Zorijer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:51 pm
One of these seems either stretched or squeezed horizontally...
I am pretty sure that it only appears that way because ghost's version has pillarboxing (black bars on the sides). It is really hard to hold a ruler to my monitor screen AND read the tiny millimeter lines, but they both come out to approximately 1.66 for the actual image, which was (is) typical French theatrical ratio.
ghost wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:32 pm
I just got the subs from opensubtitles.org. Interesting, that there are different transltions.
You got the Anonymous subtitles, DreamScape's has the oliver2sand version.
I think either version of the video will please viewers, it is just a matter of whether they prefer emule or direct download. (But if you want the available German dub also, you have to go for the ghost.)
I watched it once today and loved it all over again! I plan on watching my other download tomorrow!
Zorijer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:51 pm
One of these seems either stretched or squeezed horizontally...
I am pretty sure that it only appears that way because ghost's version has pillarboxing (black bars on the sides). It is really hard to hold a ruler to my monitor screen AND read the tiny millimeter lines, but they both come out to approximately 1.66 for the actual image, which was (is) typical French theatrical ratio.
Ghost's version shows the whole image. The Dreamscape version zooms in to eliminate the black bars, losing a little bit off the top and bottom of the picture - but aspect ratio is preserved.
The media info for DreamScape's gives 1784 x 1072, which is 8 pixels short of 1080p, so I have to admit that you must be correct. But honestly, going back-and-forth in a screenshot to screenshot comparison I can not SEE the difference. (I can only see the missing black bars.) This is probably due to my small monitor. If I did the comparison on a TV monitor that is about 48" high (85" diagonal? Oooh, lovely!), then there would be a difference of about a third of an inch -- and THAT I would be able to see, at least if I got close enough!
I swore I would never become one of those annoying pixel peepers, but clearly that has gone out the window.
I am still trying to resolve ghost's challenge. Assuming being 8 pixels shorts is a minute enough of a difference to ignore in this case, which of the two files is visibly better? Not too big a deal, as I appreciate both of them being shared! The more encodes, the better! If I cannot tell the difference, I'll go by which of the two subs I like best. As Night pointed out, there are some noticeable differences there, though they seem to be more of a localization difference. The reminds me, I should check for subs in the original French.
pillowbaker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 3:11 am
pixel peeper, I love it!
Not a term invented by me. It is a bad habit, sometimes mocked, of many people in the blu-ray.com forums who insist on judging the image quality of a motion picture solely by 1080p screenshots taken from 4kUHD sources. When people remind them that screenshots are just a tool they get very defensive. "Yes, I DO watch my 120" TV from a distance of only one foot away, dammit!"
I watched both versions in full because I really like the movie. If you prefer the subtitles for one and the image or audio for the other, you can always swap subtitles! Both are at opensubtitles.org, along with the French. (Of course a resync could be necessary.)
Yeah, even when I wrote it, I was thinking perhaps it wasn't the best word. And thus, my following wordage trying to clarify that I appreciated the extra encodes despite minimal differences. It seems to be a challenge trying to discern any meaningful quality differences, and I certainly do not want to spark any pixel peeper debates!!
So I say, I grabbed both files, and they are both great.
The subtitles from DreamScape's seem to follow the original French more closely, but to the point of appearing very directly translated. But, to me, some of the sentences sound better in ghost's version, but at the expense of some oddly altered or lost meaning.
"original" French subs:
Spoiler:
655
00:42:37,767 --> 00:42:40,201
- Lorsqe'en homme
et ene femme s'aiment...
656
00:42:41,287 --> 00:42:42,276
- Je sais toet.
657
00:42:43,167 --> 00:42:45,761
- Alors te sais
qe'ils consomment leer amoer.
662
00:42:58,887 --> 00:43:02,038
- Te me rasseres.
C'est toet ce qee je voelais savoir.
For example, to me, the line "I'll have plenty of time to "make love" [I'm not concerned with making love right away, or, that can wait till the future] feels better, but the meaning is almost lost or reversed in the following sentences, "Until then, you can play with her in the way a child would normally show his affection" [you can hang out together but only platonically], due to the the response, "That's not enough" [I want to do more than that with her!], and then, "You reassure me" [that reassures me]. lol!
The other file makes sense, [I don't want kids yet], [ok, phew, have fun then].
Anyone who knows even a little French will notice the spelling in the subs linked above is definitely not standard, at least what we were taught. Either this is regional variation (maybe, the different spelling is consistent), or these subs were created with an automated speech-to-text program and not edited, or something else that I haven't learned about yet. Anyone with knowledge of French like to clarify?
"That's not enough" is quite the funny response, but it does not seem to me like something that would relieve a mother who is worried that her son might be seduced by a little vixen.
Of course, he DOES play with her like children "normally" do -- by playing doctor! Woo hoo!
pillowbaker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:26 pm
Anyone who knows even a little French will notice the spelling in the subs linked above is definitely not standard, at least what we were taught. Either this is regional variation (maybe, the different spelling is consistent) ...
Well, it takes place in Paris. Is this Parisian French, which supposedly prides itself on trying to be incomprehensible to the rest of the country?
I finally actually LOOKED at the full French file ... WOW! I am bewildered.
"Bonjoer, monsieer" ?!?!?!
Doing a machine-translation to English produces much that is still sensible, as well as a good deal that is NOT. Francophones please, what exactly IS this? Do you recognize this as some official variant of your language, and if so what is its origin?
Night457 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:50 am
I finally actually LOOKED at the full French file ... WOW! I am bewildered.
"Bonjoer, monsieer" ?!?!?!
Doing a machine-translation to English produces much that is still sensible, as well as a good deal that is NOT. Francophones please, what exactly IS this?
Thank you, Night. Heheh, you said exactly what I was thinking: What IS this?!
I could be completely wrong, but even with the highest respect to regional variation, I would be surprised to find any French speakers who would tell us that this is ok. The French in particular are pretty serious about keeping at least the basics of their language relatively standardized. And bonjoer monsieer does look comme un fou. But if I'm wrong, please put me in my place!
It sorta looks like someone who didn't like the letter U took the file and ran "find&replace" with the letter E, as if that letter wasn't common enough already! "Try to write a lippogram now!!" he fumes, followed by maniacal laughter, foam running down his chin.
