Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #31171 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-21 18:05 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-08-23 12:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps
Home Movies on Apple TV "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-08-21 18:05 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-21 16:36 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-08-23 18:40 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-24 12:04 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-08-28 11:56 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-28 14:07 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-22 10:12 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-08-22 08:48 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-22 22:10 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-23 00:42 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-23 01:42 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-23 02:11 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-23 22:34 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-24 01:04 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-08-23 13:09 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-22 20:20 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-23 01:02 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-23 09:29 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-23 14:51 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-24 12:02 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-24 16:17 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-24 17:57 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-25 01:07 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-25 11:52 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-08-25 09:05 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-25 12:15 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-25 01:08 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-24 21:55 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-25 11:57 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-25 09:20 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-25 13:50 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 14:23 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-25 16:46 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-26 16:06 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-26 19:13 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-26 16:04 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-26 19:11 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-08-27 00:53 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 07:53 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-27 18:15 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 10:17 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-28 10:08 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 14:03 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-28 14:08 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-28 14:28 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-25 16:42 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-26 16:09 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-26 19:20 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-27 18:17 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-28 14:06 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-28 14:36 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-28 22:01 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-28 22:31 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-29 07:46 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-25 11:53 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-25 19:31 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2015-08-25 18:29 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-08-25 18:58 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 07:39 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-26 16:12 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-26 20:19 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-25 13:59 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-25 11:58 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-25 19:30 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-25 16:47 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 07:37 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-26 19:10 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-27 14:10 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-08-27 01:00 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-27 08:36 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-08-28 23:19 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-08-28 17:52 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-28 22:02 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-25 21:28 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-26 19:09 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-25 13:57 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-25 11:57 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-25 21:28 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-26 19:09 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-27 14:15 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-27 18:12 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-27 17:32 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-28 