super super8 ?

[ericMartinJarvies]

i recently took a beaulieu gate assembly from one of my 4008 parts cameras into a local machine shop to have the gate machined to open it up wider so it covers the full width of the film, and the height is from center perf to center perf. however, in order for it to work i will need to make changes in the actual camera pull claw, so the frame is centered between perfs, unlike the current to the left configuration as it is now.

if you look at the picture, you will notice 3 shaded frames .. that is the coverage i intend to acheive with the widened gate and the pull claw timing adjustment. it will take me at least on roll of film to get it right, perhaps 2. i will incrimently mark the changes and film a little bit on each setting. once i get the processed film back, i will determine what adjustment is the correct one, and impliment it nad shoot another roll nad process it and see how things turned out. because the gate assembly is the same for ALL beaulieu super8 camera(except their little jap version), i will most likely put the gate into my 7008 and test it with that camera, as it is an easier camera to work on then the 4008 in terms of disassembly and reassembly and room to work inside, and less parts to remove to change the gate assembly.

if anyone has done this, or messed with the concept, could you tell me if there is any downside to moving the actual position of the frame in relation to the perfs. thanks.

[paulcotto]

You should buy some plus-x and process it yourself. You don't need fancy equipment since its for experimenting with. Just develop it as a negative in D76 or some other cheap chemistry in a plastic tray. You just want to check the frame line right?

Paul Cotto

i recently took a beaulieu gate assembly from one of my 4008 parts cameras into a local machine shop to have the gate machined to open it up wider so it covers the full width of the film, and the height is from center perf to center perf. however, in order for it to work i will need to make changes in the actual camera pull claw, so the frame is centered between perfs, unlike the current to the left configuration as it is now.

if you look at the picture, you will notice 3 shaded frames .. that is the coverage i intend to acheive with the widened gate and the pull claw timing adjustment. it will take me at least on roll of film to get it right, perhaps 2. i will incrimently mark the changes and film a little bit on each setting. once i get the processed film back, i will determine what adjustment is the correct one, and impliment it nad shoot another roll nad process it and see how things turned out. because the gate assembly is the same for ALL beaulieu super8 camera(except their little jap version), i will most likely put the gate into my 7008 and test it with that camera, as it is an easier camera to work on then the 4008 in terms of disassembly and reassembly and room to work inside, and less parts to remove to change the gate assembly.

if anyone has done this, or messed with the concept, could you tell me if there is any downside to moving the actual position of the frame in relation to the perfs. thanks.

[Alex]

I thought the discussion below works better on this topic thread.

Mr. Jarvies, you started this topic about the pressure plate then switched to the virtues of extending the frame width

But I think there are many reasons not to do it. The main ones in my opinion are the image quality probably drops off the farther towards the edge of the frame you go

It depends on the lens and its inherent COI. If the COI is large enough, it actually becomes a rectilinear lens and you get a very nice, flat field across the entire image. That was the case on many R8mm lenses, which were often just lenses for 16mm repackaged for use on R8 cameras. If the COI on a super 8 camera is large enough, then the image at the edges will be just as good as in the center. We've done tons of transfers off of R8 where the image literally spills off the edge of the film on both edges and it is sharp as a tack.

The other reason is I think the more you widen the picture, the muddier it becomes when transferred to video. You actually will begin to add additional depth of field the wider you try and make the video transfer. Super-8 already has a lot of depth of field, why give it more?

I'm not sure how you can say the picture gets muddier when depth of field increases. At any rate, increased depth of field is one of the best things going for super 8. The notion of shallow depth of field being a "virtue" because it looks more like 35mm is really sophistic reasoning, when one thinks about it. Low budget 35mm films always have crappy depth of field because they are always using small lighting packages. If you look at a big budget 35mm film, you will find that they have plenty of depth of field when they want it because they have large lighting packages. So, in reality, if you want your film to look like a low budget 35mm film then, by all means, go for the shallow depth of field look.

The choice to go to shallow depth of field should be a discrete artistic one, where one wants to isolate the actor or item on screen, and is generally achieved with longer lenses. I've worked on a variety of 35mm and 16mm productions and I can tell you that fighting shallow depth of field is a constant battle and no professional DP I know of thinks it's a problem to have "too much depth of field", since one can ALWAYS reduce depth of field by adding ND filters and using a longer lens.

