Spurious Response wrote:

Damn. You actually made a post that I agree with 100%.

Can you please detonate yourself in that case ?

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:03:01 -0500, clifto wrote:

I get regular breakups on cable, on multiple channels, at all times of day;
picture plus sound, picture only, and sound only.

That is your fault for not calling them and complaining about your
obviously poor strength feed. That or the dopes actually think they can
send it out that way from the head end to everyone. That would be really
sad, and point toward the need for a class action suit. started at a town
meeting, and including the City Manager.

LOL ! You have a City MANAGER ?

A useless ****wit MBA no doubt ?

Graham

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:39:39 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
martin griffith wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:

Even studio quality (directly from a PAL camera) has all sorts of artefacts,
just where the right striped shirt.

I say: Just buy a good digital set :-)

Hmm, all the pro cameras I know come out in RGB or YUV.

Nobody in the professional world should be using PAL/NTSC in the
studio's primary signal chain today

Interesting you should say that. There must be tons of gear out there that's
'legacy' so-to-speak PAL.

Read it again. He said PROFESSIONAL, and NEWER equipment is inferred.

Since when did PROFESSIONALS not use PAL ?

You COMPLETELY missed what he said, and what I referred to. The pro
cams MAIN output is NOT PAL, just as HE stated. They DO have PAL
available, but that is NOT what a studio would pump their gear with to
compose what they are going to send out onto broadcast.

Don't talk about stuff you have no experience of.

You're a goddamned idiot.

It makes you look even more
retarded than normal.

WKYABWAW.

I was the technical manager for an editing equipment hire
company some years back. I do know what I'm talking about.

Yes, perhaps about the "some years back" gear, but quite obviously not
about the current gear being used. D'OH!

Broadcast TV isn't as wealthy as it once was and don't expect equipment to be
'upgraded' on a whim.

Bull****. Broadcast TV paid 2 million a rack for General Instrument's
MCPC uplink equipment, and the HDTV version is likely a million or two
more per rack, and is now made by Motorola, and is being bought up by
stations everywhere form this end of the northern hemisphere, all the way
down to Brazil, and Columbia.

PAL (and especially UK PAL) produces a far superior picture to NTSC btw just in case
you're getting confused.

Except that this discussion was never about NTSC, dumb****.

Who is confused? Not me. Not you either... you are just ****ing stupid
about it.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:22:51 -0500, clifto wrote:

HDTV sucks, at least the little I've seen. The artifacts are too distracting
for me to watch the picture. When you can get a camera to stand still while
focused on a still object, so the compression isn't blurring everything,
there's improvement in sharpness and no snow and, if you're lucky, a
minimum of aliasing. When you get off the still life and start watching
conventional programming, the picture goes to hell. I watched a bit of a
football game while sitting in a furniture store and got a headache from
seeing the crowd go into and out of focus.

Not here. I can watch the football game, and I can tell exactly how many
grams of grass is contained in the grass stain the guy just got crammed
into his jersey from the tackle he just got nailed with!

Nice out here... where are you?

Then, there is plain digital, not HD, but digital nonetheless. Far
batter than cable, and flawless, like you are in the studio looking at a
reference monitor stuff!

I watched two seasons of "Lost" in full digital, HD.

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Since when did PROFESSIONALS not use PAL ?

You COMPLETELY missed what he said, and what I referred to. The pro
cams MAIN output is NOT PAL, just as HE stated. They DO have PAL
available, but that is NOT what a studio would pump their gear with to
compose what they are going to send out onto broadcast.

Actually, PAL is EXACTLY what they would broadcast.

Graham

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:23:50 -0500, clifto wrote:

Spurious Response wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:39:50 -0500, clifto wrote:
Glen Walpert wrote:
My nutshell summary of the published test results is that lead free is
significantly harder to do right than tin-lead, requiring tighter
process controls, but if done right it can be more reliable than
tin-lead for non-shock situations.

MORE reliable? Please elaborate.


SHOCK.... and AWE!

Aw, not so shocking.