00:23 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-27 20:25 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-28 00:38 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-28 14:02 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-08-28 12:36 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-28 22:00 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-08-28 19:18 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-28 08:36 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-27 17:30 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-08-23 18:31 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-08-23 13:14 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 17:29 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-08-23 13:12 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-24 12:07 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-08-24 11:04 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-24 17:59 -0400
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-08-22 08:47 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-08-23 18:38 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-08-23 13:06 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-08-24 23:15 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-08-24 16:54 -0700
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2015-08-23 14:50 +0100
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-08-23 18:37 +0000
Re: Home Movies on Apple TV scottishwildcat@gmail.com - 2015-08-23 12:57 -0700
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 10:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <55e06d79$0$1582$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #31314 |
In article <mrocks$nvh$1@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote: > On 8/27/15 PDT 4:53 AM, Warren Oates wrote: > > In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-UpGdPEijDfL4@localhost>, > > "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 23:11:33 UTC, Alan Browne > >> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > > >> > >> But to make the UHD tv work properly, you need the $2000 gold-plated > >> > >> HDMI cables. > >> > > > >> > > I am having my cables hand made. They're building the copper smelter > >> > > right now. > >> > > Be careful though, you need the right copper from the right mine > >> or it > won't work. > >> > >> Silver would work better than any copper. > > > > Wet string works pretty good. > > Darn. Fortunately, not so far along with the copper smelter than it was > easy to change specs for silver. And then the gold plating I will farm out. Make sure you source your string from the Glorious Lesbian Hemp String Collective on Saltspring Island. -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 10:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mrq4er$5mu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #31320 |
On 8/28/15 PDT 7:17 AM, Warren Oates wrote: > In article <mrocks$nvh$1@dont-email.me>, > John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote: > >> On 8/27/15 PDT 4:53 AM, Warren Oates wrote: >> > In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-UpGdPEijDfL4@localhost>, >> > "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 23:11:33 UTC, Alan Browne >> >> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> >> >> > >> But to make the UHD tv work properly, you need the $2000 >> gold-plated >> >> > >> HDMI cables. >> >> > > >> >> > > I am having my cables hand made. They're building the copper >> smelter >> >> > > right now. >> >> > > Be careful though, you need the right copper from the right mine >> >> or it > won't work. >> >> >> >> Silver would work better than any copper. >> > >> > Wet string works pretty good. >> >> Darn. Fortunately, not so far along with the copper smelter than it >> was easy to change specs for silver. And then the gold plating I will >> farm out. > > Make sure you source your string from the Glorious Lesbian Hemp String > Collective on Saltspring Island. Already decided on silk, from the Brothers of Transcendental Gay Silkworm Coop.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 14:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <55e0a26d$0$29785$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #31325 |
In article <mrq4er$5mu$1@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote: > On 8/28/15 PDT 7:17 AM, Warren Oates wrote: > > In article <mrocks$nvh$1@dont-email.me>, > > John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> On 8/27/15 PDT 4:53 AM, Warren Oates wrote: > >> > In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-UpGdPEijDfL4@localhost>, > >> > "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 23:11:33 UTC, Alan Browne > >> >> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >> > >> >> > >> But to make the UHD tv work properly, you need the $2000 > >> gold-plated > >> >> > >> HDMI cables. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I am having my cables hand made. They're building the copper > >> smelter > >> >> > > right now. > >> >> > > Be careful though, you need the right copper from the right mine > >> >> or it > won't work. > >> >> > >> >> Silver would work better than any copper. > >> > > >> > Wet string works pretty good. > >> > >> Darn. Fortunately, not so far along with the copper smelter than it > >> was easy to change specs for silver. And then the gold plating I will > >> farm out. > > > > Make sure you source your string from the Glorious Lesbian Hemp String > > Collective on Saltspring Island. > > Already decided on silk, from the Brothers of Transcendental Gay > Silkworm Coop. A good choice. Although the Brothers have been accused of employing underage silkworms in their offshore facilities. -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 14:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8tSdnXKeNukfPn3InZ2dnUU7-RednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #31325 |
