|
It is currently 13 May 2024, 07:47
|
View unsolved topics | View unanswered posts
|
|
|
|
laserfanhld-gb
|
Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD Posted: 07 Dec 2021, 09:37 |
Advanced fan |
|
|
Joined: 28 Jun 2019, 18:26 Posts: 571 Location: UK Has thanked: 258 times Been thanked: 237 times
|
chente wrote: I think it’s pretty good, but not up to the level of something like Stargate. Thanks! Actually since posting and having taken the time to read back through the full thread I noticed that you had already answered my question several years back so apologies for my laziness here
_________________ Pioneer HLD-X9/CLD-925/CLD-2950 OPPO BDP-105D EU ARCAM AVR-600 JVC DLA-X7000BE Lumagen Radiance 2144
|
|
|
|
|
lons_vex
|
Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD Posted: 05 Mar 2022, 23:50 |
Advanced fan |
|
|
Joined: 03 Oct 2003, 10:06 Posts: 729 Location: at home :p Has thanked: 59 times Been thanked: 62 times
|
confederate wrote: Does PAL+ genuinely equal = anamorphic widescreen ( squeeze LD ) ?
I have two titles in my collection ( Showgirls in German and the documentary Microcosmos ). Microcosmos looks fantastic for a PAL LD however both titles are not anamorphic. Where does this idea come from that all PAL+ content = anamorphic widescreen ? However the lddb database says that they are squeeze titles but they are not. Can anybody confirm ? This is just a guess but... I'm not entirely sure how PAL+ worked, but I think your display needs to support it, or you need an external PAL+ Decoder to make it work. A really long time ago a friend had a 16:9 GRUNDIG crt that could do this, but we never had a PAL+ LD so dunno how that was supposed to look.
|
|
|
|
|
drecksoft
|
Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD Posted: 06 Jun 2022, 18:50 |
Honest fan |
|
|
Joined: 13 Oct 2018, 12:06 Posts: 76 Location: Germany Has thanked: 4 times Been thanked: 10 times
|
confederate wrote: Does PAL+ genuinely equal = anamorphic widescreen ( squeeze LD ) ?
I have two titles in my collection ( Showgirls in German and the documentary Microcosmos ). Microcosmos looks fantastic for a PAL LD however both titles are not anamorphic. Where does this idea come from that all PAL+ content = anamorphic widescreen ? However the lddb database says that they are squeeze titles but they are not. Can anybody confirm ? There is no recent TV with PAL+ support. So you will need an external decoder.
|
|
|
|
|
tcmullet
|
Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD Posted: 02 Jun 2023, 17:17 |
Knows how to post |
|
|
Joined: 02 Jun 2023, 15:55 Posts: 8 Location: United States Has thanked: 1 time Been thanked: 0 time
|
remington wrote: Aliens (1998) says the ratio is 1:85 but it does not fill the screen. It leaves bars on the top and bottom
Remington, I haven't even read the whole thread yet, but have to interrupt my reading to respond. You're not thinking straight. Of COURSE it doesn't fill the whole screen. Widescreen isn't ONE aspect ratio, but ANY aspect ratio larger than 4:3 (1.3333)* 16 x 9 (1.777) was decided as the best ratio for high def television. Could have been smaller or larger. So when you have a 1:85 ratio, that's GREATER than 1.777 (16 x 9), therefore it DOES fill up the screen SOME, but not completely. To do that it has to be exactly 1.777. There are 2.5 to 1, there are 3 to 1, etc. The goal is to keep the aspect ratio of the original film and have as little black area added. You have tunnel vision, apparently not grasping that this is a RELATIVE thing. In Aliens the screen is MORE filled, but because it's at that higher ratio, it has to leave SMALL (short) bars without cropping the sides. I hope you understand. This idea of squeeze is fascinating and I'm trying to find out which of my titles have it (on more than the credits/title) so that in post production of my captures, I can get a MORE DETAILED PICTURE! SO sad the whole industry couldn't do that as no one had PCs powerful enough to do this at the time. ----------------- * I have to choke a little bit whenever I see "4:3". I can't prove this, but I believe it's really 652x480, not 640x480. Maybe 655. But I can no longer prove this.
|
|
|
|
|
signofzeta
|
Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD Posted: 02 Jul 2023, 13:30 |
Jedi Knight |
|
|
Joined: 14 Jan 2010, 09:44 Posts: 6010 Location: Ann Arbor Has thanked: 1307 times Been thanked: 1118 times
|
Ratios are ratios. They were set in stone by makers of cameras and editing hardware. There is no pixel by pixel definition of 4:3, 16:9, 2.35:1, etc as they predate any digital video by decades. It’s basically the shape of the film, the shape of the matte, etc.
As for Squeeze, there are very very very few Squeeze LDs. I’m pretty sure none of them are worth spending any time capturing since they are going all be huge Hollywood productions with good 1080p or even maybe 4K Blu-ray release. Nobody needs to go through extra effort to watch an inferior version of Grumpy Old Men or Showgirls.
_________________ All about LD care, inner sleeves, shrink wrap, etc.
https://youtu.be/b3O-vHpHRpM
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD Posted: 03 Jul 2023, 03:48 |
Site Admin |
|
|
Joined: 07 Aug 2002, 23:37 Posts: 4569 Location: Tokyo Has thanked: 299 times Been thanked: 1166 times
|
tcmullet wrote: * I have to choke a little bit whenever I see "4:3". I can't prove this, but I believe it's really 652x480, not 640x480. Maybe 655. But I can no longer prove this. No, it's really 1.33:1 (4/3) ratio, pixels were invented WAAAAY later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_ratioInitially 1.37:1 for silent movies, then reduced to 1.33:1 to add the sound track. Julien
_________________ HARDWARE DATABASE HLD-X0/9 LD-S9 OPPO 105/205 SL-1200G LDD-1 MSC-4000 R2144 PONTUS II C45 MC257
|
|
|
|
|
rein-o
|
Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD Posted: 03 Jul 2023, 15:34 |
Jedi Master |
|
|
Joined: 03 May 2004, 19:05 Posts: 8119 Location: Dullaware Has thanked: 1228 times Been thanked: 851 times
|
admin wrote: tcmullet wrote: * I have to choke a little bit whenever I see "4:3". I can't prove this, but I believe it's really 652x480, not 640x480. Maybe 655. But I can no longer prove this. No, it's really 1.33:1 (4/3) ratio, pixels were invented WAAAAY later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_ratioInitially 1.37:1 for silent movies, then reduced to 1.33:1 to add the sound track. Julien This one had a 1.20, I know there are others but just remember this one off the top of my head. Sunrise, a Song of Two Humans (1927) [0876280]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|