There is only so much resolution that the video image can absorb from the film original,

???? Granted, the video does not have the resolution that film has, but your statement flies in the face of reality that a 35mm frame looks better on video than a super 8mm frame. A larger film original is always going to be better for video transfer than a smaller film original.

by addiing width to the film frame, and trying to capture that added resolution via a film transfer, you will have LESS video resolution overall because the same video frame has to capture MORE film info with the same amount of video pixels.

Yes, if the picture is reduced in height to accomodate the extended left and right areas of the picture, there will be fewer lines of video representing the final image. However, the grain of the super 8 will be reduced and that will make it sharper for final viewing if the goal is for a letterboxed image.

When we transfer, we often give people the choice of whether they want the super 8 image to spill off the edges of the video frame or if they want us to pull back until the entire video frame is visible within the open viewing area of a normal television set. If so, then either we or they put a black matte around it to hide the adjacent frames and sprocket holes. The black matte is outside the viewing area of a normal television set and the image looks MUCH sharper since the grain is reduced. And, since televisions crop the video image quite a bit, pulling back allows the whole super 8 frame to be viewed. So, in reality, the final image IS better if the super 8 is reduced in size.

This may give the illusion of a better quality picture, but in reality it is a worse quality picture because the picture will have more in focus areas than before, which will make the picture look "flatter".

Again, the illusional increase in depth of field from having a reduced picture size is a distinction without a difference compared to the universally obvious benefits of having the frame appear sharper. Pulling back during telecine and using more of the super 8 frame always creates a sharper picture with tighter grain; the very same reason that 16mm telecined looks better than super 8 telecined. For your counter position to be valid, then pushing into the super 8 image would result in more resolution and a better picture, which it clearly does not, since doing so would increase the effect of grain.

Roger

Has anyone noticed how the full TV frame DVD's can sometimes look better than the bordered DVD's? Even though the film information being transferred to the screen has been significantly reduced to fill the television screen, the video pixels representing the actors have been increased in SIZE and NUMBER of pixels.

While Super-8 has less film info to begin with, there is a highly complex relationship between the image transfer size of Super-8, and how many video pixels are representing that transfer when that image is put on video.

For instance, a wide angle shot probably does not need to be made even smaller, because that means that the video pixels have to capture more information, yet will be using the same amount of pixels to do it.

On a close-up shot, the unwidened frame might produce a bigger eye-ball, which on video translates to more video pixels to reproduce the eyeball. That could be a plus. By widening that particular shot, the eyeball is represented as a smaller part of the video frame, and with less pixels representing the eyeball.

My point is it could turn out that half the film looks better "widened", and the other half looks better left as is. I think the resolution of super-8 to video transfers holds up better left as is versus versus widening the picture.

It may all come down to when the film is shot, what mm lens setting is being used, how good was the focus, how much grain was there to begin with, and the amount of contrast in the picture. These intense series of steps cannot automatically be improved by simply widening the picture as I believe it is a hit or miss proposition.

As for what may be gained by widening the picture, the picture may appear steadier when smaller, (assuming the wider area doesn't adversely affect the claw's pull down capability) and dirt will look smaller.

As for superwidening the picture to just outside of TV safe...that's a risky venture. Some of the flat TV's show more and more of the TV area, and those transfers can be rejected for broadcast if the picture area does not go completely across the whole video area.

[mattias]

please alex, enough already. you have no idea what you're talking about.

/matt

[Alex]

I think what you meant to say is you have no idea what I'm talking about.
Give it time, you'll get it.

[studiocarter]

ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video/m1v/wp01.m1v
Here is a sample of a Regular 8mm film that shows image between the sproket holes, a bumb of image on the right side that was a code to identify different cameras, and space left around the image for tv cut off. When this clip is burnt to a cd and played in a DVD player as a SVCD, it totally crops out everything but the normal viewing in the center. No sproket holes show, no bump on the right, and no extra black shows. I like to make them with just a little black on the top or bottom to get more width to the image.
The film wiggles because it had torn sproket holes and was projected upside down through the workprinter then flipped in Premiere.

Now, would you make some S8 samples and try them, please? Reading all this stuff about pictures reminds me of film school lectures without any equipment to play with. Duh.

Michael Carter

[mattias]

I think what you meant to say is you have no idea what I'm talking about.

why are you doing this? honestly?

