Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.computers > #50159 > unrolled thread
| Started by | felix <me@nothere.biz> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-10 19:17 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-01-16 11:14 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 260 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to aus.computers
DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.biz> - 2016-01-10 19:17 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-01-10 09:36 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-11 15:11 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.biz> - 2016-01-11 15:38 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-11 18:39 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.biz> - 2016-01-11 18:46 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-11 20:05 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-14 11:15 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 14:10 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2016-01-14 04:33 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-15 00:46 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-15 00:25 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-15 07:14 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-15 10:45 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 12:48 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-15 15:09 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 15:47 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-15 20:12 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-15 09:32 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 09:51 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-15 10:17 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-15 10:43 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 12:47 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-15 20:19 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-16 08:17 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-16 11:42 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-16 13:15 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-16 13:32 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-16 13:41 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-16 21:01 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 00:39 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-17 09:08 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 12:14 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-17 09:45 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-17 13:28 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 13:38 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen keithr <no-one@nowhere.com.au> - 2016-01-17 19:46 +1000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-18 07:01 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 09:14 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 13:34 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen keithr <no-one@nowhere.com.au> - 2016-01-17 19:47 +1000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 22:14 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-17 19:58 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-18 07:42 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 09:17 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-18 09:48 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-18 07:14 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-18 12:10 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-18 13:52 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-18 17:59 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen keithr <no-one@nowhere.com.au> - 2016-01-19 00:30 +1000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-19 11:05 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-19 11:12 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen keithr <no-one@nowhere.com.au> - 2016-01-21 21:43 +1000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen keithr <no-one@nowhere.com.au> - 2016-01-21 21:48 +1000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:17 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-21 16:41 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-21 19:39 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-21 22:04 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-22 12:13 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.biz> - 2016-01-22 13:15 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen keithr <no-one@nowhere.com.au> - 2016-01-21 21:38 +1000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-18 18:01 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 04:31 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-19 09:01 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-20 17:26 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-01-18 11:52 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-18 13:58 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-18 14:28 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-18 14:49 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-18 15:46 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-18 17:44 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-18 15:44 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 16:29 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-18 17:46 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 04:29 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-19 09:08 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-20 13:45 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-20 14:59 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-20 17:17 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-20 21:46 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-21 02:55 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen keithr <no-one@nowhere.com.au> - 2016-01-19 00:34 +1000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-19 11:01 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-19 09:05 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-18 13:54 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-20 13:37 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-21 02:56 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-18 18:02 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-01-18 02:02 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 13:44 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 00:38 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-01-16 06:57 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-16 13:11 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-16 11:43 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-17 13:19 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 13:45 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 13:51 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen JW <none@dev.null> - 2016-01-19 06:39 -0500
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Chris <c@b.a> - 2016-01-20 10:39 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-21 03:00 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:10 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-26 16:03 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-01-20 20:19 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-24 09:36 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-01-24 00:51 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-27 07:39 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen news13 <newsthirteenspam-spam@woa.com.au> - 2016-01-26 00:20 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-27 07:38 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen XR8 Sprintless <xr8_sprint@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-27 21:50 +1000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-29 09:46 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:48 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen XR8 Sprintless <xr8_sprint@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-30 01:20 +1000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-30 07:37 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-30 08:31 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 06:31 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-15 15:10 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-15 15:14 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 15:56 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-16 11:08 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 12:59 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-16 14:24 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-16 13:25 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-16 14:10 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-16 15:13 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-16 16:02 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-16 16:48 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 19:36 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-16 20:57 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 03:59 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-17 09:34 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-16 16:44 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen jonz <johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 22:29 -0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 19:34 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-16 20:52 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 03:56 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-17 09:38 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 10:02 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 10:28 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 11:46 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-01-17 01:39 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-17 13:33 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 13:39 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 13:46 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-17 14:14 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-17 13:47 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-17 14:11 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 14:18 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 13:42 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 15:55 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-15 20:53 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-01-14 16:53 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "SG1" <Lost@the.races.com> - 2016-01-15 08:57 +1000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-15 10:18 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-15 10:53 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-15 20:14 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-01-14 23:30 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-14 17:28 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-14 20:46 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 21:00 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-14 22:01 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-15 00:43 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-15 07:21 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen hereford <takecarebeware@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 12:27 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-01-16 00:33 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-01-15 22:52 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-16 11:29 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-16 13:32 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 12:58 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-16 13:27 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-16 13:42 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 15:16 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-16 16:46 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 19:35 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-16 20:55 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 03:57 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 09:40 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 10:05 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 10:31 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Jacko" <Jacko_ONE@bigpond.com> - 2016-01-17 09:47 +1000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-17 11:35 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 12:02 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen keithr <no-one@nowhere.com.au> - 2016-01-17 20:21 +1000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-18 07:07 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 09:16 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-18 09:45 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 11:46 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-17 10:41 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 10:58 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 11:54 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 12:07 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 13:40 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 11:48 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-17 13:36 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 13:40 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 13:49 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-17 14:17 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 14:21 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 16:28 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-16 13:33 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 15:18 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-16 15:39 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 19:15 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-18 07:18 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 10:48 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-18 11:18 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-18 14:01 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-18 18:06 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-01-16 21:00 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 04:01 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-16 11:20 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-16 13:34 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-01-17 01:14 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 02:31 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-01-16 19:31 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 07:55 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-01-16 21:27 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 10:01 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 10:25 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-01-17 14:18 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-18 07:11 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-01-17 21:18 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-18 09:09 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-18 09:12 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-01-18 19:40 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-19 11:37 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-01-19 16:19 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-20 12:01 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-01-20 20:00 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-21 09:19 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-18 09:03 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-18 08:58 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-01-18 19:12 +0000
