Member falkor Posted June 27, 2008 Member Share Posted June 27, 2008 With the advent of Widescreen televisions I noticed that Flash Legs Rare has put a lot of effort into enhancing many of their fullscreen sources over the years to perhaps make them more compatible (example below). 1) Fullscreen original from my collection 2) Widescreen version from Flash Legs Rare Which style do you prefer--1 or 2? Also, please state which type of TV you currently own. BTW, I got the FLK version in a trade, since it's not currently possible to order any movies from their site, but you can still visit for information purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member SamuraiDana Posted June 27, 2008 Member Share Posted June 27, 2008 Example 1 looks squeezed and Example 2 looks unsqueezed. There's virtually no difference in the amount of picture information in the two. Example 1 is a bit sharper; Example 2 looks softer and washed out. This reminds me that when I first bought a bootleg VHS copy of 8 DIAGRAM POLE FIGHTER, I was told it was letter-boxed. Which it was, sort of. Except that when I upgraded to a retitled INVINCIBLE POLE FIGHTER Crash Cinema edition, which was full-screen, I compared the two images and found that my first copy was "letter-boxed" only because they cropped the top and bottom of the full-screen picture! Fortunately, my Celestial/IVL Region 3 DVD restores the picture to its proper aspect ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member spannick Posted June 27, 2008 Member Share Posted June 27, 2008 i prefer this one for the Movie in question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Killer Meteor Posted June 27, 2008 Member Share Posted June 27, 2008 Widescreen only when the source is widescreen. I don't want squished images Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member HAZ Posted June 27, 2008 Member Share Posted June 27, 2008 The quality of pic # 1 is better in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member spannick Posted June 27, 2008 Member Share Posted June 27, 2008 Picture 1 is the Original Ocean shores second Video Master. Picture 2 is a slighty squished windowboxed Version of that Master. why anyone would want that is beyond me. you'll have black bars on the Sides anyway, as there's not enough Picture information in it to be 16:9 Fullscreen. my Shot is from the first Ocean Shores Master, 16:9 and letterboxed at 1.78, meaning it has the full 2.35 Image. as there was no timecode given, i could not post a Shot of the Scene to compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member HAZ Posted June 27, 2008 Member Share Posted June 27, 2008 Spannick's looks right & better than the FLK version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member 5 Element Boxer Posted June 28, 2008 Member Share Posted June 28, 2008 Letterbox is always welcomed and preferred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markgway Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Spannick's>>>Falkor's>>>Flashlegs' Obviously original aspect ratio widescreen is best, then OAR letterboxed, then cropped wide or LTBX, then fullframe (if that's all there is). Under no circumstances is squashed/squeezed wide/LTBX acceptable. The FLK version is thus worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member niro Posted June 28, 2008 Member Share Posted June 28, 2008 i thought flashlegs shut down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member thundered mantis Posted June 29, 2008 Member Share Posted June 29, 2008 I prefer letterboxed format IF AND ONLY IF the letterboxed version does have more picture info than the fullscreen version. If that´s not the case, I call the result a FAKE LBX and I get all pissed To make any fullscreen (4:3) image appear 16:9 I can do it instantly just pressing a button of my remote to squeeze the image horizontally, I do not need it done for me. And the "LBX " signature on a fullscreen version just squeezed is misleading. And I obviously prefer 16:9 (anamorphic) versions over simply LBX ones. The anamorphic transfers do have more resolution and better image. I do not like fake anamorphics, in which they just take non-anamorphic transfers and "convert" them, because they usually end up with softer and blurrier images (there are exceptions though) than their simply LBX counterparts. I see my kung on a 28" 16:9 TV and on a 100" screen 16:9 projector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.