Damn you, Survivor!!

[Ritz]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:15:07 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> | (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> |> | MPEG2 means you CANNOT edit the footage frame by frame.
> |>
> |> Sure you can.
> |
> | Although you are correct here, it's merely the "blind squirrel" syndrome.
>
> I see you can't miss any opportunity to make a personal attack, even
> when YOU know I am right.


Oh please. You're simply wrong. HDV is easily edited if you've got the
correct tool for the job. Don't believe me? Go to your nearest Apple
store and fire up the latest version of Final Cut Pro and edit away. So
while I find your other points interesting in a very tangental way, they
aren't germain to the original claim you made...which was that HDV
cameras don't produce editable content. That is clearly false.

Best regards,

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> |> Just because the number of stored bits per frame varies
> |> does not prevent frame-accurate editing. It just requires more work on
> |> the part of the software. One possible approach is to pre-index the
> |> HDV file to find where all the frame positions actually are, and store
> |> that information as an index file.
> |
> | Finding the frame isn't the issue. As I keep saying:
>
> Actually, there aren't any real issues at all.

Then, why did you post blather about finding the frame being the only part
you see as harder than on DV? Especially when there really are much more
difficult issues to solve (although obviously they have been solved by many
software developers).

> If you think there are other issues,

I know there are other issues, as there *are* editors that can't handle
MPEG-2 at frame level and generate clean edits. But, it's just not my job to
educate you anymore. It's up to get off you own lazy ass and do it yourself.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/VelveetaAndRotel.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:53:42 -0400 Ritz <ritz@mordor.net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:15:07 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
|> | (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> |> | MPEG2 means you CANNOT edit the footage frame by frame.
|> |>
|> |> Sure you can.
|> |
|> | Although you are correct here, it's merely the "blind squirrel" syndrome.
|>
|> I see you can't miss any opportunity to make a personal attack, even
|> when YOU know I am right.
|
|
| Oh please. You're simply wrong. HDV is easily edited if you've got the
| correct tool for the job. Don't believe me? Go to your nearest Apple
| store and fire up the latest version of Final Cut Pro and edit away. So
| while I find your other points interesting in a very tangental way, they
| aren't germain to the original claim you made...which was that HDV
| cameras don't produce editable content. That is clearly false.

Either:

1. You didn't read the whole thread carefully

-or-

2. You intended the followup be to Ryan Lago's post, but clicked in the
wrong place.

If you take a careful look, you can see that both Jeff and I refuted
the statement by Ryan Lago <ryan.lago@hotmail.com> that HDV content
is non-editable. So either read the thread, or be careful where you
hit/click for a followup.

Any content that can be captured into a computer can be edited if the
right software is there (or is developed).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Ritz]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
> Either:
>
> 1. You didn't read the whole thread carefully
>
> -or-
>
> 2. You intended the followup be to Ryan Lago's post, but clicked in the
> wrong place.
>
> If you take a careful look, you can see that both Jeff and I refuted
> the statement by Ryan Lago <ryan.lago@hotmail.com> that HDV content
> is non-editable. So either read the thread, or be careful where you
> hit/click for a followup.
>
> Any content that can be captured into a computer can be edited if the
> right software is there (or is developed).


Ah...If I mistakenly attributed that comment to the wrong person, I am
sorry.

Cheers,

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> If you take a careful look, you can see that both Jeff and I refuted
> the statement by Ryan Lago <ryan.lago@hotmail.com> that HDV content
> is non-editable. So either read the thread, or be careful where you
> hit/click for a followup.

He did read the thread. Nowhere did you provide any proof that HDV was
actually editable at the frame level. I, however, did (by specifying the
editors that have that capability).

You merely rambled about some stuff, and got lucky on your 50/50 guess.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/BabyBlues/OnTheRemote.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Larry Bud wrote:
> First ep of Survivor was on last night, AGAIN not recorded in HD.
> It's a PERFECT venue for HD, out in the jungle/ocean and a couple of
> hot babes.

There needs to be some crime taking place on the show. Then they'll send in
the "COPS" (music "Bad Boys" starts playing) and THEN it will be in HD.

