I don't understand how ANYONE can like pan 'n scan.
nmed
topic but I just want someone to explain it to me. Personally, I
would never cut the edges off a painting in order to get it to fit a
frame so I hardly see the sense in trimming the edges off a movie to
fit a shitty tv screen. If I was the director, I'd be severly pissed.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Serenity now...Insanity later.
damnfine
> It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Same reason people watch 'Temptation Island'.
--
/^\damnfine/^\
"Always remember others may hate you, but those
who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and
then you destroy yourself" - Richard M. Nixon
Kevin Brown
nmed wrote:
> It just doesn't make any sense to me. I realize this is a worn-out
> topic but I just want someone to explain it to me. Personally, I
> would never cut the edges off a painting in order to get it to fit a
> frame so I hardly see the sense in trimming the edges off a movie to
> fit a shitty tv screen. If I was the director, I'd be severly pissed.
Many in this group have pointed out how seriously they take movies; you
included. This is probably the case for most people that collect movies
with the intent to view several times. On the other hand, many people in
general just like to watch a movie once (maybe more depending on personal
taste) and just view it as entertainment and don't care if the sides are
cut off, certainly many don't even realize that it's happening and may or
may not care either way.
Personally, I'm smack bang in the middle of the above two examples. I can
appreciate widescreen for what it is (1.85:1 has never bothered me), but
sometimes (especially with bad transfers) I'd rather see the screen
filled. Also, since I don't feel that strongly about movies, I'm not going
to try to explain or support the format to those that I know that don't
appreciate it.
In my opinion most people that prefer Pan and Scan probably (thus far)
don't fully understand widescreen, however, some people simply don't like
it because of size, resolution, etc. and won't change no matter what. I
believe that the latter group will remain dominate for some time, until
widescreen TV's become the norm, which likely will take at least another 5
to 10 years.
I know that some die hards don't agree, but I say, for now, a dual
formatted disc should please most people.
Claudio Cavalli
movie in the same contest that they look at a painting (benefit of the
doubt).
Best Regards
Claudio Cavalli
"nmed" <nme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a91a95d...@news2.missouri.edu...
Biz
few years there were no VHS tapes that weren't pan 'n scan
--
Biz
Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the.....
nmed <nme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a91a95d...@news2.missouri.edu...
Brian
>It just doesn't make any sense to me. I realize this is a worn-out
>topic but I just want someone to explain it to me. Personally, I
>would never cut the edges off a painting in order to get it to fit a
>frame so I hardly see the sense in trimming the edges off a movie to
>fit a shitty tv screen. If I was the director, I'd be severly pissed.
>
Well, here it is in simple English. A movie is not a painting. It's not a
sculpture. Those types of works are one of a kind. Every video copy of a movie
is pretty much identical. If you were to make a print of a famous painting.
(Which a DVD of a movie is alalogous to a print copy of a painting) you would
not be doing any harm to the original painting if you were to chop off the
sides of the print. Can you really see any famous artist rolling over in his
grave because a copy of his painting was mutilated? Of course not. The original
is what is important if you're talking about art. On the same note, if you want
to buy a print of a famous painting and chop off the sides and hang it upside
down, who's going to care?
You're right about one thing. A tv screen is shitty campared to the movie
screen. People who want to view movies in P&S or full screen don't want all
DVDs to be P&S only. At least I don't. My policy has always been live and let
live. You do your thing and I'll do mine. I think the argument that copies of
an original shouldn't be altered is ridiculous. People have preferences. As
long as the alteration doesn't harm the master negative in any way, you're no
longer talking about altering *the* film. 15 years from now....when and if we
all have widescreen sets, the master will still be there and you can be almost
certain there will be an even better video technology than DVD to transfer it
to.
Until a time when most of the viewers of the world have widescreen sets, it
makes absolutely no sense to force widescreen on everyone. When the widescreen
sets become a major seller in the US, P&S will be forgotten. However, in the
meantime, as long as most people in this country have 4:3 sets, you can bet
that they're not *all* going to be happy with widescreen
programming...regardless of the almighty creator's intent.
If it is true that I am not getting the whole experience of the movie by
viewing it in P&S, who am I harming by doing so? Not you. What do you care?
You're getting the full experience, since you bought the widescreen version. If
I were free to choose, I would be making the choice for myself and noone else.
John Savard
part:
>It just doesn't make any sense to me. I realize this is a worn-out
>topic but I just want someone to explain it to me. Personally, I
>would never cut the edges off a painting in order to get it to fit a
>frame so I hardly see the sense in trimming the edges off a movie to
>fit a shitty tv screen. If I was the director, I'd be severly pissed.
Basically, the problem is that some TV screens _are_ pretty awful, and
not just because they happen to have the wrong aspect ratio.
A TV set only has 525 scan lines, about 480 of which are visible, and
those are interlaced. Horizontally, the resolution in NTSC is roughly
433 pixels (not 640), and that's for the black-and-white part of the
signal. Bandwidth for color information is significantly smaller.
So there is a very severe limit to how much detail you can get on a TV
screen.
Think of watching a movie in a resolution, not of 640 by 480 on a good
computer monitor, but of something closer to, say, 320 by 240.
In that case, with a movie in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, you're not really
seeing the whole movie in letterbox - you're seeing a blurry version
of it. With pan and scan, you can actually make out the faces of the
actors and so on. Of course it's a compromise, but if the transfer is
well done, it's not surprising many people would prefer it to not
really seeing the movie at all.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Sammy
bian...@aol.comspamenot (Brian) wrote:
> Well, here it is in simple English. A movie is not a painting. It's
> not a sculpture. Those types of works are one of a kind. Every video
> copy of a movie is pretty much identical. If you were to make a print
> of a famous painting. (Which a DVD of a movie is alalogous to a
> print copy of a painting) you would not be doing any harm to the
> original painting if you were to chop off the sides of the print. Can
> you really see any famous artist rolling over in his grave because a
> copy of his painting was mutilated? Of course not. The original is
> what is important if you're talking about art.
You've really demonstrated the essence of your thinking with this
statement. How very sad to think that you believe a movie is simply the
strip of celluloid, a video tape, or a collection of digital bits. Ansel
Adams made many prints of given negative. I guarantee you that his ashes
would stir wildly if he knew that you mutilated one of his prints to
find a certain frame or hung it upside down.
