Anamorphic downconversion, digital video essentials, my recent foray into videophile land, frustration and heartbreak

This is going to be a rather long rant/post, so I guess I should start
right out with my question:

Is there a player that has good anamorphic downconversion, as well as
fast navigation and layer switching?

I've bought two players and had to return them now because the anamorphic
downconversion was so incredibly bad (and I have a regular ol' 4:3 tv
that needs downconverting, of course). Depressingly, distressingly bad.
How I got to this point is a rather involved tale, but I think you might
find it interesting.

I was never much of a videophile before, I've always been a big movie
buff, but I had an old crappy television set with only RF input, and the
Playstation2 was fine for all my dvd needs.

Well, my good friend Carlos recently bought a DLP projector, and he had
his old rear projection for sale. We have a long history of him buying
stuff (furniture, audio equipment, you name it) and selling it to me when
he upgrades. On the video front, he knows quite a bit about image quality
and tv settings and so forth, so I had no qualms about buying his GE rear
projection. I'm pretty happy with it so far, having gone from a really
awful 26 inch CRT directview, for 300 bucks I bought his 46 incher and it
is in very good shape, and the image quality is truly great for a
projection system. Carlos doesn't buy crap (he's a virgo, in case you're
into that sort of thing, and he is the most virgo virgo I have ever met).

Anyhow, I'm sure you won't be surprised to find out that I quickly
decided that the playstation2 was no longer adequate for my needs, and I
had to buy a standalone dvd player. I figured the new ones would all be
pretty much the same and I could just go out and buy a cheap Sony and be
happy. So I did. I paid 90 bucks for it, brought it home and played my
Monsters Inc disc on it and was pleased with the quality as compared to
the playstation2.

So Carlos says he wants to come over and calibrate my system, using his
Digital Video essentials disc. I quickly fell in love with the disc and
made a mental note to purchase my own copy as soon as I got around to it.

So he calibrated my colors, contrast, brightness, and sound levels using
the test patterns and sound calibration programs on the disc, and I asked
him "So what do you think of the DVD player?"

He got this diplomatic look on his face, and he said, "Welllll...... it
doesn't have the best scalar I've ever seen".

It's all been downhill for me from there folks. I asked him what the hell
he meant by that, and he explained anamorphic downconversion to me. I was
a little thrown for a loop that my dvd player would actually be scaling
down the image on the disk as a matter of course. I was pretty ignorant
of the whole thing, and I was happier for it.

But, I'm a software engineer (as is Carlos), and I quickly understood the
concept. The source material has a different aspect ratio of the display,
so to show a movie in widescreen mode, the player has to drop 33% of the
horizontal lines. Okay, great. So why was my player "not the best
scalar" he'd ever seen?

He showed me the video montage in 16:9 mode with everything vertically
stretched, and then he contrasted it with the downconverted image. The
downconverted image had all sorts of artifacts on the skyscraper montage
with all the windows, and on the ferris wheel montage the sky actually
crept into the spokes of the ferris wheel! I had to agree that it was
pretty bad.

He recommended that I take it back and try out another one. Well, instead
I resigned myself to using the playstation2 for awhile, which has a
pretty crappy mpeg decoder, but at least it doesn't add a bunch of scaly
artifacts around edges. I traded my DVD player in on some cabling (yikes
that stuff is expensive!) and bought a new Kenwood receiver (which I'm
VERY happy with) because it was time for a receiver upgrade and I needed
an s-video switcher anyway.

As soon as I had the money for it, I went out and got myself a pioneer
DVD player (the 578-a) because Carlos said that he had pretty good luck
with his.

Well, the anamorphic downsampler was even worse! Now instead of just
getting some jaggies, angled lines in camera pans actually WIGGLE LIKE A
SNAKE! It looks so amazingly awful on some sequences, I have to wonder
what sort of crack the manufacturer was smoking when they designed the
damn thing.

Went over to Carlos's house with my Pioneer, and we compared it to his
Sony, using his old 4:3 set, and the Sony looks great. Doesn't have the
problem with the wiggly angled lines, doesn't have the problem where my
pioneer seems to be doing too much antialiasing and letting the sky bleed
into the ferris wheel imagae, it just scales it and it looks pretty darn
good. Turned out his old Pioneer had much the same problems that my new
one does, just less pronounced, but it doesn't matter because he runs it
in 16:9 mode and lets his projector do the downconvert. Let me tell you,
it does an amazing job! On the anamorphic test pattern on the DVE disc,
the concentric circle test looks just great!

