DVD picture doesn't fill the screen

[Clocky]

On 16/01/2016 10:41 AM, Je�us wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:32:48 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

On 16-January-2016 1:15 PM, Je?us wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:42:28 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

On 16-January-2016 11:17 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 15/01/2016 6:32 AM, felix wrote:
I suppose you can see a difference when using two different brands of
HDMI cables too can you, because it makes just as much sense.

well you are completely wrong there because there are visible
differences between HDMI cables. if you can't see them, I can only
assume you do not have equipment of sufficient quality
You really are a lost cause

Any HDMI cables that are *well made* out of reasonable quality
materials and are not faulty in some way and of the same length should
produce the same result.

no, you are if you want to argue against what is well known among
audiophiles the world over, ie. that interconnect quality affects
audio/video quality

LOL. Go to stereo.net and start a thread there on the topic.
Espouse your theories there. Please do

NB: I see you edited out the rest of my reply (which I reinstated).
Only reason you'd do that is because you're trolling, which I'm at the
point of being convinced is exactly what you've been doing these past
three weeks or so. Your opinions on everything are just *too*
ridiculous to be for real.

Agreed.

 

[felix]

On 16-January-2016 1:41 PM, Je�us wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:32:48 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

On 16-January-2016 1:15 PM, Je?us wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:42:28 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

On 16-January-2016 11:17 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 15/01/2016 6:32 AM, felix wrote:
I suppose you can see a difference when using two different brands of
HDMI cables too can you, because it makes just as much sense.

well you are completely wrong there because there are visible
differences between HDMI cables. if you can't see them, I can only
assume you do not have equipment of sufficient quality
You really are a lost cause

Any HDMI cables that are *well made* out of reasonable quality
materials and are not faulty in some way and of the same length should
produce the same result.
no, you are if you want to argue against what is well known among
audiophiles the world over, ie. that interconnect quality affects
audio/video quality
LOL. Go to stereo.net and start a thread there on the topic.
Espouse your theories there. Please do

NB: I see you edited out the rest of my reply (which I reinstated).
Only reason you'd do that is because you're trolling, which I'm at the
point of being convinced is exactly what you've been doing these past
three weeks or so. Your opinions on everything are just *too*
ridiculous to be for real.

you're crazy! I haven't edited anything and you haven't added anything.
??? drinking too much of your home brew I think.

--
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/

 

[felix]

On 17-January-2016 12:01 AM, Clocky wrote:

On 16/01/2016 10:41 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:32:48 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

On 16-January-2016 1:15 PM, Je?us wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:42:28 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

On 16-January-2016 11:17 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 15/01/2016 6:32 AM, felix wrote:
I suppose you can see a difference when using two different
brands of
HDMI cables too can you, because it makes just as much sense.

well you are completely wrong there because there are visible
differences between HDMI cables. if you can't see them, I can only
assume you do not have equipment of sufficient quality
You really are a lost cause

Any HDMI cables that are *well made* out of reasonable quality
materials and are not faulty in some way and of the same length should
produce the same result.

no, you are if you want to argue against what is well known among
audiophiles the world over, ie. that interconnect quality affects
audio/video quality

LOL. Go to stereo.net and start a thread there on the topic.
Espouse your theories there. Please do

NB: I see you edited out the rest of my reply (which I reinstated).
Only reason you'd do that is because you're trolling, which I'm at the
point of being convinced is exactly what you've been doing these past
three weeks or so. Your opinions on everything are just *too*
ridiculous to be for real.


