So i woke up this morning and i check my site and i notice a lot of new commenters and people joining the forums lately and i was thinking “Hmm. Where the hell are all these new people coming from??” And then i jokingly thought “Probably from New Orleans“.
Laugh out loud.
And then i went to check my e-mail and i got this:
—————
To: psykotik@gmail.com
Subject: radio show in New Orleans plugging your site
From: “Brian Nolan”
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:58:24 -0600
Drop me a line- there’s a radio show in New Orleans plugging your site – you really ought to call into the show and take a bow
—————
Hahaha. What are the chances of that happening again? I’m assuming it’s the same station that plugged the site when i had the Paris Hilton video links up?
Speaking of Paris Hilton:
—————
To: psykotik@gmail.com
Subject: hi can u help
From: Martinijim1@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:05:06 EST
hey there . how do i sign up on your web site so i can down load the pairs video. It would be cool if you could help me out .
laters
j.
—————
Dear unfortunate AOL subscriber.
You don’t need to sign up for fubar, it’s free! And you can still get the Paris videos over here. One of those links should still be working.
I think you must be like the only person on earth who hasn’t seen the Paris tape. That thing is like soooo November 2003.
Anyhow, that aside, i’m a little bit pissed about the widescreen Terminator 3 DVD. I really hope none of you actually bought the WS version because you really are getting ripped off.
Normally, i’d be the first person to tell you that widescreen is ALWAYS better than fullscreen (other wise known as FOOLSCREEN or PAN & SCAM) because with WS, you’re actually getting more picture than you would with FS.
It always pains me to see people picking up FS versions of movies whenever i’m over at BestBuy or whatever. Makes me want to slap them upside the head with the WS copy. And believe it or not, there have been cases where people accidently bought the WS version of a movie only to return it complaining about how their DVD is ‘broken’ because there are black bars at the top and bottom of their TV screen.
*head slap*
I’m not going to bore you with all the details of why widescreen is better than fullscreen. But if you don’t already know, you can go have a look and see for yourselves.
Which brings me to the ‘widescreen’ version of T3.
My god its a crime to cut those boobs out of a shot!
#1 | Comment by bligityblah — December 4, 2003 @ 12:49 pm
I just watched my T3 DVD. What the FUCK!!!
#2 | Comment by Alejandro — December 4, 2003 @ 1:09 pm
WTF?
Why don’t they just sell WS and FS on one DVD? Oh wait, that’s right they want to milk us for every dollar we’re worth.
So what was the T3 version that was in theaters? Was it the ‘real’ WS, or was it the WS that’s on the WS DVD?
#3 | Comment by bill — December 4, 2003 @ 1:50 pm
man…aint it a bitch?
did you buy the REAL movie or just a bootleg?
if it was a bootleg, then what the hell does it matter?
#4 | Comment by radish01001 — December 4, 2003 @ 3:08 pm
I always pick up the widescreen version of movies, even though i don’t yet own a widescreen television…(Anyone wanna donate to my fund??) Those black bars are annoying at the beginning but once you get into the movie you don’t even notice them…
Damn Kristanna Loken is hot…Have you guys seen her fhm shoot??
Later…
#5 | Comment by blinkaddict720 — December 4, 2003 @ 3:11 pm
conspiracy
#6 | Comment by stacia — December 4, 2003 @ 3:16 pm
Actually it’s a film that’s shot in Super35.. 35mm film came about partly to address the whole fullscreen/widescreen scenario. Basically what 35mm does is shoot the thing fullscreen… but they only show the widescreen rectangle in theatres and usually the director only looks at the shot within the rectangle and they just ignore the rest (depending on the director I know that James Cameron actually prefers 4:3)…
This way the director can still shoot it widescreen, but the idiot people at home can "fill" their screen.. and the studios can sell more dvd’s with less complaints.
A lot of really commercial films are like that now.. I think AirForceOne and Back to the Future just to name a few..
#7 | Comment by AlphaPrimal — December 4, 2003 @ 3:36 pm
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/widescreenorama.html
For a more in-depth description of AspectRatios and Super35
#8 | Comment by AlphaPrimal — December 4, 2003 @ 3:38 pm
btw, how was the simple life? heard it was pretty good.