/matt

[Alex]

You are the hostile one aren't you? (edit note, Mattias's original response was a bit longer, and I responded to it, after I had responded to it, Mattias changed his comments within the time frame to where no edited by appears, and took the hostility out, but the problem is, he was thinking about it, and acted on it, so I will leave my response as is, even though you all won't get to see his original response.)

It sounds like you shoot film quite a bit, so don't act like your the video expert of all time.

Do you edit?

Do you Edit for others?

Do you edit for others for broadcast purposes.?

Do you edit for others on deadline?

Do you get paid ONLY when the job is done, and done on spec, and on time?

Do you own your own broadcast quality video editing gear?

If you answered no to any of the above, then you are not in my league.

I have an editing business, and have won a Regional Emmy, I know more about this topic then you do, so give it a rest.

If you would like to intelligently explain why you disagree, go for it, but it appears to me that you don't comprehend the relationship of the film area transferred to video, and how the original film area image transferred to video is affected by the amount of video pixel information used to capture the chosen film area.

I'll give you an example, but I'll use 35mm.

If you take a 35mm film that is being transferred to video, did you know you can zoom in on the 35mm frame WITH NO LOSS OF QUALITY, DID you know that you can zoom in AN EXTREME AMOUNT BEFORE you begin to see a drop off in quality? Because you can zoom in with no loss, and in fact are INCREASING the size of the object you are zooming in on, you effectively have INCREASED the video quality of that particular object within the frame that you have chosen to zoom in on.

Did you know that, have you ever seen this technique done? Unlike video, you can zoom the film frame in without loss of quality, up to a point.

Obviously, as you go to smaller film frames, the amount you can zoom in
without loss lessens. With 16mm, you can zoom in to approximately the size of a Super-8mm frame area before the picture begins to soften up and degrade in image quality.

So in Super-8, the frame is big enough to where you could actually zoom in just a tiny bit BEFORE the image would start to degrade. In essence, you could pick a part of the frame that you want to enlarge, and by enlarging it during the film transfer, you would INCREASE the effective resolution that zoomed in image area would have on video.

The downside is dust particles will look bigger, and the image may have more jumpiness in it. The advantage to increasing the transfer area were discussed in a previous post by me, so I won't rehash them.

For the record, my past, as you refer to it, is stellar. What isn't stellar was the ganging up on me that went on on Mike Brantley's forum, and Mike's refusal to discuss any of it.

Frankly, since you have brought up the past, the protoype post was the most imbelic and laughable topic post imagineable. I was referring to myself in that post, and no one else, and no one got it. And before I could explain that, Mike Brantley "laid the law down" and banned me.

By the way Mattias, I seem to recall you ridiculing me on that forum by telling me that Super-8 film COULD NOT be easily transfered at speeds between 24FPS and 18FPS...Have you ever heard of a digiscan, variscan, or meta speed? Evidently not.

I must salute your nerve, even when you are wrong.

[mattias]

You are the hostile one aren't you?

might be, but have a tendency to cause that with people, haven't you noticed?

Do you edit?

yes.

Do you Edit for others?

yes.

Do you edit for others for broadcast purposes.?

yes.

Do you edit for others on deadline?

yes.

Do you get paid ONLY when the job is done, and done on spec, and on time?

depends on the contract obviously.

Do you own your own broadcast quality video editing gear?

yes.

I have an editing business, and have won a Regional Emmy, I know more about this topic then you do, so give it a rest.

oh, an editing business. good for you. why would this be a reason for me to give it a rest?

it appears to me that you don't comprehend the relationship of the film area transferred to video, and how the original film area image transferred to video is affected by the amount of video pixel information used to capture the chosen film area.

i do actually, and you should know that. you're saying all the right things but you come to very strange conclusions which can only be described as mumbo jumbo.

i won't respond to the rest of your post since i had already removed the comments you refer to before you referred to them. i encourage you to remove the last part of your post as well, since we're better off leaving all that behind us.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

It sounds like you shoot film quite a bit, so don't act like your the video expert of all time.

And it sounds like you shoot practically nothing that relates to this forum hardly ever. So don't act like you're the super 8 guru all the time.

Do you own your own broadcast quality video editing gear?

You mean like your ancient analog BetaSP decks? Do you even own a nonlinear edit system, Alex? It is apparent that, since see ownership of broadcast editing equipment as a major stumbling block to someone like Mattias, then you really have little or no idea about the realities of low cost, broadcast quality non linear systems because you've simply never used them. That pretty much makes Mattias more of an expert on modern broadcast editing systems than you'll ever be, since he uses his FCP all the time and you, clearly, do not or you would NOT throw down such a thread bare gauntlet as "ownership" of broadcast editing equipment.

