Pictures provided by: tv boy
Also known as:
Author | Message |
---|---|
◊ 2009-12-17 14:38 |
All pictures are deformed ![]() |
◊ 2009-12-17 15:00 |
Deformed? ![]() |
◊ 2009-12-17 17:16 |
I think what garco meant that the aspect ratio may be off. |
◊ 2009-12-17 18:48 |
yes, a little bit. 1.37 :1 according to imdb. 640 x 467 for example would be better.![]() ![]() -- Last edit: 2009-12-18 19:38:27 |
◊ 2009-12-17 19:21 |
Pics now with new ratio |
◊ 2009-12-17 19:45 |
well, thanks for the effort but most appear to be 640 × 450 now? (= 1.42) and some 640 × 425 (=1.50). Which is actually worse since tv boy's were 1.49. |
◊ 2009-12-18 18:51 |
Sorry Chico, I never noticed the ratio issues. For some reason it looks okay on my work computer, and the two pics you posted look identical to each other. But the difference is more noticeable on my computer at home. I don't know how to fix that ratio since my program at home only does it by percentage and not by numbers of pixels. |
◊ 2009-12-18 19:42 |
I've posted the pics big again, it's easier to spot the difference. Give this program a try: http://www.irfanview.com/ (go to resize/resample and uncheck "preserve aspect ratio") |
◊ 2009-12-21 18:05 |
Chico, I don't know if this clears things up but the original ratio was much different because I had to crop off black borders around the images, per the site's guidelines. I didn't try to stretch or resize it after that because the pics didn't (and still don't, to me) look distorted. |
◊ 2009-12-21 20:09 |
1.37 : 1 was the standard pre-1950s ratio. This was filmed in 35mm, and the actual image on film is 22mm × 16mm (width x height) which = 1.37. Without borders of course, these are just to adapt to a modern screen. Yours at 1.49 (vilero made them 1.42) aren't much distorted but doesn't the car look stretched out in the first picture? Have you tried the program? Just be careful not to install any toolbar during set-up. If it doesn't work I'll fix them later. ![]() |