Adarx & Mughi called out

[Ender]

http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... adid=41914

[NecronLord]

I presume there shall be much rejoicing?

[Morning Star]

I presume there shall be much rejoicing?

Not from Adarx and mughi

[Vertigo1]

In any event, this shall be most entertaining.

[AdmiralKanos]

Rabid Fivers are even worse than rabid Trekkies. Brian's efforts are futile unless he becomes vicious like me, and engaged in full-blown flamewars. Note how they're mercilessly baiting him with smart-ass bullshit, like the nitpicker about the 240 lines of resolution (hey asshole, if you capture and resize to 320 pixel width, then the proper height is 240 pixel height because of the 4:3 aspect ratio of NTSC, and it doesn't fucking matter what bullshit sophistry you try to pull with technical details of TV projection).

They get away with this smart-ass bullshit because he's too much of a nice guy to let 'em have it with both barrels. I know Brian Young and he's a great guy, but there are times when a not-so-nice approach is the only way to deal with certain people. He should flame them until they're reduced to petrified ash, and then preserve their idiocy on a dedicated page in his website. He might call it, oh, say, a "hate mail" page

[AdmiralKanos]

It should be noted that there is a popular method of debate, largely perfected by Timothy Jones and the infamous Timsult(TM), in which someone needles and goads his opponents with endless smart-ass remarks and carefully crafted condescension, in an effort to be incredibly insulting without being overt about it. The idea is to irritate your opponent to the point that he finally says "fuck you", at which point you declare victory with yet another smart-ass remark like "obviously having lost on the evidence, you must now resort to cursing".

This method of debate does not fly here, because we don't take shit like that lying down, and because we're not afraid to point out that it's a moronic logical fallacy to dismiss arguments on style over substance. But in a lot of venues, it's a virtually foolproof tactic. I get the feeling that these clowns are users of that tactic.

[Enlightenment]

Note how they're mercilessly baiting him with smart-ass bullshit, like the nitpicker about the 240 lines of resolution (hey asshole, if you capture and resize to 320 pixel width, then the proper height is 240 pixel height because of the 4:3 aspect ratio of NTSC, and it doesn't fucking matter what bullshit sophistry you try to pull with technical details of TV projection).

Does anyone know the original context of why Young brought up the resolution thing in the first place? Did one of these two numbskulls argue that the lines of resolution on VHS give the Vorlons uber powers or something of that sort?

[Vympel]

It's about scaling- rabid fivers like to claim that the ships are much bigger than they actually are, based off non-canon, non-official, contradictory claims by some Tim Earls fellow who only worked on the series in season 5 (when most of the ships had already been made IIRC).

[Enlightenment]

It's about scaling

I figured that much. I just can't figure out how the number of lines in a video signal would effect scaling calculations.

[Darth Wong]

Some of Brian Young's idiotic detractors are trying to nitpick his use of TV screencaps. They note that he uses 320x240 screencaps and scream that the native resolution is different than that, therefore all of his scaling is bullshit.

Yes, I know, it's pathetic.

[Connor MacLeod]

It's about scaling

I figured that much. I just can't figure out how the number of lines in a video signal would effect scaling calculations.

Largely because it offends Mughi's "logical sensibilties" that Brian refuses to acknowledge the Tim Earls charts and prefers going by direct scaling (and even direct statements, in the case of B5 and the Excalibur) from the show. Its very similar to how some Christians get irate if you don't accept Jesus, it seems.

Mike: The idiot in particular who keeps pestering Brian about "scaling" was the same idiot I brought to the attentio of you and Curtis once, on this same issue. He made the "appeal to authority" involving a "friend" of his he claims was an authority on this (although the only "contact" with this friend apparently was through this same idiot, - it was said the "authority" did not like getting involved in debates.)