Brian, you are truly an ignorant thing (I can't get myself to call you a
person). You have no soul. You have no heart (other than the physical
heart that beats in your chest). You have no spirit. You have no
emotion. Given that you are simply a collection of chemicals, molecules,
and DNA, your disappearance from this planet or mutilation would be
completely inconsequential. After all you're basically just a copy of
someone else's genes, so anything done to you is fair game. It is
finally time to start ignoring you. I think I'll have to killfile every
thread you're involved with or else I'll still see your hideous persona
quoted in other people's posts.
Richard C...©...
"Biz" <nos...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:SRnk6.14391$X61.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
: What did you do b4 the advent of widescreen LD's and DVD's? Until the last
: few years there were no VHS tapes that weren't pan 'n scan
=========================================
I watched very few movies at home in any way until I got LD, and was very selective at that time.
I NEVER bought any VHS at all.
Once widescreen LD came out, I started buying like crazy.
The first widescreen home movie was "Manhattan" on VHS! (about 15 years ago, I think)
Richard C...©...
You are getting more Quixotic with each post!
Slay them windmills!
===========================
"Brian" <bian...@aol.comspamenot> wrote in message news:20010220015304...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
: >From: nme...@yahoo.com (nmed)
Richard C...©...
NONE of the things you mentioned were ever a problem on any TVs I have ever owned.
Widescreen has always been very clear - of course I have had LD for many years.........
=============================================
"John Savard" <jsa...@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere> wrote in message news:3a926a24...@news.powersurfr.com...
: On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:18:08 GMT, nme...@yahoo.com (nmed) wrote, in
Mr. Petrus
just needs to do as one feels.
Chris Tan
aren't too pleased with widescreen.
Case in point: in the final courtroom scene in A Few Good Men, the tight
framing cuts off the top of Jack Hicholson's head above the eyebrows. In the
cinema this is unnoticeable, but on a small TV the widescreen image can get
very distracting. It has the unfortunate effect of drawing attention to the
black bars.
In addition, lots of moviegoers and TV viewers simply aren't bothered about
even more appalling stuff like censorship, lousy dubbing of original
language and TV networks cutting movies to fit timeslots. Some are
completely oblivious because to them it doesn't matter. There's absolutely
no reason why they'd care about OAR and "director's intention", et al.
nmed <nme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a91a95d...@news2.missouri.edu...
JoeS
> I vastly prefer to watch movies in their OAR, but I can see why some people
> aren't too pleased with widescreen.
>
> Case in point: in the final courtroom scene in A Few Good Men, the tight
> framing cuts off the top of Jack Hicholson's head above the eyebrows. In the
> cinema this is unnoticeable, but on a small TV the widescreen image can get
> very distracting. It has the unfortunate effect of drawing attention to the
> black bars.
What version of this movie shows anything higher on his head? Wasn't this a
scope movie? If so, there is no forehead on the film to be shown in another
format.
Or is your point that you can ignore the fact the you can't see his forehead if
it's at the top of the screen? If so, that's pretty silly.
Joe
Chris Tan
forehead if
> it's at the top of the screen? If so, that's pretty silly.
Not silly at all. It's a psychological reaction. On a small TV it
instinctively feels as if the top of his head has been soft-matted by the
black bars. The same image pan and scanned is less distracting
psychologically.
JoeS
That doesn't mean people don't feel that way. Just that it's silly.
Joe
Chris Tan
>
>
Silly to you, maybe, but it's a legitimate concern to those with small
screens.
JoeS
Small screen? What does that have to do with "no forehead", the issue you
brought up?
Joe
Chris Tan
> brought up?
>
Everything. Read my first post again.
JoeS
So the solid BOX around the screen is LESS noticeable to these viewers than
empty screen is?
Beautiful.
I think your analysis is flawed, but feel free to continue to think that.
Joe
JeTmAn
"Sammy" <x...@xxx.xxx.invalid> wrote in message
news:t94ve4k...@corp.supernews.com...
Beware, everyone. People like Sammy are the ones who bomb federal buildings.
-JeTmAn
Jim Fraas
"Biz" <nos...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:SRnk6.14391$X61.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Chris Tan
than
> empty screen is?
>
> Beautiful.
>
> I think your analysis is flawed, but feel free to continue to think that.
>
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
On a large enough monitor the widescreen image is big enough so that one
doesn't notice the black bars.
On a small screen, especially during scenes which are tightly framed (an
example of which I've already mentioned), or feature lots of blurry
fast-edits, the black bars become vastly more apparent and distracting.
Feel free to find my "analysis" flawed. It's only the honest feedback I've
gained from others.
Scott Moran
"Biz" <nos...@worldnet.att.net>:
>What did you do b4 the advent of widescreen LD's and DVD's? Until the last
>few years there were no VHS tapes that weren't pan 'n scan
I watched the P&S tapes in blissful ignorance for quite some time.
Once I caught on, though, I only bought widescreen (by that time they
were becoming more common). Not long after that I stopped buying
tapes period.
-STM
___________________ __________
| /\ O /\| |/\ O |
|_/\/ \_______/\/ | | \_______| Widescreen. Get
|/ \ _\ /_/ | | _\ /| the big picture.
|____\_________/____| |\_________|
W I D E S C R E E N PAN & SCAN
- http://students.cec.wustl.edu/~sm6/widescreen -
Sammy
wrote:
> Beware, everyone. People like Sammy are the ones who bomb federal buildings.
>
> -JeTmAn
Your post (including email address) has been forwarded to my lawyer.
Richard C...©...
================
"Joe Bloe" <Joe...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:0r669tg5drt23qf67...@4ax.com...
:
:
: Hahahahahehehehehahahahaahah.....
:
:
: TopQuark...
:
:
: On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:26:05 -0800, "Richard C...?..."
: <lpm...@XXpost-age-collectibles.Xcom> Articulated:
:
: >I think we should start calling you the Man of LaMancha!
: >
Sammy
Joe Bloe <Joe...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:38:12 -0800, "JeTmAn" <jet...@wsu.edu>
> Articulated:
> And people like you are the ones that end up getting slander suits
> prosecuted against them.