#9 | Comment by Justin — December 4, 2003 @ 5:03 pm
tis true. the fullscreen version of titanic actually has more picture than the widescreen version. well, more hats and feet anyway. they’re mostly cropped off in the widescreen version.
just pisses me off that the ‘widescreen’ version of t3 (and several select movies) isn’t really widescreen.
then again it’s not like it really matters since the bootleg of t3 that i bought only cost me like US$2. hehe. but i feel alejandro’s pain though.
i always try to buy widescreen whenever possible. even though i dont have a widescreen tv. but hey, my powerbook g4 is sorta widescreen. watching anamorphic army of darkness on my g4 is awesome. takes up like 99% of the entire screen. someday, when i’m rich enough, i’m gonna get one of those apple mac cinema display screen thingys. good god. movies would rule on that thing. but watching movies on a computer is gay. so it’s either that or a proper HDTV thing. somedayyyyyyy..
#10 | Comment by Justin — December 4, 2003 @ 5:04 pm
Justin – Simple Life is actually fucking stupid. The FOX editors have the same problem as usual. They opt for quick intercut pics/voices/clips lapping over and over. The end result is you getting 1/2 secs of disconnected words or images thrown together.
They were trying to show how funny it was that the two girls were not doing the work they were supposed to (bottling milk) but instead, they were hiding the bottles, and the humor of the thing was cut out with the overlapping images.
That problem is even worse with trying to ‘enjoy’ Paris (way too thin) body. You can’t get a look at her before another image is on the screen.
Lame.
#11 | Comment by smash — December 4, 2003 @ 5:08 pm
Maybe your bootleg was matted wrong? Or, my own personal explanation for all things T3, "Cameron wasn’t involved, hence everything about it -barring Kristanna Loken’s breasts- blew ass." And now you’re being deprived of them, too.
Honestly, I have no idea why they decided to zoom the matting -although it probably has something to do with trying to preserve some semblance of the framing as it was in its foolscreen counterpart. But the only other time I’ve ever seen something like this happen on a DVD was Cruel Intentions, which you can probably pick up for under ten bucks. For some odd reason, they shot it in Academy Standard and then matted it in post-process.
When I was working at my last movie theater, we would occasionally get unmatted 1.85:1 prints (didn’t have the black bars for framing) and so it was sheer guesswork on getting the picture centered. What was even better was framing a 2.35 non-anamorphic print, which meant that you had to center the 2.35 in the middle of the 1.85 area. Basically, they cheated during the production and didn’t want to shoot anamorphic. And I can understand that, because if you want to shoot anamorphic, the best picture quality comes from shooting something like Super 35. …
I just realized that I’m getting into a college-level film lecture, here, and I should’ve started getting paid about two sentences ago, so I’m just going to stop now.
#12 | Comment by Umgawa — December 4, 2003 @ 5:49 pm
But, since AlphaPrimal brought up Super 35, the best reason to shoot a picture like T3 on Super 35 is because the lens doesn’t compress the film-image toward the center of the stock, as would be the case in anamorphic shooting. If you want proof of that, then you’ll just have to find yourself a 2.35 anamorphic piece of film (like a trailer or something) and look at it with a magnifying glass, or find a way to mount it in a slide projector. The image is literally "squished" to the center of the frame, and the projecting lens blows it back to its appropriate 2.35 ratio.
This is why Frankenheimer loved Super 35 (Ronin’s a good example, Reindeer Games is a bad example) and why Daredevil (though I loathe it for the same reason as Reindeer Games) was shot Super 35. It’s popular for all of the same reasons why VistaVision cameras became popular again after Lucas shot Star Wars, but Super 35 is infinitely easier to come by. And, if you were educated by these comments, feel free to donate money to me, because my chest is too hairy for me to be a successful cam-girl.
