Just found out he, he, (I do not use it a lot) that my Sony camcorder offers some WS formats that were interesting but not nessecarily useful for this forum but I post them anyway.
The CC offer the standard 4:3 + 2 widescreen formats: 16:9 "CINEMA which only places a black flag on top & bottom of the image and a 16:9"FULL" that actually widens the image format but "compresses" it in a true anamorphic format on to the tape. If played back on a real 16:9 TV the image becomes normal.
I made 2 film clips:
CLIP 1 shows all 3 formats at one clip without expanding the 16:9 FULL ANAMORPHIC.
All clips and pictures use common 240 pix height but alternatively 320 or 427 pix width.
The below sample pict is a frame from a 2x expanded movie to see if the ANAMF setup make the image quality drop but it seem not to be very different horisontally from the vertical axis.
cool, that is indeed wider. are you sure you didn't change zoom out or something? most cameras crop and stretch instead of expand and compress when selecting 16:9 anamorphic, giving you the exact same area and resolution as the letterboxed version. what model is it that you have?
Is it just my computer or are the photos covering some of the text in the post? I see this all the time on this forum and it drives me to distraction. Why do these photos end up all over the place? I posted some a few weeks back and found that by previewing I could tell if the photos would cover someone else's message or not. If it does, all you have to do is keep inserting returns after the photos and the box will enlarge to accomodate any size photo. Try using the preview next time you post photos so they don't stack up.
Its just your computer :-) It looks fine to me, but that doesnt mean anything, you have to love companies like microsoft that refuse to abide by standards and don't care about compatibility because they think everyone should just be using their products (when their products arent even compatible with each other), okay my ranting is a bit off topic, but maybe you can see how it applies.
mattias wrote:cool, that is indeed wider. are you sure you didn't change zoom out or something? most cameras crop and stretch instead of expand and compress when selecting 16:9 anamorphic, giving you the exact same area and resolution as the letterboxed version. what model is it that you have?
/matt
All takes were shot sequencially at full wide zoom with the cam on a tripod without changing or moving anything but the software setup for the format. So what you see is what there is.
The cam model is a "low-end" Sony Hi8 CCD-TR840E with, unfortunately no manual exposure control making it totally useless for DIY S8 transfer!.
(Actually it was this model, as far as I know, that were famously capable of "undressing" people in "night shot" mode on early models. Sony modified this when it became apparent. Mine is too new.)
MovieStuff wrote:Is it just my computer or are the photos covering some of the text in the post? I see this all the time on this forum and it drives me to distraction. Why do these photos end up all over the place? I posted some a few weeks back and found that by previewing I could tell if the photos would cover someone else's message or not. If it does, all you have to do is keep inserting returns after the photos and the box will enlarge to accomodate any size photo. Try using the preview next time you post photos so they don't stack up.
Roger
It is most likely your computer and even more so if you use an old version of Netscape. I think I always use the return tab after inserting an image line. I will double check anyway. TNX.
General.
Microsoft are accused for sabotaging Netscape Browser on Wintel platforms too:
Why Host on a Macintosh?
Apple Facts with Sources
Parts of this document were compiled by a colleague and posted on the WebSTAR mailing list. The list has been added to and converted to HTML for display on the Internet by Paul Didzerekis of Three Rivers Internet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security:
Microsoft secret password could allow access to Web sites - Microsoft said its engineers included a secret password using the phrase "Netscape engineers are weenies!" in Web site authoring software that could allow hackers to gain unauthorized access to potentially thousands of Web sites.
The password back door was included in software by one or more Microsoft engineers, the company confirmed. Hackers knowing how to exploit the vulnerability could access any site using FrontPage 98 extensions, Microsoft said. FrontPage, a Web authoring and site management software package, requires that special software code--or extensions--be present on the Web site for all features to be available.
(April 14, 2000) http://home.cnet.com/category/0-1003-200-1696137.html
I do not know however.
I always liked the Nestcape on the MAC up to the "6" which had an extremely big potential but were too slow and totally unreliable on my MACanyway. I think it is famous for flaws.
Now the "7" is out but i have not dared to test it yet. Do not know any details for the PCs.
S8 Booster wrote:
I always liked the Nestcape on the MAC up to the "6" which had an extremely big potential but were too slow and totally unreliable on my MACanyway. I think it is famous for flaws.
that would be 6.0 i guess. 6.1 (i think) is very stable and a lot faster than ie (so is 6.0 as a matter of fact, but it feels slower because the interface has a slight and very annoying lag time on every user action). i use mozilla and it's even better, of course since it's the same as netscape but half a year ahead...
S8 Booster wrote:
I always liked the Nestcape on the MAC up to the "6" which had an extremely big potential but were too slow and totally unreliable on my MACanyway. I think it is famous for flaws.
that would be 6.0 i guess. 6.1 (i think) is very stable and a lot faster than ie (so is 6.0 as a matter of fact, but it feels slower because the interface has a slight and very annoying lag time on every user action). i use mozilla and it's even better, of course since it's the same as netscape but half a year ahead...
/matt
I started off with the 6.0 (bad) and upgraded to 6.1 (a liiiiittle better to me) and then I tried 6.2 which would not even install on my OSX even though carbonated I think.
Mozilla, tnx for the suggestion. Whereabout to get?
Correction: Downloaded/installed: First impression: Very good. TNX