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-19 10:48 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-19 09:13 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-01-17 18:51 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 19:57 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-18 13:46 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-15 07:25 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Robert" <robert@no.email> - 2016-01-14 14:29 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-14 19:05 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 20:04 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Robert" <robert@no.email> - 2016-01-14 17:00 +0800
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-14 20:39 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-14 20:52 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 21:01 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-14 21:57 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 06:30 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-14 20:50 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 21:01 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-15 07:22 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen hereford <takecarebeware@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 12:25 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2016-01-15 20:16 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-17 13:23 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 13:44 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2016-01-17 14:02 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-01-17 14:15 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen hereford <takecarebeware@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 03:03 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen harold <takecarebeware@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 02:12 +1100
Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen "Dechucka" <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-16 11:14 +1100
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
| From | Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 07:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <q6tn9bdgr42uves9tp6ttp6lelvh076g6j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #50491 |
On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: >felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >- Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy. Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single layer disc. Not very common, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 21:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dg2eodFtkj3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #50496 |
Je?us <j@invalid.lan> wrote: > On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> > wrote: > > >felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > >- Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy. > > Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single > layer disc. Not very common, of course. I beg to differ. If he's making a direct, i.e. one-to-one copy, there is no shrinking [1] involved, because a shrunk copy would by definition be different from the original. But more importantly, note that he never said *what* he copied and not *how* he copied it. He only said that he burnt (burned?) a movie twice, once to TDK media, once to LG media. No details about the source, no details about the format(s) of the source, not details about the procedures/settings of the copy process and no details about the format(s) of the targets. And then there's - as I mentioned - the different connections of the two DVD players. All-in-all a myriad of possibilities why the visible results could indeed be different, NOT because of the brands of the media, but because of other factors which he didn't report, most likely because he doesn't realize their importance/relevance, but possibly because he's trolling. [1] I have to say that I find the name 'DVD shrink' rather fitting in this (non-)discussion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 09:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <es3o9b9nt04gbf0s69jn75pdp5rgdtpnhh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #50498 |
On 17 Jan 2016 21:18:05 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: >Je?us <j@invalid.lan> wrote: >> On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> >felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> >- Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy. >> >> Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single >> layer disc. Not very common, of course. > > I beg to differ. If he's making a direct, i.e. one-to-one copy, there >is no shrinking [1] involved, because a shrunk copy would by definition >be different from the original. That was my point - no shrinking needed if he was copying a single layer (4.3GB) disc. You might not be aware that you don't necessarily have to 'shrink' the data with DVD Shrink, you can copy a disc with DVD Shrink without any shrinking/compression to a dual layer DVD-R, or simply copy the disc to a hard drive. > But more importantly, note that he never said *what* he copied and not >*how* he copied it. He only said that he burnt (burned?) a movie twice, >once to TDK media, once to LG media. No details about the source, no >details about the format(s) of the source, not details about the >procedures/settings of the copy process and no details about the >format(s) of the targets. I know, we tried to get the facts out of him, to no avail. > And then there's - as I mentioned - the different connections of the >two DVD players. > > All-in-all a myriad of possibilities why the visible results could >indeed be different, NOT because of the brands of the media, but because >of other factors which he didn't report, most likely because he doesn't >realize their importance/relevance, but possibly because he's trolling. 'possibly' indeed :) >[1] I have to say that I find the name 'DVD shrink' rather fitting in >this (non-)discussion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 09:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dg2hudFuej3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #50498 |
On 18-January-2016 8:18 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > Je?us <j@invalid.lan> wrote: >> On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>> - Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy. >> Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single >> layer disc. Not very common, of course. > I beg to differ. If he's making a direct, i.e. one-to-one copy, there > is no shrinking [1] involved, because a shrunk copy would by definition > be different from the original. DVD Shrink is used to strip copy protection > > But more importantly, note that he never said *what* he copied DVD movies > and not *how* he copied it. I did - Asus burner in a PC using DVD Shrink and Nero > He only said that he burnt (burned?) a movie twice, > once to TDK media, once to LG media. No details about the source, no > details about the format(s) of the source, DVD movies > not details about the > procedures/settings of the copy process and no details about the > format(s) of the targets. what more info do you want? I'm making copies of DVD's > > And then there's - as I mentioned - the different connections of the > two DVD players. the other DVD player is irrelevant. READ the thread! I'm not going to repeat it all > All-in-all a myriad of possibilities why the visible results could > indeed be different, NOT because of the brands of the media, but because > of other factors which he didn't report, most likely because he doesn't > realize their importance/relevance, but possibly because he's trolling. > > [1] I have to say that I find the name 'DVD shrink' rather fitting in > this (non-)discussion. -- "As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world" -William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain http://www.siotw.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 19:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dg4tddFi962U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #50503 |
felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > On 18-January-2016 8:18 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > Je?us <j@invalid.lan> wrote: > >> On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > >>> - Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy. > >> Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single > >> layer disc. Not very common, of course. > > I beg to differ. If he's making a direct, i.e. one-to-one copy, there > > is no shrinking [1] involved, because a shrunk copy would by definition > > be different from the original. > > DVD Shrink is used to strip copy protection So finally - after yet another teeth pulling operation - a *bit* of detail. You should have said this *upfront*, because just saying that you used DVD shrink, implies that you shrunk the copies and might have made a - highly relevant - error there. > > But more importantly, note that he never said *what* he copied > > DVD movies 'movieS'? Did you copy more than one movie to one DVD? > > and not *how* he copied it. > > I did - Asus burner in a PC using DVD Shrink and Nero Yes, you said only *that*, and I asked for the procedures, settings, options, etc., and again you failed to give the required info. > > He only said that he burnt (burned?) a movie twice, > > once to TDK media, once to LG media. No details about the source, no > > details about the format(s) of the source, > > DVD movies See above. > > not details about the > > procedures/settings of the copy process and no details about the > > format(s) of the targets. > > what more info do you want? I'm making copies of DVD's Duh! I (read: we) want (read: require) the info *which I'm asking for*, Believe it or not, but software like DVD Shrink and Nero doesn't run itself! So we need to know exactly which operations you performed and which settings/options/etc., you used. *If* the visual results of both copies were the same, we would of course not need this information. But because *you* *claim* they're different and *you* clearly don't grasp the subject matter at hand, the information *is* required. > > And then there's - as I mentioned - the different connections of the > > two DVD players. > > the other DVD player is irrelevant. READ the thread! I'm not going to > repeat it all Well, if it's irrelevant, then why did you mention it? > > All-in-all a myriad of possibilities why the visible results could > > indeed be different, NOT because of the brands of the media, but because > > of other factors which he didn't report, most likely because he doesn't > > realize their importance/relevance, but possibly because he's trolling. > > > > [1] I have to say that I find the name 'DVD shrink' rather fitting in > > this (non-)discussion. Bottom line: You're of course free to let this rest and shut up. But if you keep stamping your feet, continue to utter nonsense and continue to flame/insult people who clearly know much more than you do - which isn't a big (t)ask -, you'll get what's coming. Such is life. Time to get over it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 11:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dg5eqkFmkmbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #50549 |
On 19-January-2016 6:40 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> On 18-January-2016 8:18 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>> Je?us <j@invalid.lan> wrote: >>>> On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>> - Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy. >>>> Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single >>>> layer disc. Not very common, of course. >>> I beg to differ. If he's making a direct, i.e. one-to-one copy, there >>> is no shrinking [1] involved, because a shrunk copy would by definition >>> be different from the original. >> DVD Shrink is used to strip copy protection > So finally - after yet another teeth pulling operation - a *bit* of > detail. You should have said this *upfront*, because just saying that > you used DVD shrink, implies that you shrunk the copies and might have > made a - highly relevant - error there. > >>> But more importantly, note that he never said *what* he copied >> DVD movies > 'movieS'? Did you copy more than one movie to one DVD? no, one movie per dvd > >>> and not *how* he copied it. >> I did - Asus burner in a PC using DVD Shrink and Nero > Yes, you said only *that*, and I asked for the procedures, settings, > options, etc., and again you failed to give the required info. it varies according to what I am recording. I am discussing the recording of DVD's with the ONLY variant being the media, and not one particular recording > >>> He only said that he burnt (burned?) a movie twice, >>> once to TDK media, once to LG media. No details about the source, no >>> details about the format(s) of the source, >> DVD movies > See above. > >>> not details about the >>> procedures/settings of the copy process and no details about the >>> format(s) of the targets. >> what more info do you want? I'm making copies of DVD's > Duh! I (read: we) want (read: require) the info *which I'm asking for*, > > Believe it or not, but software like DVD Shrink and Nero doesn't run > itself! So we need to know exactly which operations you performed and > which settings/options/etc., you used. > > *If* the visual results of both copies were the same, we would of > course not need this information. But because *you* *claim* they're > different and *you* clearly don't grasp the subject matter at hand, the > information *is* required. see previous > >>> And then there's - as I mentioned - the different connections of the >>> two DVD players. >> the other DVD player is irrelevant. READ the thread! I'm not going to >> repeat it all > Well, if it's irrelevant, then why did you mention it? like I've said, you were confusing to separate discussions > >>> All-in-all a myriad of possibilities why the visible results could >>> indeed be different, NOT because of the brands of the media, but because >>> of other factors which he didn't report, most likely because he doesn't >>> realize their importance/relevance, but possibly because he's trolling. >>> >>> [1] I have to say that I find the name 'DVD shrink' rather fitting in >>> this (non-)discussion. > Bottom line: You're of course free to let this rest and shut up. But > if you keep stamping your feet, continue to utter nonsense IYNSWO > and continue to flame/insult people that's just a lie. of course no one has abused or insulted me have they.. > who clearly know much more than you do again IYNSWO. NO ONE who has had ANY practical experience with cables will try to tell you they cannot affect audio or video performance. > - which > isn't a big (t)ask -, you'll get what's coming. Such is life. Time to > get over it. and if you keep making demands of me and telling me what to do, I'll ignore you. (and now I'm wondering why I even bothered to answer this) -- "As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world" -William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain http://www.siotw.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 16:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dg761aF2fvcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #50562 |
felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
> On 19-January-2016 6:40 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 18-January-2016 8:18 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> Je?us <j@invalid.lan> wrote:
> >>>> On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>> - Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy.