#13 | Comment by Umgawa — December 4, 2003 @ 5:57 pm
nah, my bootleg was the fake original copy of the widescreen version of t3 (if that makes any sense). it wasn’t like a crappy cinema shot bootleg or anything. so yeah, it was framed correctly. how they wanted it to be at least; in ‘fake’ widescreen.
i actually have cruel intentions on dvd. and if i remember correctly, it has both fullscreen and widescreen on one disc. never bothered to check out the fullscreen version though. maybe i will. just to see what i’m missing.
actually no wait. maybe i should check out the fullscreen version of body shots instead (i have that too and it’s got both ws and fs on one disc). i’ll probably get to see more of tara reid’s breasts that way.
i think princess bride was shot open matte. the first barebones release on dvd had both fake widescreen and open matte fullscreen. not sure about the special edition though. probably just fake widescreen. i’d check but i left my special edition in michigan.
#14 | Comment by Justin — December 4, 2003 @ 6:07 pm
holy shit. i do get to see more of tara reid’s breasts in fullscreen body shots.
muahaha.
open matte = more breasts
#15 | Comment by Justin — December 4, 2003 @ 7:12 pm
Woh.. bodyshots fs here we come :p .. this site might start living up to the title ‘masturbatory heaven’ after all (hint,hint Justin) 🙂
#16 | Comment by Lock — December 4, 2003 @ 7:50 pm
The Simple Life is getting huge ratings. I think the ratings are so high because of the paris sex video. The show is mildly ammusing, at least the first episode had some funny stuff. The second was not as good, but the coming attractions show her getting into some tongue locks with the local yocals so there is at least the tease of some sexual innuendo.
Does anyone beside me believe that the sex video was released purposely to help this show get more ratings? I wonder if when the ratings start to drop, will the threesome video suddenly appear on the internet?
#17 | Comment by Scott — December 4, 2003 @ 9:56 pm
THE ONLY THING THAT SUCKS ABOUT WIDE SCREEN IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A PLASMA TV AND THE MOVIE IS REEEAAAALLLYYY LONG THE BLACK BARS CAN GET BURNED INTO YOUR SCREEN PERMANENTLY. RIGHT NOW I HAVE A TNT LOGO IN MY CORNER CAUSE OF A OT SIXERS GAME
#18 | Comment by HOMERJDOH — December 4, 2003 @ 10:09 pm
Does porn sell WS and FS versions of the same movie?
#19 | Comment by Shifty McNutz — December 4, 2003 @ 11:03 pm
back "in the early days of dvds" one of the selling points was the ability to have both FS and WS on the same disc – almost all of them were 2 sided, so you’d buy one DVD and you’d be able to watch whichever version you preferred just by flipping it over.
but, it seems as DVDs have gotten more popular, studio execs found that to be too expensive to produce, and it’s cheaper to provide one format, and cover the other side of the disc with pretty art.
not sure if it actually WAS a cost thing or not, but the majority of the first DVDs were two-sided in this manner.
#20 | Comment by highfructose — December 5, 2003 @ 1:06 am
Yeah, like the RIAA is all about studio’s participating in cost based pricing. I mean there is all kinds of good reasons VHS should cost $14, right?
#21 | Comment by bligityblah — December 5, 2003 @ 2:53 am
I am from New Orleans and I just signed up yesterday to the site… Not because I heard it on the radio, although I think I know what station youre talking about (106.7 The End). Thought that was pretty cool… New Orleans got a plug 🙂
#22 | Comment by Angie — December 5, 2003 @ 4:18 am
Paris Hilton has two non-porn movies (yes, she’s acting) and a CD coming out in 2004. I never thought I’d say this about a girl, but she needs to gain some weight. Her ass is flat.
#23 | Comment by grud — December 5, 2003 @ 4:40 am
grud-
I agree Paris Hilton is a little to thin she needs some protein … & after seeing her "short film" she looks like she wouldn’t have a problem "pumping" it out !!! :)~
#24 | Comment by freddy — December 5, 2003 @ 5:02 am
Did you guys ever hear about paris hilton before her tapes? I’m not from the states and she was like totally unknown over here, but now everyone thinks she’s a porn star or something over here.. LOL!
#25 | Comment by WP — December 5, 2003 @ 7:45 am
Sadly Paris was all over the news just because daddy has billions and she is a camera whore. You can actually see it in the video.
#26 | Comment by bligityblah — December 5, 2003 @ 8:19 am
I thought The Simple Life was boring…
Fox announced today that it has renewed the show for a second season.
