LaserDisc Database
https://forum.lddb.com/

Squeeze LD
https://forum.lddb.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=153		 Page 7 of 7
Author:  chente [ 06 Dec 2021, 20:32 ]
Post subject:  Re: Squeeze LD
I think it’s pretty good, but not up to the level of something like Stargate.
Author:  laserfanhld-gb [ 07 Dec 2021, 09:37 ]
Post subject:  Re: Squeeze LD
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:
Author:  confederate [ 05 Mar 2022, 14:51 ]
Post subject:  Re: Squeeze LD
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 ?
Author:  lons_vex [ 05 Mar 2022, 23:50 ]
Post subject:  Re: Squeeze LD
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.
Author:  drecksoft [ 06 Jun 2022, 18:50 ]
Post subject:  Re: Squeeze LD
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.
Author:  tcmullet [ 02 Jun 2023, 17:17 ]
Post subject:  Re: Squeeze LD
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.
Author:  signofzeta [ 02 Jul 2023, 13:30 ]
Post subject:  Re: Squeeze LD
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.
Author:  admin [ 03 Jul 2023, 03:48 ]
Post subject:  Re: Squeeze LD
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
Author:  rein-o [ 03 Jul 2023, 15:34 ]
Post subject:  Re: Squeeze LD
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]
Page 7 of 7 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/