Not when it is shorting out!

It reminds me of the old stacked type "Record changers".

That is exactly what they did to your collection if you played them
from a stack.

RoHS = "Circuit Changers"

Start with one circuit, the one you designed, and find out in short
order that the element Tin has decided to change your circuit into some
pile of crap.

RoHS is going to create MORE landfill waste., and MORE downtime, and
more costly repair cycles, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum.

Worst "technological advancement" ever introduced, in all of human
history.

Spurious Response wrote:

Who is confused? Not me. Not you either... you are just ****ing stupid
about it.

It seems you have degraded into an alternate ego. The very same one that all the regular
posters here have regularly found very offensive.

I suggest you deal with your unsocial 'issues' elsewhere.

Graham

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 03:42:53 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Damn. You actually made a post that I agree with 100%.

Can you please detonate yourself in that case ?



**** off, troll.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 03:57:35 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Since when did PROFESSIONALS not use PAL ?

You COMPLETELY missed what he said, and what I referred to. The pro
cams MAIN output is NOT PAL, just as HE stated. They DO have PAL
available, but that is NOT what a studio would pump their gear with to
compose what they are going to send out onto broadcast.

Actually, PAL is EXACTLY what they would broadcast.

AGAIN, you missed it!

HE WAS TALKING ABPOUT WHAT THE STUDIO PROCESSES AND WHAT THE CAMERA
FEEDS THEIR PROCESSING GEAR, DUMB****TARD!

THAT has NOTHING to do with what eventually ends up being broadcast.

YUV, dip****. It is not PAL until the very last process point.

PRO cameras over here have PAL AND NTSC outputs on them, but the guy
STILL pumps YUV into the recording gear, and the STUDIO processes it into
whatever they want to send it as.

GET A CLUE.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:02:50 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Who is confused? Not me. Not you either... you are just ****ing stupid
about it.

It seems you have degraded into an alternate ego. The very same one that all the regular
posters here have regularly found very offensive.

I suggest you deal with your unsocial 'issues' elsewhere.


I suggest you bloody **** off trying to tell me what to do, you
retarded ****.

Spurious Response wrote:

I watched two seasons of "Lost" in full digital, HD.

Clearly you have no taste.

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:23:50 -0500, clifto wrote:

Spurious Response wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:39:50 -0500, clifto wrote:
Glen Walpert wrote:
My nutshell summary of the published test results is that lead free is
significantly harder to do right than tin-lead, requiring tighter
process controls, but if done right it can be more reliable than
tin-lead for non-shock situations.

MORE reliable? Please elaborate.


SHOCK.... and AWE!

Aw, not so shocking.

Not when it is shorting out!

It reminds me of the old stacked type "Record changers".

That is exactly what they did to your collection if you played them
from a stack.

RoHS = "Circuit Changers"

Start with one circuit, the one you designed, and find out in short
order that the element Tin has decided to change your circuit into some
pile of crap.

RoHS is going to create MORE landfill waste., and MORE downtime, and
more costly repair cycles, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum.

Worst "technological advancement" ever introduced, in all of human
history.

Get a grip and wipe the froth from your lips.

SO ! What are you going to do about it ?

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Since when did PROFESSIONALS not use PAL ?

You COMPLETELY missed what he said, and what I referred to. The pro
cams MAIN output is NOT PAL, just as HE stated. They DO have PAL
available, but that is NOT what a studio would pump their gear with to
compose what they are going to send out onto broadcast.

Actually, PAL is EXACTLY what they would broadcast.

AGAIN, you missed it!

HE WAS TALKING ABPOUT WHAT THE STUDIO PROCESSES AND WHAT THE CAMERA
FEEDS THEIR PROCESSING GEAR, DUMB****TARD!

THAT has NOTHING to do with what eventually ends up being broadcast.

YUV, dip****. It is not PAL until the very last process point.

PRO cameras over here have PAL AND NTSC outputs on them, but the guy
STILL pumps YUV into the recording gear, and the STUDIO processes it into
whatever they want to send it as.