Rumor has it that Liza Minelli has agreed to be on the show and will be Pecan farming somewhere in the Rural South…
#27 | Comment by cujo — December 5, 2003 @ 9:15 am
i know this is a bit off topic but i have a question for anyone who might know….anyone know anywhere to find the Pamela Anderson-Tommy Lee video? I’ve seen bits and pieces but never actually had the pleasure of viewing the entire video and i’ll be damned if I’m going to pay money for it 🙂
#28 | Comment by jason — December 5, 2003 @ 10:27 am
Jason-
Try a product like Bearshare, Morpheus, WinMX. Then search on tommy lee or pam andersen You’ll find the video no problem.
#29 | Comment by smash — December 5, 2003 @ 10:32 am
Hey man, love the site, its like my online bible. Great stuff you got goin on here.
#30 | Comment by PsYbLaZe — December 5, 2003 @ 12:53 pm
WS sucks all they do is give you the edge of the shot where nothing is happeining and half the time as you have found cut the bottom off all the action, Ill still by FS even when I have a WS TV. I also hate the black bars so
#31 | Comment by Shatylle — December 5, 2003 @ 2:25 pm
Shatylle…you are an idiot.
Go read the digital bits WS/FS review:
—
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/widescreenorama.html
For a more in-depth description of AspectRatios and Super35
Posted by AlphaPrimal – 3:38pm December 4, 2003
—
Maybe then you’ll understand why WS does NOT suck.
#32 | Comment by smash — December 5, 2003 @ 6:09 pm
Um, Shat (appropriate shortening), you do realize that when you get a Widescreen TV, if you keep going for the foolscreen versions of movies, you won’t get bars at the top and bottom of your screen. … and that’s good, because you don’t like black bars on the top and bottom. What’s bad, silly rabbit, is that YOU’LL GET THEM ON THE FUCKING SIDES!
Okay, directors shoot widescreen, because that’s how they want to shoot it. If they wanted to shoot at a 1.33 to 1 ratio, they would. Fuck, Kubrick did it with The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut. The guy may have been talented, but he was a fucking lunatic; just look at Eyes Wide Shut. Greatest filmmaker in the world, my ass. The only thing that could’ve made that movie worse would’ve been Affleck.
#33 | Comment by Umgawa — December 5, 2003 @ 7:25 pm
WP, bligity is absolutely correct. Paris and her sister Nikki have been all over the US media for a couple of years. The only reason is that their family is filthy rich and they hit all the hot night clubs and hang out with and fuck celebs.
What’s been fucked up is that when they were both under legal drinking age, they would come out of clubs obviously drunk off their ass and be photographed and videoed. Then they would get in a car and DRIVE away. You can do whatever the hell you want to in this country if you have money. Unless you’re Michael Jackson….but that’s another rant.
#34 | Comment by grud — December 6, 2003 @ 3:27 am
While everyone is on the subject.. I thought I’d plug this one site (no I have no connection to it) for those of us who aren’t able to run down to the bootleg store for our DVDs 😛
Anyway – http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com – is about the cheapest site on the Internet for DVDs that I’ve found.
#35 | Comment by zant — December 6, 2003 @ 5:23 am
I just checked prices there, seems just the opposite of a discount store.
#36 | Comment by bligityblah — December 6, 2003 @ 5:44 am
Hrm. Well, looking around, seems like it isn’t cheaper on everything. I found it about an hour before I posted that here and for the stuff I was looking at (mostly anime) it was cheaper. Meh, one more place for me to check whenever I want to buy stuff I guess.
#37 | Comment by zant — December 6, 2003 @ 12:22 pm
Yeah, anime’s kind of a niche market, so a lot of places charge retail on the majority of it. Oh, sure, you can find something like the Cowboy Bebop movie for under twenty bucks or the special edition of Akira for fifteen, but good fucking luck finding the box set of Genesis Climber Mospeada for under seventy.
Actually, that’s about all the anime I know, because tentacle-porn just doesn’t appeal to me. Those girls seem WAY too happy to be getting unwillingly invaded by plants.