So, now I have to return my Pioneer that's scary bad. I'm wary of buying
another Sony given the poor anamorphic downconversion quality of my first
purchase, and I'm getting a little weary of buying stuff and taking it
back.

One thing we noted is that his old Sony player didn't have support for
progressive scan. Neither of us see why that should make a difference
when you're running in interlace mode, but it was something that occurred
to us.

Anyway, I can't just buy an old player, either, because I'm very pleased
with the INSANE speed of the pioneer when it came to chapter skipping and
layer switching. Both were practically instantaneous, and I can't go back
to waiting several seconds for them.

So, I need a dvd player with a good anamorphic downsampler, and fast
navigation/layer switches. I'd like for it to support progressive scan,
for future display upgrade purposes, but since my future display will
probably have the on-the-fly upconversion feature, this isn't wildly
important.

I'm desperately hoping that all the new players on the market aren't
skimping out on the 4:3 anamorphic mode like my last to purchase
attempts.

Please help!!!!! Anybody?

cg

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:27:58 GMT, cg <> wrote:

>This is going to be a rather long rant/post, so I guess I should start
>right out with my question:
>
>Is there a player that has good anamorphic downconversion, as well as
>fast navigation and layer switching?
>
>I've bought two players and had to return them now because the anamorphic
>downconversion was so incredibly bad (and I have a regular ol' 4:3 tv
>that needs downconverting, of course). Depressingly, distressingly bad.
>How I got to this point is a rather involved tale, but I think you might
>find it interesting.
>
>I was never much of a videophile before, I've always been a big movie
>buff, but I had an old crappy television set with only RF input, and the
>Playstation2 was fine for all my dvd needs.
>
>Well, my good friend Carlos recently bought a DLP projector, and he had
>his old rear projection for sale. We have a long history of him buying
>stuff (furniture, audio equipment, you name it) and selling it to me when
>he upgrades. On the video front, he knows quite a bit about image quality
>and tv settings and so forth, so I had no qualms about buying his GE rear
>projection. I'm pretty happy with it so far, having gone from a really
>awful 26 inch CRT directview, for 300 bucks I bought his 46 incher and it
>is in very good shape, and the image quality is truly great for a
>projection system. Carlos doesn't buy crap (he's a virgo, in case you're
>into that sort of thing, and he is the most virgo virgo I have ever met).
>
>Anyhow, I'm sure you won't be surprised to find out that I quickly
>decided that the playstation2 was no longer adequate for my needs, and I
>had to buy a standalone dvd player. I figured the new ones would all be
>pretty much the same and I could just go out and buy a cheap Sony and be
>happy. So I did. I paid 90 bucks for it, brought it home and played my
>Monsters Inc disc on it and was pleased with the quality as compared to
>the playstation2.
>
>So Carlos says he wants to come over and calibrate my system, using his
>Digital Video essentials disc. I quickly fell in love with the disc and
>made a mental note to purchase my own copy as soon as I got around to it.
>
>So he calibrated my colors, contrast, brightness, and sound levels using
>the test patterns and sound calibration programs on the disc, and I asked
>him "So what do you think of the DVD player?"
>
>He got this diplomatic look on his face, and he said, "Welllll...... it
>doesn't have the best scalar I've ever seen".
>
>It's all been downhill for me from there folks. I asked him what the hell
>he meant by that, and he explained anamorphic downconversion to me. I was
>a little thrown for a loop that my dvd player would actually be scaling
>down the image on the disk as a matter of course. I was pretty ignorant
>of the whole thing, and I was happier for it.
>
>But, I'm a software engineer (as is Carlos), and I quickly understood the
>concept. The source material has a different aspect ratio of the display,
>so to show a movie in widescreen mode, the player has to drop 33% of the
>horizontal lines. Okay, great. So why was my player "not the best
>scalar" he'd ever seen?
>
>He showed me the video montage in 16:9 mode with everything vertically
>stretched, and then he contrasted it with the downconverted image. The
>downconverted image had all sorts of artifacts on the skyscraper montage
>with all the windows, and on the ferris wheel montage the sky actually
>crept into the spokes of the ferris wheel! I had to agree that it was
>pretty bad.
>
>He recommended that I take it back and try out another one. Well, instead
>I resigned myself to using the playstation2 for awhile, which has a
>pretty crappy mpeg decoder, but at least it doesn't add a bunch of scaly
>artifacts around edges. I traded my DVD player in on some cabling (yikes
>that stuff is expensive!) and bought a new Kenwood receiver (which I'm
>VERY happy with) because it was time for a receiver upgrade and I needed
>an s-video switcher anyway.
>
>As soon as I had the money for it, I went out and got myself a pioneer
>DVD player (the 578-a) because Carlos said that he had pretty good luck
>with his.
>
>Well, the anamorphic downsampler was even worse! Now instead of just
>getting some jaggies, angled lines in camera pans actually WIGGLE LIKE A
>SNAKE! It looks so amazingly awful on some sequences, I have to wonder
>what sort of crack the manufacturer was smoking when they designed the
>damn thing.
>
>Went over to Carlos's house with my Pioneer, and we compared it to his
>Sony, using his old 4:3 set, and the Sony looks great. Doesn't have the
>problem with the wiggly angled lines, doesn't have the problem where my
>pioneer seems to be doing too much antialiasing and letting the sky bleed
>into the ferris wheel imagae, it just scales it and it looks pretty darn
>good. Turned out his old Pioneer had much the same problems that my new
>one does, just less pronounced, but it doesn't matter because he runs it
>in 16:9 mode and lets his projector do the downconvert. Let me tell you,
>it does an amazing job! On the anamorphic test pattern on the DVE disc,
>the concentric circle test looks just great!
>
>So, now I have to return my Pioneer that's scary bad. I'm wary of buying
>another Sony given the poor anamorphic downconversion quality of my first
>purchase, and I'm getting a little weary of buying stuff and taking it
>back.
>
>One thing we noted is that his old Sony player didn't have support for
>progressive scan. Neither of us see why that should make a difference
>when you're running in interlace mode, but it was something that occurred
>to us.
>
>Anyway, I can't just buy an old player, either, because I'm very pleased
>with the INSANE speed of the pioneer when it came to chapter skipping and
>layer switching. Both were practically instantaneous, and I can't go back
>to waiting several seconds for them.
>
>So, I need a dvd player with a good anamorphic downsampler, and fast
>navigation/layer switches. I'd like for it to support progressive scan,
>for future display upgrade purposes, but since my future display will
>probably have the on-the-fly upconversion feature, this isn't wildly
>important.
>
>I'm desperately hoping that all the new players on the market aren't
>skimping out on the 4:3 anamorphic mode like my last to purchase
>attempts.
>
>Please help!!!!! Anybody?

