusion.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
I don't know if bbbbb is deliberately obtuse, but I sense there may be a relevant question in the original post.

The commonly accepted method to determine runtime is to check the encoded length of the main track.
However, this can include extra added info such as restoration credits, dubbing credit or whatever. This makes the encoded runtime longer than the actual runtime for the movie. So I think bbbbb is asking if we should check the time when the actual movie ends instead of relying on the encoded time.

To make matters even more confusing, the main track can include logos for the media companies added before the actual movie.

The runtime for the movie itself can be interesting for checking if the movie is uncut or not. However, while the encoded length of the main track is objectively exact, any timing of the actual movie will be subjective. You cannot always be sure what is part of the movie and what is not. And since we have always used the encoded length, any attempt to change this convention would result in confusion.

I may have been overly harsh with the wording but, as you alluded to, anyI may have been overly harsh with the term but, as you alluded to, if we were to add on or subtract such things as studio/media company logos at special thanks on such things as crowd funded releases, then there is likely to be a lot of confusion or disagreement.

Different runtimes can include PAL speedup, which can make a European DVD shorter (and potentially cut) compared to its NTSC counterparts, so I would rather the rules stay as they are, representing the encoded time. If a film is spread over a couple of discs or different sides, such as on a flipper, then the two can be added and still represent the same thing as is a current contribution rules.

Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
I don't know if bbbbb is deliberately obtuse

He is. Otherwise he'd just take a minute and actually explain what he wants to know.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who wishes there was more information in the initial post, or more thoroughly answered in subsequent posts when questions have been posed.