#38 | Comment by Umgawa — December 6, 2003 @ 12:46 pm
has anyone played space channel 5 pt. 2 yet? pick it up for the PS2 if you have the chance. it’s only like 15 bucks. anyhow, at one point, a giant plant boss who’s captured the space president, uses its slimy tentacles to grab ulala, who coos, "Oooooohhh, not there!"
(but naturally, she frees herself unprodded.)
darn.
#39 | Comment by Justin — December 6, 2003 @ 1:27 pm
I just got finished watching "The last Samurai", it was one of the greatest movies I have ever seen. I know this is not related to the current topic but I had to give everyone who hasnt seen it a hedz up, it is awesome. Alot of people said they wouldnt watch it because Tom Cruise doesnt fit the part, but I will tell you he did a pretty good damn job. Justin, if you get this bootleg, send it too me PLEASE. I own alot of karate, wu-tang, and samurai movies…this movie matches up.
MaGeStY
TrU2BeaU@aol.com
#40 | Comment by MaGeSTy — December 6, 2003 @ 4:03 pm
hehe. it should probably be out on vcd in the next coupla days. and on dvd by next week or so. i’ll wait for the dvd.
#41 | Comment by Justin — December 6, 2003 @ 6:52 pm
bah. Its all just a waste of time.
#42 | Comment by moofinz — December 6, 2003 @ 7:03 pm
Tom Cruise is a waste of time period, and I won’t watch that movie, and WS is still the biggest crock I have ever seen and sadly if you want a really good big tv you have to buy it in WS format, next they will start selling you guys EXTRA WS "Get up to an inch more picture for only $3 more" "Warning, this inch will contain apsolutly nothing of relivance or interest to the film and has only been included because people where foolish enough to buy our last extra inch in the WS version"
#43 | Comment by Shatylle — December 7, 2003 @ 2:17 am
I seriously can’t believe anyone is actually THAT fucking retarded… (reference all of Shatylle’s above posts, and potentially on other threads as well) Honestly, I think that all discs should be Widescreen on one side and Fullscreen on the other. But, on the Fullscreen side, the director occasionally chimes into the soundtrack, "You are a fucking idiot. You dumb monkey-fuck. Why don’t you just go back to sucking off Leonard Maltin?" That sort of thing. Because, if you’re going to watch a movie in Fullscreen, the director at least ought to be allowed to insult you for thinking you know more than he does about how a film should look.
Anyway, for Justin and Bubba and anyone else who might care, I’ve just fired off another marathon posting, and now I’m going to bed before I totally crack and continue my director’s comments in Shatylle’s direction. That dude is fucking clown-shoes.
#44 | Comment by Umgawa — December 7, 2003 @ 4:29 am
ok. Just a quick chime-in.
A. Shatylle is a dumbass. But then again, the name pretty much says that already.
B. WS allows the picture to be composed in a more artistically pleasing ratio. Not to mention that we "naturally" see a "rectangle" of sight, not a square fucking box.
And before anyone chimes in with some uneducated hill-billy comment about the "artistic ratio" being a crock of shit, there’s research that backs it up, so don’t even bother. I was just too lazy to look it up.
#45 | Comment by sexcrazedweasel — December 7, 2003 @ 8:29 am
I think the simplest thing to do is to refer people to a movie theatre. IT’S FUCKING WIDESCREEN.
And, I’m going to see The Last Samurai fairly soon, as I’m a fan of, uh, samurais. I just hope that Tom Cruise isn’t "the last samurai." I hate stories where the white foreigner goes into a land and changes things/saves the day/etc. But I can’t judge before I see it.
#46 | Comment by zant — December 7, 2003 @ 1:55 pm
I’m just gonna chime in here on this whole debacle. I personally don’t mind fullscreen or widescreen it’s all about directors choice.
But what I DO mind is non-OAR(Original Aspect Ratio). A movie should be shown the way it was intended and originally done. Movies are art. Just like paintings or music… and for people to prefer a fullscreen version of a widescreen film just boggles my mind. It’s like wanting to hang a Monet painting on your wall, but you cut the canvas so that it fits in a specific size spot. And the fact that people continue to buy up fullscreen versions of widescreen movies (et vice-versa) is just a travesty. It really should be outlawed, just on the basis of preservation of art.