> >>>> Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single
> >>>> layer disc. Not very common, of course.
> >>> I beg to differ. If he's making a direct, i.e. one-to-one copy, there
> >>> is no shrinking [1] involved, because a shrunk copy would by definition
> >>> be different from the original.
> >> DVD Shrink is used to strip copy protection
> > So finally - after yet another teeth pulling operation - a *bit* of
> > detail. You should have said this *upfront*, because just saying that
> > you used DVD shrink, implies that you shrunk the copies and might have
> > made a - highly relevant - error there.
> >
> >>> But more importantly, note that he never said *what* he copied
> >> DVD movies
> > 'movieS'? Did you copy more than one movie to one DVD?
>
> no, one movie per dvd
So you should say "DVD movie", singular. What you do at *other* times
is irrelevant to your media test and should be left out.
> >>> and not *how* he copied it.
> >> I did - Asus burner in a PC using DVD Shrink and Nero
> > Yes, you said only *that*, and I asked for the procedures, settings,
> > options, etc., and again you failed to give the required info.
>
> it varies according to what I am recording. I am discussing the
> recording of DVD's with the ONLY variant being the media, and not one
> particular recording
You keep saying that (i.e. stamping your feet) - but as has been
pointed out to you umpteen times - it is *IMPOSSIBLE* that the pictures
for the two brands of media are different, if that is "the ONLY variant".
It's a *digital* copy of a *digital* source. If the copies are
identical - which you refuse to test - the pictures for the two brands
are the same, period.
So *deliver* - i.e. compare the contents of the two media bit-for-bit
and post the results - or STFU!
> >>> He only said that he burnt (burned?) a movie twice,
> >>> once to TDK media, once to LG media. No details about the source, no
> >>> details about the format(s) of the source,
> >> DVD movies
> > See above.
> >
> >>> not details about the
> >>> procedures/settings of the copy process and no details about the
> >>> format(s) of the targets.
> >> what more info do you want? I'm making copies of DVD's
> > Duh! I (read: we) want (read: require) the info *which I'm asking for*,
> >
> > Believe it or not, but software like DVD Shrink and Nero doesn't run
> > itself! So we need to know exactly which operations you performed and
> > which settings/options/etc., you used.
> >
> > *If* the visual results of both copies were the same, we would of
> > course not need this information. But because *you* *claim* they're
> > different and *you* clearly don't grasp the subject matter at hand, the
> > information *is* required.
>
> see previous
>
> >>> And then there's - as I mentioned - the different connections of the
> >>> two DVD players.
> >> the other DVD player is irrelevant. READ the thread! I'm not going to
> >> repeat it all
> > Well, if it's irrelevant, then why did you mention it?
>
> like I've said, you were confusing to separate discussions
No, I do *not* confuse the two seperate discussions (the - already
long closed - topic mentioned in the Subject: line ("DVD picture doesn't
fill the screen"), and this one - the supposedly different picture from
two different brands of media).
But *you* brought up the (connection of the) Samsung player, so *you*
are confused, because you bring up a point which *you* know/say is
irrelevant.
> >>> All-in-all a myriad of possibilities why the visible results could
> >>> indeed be different, NOT because of the brands of the media, but because
> >>> of other factors which he didn't report, most likely because he doesn't
> >>> realize their importance/relevance, but possibly because he's trolling.
> >>>
> >>> [1] I have to say that I find the name 'DVD shrink' rather fitting in
> >>> this (non-)discussion.
> > Bottom line: You're of course free to let this rest and shut up. But
> > if you keep stamping your feet, continue to utter nonsense
>
> IYNSWO
>
> > and continue to flame/insult people
>
> that's just a lie. of course no one has abused or insulted me have they..
No, that's a *fact*. Specifically, you flamed/insulted me after my
*very first* response in this thread, and that response was *not*
inflammatory at all! If you think otherwise, *prove* it (with a cite).
> > who clearly know much more than you do
>
> again IYNSWO. NO ONE who has had ANY practical experience with cables
> will try to tell you they cannot affect audio or video performance.
*Nobody* - except you - is saying that. Everybody - except you - is
sticking to the cable type which is relevant for *this* discussion,
namely a HDMI cable, i.e. a cable for *digital* video/audio. As people
have tried and tried again to ram into your brain, the (non) quality of
an HDMI cable *cannot* affect the quality of the picture as you are
mentioning (i.e. colour seperation and sharpness). A 'bad' quality cable
can give video/audio *interruptions*, i.e. blocks, etc.) or even not
work at all, but it *cannot* affect colour seperation and sharpness.
Of course *if* we were talking about cables for *analog* connections,
it can be a different story, but we are *not* talking about analog
connections, *only* digital ones.
Bottom line: You're confused about digital versus analog (and lots of
other things).
> > - which
> > isn't a big (t)ask -, you'll get what's coming. Such is life. Time to
> > get over it.
>
> and if you keep making demands of me and telling me what to do, I'll
> ignore you.
Promises, promises!
> (and now I'm wondering why I even bothered to answer this)
Because you can't handle the fact that people point out your flaws!?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 12:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dg84jlFa9afU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #50574 |
On 20-January-2016 3:19 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>> On 19-January-2016 6:40 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 18-January-2016 8:18 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> Je?us <j@invalid.lan> wrote:
>>>>>> On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> - Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy.
>>>>>> Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single
>>>>>> layer disc. Not very common, of course.
>>>>> I beg to differ. If he's making a direct, i.e. one-to-one copy, there
>>>>> is no shrinking [1] involved, because a shrunk copy would by definition
>>>>> be different from the original.
>>>> DVD Shrink is used to strip copy protection
>>> So finally - after yet another teeth pulling operation - a *bit* of
>>> detail. You should have said this *upfront*, because just saying that
>>> you used DVD shrink, implies that you shrunk the copies and might have
>>> made a - highly relevant - error there.
>>>
>>>>> But more importantly, note that he never said *what* he copied
>>>> DVD movies
>>> 'movieS'? Did you copy more than one movie to one DVD?
>> no, one movie per dvd
> So you should say "DVD movie", singular. What you do at *other* times
> is irrelevant to your media test and should be left out.
>
>>>>> and not *how* he copied it.
>>>> I did - Asus burner in a PC using DVD Shrink and Nero
>>> Yes, you said only *that*, and I asked for the procedures, settings,
>>> options, etc., and again you failed to give the required info.
