Lolita's Slightly Squeezed.!

[c***@hotmail.com]

I;ve recently acquired a PAL DVD of Lolita(1961) and it;s an
anamorphic copy presented at about 1.66:! aspect ratio.
There is about 1 1/2 inches of blank screen on each side of the
picture.The only thing is that when the picture is unsqueezed it is
still slightly compressed. James Mason's shoulders look narrower than
they normally do and Shelley Winters as well..

All the other anamorphic DvDs displayed on this Plasma TV look
normal..
Does anybody know what's going on here.

Regards,
Peter Mason

[Richard]

Post by c***@hotmail.com
I;ve recently acquired a PAL DVD of Lolita(1961) and it;s an
anamorphic copy presented at about 1.66:! aspect ratio.
There is about 1 1/2 inches of blank screen on each side of the
picture.The only thing is that when the picture is unsqueezed it is
still slightly compressed. James Mason's shoulders look narrower than
they normally do and Shelley Winters as well..
All the other anamorphic DvDs displayed on this Plasma TV look
normal..
Does anybody know what's going on here.

Are you certain that your Plasma-TV has switched to PAL when
playing this DVD ?

[c***@hotmail.com]

Post by c***@hotmail.com
I;ve recently acquired a PAL DVD of Lolita(1961) and it;s an
anamorphic copy presented at about 1.66:! aspect ratio.
There is about 1 1/2  inches of blank screen on each side of the
picture.The only thing is that when the picture is unsqueezed it is
still slightly compressed. James Mason's shoulders look narrower than
they normally do and Shelley Winters as well..
All the other anamorphic DvDs displayed on this Plasma TV look
normal..
Does anybody know what's going on here.

   Are you certain that your Plasma-TV has switched to PAL when
   playing this DVD ?

That wouldn't affect the width of the picture, An NTSC signal would
give a picture less tall and the actors would be
fatter not thinner.

[Bhairitu]

Post by c***@hotmail.com

Post by Richard

Post by c***@hotmail.com
I;ve recently acquired a PAL DVD of Lolita(1961) and it;s an
anamorphic copy presented at about 1.66:! aspect ratio.
There is about 1 1/2 inches of blank screen on each side of the
picture.The only thing is that when the picture is unsqueezed it is
still slightly compressed. James Mason's shoulders look narrower than
they normally do and Shelley Winters as well..
All the other anamorphic DvDs displayed on this Plasma TV look
normal..
Does anybody know what's going on here.

Are you certain that your Plasma-TV has switched to PAL when
playing this DVD ?

That wouldn't affect the width of the picture, An NTSC signal would
give a picture less tall and the actors would be
fatter not thinner.

I swear there are cigar smoking small time publishers who obtain content
that to save a little money encode their DVDs on their office computer
and don't of course know what they're doing. I've seen other discs like
this and even some streaming titles on Netflix with these problems
including anamorphic titles that weren't unsqueezed when encoded for
streaming. And there is nothing you can do to tell Netflix about that
specific problem though some take to hoping they notice by doing a
review. According to a submissions document Netflix apparently "rips"
DVDs when sent to them for streaming. I suspect bigger studio may
supply a file especially for HD.

[g***@HOTMAIL.COM]

Post by Bhairitu

Post by c***@hotmail.com

Post by c***@hotmail.com
I;ve recently acquired a PAL DVD of Lolita(1961) and it;s an
anamorphic copy presented at about 1.66:! aspect ratio.
There is about 1 1/2  inches of blank screen on each side of the
picture.The only thing is that when the picture is unsqueezed it is
still slightly compressed. James Mason's shoulders look narrower than
they normally do and Shelley Winters as well..
All the other anamorphic DvDs displayed on this Plasma TV look
normal..
Does anybody know what's going on here.

    Are you certain that your Plasma-TV has switched to PAL when
    playing this DVD ?

