Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Richard C is a Screen-Filler!

Reply
Thread Tools

Richard C is a Screen-Filler!

 
 
max christoffersen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2003

> : It only took Dick-wit two years to catch up.
> :
> : Flip-flop.
> :
> : Priceless about face.
> :
> :
> : Max Christoffersen
> :
> ================================
> Context is everything.
> You do not understand that.



Context shows that you are a screen filler.

You *HAVE* the original aspect ratio and you're still whining about the
size.

Fact.

Flip-flop.


Max Christoffersen
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Eric Gorse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2003
"max christoffersen" http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:



>Context shows that you are a screen filler.


>You *HAVE* the original aspect ratio and you're still whining >about the size.
>
>Fact.
>
>Flip-flop.
>
>
>Max Christoffersen


If I didn't think that you were completely serious about this
I would find this very funny. Are you honestly saying that you don't see a
difference between what a normal 'screen filler'
argues for and what Richard C is saying? There is no Flip-flop.

Eric M Gorse




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Geo H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2003
"max christoffersen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<bdfh8f$8nf$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> >> Not even close.
> >>
> >> No one is talking about cropping.
> >>
> >> We are talking about screen filling.
> >>
> >> You want it.
> >>
> >> End of story.
> >>
> >> Hypocrtite.
> >>
> >> Max Christoffersen

> >
> > Well lets see...there is a big difference...huge...between a 16:9 film
> > filling the screen of a 16:9 set (regardless of size) as it was
> > intended to, and a 16:9 film being cropped and chopped and panned and
> > scanned to fill the screen of 4:3 set...as it was NOT intended

>
> What has this got to do with anything?
>
> This isn't what's being discussed.
>
> > Also a 2:35 or 1:85 still does not "Fill" a 16:9 TV's screen, unless
> > the disc was anamorphically enhanced (Ill have to check with that -
> > I'm still a little fuzzy on the whole anamorphic thing myself) There
> > are still bars only far less pronounced, and aspect ratio is still (as
> > it almust must be) maintained.

>
> Read what Richard has said.
>
> He has the original aspect ratio - he's bitching that it doesn't fill his
> screen because it is not anamorphic.
>
> Richard is a screen filler.
>

I think more to the point of what Rich MIGHT HAVE been trying to get
across, is that today, there is no reason as to why just about any
film shot cannot be presented in an "anamorphically enhanced for 16:9"
release. I would tend to agree, however OAR is EVERYTHING so as far as
Im concerned...enhanced for 16:9 or not. Anamorphic enhancement to
intended aspect ratio viewing, in my opnion, is not "Screen filling"
per se....it was developed in a such a manner for the progression of a
standard. Intentional PS/FS just to turn a buck from a deprecated
market that quite honestly just doesnt know any better and refuses to
even grasp the concept let alone even try to learn why, is just plain
nonsense and an afront.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2003

"max christoffersen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bdgijk$gvb$(E-Mail Removed)...
:
: > : It only took Dick-wit two years to catch up.
: > :
: > : Flip-flop.
: > :
: > : Priceless about face.
: > :
: > :
: > : Max Christoffersen
: > :
: > ================================
: > Context is everything.
: > You do not understand that.
:
:
: Context shows that you are a screen filler.
:
: You *HAVE* the original aspect ratio and you're still whining about the
: size.
:
: Fact.
:
: Flip-flop.
:
:
: Max Christoffersen

===================
Shove your "flip-flop" up your ****ing ass, max.
=======================


 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2003

"Eric Gorse" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
: "max christoffersen" (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
:
:
:
: >Context shows that you are a screen filler.
:
: >You *HAVE* the original aspect ratio and you're still whining >about the size.
: >
: >Fact.
: >
: >Flip-flop.
: >
: >
: >Max Christoffersen
:
: If I didn't think that you were completely serious about this
: I would find this very funny. Are you honestly saying that you don't see a
: difference between what a normal 'screen filler'
: argues for and what Richard C is saying? There is no Flip-flop.
:
: Eric M Gorse
:
========================
Max is a simpleton and an ass with no life.
He is one of the most reviled trolls on the various HT newsgroups.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2003

"Geo H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
: "max christoffersen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:<bdfh8f$8nf$(E-Mail Removed)>...
: > >> Not even close.
: > >>
: > >> No one is talking about cropping.
: > >>
: > >> We are talking about screen filling.
: > >>
: > >> You want it.
: > >>
: > >> End of story.
: > >>
: > >> Hypocrtite.
: > >>
: > >> Max Christoffersen
: > >
: > > Well lets see...there is a big difference...huge...between a 16:9 film
: > > filling the screen of a 16:9 set (regardless of size) as it was
: > > intended to, and a 16:9 film being cropped and chopped and panned and
: > > scanned to fill the screen of 4:3 set...as it was NOT intended
: >
: > What has this got to do with anything?
: >
: > This isn't what's being discussed.
: >
: > > Also a 2:35 or 1:85 still does not "Fill" a 16:9 TV's screen, unless
: > > the disc was anamorphically enhanced (Ill have to check with that -
: > > I'm still a little fuzzy on the whole anamorphic thing myself) There
: > > are still bars only far less pronounced, and aspect ratio is still (as
: > > it almust must be) maintained.
: >
: > Read what Richard has said.
: >
: > He has the original aspect ratio - he's bitching that it doesn't fill his
: > screen because it is not anamorphic.
: >
: > Richard is a screen filler.
: >
: I think more to the point of what Rich MIGHT HAVE been trying to get
: across, is that today, there is no reason as to why just about any
: film shot cannot be presented in an "anamorphically enhanced for 16:9"
: release. I would tend to agree, however OAR is EVERYTHING so as far as
: Im concerned...enhanced for 16:9 or not. Anamorphic enhancement to
: intended aspect ratio viewing, in my opnion, is not "Screen filling"
: per se....it was developed in a such a manner for the progression of a
: standard. Intentional PS/FS just to turn a buck from a deprecated
: market that quite honestly just doesnt know any better and refuses to
: even grasp the concept let alone even try to learn why, is just plain
: nonsense and an afront.