If you answered no to any of the above, then you are not in my league.

No one is in your league, Alex. That collective sigh of relief would be enough to sail a ship. ;)

Your previous take on BetaCam SP is also so mind boggling off, just back off on your view of my view of anything video.

It appeared to me that Mattias wasn't talking about BetaSP. He was talking about the SP mode of miniDV versus the LP mode of miniDV. Perhaps it's YOUR position that's mind boggling?

I have an editing business, and have won a Regional Emmy, I know more about this topic then you do, so give it a rest.

Oh, no.... the Regional Enema again. Hey, everyone, let's all kiss Alex's ass because he won an award. This award totally offsets every stupid and illogical post he ever makes on any forum, so back off and give him room. He's an important man. Sheesh.

I know more about this topic then you do

No you don't. I know more about this than you do and I suspect that Mattias probably knows more about this specific topic than me because he deals with it every day.

If you would like to intelligently explain why you disagree, go for it, but it appears to me that you don't comprehend the relationship of film transferred to video, and how the original film image transferred to video is affected by the amount of video pixel information used to capture the transferred image.

No, Alex, it is obvious that (as usual) it is YOU that don't comprehend.

Look, it's real simple: The larger the image being scanned, the smaller it is reduced in the gate of the telecine. Therefore, you get a decrease in grain and an increase in the resolution of the image IF it is your intent to show the entire image and not just a portion of it.

If you telecine film of an eye chart where the lower line is hard to read while encompassing the entire width of the frame during transfer, you will definately be able to read more of that lower line if you crop in.

-BUT -

If you do, then it is obvious that you are leaving out the edges of the film frame to get the artificial "increase" you are talking about. Therefore, any gain you speak of is negated because of the sacrifice of information at the edges of the frame.

To use your logic, people shooting 35mm should never pull back to see the entire frame because there are elements in the picture that will not receive the best resolution at the reduced size. So what? Composition is just as important as resolution; more so, actually, since resolution will ALWAYS be different depending on whether it's seen on VHS, SVHS, DVD, 35mm, 16mm, S8mm etc. If you crop in during telecine, then where does it stop? How do you decide what in the frame deserves more resolution and what doesn't? Do we distroy the composition just to read the numbers on a mail box by the front door of a house in the background? That would be silly.

The film maker composes his shot to fit the aspect ratio of the film. If he shoots on a wider format such as the "super super 8" that Eric suggests, then anything he wants more readable will simply be shot bigger in the frame during principle photography. Duh. Doesn't take a Regional Emmy winner to figure that out. :roll:

Roger

[Alex]

Roger, Mini-Dv is not as good as BetaCam SP, for you to call BetaCam SP antiquated just tells me you haven't invested in the format and don't wish to, so you wish to ignore the white elephant in the room.

Mini DV is processed at a 4:1:1 rate, BetaCam SP is processed at a 4;2:2 rate. If you have been telling your clients thats Mini-DV is as good as a BetaCam SP original, I really feel sorry for your clientele.

Mini-DV is a wonderful format, but you would be laughed away in Hollywood if you presented your project for broadcast in Mini-DV.

Mini-DV is missing a line of video, and can technically be deemed non-broadcast unless it is bumped and enlarged to DigiBetaCam or BetaCam SP. (this was chronicled on Two-pop.com)

Final Cut Pro 4 will be remedying the BetaCam SP issue by offering 10 bit uncompressed component BetaCam SP video because they were able to improve their product. For you to call Final Cut Pro Broadcast Quality. That was the white lie being told.

You should see how everyone is salivating for Final Cut Pro-4, because now they know their systems will rival Avids.

Mini DV was the lie to further digital's growth. Within a year, Mini-DV will be looked at as an illegitimate edit mastering format by all broadcast stations. BetaCam SP still rules as an edit mastering format, along with Digital Betacam. Now that Final Cut Pro 4 supports BetaCam SP, BetaCam SP will be even more popular after a show has been cut on non-linear.

Calling it BetaCam SP antiquated technology is completely disingenous.

[Alex]

On the issue of the extending the frame width, I see many reasons not to do it, and one reason to do it. The reason to extend the frame line width is it will give more flexibility in the film transfer to video to scan left or right for purposes of reframing the original shot.