>
> A good TOS violation reports in order though...
> Damned shame that yer lame ass circumvents that by your locale.
>
> Do you always go around accusing people of having terrorist
> potential?
>
> I *CAN* most definitely get your immature ass in a sling boy.
>
> I'd go to court in a heartbeat to say that I never saw the poster
> you mention post anything about "bombing" anything.
>
>
> Maybe yer lame ass should spend a few days behind bars learning
> about lying from the inside.
>
>
>
> TopQuark...
The interesting thing about participants in a newsgroup is that we
really don't know anything about most of those participants. The idiot
JeTmAn crossed the line. He has no idea of my profession, my
connections, or my financial resources. He may very well find out quite
soon just what those resources are. If he indeed used a valid email
address, he made a serious mistake in making his post. And if he thinks
I'm kidding and doesn't want to take me seriously, he'll find out
otherwise quite soon. He thinks he can claim 1st Amendment protection.
But he may have to go through a lot of bucks first. It's one thing to
call someone an idiot. It's another to accuse someone of being a
terrorist. He won't be able to hide behind his mommy's dress this time.
nmed
>The interesting thing about participants in a newsgroup is that we
>really don't know anything about most of those participants. The idiot
>JeTmAn crossed the line. He has no idea of my profession, my
>connections, or my financial resources. He may very well find out quite
>soon just what those resources are. If he indeed used a valid email
>address, he made a serious mistake in making his post. And if he thinks
>I'm kidding and doesn't want to take me seriously, he'll find out
>otherwise quite soon. He thinks he can claim 1st Amendment protection.
>But he may have to go through a lot of bucks first. It's one thing to
>call someone an idiot. It's another to accuse someone of being a
>terrorist. He won't be able to hide behind his mommy's dress this time.
Heh, this makes me smile. Keep us updated...
Biz
--
Biz
Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the.....
Sammy <x...@xxx.xxx.invalid> wrote in message
news:t964ic7...@corp.supernews.com...
Biz
general rule. Is it just to be difficult. Of the mainstream VHS rentals,
there still aren't very many titles available in widescreen.
--
Biz
Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the.....
Jim Fraas <jfr...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:jsBk6.1177$ce4.5...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
Biz
--
Biz
Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the.....
Sammy <x...@xxx.xxx.invalid> wrote in message
news:t96fc5h...@corp.supernews.com...
Biz
really had no choice for home viewing.
--
Biz
Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the.....
Richard C...©... <lpm...@XXpost-age-collectibles.Xcom> wrote in message
news:3a928...@news.foxinternet.com...
Biz
--
Biz
Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the.....
Chris Tan <ad_na...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a92bb9d$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
Biz
the same percentage of the screen area for any given AR. Based on your
logic, the black bars are much bigger on the larger tv, making them more
noticeable?
--
Biz
Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the.....
Chris Tan <ad_na...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a92...@news.starhub.net.sg...
Sammy
<1UHk6.17189$Nj5.1...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Biz" <nos...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Why? R U that big a cry baby?
Hey Biz, your hemorrhoids bothering you again? Just stick your finger up
your mouth and you'll feel a lot better. If that doesn't work, call your
proctologist. He knows all about your being an ass. My killfile is
growing rapidly. I'll turn it on as soon as I'm done dealing with the
college kid from Washington State U, jetman, who thinks he's a real big
man, but has only made five posts to the DVD newsgroup since January and
is about to find out just how small he really is. He knows what to do to
end this now. After all, he only has his career at stake.
Sammy
Be happy to.
Brent Wilkins
Do the same to the school. Get him kicked out of there by threatening
legal action against them.
-------------------------------------------
To reply, replace nospam with com
Vincent
that you were going to do something. Someone must have a guilty conscience. The
actual quote "Beware, everyone. People like Sammy are the ones who bomb federal
buildings." Did not say or insinuate that he knew you or knows of your plans. He
was merely responding to your illogical rant about how a movie could be taken from
widescreen to pan and scan and the acceptance of such leads to the lack of a soul.
I tend to agree with the guy that said a video copy of a movie is not a work of
art. You and no one else is watching the original movie no one is advocating
slicing up the movie original print in order to make a pan and scan flick. I think
that this newsgroup in No way is representative of the populous as a whole. For
the most part all of us like to watch movies in widescreen, but the entire populous
as a whole is not into widescreen. Of course all of these people aren't going to
keep their VHS forever and must upgrade to the better quality of DVD, but that
doesn't mean they should be forced to watch the movie in widescreen. That is
similar to telling every one who is of a certain denomination that they can have a
better standard of living and if you want to join this religion you can also have
this standard of living and if you don't accept the religion you can just go on
living your sub par life.
By reading my jumbled mumbled incoherent letter you probably think that I am a
big supporter of Pan and Scan. Fact is I too fall in the middle. A well done Pan
and Scan can be as good as it's widescreen counterpart. Face it folks the
difference between Widescreen and PS is not that much you still see the whole
story. You aren't missing anything that adds to the story for the most part. PS
movies are not simply widescreen w/ the sides cut off, but the movie is made to
always be focusing on the action of the frame. On the most part it is where your
eyes would be focused anyway and you get a better viewing area on top of that. You
hardcore widescreen fans are entitled to your opinion as everyone else is. I don't
think that you are a heartless soulless lump of matter just because you tend to see
a movie more for entertainment than a work of art (and let's face it folks many
movies are NOT works of art). I can see equally on both sides of the issue and
really enjoy playing the Devil's Advocate because it seems as though the ps people
are in the minority on this news group. Again just becaus YOU hate PS doesn't mean
that they should get rid of it. And yes I do have a copy of Michalangelo's Last
Supper at home in a perfectly square frame all we are missing is a couple apostles
so it doesn't hurt anything. The best part is, my destroying the copy does nothing
to the value or the artistic work involved in the original. I assure the I did not
cut anything off of the original.
I am now done babbling and am ready for the innevatable flames.