>> it varies according to what I am recording. I am discussing the
>> recording of DVD's with the ONLY variant being the media, and not one
>> particular recording
> You keep saying that (i.e. stamping your feet) - but as has been
> pointed out to you umpteen times - it is *IMPOSSIBLE* that the pictures
> for the two brands of media are different, if that is "the ONLY variant".
>
> It's a *digital* copy of a *digital* source. If the copies are
> identical - which you refuse to test - the pictures for the two brands
> are the same, period.
so how is that done? and I've already told you we were not talking about
any DVDs specifically, so I would have to make some copies to compare.
>
> So *deliver* - i.e. compare the contents of the two media bit-for-bit
> and post the results - or STFU!
I'm replying to you stupid.
>
>>>>> He only said that he burnt (burned?) a movie twice,
>>>>> once to TDK media, once to LG media. No details about the source, no
>>>>> details about the format(s) of the source,
>>>> DVD movies
>>> See above.
>>>
>>>>> not details about the
>>>>> procedures/settings of the copy process and no details about the
>>>>> format(s) of the targets.
>>>> what more info do you want? I'm making copies of DVD's
>>> Duh! I (read: we) want (read: require) the info *which I'm asking for*,
>>>
>>> Believe it or not, but software like DVD Shrink and Nero doesn't run
>>> itself! So we need to know exactly which operations you performed and
>>> which settings/options/etc., you used.
>>>
>>> *If* the visual results of both copies were the same, we would of
>>> course not need this information. But because *you* *claim* they're
>>> different and *you* clearly don't grasp the subject matter at hand, the
>>> information *is* required.
>> see previous
>>
>>>>> And then there's - as I mentioned - the different connections of the
>>>>> two DVD players.
>>>> the other DVD player is irrelevant. READ the thread! I'm not going to
>>>> repeat it all
>>> Well, if it's irrelevant, then why did you mention it?
>> like I've said, you were confusing to separate discussions
> No, I do *not* confuse the two seperate discussions (the - already
> long closed - topic mentioned in the Subject: line ("DVD picture doesn't
> fill the screen"), and this one - the supposedly different picture from
> two different brands of media).
>
> But *you* brought up the (connection of the) Samsung player, so *you*
> are confused, because you bring up a point which *you* know/say is
> irrelevant.
no, it's you who are (still) confused or you wouldn't even mention the
Samsung DVD player in relation to the discussion about media. there are
three discussions in the thread
1. DVD picture not filling the screen
2. a disc that would not play
3. variations between DVD media
it was only in relation to (2) that the Samsung was mentioned or was
relevant. I kept telling you to read the thread to clarify your
thoughts. if you had done so you would know that the Samsung is
irrelevant to this discussion.
>
>>>>> All-in-all a myriad of possibilities why the visible results could
>>>>> indeed be different, NOT because of the brands of the media, but because
>>>>> of other factors which he didn't report, most likely because he doesn't
>>>>> realize their importance/relevance, but possibly because he's trolling.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] I have to say that I find the name 'DVD shrink' rather fitting in
>>>>> this (non-)discussion.
>>> Bottom line: You're of course free to let this rest and shut up. But
>>> if you keep stamping your feet, continue to utter nonsense
>> IYNSWO
>>
>>> and continue to flame/insult people
>> that's just a lie. of course no one has abused or insulted me have they..
> No, that's a *fact*. Specifically, you flamed/insulted me after my
> *very first* response in this thread, and that response was *not*
> inflammatory at all!
how much patience do you think I have? your response came late in the
discussion after I had been called all sorts of things and constantly
accused of trolling, and you pop up with yet another suggestion of lack
of knowledge and trolling. you'll recall I started my response with
"here we go again.."
> If you think otherwise, *prove* it (with a cite).
>
>>> who clearly know much more than you do
>> again IYNSWO. NO ONE who has had ANY practical experience with cables
>> will try to tell you they cannot affect audio or video performance.
> *Nobody* - except you - is saying that. Everybody - except you - is
> sticking to the cable type which is relevant for *this* discussion,
> namely a HDMI cable, i.e. a cable for *digital* video/audio. As people
> have tried and tried again to ram into your brain, the (non) quality of
> an HDMI cable *cannot* affect the quality of the picture as you are
> mentioning (i.e. colour seperation and sharpness). A 'bad' quality cable
> can give video/audio *interruptions*, i.e. blocks, etc.) or even not
> work at all, but it *cannot* affect colour seperation and sharpness.
>
> Of course *if* we were talking about cables for *analog* connections,
> it can be a different story, but we are *not* talking about analog
> connections, *only* digital ones.
>
> Bottom line: You're confused about digital versus analog
no, the discussion included both types. only later did it move on to a
specific cable type.
> (and lots of other things).
such as?
>
>>> - which
>>> isn't a big (t)ask -, you'll get what's coming. Such is life. Time to
>>> get over it.
>> and if you keep making demands of me and telling me what to do, I'll
>> ignore you.
> Promises, promises!
so do you want me to reply to you or not? I'm happy either way. like I
said, if ppl want to discuss some issue that's fine. but many here can't
seem to do that without resorting to personal abuse and insults. then if
I react in kind, I'm criticized more! it's pretty much a case of blaming
the victim.
>
>> (and now I'm wondering why I even bothered to answer this)
> Because you can't handle the fact that people point out your flaws!?
and why, pray tell, should my 'flaws' (whatever they may be) be a topic
for discussion? the reason I'm so insistent about the difference cables
can make is because I CAN and DO see (and hear) differences between
cables, and no one will ever convince me that I can't see what I do see.
yet another example.. I can swap the cables from the foxtel box with
different grades of monster cable and see a difference. strangely enough
a lower grade monster cable produces the best result. you can believe it
or not, I don't care, since it makes no difference to me personally
whether you do or don't.
--
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 20:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dga7b5FqhcfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #50583 |
felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
> On 20-January-2016 3:19 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 19-January-2016 6:40 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> On 18-January-2016 8:18 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>>>> Je?us <j@invalid.lan> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>> - Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy.
> >>>>>> Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single
> >>>>>> layer disc. Not very common, of course.
> >>>>> I beg to differ. If he's making a direct, i.e. one-to-one copy, there
> >>>>> is no shrinking [1] involved, because a shrunk copy would by definition
> >>>>> be different from the original.
> >>>> DVD Shrink is used to strip copy protection
> >>> So finally - after yet another teeth pulling operation - a *bit* of
> >>> detail. You should have said this *upfront*, because just saying that
> >>> you used DVD shrink, implies that you shrunk the copies and might have
> >>> made a - highly relevant - error there.
> >>>
> >>>>> But more importantly, note that he never said *what* he copied
> >>>> DVD movies
> >>> 'movieS'? Did you copy more than one movie to one DVD?
> >> no, one movie per dvd
> > So you should say "DVD movie", singular. What you do at *other* times
> > is irrelevant to your media test and should be left out.
Non response duly noted.
> >>>>> and not *how* he copied it.
> >>>> I did - Asus burner in a PC using DVD Shrink and Nero
> >>> Yes, you said only *that*, and I asked for the procedures, settings,
> >>> options, etc., and again you failed to give the required info.
> >> it varies according to what I am recording. I am discussing the
> >> recording of DVD's with the ONLY variant being the media, and not one
> >> particular recording
> > You keep saying that (i.e. stamping your feet) - but as has been
> > pointed out to you umpteen times - it is *IMPOSSIBLE* that the pictures
> > for the two brands of media are different, if that is "the ONLY variant".