GET A CLUE.

I can't wait to hear who broadcasts in YUV !


Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

Who is confused? Not me. Not you either... you are just ****ing stupid
about it.

It seems you have degraded into an alternate ego. The very same one that all the regular
posters here have regularly found very offensive.

I suggest you deal with your unsocial 'issues' elsewhere.

I suggest you bloody **** off trying to tell me what to do, you
retarded ****.

Your inability to relate to nomal human behaviour is noted.

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

RoHS = "Circuit Changers"

Spurious Response wrote:

I suggest you bloody **** off trying to tell me what to do, you
retarded ****.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:16:02 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

I watched two seasons of "Lost" in full digital, HD.

Clearly you have no taste.



Clearly, you are as retarded as I have always said you are.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:17:26 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:23:50 -0500, clifto wrote:

Spurious Response wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:39:50 -0500, clifto wrote:
Glen Walpert wrote:
My nutshell summary of the published test results is that lead free is
significantly harder to do right than tin-lead, requiring tighter
process controls, but if done right it can be more reliable than
tin-lead for non-shock situations.

MORE reliable? Please elaborate.


SHOCK.... and AWE!

Aw, not so shocking.

Not when it is shorting out!

It reminds me of the old stacked type "Record changers".

That is exactly what they did to your collection if you played them
from a stack.

RoHS = "Circuit Changers"

Start with one circuit, the one you designed, and find out in short
order that the element Tin has decided to change your circuit into some
pile of crap.

RoHS is going to create MORE landfill waste., and MORE downtime, and
more costly repair cycles, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum.

Worst "technological advancement" ever introduced, in all of human
history.

Get a grip and wipe the froth from your lips.

SO ! What are you going to do about it ?



**** off, you know nothing ****tard troll.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:21:02 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Since when did PROFESSIONALS not use PAL ?

You COMPLETELY missed what he said, and what I referred to. The pro
cams MAIN output is NOT PAL, just as HE stated. They DO have PAL
available, but that is NOT what a studio would pump their gear with to
compose what they are going to send out onto broadcast.

Actually, PAL is EXACTLY what they would broadcast.

AGAIN, you missed it!

HE WAS TALKING ABPOUT WHAT THE STUDIO PROCESSES AND WHAT THE CAMERA
FEEDS THEIR PROCESSING GEAR, DUMB****TARD!

THAT has NOTHING to do with what eventually ends up being broadcast.

YUV, dip****. It is not PAL until the very last process point.

PRO cameras over here have PAL AND NTSC outputs on them, but the guy
STILL pumps YUV into the recording gear, and the STUDIO processes it into
whatever they want to send it as.

GET A CLUE.

I can't wait to hear who broadcasts in YUV !




READ his post again, you ****ing retard!

He clearly stated that it is what the pros put out, BEFORE broadcast
streams are made.

You are so many ****ing decades behind the curve, it is almost ****ing
hilarious, not to mention the fact that you cannot even read!

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:32:35 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

RoHS = "Circuit Changers"

You are as retarded as the kook group trolls now, boy?

I have been laughing all night.

So how is it that a total ****ing retard like you seems to think that I
am angry or blew a gasket? (fleshy folks have no gaskets, dip****)

If you were any more retarded, I'd swear that you were a Lamey or
BrandonTard sock puppet.

Now, I just think that one or both of them is reaming your ass right
now.

Sit up...

Bark!

Good dog in a donkey suit!

Maybe one day you'll wake up and smell your rotting brain flesh, then
the comfort kitty will come sit next to you.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:33:45 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

I suggest you bloody **** off trying to tell me what to do, you
retarded ****.

Do you not even care that authoring retarded posts like the kook ****s
over in AUK do makes you a kook as well, dumb****?

Bwuahahahahahah!

Spurious Response wrote:

READ his post again, you ****ing retard!

How about you boil your head in a vat of acid ?

You have NOTHING of value to contribute.

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

I watched two seasons of "Lost" in full digital, HD.

Clearly you have no taste.