As a forum courtesy, I tried to separate the andec discussion from the widening the gate discussion so the quote above comes from the andec discussion, after making that comment on the andec topic, I responded to this topic post so that both topics would more closely relate to their respective topic title.

For the record Roger, I have acknowledged there are some good things to the idea of widening the frame, I'm simply pointing out that its much more complicated than it sounds and that every shot won't automatically look better with this widening effect.

[MovieStuff]

Roger, Mini-Dv is not as good as BetaCam SP

I never said that miniDV was better than BetaSP. Please try and stay on topic, if that's possible. I own Beta and miniDV equipment and are equally invested in both.

For the record, my past, as you refer to it, is stellar.

For the record, your past was anything but stellar. You posted diatribe after diatribe on Mike's forum, filled with paranoia, disinformation and a total lack of humility in the face of blatant ignorance about the various topics you posted on. You defined the word "obtuse".

What isn't stellar was the ganging up on me that went on on Mike Brantley's forum

Oh, yes. Here we go again. The world hates Alex. Everyone is wrong and Alex is right. There is no topic that Alex is not an expert on and doesn't have an opinion about. If in doubt, then simply visit one of his many forums where Alex is the topic starter on dozens, nay, hundreds of threads. Hell, sometimes Alex is the ONLY person responding on the very threads he starts!

For examples, see:

http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ultima ... orum&f=429

Alex will post mostly, it seems, about problems with women and evil corporations. Heaven help him if he ever has to do business with a corporation run by a woman. And what does any of this have to do with Super 8? Nothing, of course! But, mark my word, you readers will see plenty of it the longer than Alex hangs around here. Speaking of which, this line kills me:

I must salute your nerve, even when you are wrong.

I must say YOU have some nerve even posting on this forum, Alex. You once accused Andreas and I of practically conspiring to try and shut down Mike's forum by "stealing" his forum members. That was typical of the paranoia and deceit that got you run off of Mike's forum and now you bring all that crap here? We don't need it, Alex. Please just go back to your own forum where you can be king of your world and truly knowledgable people like Mattias won't rain on your illusions of expertise.

Roger

[Alex]

I never accused Andreas of anything. We had friendly e-mails back forth whenever Hostboard was down and I would inform the regulars who posted on Brantley's forum. Yes, I collected 110 e-mail on my own time, one by one, and when Hostboard was having problems, I would let every one know, then let everyone know when it was up again. Many said thanks, including Andreas. (a couple less enthusastic souls said don't bother with the updates)

I didn't even accuse you of anything, it was your interpretation that led you to believe I was accusing you of something.

I don't understand why you posted my "Discuss This" forum on here as if it reveals some deep dark secret. I would have put it in my siggy but I sent a message that I had too many characters, so I deleted it.

But I consider the following topic post, on Brantley's super-8 forum, to be the alltime classic point of intolerance.

http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ultima ... 409&t=1474

For the record, I just want to say, that the reason I was joking about the protoype issue is I went through the same thing with an inventor friend of mine.

He had made a prototype proc amp time-base corrector remote control at my suggestion, and he sold it to me for $250.00. It included these really cheesy hand made labels, but it worked beautifully, and really was a bargan because it was the first made.

However, two months later, he showed me a perfectly made, machined, black coated, Proc Amps that did exactly what mine did, but were gorgeous to look at. He had made a limited run of the unit and had done everything of the highest quality.

He wouldn't trade me back my prototype for the new beautiful ones! I had to keep the original and the people that didn't do anything but come along later, got nicer looking ones than me! That was why I brought up that issue. I thought it was ironic that the people involved in the bleeding edge of technology get burned.

They sure do! 8O 8O 8O

Instead, Roger turned the topic post into an "attack" on him. It was like being in the twilight zone.

The most obvious thing is you, Mattias, and a couple others, won't let it drop. Ever.

I moved on, until Mattias brought it up today. It bubbles beneath the surface for you, and Mattias, and even though you fail to acknowledge that just a few key comments by Mike Brantley could have resolved the issue, comments never came, because he wasn't around, and instead it was your bantering that egged the situation on.

When Brantley did finally respond, it was way too late be of any good, so all he did was take the easy way out and ban me, with no discussion at all.
And you were quite fine with that.

The main thing you proved Roger, was that apologies are pure fraud Because the person who apologizies almost always believes the other side is just as much to blame, and when the other side doesn't apologize, their anger fuels until the time is right.

