SlySoft Player?

[Joebob]

Aspect Ratio Control

+1 for aspect ratio control. I don't care if it is automatic or manual, but I would like to be able to save a custom ratio and then associate that to a disc/image.

I use a 16x9 projector through a Prismasonic lens to display 2.35:1 ratio films using the entire 16x9 LCD Panel. To do this I need software that will vertically stretch the image to fill the panel and then the lens will horizontally stretch it to restore the proper ratio.

 

[Charlie]

You didn't find the download link on the main Slysoft page??? Hmm, weird. :bang:

So Where In The World Is SlyPlayer?

My F-I90HD machine has died miserably yesterday.

My P5E-VM HDMI machine w/Intel chipset cannot play HD material in XP (neither WinDVD nor PDVD).

I have choices:

- Install vista;

- install Windows 7;

- install new VGA card into P5E-VM HDMI machine;

- cope with MPC and filters ad nauseum hoping it will work;

- buy new MB;

- wait for SlyPlayer.

I wonder whether SlyPlayer will be able to deal with Intel stupid video driver for P35/3500 chipset.

Edit: don't see why not. Even Mplayer can play EVOs and m2ts all right.

Here's the download link

http://static.slysoft.com/SetupSlyPlayer.exe <-- Not a real link - SamuriHL


I couldn't resist sorry

 

[SamuriHL]

Charlie....do I need to slap you upside the head?

 

[frg]

Here's the download link

http://static.slysoft.com/SetupSlyPlayer.exe


I couldn't resist sorry

Wow, I just downloaded and installed it, it's AWESOME!
Best player Ever!











































Couldn't resist either!!!

 

[ThomasG]

Wow, I just downloaded and installed it, it's AWESOME!
Best player Ever!

Not bad for a pre-release. However, still lots of stuttering on my PS3.

scnr #3

 

[Galileo2000]

Very funny guys.

After much struggle installed Win 7 7231 and now freaking pdvd 8 refuses to play HD DVDs. I think I am cursed.


And yes, patch to HD DVDs had been installed.

 

[SamuriHL]

Very funny guys.

After much struggle installed Win 7 7231 and now freaking pdvd 8 refuses to play HD DVDs. I think I am cursed.


And yes, patch to HD DVDs had been installed.

Good luck with that. I've dropped PDVD 8 competely. I have a very specific version of PDVD 7.3 installed for a backup in case I have issues with TMT. The later builds of all PDVD versions should be avoided if at all possible IMO.

 

[Charlie]

I was in a happy mood this morning

 

[hlkc]

+1 for aspect ratio control. I don't care if it is automatic or manual, but I would like to be able to save a custom ratio and then associate that to a disc/image.

I use a 16x9 projector through a Prismasonic lens to display 2.35:1 ratio films using the entire 16x9 LCD Panel. To do this I need software that will vertically stretch the image to fill the panel and then the lens will horizontally stretch it to restore the proper ratio.

You should not depending the player to do that.

Latest Panasonic AE3000 can do just that.

 

[nightfly85]

In every video playback system I know of (software, hardware) they are responsible for aspect ratio.

Why? Simply because they already have to squash most video by 33% to return the anamorphic AR to 16:9 AR so having it stretch it 33% instead for us HT guys is trivial.

A very few display devices provide the option....as it's rarely needed by 99% of its users (I wish it were more common).

Thus your statement "You should not depending the player to do that." is completely invalid as almost every player already does video resizing.

I've used Zoom Player exclusively for this for instance because of its great picture sizing/placement controls where you can recall saved blanking, video position, AR as a configuration set and recalled via hot key.

 

[Drexl]

The difference is that while the display MIGHT be able to do it, it would not be able to detect the AR and adjust automatically. I don't think a software player could either, but it could be given that info by the user, and remember to do it each time that material is played again. A display doesn't have the ability to be programmed in such a manner.

 

[hlkc]

In every video playback system I know of (software, hardware) they are responsible for aspect ratio.

Why? Simply because they already have to squash most video by 33% to return the anamorphic AR to 16:9 AR so having it stretch it 33% instead for us HT guys is trivial.

A very few display devices provide the option....as it's rarely needed by 99% of its users (I wish it were more common).

Thus your statement "You should not depending the player to do that." is completely invalid as almost every player already does video resizing.

I've used Zoom Player exclusively for this for instance because of its great picture sizing/placement controls where you can recall saved blanking, video position, AR as a configuration set and recalled via hot key.

nightfly85,

I guess it is a different perspective/personal taste. I never and prefer not to use player tweaking any sources from video to audio. With that said, I prefer to get the pure/true picture and pass thru to AR and to display, I don't mean just contrast, color... I mean everything. When it arrive to the display and it is not what I want then I will use display to fine tune what I want including the ratio, resize, colors... Again, I guess it is more a personal choice and all I am saying is you can do that with your display instead of the player.

To be more specific I know EXACTLY what you are referring to. I use AE3000 PJ and looking few options such as this anamorphic lens to get a TRUE 2.35 pictures and get my 33%, 1080 lines instead of 8XX lines, back.