Clearly, you are as retarded as I have always said you are.

So you think a stupid TV show is the cat's whiskers ?

FYI, I did briefly watch 'Lost' purely because it was highly hyped on UK's
Channel 4 (which once had a good record for decent drama).

I have barely (never ?) seen such an utterly worthless US programme ever. It's
so detached from reality that I wonder if Americans have even the tiniest clue
about the world that exists around them.

Graham

"Spurious Response" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:32:35 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

RoHS = "Circuit Changers"

You are as retarded as the kook group trolls now, boy?

I have been laughing all night.

So how is it that a total ****ing retard like you seems to think that I
am angry or blew a gasket? (fleshy folks have no gaskets, dip****)

If you were any more retarded, I'd swear that you were a Lamey or
BrandonTard sock puppet.

Now, I just think that one or both of them is reaming your ass right
now.

Sit up...

Bark!

Good dog in a donkey suit!

Maybe one day you'll wake up and smell your rotting brain flesh, then
the comfort kitty will come sit next to you.

Brandon is right, you are a psychotic evil old troll. You prove it with
every post.
You should go and seek help for your mental condition before one of your
neighbors
or co-workers reports you and you loose your freedom.

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

RoHS = "Circuit Changers"

You are as retarded as the kook group trolls now, boy?

I guess you don't know what a gasket is ?

You are certainly guilty as charged son.

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

Spurious Response wrote:

I suggest you bloody **** off trying to tell me what to do, you
retarded ****.

Do you not even care that authoring retarded posts like the kook ****s
over in AUK do makes you a kook as well, dumb****?

Do you often talk to yourself ???

Graham

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:44:32 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

READ his post again, you ****ing retard!

How about you boil your head in a vat of acid ?

You have NOTHING of value to contribute.


It is quite obvious that being 100% ****ing wrong is getting to you.

Quote from Martin:

I think you can still buy toy composite mixers, try BHphoto etc and
the camera control units (CCU) all had the usual PAL ScH and timing
adjustments, but rarely used, and don't forget that the (almost
obselete) Betacam SP format recorded in YUV anyway.

The PAL outputs are great for preview monitors, ie non critical, and
less wiring.

PAL is a very robust transmission format, but absolutely sucks in a
production setting

EndQuote.

See that last line there, asswipe? In capturing video, PAL is NOT used
by the pros. By the time it gets prepared for broadcast, it gets
converted.

GET A CLUE, dumb****tard!

"Spurious Response" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:33:45 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

I suggest you bloody **** off trying to tell me what to do, you
retarded ****.

Do you not even care that authoring retarded posts like the kook ****s
over in AUK do makes you a kook as well, dumb****?

Bwuahahahahahah!

His diseased mind has finally snapped

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:51:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

I watched two seasons of "Lost" in full digital, HD.

Clearly you have no taste.

Clearly, you are as retarded as I have always said you are.

So you think a stupid TV show is the cat's whiskers ?

FYI, I did briefly watch 'Lost' purely because it was highly hyped on UK's
Channel 4 (which once had a good record for decent drama).

I have barely (never ?) seen such an utterly worthless US programme ever. It's
so detached from reality that I wonder if Americans have even the tiniest clue
about the world that exists around them.



Dumb****. You cannot get the show from a single "middle of a season"
episode casual viewing. You needed to BEGIN at the beginning.

Do you actually think you could grasp a deep show like "Lexx" without
seeing the first four episodes that constituted the first season?

Same thing, dumbass. You are worthless.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:52:22 -0700, "TicTacTo" wrote:


"Spurious Response" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:32:35 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

RoHS = "Circuit Changers"

You are as retarded as the kook group trolls now, boy?

I have been laughing all night.

So how is it that a total ****ing retard like you seems to think that I
am angry or blew a gasket? (fleshy folks have no gaskets, dip****)

If you were any more retarded, I'd swear that you were a Lamey or
BrandonTard sock puppet.

Now, I just think that one or both of them is reaming your ass right
now.

Sit up...