On 2015-08-28 13:08, John McWilliams wrote: > On 8/28/15 PDT 7:17 AM, Warren Oates wrote: >> In article <mrocks$nvh$1@dont-email.me>, >> John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> On 8/27/15 PDT 4:53 AM, Warren Oates wrote: >>> > In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-UpGdPEijDfL4@localhost>, >>> > "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 23:11:33 UTC, Alan Browne >>> >> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> >>> >> > >> But to make the UHD tv work properly, you need the $2000 >>> gold-plated >>> >> > >> HDMI cables. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > I am having my cables hand made. They're building the copper >>> smelter >>> >> > > right now. >>> >> > > Be careful though, you need the right copper from the right mine >>> >> or it > won't work. >>> >> >>> >> Silver would work better than any copper. >>> > >>> > Wet string works pretty good. >>> >>> Darn. Fortunately, not so far along with the copper smelter than it >>> was easy to change specs for silver. And then the gold plating I will >>> farm out. >> >> Make sure you source your string from the Glorious Lesbian Hemp String >> Collective on Saltspring Island. > > Already decided on silk, from the Brothers of Transcendental Gay > Silkworm Coop. Those imitators! Go at least to the original. Monster Silk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 14:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mrqjmb$1ms$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #31340 |
On 8/28/15 PDT 11:08 AM, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2015-08-28 13:08, John McWilliams wrote: >> On 8/28/15 PDT 7:17 AM, Warren Oates wrote: >>> In article <mrocks$nvh$1@dont-email.me>, >>> John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/27/15 PDT 4:53 AM, Warren Oates wrote: >>>> > In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-UpGdPEijDfL4@localhost>, >>>> > "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 23:11:33 UTC, Alan Browne >>>> >> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> > >> But to make the UHD tv work properly, you need the $2000 >>>> gold-plated >>>> >> > >> HDMI cables. >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > I am having my cables hand made. They're building the copper >>>> smelter >>>> >> > > right now. >>>> >> > > Be careful though, you need the right copper from the right mine >>>> >> or it > won't work. >>>> >> >>>> >> Silver would work better than any copper. >>>> > >>>> > Wet string works pretty good. >>>> >>>> Darn. Fortunately, not so far along with the copper smelter than it >>>> was easy to change specs for silver. And then the gold plating I will >>>> farm out. >>> >>> Make sure you source your string from the Glorious Lesbian Hemp String >>> Collective on Saltspring Island. >> >> Already decided on silk, from the Brothers of Transcendental Gay >> Silkworm Coop. > > Those imitators! Go at least to the original. Monster Silk. > Right, at $800 a foot!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 16:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nOqdnVAgDpPSTkHInZ2dnUU7-YOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #31251 |
On 2015-08-25 12:20, John McWilliams wrote: > On 8/25/15 PDT 8:57 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >> On 2015-08-25 00:55, John McWilliams wrote: >>> On 8/24/15 PDT 6:08 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>> On 2015-08-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> On 2015-08-24 12:17, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just plop DVD's into the DVD player. (Ironic given your >>>>>>> television >>>>>>> reply below). >>>>>> >>>>>> Now you're just being silly. We're talking about *playing* digital >>>>>> media >>>>> >>>>> Yes. DVD's are digital media. >>>> >>>> Sheesh, Alan. Really? >>> >>> Why are you chaps going on and on about a 20th C. Technology? We are at >>> the dawn of UHD disks, at which point BRDs will start a long slow >>> decline as DVDs are currently experiencing. >> >> I have quite a lot of DVD's and a bunch of BRD's. They all play fine as >> do my CD's bought in the 80's. Prognostic is they still will. >> >> UHD is a wasteful farce. You'd need a monster screen to actually see >> that level of detail from a normal distance and viewing perspective. >> AFAIC BRD is just enough beyond resolving to be worth it. For most >> movies DVD, upsampled by a really good BR player, is more than crisp >> enough. >> >> > For you, but not for millions of others with discerning eyesight and > aesthetics. To each his own. DVDs are soft and rotten. My eyesight and aesthetics are more demanding than most which is why I see UH as utter tripe as few will get the high definition televisions of adequate size viewed adequately closely to benefit from the resolution. It depends on the mastering, which depends on the original filming and technical editing. Further, many movies do not demand the crisp hardness of BR. Never mind UH. I have a lot of DVD's and some standout for sharpness when played on an upsampling BR player to a plasma screen. One in particular is 2001: A Space Odyssey. So sharp that I'm not sure I'll bother with the BR version. So sharp that you can clearly see seams in the 'ape' scene backdrop. The BR version would be worse for that. I love BR for movies, I've replaced some DVD's with BR versions. In particular "The Fifth Element" because it is so visually stunning that it deserved it. (Indeed Sony screwed up the first release of it so one had to be careful about getting the re-issued BR).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 16:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mrlgsq$89r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #31262 |