(Please make sure to tell me about all my gramatical, punctuational and spelling
mistakes as you can rest assured I really CARE :) )
Vincent
the like that you were going to do something. Someone must have a guilty
ones who bomb federal buildings." Did not say or insinuate that he knew you
or knows of your plans for terroristic attacks. He was merely responding to
Vincent
that you were going to do something. Someone must have a guilty conscience. The
buildings." Did not say or insinuate that he knew you or knows of your plans for
terroristic attacks. He was merely responding to your illogical rant about how a
movie could be taken from widescreen to pan and scan and the acceptance of such
> In article <19769toktprdq2gou...@4ax.com>,
Vincent
Vincent
like that you were going to do something. Someone must have a guilty
ones who bomb federal buildings." Did not say or insinuate that he knew you
or knows of your plans for terroristic attacks. He was merely responding to
your illogical rant about how a movie could be taken from widescreen to pan
and scan and the acceptance of such leads to the lack of a soul. I tend to
Chris Tan
> No matter what size the screen is, if it's a 4:3 shape, the black bars are
> the same percentage of the screen area for any given AR. Based on your
> logic, the black bars are much bigger on the larger tv, making them more
> noticeable?
>
Visualise this. You are sitting 10 feet away from the TV screen. It's a 29
inch TV showing a 2.35:1 widescreen image. Comfortable with the size? Now
reduce the screen size to 25 inches. Still OK? How about 21 inches? 14? At
some point the actual widescreen image will become so puny that you will
wish the black bars were filled. It's just a matter of how small the screen
must get before you begin to feel this way.
ButtleNotTuttle
>some point the actual widescreen image will become so puny that you will
>wish the black bars were filled. It's just a matter of how small the screen
>must get before you begin to feel this way.
I finally get it! All the P&S whores have DVD players hooked up to 14" TV's! No
wonder they hate widescreen. But I would think even a 14" TV would look big
enough even with black bars in a trailer home since the rooms are so small. Now
I'm lost again. Oh well.
Arch
Chris Tan
> I finally get it! All the P&S whores have DVD players hooked up to 14"
TV's! No
> wonder they hate widescreen. But I would think even a 14" TV would look
big
> enough even with black bars in a trailer home since the rooms are so
small. Now
> I'm lost again. Oh well.
>
> Arch
Do remember that different people have different levels of tolerance. Just
because yours is higher doesn't make them wrong. And calling them 'whores'
is uncalled for. With your contempt for them, it's no wonder you're lost.
Richard C...©...
"Vincent" <gvd...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message news:3A935CC6...@pop.uky.edu...
:. Fact is I too fall in the middle.
=======================
the middle of the road is where you will get run over..................
=======================
: A well done Pan and Scan can be as good as it's widescreen counterpart.
================================
Totally wrong..............
========================
: Face it folks the difference between Widescreen and PS is not that much you still
: see the whole story.
==================
A true pan and scan loses 43% of the picture. ALMOST HALF!
That is a big difference in the Euclidian world.
======================
: You aren't missing anything that adds to the story for
: the most part.
=======================
Once again, you are very wrong. MUCH IS MISSING.
========================
: PS movies are not simply widescreen w/ the sides cut off, but
: the movie is made to always be focusing on the action of the frame.
=======================
The sides ARE cut off. The action on most movies uses ALL the frame.
==========================
: On the most part it is where your eyes would be focused anyway and you get a better
: viewing area on top of that.
===============================
This is totally insane logic.
===============================
: You hardcore widescreen fans are entitled to
: your opinion as everyone else is.
==============================
It is NOT opinion. It is either watching the movie correctly or watching is WRONG. No opinion involved.
==============================
: Again just becaus YOU hate PS doesn't mean
: that they should get rid of it.
==============================
Most Directors and cinematographers HATE it too.
==========================
: And yes I do have a copy of Michalangelo's
: Last Supper at home in a perfectly square frame all we are missing is a
: couple apostles so it doesn't hurt anything.
========================
I bet it is a velvet one too......dumb fuck!
=========================
: The best part is, my destroying
: the copy does nothing to the value or the artistic work involved in the
: original. I assure the I did not cut anything off of the original.
============================
No, it just shows YOUR stupidity. Not the artists.
============================
: I am now done babbling and am ready for the innevatable flames.
: (Please make sure to tell me about all my gramatical, punctuational and
: spelling mistakes as you can rest assured I really CARE :) )
====================
Those are the LEAST of your problems.......
: =====================
:
:
Richard C...©...
"Vincent" <gvd...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message news:3A935ACD...@pop.uky.edu...
: Why is Sammy such a whiny little bitch? Jetman didn't say anything of the like
=========
Why is vincent a multiple posting little bitch?
Richard C...©...
"Vincent" <gvd...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message news:3A935BC3...@pop.uky.edu...
: Why is Sammy such a whiny little bitch? Jetman didn't say anything of the like
=====================
How many times is your ignorant ass going to post the same post?
Richard C...©...
"Chris Tan" <ad_na...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message news:3a93...@news.starhub.net.sg...
:
: Biz <nos...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
==============================
Please speak for yourself. (and learn to sit closer as the picture gets smaller)
Ratmaster2000
"ButtleNotTuttle" <buttlen...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010221100045...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
believe being my first LD's) on a 13" Amiga 1084S Monitor and the picture
looked Awesome. I never felt the picture was too small or made the viewing
uncomfortable. Of course it was a monitor TV, which does give a better
picture but still shouldn't make THAT much difference. People need to stop
buying cheap ole Funai Type TV's and VCR's (and DVD's for that matter),
there is a reason you only pay 100 dollars, THEY SUCK! I paid about
$190-$220 about 3 years ago for a new Samsung VCR (and maybe 150 for a
Sanyo) both of which were 4 head stereo Good quality VCR's, My cheap A**
friend bought those Funai type cheapys for 80 bucks (mono, maybe stereo and
2 head), and is buying his FOURTH VCR now. That's right I am still using the
same VCR's I bought 3 years ago and he is on his Fourth, and I use mine WAY
MORE than he does. Same goes for my TV, 3 years same TV (I know its 3
because I just got a warranty renewal in the mail), on his 3rd now, and his
only input? thats right Coaxial. Perhaps it's NOT the W/S that's the issue,
but peoples equipment.
Ratmaster2000
>
> Arch
Richard C...©...
===============
They can always go to the community hall and watch it on the 19" "big screen"
Mike Davis
Sammy,
Unfortunately, you don't have a leg to stand on legally. Jetboy said, and
I quote "Beware, everyone. People like Sammy are the ones who bomb federal
buildings."
The kid didn't slander you, he said "people like you," not you
specifically. Too bad, I hate these twits too. My wife is a Paralegal and
pointed this out to me in two seconds, you yourself were not slandered, while
the post is certainly in bad taste, the worst the kid could get would be a
slap on the wrist from the school Dean of Students.
Good luck, all the best, Mike
--
Michael S. Davis Creative Media-Works
Computer/Audio/Video Convergence
"from Creative minds spring Creative solutions."
http://www.creativemedia-works.com
webm...@creativemedia-works.com
Member, International Webmasters Association http://iwanet.org
Chris Tan
> ==============================
> Please speak for yourself. (and learn to sit closer as the picture gets
smaller)
>
It was purely hypothetical. The point is, people have different tolerance
levels.
Richard C...©...
"Joe Bloe" <Joe...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:h3p79tkk2bilr1ifu...@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:33:33 -0800, "Richard C...?..."
: <lpm...@XXpost-age-collectibles.Xcom> Articulated:
:
: >
: >"ButtleNotTuttle" <buttlen...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010221100045...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
: >
:
:
: You're bad.... :-[
: Tighten the leather straps, and wet them! The sun is coming out. :-]
:
:
: TopQuark...
Richard C...©...
:
==========
And movies have different aspect ratios.
JoeS
Based primarily upon ignorance.
Joe
Chris Tan
> Based primarily upon ignorance.
>
>
> Joe
>
With an attitude like that, it's no wonder proponents of widescreen can be
as odious as the "ignorant P&S whores" that so many of you detest.
I've said enough. If you can't even put yourself in their shoes for an
unbiased moment, then nothing I say could possibly be of any use.
JoeS
> > Based primarily upon ignorance.
> >
> >
> > Joe
> >
>
> With an attitude like that, it's no wonder proponents of widescreen can be
> as odious as the "ignorant P&S whores" that so many of you detest.
Is it your claim that there is no ignorance in this area? Do you know the
meaning of the word "ignorant"?
> I've said enough. If you can't even put yourself in their shoes for an
> unbiased moment, then nothing I say could possibly be of any use.
I have been in their shoes. I was once ignorant. I got informed.
Joe
KH
>as soon as I'm done dealing with the college
>kid from Washington State U, jetman, who
>thinks he's a real big man, but has only made
>five posts to the DVD newsgroup since
>January and is about to find out just how
>small he really is. He knows what to do to end
>this now. After all, he only has his career at
>stake.
Shut up, man. Quit threatening college kids and grow some nads, Beavis.
KH
Richard C...©...
Is that gradeschool, then?
===================
"KH" <Stingin...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:2554-3A...@storefull-122.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
: Sammy:
:
Biz
you want to sit 10' away from a 21" tv that's your problem.
--
Biz
Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the.....
Chris Tan <ad_na...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a93...@news.starhub.net.sg...
>
Mike Davis
> http://www.mytrailerpark.com/
>
I had seen this site before but forgot to bookmark it.
Quite possible it's the funniest thing in the history of the net <ggg.> The scary part is, coming from Texas, I think I
know the guy in the photo. He's the poor kid in New Braunfuls (outside San Antonio) who's mom was a crack whore and his Dad
a darn good attorney. It's really quite the sad story, while Dad worked, mom stayed at home, smoked crack, humped the
lawnboy, and the rest is history. No, he didn't kill her. She went to lockup for seven years, forged business checks and
credit card fraud after the husband cut the lady off. If it's any consolation, I'm sure she has a new girlfriend <ggg.>
Wild story. All the best, Mike
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
>Shut up, man. Quit threatening college kids and grow some nads, Beavis.
"College kids" are legal adults, to be held accountable for their actions.
They are also not defenseless and without resources. Sammy is hardly a bully.
Being in college does not grant you immunity from the consequences of your
actions.
BTW- I'm a sophomore at DeSales.
Aaron B.
--
"This is DVD, not 'VHS: The Next Generation.'"
Chris Tan
> You have to adjust your watching distance based on the size of your tv, if
> you want to sit 10' away from a 21" tv that's your problem.
>
And you missed the point completely.
Chris Tan
> meaning of the word "ignorant"?
>
True, some people are ignorant. Is it your claim that all who prefer P&S are
ignorant? Did it ever occur to you that there are those who understand the
concept perfectly yet reject widescreen for the reasons I've already
outlined? But to you they're all the same, aren't they? Just a bunch of
ignorant fools.
JoeS
Chris Tan wrote:
> > Is it your claim that there is no ignorance in this area? Do you know the
> > meaning of the word "ignorant"?
> >
>
> True, some people are ignorant. Is it your claim that all who prefer P&S are
> ignorant?
Did I say that?
> Did it ever occur to you that there are those who understand the
> concept perfectly yet reject widescreen for the reasons I've already
> outlined? But to you they're all the same, aren't they? Just a bunch of
> ignorant fools.
No. An informed choice of P&S is something other than ignorance.
Joe
Sydney Assbasket
>I think)
>
I thought the first was "Amarcord" on CED.
________________________________________________________________
The Indian DVD Resource: http://www.fly.to/indiadvd
I'm trying to quit chewing gum so I started smoking.
"Gay" is not a synonym for "bad."
Remove "bination" to reply.
Scott Moran
Vincent <gvd...@pop.uky.edu>:
>Of course all of
>these people aren't going to keep their VHS forever and must upgrade to the
>better quality of DVD, but that doesn't mean they should be forced to watch
>the movie in widescreen. That is similar to telling every one who is of a
>certain denomination that they can have a better standard of living and if
>you want to join this religion you can also have this standard of living and
>if you don't accept the religion you can just go on living your sub par life.
Religions do that all the time. Christianity is notorious for telling
you your life will be better if you are "saved" and you will go to
hell if you're not. But that's for another newsgroup... ;)
>A well done Pan and Scan can be as good as it's widescreen counterpart.
Ha! "Well done Pan and Scan"...there's an oxymoron for you.
> Face
>it folks the difference between Widescreen and PS is not that much you still
>see the whole story. You aren't missing anything that adds to the story for
>the most part.
Movies are much, much more than the story, my friend. In fact, even
if P&S loses little of the story, it loses huge amounts of everything
that's NOT the story.
>PS movies are not simply widescreen w/ the sides cut off, but
>the movie is made to always be focusing on the action of the frame.
Desperately trying to focus on the action, that is. Who better than a
telecinist to tell us where the action is?
>On the
>most part it is where your eyes would be focused anyway and you get a better
>viewing area on top of that.
I usually focus my eyes on the whole frame...imagine that.
>Again just becaus YOU hate PS doesn't mean
>that they should get rid of it.
Indeed; there are many more reasons.
>And yes I do have a copy of Michalangelo's
>Last Supper at home in a perfectly square frame all we are missing is a
>couple apostles so it doesn't hurt anything.
Oh, man...are you serious? The canonical example in real life..!
-STM
___________________ __________
| /\ O /\| |/\ O |
|_/\/ \_______/\/ | | \_______| Widescreen. Get
|/ \ _\ /_/ | | _\ /| the big picture.
|____\_________/____| |\_________|
W I D E S C R E E N PAN & SCAN
- http://students.cec.wustl.edu/~sm6/widescreen -
JoeS
> And yes I do have a copy of Michalangelo's Last Supper at home in a perfectly
> square frame all we are missing is a couple apostles so it doesn't hurt
> anything.
Hmmm...I know what DaVinci's "The Last Supper " looks like. I've never seen
Michelangelo's. Is it nice?
Joe
Brent Wilkins
<Joe...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:00:51 -0800, Sammy <x...@xxx.xxx.invalid>
>Articulated:
>
>
>
> Or, as they once said often on SNL, "He Bloed up real good..."
>ooops... I used the "b" word... :-]
>
That would be SCTV. I'd love that whole series on DVD
>
>TopQuark...
-------------------------------------------
To reply, replace nospam with com
JoeS
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 04:38:27 GMT, Joe Bloe
> <Joe...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:00:51 -0800, Sammy <x...@xxx.xxx.invalid>
> >Articulated:
> >
> >
> >
> > Or, as they once said often on SNL, "He Bloed up real good..."
> >ooops... I used the "b" word... :-]
> >
>
> That would be SCTV. I'd love that whole series on DVD
Those little piggies are greasy!
Joe
KH
>nads?
>Is that gradeschool, then?
When in Rome....
KH
KH
>"College kids" are legal adults, to be held
>accountable for their actions.
>They are also not defenseless and without
>resources. Sammy is hardly a bully.
>Being in college does not grant you immunity
>from the consequences of your actions.
Being a vocal member of this community, Sammy should expect that
sometimes the conversation can get out of hand, especially with his
sometimes abrasive style and penchant for vile insult. Threatening a
young person's education and/or career, is absurd and an example of
someone's out of control emotions getting the better of their sense of
reason and perspective.
KH
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
That is beside the point. Claiming Sammy fits the description of a terrorist
is a blatant attack upon his character-- UNLESS the person making the claim
can back it up with some significant studies.
I don't know much about Sammy on a personal level, but if he feels his
good name has been needlessly threatened, I see no reason to question his
judgement. His character is his to defend.
Brian
No. You made a personal choice for yourself. What one does or doesn't know
about the OAR of movies hardly makes them ignorant.
>
>Joe
>
====================================================
Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make
their life complete.
Brian
>You have to adjust your watching distance based on the size of your tv, if
>you want to sit 10' away from a 21" tv that's your problem.
>
Many people just aren't comfortable sitting directly in front of their tv for
the sake of being able to see the picture....which btw would be the reason why
they bought a 32" set in the first place rather than a 21" set.
>--
>Biz
>
>Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
>alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
>the.....
>Chris Tan <ad_na...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3a93...@news.starhub.net.sg...
>>
>> Biz <nos...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:n3Ik6.17206$Nj5.1...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> > No matter what size the screen is, if it's a 4:3 shape, the black bars
>are
>> > the same percentage of the screen area for any given AR. Based on your
>> > logic, the black bars are much bigger on the larger tv, making them more
>> > noticeable?
>> >
>>
>> Visualise this. You are sitting 10 feet away from the TV screen. It's a 29
>> inch TV showing a 2.35:1 widescreen image. Comfortable with the size? Now
>> reduce the screen size to 25 inches. Still OK? How about 21 inches? 14? At
>> some point the actual widescreen image will become so puny that you will
>> wish the black bars were filled. It's just a matter of how small the
>screen
>> must get before you begin to feel this way.
>>
>>
====================================================
Brian
>Chris Tan wrote:
>
>> > Is it your claim that there is no ignorance in this area? Do you know the
>> > meaning of the word "ignorant"?
>> >
>>
>> True, some people are ignorant. Is it your claim that all who prefer P&S
>are
>> ignorant?
>
>Did I say that?
You implied it. Same thing.
>
>
>> Did it ever occur to you that there are those who understand the
>> concept perfectly yet reject widescreen for the reasons I've already
>> outlined? But to you they're all the same, aren't they? Just a bunch of
>> ignorant fools.
>
>No. An informed choice of P&S is something other than ignorance.
>
So, just say it. Say what you mean.
>
>Joe
Brian
>(link...@SpammersWillBeExecuted.ptd.net)
>In article <10887-3A...@storefull-126.bryant.webtv.net>,
>Stingin...@webtv.net (KH) wrote:
>>>"College kids" are legal adults, to be held
>> >accountable for their actions.
>>>They are also not defenseless and without
>> >resources. Sammy is hardly a bully.
>>>Being in college does not grant you immunity
>> >from the consequences of your actions.
>>
>>Being a vocal member of this community, Sammy should expect that
>>sometimes the conversation can get out of hand, especially with his
>>sometimes abrasive style and penchant for vile insult. Threatening a
>>young person's education and/or career, is absurd and an example of
>>someone's out of control emotions getting the better of their sense of
>>reason and perspective.
>
>That is beside the point. Claiming Sammy fits the description of a terrorist
>
>is a blatant attack upon his character-- UNLESS the person making the claim
>can back it up with some significant studies.
>
>I don't know much about Sammy on a personal level, but if he feels his
>good name has been needlessly threatened,
ROTFLMMFAO! His good name?!
> I see no reason to question his judgement. His character is his to defend.
>
"Sammy" If that really is his name, has done more himself to threaten his own
"good name" through the statements he has made to people than this kid, if he
really is a kid. It seems that Sammy is the only one who took that statement
seriously. Everyone else seemed to know it was a wisecrack.
Brian
>>Your post (including email address) has been forwarded to my lawyer.
>
>Do the same to the school. Get him kicked out of there by threatening
>legal action against them.
>-------------------------------------------
You're a complete and total asshole. We've got a great bunch of guys in here.
Brian
>Why is Sammy such a whiny little bitch? Jetman didn't say anything of the
>like
>that you were going to do something. Someone must have a guilty conscience.
>The
>actual quote "Beware, everyone. People like Sammy are the ones who bomb
>federal
>buildings."
He is whiny but there are laws against slander. The guy doesn't have to say
that sammy intends to do anything. According to the law, if you say something
like that about someone, it is slander. Now did anyone actually take it
seriosly? Besides Sammy, I doubt it.
Brian
>>On the
>>most part it is where your eyes would be focused anyway and you get a better
>>viewing area on top of that.
>
>I usually focus my eyes on the whole frame...imagine that.
Unless you have a 3"x3" display, I find that highly unlikely. The larger your
set is, the more unlikely it becomes. That's like saying that you can glance at
a page in a book and tell me every word. Unless you have a photographic memory,
that's pretty unlikely as well.
JoeS
> >From: JoeS me....@gte.net
>
> >Chris Tan wrote:
> >
> >> > Based primarily upon ignorance.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Joe
> >> >
> >>
> >> With an attitude like that, it's no wonder proponents of widescreen can be
> >> as odious as the "ignorant P&S whores" that so many of you detest.
> >
> >Is it your claim that there is no ignorance in this area? Do you know the
> >meaning of the word "ignorant"?
> >
> >
> >> I've said enough. If you can't even put yourself in their shoes for an
> >> unbiased moment, then nothing I say could possibly be of any use.
> >
> >I have been in their shoes. I was once ignorant. I got informed.
> >
>
> No. You made a personal choice for yourself. What one does or doesn't know
> about the OAR of movies hardly makes them ignorant.
You clearly don't know the meaning of the word ignorant. Look it up.
Joe
Scott Moran
bian...@aol.comspamenot (Brian):
Of course I can't look directly at every pixel at once, but that
doesn't mean I only look at half of the frame at any time. I don't
like having a telecinist try to guess where I might want to look; they
are often wrong.
"Sand people, all right, I can see one of them now..." Well, not in
Pan & Scan you can't...
Richard C...©...
"Brian" <bian...@aol.comspamenot> wrote in message news:20010223010416...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
:
: What one does or doesn't know
: about the OAR of movies hardly makes them ignorant.
===========================
To make a statement such as this means that YOU are ignorant about the meaning ot the word.
Look it up, putz!
============================
Richard C...©...
"Brian" <bian...@aol.comspamenot> wrote in message news:20010223010719...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
:
: Many people just aren't comfortable sitting directly in front of their tv for
: the sake of being able to see the picture....
============================
They why the fuck are they watching the TV?
Are you really this inane?
===========================
: which btw would be the reason why
: they bought a 32" set in the first place rather than a 21" set.
===============
What? so they could not sit in front of it to watch it?
===============
Richard C...©...
"Brian" <bian...@aol.comspamenot> wrote in message news:20010223015224...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
: >From: s...@wolfenet.mmm-spam.com (Scott Moran)
: >
: >I usually focus my eyes on the whole frame...imagine that.
:
: Unless you have a 3"x3" display, I find that highly unlikely. The larger your
: set is, the more unlikely it becomes. That's like saying that you can glance at
: a page in a book and tell me every word. Unless you have a photographic memory,
: that's pretty unlikely as well.
==================================
Here you further demonstrate the severity of your problem.
You indeed have TERRIBLE eyesight - and tunnel vision.
Most people have NO problem taking in the entire frame on a Theater screen.
In addition, you just defeated (contradicted) your ENTIRE argument.
Based on what you just said, the SMALLER the screen, the bigger the case for widescreen (you can take it all in).
And the LARGER the screen the bigger the case for 1.33:1 (you cannot see a wide picture).
Which is it, troll boy?
====================================
KH
>I don't know much about Sammy on a >personal level, but if he feels his
good name
>has been needlessly threatened, I see no
>reason to question his judgement. His
>character is his to defend.
You're right, Sammy has every right to run around snitching to this
kid's school, his place of employment and his mommy and daddy. He has
every right to try his best to screw up this kid's life, because, after
all, poor Sammy was horribly insulted in a home theatre group.
KH
Norman Wilner
>>From: JoeS me....@gte.net
>
(snip for focus)
>
>> I have been in their shoes. I was once ignorant. I got
>> informed.
>
> No. You made a personal choice for yourself. What one does
> or doesn't know about the OAR of movies hardly makes them
> ignorant.
Actually, that's exactly what it does. What do you think "ignorant" means?
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
http://www.chapters.ca/wilner
Sammy
Stingin...@webtv.net (KH) wrote:
Haaaaaaaaa!
The schmuck that posted the comment about the bombing wasn't and isn't
worth more than the 5 seconds I spent on him. If I really wanted to
pursue it, turning the matter over to my attorney wouldn't be a problem
at all. But I was curious to see his response (none, as expected) and
the responses of others. The First Amendment is *NOT* a license to speak
irresponsibly, as I'm sure you are aware. The college puke acted like an
immature child. He better grow up before he does really get himself in
trouble some day by thinking he hides behind the Internet and finds out
he isn't as invisible and invulnerable as he thinks he is. I am most
happy to add the StingingCowboy to my killfile.
KH
>II am most happy to add the StingingCowboy
>to my killfile.
I expected as much, from someone like you.
(Writing this response on the off chance that this killfile nonsense may
also be a cowardly bluff.)
KH
KH
>If the "kid" is so fucking LAME that he doesn't
>know that one doesn't go around pulling that
>baby 6 year old bullshit, then the 'kid'
>deserves everything the 'kid' gets.