> >
> > It's a *digital* copy of a *digital* source. If the copies are
> > identical - which you refuse to test - the pictures for the two brands
> > are the same, period.
>
> so how is that done?
I've already asked for pointers. Apparently that escaped you as well.
> and I've already told you we were not talking about
> any DVDs specifically, so I would have to make some copies to compare.
Sigh! You use the *existing* copies (one LG and one TDK) which *you*
claim give different visual results. Making more copies would only
confuse you - and hence the issue - even more.
> > So *deliver* - i.e. compare the contents of the two media bit-for-bit
> > and post the results - or STFU!
>
> I'm replying to you stupid.
Yes, you 'reply' - FSVSVO 'reply' - but's you don't *deliver*, you
only add more and more nonsense.
> >>>>> He only said that he burnt (burned?) a movie twice,
> >>>>> once to TDK media, once to LG media. No details about the source, no
> >>>>> details about the format(s) of the source,
> >>>> DVD movies
> >>> See above.
> >>>
> >>>>> not details about the
> >>>>> procedures/settings of the copy process and no details about the
> >>>>> format(s) of the targets.
> >>>> what more info do you want? I'm making copies of DVD's
> >>> Duh! I (read: we) want (read: require) the info *which I'm asking for*,
> >>>
> >>> Believe it or not, but software like DVD Shrink and Nero doesn't run
> >>> itself! So we need to know exactly which operations you performed and
> >>> which settings/options/etc., you used.
> >>>
> >>> *If* the visual results of both copies were the same, we would of
> >>> course not need this information. But because *you* *claim* they're
> >>> different and *you* clearly don't grasp the subject matter at hand, the
> >>> information *is* required.
> >> see previous
> >>
> >>>>> And then there's - as I mentioned - the different connections of the
> >>>>> two DVD players.
> >>>> the other DVD player is irrelevant. READ the thread! I'm not going to
> >>>> repeat it all
> >>> Well, if it's irrelevant, then why did you mention it?
> >> like I've said, you were confusing to separate discussions
> > No, I do *not* confuse the two seperate discussions (the - already
> > long closed - topic mentioned in the Subject: line ("DVD picture doesn't
> > fill the screen"), and this one - the supposedly different picture from
> > two different brands of media).
> >
> > But *you* brought up the (connection of the) Samsung player, so *you*
> > are confused, because you bring up a point which *you* know/say is
> > irrelevant.
>
> no, it's you who are (still) confused or you wouldn't even mention the
> Samsung DVD player in relation to the discussion about media. there are
> three discussions in the thread
> 1. DVD picture not filling the screen
> 2. a disc that would not play
> 3. variations between DVD media
>
> it was only in relation to (2) that the Samsung was mentioned or was
> relevant. I kept telling you to read the thread to clarify your
> thoughts. if you had done so you would know that the Samsung is
> irrelevant to this discussion.
Yes, that's what you keep saying *after* the fact, but *you* *did*
mention (the connection of) the Samsung in discussion '3.':
<quote>
From: felix <me@nothere.invalid>
Newsgroups: aus.computers,aus.tv,aus.electronics
Subject: Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:25:28 +1100
Message-ID: <dg01rqFaur9U1@mid.individual.net>
[deleted by FS]
so here we go again. honestly, you ppl should be in the investigation
business having such suspicious natures. firstly you are confusing
several matters that were/are being discussed. let me enlighten you. the
initial discussion was about a disc that produced a picture that didn't
fill the screen. that was resolved entirely, thanks to trevor actually,
but led to a discussion about media, and then my claim that subtle
visual differences are produced depending on the DVD media used.
regarding the recording/playing procedure, I use an Asus burner and DVD
shrink and Nero to encode and burn the discs in a desktop PC, which are
then played in a late model Panasonic DVD player, connected via Monster
HDMI cable to a Yamaha AV Receiver, which upscales the signal to 1080p
and connects to a 58 inch Samsung Plasma TV via another Monster HDMI
cable. the equipment and procedure used is always the same. regarding
the Samsung DVD player, that is not used but is still connected, again
======================================================================
via monster HDMI cable, but directly to the TV. the audio from that is
======================================================================
fed from the TV 'optical out' to one of the Yamaha amps 'optical in'
====================================================================
sockets, possibly again via Monster cable, I don't recall. so I hope
==========================================================
this has now given you the information that you suggest is sadly
lacking, and you can now take your suspicions and speculations and shove
'em!
[deleted by FS]
</quote>
So now you can eat some humble pie and the egg from your face.
> >>>>> All-in-all a myriad of possibilities why the visible results could
> >>>>> indeed be different, NOT because of the brands of the media, but because
> >>>>> of other factors which he didn't report, most likely because he doesn't
> >>>>> realize their importance/relevance, but possibly because he's trolling.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] I have to say that I find the name 'DVD shrink' rather fitting in
> >>>>> this (non-)discussion.
> >>> Bottom line: You're of course free to let this rest and shut up. But
> >>> if you keep stamping your feet, continue to utter nonsense
> >> IYNSWO
> >>
> >>> and continue to flame/insult people
> >> that's just a lie. of course no one has abused or insulted me have they..
> > No, that's a *fact*. Specifically, you flamed/insulted me after my
> > *very first* response in this thread, and that response was *not*
> > inflammatory at all!
>
> how much patience do you think I have? your response came late in the
> discussion after I had been called all sorts of things and constantly
> accused of trolling, and you pop up with yet another suggestion of lack
> of knowledge and trolling. you'll recall I started my response with
> "here we go again.."
I don't give a toss about your feeble (non-)excuses. I'm not
responsible for what - you think - *other* people did. As I said, my
response was not inflammatory at all. And that you think that I
suggested that you were trolling, just shows - again - that you can't
read for comprehension.
> > If you think otherwise, *prove* it (with a cite).
> >
> >>> who clearly know much more than you do
> >> again IYNSWO. NO ONE who has had ANY practical experience with cables
> >> will try to tell you they cannot affect audio or video performance.
> > *Nobody* - except you - is saying that. Everybody - except you - is
> > sticking to the cable type which is relevant for *this* discussion,
> > namely a HDMI cable, i.e. a cable for *digital* video/audio. As people
> > have tried and tried again to ram into your brain, the (non) quality of
> > an HDMI cable *cannot* affect the quality of the picture as you are
> > mentioning (i.e. colour seperation and sharpness). A 'bad' quality cable
> > can give video/audio *interruptions*, i.e. blocks, etc.) or even not
> > work at all, but it *cannot* affect colour seperation and sharpness.
> >
> > Of course *if* we were talking about cables for *analog* connections,
> > it can be a different story, but we are *not* talking about analog
> > connections, *only* digital ones.
> >
> > Bottom line: You're confused about digital versus analog
>
> no, the discussion included both types. only later did it move on to a
> specific cable type.
No, *only you* were - implicitly - blabbering about cables for analog
connections. As I said, *everybody else* talked about HDMI cables,
because those were the *only* ones which were *relevant* for the "3.
variations between DVD media" 'discussion'.
> > (and lots of other things).
>
> such as?
Resistance/impedance, current, etc..
> >>> - which
> >>> isn't a big (t)ask -, you'll get what's coming. Such is life. Time to
> >>> get over it.
> >> and if you keep making demands of me and telling me what to do, I'll
> >> ignore you.
> > Promises, promises!
>
> so do you want me to reply to you or not?
I'm sure that we all - including me - would like you to keep quiet and
not continue to make yourself look silly.