;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:40:42 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> If you take a careful look, you can see that both Jeff and I refuted
|> the statement by Ryan Lago <ryan.lago@hotmail.com> that HDV content
|> is non-editable. So either read the thread, or be careful where you
|> hit/click for a followup.
|
| He did read the thread. Nowhere did you provide any proof that HDV was
| actually editable at the frame level. I, however, did (by specifying the
| editors that have that capability).

If the HDV file can be capture/loaded in a computer, then a computer can
edit it if someone develops the software (with appropriate codec) to do
so. There is nothing about HDV, or any other video-in-a-file format, that
can preclude that. So it's not an issue of proving that HDV is editable,
but rather, it is an issue of understanding that HDV is a digital format
and that any digital format can be edited with appropriate software.


| You merely rambled about some stuff, and got lucky on your 50/50 guess.

You just can't stand it that you have been unable to post any evidence
that I have ever been wrong. You've only been able to twist what was
said so you could make some kind of statement that might look good on
its own, but doesn't apply to my statemens ... and make personal attacks,
which does not show any skill or intelligence on your part.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <dgl5od013bm@news2.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
wrote:

> If the HDV file can be capture/loaded in a computer, then a computer can
> edit it if someone develops the software (with appropriate codec) to do
> so. There is nothing about HDV, or any other video-in-a-file format, that
> can preclude that. So it's not an issue of proving that HDV is editable,
> but rather, it is an issue of understanding that HDV is a digital format
> and that any digital format can be edited with appropriate software.

Which exists today.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> So it's not an issue of proving that HDV is editable,
> but rather, it is an issue of understanding that HDV is a digital format
> and that any digital format can be edited with appropriate software.

This, of course, is untrue.

It is possible to design a video format that cannot be edited with software.
It wouldn't be a bright thing to do, but it's possible.

> | You merely rambled about some stuff, and got lucky on your 50/50 guess.
>
> You just can't stand it that you have been unable to post any evidence
> that I have ever been wrong.

Everybody here has seen all the evidence that you are constantly wrong.
You're the only one who doesn't see it.

Of course, if you continue to start every one of your posts with "It's
possible", "Maybe", "Possibly", "My speculation is", etc., then, yes, you'll
always be able to wiggle out. You will continue to offer nothing useful
to the rest of the world, but at least you will never be definitively wrong
(or right). How terrible it must be to require such re-assurance in
everything you do. I'm truly sorry for you.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/FoxTrot/Blackboard.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:26:52 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> |> Just because the number of stored bits per frame varies
|> |> does not prevent frame-accurate editing. It just requires more work on
|> |> the part of the software. One possible approach is to pre-index the
|> |> HDV file to find where all the frame positions actually are, and store
|> |> that information as an index file.
|> |
|> | Finding the frame isn't the issue. As I keep saying:
|>
|> Actually, there aren't any real issues at all.
|
| Then, why did you post blather about finding the frame being the only part
| you see as harder than on DV? Especially when there really are much more
| difficult issues to solve (although obviously they have been solved by many
| software developers).

I was trying to speculate where the notion that HDV could not be edited
came from.

You think there are more difficult issues to solve? Yet you fail to list
any. I think you really don't know of any issues at all because you do
not understand HDV, computers, or how editors work.


|> If you think there are other issues,
|
| I know there are other issues, as there *are* editors that can't handle
| MPEG-2 at frame level and generate clean edits. But, it's just not my job to
| educate you anymore. It's up to get off you own lazy ass and do it yourself.

If some editor can't do a clean job of editing some particular format, it
is not an issue of the format itself, but rather, and issue with the editor.
If you can list an editor by name that does a bad job with MPEG-2, then I
can list an editor by name that is poorly developed software.

Since you failed to list even one such editor, maybe none exist. Or maybe
there are some, but you don't know which they are.

I don't give a damn whether there are any such bad editors or not, or which
ones they are. I'm not going to do your research for you (in case you might
want to know the list).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I was trying to speculate

Yes, we know. You don't know anything, but you still seem to be able
to post ad nauseam.

> You think there are more difficult issues to solve? Yet you fail to list
> any.

Yes, it is not my job to educate you anymore. You must get off your
lazy ass and do it yourself.

> I think you really don't know of any issues at all because you do
> not understand HDV, computers, or how editors work.

It is not my job to educate you anymore. You must get off your lazy ass
and do it yourself.

> If some editor can't do a clean job of editing some particular format, it
> is not an issue of the format itself, but rather, and issue with the editor.