Either buy a 16:9 TV, or a good video scaler.

- Rutgar

Rutgar

>
> Either buy a 16:9 TV, or a good video scaler.
>
> - Rutgar
>

Why?

There exist dvd players that have what I want. As I said, his Sony did a pretty great job. I feel sure someone out there knows of something I could get
that's good.

As per your TV suggestion, that's not gonna happen. Not for awhile at least.

As per your scaler suggestion, are you telling me that there are standalone video scaler boxes?

I really don't like that idea either. What I want exists, and I will find it.

cg

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:38:31 GMT, cg <> wrote:

>>
>> Either buy a 16:9 TV, or a good video scaler.
>>
>> - Rutgar
>>
>
>Why?
>
>There exist dvd players that have what I want. As I said, his Sony did a pretty great job. I feel sure someone out there knows of something I could get
>that's good.
>
>As per your TV suggestion, that's not gonna happen. Not for awhile at least.
>
>As per your scaler suggestion, are you telling me that there are standalone video scaler boxes?
>
>I really don't like that idea either. What I want exists, and I will find it.



CG, yes they do make stand-alone video scaler boxes. For example:

http://www.dvdo.com/pro/pro_ishd.html

But, these are generally made for "up converting", not "down
converting". In other words, most people prefer to scale a "crappy"
picture up to a "good" picture. Not scale a "good" picture down to a
"crappy" picture (which is what you're trying to do).

