Richard C is a Screen-Filler!

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by max christoffersen, Jun 24, 2003.

  1. After years of belittling those who wanted their screens filled, Richard C
    today joined their ranks:


    > See...you did miss the point. If it were anamorphic it would<
    > appear to fill the screen of a 1.78:1 set - just as 1.85:1 <
    > appears to. < Richard C



    Priceless.

    Simply priceless.


    Max Christoffersen
     
    max christoffersen, Jun 24, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. max christoffersen

    Richard C. Guest

    "Sammy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : In article <bda78l$tpg$>,
    : "max christoffersen" <> wrote:
    : > <<<<<<blather>>>>>>>>>>
    : > Max Christoffersen
    :
    : It's bad enough that you're a complete idiot. What's even worse is the
    : way you blatantly distort what others say to get that infamous maxie
    : punch in. You are so low that there isn't even an adjective that could
    : begin to describe how low you are. Miserable **** comes close, but even
    : worse than that.

    =================
    You are being too kind to him....................
     
    Richard C., Jun 25, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. max christoffersen

    Richard C. Guest

    "max christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:bdctfg$jhu$...
    :
    : > : > See...you did miss the point. If it were anamorphic it would<
    : > : > appear to fill the screen of a 1.78:1 set - just as 1.85:1 <
    : > : > appears to. < Richard C
    : > :
    : > :
    : > : Priceless.
    : > :
    : > : Simply priceless.
    : > :
    : > :
    : > ======================
    : > You just don't get it at all max.
    : > The aspect ratio would NOT be altered to fill the screen.
    : > Do you even understand what anamorphic DVDs do on a 16:9 screen?
    : > It sounds like you are as dumb as a stump.
    :
    :
    : We all understand what you are trying to do Richard.
    :
    : Simply: It is you want to fill your screen because it looks better.
    :
    : Deny it.
    :
    =======================
    I deny it.
    I want the original aspect ratio - ALWAYS.
    But I want it as large as possible on my screen.
    QED.

    I do NOT want my screen filled by cropping a 2.35:1 movie, because that would NOT
    look better.

    Denial completed.

    You are an ASS

    Deny it.
     
    Richard C., Jun 26, 2003
    #3

  4. > : Simply: It is you want to fill your screen because it looks better.
    > :
    > : Deny it.
    > :
    > =======================
    > I deny it.
    > I want the original aspect ratio - ALWAYS.
    > But I want it as large as possible on my screen.
    > QED.


    Because it looks better.

    Deny it.

    > I do NOT want my screen filled by cropping a 2.35:1 movie, because that would
    > NOT look better.
    >
    > Denial completed.



    Not even close.

    No one is talking about cropping.

    We are talking about screen filling.

    You want it.

    End of story.

    Hypocrtite.

    Max Christoffersen
     
    max christoffersen, Jun 26, 2003
    #4
  5. max christoffersen

    DarkMatter Guest

    On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:40:18 +1200, "max christoffersen"
    <> Gave us:

    >
    >> : Simply: It is you want to fill your screen because it looks better.
    >> :
    >> : Deny it.
    >> :
    >> =======================
    >> I deny it.
    >> I want the original aspect ratio - ALWAYS.
    >> But I want it as large as possible on my screen.
    >> QED.

    >
    >Because it looks better.
    >
    >Deny it.
    >
    >> I do NOT want my screen filled by cropping a 2.35:1 movie, because that would
    >> NOT look better.
    >>
    >> Denial completed.

    >
    >
    >Not even close.
    >
    >No one is talking about cropping.
    >
    >We are talking about screen filling.
    >
    >You want it.
    >
    >End of story.
    >
    >Hypocrtite.
    >
    >Max Christoffersen



    You're retarded. End of story. No denying it.
     
    DarkMatter, Jun 26, 2003
    #5
  6. max christoffersen

    Richard C. Guest

    "max christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:bddmqk$ps8$...
    :
    : > : Simply: It is you want to fill your screen because it looks better.
    : > :
    : > : Deny it.
    : > :
    : > =======================
    : > I deny it.
    : > I want the original aspect ratio - ALWAYS.
    : > But I want it as large as possible on my screen.
    : > QED.
    :
    : Because it looks better.
    :
    : Deny it.
    :
    : > I do NOT want my screen filled by cropping a 2.35:1 movie, because that would
    : > NOT look better.
    : >
    : > Denial completed.
    :
    :
    : Not even close.
    :
    : No one is talking about cropping.
    :
    : We are talking about screen filling.
    :
    : You want it.

    ============================
    Prove it!
    =========================
    :
    : End of story.
    :
    : Hypocrtite.
    :
    : Max Christoffersen
     
    Richard C., Jun 26, 2003
    #6

  7. >> 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.


    Max Christoffersen
     
    max christoffersen, Jun 26, 2003
    #7
  8. Roget said:

    > "No,(Richard), YOU don't get it!! SIZE *AND* ASPECT RATIO are
    > **absolutely** related -- to YOUR ENJOYMENT of a THEATRICAL
    > PRESENTATION IN your HOME on a TV..." <



    Richard said:

    >>> You are 100% WRONG when you make such a statement. <<<
    >>> Richard C october 2001 <<<



    Today Richard agrees.

    Size and aspect ratio are related (see his whines about the non-anamorphic
    Giant DVD being too small on his screen).

    It only took Dick-wit two years to catch up.

    Flip-flop.

    Priceless about face.


    Max Christoffersen
     
    max christoffersen, Jun 26, 2003
    #8
  9. max christoffersen

    DarkMatter Guest

    On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:56:02 +1200, "max christoffersen"
    <> Gave us:

    >Roget said:
    >
    > > "No,(Richard), YOU don't get it!! SIZE *AND* ASPECT RATIO are
    > > **absolutely** related -- to YOUR ENJOYMENT of a THEATRICAL
    > > PRESENTATION IN your HOME on a TV..." <

    >
    >
    >Richard said:
    >
    > >>> You are 100% WRONG when you make such a statement. <<<
    > >>> Richard C october 2001 <<<

    >
    >
    >Today Richard agrees.
    >
    >Size and aspect ratio are related (see his whines about the non-anamorphic
    >Giant DVD being too small on his screen).
    >
    >It only took Dick-wit two years to catch up.
    >
    >Flip-flop.
    >
    >Priceless about face.
    >
    >
    >Max Christoffersen
    >



    You're a goddamned idiot, Max.
     
    DarkMatter, Jun 26, 2003
    #9
  10. max christoffersen

    Richard C. Guest

    "max christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:bdfjgm$9a4$...
    : Roget said:
    :
    : > "No,(Richard), YOU don't get it!! SIZE *AND* ASPECT RATIO are
    : > **absolutely** related -- to YOUR ENJOYMENT of a THEATRICAL
    : > PRESENTATION IN your HOME on a TV..." <
    :
    :
    : Richard said:
    :
    : >>> You are 100% WRONG when you make such a statement. <<<
    : >>> Richard C october 2001 <<<
    :
    :
    : Today Richard agrees.
    :
    : Size and aspect ratio are related (see his whines about the non-anamorphic
    : Giant DVD being too small on his screen).
    :
    : 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.

    You are simply a putz.
     
    Richard C., Jun 27, 2003
    #10

  11. > : 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
     
    max christoffersen, Jun 27, 2003
    #11
  12. max christoffersen

    Eric Gorse Guest

    "max christoffersen" 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
     
    Eric Gorse, Jun 27, 2003
    #12
  13. max christoffersen

    Geo H Guest

    "max christoffersen" <> wrote in message news:<bdfh8f$8nf$>...
    > >> 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.
     
    Geo H, Jun 27, 2003
    #13
  14. max christoffersen

    Richard C. Guest

    "max christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:bdgijk$gvb$...
    :
    : > : 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 fucking ass, max.
    =======================
     
    Richard C., Jun 27, 2003
    #14
  15. max christoffersen

    Richard C. Guest

    "Eric Gorse" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : "max christoffersen" 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.
     
    Richard C., Jun 27, 2003
    #15
  16. max christoffersen

    Richard C. Guest

    "Geo H" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : "max christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:<bdfh8f$8nf$>...
    : > >> 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.
     
    Richard C., Jun 27, 2003
    #16

  17. >>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
     
    max christoffersen, Jun 27, 2003
    #17

  18. >> 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
     
    max christoffersen, Jun 27, 2003
    #18
  19. max christoffersen

    DarkMatter Guest

    On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 05:46:17 +1200, "max christoffersen"
    <> 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 fucking ass, max.

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

    You are the ultimate usenet idiot, Max.
     
    DarkMatter, Jun 27, 2003
    #19
  20. "max christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:bdi030$sc4$...
    :
    : >> 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
     
    George Hernandez, Jun 28, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. DC

    OmniForm Filler 5?

    DC, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    725
    Brenadier Jehosephat
    Jul 14, 2003
  2. JM

    Re: Omni Form Filler?

    JM, Jul 18, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,476
  3. bUbBlEwRaP

    free form filler not spyware

    bUbBlEwRaP, Aug 22, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    449
    GOzzo
    Aug 22, 2003
  4. Andrew Morrison

    PDF form filler

    Andrew Morrison, Oct 13, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    527
  5. Neil Hedge

    Roboform Filler

    Neil Hedge, Jul 11, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    662
    joevan
    Jul 11, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page