On 8/25/15 PDT 1:42 PM, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2015-08-25 12:20, John McWilliams wrote: >> On 8/25/15 PDT 8:57 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >>> On 2015-08-25 00:55, John McWilliams wrote: >>> >>> UHD is a wasteful farce. You'd need a monster screen to actually see >>> that level of detail from a normal distance and viewing perspective. >>> AFAIC BRD is just enough beyond resolving to be worth it. For most >>> movies DVD, upsampled by a really good BR player, is more than crisp >>> enough. >>> >> For you, but not for millions of others with discerning eyesight and >> aesthetics. To each his own. DVDs are soft and rotten. > > My eyesight and aesthetics are more demanding than most which is why I > see UH as utter tripe as few will get the high definition televisions of > adequate size viewed adequately closely to benefit from the resolution. Your opinion is your opinion. But you make many assumptions about how others will use it. Sure, there'll be misuse, just as there are dolts watching SD on HD sets when all they'd need do is select the right channel. And you talk of uprezzing?! Yes, good uprezzing can make a TV picture better, but is a far cry from actual pixels properly interpreted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 19:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3vednQWI54kj1EPInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #31282 |
On 2015-08-26 19:09, John McWilliams wrote: > On 8/25/15 PDT 1:42 PM, Alan Browne wrote: >> On 2015-08-25 12:20, John McWilliams wrote: >>> On 8/25/15 PDT 8:57 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >>>> On 2015-08-25 00:55, John McWilliams wrote: >>>> >>>> UHD is a wasteful farce. You'd need a monster screen to actually see >>>> that level of detail from a normal distance and viewing perspective. >>>> AFAIC BRD is just enough beyond resolving to be worth it. For most >>>> movies DVD, upsampled by a really good BR player, is more than crisp >>>> enough. >>>> >>> For you, but not for millions of others with discerning eyesight and >>> aesthetics. To each his own. DVDs are soft and rotten. >> >> My eyesight and aesthetics are more demanding than most which is why I >> see UH as utter tripe as few will get the high definition televisions of >> adequate size viewed adequately closely to benefit from the resolution. > > Your opinion is your opinion. But you make many assumptions about how > others will use it. Sure, there'll be misuse, just as there are dolts > watching SD on HD sets when all they'd need do is select the right channel. There are also a lot of dolts who buy monster cable and cable lifters and line power conditioners and so on (so they can hear their vinyl's better to boot). Sad thing is that shit is expensive for zero return. I won't say that UH is the new MC, 'cause it ain't, I'll just say that for the very great majority of television viewers it is way beyond what they are going to set up in a viewing room. > And you talk of uprezzing?! Yes, good uprezzing can make a TV picture > better, but is a far cry from actual pixels properly interpreted. Sure. But for 95% (probably more) of my pre-BR era DVD's it is not worth replacing them - so upsampling is more than enough. I actually buy my DVD's for content that is beyond the technical visuals of it. You should pay attention - some have drama or comedy or tragedy or a life lesson far beyond the fricking x times y pixels to the point that the image quality is not what you're looking at.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-27 18:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mrocnq$nvh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #31287 |
On 8/26/15 PDT 4:20 PM, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2015-08-26 19:09, John McWilliams wrote: >> On 8/25/15 PDT 1:42 PM, Alan Browne wrote: >>> On 2015-08-25 12:20, John McWilliams wrote: >>>> On 8/25/15 PDT 8:57 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>> On 2015-08-25 00:55, John McWilliams wrote: >>>>> >>>>> UHD is a wasteful farce. You'd need a monster screen to actually see >>>>> that level of detail from a normal distance and viewing perspective. >>>>> AFAIC BRD is just enough beyond resolving to be worth it. For most >>>>> movies DVD, upsampled by a really good BR player, is more than crisp >>>>> enough. >>>>> >>>> For you, but not for millions of others with discerning eyesight and >>>> aesthetics. To each his own. DVDs are soft and rotten. >>> >>> My eyesight and aesthetics are more demanding than most which is why I >>> see UH as utter tripe as few will get the high definition televisions of >>> adequate