 

[andy o]

I guess it is a different perspective/personal taste. I never and prefer not to use player tweaking any sources from video to audio. With that said, I prefer to get the pure/true picture and pass thru to AR and to display, I don't mean just contrast, color... I mean everything. When it arrive to the display and it is not what I want then I will use display to fine tune what I want including the ratio, resize, colors... Again, I guess it is more a personal choice and all I am saying is you can do that with your display instead of the player.

It is a matter of preference indeed if you want processing to be done in the player or the display, but I also favor the player's in some cases like interpolation just because it's easier to update/tweak, though for 1080p and especially 1080i you'd probably need a pretty fast processor. For picture adjustments, I prefer to do it on the display.

To be more specific I know EXACTLY what you are referring to. I use AE3000 PJ and looking few options such as this anamorphic lens to get a TRUE 2.35 pictures and get my 33%, 1080 lines instead of 8XX lines, back.

I think that is pretty much what he wants to do too, though if Slyplayer did it, it would be free for him since he already has the anamorphic lens. He would also be using the 1080 horizontal lines of his projector. Note also that those "1080" used lines mean more brightness, not more resolution, than the 8xx active lines would give you.

By the way, there are highly dubious claims in that website, if not pure BS. Talking about the "XX% more resolution" ones.

 

[hlkc]

I think that is pretty much what he wants to do too, though if Slyplayer did it, it would be free for him since he already has the anamorphic lens. He would also be using the 1080 horizontal lines of his projector. Note also that those "1080" used lines mean more brightness, not more resolution, than the 8xx active lines would give you.

As I stated in my original reply, Panasonic AE3000 can do anamorphic without the lens. But based on my understanding anamorphic lens will be better brightness AND resolution. The best way to enjoy anamorphic in home theater PJ is a anamorphic lens.

 

[andy o]

Yeah, but he doesn't have the AE3000. Anyway, the AE3000 only does zoom, the thing is that it does it automatically. You still lose a bit of brightness.

The advantage of a lens is that you use all pixels, but that can only increase brightness. There is no way to increase resolution, you are still managing a 8xx-pixel-tall picture and stretching it. Whether it's done optically or digitally doesn't matter. You can't get more resolution out of it. If anything, optically stretching it all the way (zooming) can preserve resolution better or have less artifacts if the interpolation of the digital stretch is not up to par.

BTW, I think I've said this before in this thread, but it would have been absolutely cool if bluray allowed for real anamorphic content of 2.35:1 movies, like DVD allows for 16:9. If that were the case, then you would preserve the 1080 resolution by going optical, but you'd be starting with a 1080-tall picture in the first place, which you can't do right now.

Hey, luckily the bluray specs keep changing... Maybe in the bluray 3.0 specs?

 

[hlkc]

BTW, I think I've said this before in this thread, but it would have been absolutely cool if bluray allowed for real anamorphic content of 2.35:1 movies, like DVD allows for 16:9. If that were the case, then you would preserve the 1080 resolution by going optical, but you'd be starting with a 1080-tall picture in the first place, which you can't do right now.

Hey, luckily the bluray specs keep changing... Maybe in the bluray 3.0 specs?

Yes, but we still need A screen to fit both or a masking system for all 3 formats, 4:3, 16:9 and 2.35. Hopefully 10 years from now we will have only one one format, perhaps 2.35 everything

 

[andy o]

Realistically, we won't have 2.35:1 TVs, but it would work beautifully with projectors and anamorphic lenses (no need to stretch horizontally). Many people already have the equipment necessary to take advantage of it.

 

[hlkc]

Realistically, we won't have 2.35:1 TVs, but it would work beautifully with projectors and anamorphic lenses (no need to stretch horizontally). Many people already have the equipment necessary to take advantage of it.

Agree. I think the problem is not so much for the different format, it is the equipments - 16:9 and 2.35 screen. Perhaps a nice masking screen can be cheaper, it might not be that bad. The screen I want with tension and masking will cost close to $9K

 

[andy o]

I don't see why masking would be necessary though. You'd just need a screen wide enough. Can one usually get distracted by the extra screen space to the sides on 16:9 content?

What would be a great deterrent is price. 9K, you said? Anamorphic lenses are also bound to be pretty expensive. I've already spent my share of $K's on freaking photographic lenses. I'm not about to embark in yet another multi-thousand dollar endeavor.

 

[hlkc]

I don't see why masking would be necessary though. You'd just need a screen wide enough. Can one usually get distracted by the extra screen space to the sides on 16:9 content?

What would be a great deterrent is price. 9K, you said? Anamorphic lenses are also bound to be pretty expensive. I've already spent my share of $K's on freaking photographic lenses. I'm not about to embark in yet another multi-thousand dollar endeavor.

Just another personal preference. After masking it looks a lot better, not the picture quality but the look of the screen. I agree with you that especially if we turn off the light, it will be the same.

Anamorphic lens is somewhat need today in order to get the true Anamorphic picture in the HT today (IMO). The one I am going after is about $1.5K.