#47 | Comment by AlphaPrimal — December 7, 2003 @ 2:21 pm
AHHHH new post!
#48 | Comment by radish01001 — December 8, 2003 @ 6:30 am
are action films art?
#49 | Comment by bligityblah — December 8, 2003 @ 8:45 am
Better question.
Are porn flicks art?
#50 | Comment by sexcrazedweasel — December 8, 2003 @ 11:57 am
toss up on that one.
#51 | Comment by bligityblah — December 8, 2003 @ 12:53 pm
Either everthing is art or nothing is art thats the only way to go.
Now I will give you the simplest reason why WS dousn’t work (except theaters which I am not arguing about) look at the banner above and try to look at Amanda’s face and the other girl on the far ends face at the same time, now they must both be in focus in your mind not just blurs. Then sit and think about how much of you great wide screen you are actually watching during your DVD
#52 | Comment by Shatylle — December 8, 2003 @ 1:41 pm
That would be a valid argument if wide-screen televisions/DVDs had a ratio of about twice what they do.
You fail, try again.
#53 | Comment by zant — December 8, 2003 @ 2:13 pm
Furthermore, it’s not like everything in the frame is in focus, anyway, since that’s just the nature of photography. Some things will be in focus and some things will be out of focus. It’s not your eyes that cause that effect, it’s the lens and the photographer, who decides on that.
Anyway, it’s really, REALLY hard to play with composition of a frame in a 1.33 ratio. Dutch angles just don’t work as well, and the whole concept of negative space is completely impossible to work with, since any character in the frame likely takes up at least half of it, anyway.
Shat, at the very least, before you go spouting off like you know ANYTHING, at least read the latest version of Gianetti’s "Understanding Movies," and then you can come back and bitch to us on OUR level. Thanks. 🙂
#54 | Comment by Umgawa — December 8, 2003 @ 4:43 pm
I dont like widescreen either… But that’s just my opinion. I dont know about the ratios or whatnot. I just dont like it.
#55 | Comment by Angie — December 9, 2003 @ 1:58 am
I just love this site 🙂 As a Kristanna fan, I am pissed I can’t buy the fullscreen in pal (in Norway). If I knew about this "fake" fullscreen I would never have purchased it. I just hope they include the fullscreen version in the upcoming UE T3 DVD.
#56 | Comment by Kristanna_com — December 14, 2003 @ 11:20 am
Ok, tell me which of these statements you disagree with about a
normal human eye, operating normally.
1) Each eye produces a circular image on the retina.
2) The most sensitive part of the retina is called the fovea
and it is round.
3) The next most sensitive part is called the macular and it is
also round.
4) Generally speaking the eyes ability to perceive detail and
colour decrease as you move away from the centre of the fovea
and that all points on a circle concentric with the macular have
the same visual sensitivity.
5) The images produced by each eye are processing by the brain
to produce one circular ‘3D’ image.
6) That although our eyes have a greater range horizontally any
image our brain sees is circular (even if your nose forms part
of that image).
7) If you are looking at the centre of a widescreen image you
can detect more detail at the top and bottom (because they are
closer) than at each side.
8) The widest part of our vision "peripheral vision" is extremly
poor and can basically only detect movement, no colour, and
virtually no shape.
9) Peripheral vision sensitivity is also round, although sometimes
you will’see’ your nose or your forehead rather than what you
would like to see.
10) Of works of art, over the centuries only around 10% are anyway
near a widescreen format.
11) It is more economical to seat people in a low wide building
than in a taller narrower one because less space is required, and
space needs heating or cooling apart from the fact that space is
expensive to rent or buy, especially in or near cities.
12) Our eyes evolved circular sensitivity because we are
generalists not specalists and circular sensitivity is best for
viewing the essentially random shape of any image we will view.
13) Seagulls evolved ‘widescreen’ sensitivity (a long narrow f
ovea and macular) because the ability to see the horizon is a
matter of life and death for them. They can of course ‘hunt’
using peripheral vision which detects movement, hence the reason
why many animals ‘freeze’ to avoid being detected.