size viewed adequately closely to benefit from the resolution. >> >> Your opinion is your opinion. But you make many assumptions about how >> others will use it. Sure, there'll be misuse, just as there are dolts >> watching SD on HD sets when all they'd need do is select the right >> channel. > > There are also a lot of dolts who buy monster cable and cable lifters > and line power conditioners and so on (so they can hear their vinyl's > better to boot). Sad thing is that shit is expensive for zero return. > > I won't say that UH is the new MC, 'cause it ain't, I'll just say that > for the very great majority of television viewers it is way beyond what > they are going to set up in a viewing room. > >> And you talk of uprezzing?! Yes, good uprezzing can make a TV picture >> better, but is a far cry from actual pixels properly interpreted. > > Sure. But for 95% (probably more) of my pre-BR era DVD's it is not > worth replacing them - so upsampling is more than enough. I actually > buy my DVD's for content that is beyond the technical visuals of it. You > should pay attention - some have drama or comedy or tragedy or a life > lesson far beyond the fricking x times y pixels to the point that the > image quality is not what you're looking at. > Thanks for the uppity lecture. I prefer my dramas, etc. to have not only content worth watching, but excellent PQ.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 14:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8tSdnXCeNumWPn3InZ2dnUU7-RednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #31315 |
On 2015-08-27 21:17, John McWilliams wrote: > On 8/26/15 PDT 4:20 PM, Alan Browne wrote: >> On 2015-08-26 19:09, John McWilliams wrote: >>> On 8/25/15 PDT 1:42 PM, Alan Browne wrote: >>>> On 2015-08-25 12:20, John McWilliams wrote: >>>>> On 8/25/15 PDT 8:57 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-08-25 00:55, John McWilliams wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> UHD is a wasteful farce. You'd need a monster screen to actually see >>>>>> that level of detail from a normal distance and viewing perspective. >>>>>> AFAIC BRD is just enough beyond resolving to be worth it. For most >>>>>> movies DVD, upsampled by a really good BR player, is more than crisp >>>>>> enough. >>>>>> >>>>> For you, but not for millions of others with discerning eyesight and >>>>> aesthetics. To each his own. DVDs are soft and rotten. >>>> >>>> My eyesight and aesthetics are more demanding than most which is why I >>>> see UH as utter tripe as few will get the high definition >>>> televisions of >>>> adequate size viewed adequately closely to benefit from the resolution. >>> >>> Your opinion is your opinion. But you make many assumptions about how >>> others will use it. Sure, there'll be misuse, just as there are dolts >>> watching SD on HD sets when all they'd need do is select the right >>> channel. >> >> There are also a lot of dolts who buy monster cable and cable lifters >> and line power conditioners and so on (so they can hear their vinyl's >> better to boot). Sad thing is that shit is expensive for zero return. >> >> I won't say that UH is the new MC, 'cause it ain't, I'll just say that >> for the very great majority of television viewers it is way beyond what >> they are going to set up in a viewing room. >> >>> And you talk of uprezzing?! Yes, good uprezzing can make a TV picture >>> better, but is a far cry from actual pixels properly interpreted. >> >> Sure. But for 95% (probably more) of my pre-BR era DVD's it is not >> worth replacing them - so upsampling is more than enough. I actually >> buy my DVD's for content that is beyond the technical visuals of it. You >> should pay attention - some have drama or comedy or tragedy or a life >> lesson far beyond the fricking x times y pixels to the point that the >> image quality is not what you're looking at. >> > Thanks for the uppity lecture. I prefer my dramas, etc. to have not only > content worth watching, but excellent PQ. The other day watched a recent movie. Still Alice. Happened to be BluRay. The image quality contributed nothing to the movie. Watched another movie "The Judge". BluRay. Image Quality contributed to a couple early establishment shots[1]. That's all. [1] There's a double meaning there that you'd have to see the movie to get, but take the above in the "movie narrative" context.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mrqk5h$1mr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #31338 |
On 8/28/15 PDT 11:06 AM, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2015-08-27 21:17, John McWilliams wrote: >> On 8/26/15 PDT 4:20 PM, Alan Browne wrote: >>> On 2015-08-26 19:09, John McWilliams wrote: >>>> On 8/25/15 PDT 1:42 PM, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>> On 2015-08-25 12:20, John McWilliams wrote: >>>>>> On 8/25/15 PDT 8:57 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>>> On 2015-08-25 00:55, John McWilliams wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> UHD is a wasteful farce. You'd need a monster screen to actually >>>>>>> see >>>>>>> that level of detail from a normal distance and viewing perspective. >>>>>>> AFAIC BRD is just enough beyond resolving to be worth it. For most >>>>>>> movies DVD, upsampled by a really good BR player, is more than crisp >>>>>>> enough. >>>>>>> >>>>>> For you, but not for millions of others with discerning eyesight and >>>>>> aesthetics. To each his own. DVDs are soft and