> I'm happy either way.
No you're not! You can't help yourself. That's why I said "Promises,
promises!". Prove me wrong, by not responding, also not to others in
this thread.
> like I
> said, if ppl want to discuss some issue that's fine. but many here can't
> seem to do that without resorting to personal abuse and insults.
Hmmm. You mean like you did to me!? Can you say 'PKB'!?
[More self-pity deleted]
[Another series of gigantic <whoosh>es deleted.]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 09:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dgafflFslpbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #50611 |
On 21-January-2016 7:00 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>> On 20-January-2016 3:19 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 19-January-2016 6:40 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 18-January-2016 8:18 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>> Je?us <j@invalid.lan> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> - Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy.
>>>>>>>> Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single
>>>>>>>> layer disc. Not very common, of course.
>>>>>>> I beg to differ. If he's making a direct, i.e. one-to-one copy, there
>>>>>>> is no shrinking [1] involved, because a shrunk copy would by definition
>>>>>>> be different from the original.
>>>>>> DVD Shrink is used to strip copy protection
>>>>> So finally - after yet another teeth pulling operation - a *bit* of
>>>>> detail. You should have said this *upfront*, because just saying that
>>>>> you used DVD shrink, implies that you shrunk the copies and might have
>>>>> made a - highly relevant - error there.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> But more importantly, note that he never said *what* he copied
>>>>>> DVD movies
>>>>> 'movieS'? Did you copy more than one movie to one DVD?
>>>> no, one movie per dvd
>>> So you should say "DVD movie", singular. What you do at *other* times
>>> is irrelevant to your media test and should be left out.
> Non response duly noted.
>
>>>>>>> and not *how* he copied it.
>>>>>> I did - Asus burner in a PC using DVD Shrink and Nero
>>>>> Yes, you said only *that*, and I asked for the procedures, settings,
>>>>> options, etc., and again you failed to give the required info.
>>>> it varies according to what I am recording. I am discussing the
>>>> recording of DVD's with the ONLY variant being the media, and not one
>>>> particular recording
>>> You keep saying that (i.e. stamping your feet) - but as has been
>>> pointed out to you umpteen times - it is *IMPOSSIBLE* that the pictures
>>> for the two brands of media are different, if that is "the ONLY variant".
>>>
>>> It's a *digital* copy of a *digital* source. If the copies are
>>> identical - which you refuse to test - the pictures for the two brands
>>> are the same, period.
>> so how is that done?
> I've already asked for pointers. Apparently that escaped you as well.
>
>> and I've already told you we were not talking about
>> any DVDs specifically, so I would have to make some copies to compare.
> Sigh! You use the *existing* copies (one LG and one TDK) which *you*
> claim give different visual results. Making more copies would only
> confuse you - and hence the issue - even more.
>
>>> So *deliver* - i.e. compare the contents of the two media bit-for-bit
>>> and post the results - or STFU!
>> I'm replying to you stupid.
> Yes, you 'reply' - FSVSVO 'reply' - but's you don't *deliver*, you
> only add more and more nonsense.
>
>>>>>>> He only said that he burnt (burned?) a movie twice,
>>>>>>> once to TDK media, once to LG media. No details about the source, no
>>>>>>> details about the format(s) of the source,
>>>>>> DVD movies
>>>>> See above.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> not details about the
>>>>>>> procedures/settings of the copy process and no details about the
>>>>>>> format(s) of the targets.
>>>>>> what more info do you want? I'm making copies of DVD's
>>>>> Duh! I (read: we) want (read: require) the info *which I'm asking for*,
>>>>>
>>>>> Believe it or not, but software like DVD Shrink and Nero doesn't run
>>>>> itself! So we need to know exactly which operations you performed and
>>>>> which settings/options/etc., you used.
>>>>>
>>>>> *If* the visual results of both copies were the same, we would of
>>>>> course not need this information. But because *you* *claim* they're
>>>>> different and *you* clearly don't grasp the subject matter at hand, the
>>>>> information *is* required.
>>>> see previous
>>>>
>>>>>>> And then there's - as I mentioned - the different connections of the
>>>>>>> two DVD players.
>>>>>> the other DVD player is irrelevant. READ the thread! I'm not going to
>>>>>> repeat it all
>>>>> Well, if it's irrelevant, then why did you mention it?
>>>> like I've said, you were confusing to separate discussions
>>> No, I do *not* confuse the two seperate discussions (the - already
>>> long closed - topic mentioned in the Subject: line ("DVD picture doesn't
>>> fill the screen"), and this one - the supposedly different picture from
>>> two different brands of media).
>>>
>>> But *you* brought up the (connection of the) Samsung player, so *you*
>>> are confused, because you bring up a point which *you* know/say is
>>> irrelevant.
>> no, it's you who are (still) confused or you wouldn't even mention the
>> Samsung DVD player in relation to the discussion about media. there are
>> three discussions in the thread
>> 1. DVD picture not filling the screen
>> 2. a disc that would not play
>> 3. variations between DVD media
>>
>> it was only in relation to (2) that the Samsung was mentioned or was
>> relevant. I kept telling you to read the thread to clarify your
>> thoughts. if you had done so you would know that the Samsung is
>> irrelevant to this discussion.
> Yes, that's what you keep saying *after* the fact, but *you* *did*
> mention (the connection of) the Samsung in discussion '3.':
>
> <quote>
>
> From: felix <me@nothere.invalid>
> Newsgroups: aus.computers,aus.tv,aus.electronics
> Subject: Re: DVD picture doesn't fill the screen
> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:25:28 +1100
> Message-ID: <dg01rqFaur9U1@mid.individual.net>
>
> [deleted by FS]
>
> so here we go again. honestly, you ppl should be in the investigation
> business having such suspicious natures. firstly you are confusing
> several matters that were/are being discussed. let me enlighten you. the
> initial discussion was about a disc that produced a picture that didn't
> fill the screen. that was resolved entirely, thanks to trevor actually,
> but led to a discussion about media, and then my claim that subtle
> visual differences are produced depending on the DVD media used.
> regarding the recording/playing procedure, I use an Asus burner and DVD
> shrink and Nero to encode and burn the discs in a desktop PC, which are
> then played in a late model Panasonic DVD player, connected via Monster
> HDMI cable to a Yamaha AV Receiver, which upscales the signal to 1080p
> and connects to a 58 inch Samsung Plasma TV via another Monster HDMI
> cable. the equipment and procedure used is always the same. regarding
> the Samsung DVD player, that is not used but is still connected, again
> ======================================================================
> via monster HDMI cable, but directly to the TV. the audio from that is
> ======================================================================
> fed from the TV 'optical out' to one of the Yamaha amps 'optical in'
> ====================================================================
> sockets, possibly again via Monster cable, I don't recall. so I hope
> ==========================================================
> this has now given you the information that you suggest is sadly
> lacking, and you can now take your suspicions and speculations and shove
> 'em!
>
> [deleted by FS]
>
> </quote>
>
> So now you can eat some humble pie and the egg from your face.
>
>>>>>>> All-in-all a myriad of possibilities why the visible results could
>>>>>>> indeed be different, NOT because of the brands of the media, but because
>>>>>>> of other factors which he didn't report, most likely because he doesn't
>>>>>>> realize their importance/relevance, but possibly because he's trolling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] I have to say that I find the name 'DVD shrink' rather fitting in
>>>>>>> this (non-)discussion.
