XNK8198 = Melanie [21]

This forum is intended for the discussion and sharing of information on the topic of Continental European female performers in hard-core adult films and related matters.
olimanu
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

XNK8198 = Melanie [21]

Post by olimanu »

jj
Posts: 28236
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: XNK8198 = Melanie [21]

Post by jj »

Thanks.

"a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the
signification...."
deezer
Posts: 3847
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: XNK8198 = Melanie [21]

Post by deezer »

olimanu wrote:

> XNK8198
is
Melanie [21]

= Tracy Lords

@jj: have you noticed this post? Maybe worth a admin note against her entry.
jj
Posts: 28236
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: XNK8198 = Melanie [21]

Post by jj »

To be fair, she looks somewhat different in the two recent additions -
you can't see the bum tat at all in Bi O; and only this glimpse in T19:
[IMG]http://img147.imagevenue.com/loc246/th_38621_vlcsnap_2017_12_14_12h12m50s150_123_246lo.jpg[/IMG]

"a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the
signification...."
deezer
Posts: 3847
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: XNK8198 = Melanie [21]

Post by deezer »

jj wrote:

> To be fair, she looks somewhat different in the two recent
> additions -

Absolutley agreed. Especially the headshot of Tracy Lords is a bit strange.
She has a very longish face there. Is this a AR problem?

Same with this image of Carmen [23] from T19 :

[img]http://egafd.com/actresses/images/094114.jpg[/img]
jj
Posts: 28236
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: XNK8198 = Melanie [21]

Post by jj »

Do the other shots from T19 look odd? I didn't adjust any.

"a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the
signification...."
deezer
Posts: 3847
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: XNK8198 = Melanie [21]

Post by deezer »

jj wrote:

> Do the other shots from T19 look odd? I didn't adjust any.

I'm not a pro like you and alec, but at least Tracy Lord's/Melanie's shots: yes, in my opinion.

As for Carmen: maybe, but not as clear as Melanie.

Linda Beck I can't judge.

If the AR is really wrong, it's only a little difference to the correct AR. So maybe
I'm completely wrong and the AR is correct. I think this answer doesn't help a lot. !confused!
alec
Posts: 9863
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: XNK8198 = Melanie [21]

Post by alec »

We'd need an uncropped screenshot to be sure about the other grabs, but I agree Tracy Lords looks unrealistic. Some models do have long faces, but not this long.

What I usually do in such cases (when there's time - a lot of pictures on this site have the wrong aspect ratio) is to go back to my trusty 1980 vintage calculator and put 540/576 in the memory, then in Irfan View look at the height (if the grab is unrotated), untick preserve aspect ratio and multiply the height by MR (memory recall). The figure 540/576 comes from the usual reason for distorted caps in that video capture programs did not adjust for pixel shape unless configured to do so. (I notice that the latest Power DVD does howsever. At least my recent caps look OK and I haven't changed anything.) However, some caps I've corrfected recently have been so way out that I've multiplied by MR twice.
jj
Posts: 28236
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: XNK8198 = Melanie [21]

Post by jj »

The reason I asked about the other pics is that earlier in the day
I'd unchecked the AR box in IV in order to manually adjust an 'odd'
pic; and the thought occurred with these that I'd temporarily forgotten
to re-check it.
If one of you could tell me the 'odd' ones I'll re-d/l and resize at
4:3 (for starters).

"a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the
signification...."
Post Reply