rotten. >>>>> >>>>> My eyesight and aesthetics are more demanding than most which is why I >>>>> see UH as utter tripe as few will get the high definition >>>>> televisions of >>>>> adequate size viewed adequately closely to benefit from the >>>>> resolution. >>>> >>>> Your opinion is your opinion. But you make many assumptions about how >>>> others will use it. Sure, there'll be misuse, just as there are dolts >>>> watching SD on HD sets when all they'd need do is select the right >>>> channel. >>> >>> There are also a lot of dolts who buy monster cable and cable lifters >>> and line power conditioners and so on (so they can hear their vinyl's >>> better to boot). Sad thing is that shit is expensive for zero return. >>> >>> I won't say that UH is the new MC, 'cause it ain't, I'll just say that >>> for the very great majority of television viewers it is way beyond what >>> they are going to set up in a viewing room. >>> >>>> And you talk of uprezzing?! Yes, good uprezzing can make a TV picture >>>> better, but is a far cry from actual pixels properly interpreted. >>> >>> Sure. But for 95% (probably more) of my pre-BR era DVD's it is not >>> worth replacing them - so upsampling is more than enough. I actually >>> buy my DVD's for content that is beyond the technical visuals of it. You >>> should pay attention - some have drama or comedy or tragedy or a life >>> lesson far beyond the fricking x times y pixels to the point that the >>> image quality is not what you're looking at. >>> >> Thanks for the uppity lecture. I prefer my dramas, etc. to have not only >> content worth watching, but excellent PQ. > > The other day watched a recent movie. Still Alice. Happened to be > BluRay. The image quality contributed nothing to the movie. That means, it meant nothing to you. Others have other druthers. > Watched > another movie "The Judge". BluRay. Image Quality contributed to a > couple early establishment shots[1]. That's all. > Again, for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 22:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <PY-dnZ7pFO8Wj3zInZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #31361 |
On 2015-08-28 17:36, John McWilliams wrote: > On 8/28/15 PDT 11:06 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >> On 2015-08-27 21:17, John McWilliams wrote: >>> On 8/26/15 PDT 4:20 PM, Alan Browne wrote: >>>> On 2015-08-26 19:09, John McWilliams wrote: >>>>> On 8/25/15 PDT 1:42 PM, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-08-25 12:20, John McWilliams wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/25/15 PDT 8:57 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2015-08-25 00:55, John McWilliams wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> UHD is a wasteful farce. You'd need a monster screen to actually >>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>> that level of detail from a normal distance and viewing >>>>>>>> perspective. >>>>>>>> AFAIC BRD is just enough beyond resolving to be worth it. For most >>>>>>>> movies DVD, upsampled by a really good BR player, is more than >>>>>>>> crisp >>>>>>>> enough. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> For you, but not for millions of others with discerning eyesight and >>>>>>> aesthetics. To each his own. DVDs are soft and rotten. >>>>>> >>>>>> My eyesight and aesthetics are more demanding than most which is >>>>>> why I >>>>>> see UH as utter tripe as few will get the high definition >>>>>> televisions of >>>>>> adequate size viewed adequately closely to benefit from the >>>>>> resolution. >>>>> >>>>> Your opinion is your opinion. But you make many assumptions about how >>>>> others will use it. Sure, there'll be misuse, just as there are dolts >>>>> watching SD on HD sets when all they'd need do is select the right >>>>> channel. >>>> >>>> There are also a lot of dolts who buy monster cable and cable lifters >>>> and line power conditioners and so on (so they can hear their vinyl's >>>> better to boot). Sad thing is that shit is expensive for zero return. >>>> >>>> I won't say that UH is the new MC, 'cause it ain't, I'll just say that >>>> for the very great majority of television viewers it is way beyond what >>>> they are going to set up in a viewing room. >>>> >>>>> And you talk of uprezzing?! Yes, good uprezzing can make a TV picture >>>>> better, but is a far cry from actual pixels properly interpreted. >>>> >>>> Sure. But for 95% (probably more) of my pre-BR era DVD's it is not >>>> worth replacing them - so upsampling is more than enough. I actually >>>> buy my DVD's for content that is beyond the technical visuals of it. >>>> You >>>> should pay attention - some have drama or comedy or tragedy or a life >>>> lesson far beyond the fricking x times y pixels to the point that the >>>> image quality is not what you're looking at. >>>> >>> Thanks for the uppity lecture. I prefer my dramas, etc. to have not only >>> content worth watching, but excellent PQ. >> >> The other day watched a recent movie. Still Alice. Happened to be >> BluRay. The image quality contributed nothing to the movie. > > That means, it meant nothing to you. Others have other druthers. > > Watched >> another movie "The Judge". BluRay. Image Quality contributed to a >> couple early establishment shots[1]. That's all. >> > Again, for you. For most. Neither of these movies was about visual. To be content with BR is fine, but these would have been fine on DVD as well. Even Beta. Not VHS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 22:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mrrg06$dg1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #31373 |
