|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 3, 2004 13:21:32 GMT -5
Regarding that post over there with the Hey Jude stills, you may have been a little confused about what point was being attempted. (I don't know if you are here under another name..) Anyway, What you wanted was a frame from the older footage, and something from Anthology that was the exact same frame. The footage is old in the sense it probably predates Anthology, although there's no way to be sure. It's part of collection that's been making the rounds for a long time under the name "The Beatles Companion". So here's what you were looking for, and I think I may have put this in my "not worth posting" file, that's why SK didn't have it..  (The first one is the boot)   |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Jul 4, 2004 22:19:07 GMT -5
Interesting. The nose seems to have been retouched somewhat. It looks more rounded in the Anthology version.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 4, 2004 23:48:52 GMT -5
I don't know if the aspect ratio is a factor here, not in the nose being rounded, but in the shape of the head. If anything, the Anth. version makes the face look longer. The boot is vcd, (352X240) and the dvd is a 4:3 ratio, I forget the pixel count. I did some cropping to try to match as closely as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Jul 5, 2004 0:24:13 GMT -5
Look at the microphone capsule. The VCD version vesion appears to me to be compressed vertically or streched horizontally (not uncommon in an MPEG). The Beatles used this kind of mic a lot in their videos, and the Anthology version looks like it has the proper dimension to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jul 5, 2004 7:38:41 GMT -5
I don't know if the aspect ratio is a factor here, not in the nose being rounded, but in the shape of the head. If anything, the Anth. version makes the face look longer. The boot is vcd, (352X240) and the dvd is a 4:3 ratio, I forget the pixel count. I did some cropping to try to match as closely as possible. Yes, the Anthology pic is taller. But why would they do that? |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 5, 2004 11:53:02 GMT -5
Ok got the aspect ratio business straightened out. Fractions still throw me.. Here's the boot then the Anthology version. Pretty much the same thing, the tip of the nose looking different may have more to do with distortion over the years of being copied.   |
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Jul 5, 2004 18:47:26 GMT -5
just making sure that this is the same scene is it?
If it is then they look pretty much the same, except for the tip of his nose, which could be distortion, so that throws out the "anthology fakery"
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 5, 2004 20:49:58 GMT -5
It is the same scene, or I did my best to have both versions open at the same time, and capture the correct frames.
The whole Anthology thing.... it's llike this, someone insisted that Anthology was something that you shouldn't even look at, it's faked, the frames were doctored, etc. etc. Move along folks, nothing to see here... Actually the simplest explanation is probably true, there aren't any problems with the clips there. As a matter of fact, the above clip would suggest Anthology deserves a closer look, not for doctored frames, but for other things, like the weirdness shown in the mirrored clip thread.
You see, by suggesting that Anthology is off limits period, you throw the baby out with bathwater so to speak. (but there was no bathwater, in this case doctored frames, to throw out in the first place) Why bother, if the job was done right in the first place, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 7, 2004 6:55:00 GMT -5
just making sure that this is the same scene is it? If it is then they look pretty much the same, except for the tip of his nose, which could be distortion, so that throws out the "anthology fakery" Well you probably would want to do more comparisons with other sources and other old footage in Anthology, but yeah, I'd say "Anthology fakery" is starting to look more and more like a red herring. Conversly, it shows the old footage is useful too, but you have to be careful of capping vcd stills, they need to be resized back to the 4:3 aspect ratio. Which means I have a lot of fixing to do on the stills i posted at jamespaulmccartney.org.  You can see, the slightly squashed footage of a vcd cap might lead you into a false sense of security, because yes, it does make Paul's face look rounder. Yeah it makes it more "dramatic" to suggest there was some kind of faking going on, and maybe there still was to a degree, but the stretching is a red herring, absolutely. It's better to get stuff like this out in the open, rather than to continue to shore up bad reasoning. I still think they are 2 different people... |
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Jul 7, 2004 15:32:59 GMT -5
That is wierd, I think there was some sort of distortion in the camera and people looking for PID proof should look elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Jul 20, 2004 12:44:36 GMT -5
I think what we are seeing here is a difference between the VCD ratios and the DVD ratios. For some reason this happens when using different media formats, and it isn't that someone is deliberately skewing anything, it's just a disparity between formats. VHS format to DVD format will do the same thing, but it isn't as pronounced as this comparison...probably because the one who ripped the VCD format did not follow the protocols exactly in the conversion or something...and I'm not suggesting any foul play with that comment either. I've wrecked several VCD images in my time simply because I didn't know what I was doing...hahaha. Hey JoJo...I don't think I ever really thanked you for the Beatles Cartoon downloads! I'm really having fun with them...as you can see by my avatar ;D Thanks to you and Eyesbleed for sharing those files! There are still more that I have not downloaded yet so I hope they are still available on your site  LC |
|
(The first one is the boot)