And that is what you did. You apologized to the Brantley forum in August of that year, and for the next couple of months you stewed over the situation because you didn't really mean you apology, and upon being the only one to apologize, your anger iincreased.

That is why I don't believe in giving or receiving apologies, they come with too many strings attached. You go on believing what you believe, and I'll go on believing what I believe, and lets leave it at that.

[MovieStuff]

I never accused Andreas of anything.

I didn't even accuse you of anything, it was your interpretation that led you to believe I was accusing you of something.

Well, that's simply a lie, Alex. You sent what you considered a "smoking gun" post to Mike Brantley about our supposed efforts to "woo" members of Mike's forum over to this forum. It was a truly pathetic attempt on your part to create a problem where there was none, just to satisfy some warped inner need to be king of the hill on one of the many forums you hover over all day long.

For the record, I just want to say, that the reason I was joking about the protoype issue is I went through the same thing with an inventor friend of mine.

Too little too late, dude. You can claim that you were just "joking" back then but no one, and I repeat, no one saw it that way. You were blatantly suggesting that I would cheat a customer and I take that very seriously. If it was an attempt at humor that failed, I saw no apology from you, which any honest person would have put forth if truly misunderstood.

The most obvious thing is you, Mattias, and a couple others, won't let it drop. Ever.

Amazing. I haven't EVER mentioned this topic on this forum, even once. But you bring up your past voluntarily, make an issue of it and then claim that WE won't let it drop because we respond? You are truly without equal when it comes to rewriting history, no matter how recent or distant.

In fact, it is YOU that won't drop it. MONTHS after Mike banned you from his forum, you sought out ancient posts on Hostboard and edited them to read differently than they did during our disagreement. You are a pathological liar, Alex, and can NOT stand to be wrong about anything to the point of obsession. You got banned from Mike's forum and the owners of Hostboard had to threaten you with total expulsion if you did not cease abusing your posting privileges. You can try and rewrite history as much as you want but most of us were there to witness it and it was NOTHING like you now claim it was nor like you've edited your previous Hostboard posts to read.

I moved on, until Mattias brought it up today.

You did not move on and Mattias did not bring up any specifics about your history at all. YOU did that as an excuse to launch into your annual "everyone hates Alex" mantra. Stupid.

It bubbles beneath the surface for you, and Mattias,

Wrong, again. Neither Mattias nor I could care less about your contributions to this format or discussions unless they are a blatant gobbledy-gook of disinformation, which your post regarding telecine resolution clearly drifted into, like so many of your posts. I don't think anyone is wrong to point out sophistic reasoning that might otherwise confuse those that don't know better. You only compounded the problem by not backing off from a topic that you are unfamiliar with and then boasting to know more than others more versed in the topic in question. In short, you bring it on yourself, Alex. If you weren't so intent on "winning" discussions that you know little about, then things might be different but you simply can't help youself, it seems.

When Brantley did finally respond, it was way too late be of any good

This is so disingenuous. You make it sound like Mike finally "came around" to your way of thinking, which is total bullshit. "Mike's response" was to kick your ass off his forum, a move that came way too late for most of us. Even some of your most ardent former supporters thought you were way out of line in your accusations about me and had gone off the edge with your rants about the problem with women, evil corporations and flying planes into Kodak buildings. Even faced with the universal rejection of your attempt at poor humor, you would not apologize and begged Mike not to make you apologize.

The main thing you proved Roger, was that apologies are pure fraud

And the main thing you proved is that you never apologize, even when you are clearly wrong and have offended others in a public forum.

That is why I don't believe in giving or receiving apologies

You don't believe in giving apologies because you're a jerk, Alex. It's just that simple. I have had disagreements with Mattias, Lucas and a host of others. Hell we all have and we ALL apologize when we realize that we cross the line. But not you, Alex. Not you. You're too good for that.

None the less, I apologized to you several times on Mike's forum, just to keep the peace, and what I got in return from you were lies, misrepresentations about my character, product and service and paranoid, desperate attempts to rewrite history, as illustrated by this very exchange. You certainly didn't see any of us searching through hundreds of old Hostboard posts and editing them months after the fact. In fact, of all the people involved, only YOU were kicked off the forum and only YOU went in and edited your old posts to read differently months later.

Yeah, go ahead and believe what you want, Alex. People that were there know the truth and the truth is that you got canned because you were out of line, pure and simple, and not because everyone "ganged up" on you.

Roger