>>>>> Bottom line: You're of course free to let this rest and shut up. But
>>>>> if you keep stamping your feet, continue to utter nonsense
>>>> IYNSWO
>>>>
>>>>> and continue to flame/insult people
>>>> that's just a lie. of course no one has abused or insulted me have they..
>>> No, that's a *fact*. Specifically, you flamed/insulted me after my
>>> *very first* response in this thread, and that response was *not*
>>> inflammatory at all!
>> how much patience do you think I have? your response came late in the
>> discussion after I had been called all sorts of things and constantly
>> accused of trolling, and you pop up with yet another suggestion of lack
>> of knowledge and trolling. you'll recall I started my response with
>> "here we go again.."
> I don't give a toss about your feeble (non-)excuses. I'm not
> responsible for what - you think - *other* people did. As I said, my
> response was not inflammatory at all. And that you think that I
> suggested that you were trolling, just shows - again - that you can't
> read for comprehension.
>
>>> If you think otherwise, *prove* it (with a cite).
>>>
>>>>> who clearly know much more than you do
>>>> again IYNSWO. NO ONE who has had ANY practical experience with cables
>>>> will try to tell you they cannot affect audio or video performance.
>>> *Nobody* - except you - is saying that. Everybody - except you - is
>>> sticking to the cable type which is relevant for *this* discussion,
>>> namely a HDMI cable, i.e. a cable for *digital* video/audio. As people
>>> have tried and tried again to ram into your brain, the (non) quality of
>>> an HDMI cable *cannot* affect the quality of the picture as you are
>>> mentioning (i.e. colour seperation and sharpness). A 'bad' quality cable
>>> can give video/audio *interruptions*, i.e. blocks, etc.) or even not
>>> work at all, but it *cannot* affect colour seperation and sharpness.
>>>
>>> Of course *if* we were talking about cables for *analog* connections,
>>> it can be a different story, but we are *not* talking about analog
>>> connections, *only* digital ones.
>>>
>>> Bottom line: You're confused about digital versus analog
>> no, the discussion included both types. only later did it move on to a
>> specific cable type.
> No, *only you* were - implicitly - blabbering about cables for analog
> connections. As I said, *everybody else* talked about HDMI cables,
> because those were the *only* ones which were *relevant* for the "3.
> variations between DVD media" 'discussion'.
>
>>> (and lots of other things).
>> such as?
> Resistance/impedance, current, etc..
>
>>>>> - which
>>>>> isn't a big (t)ask -, you'll get what's coming. Such is life. Time to
>>>>> get over it.
>>>> and if you keep making demands of me and telling me what to do, I'll
>>>> ignore you.
>>> Promises, promises!
>> so do you want me to reply to you or not?
> I'm sure that we all - including me - would like you to keep quiet and
> not continue to make yourself look silly.
>
>> I'm happy either way.
> No you're not! You can't help yourself. That's why I said "Promises,
> promises!". Prove me wrong, by not responding, also not to others in
> this thread.
>
>> like I
>> said, if ppl want to discuss some issue that's fine. but many here can't
>> seem to do that without resorting to personal abuse and insults.
> Hmmm. You mean like you did to me!? Can you say 'PKB'!?
>
> [More self-pity deleted]
>
> [Another series of gigantic <whoosh>es deleted.]
I've tried to be reasonable with you, but you're still on with your ad
hominen bullshit, and talking nonsense, so goodbye! ( you will probably
see that as some sort of victory)
--
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 09:03 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dg2hecFu8fnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #50496 |
On 18-January-2016 7:11 AM, Je�us wrote: > On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> > wrote: > >> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> - Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy. > Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single > layer disc. Not very common, of course. > many DVD's are single layer discs -- "As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world" -William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain http://www.siotw.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 08:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dg2h5aFu8epU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #50491 |
On 18-January-2016 1:18 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> On 17-January-2016 6:31 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>> Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> wrote: >>> [...] >>>> I'm sorry to hear that. You see a difference and I'm sure you >>>> understand why others find it difficult to see how the difference is >>>> possible with a digital signal. >>> The problem is that we have no information whatsoever that/if the two >>> copies were made in the exact same way. >>> >>> *If* he indeed can see a difference - in a double-blind test - then >>> there *must* be a difference in the way the copies were made or/and in >>> the way they were reproduced. >>> >>> For example he says "I tried it in a Samsung DVD player, and it >>> wouldn't play at all!". Was that a problem with the media itself, with >>> the media type (-R versus +R), or was it perhaps a DVD with a *file >>> system*, containing MPEG4 files or whatever? >>> >>> Was the *same* player used for (the test of) both copies? Was it >>> *connected* in the exact same way? What *type* of connection was used? >>> (I wouldn't be surprised at all if (one of?) the DVD-player(s) had an >>> *analog* connection to the HTS or TV.) >>> >>> Was the exact same software, with the exact same procedures, and the >>> exact same settings/options/etc. used to make both copies? >>> >>> Etc., etc. ad infinitum. >>> >>> Seeing how little he knows about the subject matter, there's probably >>> a difference somewhere which he's not telling us about, most likely >>> because he doesn't realize/know, but possibly because he's trolling. >> so here we go again. honestly, you ppl should be in the investigation >> business having such suspicious natures. firstly you are confusing > Apparently, our "suspicious natures" are justified. Read on. > >> firstly you are confusing >> several matters that were/are being discussed. let me enlighten you. > Don't act like a arrogant pompous twat. If anyone's confused and needs > enlightening, it's you. Read on. > >> the >> initial discussion was about a disc that produced a picture that didn't >> fill the screen. that was resolved entirely, thanks to trevor actually, > Duh! If you think anyone was confused about that, then you're > confused. > >> but led to a discussion about media, and then my claim that subtle >> visual differences are produced depending on the DVD media used. >> regarding the recording/playing procedure, I use an Asus burner and DVD >> shrink and Nero to encode and burn the discs in a desktop PC, which are >> then played in a late model Panasonic DVD player, connected via Monster >> HDMI cable to a Yamaha AV Receiver, which upscales the signal to 1080p >> and connects to a 58 inch Samsung Plasma TV via another Monster HDMI >> cable. the equipment and procedure used is always the same. regarding >> the Samsung DVD player, that is not used but is still connected, again >> via monster HDMI cable, but directly to the TV. the audio from that is >> fed from the TV 'optical out' to one of the Yamaha amps 'optical in' >> sockets, possibly again via Monster cable, I don't recall. > So we have already at least three unknowns which you never bothered to > mention: > > - Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy. So > answer the questions I raised : > >>> Was the exact same software, with the exact same procedures, and the >>> exact same settings/options/etc. used to make both copies? > - If you would have made a *copy* of a DVD - another point which you > failed to mention/dispute - you would need to "encode" anything. > > - But - for the moment - more importantly, the Samsung was connected in > a *different* way than the Panasonic and you fail to mention anything > about the resolution of the both players. > With just this difference, your 'test' is apples-versus-oranges. > > So your not mentioning relevant information led to this silly/useless > back-and-forth. > >> so I hope >> this has now given you the information that you suggest is sadly >> lacking, and you can now take your suspicions and speculations and shove >> 'em! and you can now take your suspicions and speculations and shove >> 'em! > It is *some*, but by no way all the information that was lacking. And > there is no "suggest" about it. It was/is lacking and it is required > information, period. Acting like an arrogant pompous twat only makes you > look silly and uninformed. > > Now when you reply again, give us the *full* picture (:-)) and > *answer* the questions I raised in *this* response *and* all the > questions I raised in my *previous* response, which you didn't bother to > answer. > >>>> You could make a valuable contribution by explaining the reason either >>>> theoretically or by digitally comparing the images. >>> Only the latter would be acceptable. >>> >>> So if someone has a pointer to some diskcomp-like program for DVDs, >>> that would be helpful, much more helpful than all the endless >>> back-and-forth 'responses'. you're still confused. read back thru the thread -- "As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world" -William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain http://www.siotw.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 19:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dg4ro5Fhr0fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #50500 |
felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: [All my comments, including questions which *must* be answered deleted.] > > Now when you reply again, give us the *full* picture (:-)) and > > *answer* the questions I raised in *this* response *and* all the > > questions I raised in my *previous* response, which you didn't bother to > > answer. [...] > you're still confused. read back thru the thread Gigantic amount of dodges duly noted. Refusal to provide *required* information duly noted. Implicit surrender duly noted. QED. HTH. HAND. EOD. NI.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 10:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dg5bunFlrtnU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #50548 |
On 19-January-2016 6:12 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > > [All my comments, including questions which *must* be answered deleted.] > >>> Now when you reply again, give us the *full* picture (:-)) and >>> *answer* the questions I raised in *this* response *and* all the >>> questions I raised in my *previous* response, which you didn't bother to >>> answer. > [...] >> you're still confused. read back thru the thread > Gigantic amount of dodges duly noted. Refusal to provide *required* > information duly noted. I don't take orders from usenet 'contributors' > Implicit surrender duly noted. get your facts right and I'll answer relevant questions > > QED. > > HTH. HAND. EOD. NI. -- "As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world" -William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain http://www.siotw.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 09:13 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <569d8daa$0$11115$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #50558 |
On 19/01/2016 7:48 AM, felix wrote: > On 19-January-2016 6:12 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: >> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> >> [All my comments, including questions which *must* be answered deleted.] >> >>>> Now when you reply again, give us the *full* picture (:-)) and >>>> *answer* the questions I raised in *this* response *and* all the >>>> questions I raised in my *previous* response, which you didn't >>>> bother to >>>> answer. >> [...] >>> you're still confused. read back thru the thread >> Gigantic amount of dodges duly noted. Refusal to provide *required* >> information duly noted. > > I don't take orders from usenet 'contributors' > >> Implicit surrender duly noted. > > get your facts right and I'll answer relevant questions > Tell me felix, do you wear a bioflow?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 18:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <i5em9bpq0hrbv7g4067f2ep01m4fnhi7s7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #50421 |
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: >Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> wrote: >[...] >> I'm sorry to hear that. You see a difference and I'm sure you >> understand why others find it difficult to see how the difference is >> possible with a digital signal. > > The problem is that we have no information whatsoever that/if the two >copies were made in the exact same way. > > *If* he indeed can see a difference - in a double-blind test - then >there *must* be a difference in the way the copies were made or/and in >the way they were reproduced. > > For example he says "I tried it in a Samsung DVD player, and it >wouldn't play at all!". Was that a problem with the media itself, with >the media type (-R versus +R), or was it perhaps a DVD with a *file >system*, containing MPEG4 files or whatever? > > Was the *same* player used for (the test of) both copies? Was it >*connected* in the exact same way? What *type* of connection was used? >(I wouldn't be surprised at all if (one of?) the DVD-player(s) had an >*analog* connection to the HTS or TV.) > > Was the exact same software, with the exact same procedures, and the >exact same settings/options/etc. used to make both copies? > > Etc., etc. ad infinitum. > > Seeing how little he knows about the subject matter, there's probably >a difference somewhere which he's not telling us about, most likely >because he doesn't realize/know, but possibly because he's trolling. > >> You could make a valuable contribution by explaining the reason either >> theoretically or by digitally comparing the images. > > Only the latter would be acceptable. > > So if someone has a pointer to some diskcomp-like program for DVDs, >that would be helpful, much more helpful than all the endless >back-and-forth 'responses'. I think you are wrong. A plausible theoretical explanation would be a major contribution to modern digital technology. On the other hand, if the output from a diff showed "sharper but less colourful" bits nobody would believe they were the from the same source. I should add that I'm convinced that felix is not trolling. I'm sure he believes what he says.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 19:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dg13beFi9u3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #50480 |
On 17-January-2016 6:51 PM, Gordon Levi wrote: > Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > >> Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> wrote: >> [...] >>> I'm sorry to hear that. You see a difference and I'm sure you >>> understand why others find it difficult to see how the difference is >>> possible with a digital signal. >> The problem is that we have no information whatsoever that/if the two >> copies were made in the exact same way. >> >> *If* he indeed can see a difference - in a double-blind test - then >> there *must* be a difference in the way the copies were made or/and in >> the way they were reproduced. >> >> For example he says "I tried it in a Samsung DVD player, and it >> wouldn't play at all!". Was that a problem with the media itself, with >> the media type (-R versus +R), or was it perhaps a DVD with a *file >> system*, containing MPEG4 files or whatever? >> >> Was the *same* player used for (the test of) both copies? Was it >> *connected* in the exact same way? What *type* of connection was used? >> (I wouldn't be surprised at all if (one of?) the DVD-player(s) had an >> *analog* connection to the HTS or TV.) >> >> Was the exact same software, with the exact same procedures, and the >> exact same settings/options/etc. used to make both copies? >> >> Etc., etc. ad infinitum. >> >> Seeing how little he knows about the subject matter, there's probably >> a difference somewhere which he's not telling us about, most likely >> because he doesn't realize/know, but possibly because he's trolling. >> >>> You could make a valuable contribution by explaining the reason either >>> theoretically or by digitally comparing the images. >> Only the latter would be acceptable. >> >> So if someone has a pointer to some diskcomp-like program for DVDs, >> that would be helpful, much more helpful than all the endless >> back-and-forth 'responses'. > > I think you are wrong. A plausible theoretical explanation would be a > major contribution to modern digital technology. On the other hand, if > the output from a diff showed "sharper but less colourful" bits nobody > would believe they were the from the same source. > > I should add that I'm convinced that felix is not trolling. I'm sure > he believes what he says. thank you -- "As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world" -William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain http://www.siotw.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor <trevor@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 13:46 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n7hjlm$80v$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #50482 |
On 17/01/2016 7:57 PM, felix wrote: > On 17-January-2016 6:51 PM, Gordon Levi wrote: >> I should add that I'm convinced that felix is not trolling. I'm sure >> he believes what he says. > > thank you And you think it was a compliment! :-) Trevor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 07:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <4g0g9b5vk12e7bcait88tincjjb1g85ar5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #50292 |
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:46:54 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >On 14-January-2016 5:28 PM, Trevor wrote: >> On 14/01/2016 11:15 AM, felix wrote: >>> On 11-January-2016 8:05 PM, Trevor wrote: >> >> You do realise you are writing digital DATA right? IF the data read is >> the same as what was written, there will be NO difference whatsoever >> between brands. > >well that's the theory, but I can see the difference. I always used TDK >discs, but then I got some LG discs, and the first time I used one, I >noticed that they produced a sharper but less colourful image. the >colour is also more 'pinky' than with the TDK disks which have more >natural colour. It's digital, not analogue. What you're suggesting is impossible and can you find anyone else making such a claim (not that I've looked)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert" <robert@no.email> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 14:29 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <n77f7n$1hg0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #50255 |
DVDs are old tech. It's time to move on from them. Use a smart wifi-enabled TV and you can stream movies from your computer or other devices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | aus.computers
csiph-web