On 8/28/15 PDT 7:01 PM, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2015-08-28 17:36, John McWilliams wrote: >> On 8/28/15 PDT 11:06 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >>> On 2015-08-27 21:17, John McWilliams wrote: >>>> On 8/26/15 PDT 4:20 PM, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>> On 2015-08-26 19:09, John McWilliams wrote: >>>>>> On 8/25/15 PDT 1:42 PM, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>>> On 2015-08-25 12:20, John McWilliams wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/25/15 PDT 8:57 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-25 00:55, John McWilliams wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> UHD is a wasteful farce. You'd need a monster screen to actually >>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>> that level of detail from a normal distance and viewing >>>>>>>>> perspective. >>>>>>>>> AFAIC BRD is just enough beyond resolving to be worth it. For >>>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>>> movies DVD, upsampled by a really good BR player, is more than >>>>>>>>> crisp >>>>>>>>> enough. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For you, but not for millions of others with discerning eyesight >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> aesthetics. To each his own. DVDs are soft and rotten. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My eyesight and aesthetics are more demanding than most which is >>>>>>> why I >>>>>>> see UH as utter tripe as few will get the high definition >>>>>>> televisions of >>>>>>> adequate size viewed adequately closely to benefit from the >>>>>>> resolution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your opinion is your opinion. But you make many assumptions about how >>>>>> others will use it. Sure, there'll be misuse, just as there are dolts >>>>>> watching SD on HD sets when all they'd need do is select the right >>>>>> channel. >>>>> >>>>> There are also a lot of dolts who buy monster cable and cable lifters >>>>> and line power conditioners and so on (so they can hear their vinyl's >>>>> better to boot). Sad thing is that shit is expensive for zero return. >>>>> >>>>> I won't say that UH is the new MC, 'cause it ain't, I'll just say that >>>>> for the very great majority of television viewers it is way beyond >>>>> what >>>>> they are going to set up in a viewing room. >>>>> >>>>>> And you talk of uprezzing?! Yes, good uprezzing can make a TV picture >>>>>> better, but is a far cry from actual pixels properly interpreted. >>>>> >>>>> Sure. But for 95% (probably more) of my pre-BR era DVD's it is not >>>>> worth replacing them - so upsampling is more than enough. I actually >>>>> buy my DVD's for content that is beyond the technical visuals of it. >>>>> You >>>>> should pay attention - some have drama or comedy or tragedy or a life >>>>> lesson far beyond the fricking x times y pixels to the point that the >>>>> image quality is not what you're looking at. >>>>> >>>> Thanks for the uppity lecture. I prefer my dramas, etc. to have not >>>> only >>>> content worth watching, but excellent PQ. >>> >>> The other day watched a recent movie. Still Alice. Happened to be >>> BluRay. The image quality contributed nothing to the movie. >> >> That means, it meant nothing to you. Others have other druthers. >> > Watched >>> another movie "The Judge". BluRay. Image Quality contributed to a >>> couple early establishment shots[1]. That's all. >>> >> Again, for you. > > For most. !! Most!! - MacDonald's? Microsoft? Pabst Blue Ribbon? Fords and Chevies? Sigma cameras? I'm sure others will find additional crap that's in the majority. OK, Sigma doesn't count as it's not used by many, much less "most". > Neither of these movies was about visual. Few movies are "about visual", though great camera work, direction, and HQ film all add to my enjoyment of any and every film. > To be content with > BR is fine, but these would have been fine on DVD as well. Even Beta. For you, and if you insist, most.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 07:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <290820150746192509%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #31380 |
In article <mrrg06$dg1$1@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote: > >> That means, it meant nothing to you. Others have other druthers. > >> > Watched > >>> another movie "The Judge". BluRay. Image Quality contributed to a > >>> couple early establishment shots[1]. That's all. > >>> > >> Again, for you. > > > > For most. > > !! Most!! - MacDonald's? Microsoft? Pabst Blue Ribbon? Fords and > Chevies? Sigma cameras? I'm sure others will find additional crap that's > in the majority. OK, Sigma doesn't count as it's not used by many, much > less "most". sigma definitely counts, being the crappiest and sleaziest company around because they lie to customers and misrepresent their products.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 11:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <orudnVGkKM_7EkHInZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #31236 |