Your biggest problem is you're expecting the DVD players to do
somethng they're not really intended to do. Most people depend on
their TV's built-in scaler to convert and scale to "it's" native
resolution. Not the other way around. Since your RPTV is an older
analog, 4:3 set, it doesn't have that capability. Unless someone
else here has a solution for you, I think you're stuck unless you're
willing to go out and buy a newer decent digital TV. If you think
about it, why do you think your friend wanted to get rid of it?

- Rutgar

Rutgar

Look, I don't wanna get into a flame war with you. DVD players are
definitely intended to downconvert DVD images. Most people have standard
televisions just like me.

Furthermore, I have seen it done correctly. Hell, the sony playstation does
a better job of it than my brand new pioneer does!

When you say "Most people depend on their TV's built-in scalar..." etc,
what world do you live in? Most people have a standard 4:3 set just like
me. Maybe you mean "most videophiles", in which case we're in perfect
agreement.

Look, it doesn't have to be perfect, I just want something decent. My
friend's old Sony does a really great job of downconverting. Unfortunately,
that model is not available, and even if it was, the navigation and layer
switching is painfully slow by today's standards.

Don't tell me that players aren't intended to do it, or that it can't be
done. I've SEEN it done correctly. You're not helping me by telling me to
go buy a new television set, you're just stroking your own ego.

Hopefully someone on this group knows what they are talking about and can
recommend something decent.


> Your biggest problem is you're expecting the DVD players to do
> somethng they're not really intended to do. Most people depend on
> their TV's built-in scaler to convert and scale to "it's" native
> resolution. Not the other way around. Since your RPTV is an older
> analog, 4:3 set, it doesn't have that capability. Unless someone
> else here has a solution for you, I think you're stuck unless you're
> willing to go out and buy a newer decent digital TV. If you think
> about it, why do you think your friend wanted to get rid of it?
>
> - Rutgar
>

cg

before I got 16:9 capability, my Pioneer606D did a decent downconversion
job.

But really, the only way to really research it is to go to a store that
allows you to test out DVD players downconverted.

Take a DVD that has a THX calibrater that can show a test 16:9 screen
with a the circle and box.

When it shows the downcoverted 16:9 circle and box, observe how smooth
(or unsmooth)the circle looks. The better the circle looks, the better
the downconversion.



cg wrote:
>
> Look, I don't wanna get into a flame war with you. DVD players are
> definitely intended to downconvert DVD images. Most people have standard
> televisions just like me.
>
> Furthermore, I have seen it done correctly. Hell, the sony playstation does
> a better job of it than my brand new pioneer does!
>
> When you say "Most people depend on their TV's built-in scalar..." etc,
> what world do you live in? Most people have a standard 4:3 set just like
> me. Maybe you mean "most videophiles", in which case we're in perfect
> agreement.
>
> Look, it doesn't have to be perfect, I just want something decent. My
> friend's old Sony does a really great job of downconverting. Unfortunately,
> that model is not available, and even if it was, the navigation and layer
> switching is painfully slow by today's standards.
>
> Don't tell me that players aren't intended to do it, or that it can't be
> done. I've SEEN it done correctly. You're not helping me by telling me to
> go buy a new television set, you're just stroking your own ego.
>
> Hopefully someone on this group knows what they are talking about and can
> recommend something decent.
>
> > Your biggest problem is you're expecting the DVD players to do
> > somethng they're not really intended to do. Most people depend on
> > their TV's built-in scaler to convert and scale to "it's" native
> > resolution. Not the other way around. Since your RPTV is an older
> > analog, 4:3 set, it doesn't have that capability. Unless someone
> > else here has a solution for you, I think you're stuck unless you're
> > willing to go out and buy a newer decent digital TV. If you think
> > about it, why do you think your friend wanted to get rid of it?
> >
> > - Rutgar
> >

Michael Rogers

"cg" <> wrote in message
news:Xns95682366C1DA1kenwoodfanrrcom@24.93.44.119. ..
> Is there a player that has good anamorphic downconversion, as well
> as fast navigation and layer switching?

No. There is no such thing as "good anamorphic downconversion." Can't
you at least afford to buy a 4:3 aspect ratio TV, which has the ability
to vertically compress anamorphic images (a 16:9 mode)?

Down-conversion is a destructive process which tears away one of every
four horizontal scan lines from an anamorphic image and then pastes
together the remaining 75% of the original picture information. There is
no DVD player that can repair the damage caused by this ruinous
procedure.

Sure, some players do a better job of patching up the down-converted
image, but all down-converted images look lousy. Some just look lousier
than others.

> The source material has a different aspect ratio of the display,
> so to show a movie in widescreen mode, the player has to drop 33%
> of the horizontal lines.

No, the player has to drop 25% of the horizontal lines in order to
down-convert the image:

A down-converted image has 25% fewer horizontal lines than the original
anamorphic image.

A compressed anamorphic image has 33% more horizontal lines than an
equivalent non-anamorphic picture.

An anamorphic image -- one which is enhanced for 16:9 TVs -- has 33%
more horizontal scan lines than a non-enhanced image. If a DVD player is
set to the 16:9 mode and playing an anamorphic DVD, the resulting image
would appear to be vertically elongated by 33% on a conventional 4:3
aspect ratio TV.

The compromise 4:3 DVD player setting removes 1 of every 4 scan lines
from an anamorphic image. This dumbing down of anamorphic images is
called down-conversion and it is handled differently by different
players. Some players complete the down-conversion process with a lot of
picture disruption and others disrupt the picture even more. Either way,
down-conversion is a terrible compromise which leaves the viewer with a
picture which is at least 25% less detailed. When down-conversion
artifacts and picture blurring are added to this less detailed image,
the picture is further degraded.

A 4:3 aspect ratio TV with a 16:9 mode has the ability to compress
vertically elongated images by 25%, thereby achieving a picture which is
33% more detailed. This is how the math works:

For every 4 scan lines present in an anamorphic widescreen image, there
are only 3 scan lines in the same non-anamorphic widescreen image and
the remaining scan lines are used to create black bars. (For that
matter, the down-conversion process of a DVD player removes 1 out of
every 4 scan lines from an anamorphic picture.) It is now possible to
assign values to the two resolutions:

Anamorphic = 4

Non-anamorphic = 3

There is 1 scan line separating anamorphic DVDs from non-anamorphic
DVDs. It is the relationship of this single scan line to anamorphic and
non-anamorphic images that establishes the percentage of difference
between them.

An anamorphic image (with an assigned value of 4) is 33% greater than a
non-anamorphic image (with an assigned value of 3). This would mean that
anamorphic DVDs have 33% more resolution than non anamorphic DVDs.

A non-anamorphic image (with an assigned value of 3) is 25% less than an
anamorphic image (with an assigned value of 4). This would mean that
non-anamorphic DVDs have 25% less resolution than anamorphic DVDs.

In order to take advantage of the increased resolution offered by
anamorphic DVDs, a 4:3 aspect ratio TV must be able to vertically
compress an anamorphic image through the use of a 16:9 mode.

For everything that you ever wanted to know about anamorphic images,
visit the following websites:

http://gregl.net/videophile/anamorphic.htm

One-Shot Scot

Michael Rogers <> wrote in message news:<>...
> before I got 16:9 capability, my Pioneer606D did a decent downconversion
> job.
>
> But really, the only way to really research it is to go to a store that
> allows you to test out DVD players downconverted.
>
> Take a DVD that has a THX calibrater that can show a test 16:9 screen
> with a the circle and box.
>
> When it shows the downcoverted 16:9 circle and box, observe how smooth
> (or unsmooth)the circle looks. The better the circle looks, the better
> the downconversion.
>
>
>
> cg wrote:
> >
> > Look, I don't wanna get into a flame war with you. DVD players are
> > definitely intended to downconvert DVD images. Most people have standard
> > televisions just like me.
> >
> > Furthermore, I have seen it done correctly. Hell, the sony playstation does
> > a better job of it than my brand new pioneer does!
> >
> > When you say "Most people depend on their TV's built-in scalar..." etc,
> > what world do you live in? Most people have a standard 4:3 set just like
> > me. Maybe you mean "most videophiles", in which case we're in perfect
> > agreement.
> >
> > Look, it doesn't have to be perfect, I just want something decent. My
> > friend's old Sony does a really great job of downconverting. Unfortunately,
> > that model is not available, and even if it was, the navigation and layer
> > switching is painfully slow by today's standards.
> >
> > Don't tell me that players aren't intended to do it, or that it can't be
> > done. I've SEEN it done correctly. You're not helping me by telling me to
> > go buy a new television set, you're just stroking your own ego.
> >
> > Hopefully someone on this group knows what they are talking about and can
> > recommend something decent.
> >
> > > Your biggest problem is you're expecting the DVD players to do
> > > somethng they're not really intended to do. Most people depend on
> > > their TV's built-in scaler to convert and scale to "it's" native
> > > resolution. Not the other way around. Since your RPTV is an older
> > > analog, 4:3 set, it doesn't have that capability. Unless someone
> > > else here has a solution for you, I think you're stuck unless you're
> > > willing to go out and buy a newer decent digital TV. If you think
> > > about it, why do you think your friend wanted to get rid of it?
> > >
> > > - Rutgar
> > >

Sony players generally do have the best downconversion at any given
price point (as you've discovered by comparing it to a similarly
priced Pioneer). Earlier players such as your friend's were more
expensive at the time which would explain the superior quality.

My suggestion would be to look at Sony's more upmarket DVD players as
these are much more likely to offer the kind of quality you require.
The upmarket players more closely approximate the kind of quality your
friend's player had (being at a similar price point, probably).

The other thing to bear in mind is that a few years ago, the
downconversion circuitry was more of a priority than now, because TV
sets that offered vertical compression/and or widescreen sets were not
as prolific as they are today (although you are absolutely correct
that this is more of a market perception and in reality, most people
still have 'regular' TV sets). I remember that the advertising for
those players announced, 'Best downconversion ever!'. Nowadays, this
is not as much a marketing point as it was perceived to be then, so
there is less thought given to it, but presumably the better, more
upscale Sony players would still do a nice job of downconversion.

Michael.

Michael Barry

One-Shot Scot wrote:
> "cg" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns95682366C1DA1kenwoodfanrrcom@24.93.44.119. ..
>
>>Is there a player that has good anamorphic downconversion, as well
>>as fast navigation and layer switching?
>
>
> No. There is no such thing as "good anamorphic downconversion." Can't
> you at least afford to buy a 4:3 aspect ratio TV, which has the ability
> to vertically compress anamorphic images (a 16:9 mode)?
>
> Down-conversion is a destructive process which tears away one of every
> four horizontal scan lines from an anamorphic image and then pastes
> together the remaining 75% of the original picture information. There is
> no DVD player that can repair the damage caused by this ruinous
> procedure.

While it is possible that some rare DVD players simply drop every fourth
line, I don't know of any. Almost all use a scalar or filter to drop 1/4
of the information, not every fourth line. Scaling 4 lines to three
isn't all that hard. Many of the reported "downconversion problems" are
really "lower resolution problems". Jagged diagonals, when downcoverted,
are more obvious jagged diagonal, etc.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

Matthew L. Martin

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:07:23 GMT, cg <> wrote:

>Look, I don't wanna get into a flame war with you. DVD players are
>definitely intended to downconvert DVD images. Most people have standard
>televisions just like me.
>
>Furthermore, I have seen it done correctly. Hell, the sony playstation does
>a better job of it than my brand new pioneer does!
>

So, you're saying that your Sony Playstation is a better DVD player
than your Pioneer?

>When you say "Most people depend on their TV's built-in scalar..." etc,
>what world do you live in? Most people have a standard 4:3 set just like
>me. Maybe you mean "most videophiles", in which case we're in perfect
>agreement.

I guess if you consider most people with digital TV's "videophiles",
well then yes.

>
>Look, it doesn't have to be perfect, I just want something decent. My
>friend's old Sony does a really great job of downconverting. Unfortunately,
>that model is not available, and even if it was, the navigation and layer
>switching is painfully slow by today's standards.
>
And watch an old analog RPTV is just painful, by today's standards.


>Don't tell me that players aren't intended to do it, or that it can't be
>done. I've SEEN it done correctly. You're not helping me by telling me to
>go buy a new television set, you're just stroking your own ego.
>
You car will go in reverse. But you wouldn't want to drive it to work
that way.

>Hopefully someone on this group knows what they are talking about and can
>recommend something decent.
>
I'm not trying to get into a flame war with you. You asked a
question, and I answered it. Don't get upset with me just because
you didn't like the answer.

Again, I think you must ask yourself, why do you think your friend
wanted to get rid of his old set by selling it to you? The sad truth
is, you're putting a suit on a pig, and then complaining that it still
looks like a pig.

- Rutgar

Rutgar