Agreed.

you must be as stupid as he is

--
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/

 

[Gordon Levi]

felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

On 16-January-2016 12:33 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

On 14-January-2016 10:01 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 14/01/2016 8:46 PM, felix wrote:
On 14-January-2016 5:28 PM, Trevor wrote:
You do realise you are writing digital DATA right? IF the data read is
the same as what was written, there will be NO difference whatsoever
between brands.
well that's the theory, but I can see the difference. I always used TDK
discs, but then I got some LG discs, and the first time I used one, I
noticed that they produced a sharper but less colourful image. the
colour is also more 'pinky' than with the TDK disks which have more
natural colour.
Sorry, I didn't realise you were talking about printable disk labels.
If I could be bothered I would burn the same movie on a LG and TDK disc,
play each and pause at the same spot, and photograph the screen so you
could see for yourself, but I can't
That would merely result in a discussion about the perceived
difference in your photographs.

which would show that the different discs produce the variations I
mentioned, so what is your point?

As you can see from other posts nobody will believe that the digital
source caused the difference or they will not see the difference. Even
before you posted anything, one lunatic suggested that you might
photoshop the images.

If there is a difference between the
images displayed from the different brands of DVDs you can convince us
all by telling us how the bits recorded on the LG disks could possibly
differ from the bits recorded on the TDK disks in a way that would
explain your observations. You don't have to be right. _Any_ plausible
explanation will do.

I'm not really interested in trying to prove a variation in picture
quality between media brands, or explain it. I merely stated that I
could see a difference, and was told that I couldn't. I really don't
care whether anyone believes it or not.

I'm sorry to hear that. You see a difference and I'm sure you
understand why others find it difficult to see how the difference is
possible with a digital signal. You could make a valuable contribution
by explaining the reason either theoretically or by digitally
comparing the images.

 

[felix]

On 17-January-2016 1:14 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:

felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

On 16-January-2016 12:33 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

On 14-January-2016 10:01 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 14/01/2016 8:46 PM, felix wrote:
On 14-January-2016 5:28 PM, Trevor wrote:
You do realise you are writing digital DATA right? IF the data read is
the same as what was written, there will be NO difference whatsoever
between brands.
well that's the theory, but I can see the difference. I always used TDK
discs, but then I got some LG discs, and the first time I used one, I
noticed that they produced a sharper but less colourful image. the
colour is also more 'pinky' than with the TDK disks which have more
natural colour.
Sorry, I didn't realise you were talking about printable disk labels.
If I could be bothered I would burn the same movie on a LG and TDK disc,
play each and pause at the same spot, and photograph the screen so you
could see for yourself, but I can't
That would merely result in a discussion about the perceived
difference in your photographs.
which would show that the different discs produce the variations I
mentioned, so what is your point?
As you can see from other posts nobody will believe that the digital
source caused the difference or they will not see the difference. Even
before you posted anything, one lunatic suggested that you might
photoshop the images.
If there is a difference between the
images displayed from the different brands of DVDs you can convince us
all by telling us how the bits recorded on the LG disks could possibly
differ from the bits recorded on the TDK disks in a way that would
explain your observations. You don't have to be right. _Any_ plausible
explanation will do.
I'm not really interested in trying to prove a variation in picture
quality between media brands, or explain it. I merely stated that I
could see a difference, and was told that I couldn't. I really don't
care whether anyone believes it or not.
I'm sorry to hear that. You see a difference and I'm sure you
understand why others find it difficult to see how the difference is
possible with a digital signal.

as do I

You could make a valuable contribution
by explaining the reason either theoretically or by digitally
comparing the images.

I'm not aware of how that's done

--
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/

 

[Rod Speed]

felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

but everything I have said is fact,

Pigs arse it is.

your worthless opinion does not and will never change the facts

But yours does ? Yeah, right.

Yes, you do get to live with the FACT that you actually
are too stupid to understand how DIGITAL systems work.

I do know how digital systems work,

You clearly don’t given you stupidly claim that you can see
a difference in the video image with different DVD blanks.

> you obnoxious arsehole.

Truth is a problem for silly little pig ignorant wankers, eh ?

> just because I haven't commented about it doesn't mean I don't know

You clearly don’t know what it means for the video with DVDs.

 

[Rod Speed]

"felix" <me@nothere.invalid> wrote in message
news:dfuicrFtae7U1@mid.individual.net...

On 16-January-2016 7:35 PM, Rod Speed wrote:



"felix" <me@nothere.invalid> wrote in message
news:dfu3qcFpvecU2@mid.individual.net...
On 16-January-2016 3:16 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"felix" <me@nothere.invalid> wrote in message
news:dfto5rFniatU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16-January-2016 12:58 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:n7bt7j$18lg$1@gioia.aioe.org...
In aus.electronics Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> wrote:
felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

If I could be bothered I would burn the same movie on a LG and TDK
disc,
play each and pause at the same spot, and photograph the screen so
you
could see for yourself, but I can't

That would merely result in a discussion about the perceived
difference in your photographs. If there is a difference between
the
images displayed from the different brands of DVDs you can convince
us
all by telling us how the bits recorded on the LG disks could
possibly
differ from the bits recorded on the TDK disks in a way that would
explain your observations. You don't have to be right. _Any_
plausible
explanation will do.

I don't see felix doing it, but if I wanted to prove this point I
would
take screenshots of the DVDs playing on a PC, or if the problem
magically only happens with a real DVD player, use a PC video
capture
card (or USB stick) to grab still images of the video as PNG image
files.

Trouble is its too easy to photoshop one image to 'prove' whatever
you like.


duh! the photos would have to be unaltered

Impossible to ensure that, stupid.

of course. so if I can't be trusted to post unaltered pics then there's
no point in even doing it is there, stupid

Precisely. Which might just be why I didn’t suggest you should, fuckwit.

the point that escapes you shithead, is that I can be trusted.

You clearly can't to even report what you see accurately.

just because arseholes like you want to believe I can't doesn't make it
so.

Just because silly little fuckwit children claim to be able to see any
difference in the video quality with DVD blanks doesn’t make it so.

 

[Rod Speed]

"felix" <me@nothere.invalid> wrote in message
news:dfuigqFtae7U2@mid.individual.net...

On 16-January-2016 7:36 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"felix" <me@nothere.invalid> wrote in message
news:dfu3t7FpvecU3@mid.individual.net...
On 16-January-2016 4:02 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Jeßus wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:10:18 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

On 16-January-2016 1:25 PM, Je?us wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:08:04 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid
wrote:

On 15-January-2016 3:56 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
Like I said, completely off with the fucking fairys.
obviously then you've never had anything to do with hi end audio
equipment, mr. know-it-all
Well, I have a lot to do with 'high end audio'.

bullshit. if you did you wouldn't be arguing with me.

ROTFL.

and don't you live out in the bush somewhere?

How in the hell is that relevant?


So does Trevor Wilson
(wherever he's disappeared to lately).

So, you're one of those audiophools that buys into the bullshit
promulgated by snake oil merchants. There's only so much a cable can
do, and if it's well made out of decent quality materials, then
that's
as good as it gets.

Feel free to spend two grand or more on an RCA cable if you like, I
doubt you would anyway as I don't even believe your claim that you
know a damned thing about 'high end audio', as you put it.

why would you. you never believe anything I say. worked in the
industry
for 30 years fuckwit. even had my own business.

Mmm... '30 years in the industry' and you asked the questions you
asked... LOL.

So spill the details on your business then.
You won't, because you can't. There isnt a hifi store that ever
existed in Australia that somebody on stereo.net doesnt know about. So
let's hear all about that, felix.

What gear do you have, out of interest?

none of your business. I'm tired of ppl on usenet constantly wanting
me
to justify everything I say.

Yet you don't ask yourself why that is? Could it be a conspiracy to
pick on just you perhaps?

you don't have to believe it, I don't care.
and although I do have good hifi and audio equipment- including the
brands Redgum, Kef, Richard Allen, Yamaha, Panasonic, Dual, Akai,
Onkyo,
Samsung, Beyonwiyz, Topfield, Pioneer, LG,

So would I be, actually. Panasonic, Samsung, Topfield, LG for example
aren't 'high end' and never have been. Dual, Akai were borderline at
best and only their very best stuff even reaches borderline level.
Onkyo's very top of the range stuff is alright, ditto Pioneer (I much
prefer TAD though - do you know what that is?)

I do have a pair of Kefs, but they get no use as they're not my cup of
tea.

and la pičce de résistance..
three t-boxes and Foxtel, and I'd be surprised if you have even
several of those-

Fuck... I'm gonna have to stop sipping beer when I read your posts.
Tired of having to wipe the monitor down.

and even my PC audio in the study runs thru a
HiFi amp

From the sound card to whatever this 'hifi' amp is, right? Speakers
are?

The PC I'm using right now is connected to a $2000 DAC, which is
currently connected to a fully restored Sansui AU-717 and a pair of
1293SRTL's, the ones with the 12" drivers:
http://adelaidespeakers.com/summoner-floorstanders.html

And yes, very decent interconnects and speaker cables, without going
silly and spending/wasting money on snake oil crap.

I have several vintage integrated and pre/power amplifiers, all
professionally restored/improved. Both solid state and valve. Marantz,
Luxman and many Sansuis from their golden era. And many more to come,
too. It's become a hobby of mine. A few decent turntables too,
including a couple of restored Garrard 401s. I've spent around $16K
this year alone on equipment, CDs and vinyl.


Not far off my annual income.

makes one wonder what he does for a living.

Corse he might just be retired, fuckwit child.

well in that case what he did for a living dickhead

Irrelevant to what his income is NOW, fuckwit child.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:624k9btmo1lhht08mdnvldb5de064kromv@4ax.com...

not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:

In aus.electronics Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> wrote:
felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

If I could be bothered I would burn the same movie on a LG and TDK disc,
play each and pause at the same spot, and photograph the screen so you
could see for yourself, but I can't

That would merely result in a discussion about the perceived
difference in your photographs. If there is a difference between the
images displayed from the different brands of DVDs you can convince us
all by telling us how the bits recorded on the LG disks could possibly
differ from the bits recorded on the TDK disks in a way that would
explain your observations. You don't have to be right. _Any_ plausible
explanation will do.

I don't see felix doing it, but if I wanted to prove this point I would
take screenshots of the DVDs playing on a PC, or if the problem
magically only happens with a real DVD player, use a PC video capture
card (or USB stick) to grab still images of the video as PNG image files.

Ideally one would want an image of the exact same frame from both DVDs.
To this end, some DVD players have an option of only pausing on
keyframes, which would make it easier to manually pick the exact same
frame to make an image of.

I did not intend to say that felix could not produce the images. My
claim is that, if he did, the debate would merely shift to an equally
pointless discussion about the photographs. If they were obviously
different then the way he took the photographs would be questioned.
Alternatively, they may appear the same to those of us who do not
share felix's acute sensitivity to differences caused by different CD
blanks or HDMI cables.

I would be content with a theoretical explanation of the difference
between the two images. If he was able to capture the two frames
digitally and show us that the bits were actually different he has won
the argument hands down.

Not when its so easy to manipulate the photos so they show anything he
likes.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> wrote:
[...]

I'm sorry to hear that. You see a difference and I'm sure you
understand why others find it difficult to see how the difference is
possible with a digital signal.

The problem is that we have no information whatsoever that/if the two
copies were made in the exact same way.

*If* he indeed can see a difference - in a double-blind test - then
there *must* be a difference in the way the copies were made or/and in
the way they were reproduced.

For example he says "I tried it in a Samsung DVD player, and it
wouldn't play at all!". Was that a problem with the media itself, with
the media type (-R versus +R), or was it perhaps a DVD with a *file
system*, containing MPEG4 files or whatever?

Was the *same* player used for (the test of) both copies? Was it
*connected* in the exact same way? What *type* of connection was used?
(I wouldn't be surprised at all if (one of?) the DVD-player(s) had an
*analog* connection to the HTS or TV.)

Was the exact same software, with the exact same procedures, and the
exact same settings/options/etc. used to make both copies?

Etc., etc. ad infinitum.

Seeing how little he knows about the subject matter, there's probably
a difference somewhere which he's not telling us about, most likely
because he doesn't realize/know, but possibly because he's trolling.

You could make a valuable contribution by explaining the reason either
theoretically or by digitally comparing the images.

Only the latter would be acceptable.

So if someone has a pointer to some diskcomp-like program for DVDs,
that would be helpful, much more helpful than all the endless
back-and-forth 'responses'.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:dfvk4iF7fviU1@mid.individual.net...

Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> wrote:
[...]
I'm sorry to hear that. You see a difference and I'm sure you
understand why others find it difficult to see how the difference is
possible with a digital signal.

The problem is that we have no information whatsoever that/if the two
copies were made in the exact same way.

*If* he indeed can see a difference - in a double-blind test - then
there *must* be a difference in the way the copies were made or/and in
the way they were reproduced.

For example he says "I tried it in a Samsung DVD player, and it
wouldn't play at all!". Was that a problem with the media itself, with
the media type (-R versus +R), or was it perhaps a DVD with a *file
system*, containing MPEG4 files or whatever?

Was the *same* player used for (the test of) both copies? Was it
*connected* in the exact same way? What *type* of connection was used?
(I wouldn't be surprised at all if (one of?) the DVD-player(s) had an
*analog* connection to the HTS or TV.)

Was the exact same software, with the exact same procedures, and the
exact same settings/options/etc. used to make both copies?

Etc., etc. ad infinitum.

Seeing how little he knows about the subject matter, there's probably
a difference somewhere which he's not telling us about, most likely
because he doesn't realize/know, but possibly because he's trolling.

You could make a valuable contribution by explaining the reason either
theoretically or by digitally comparing the images.

Only the latter would be acceptable.

So if someone has a pointer to some diskcomp-like program for DVDs,

Don’t need one specifically for DVDs, they are just digital files.

that would be helpful, much more helpful than all the endless
back-and-forth 'responses'.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2016-01-16, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

You could make a valuable contribution by explaining the reason either
theoretically or by digitally comparing the images.

Only the latter would be acceptable.

So if someone has a pointer to some diskcomp-like program for DVDs,

Don’t need one specifically for DVDs, they are just digital files.

yeah "diff /b" on the disk or "diff /r" on the mounted disk
dunno if that is as easy on windows though.

screenshots would work too. but i don't think tellys do screenshots.



--
\_(ツ)_

 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 16:02:16 +1100, F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Not far off my annual income.

I assume you're retired? I still have a way to go until I'm officially
and fully retired. I'm supposed to be semi-retired, that was my
intention once moving to Tas, but I still need to scale the work side
of things back as I still don't have enough leisure time IMO.
I'm working (no pun intended) on achieving that...

 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 19:34:43 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

not many hi end audio stores out in the bush

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to
work out how to get to somewhere that has them,
if someone was actually stupid enough to lend
you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

Apparently he hasn't heard of the Internet, or couriers, or Aus Post.

 

[felix]

On 17-January-2016 3:57 AM, Rod Speed wrote:

"felix" <me@nothere.invalid> wrote in message
news:dfuicrFtae7U1@mid.individual.net...
On 16-January-2016 7:35 PM, Rod Speed wrote:



"felix" <me@nothere.invalid> wrote in message
news:dfu3qcFpvecU2@mid.individual.net...
On 16-January-2016 3:16 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"felix" <me@nothere.invalid> wrote in message
news:dfto5rFniatU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16-January-2016 12:58 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:n7bt7j$18lg$1@gioia.aioe.org...
In aus.electronics Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> wrote:
felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

If I could be bothered I would burn the same movie on a LG
and TDK disc,
play each and pause at the same spot, and photograph the
screen so you
could see for yourself, but I can't

That would merely result in a discussion about the perceived
difference in your photographs. If there is a difference
between the
images displayed from the different brands of DVDs you can
convince us
all by telling us how the bits recorded on the LG disks could
possibly
differ from the bits recorded on the TDK disks in a way that
would
explain your observations. You don't have to be right. _Any_
plausible
explanation will do.

I don't see felix doing it, but if I wanted to prove this point
I would
take screenshots of the DVDs playing on a PC, or if the problem
magically only happens with a real DVD player, use a PC video
capture
card (or USB stick) to grab still images of the video as PNG
image files.

Trouble is its too easy to photoshop one image to 'prove'
whatever you like.


duh! the photos would have to be unaltered

Impossible to ensure that, stupid.

of course. so if I can't be trusted to post unaltered pics then
there's no point in even doing it is there, stupid

Precisely. Which might just be why I didn’t suggest you should,
fuckwit.

the point that escapes you shithead, is that I can be trusted.

You clearly can't to even report what you see accurately.

just because arseholes like you want to believe I can't doesn't make
it so.

Just because silly little fuckwit children claim to be able to see any
difference in the video quality with DVD blanks doesn’t make it so.

I have no problem with ppl questioning what I say. I don't appreciate
being accused of trolling or lying and being insulted for what I say.

--
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/

 

[Rod Speed]

"Jasen Betts" <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:n7eckc$lth$1@gonzo.alcatraz...

On 2016-01-16, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
You could make a valuable contribution by explaining the reason either
theoretically or by digitally comparing the images.

Only the latter would be acceptable.

So if someone has a pointer to some diskcomp-like program for DVDs,

Don’t need one specifically for DVDs, they are just digital files.


yeah "diff /b" on the disk or "diff /r" on the mounted disk
dunno if that is as easy on windows though.

It is.

> screenshots would work too.

Too easy to fiddle with after the screen shots.

> but i don't think tellys do screenshots.

They do when they are a PC too.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Jeßus" <j@invalid.lan> wrote in message
news:bdhl9blckvtanrpqngmjrnfnhl91cb1b9h@4ax.com...

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 19:34:43 +1100, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

not many hi end audio stores out in the bush

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to
work out how to get to somewhere that has them,
if someone was actually stupid enough to lend
you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

Apparently he hasn't heard of the Internet, or couriers, or Aus Post.

Yeah, he clearly is that stupid.

 

[Rod Speed]

"felix" <me@nothere.invalid> wrote in message
news:dfvv7tFaa70U1@mid.individual.net...

On 17-January-2016 3:57 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"felix" <me@nothere.invalid> wrote in message
news:dfuicrFtae7U1@mid.individual.net...
On 16-January-2016 7:35 PM, Rod Speed wrote:



"felix" <me@nothere.invalid> wrote in message
news:dfu3qcFpvecU2@mid.individual.net...
On 16-January-2016 3:16 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"felix" <me@nothere.invalid> wrote in message
news:dfto5rFniatU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16-January-2016 12:58 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:n7bt7j$18lg$1@gioia.aioe.org...
In aus.electronics Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> wrote:
felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

If I could be bothered I would burn the same movie on a LG and
TDK disc,
play each and pause at the same spot, and photograph the screen
so you
could see for yourself, but I can't

That would merely result in a discussion about the perceived
difference in your photographs. If there is a difference between
the
images displayed from the different brands of DVDs you can
convince us
all by telling us how the bits recorded on the LG disks could
possibly
differ from the bits recorded on the TDK disks in a way that
would
explain your observations. You don't have to be right. _Any_
plausible
explanation will do.

I don't see felix doing it, but if I wanted to prove this point I
would
take screenshots of the DVDs playing on a PC, or if the problem
magically only happens with a real DVD player, use a PC video
capture
card (or USB stick) to grab still images of the video as PNG image
files.

Trouble is its too easy to photoshop one image to 'prove' whatever
you like.


duh! the photos would have to be unaltered

Impossible to ensure that, stupid.

of course. so if I can't be trusted to post unaltered pics then
there's no point in even doing it is there, stupid

Precisely. Which might just be why I didn’t suggest you should,
fuckwit.

the point that escapes you shithead, is that I can be trusted.

You clearly can't to even report what you see accurately.

just because arseholes like you want to believe I can't doesn't make it
so.

Just because silly little fuckwit children claim to be able to see any
difference in the video quality with DVD blanks doesn’t make it so.

I have no problem with ppl questioning what I say.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

What you may or may not have a problem with in spades.

> I don't appreciate being accused of trolling or lying

No one has accused you of lying, just of being a terminal
fuckwit and of imagining you can see any difference with
the blank you use for the DVD.

> and being insulted for what I say.

Say you are a terminal fuckwit isnt an insult, it’s a statement of fact.

 

[felix]

On 17-January-2016 6:31 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> wrote:
[...]
I'm sorry to hear that. You see a difference and I'm sure you
understand why others find it difficult to see how the difference is
possible with a digital signal.
The problem is that we have no information whatsoever that/if the two
copies were made in the exact same way.

*If* he indeed can see a difference - in a double-blind test - then
there *must* be a difference in the way the copies were made or/and in
the way they were reproduced.

For example he says "I tried it in a Samsung DVD player, and it
wouldn't play at all!". Was that a problem with the media itself, with
the media type (-R versus +R), or was it perhaps a DVD with a *file
system*, containing MPEG4 files or whatever?

Was the *same* player used for (the test of) both copies? Was it
*connected* in the exact same way? What *type* of connection was used?
(I wouldn't be surprised at all if (one of?) the DVD-player(s) had an
*analog* connection to the HTS or TV.)

Was the exact same software, with the exact same procedures, and the
exact same settings/options/etc. used to make both copies?

Etc., etc. ad infinitum.

Seeing how little he knows about the subject matter, there's probably
a difference somewhere which he's not telling us about, most likely
because he doesn't realize/know, but possibly because he's trolling.

so here we go again. honestly, you ppl should be in the investigation
business having such suspicious natures. firstly you are confusing
several matters that were/are being discussed. let me enlighten you. the
initial discussion was about a disc that produced a picture that didn't
fill the screen. that was resolved entirely, thanks to trevor actually,
but led to a discussion about media, and then my claim that subtle
visual differences are produced depending on the DVD media used.
regarding the recording/playing procedure, I use an Asus burner and DVD
shrink and Nero to encode and burn the discs in a desktop PC, which are
then played in a late model Panasonic DVD player, connected via Monster
HDMI cable to a Yamaha AV Receiver, which upscales the signal to 1080p
and connects to a 58 inch Samsung Plasma TV via another Monster HDMI
cable. the equipment and procedure used is always the same. regarding
the Samsung DVD player, that is not used but is still connected, again
via monster HDMI cable, but directly to the TV. the audio from that is
fed from the TV 'optical out' to one of the Yamaha amps 'optical in'
sockets, possibly again via Monster cable, I don't recall. so I hope
this has now given you the information that you suggest is sadly
lacking, and you can now take your suspicions and speculations and shove
'em!

You could make a valuable contribution by explaining the reason either
theoretically or by digitally comparing the images.
Only the latter would be acceptable.

So if someone has a pointer to some diskcomp-like program for DVDs,
that would be helpful, much more helpful than all the endless
back-and-forth 'responses'.

--
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/

 

[felix]

On 17-January-2016 10:02 AM, Rod Speed wrote:

"Jeßus" <j@invalid.lan> wrote in message
news:bdhl9blckvtanrpqngmjrnfnhl91cb1b9h@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 19:34:43 +1100, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

not many hi end audio stores out in the bush

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to
work out how to get to somewhere that has them,
if someone was actually stupid enough to lend
you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

Apparently he hasn't heard of the Internet, or couriers, or Aus Post.

Yeah, he clearly is that stupid.

no stupid, it's just unusual for ppl living 'in the bush' to have such
sophisticated equipment.

--
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/