That wouldn't affect the width of the picture, An NTSC signal would
give a picture less tall and the actors would be
fatter not thinner.

I swear there are cigar smoking small time publishers who obtain content
that to save a little money encode their DVDs on their office computer
and don't of course know what they're doing.  I've seen other discs like
this and even some streaming titles on Netflix with these problems
including anamorphic titles that weren't unsqueezed when encoded for
streaming.  And there is nothing you can do to tell Netflix about that
specific problem though some take to hoping they notice by doing a
review. According to a submissions document Netflix apparently "rips"
DVDs when sent to them for streaming.  I suspect bigger studio may
supply a file especially for HD.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

When Lolita was released in New Zealand originally it was restricted
to persons over the age of 21..Can you believe that?? Same for
Suddenly Last Summer, The Young Savages and Ulysses (to segregated
audiences). those were the weird days of censorship.

[Martin Hart]

In article <210b4ad8-46cf-498d-b31b-a1d34166e9b0
@ub4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, ***@HOTMAIL.COM says...

<SNIP>

Post by g***@HOTMAIL.COM

Post by Bhairitu
- Show quoted text -

When Lolita was released in New Zealand originally it was restricted
to persons over the age of 21..Can you believe that?? Same for
Suddenly Last Summer, The Young Savages and Ulysses (to segregated
audiences). those were the weird days of censorship.

Talk about stupid censorship, just notice how many years it took the
film industry to show a human navel on screen. Long after skimpy
bikinis became fashionable, in the movies they still covered the navel.
And men's navels were also covered. Gina Lollobrigida had to have a
jewel in her navel in Solomon and Sheba. Somehow the navel was
classified as a sex organ.

Marty

[g***@HOTMAIL.COM]

On Feb 18, 1:39 am, Martin Hart

Post by Martin Hart
In article <210b4ad8-46cf-498d-b31b-a1d34166e9b0
@ub4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, ***@HOTMAIL.COM says...
<SNIP>

Post by Bhairitu
- Show quoted text -

When Lolita was released in  New Zealand originally it was restricted
to  persons over the age of 21..Can you believe that?? Same for
Suddenly Last Summer, The Young Savages and Ulysses (to   segregated
audiences). those were the weird  days of censorship.

Talk about stupid censorship, just notice how many years it took the
film industry to show a human navel on screen.  Long after skimpy
bikinis became fashionable, in the movies they still covered the navel.
And men's navels were also covered.  Gina Lollobrigida had to have a
jewel in her navel in Solomon and Sheba.  Somehow the navel was
classified as a sex organ.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museumwww.widescreenmuseum.com

Any part of Gina Lollobrigida would be a sex organ

[Martin Hart]

In article <e215daf0-6101-45e3-8ef8-
***@ir9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, ***@HOTMAIL.COM
says...

Post by g***@HOTMAIL.COM
On Feb 18, 1:39 am, Martin Hart

Post by Martin Hart
In article <210b4ad8-46cf-498d-b31b-a1d34166e9b0
@ub4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, ***@HOTMAIL.COM says...
<SNIP>

Post by Bhairitu
- Show quoted text -

When Lolita was released in  New Zealand originally it was restricted
to  persons over the age of 21..Can you believe that?? Same for
Suddenly Last Summer, The Young Savages and Ulysses (to   segregated
audiences). those were the weird  days of censorship.

Talk about stupid censorship, just notice how many years it took the
film industry to show a human navel on screen.  Long after skimpy
bikinis became fashionable, in the movies they still covered the navel.
And men's navels were also covered.  Gina Lollobrigida had to have a
jewel in her navel in Solomon and Sheba.  Somehow the navel was
classified as a sex organ.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museumwww.widescreenmuseum.com

Any part of Gina Lollobrigida would be a sex organ

You'll get no arguement from me. She was gorgeous. And, like her rival
Sophia Loren, she aged well. Hmm, I'm getting a hankering for some
fettucini.

Marty