On 2015-08-24 21:08, Jolly Roger wrote: > On 2015-08-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2015-08-24 12:17, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> On 2015-08-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>> On 2015-08-23 10:51, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>> On 2015-08-23, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Your choice if you want to deal with iTunes - which I avoid like the >>>>>> plague. >>>>> >>>>> There's nothing to "deal with". I encode one of my DVDs with Handbrake, >>>>> drag the resulting movie file into iTunes, and like magic it's >>>>> automatically available everywhere I need (iOS devices, Macs, Apple >>>>> TVs). It is simple and effective. >>>> >>>> I just plop DVD's into the DVD player. (Ironic given your television >>>> reply below). >>> >>> Now you're just being silly. We're talking about *playing* digital media >> >> Yes. DVD's are digital media. > > Sheesh, Alan. Really? Yep. Really. They are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 19:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d43u3vFdeukU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #31245 |
On 2015-08-25, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2015-08-24 21:08, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2015-08-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2015-08-24 12:17, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>> On 2015-08-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> On 2015-08-23 10:51, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-08-23, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your choice if you want to deal with iTunes - which I avoid like the >>>>>>> plague. >>>>>> >>>>>> There's nothing to "deal with". I encode one of my DVDs with Handbrake, >>>>>> drag the resulting movie file into iTunes, and like magic it's >>>>>> automatically available everywhere I need (iOS devices, Macs, Apple >>>>>> TVs). It is simple and effective. >>>>> >>>>> I just plop DVD's into the DVD player. (Ironic given your television >>>>> reply below). >>>> >>>> Now you're just being silly. We're talking about *playing* digital media >>> >>> Yes. DVD's are digital media. >> >> Sheesh, Alan. Really? > > Yep. Really. They are. You're being silly. I'm done here. Later. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 18:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vilain-D963C3.18294925082015@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #31236 |
In article <d41tgvFsca0U2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > On 2015-08-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > > On 2015-08-24 12:17, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> On 2015-08-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >>> On 2015-08-23 10:51, Jolly Roger wrote: > >>>> On 2015-08-23, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Your choice if you want to deal with iTunes - which I avoid like the > >>>>> plague. > >>>> > >>>> There's nothing to "deal with". I encode one of my DVDs with Handbrake, > >>>> drag the resulting movie file into iTunes, and like magic it's > >>>> automatically available everywhere I need (iOS devices, Macs, Apple > >>>> TVs). It is simple and effective. > >>> > >>> I just plop DVD's into the DVD player. (Ironic given your television > >>> reply below). > >> > >> Now you're just being silly. We're talking about *playing* digital media > > > > Yes. DVD's are digital media. > > Sheesh, Alan. Really? I gave up on Alan's trollish behavior a while ago. He smells like a nyme shifted Zara. And plonking him killed 40+ in the last day. So, I'm not missing him or his trolling. Who was the troll that posed problems and no matter what we recommended, it didn't work for him? -- DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee... [I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 18:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2015082518581672739-xxx@yyyzzz> |
| In reply to | #31268 |
On 2015-08-26 01:29:49 +0000, Michael Vilain said: > Who was the troll that posed problems and no matter what we recommended, > it didn't work for him? Seems like there's always one or two of those strolling by. "Yeah, but..."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 07:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <55dda589$0$39502$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #31268 |
In article <vilain-D963C3.18294925082015@news.individual.net>, Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote: > Who was the troll that posed problems and no matter what we recommended, > it didn't work for him? Well, there was Bible John, who always had some problems with his website so we'd go and visit and learn about the luvvajeesus. -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 16:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mrlh0p$89r$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #31276 |
On 8/26/15 PDT 4:39 AM, Warren Oates wrote: > In article <vilain-D963C3.18294925082015@news.individual.net>, > Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote: > >> Who was the troll that posed problems and no matter what we >> recommended, it didn't work for him? > > Well, there was Bible John, who always had some problems with his > website so we'd go and visit and learn about the luvvajeesus. I still maintain there really aren't any trolls left, at least not half clever ones. Alan Browne is not a troll. Argumentative, yes. Unable to let go, yes. But he's a good man and plonking him leaves out good stuff. YMMV.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps
csiph-web