14) Try buying a WS portable under £500, you can’t
#57 | Comment by esboella — January 26, 2004 @ 9:27 pm
i just saw the paris hilton clip and i was thinking i didnt see the one with pam anderson, where can i find it?
#58 | Comment by jacks — January 29, 2004 @ 11:34 pm
>Ok, tell me which of these statements you disagree with about a
normal human eye, operating normally.
ok
>1) Each eye produces a circular image on the retina.
>2) The most sensitive part of the retina is called the fovea
and it is round.
>3) The next most sensitive part is called the macular and it is
also round.
For the above three, any shape on the inside (or outside) of a sphere is round, and if u mean circular, they r damn near, probably to about the same extent as the groups of sensory cells, its not like theyre perfect circles. oh and theres a blind spot, the optic nerve and guess what, thats round 2
>8) The widest part of our vision "peripheral vision" is extremly
poor and can basically only detect movement, no colour, and
virtually no shape.
well i dont kno but i can detect colour and shape within all my vision
>9) Peripheral vision sensitivity is also round, although sometimes
you will’see’ your nose or your forehead rather than what you
would like to see.
peripheral vision is more horzontally than vertically by 10 to 15 degrees
11) It is more economical to seat people in a low wide building
than in a taller narrower one because less space is required, and
space needs heating or cooling apart from the fact that space is
expensive to rent or buy, especially in or near cities.
things are rented or bought by floor area not volume so the narrower room would cost less as it would have less floor area, and this would b a bigger saving than the heating costs.
>14) Try buying a WS portable under £500, you can’t
actually u can, and i realise ur speaking pounds, u just need 2 kno where 2 look
#59 | Comment by do u rele care — February 19, 2004 @ 5:45 pm
>Ok, tell me which of these statements you disagree with about a
normal human eye, operating normally.
ok
>1) Each eye produces a circular image on the retina.
>2) The most sensitive part of the retina is called the fovea
and it is round.
>3) The next most sensitive part is called the macular and it is
also round.
For the above three, any shape on the inside (or outside) of a sphere is round, and if u mean circular, they r damn near, probably to about the same extent as the groups of sensory cells, its not like theyre perfect circles. oh and theres a blind spot, the optic nerve and guess what, thats round 2
>8) The widest part of our vision "peripheral vision" is extremly
poor and can basically only detect movement, no colour, and
virtually no shape.
well i dont kno but i can detect colour and shape within all my vision
>9) Peripheral vision sensitivity is also round, although sometimes
you will’see’ your nose or your forehead rather than what you
would like to see.
peripheral vision is more horzontally than vertically by 10 to 15 degrees
11) It is more economical to seat people in a low wide building
than in a taller narrower one because less space is required, and
space needs heating or cooling apart from the fact that space is
expensive to rent or buy, especially in or near cities.
things are rented or bought by floor area not volume so the narrower room would cost less as it would have less floor area, and this would b a bigger saving than the heating costs.
>14) Try buying a WS portable under £500, you can’t
actually u can, and i realise ur speaking pounds, u just need 2 kno where 2 look
#60 | Comment by do u rele care — February 19, 2004 @ 5:46 pm
bollocks browser fucked up 3 times, i pressed it once
#61 | Comment by do u rele care — February 19, 2004 @ 5:48 pm
Ur only about a month late on this discussion, do u rele care, and i’m in the same boat as you
#62 | Comment by OopsyDaisy — February 23, 2004 @ 7:57 pm
and i’m even later, damn slugmonkey
#63 | Comment by slugmonkey — April 10, 2004 @ 8:57 pm
I have a HD-DVR unit (SA8000HD) from Cox Cable that I upgraded to. Anyway, I recorded T3 on HBO-HD so I got to see it in 1080i 16:9 Widescreen HD format, as good quality as compressed HD could be on cable. Anyway, except for extreme pixelation in scenes with lots of explosions and lightning the picture was fine. We do get the entire picture, meaning your example above of KL’s breasts are in my HD recording.
Also, please note that there is a new release of T3, an anamorphic widescreen one, released June 1, 2004. You might want to pick that up. I did and it contains more than either of the two versions above mentioned.
#64 | Comment by WonderSlug — June 27, 2004 @ 7:22 am