Inzest-Verbot Meine Schwester, das geile Flittchen

[jj]

Oops- Imagevenue had a hiccup, and I then realized I'd accidentally done
the wrong AR anyway. This the 4:3 version:
[IMG]http://thumbnails113.imagebam.com/44140/825004441398635.jpg[/IMG] .

[alec]

Assuming that the first Anna-Lena cap was full screen, I resized it from 867 by 655 to 720 width, which gave 543 height (same aspect ratio). Only slightly out for 4:3. I altered this to 720 by 540 which is exactly equivalent to 4:3. However, it does not look perfect at that aspect ratio. I changed it to 800 by 450 and it is obviously too wide. But it looks as if this is one of those odd ones that was used in the days when widescreen TVs were in the process of spreading and old TV programmes were adapted for widescreen but also shown at 14:9 to be viewable on old TVs with slight letterboxing. I changed it to 700 by 450 and it looks perfect. However, to be certain we should try it on other full-screen caps and there aren't any that look both full-screen and show a picture that would provide a good test.

So, assuming that cap is a whole screen, 867 by 655 changes to 700 by 450, a 700/867 change in width (0.8074 to four places) and a 450/655 (0.6870) change in height. If some others were altered in those ratios, what do they look like?

Now my head hurts.

[jj]

... the one you can still see in the 02:04 post is deezer's original.

[alec]

4:3 is not bad, but see my mathematical follow up above.

[deezer]

jj wrote:
>> I didn't adjust them as I had hoped you might be able to provide better ones

Should I try to deliver you better ones? If so, I will do my very best;-)

> About the title (little correction):
> Inzest - Verbot Meine Schwester, das geile Flittchen

In correct German orthography would be no hyphen between Inzest and Verbot.
So correct writing would be "Inzestverbot":-)

But as there is a hyphen in the title, I would use a capitalization for "Verbot",
as it is a noun.

After a double dot there is a capital correct, if it's the start of a new sentence.
But I think, that's really negligible.

jj wrote:
>> Don't bother with these - makes about as much sense as listing pierced ears : -)

And I worked about half a day to get this piercing capped:-))

[deezer]

alec wrote:
>> Re classic vintage, personally I would say pre-1990, but it could include the
>>early 1990s if the title was from a label which no longer exists and which
>>therefore is unlikely to be released on DVD (or good quality VOD) so that we
>>would have to rely on surviving VHS tapes which may be copies of copies of copies.


Ok, usually I don't post films before 1990, so I have to do better caps in the
future.


>> BTW thanks a lot for all your contributions so far.

My pleasure. Thanks for your great database, which is very useful!

[jj]

If you asked me to paraphrase all that it would be: "by eye" : -)
My TEETH hurt.

Anyway, I'm going to sleep on this one. It's a bit late for differential
calculus with a side-order of optics 0; -)

[deezer]

jj wrote:
>>No; I meant I would hold off submitting the film at all until better caps were available.

To summarize it:

If the actors are well known and there are good caps in the stock, I can
submitte the film,
If there are unknowns in the film, I have to make better caps.
Didn't know that, until now.

In this case, I can't complete the "Ruf mich an" films, as I in the most times
I have to take the pics from some VOD-sites. And, as this films aren't really
a highlight of porn, I don't want to buy this DVD only for making caps:-)


>>This was one of the [many] points I was trying to get across to Len.

And I thought, that the main point was, that you don't like films, where
only one girl is idenntified or listed.

[jj]

I agree it still looks a little odd. This is the stage at which I would have
adjusted by eye.

[deezer]

jj wrote:
>>This the 4:3 version:

Yes, this way better then mine. You're great.