If you understood how MPEG-2 worked, you would know why clean frame-level
editing is difficult to do, but other edits are easy, and why it is not
an issue with the editor.

> Since you failed to list even one such editor, maybe none exist. Or maybe
> there are some, but you don't know which they are.

It is not my job to educate you anymore. You must get off your lazy ass
and do it yourself.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/FoxTrot/GutterBall.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:46:24 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> So it's not an issue of proving that HDV is editable,
|> but rather, it is an issue of understanding that HDV is a digital format
|> and that any digital format can be edited with appropriate software.
|
| This, of course, is untrue.
|
| It is possible to design a video format that cannot be edited with software.
| It wouldn't be a bright thing to do, but it's possible.

I hereby challenge you to do so. To be a complete format implementation,
it must have at minimum a defintion of the format such that raw video can
be encoded into the format, and the format can be decoded into raw video.
By raw video, a sequency of uncompressed frames in some common pixel
sampling form is adequate.


|> | You merely rambled about some stuff, and got lucky on your 50/50 guess.
|>
|> You just can't stand it that you have been unable to post any evidence
|> that I have ever been wrong.
|
| Everybody here has seen all the evidence that you are constantly wrong.
| You're the only one who doesn't see it.

Since you have only posted twistings of what I say, that's all they have
been able to see, besides reading what I actually say (which you don't
seem to do ... others might be doing that).


| Of course, if you continue to start every one of your posts with "It's
| possible", "Maybe", "Possibly", "My speculation is", etc., then, yes, you'll
| always be able to wiggle out. You will continue to offer nothing useful
| to the rest of the world, but at least you will never be definitively wrong
| (or right). How terrible it must be to require such re-assurance in
| everything you do. I'm truly sorry for you.

I'll try that out:

It's possible to implement an editor for the format you think you can
create that can't be edited.

Maybe you will never be able to be specific when you make assertions hat
someon eis wrong about something.

My speculation is none of this will ever help your closed mind.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <1126875036.802886.280680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Larry Bud <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
>First ep of Survivor was on last night, AGAIN not recorded in HD. It's
>a PERFECT venue for HD, out in the jungle/ocean and a couple of hot
>babes.
>

I often have the same complaint about The Amazing Race. While it
will not be practical to have HD cameras everywhere, these "location"
shows should _at_least_ be shooting DVD-type widescreen (anamorphic
480p), with occasional excursions to HD at specific venues where
it is possible. The broadcast, of course, would be in CBS's HD
format regardless of the source material.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:51:55 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> I was trying to speculate
|
| Yes, we know. You don't know anything, but you still seem to be able
| to post ad nauseam.

I did not know what the original poster was thinking and did not include
in his post. It's perfectly valid to speculate and then answer from that
speculation. If the speculation was good, the first answer is usable.

Of course, this is a concept beyond your comprehension.


|> You think there are more difficult issues to solve? Yet you fail to list
|> any.
|
| Yes, it is not my job to educate you anymore. You must get off your
| lazy ass and do it yourself.

We obviously have a difference of opinion on whether any issues exist. I
think none (at least not real ones) exist. I speculation (I got the idea
to use that work from you) that you'll never be able to actually discuss
anything specific.


|> I think you really don't know of any issues at all because you do
|> not understand HDV, computers, or how editors work.
|
| It is not my job to educate you anymore. You must get off your lazy ass
| and do it yourself.

I'm still willing to educate you. But you must get off your lazy ass and
do the reading and think about what is said.


|> If some editor can't do a clean job of editing some particular format, it
|> is not an issue of the format itself, but rather, and issue with the editor.
|
| If you understood how MPEG-2 worked, you would know why clean frame-level
| editing is difficult to do, but other edits are easy, and why it is not
| an issue with the editor.

I understand how MPEG-2 works (note that I am not using past tense).
Difficulty is in the eye of the beholder. You are a difficult person, so
now I understand why you think things are difficult.


|> Since you failed to list even one such editor, maybe none exist. Or maybe
|> there are some, but you don't know which they are.
|
| It is not my job to educate you anymore. You must get off your lazy ass
| and do it yourself.

You were the one that made the assertion about editors, so it is your
responsibility to list the editors, if you want to give your statements
better credence. It is not my responsibility to do the research to
support your arguments, even if I happen to agree with them.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------