It is currently 28 Mar 2024, 11:56




 Page 7 of 7 [ 129 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2021, 20:32 
True fan
True fan
User avatar

Joined: 07 Jan 2005, 00:46
Posts: 334
Location: San Diego, CA United States
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 2 times
I think it’s pretty good, but not up to the level of something like Stargate.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2021, 09:37 
Advanced fan
Advanced fan
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2019, 18:26
Posts: 561
Location: UK
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 232 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 :oops:
_________________
Pioneer HLD-X9/CLD-925/CLD-2950
OPPO BDP-105D EU
ARCAM AVR-600
JVC DLA-X7000BE
Lumagen Radiance 2144
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD
PostPosted: 05 Mar 2022, 14:51 
Advanced fan
Advanced fan
User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2013, 02:37
Posts: 722
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 58 times
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 ?
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD
PostPosted: 05 Mar 2022, 23:50 
Advanced fan
Advanced fan
User avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2003, 10:06
Posts: 726
Location: at home :p
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 59 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.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2022, 18:50 
Honest fan
Honest fan
User avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2018, 12:06
Posts: 75
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.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2023, 17:17 
Knows how to post
Knows how to post
User avatar

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.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2023, 13:30 
Jedi Knight
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 2010, 09:44
Posts: 5968
Location: Ann Arbor
Has thanked: 1273 times
Been thanked: 1089 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
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD
PostPosted: 03 Jul 2023, 03:48 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 07 Aug 2002, 23:37
Posts: 4540
Location: Tokyo
Has thanked: 292 times
Been thanked: 1136 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_ratio

Initially 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
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squeeze LD
PostPosted: 03 Jul 2023, 15:34 
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 03 May 2004, 19:05
Posts: 8093
Location: Dullaware
Has thanked: 1218 times
Been thanked: 841 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_ratio

Initially 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]
Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 7 of 7 [ 129 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


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

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron