DVD picture doesn't fill the screen

[felix]

On 17-January-2016 12:45 PM, Clocky wrote:

On 17/01/2016 9:14 AM, felix wrote:
On 17-January-2016 12:08 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 16/01/2016 9:39 PM, felix wrote:
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



You're trolling

oh really? care to point out the bit that was edited and then
reinstated?

no answer I see

I suggest it's you who's trolling. and you are at least
ignorant if you are unaware that AV interconnects have a bearing on
performance.
You're ignorant of all the technical details of how a digital signals
differs

am I? what have I said that's wrong about digital signals? quote please..

and you are applying analog signal principles to digital devices and
connections.

so according to you, if I connect my Yamaha amp with a $2 HDMI cable and
then with a $300 monster cable, I will see no difference. it's not so.
you are aware that some HDMI cables can't handle 1080p for example, I
suppose? but then.. I suppose not.

< http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/finding_right_cable.aspx >

and here's more detail about HDMI cable standards and specs..

<
http://denon.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/192/~/differences-between-hdmi-versions-1.1,-1.2,-1.3a,-1.4-and-2.0%3F

Sure your HDMI cable can cause signal drops and errors but they don't
manifest in any way shape or form in the way you are suggesting with
your silly nonsense.

the silly nonsense that HDMI can affect video and audio performance?
that silly nonsense? well you're wrong.

So either you are trolling or your a complete dill.

I'm neither. but you're ignorant on this matter.


--
"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]

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> 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.

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'.

I think you are wrong. A plausible theoretical explanation would be a
major contribution to modern digital technology. On the other hand, if
the output from a diff showed "sharper but less colourful" bits nobody
would believe they were the from the same source.

I should add that I'm convinced that felix is not trolling. I'm sure
he believes what he says.

 

[felix]

On 17-January-2016 6:51 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> 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.

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'.

I think you are wrong. A plausible theoretical explanation would be a
major contribution to modern digital technology. On the other hand, if
the output from a diff showed "sharper but less colourful" bits nobody
would believe they were the from the same source.

I should add that I'm convinced that felix is not trolling. I'm sure
he believes what he says.

thank you

--
"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/

 

[keithr]

On 17/01/2016 12:28 PM, Je�us wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 09:45:10 +0800, Clocky <notgonna@happen.com
wrote:

On 17/01/2016 9:14 AM, felix wrote:
On 17-January-2016 12:08 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 16/01/2016 9:39 PM, felix wrote:
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



You're trolling

oh really? care to point out the bit that was edited and then
reinstated? I suggest it's you who's trolling. and you are at least
ignorant if you are unaware that AV interconnects have a bearing on
performance.


You're ignorant of all the technical details of how a digital signals
differs and you are applying analog signal principles to digital devices
and connections.

Sure your HDMI cable can cause signal drops and errors but they don't
manifest in any way shape or form in the way you are suggesting with
your silly nonsense.
So either you are trolling or your a complete dill.

He's trolling. No longer any doubt about it as far I am concerned.


If\ don't think that he is trolling, he is just as stupid as he appears.

 

[keithr]

On 17/01/2016 12:34 PM, felix wrote:

On 17-January-2016 12:45 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 17/01/2016 9:14 AM, felix wrote:
On 17-January-2016 12:08 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 16/01/2016 9:39 PM, felix wrote:
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



You're trolling

oh really? care to point out the bit that was edited and then
reinstated?

no answer I see

I suggest it's you who's trolling. and you are at least
ignorant if you are unaware that AV interconnects have a bearing on
performance.
You're ignorant of all the technical details of how a digital signals
differs

am I? what have I said that's wrong about digital signals? quote please..

and you are applying analog signal principles to digital devices and
connections.

so according to you, if I connect my Yamaha amp with a $2 HDMI cable and
then with a $300 monster cable, I will see no difference. it's not so.
you are aware that some HDMI cables can't handle 1080p for example, I
suppose? but then.. I suppose not.

http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/finding_right_cable.aspx

and here's more detail about HDMI cable standards and specs..


http://denon.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/192/~/differences-between-hdmi-versions-1.1,-1.2,-1.3a,-1.4-and-2.0%3F



Sure your HDMI cable can cause signal drops and errors but they don't
manifest in any way shape or form in the way you are suggesting with
your silly nonsense.

the silly nonsense that HDMI can affect video and audio performance?
that silly nonsense? well you're wrong.

So either you are trolling or your a complete dill.



I'm neither. but you're ignorant on this matter.

You are the kind of wood duck that companies like Monster just love,
they'd go broke without people like you.

 

[keithr]

On 17/01/2016 11:02 AM, felix wrote:

On 17-January-2016 11:35 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 09:47:55 +1000, "Jacko" <JackNE@bigpond.com
wrote:

"felix" wrote in message news:dg027gFb1fgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17-January-2016 10:05 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
"felix" <me@nothere.invalid> wrote in message
news:dfvv7tFaa70U1@mid.individual.net...

I don't appreciate being accused of trolling or lying
No one has accused you of lying,
I believe they have
You are a liar, you stated Obama was "the Grand Imam of the USA", he
is not
even a Muslim. You are also a troll, albeit a piss poor one.
Jacko.
Yep, time to ignore the wanker as far I'm concerned.


good idea. all the ppl like you who have nothing better to do than find
fault with me can piss off. I'm still here to talk to anyone who wants
to have a sensible discussion.

You wouldn't know sensible discussion if it was rammed up your arse
sharp end first (although you may enjoy that). You constantly cross post
into NGs that have no interest in your ravings too.

 

[felix]

On 17-January-2016 8:47 PM, keithr wrote:

On 17/01/2016 12:34 PM, felix wrote:
On 17-January-2016 12:45 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 17/01/2016 9:14 AM, felix wrote:
On 17-January-2016 12:08 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 16/01/2016 9:39 PM, felix wrote:
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



You're trolling

oh really? care to point out the bit that was edited and then
reinstated?

no answer I see

I suggest it's you who's trolling. and you are at least
ignorant if you are unaware that AV interconnects have a bearing on
performance.
You're ignorant of all the technical details of how a digital signals
differs

am I? what have I said that's wrong about digital signals? quote
please..

and you are applying analog signal principles to digital devices and
connections.

so according to you, if I connect my Yamaha amp with a $2 HDMI cable and
then with a $300 monster cable, I will see no difference. it's not so.
you are aware that some HDMI cables can't handle 1080p for example, I
suppose? but then.. I suppose not.

http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/finding_right_cable.aspx

and here's more detail about HDMI cable standards and specs..


http://denon.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/192/~/differences-between-hdmi-versions-1.1,-1.2,-1.3a,-1.4-and-2.0%3F




Sure your HDMI cable can cause signal drops and errors but they don't
manifest in any way shape or form in the way you are suggesting with
your silly nonsense.

the silly nonsense that HDMI can affect video and audio performance?
that silly nonsense? well you're wrong.

So either you are trolling or your a complete dill.



I'm neither. but you're ignorant on this matter.


You are the kind of wood duck that companies like Monster just love,
they'd go broke without people like you.

Monster Cable Products, Inc is the world's leading manufacturer of high
end cables that connect audio/video components for home, car and
professional use. Monster's audio cables have high performance sound
characteristics that increase the clarity, dynamics and power of the
audio signals. The video cables give improved picture quality to
television and home theatre systems.

(and I can confirm that is so)

Monster Cable Products, Inc. was started in 1979 by Noel Lee, who was
then a laser-fusion design engineer at Lawrence-Livermore Laboratory, as
well as an audiophile and drummer/musician, found that wires of
different constructions produced varying degrees of audio performance
when hooked up to loudspeakers.

(exactly what I have found and said here and got rubbished for it)

From this discovery, he crafted a high performance cable. He named it
Monster Cable, and founded an industry that has since exploded. The
creation of Monster Cable started a new product category of high
performance audio cables that revolutionised the audio market.

Lee chose the name "Monster" for two reasons. It sounded strong and
powerful, and the size of the cable was "monstrous" compared to ordinary
loudspeaker cable. The name was a hit straightaway and now is sometimes
misused to mean any high performance cable.

Monster offers more than 1000 products, and has become an indispensable
accessory for music lovers, audiophiles, recording studios, sound
professionals, musicians, custom installers and home theatre enthusiasts.

More than 2,000 different CDs have given Monster Cable credit on the
jacket of their recordings and hundreds of feature film sound tracks and
Foley sound effects have been recorded with Monster Cable.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ehifi.com.au/brands/monster.aspx

but of course you know better, and it's all nonsense. idiot!

--
"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/

 

[Clocky]

On 17/01/2016 7:14 PM, felix wrote:

On 17-January-2016 8:47 PM, keithr wrote:
On 17/01/2016 12:34 PM, felix wrote:
On 17-January-2016 12:45 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 17/01/2016 9:14 AM, felix wrote:
On 17-January-2016 12:08 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 16/01/2016 9:39 PM, felix wrote:
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



You're trolling

oh really? care to point out the bit that was edited and then
reinstated?

no answer I see

I suggest it's you who's trolling. and you are at least
ignorant if you are unaware that AV interconnects have a bearing on
performance.
You're ignorant of all the technical details of how a digital signals
differs

am I? what have I said that's wrong about digital signals? quote
please..

and you are applying analog signal principles to digital devices and
connections.

so according to you, if I connect my Yamaha amp with a $2 HDMI cable and
then with a $300 monster cable, I will see no difference. it's not so.
you are aware that some HDMI cables can't handle 1080p for example, I
suppose? but then.. I suppose not.

http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/finding_right_cable.aspx

and here's more detail about HDMI cable standards and specs..


http://denon.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/192/~/differences-between-hdmi-versions-1.1,-1.2,-1.3a,-1.4-and-2.0%3F




Sure your HDMI cable can cause signal drops and errors but they don't
manifest in any way shape or form in the way you are suggesting with
your silly nonsense.

the silly nonsense that HDMI can affect video and audio performance?
that silly nonsense? well you're wrong.

So either you are trolling or your a complete dill.



I'm neither. but you're ignorant on this matter.


You are the kind of wood duck that companies like Monster just love,
they'd go broke without people like you.

Monster Cable Products, Inc is the world's leading manufacturer of high
end cables that connect audio/video components for home, car and
professional use. Monster's audio cables have high performance sound
characteristics that increase the clarity, dynamics and power of the
audio signals. The video cables give improved picture quality to
television and home theatre systems.

(and I can confirm that is so)

Monster Cable Products, Inc. was started in 1979 by Noel Lee, who was
then a laser-fusion design engineer at Lawrence-Livermore Laboratory, as
well as an audiophile and drummer/musician, found that wires of
different constructions produced varying degrees of audio performance
when hooked up to loudspeakers.

(exactly what I have found and said here and got rubbished for it)

From this discovery, he crafted a high performance cable. He named it
Monster Cable, and founded an industry that has since exploded. The
creation of Monster Cable started a new product category of high
performance audio cables that revolutionised the audio market.

Lee chose the name "Monster" for two reasons. It sounded strong and
powerful, and the size of the cable was "monstrous" compared to ordinary
loudspeaker cable. The name was a hit straightaway and now is sometimes
misused to mean any high performance cable.

Monster offers more than 1000 products, and has become an indispensable
accessory for music lovers, audiophiles, recording studios, sound
professionals, musicians, custom installers and home theatre enthusiasts.

More than 2,000 different CDs have given Monster Cable credit on the
jacket of their recordings and hundreds of feature film sound tracks and
Foley sound effects have been recorded with Monster Cable.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ehifi.com.au/brands/monster.aspx

but of course you know better, and it's all nonsense. idiot!

You can believe whatever scam you like, but read this and understand why
what you think you see is impossible with HDMI.

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-all-hdmi-cables-are-the-same/

 

[Frank Slootweg]

felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

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

Apparently, our "suspicious natures" are justified. Read on.

firstly you are confusing
several matters that were/are being discussed. let me enlighten you.

Don't act like a arrogant pompous twat. If anyone's confused and needs
enlightening, it's you. Read on.

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,

Duh! If you think anyone was confused about that, then you're
confused.

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 we have already at least three unknowns which you never bothered to
mention:

- Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy. So
answer the questions I raised :

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

- If you would have made a *copy* of a DVD - another point which you
failed to mention/dispute - you would need to "encode" anything.

- But - for the moment - more importantly, the Samsung was connected in
a *different* way than the Panasonic and you fail to mention anything
about the resolution of the both players.
With just this difference, your 'test' is apples-versus-oranges.

So your not mentioning relevant information led to this silly/useless
back-and-forth.

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! and you can now take your suspicions and speculations and shove
'em!

It is *some*, but by no way all the information that was lacking. And
there is no "suggest" about it. It was/is lacking and it is required
information, period. Acting like an arrogant pompous twat only makes you
look silly and uninformed.

Now when you reply again, give us the *full* picture -)) and
*answer* the questions I raised in *this* response *and* all the
questions I raised in my *previous* response, which you didn't bother to
answer.

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'.

 

[Gordon Levi]

felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

On 17-January-2016 8:47 PM, keithr wrote:
On 17/01/2016 12:34 PM, felix wrote:
On 17-January-2016 12:45 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 17/01/2016 9:14 AM, felix wrote:
On 17-January-2016 12:08 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 16/01/2016 9:39 PM, felix wrote:
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



You're trolling

oh really? care to point out the bit that was edited and then
reinstated?

no answer I see

I suggest it's you who's trolling. and you are at least
ignorant if you are unaware that AV interconnects have a bearing on
performance.
You're ignorant of all the technical details of how a digital signals
differs

am I? what have I said that's wrong about digital signals? quote
please..

and you are applying analog signal principles to digital devices and
connections.

so according to you, if I connect my Yamaha amp with a $2 HDMI cable and
then with a $300 monster cable, I will see no difference. it's not so.
you are aware that some HDMI cables can't handle 1080p for example, I
suppose? but then.. I suppose not.

http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/finding_right_cable.aspx

and here's more detail about HDMI cable standards and specs..


http://denon.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/192/~/differences-between-hdmi-versions-1.1,-1.2,-1.3a,-1.4-and-2.0%3F




Sure your HDMI cable can cause signal drops and errors but they don't
manifest in any way shape or form in the way you are suggesting with
your silly nonsense.

the silly nonsense that HDMI can affect video and audio performance?
that silly nonsense? well you're wrong.

So either you are trolling or your a complete dill.



I'm neither. but you're ignorant on this matter.


You are the kind of wood duck that companies like Monster just love,
they'd go broke without people like you.

Monster Cable Products, Inc is the world's leading manufacturer of high
end cables that connect audio/video components for home, car and
professional use. Monster's audio cables have high performance sound
characteristics that increase the clarity, dynamics and power of the
audio signals. The video cables give improved picture quality to
television and home theatre systems.

(and I can confirm that is so)

Monster Cable Products, Inc. was started in 1979 by Noel Lee, who was
then a laser-fusion design engineer at Lawrence-Livermore Laboratory, as
well as an audiophile and drummer/musician, found that wires of
different constructions produced varying degrees of audio performance
when hooked up to loudspeakers.

(exactly what I have found and said here and got rubbished for it)

From this discovery, he crafted a high performance cable. He named it
Monster Cable, and founded an industry that has since exploded. The
creation of Monster Cable started a new product category of high
performance audio cables that revolutionised the audio market.

Lee chose the name "Monster" for two reasons. It sounded strong and
powerful, and the size of the cable was "monstrous" compared to ordinary
loudspeaker cable. The name was a hit straightaway and now is sometimes
misused to mean any high performance cable.

Monster offers more than 1000 products, and has become an indispensable
accessory for music lovers, audiophiles, recording studios, sound
professionals, musicians, custom installers and home theatre enthusiasts.

More than 2,000 different CDs have given Monster Cable credit on the
jacket of their recordings and hundreds of feature film sound tracks and
Foley sound effects have been recorded with Monster Cable.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ehifi.com.au/brands/monster.aspx

but of course you know better, and it's all nonsense. idiot!

I have a brilliant idea for a new product and I would appreciate your
advice. Do you think that a superior Ethernet cable could provide
"sharper but less colourful" images over your home network? If so,
why? If not, why not?

 

[hereford]

On 17/01/2016 1:44 PM, felix wrote:

On 17-January-2016 1:23 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 15/01/2016 12:25 PM, hereford wrote:
On 14/01/2016 5:29 PM, Robert wrote:
DVDs are old tech. It's time to move on from them. Use a smart
wifi-enabled TV and you can stream movies from your computer or other
devices.

groan... lower quality is necessary is it.
Too much convenience over quality these days.

Why does it have to be lower quality? You can stream the exact same
data if you want.

yep. I stream from a hard drive connected to a PC in the study to a PC
connected to the TV in the lounge via ethernet LAN with no loss of
quality; which I have confirmed btw by connecting said hard drive
directly to the TV PC. I was expecting to see some loss of quality via
streaming, but couldn't notice any.

That's seems clever. I meant internet streaming. I never thought
another would have been assumed.
Though, I'm yet to find a standalone media player that will do
everything I want, SACD files (SACD-R even, but it seems banned now, so
no updates to my Sony bluray player), 24 bit 192 khz files, multichannel
flacs 24 bit 88.2 khz, bluray ISO complete and 3D ones, dvd-video iso or
all files playback, not silly .VOB only playback, at the wrong frame
setting of 60fps instead of 50fps, like Sony players do. I believe an
American unit might do these. Not a supporter of internet music playing.

Trevor.

 

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:46:09 +1000, keithr <no-one@nowhere.com.au>
wrote:

On 17/01/2016 12:28 PM, Je?us wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 09:45:10 +0800, Clocky <notgonna@happen.com
wrote:

On 17/01/2016 9:14 AM, felix wrote:
On 17-January-2016 12:08 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 16/01/2016 9:39 PM, felix wrote:
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



You're trolling

oh really? care to point out the bit that was edited and then
reinstated? I suggest it's you who's trolling. and you are at least
ignorant if you are unaware that AV interconnects have a bearing on
performance.


You're ignorant of all the technical details of how a digital signals
differs and you are applying analog signal principles to digital devices
and connections.

Sure your HDMI cable can cause signal drops and errors but they don't
manifest in any way shape or form in the way you are suggesting with
your silly nonsense.
So either you are trolling or your a complete dill.

He's trolling. No longer any doubt about it as far I am concerned.


If\ don't think that he is trolling, he is just as stupid as he appears.

I thought so too for a while, but he always throws in some ridiculous
claim or accusation that is clearly in contradiction of what he's
replying to. Bait, in other words.

 

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 20:21:15 +1000, keithr <no-one@nowhere.com.au>
wrote:

On 17/01/2016 11:02 AM, felix wrote:
On 17-January-2016 11:35 AM, Je?us wrote:

Yep, time to ignore the wanker as far I'm concerned.

good idea. all the ppl like you who have nothing better to do than find
fault with me can piss off. I'm still here to talk to anyone who wants
to have a sensible discussion.


You wouldn't know sensible discussion if it was rammed up your arse

You'll note that since he posted the above (and says it's a good idea
that I'm ignoring him), he has since replied to me at least a dozen
times. Nah, he's no troll, is he?

 

On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
- Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy.

Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single
layer disc. Not very common, of course.

 

[felix]

On 17-January-2016 10:58 PM, Clocky wrote:

On 17/01/2016 7:14 PM, felix wrote:
On 17-January-2016 8:47 PM, keithr wrote:
On 17/01/2016 12:34 PM, felix wrote:
On 17-January-2016 12:45 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 17/01/2016 9:14 AM, felix wrote:
On 17-January-2016 12:08 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 16/01/2016 9:39 PM, felix wrote:
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



You're trolling

oh really? care to point out the bit that was edited and then
reinstated?

no answer I see

I suggest it's you who's trolling. and you are at least
ignorant if you are unaware that AV interconnects have a bearing on
performance.
You're ignorant of all the technical details of how a digital signals
differs

am I? what have I said that's wrong about digital signals? quote
please..

and you are applying analog signal principles to digital devices and
connections.

so according to you, if I connect my Yamaha amp with a $2 HDMI
cable and
then with a $300 monster cable, I will see no difference. it's not so.
you are aware that some HDMI cables can't handle 1080p for example, I
suppose? but then.. I suppose not.

http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/finding_right_cable.aspx

and here's more detail about HDMI cable standards and specs..


http://denon.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/192/~/differences-between-hdmi-versions-1.1,-1.2,-1.3a,-1.4-and-2.0%3F





Sure your HDMI cable can cause signal drops and errors but they don't
manifest in any way shape or form in the way you are suggesting with
your silly nonsense.

the silly nonsense that HDMI can affect video and audio performance?
that silly nonsense? well you're wrong.

So either you are trolling or your a complete dill.



I'm neither. but you're ignorant on this matter.


You are the kind of wood duck that companies like Monster just love,
they'd go broke without people like you.

Monster Cable Products, Inc is the world's leading manufacturer of high
end cables that connect audio/video components for home, car and
professional use. Monster's audio cables have high performance sound
characteristics that increase the clarity, dynamics and power of the
audio signals. The video cables give improved picture quality to
television and home theatre systems.

(and I can confirm that is so)

Monster Cable Products, Inc. was started in 1979 by Noel Lee, who was
then a laser-fusion design engineer at Lawrence-Livermore Laboratory, as
well as an audiophile and drummer/musician, found that wires of
different constructions produced varying degrees of audio performance
when hooked up to loudspeakers.

(exactly what I have found and said here and got rubbished for it)

From this discovery, he crafted a high performance cable. He named it
Monster Cable, and founded an industry that has since exploded. The
creation of Monster Cable started a new product category of high
performance audio cables that revolutionised the audio market.

Lee chose the name "Monster" for two reasons. It sounded strong and
powerful, and the size of the cable was "monstrous" compared to ordinary
loudspeaker cable. The name was a hit straightaway and now is sometimes
misused to mean any high performance cable.

Monster offers more than 1000 products, and has become an indispensable
accessory for music lovers, audiophiles, recording studios, sound
professionals, musicians, custom installers and home theatre
enthusiasts.

More than 2,000 different CDs have given Monster Cable credit on the
jacket of their recordings and hundreds of feature film sound tracks and
Foley sound effects have been recorded with Monster Cable.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ehifi.com.au/brands/monster.aspx

but of course you know better, and it's all nonsense. idiot!



You can believe whatever scam you like,

because it isn't. I have just one question for you.. what experience do
YOU PERSONALLY have with AV cables and decent AV equipment?

but read this and understand why what you think you see is impossible
with HDMI.

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-all-hdmi-cables-are-the-same/

<
http://denon.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/192/~/differences-between-hdmi-versions-1.1,-1.2,-1.3a,-1.4-and-2.0%3F
>

--
"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/

 

[Frank Slootweg]

Je?us <j@invalid.lan> wrote:

On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid
wrote:

felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
- Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy.

Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single
layer disc. Not very common, of course.

I beg to differ. If he's making a direct, i.e. one-to-one copy, there
is no shrinking [1] involved, because a shrunk copy would by definition
be different from the original.

But more importantly, note that he never said *what* he copied and not
*how* he copied it. He only said that he burnt (burned?) a movie twice,
once to TDK media, once to LG media. No details about the source, no
details about the format(s) of the source, not details about the
procedures/settings of the copy process and no details about the
format(s) of the targets.

And then there's - as I mentioned - the different connections of the
two DVD players.

All-in-all a myriad of possibilities why the visible results could
indeed be different, NOT because of the brands of the media, but because
of other factors which he didn't report, most likely because he doesn't
realize their importance/relevance, but possibly because he's trolling.

[1] I have to say that I find the name 'DVD shrink' rather fitting in
this (non-)discussion.

 

[felix]

On 18-January-2016 1:18 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
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
Apparently, our "suspicious natures" are justified. Read on.

firstly you are confusing
several matters that were/are being discussed. let me enlighten you.
Don't act like a arrogant pompous twat. If anyone's confused and needs
enlightening, it's you. Read on.

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,
Duh! If you think anyone was confused about that, then you're
confused.

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 we have already at least three unknowns which you never bothered to
mention:

- Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy. So
answer the questions I raised :

Was the exact same software, with the exact same procedures, and the
exact same settings/options/etc. used to make both copies?
- If you would have made a *copy* of a DVD - another point which you
failed to mention/dispute - you would need to "encode" anything.

- But - for the moment - more importantly, the Samsung was connected in
a *different* way than the Panasonic and you fail to mention anything
about the resolution of the both players.
With just this difference, your 'test' is apples-versus-oranges.

So your not mentioning relevant information led to this silly/useless
back-and-forth.

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! and you can now take your suspicions and speculations and shove
'em!
It is *some*, but by no way all the information that was lacking. And
there is no "suggest" about it. It was/is lacking and it is required
information, period. Acting like an arrogant pompous twat only makes you
look silly and uninformed.

Now when you reply again, give us the *full* picture -)) and
*answer* the questions I raised in *this* response *and* all the
questions I raised in my *previous* response, which you didn't bother to
answer.

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'.

you're still confused. read back thru the thread

--
"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 18-January-2016 7:11 AM, Je�us wrote:

On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid
wrote:

felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
- Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy.
Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single
layer disc. Not very common, of course.

many DVD's are single layer discs

--
"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/

 

On 17 Jan 2016 21:18:05 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

Je?us <j@invalid.lan> wrote:
On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid
wrote:

felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
- Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy.

Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single
layer disc. Not very common, of course.

I beg to differ. If he's making a direct, i.e. one-to-one copy, there
is no shrinking [1] involved, because a shrunk copy would by definition
be different from the original.

That was my point - no shrinking needed if he was copying a single
layer (4.3GB) disc. You might not be aware that you don't necessarily
have to 'shrink' the data with DVD Shrink, you can copy a disc with
DVD Shrink without any shrinking/compression to a dual layer DVD-R, or
simply copy the disc to a hard drive.

But more importantly, note that he never said *what* he copied and not
*how* he copied it. He only said that he burnt (burned?) a movie twice,
once to TDK media, once to LG media. No details about the source, no
details about the format(s) of the source, not details about the
procedures/settings of the copy process and no details about the
format(s) of the targets.

I know, we tried to get the facts out of him, to no avail.

And then there's - as I mentioned - the different connections of the
two DVD players.

All-in-all a myriad of possibilities why the visible results could
indeed be different, NOT because of the brands of the media, but because
of other factors which he didn't report, most likely because he doesn't
realize their importance/relevance, but possibly because he's trolling.

'possibly' indeed

I have to say that I find the name 'DVD shrink' rather fitting in
this (non-)discussion.

 

[felix]

On 18-January-2016 8:18 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

Je?us <j@invalid.lan> wrote:
On 17 Jan 2016 14:18:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid
wrote:

felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
- Using 'DVD shrink' (cite URL) is *not* making a (direct) copy.
Well... it /is/ possible if the original source was from a single
layer disc. Not very common, of course.
I beg to differ. If he's making a direct, i.e. one-to-one copy, there
is no shrinking [1] involved, because a shrunk copy would by definition
be different from the original.

DVD Shrink is used to strip copy protection

But more importantly, note that he never said *what* he copied

DVD movies

> and not *how* he copied it.

I did - Asus burner in a PC using DVD Shrink and Nero

He only said that he burnt (burned?) a movie twice,
once to TDK media, once to LG media. No details about the source, no
details about the format(s) of the source,

DVD movies

not details about the
procedures/settings of the copy process and no details about the
format(s) of the targets.

what more info do you want? I'm making copies of DVD's

And then there's - as I mentioned - the different connections of the
two DVD players.

the other DVD player is irrelevant. READ the thread! I'm not going to
repeat it all

All-in-all a myriad of possibilities why the visible results could
indeed be different, NOT because of the brands of the media, but because
of other factors which he didn't report, most likely because he doesn't
realize their importance/relevance, but possibly because he's trolling.

[1] I have to say that I find the name 'DVD shrink' rather fitting in
this (non-)discussion.

--
"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/