That's funny, coming from a man with the syntax of a preschooler.
>Go away now
>Stinking...@LameTV.net.
Let's see...one puts me in the killfile, the other calls me names and
insults my WebTV (egads!). I hope this answers your question about the
reference to "nads" in my previous post, Richard C.
KH
Sammy
Joe Bloe <Joe...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 09:37:38 -0500 (EST), Stingin...@webtv.net
> (KH) Articulated:
> Said the lamer that no one has a reason to be afraid of...
>
>
> TopQuark...
The only problem with a killfile is that you get to see the quoted posts
of the idiot that was killfiled.
Who can take seriously a jerk who calls himself StingingCowboy? This
must be some form of self aggrandizement. Now, if he called himself the
Stinking Comboy, well that I would believe.
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
>Who can take seriously a jerk who calls himself StingingCowboy? This
>must be some form of self aggrandizement. Now, if he called himself the
>Stinking Comboy, well that I would believe.
<70s>
"We got a great, big comby..."
</70s>
Aaron B.
--
"This is DVD, not 'VHS: The Next Generation.'"
KH
>I figured that you would see it from this. I
>called him a "Stinking cow that has been
>poked" or "StinkingCowPoked". I think now
>though that he must really be a
>StinkingPokedCow... :-]
Joe Bloe, your lack of imagination is....well, stunning.
KH
KH
>The only problem with a killfile is that you get
>to see the quoted posts of the idiot that was
>killfiled.
I've called your cowardly bluff and you have performed as expected. I
did expect a few threats and maybe a comment about contacting your
attorney, though.
>Who can take seriously a jerk who calls
>himself StingingCowboy?
>This must be some form of self
>aggrandizement. Now, if he called himself the
>Stinking Comboy, well that I would believe.
How very clever.
KH
Brian
s...@wolfenet.mmm-spam.com (Scott Moran) wrote:
>Previously, on alt.video.dvd...
>
>bian...@aol.comspamenot (Brian):
>
>>>From: s...@wolfenet.mmm-spam.com (Scott Moran)
>>
>>>>On the
>>>>most part it is where your eyes would be focused anyway and you get a
better
>>>>viewing area on top of that.
>>>
>>>I usually focus my eyes on the whole frame...imagine that.
>>
>> Unless you have a 3"x3" display, I find that highly unlikely. The larger
your
>>set is, the more unlikely it becomes. That's like saying that you can glance
at
>>a page in a book and tell me every word. Unless you have a photographic
memory,
>>that's pretty unlikely as well.
>
>Of course I can't look directly at every pixel at once, but that
>doesn't mean I only look at half of the frame at any time. I don't
>like having a telecinist try to guess where I might want to look; they
>are often wrong.
>
Suppose you want to look at something that was cut from the final movie?
At any rate, You'd be hard pressed to completely absorb every little detail
of every frame in any movie if you watched it 50 times. Much less once or
twice. I'll grant you that important details sometimes get cut out of P&S
movies. Nobody is arguing that they don't. Which is all the more reason for
the director and other key people of any movie to be directly involved in
any P&S transfer.
For half of my life, I was unable to afford even halfway decent stereo equipment.
Listening to music for me consisted of little more than a cheap "boom box".
I don't think anyone would argue that important details of the music get
left out when you only have two so called "Full range" speakers attempting
to produce all the music over such a broad range. Nevertheless, it didn't
take away my desire to listen to my favorite music over and over. In fact,
it only enhanced my appreciation of the detail when I was able to afford
better equipment and all the missing detail was revealed.
Although people who view movies in P&S may not be getting every little detail
and may indeed be missing a few important details, it normally doesn't take
away from their ability to appreciate the movie. I think you can be fairly
certain that when they buy widescreen sets, they'll naturally make the shift
to widescreen movies. Until that time, I promise you there will be people
who simply won't accept a widescreen movie on their 4:3 tv.
Brian
"Richard C...©..." <lpm...@XXpost-age-collectibles.Xcom> wrote:
>
>"Brian" <bian...@aol.comspamenot> wrote in message news:20010223015224...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
>: >From: s...@wolfenet.mmm-spam.com (Scott Moran)
>: >
>: >I usually focus my eyes on the whole frame...imagine that.
>:
>: Unless you have a 3"x3" display, I find that highly unlikely. The larger
your
>: set is, the more unlikely it becomes. That's like saying that you can
glance at
>: a page in a book and tell me every word. Unless you have a photographic
memory,
>: that's pretty unlikely as well.
>
>==================================
>Here you further demonstrate the severity of your problem.
>You indeed have TERRIBLE eyesight - and tunnel vision.
>
>Most people have NO problem taking in the entire frame on a Theater screen.
>
So if I asked you face to face to name every visable name on the grave stones
at the begining of "Saving Private Ryan", you'd naturally be able to tell
me right away without watching that part again right? Shall I go on? How
many soldiers are visable in the first frame of the field battle scene in
"The Patriot"? The list could go on and on. Speaking of lists, if I asked
you to name every name that is shown on the list in "Schindler's List", in
person, you'd tell me every name right off naturally.
Brian
I doubt that you will. You enjoy threatening to plonk people much more than
you enjoy actually doing it.
Brian
"Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> wrote:
>"Brian" <bian...@aol.comspamenot> wrote in message
>news:20010223010416...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
>>>From: JoeS me....@gte.net
>>
>(snip for focus)
>>
>>> I have been in their shoes. I was once ignorant. I got
>>> informed.
>>
>> No. You made a personal choice for yourself. What one does
>> or doesn't know about the OAR of movies hardly makes them
>> ignorant.
>
>Actually, that's exactly what it does. What do you think "ignorant" means?
>
Usually, when I call someone ignorant (which isn't often), I mean that they
are ignorant in all things great and small. I use it as a general term for
a slightly more polite way of calling them stupid. What I meant by the post
that you quoted is that the fact that many people may not make movies for
a living and don't really care to know everything about them and the process
of making them hardly makes them ignorant in every aspect of their life.
Maybe when you use the word, you don't mean it in the same way but many
people will interpret it that way and it will come off as an insult.
Brian
Seriously. My 4th grade classmates had more imagination than these two.
>KH
>