=================
You are correct.


 
Reply With Quote
 
max christoffersen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2003

>>Context shows that you are a screen filler.

>
>>You *HAVE* the original aspect ratio and you're still whining >about the size.
>>
>>Fact.
>>
>>Flip-flop.
>>
>>
>>Max Christoffersen

>
> If I didn't think that you were completely serious about this
> I would find this very funny. Are you honestly saying that you don't see a
> difference between what a normal 'screen filler'
> argues for and what Richard C is saying? There is no Flip-flop.
>
> Eric M Gorse



Of course there is a difference.

But there are also similarities.

Another Richard C has said 'size has nothing to do with it'.

Well one of these things is not like the other.

Richard C is a screen filler - he *HAS* the OAR. But he's still whining.

And he's whining about size.

He prefers the image aesthetics of having his screen filled.

It's that simple.


Max Christoffersen
 
Reply With Quote
 
max christoffersen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2003

>> Read what Richard has said.
>>
>> He has the original aspect ratio - he's bitching that it doesn't fill his
>> screen because it is not anamorphic.
>>
>> Richard is a screen filler.
>>

> I think more to the point of what Rich MIGHT HAVE been trying to get
> across, is that today, there is no reason as to why just about any
> film shot cannot be presented in an "anamorphically enhanced for 16:9"
> release. I would tend to agree, however OAR is EVERYTHING so as far as
> Im concerned...enhanced for 16:9 or not. Anamorphic enhancement to
> intended aspect ratio viewing, in my opnion, is not "Screen filling"
> per se....it was developed in a such a manner for the progression of a
> standard. Intentional PS/FS just to turn a buck from a deprecated
> market that quite honestly just doesnt know any better and refuses to
> even grasp the concept let alone even try to learn why, is just plain
> nonsense and an afront.



The point here is very simple.

Richard prefers to have his screen filled.

His motivations are *identical* to the P&S film viewer; The aesthetics of a
filled screen are superior.

Like I said it's simple.

Dickwit is a screen filler.


Max Christoffersen
 
Reply With Quote
 
DarkMatter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2003
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 05:46:17 +1200, "max christoffersen"
<(E-Mail Removed)> Gave us:

>> Context is everything. You do not understand that. <

>
>> : Context shows that you are a screen filler.
>> :
>> : You *HAVE* the original aspect ratio and you're still whining about the
>> : size.
>> :
>> : Fact.
>> :
>> : Flip-flop.
>> :
>> :
>> : Max Christoffersen
>>
>> ===================
>> Shove your "flip-flop" up your ****ing ass, max.

>
>
>Looks like someone's superior cinematic dispostion just got compromised.
>
>Another screen-filler busted.
>
>

You are the ultimate usenet idiot, Max.
 
Reply With Quote
 
George Hernandez
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-28-2003

"max christoffersen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bdi030$sc4$(E-Mail Removed)...
:
: >> Read what Richard has said.
: >>
: >> He has the original aspect ratio - he's bitching that it doesn't fill
his
: >> screen because it is not anamorphic.
: >>
: >> Richard is a screen filler.
: >>
: > I think more to the point of what Rich MIGHT HAVE been trying to get
: > across, is that today, there is no reason as to why just about any
: > film shot cannot be presented in an "anamorphically enhanced for 16:9"
: > release. I would tend to agree, however OAR is EVERYTHING so as far as
: > Im concerned...enhanced for 16:9 or not. Anamorphic enhancement to
: > intended aspect ratio viewing, in my opnion, is not "Screen filling"
: > per se....it was developed in a such a manner for the progression of a
: > standard. Intentional PS/FS just to turn a buck from a deprecated
: > market that quite honestly just doesnt know any better and refuses to
: > even grasp the concept let alone even try to learn why, is just plain
: > nonsense and an afront.
:
:
: The point here is very simple.
:
: Richard prefers to have his screen filled.
:
: His motivations are *identical* to the P&S film viewer; The aesthetics of
a
: filled screen are superior.
:
: Like I said it's simple.

but there is a difference between filling a 16:9 screen with an anamorphic
enhancement of a film that was intended to be made so and still preserve the
OAR, and filling a 4:3 screen with a chopped up version that was not
intended - it was done simply as a gimmick

Through A.E. you still preserve OAR - through PS, you do not

Ergo, his argument for there being no reason why new release DVD cannot be
AE for 16:9

You need to be able to read between the lines a little better and not be
interested in picking a fight all the time Max - people might like you more
if you were actually cooperative and proactive instead of self-absorbed and
reactive


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
avoid the advice of Richard the stupid ghoul HTML 4 01-21-2005 02:27 PM
Question for Richard Fat Sam HTML 1 01-11-2005 06:51 AM
Please ignore "Richard" and his bleatings, thanks. Alexander Cain HTML 4 01-26-2004 10:20 AM
Richard Deal Tired of Author apathy MCSD 3 11-14-2003 06:00 PM
Richard Grimes' book "Developing Applications With Visual Studio.NET" Andy Turner ASP .Net 6 11-03-2003 02:19 PM



Advertisments