Bark!

Good dog in a donkey suit!

Maybe one day you'll wake up and smell your rotting brain flesh, then
the comfort kitty will come sit next to you.

Brandon is right, you are a psychotic evil old troll. You prove it with
every post.
You should go and seek help for your mental condition before one of your
neighbors
or co-workers reports you and you loose your freedom.


Nice try, Lamey.

**** off.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:53:52 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

RoHS = "Circuit Changers"

You are as retarded as the kook group trolls now, boy?

I guess you don't know what a gasket is ?

You are certainly guilty as charged son.



I was building racing motors in the early seventies in my teen years.
Likely before you could bray loudly, as you do here, ass.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:55:19 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Spurious Response wrote:

I suggest you bloody **** off trying to tell me what to do, you
retarded ****.

Do you not even care that authoring retarded posts like the kook ****s
over in AUK do makes you a kook as well, dumb****?

Do you often talk to yourself ???



It was YOUR post I responded to, dip****.

Your post that had NOTHING in it from you, other than a quoting of my
post.

You really are one retarded ****.

You should report directly to the kook group, and remain there, and get
the **** out of the technical groups, because you are ****ing LOST, boy.

Bwuahahahahaha!

Spurious Response wrote:

It is quite obvious that being 100% ****ing wrong is getting to you.

I suggest you get a life. And an intelligence.

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote
Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

I watched two seasons of "Lost" in full digital, HD.

Clearly you have no taste.

Clearly, you are as retarded as I have always said you are.

So you think a stupid TV show is the cat's whiskers ?

FYI, I did briefly watch 'Lost' purely because it was highly hyped on UK's
Channel 4 (which once had a good record for decent drama).

I have barely (never ?) seen such an utterly worthless US programme ever. It's
so detached from reality that I wonder if Americans have even the tiniest clue
about the world that exists around them.

Dumb****. You cannot get the show from a single "middle of a season"
episode casual viewing. You needed to BEGIN at the beginning.

I did.

I shall never forget the idiotic shots thar showed a jet engine still running when
it clearly had no source of fuel.

Chrsit ! Are Americans *REALLY* that stupid that they fall for this crap ? You
really are a bunch of dumbnuts.

Frankly "Lost" made me think Americans are such utter ****wits that we shouldn't
ever take them seriously.


Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

I was building racing motors in the early seventies in my teen years.

And this is relevant to exactly what ?

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

I suggest you bloody **** off trying to tell me what to do, you
retarded ****.

Do you not even care that authoring retarded posts like the kook ****s
over in AUK do makes you a kook as well, dumb****?

Do you often talk to yourself ???


It was YOUR post I responded to, dip****.

I suggest you check the thread.

Graham

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:05:57 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

It is quite obvious that being 100% ****ing wrong is getting to you.

I suggest you get a life. And an intelligence.



Is that what you call the Syphilis running around in your brain?

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

It is quite obvious that being 100% ****ing wrong is getting to you.

I suggest you get a life. And an intelligence.

Is that what you call the Syphilis running around in your brain?

Not a very impressive response. Pretty stupid acually.

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:03:01 -0500, clifto wrote:

I get regular breakups on cable, on multiple channels, at all times of day;
picture plus sound, picture only, and sound only.


That is your fault for not calling them and complaining about your
obviously poor strength feed. That or the dopes actually think they can
send it out that way from the head end to everyone. That would be really
sad, and point toward the need for a class action suit. started at a town
meeting, and including the City Manager.

After the fifth or sixth time in two months, it gets old having them come
back. We're considering DBS but it's taking a while to study the options.

What's odd is that the cable internet service is near flawless.

--
"Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad
was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide
is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home."
-- Jonah Goldberg

Spurious Response wrote:
RoHS is going to create MORE landfill waste., and MORE downtime, and
more costly repair cycles, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum.

Worst "technological advancement" ever introduced, in all of human
history.

I'd put it second, or lower, after HDTV.

--
"Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad
was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide
is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home."
-- Jonah Goldberg