The bulk of his current "argument" is based on complete ignorance of Brians' reasons as posted on his PoLD page, and the statements of the person who's validity is in question (he cites a Tim Earls message board post where it was said by Tim that the charts were approved), linked with a statement by JMS saying that a number of elements including CGI are finalized by him. Supposedly this was meant to "PROVE" the canon status of the charts.

Basically the only real obstacle has been mughi's own inherent ignorance and refusal to concede he has an unteneble position. I don't expect him to stop, no matter how many times the flaws in his arguments are pointed out.

It should be noted this same idiot also tried "ending" the debate over whether or not the VPK destroys planets by citing a source he tried passing off as a JMS quote (though he denies this.)

[Connor MacLeod]

Some of Brian Young's idiotic detractors are trying to nitpick his use of TV screencaps. They note that he uses 320x240 screencaps and scream that the native resolution is different than that, therefore all of his scaling is bullshit.

Yes, I know, it's pathetic.

No, the pathetic part is that this person continues believing he has a case.

Or maybe it was the use of the mysterious "Friend" Mike ("Well Mike says this...")

Or maybe it was the claim that anyone using Brian's methods would likewise be flawed (since much of Brian's methodology seems to emulate you and Curtis...)

[seanrobertson]

No, the pathetic part is that this person continues believing he has a case.

Or maybe it was the use of the mysterious "Friend" Mike ("Well Mike says this...")

Or maybe it was the claim that anyone using Brian's methods would likewise be flawed (since much of Brian's methodology seems to emulate you and Curtis...)

There's so much about Matt Mugger's argument that's distasteful,
it ain't even funny.

I haven't visited that thread in awhile--the rabid Fivers can
consider that their Christmas present--but when I looked at
it this morning, Mugger's appeal to authority refuses to
become directly involved because he finds us "too stupid
to argue with" or words to that effect.

In my ASVS days, that meant Concession Accepted

[Brian Young]

I used that "concession accepted" thing.
This "expert" does not exist. He has proven that he does not know the proper aspect ratio of a TV, max NTSC resolution, what upper and lower limits are, etc.
I posted several links that show that VHS resolution is 240 lines, thus proper capture resolution is 320x240. They show that DVD resolution is 480 lines, thus proper capture resolution is 640x480. Of course, either resolution can be used for either source, you just have to maintain the 4:3 aspect ratio.
Aspect ratios are the key, whether you use 640x480, 320x240, or what. You have to maintain 4:3 to avoid distorting the image. A 320x240 frame grabbed from VHS, DVD, laserdisc, or TV will be in good perspective, because it is in a 4:3 ratio.
DVDs store video at 720x480 resolution, but it isn't displayed that way. The image is morphed to fit a 4:3 aspect ratio before it reaches the TV. Same with VCDs (352x240) and SVCDs (480x480).
If you capture at 352x240 to make a VCD, then play that file in Windows Media Player, it doesn't look right. People look fat, objects are too wide. But when played in a DVD or VCD player on the TV, it looks fine, because the player changes the image to fit a 4:3 screen.
Use PowerDVD to grab an image from DVD. Set it to grab the frame as stored on DVD, then the same image with settings changed to grab what is displayed. Compare these images side-by-side. They will look different. The one captured at display resolution will look right, and the other one will look distorted.
We aren't interested in the information as-is on disc. We are interested in how it looks on TV, which is the canon source after all.
You'll see a lot of stats where capture cards capture at 720x480 resolution, etc., but that is only good if you are making DVDs and stuff. For scaling purposes, always capture in a 4:3 ratio, preferably either 320x240 or 640x480. This is because these settings don't require that the video be downsampled or interpolated. 320x240 is one field, and 640x480 is two fields, simple as that.

Mughi is a liar. He claims to have received a message from JMS confirming the numbers Tim Earls allegedly posted on a fansite webforum. Two problems:
*JMS does not respond to private e-mails. He said so many times.
*A fansite's webforum is not an official publication.
*There is no evidence that TE actually posted that information (which never appears in an official publication, contradicts information that IS in official publications, and even contradicts canon directly), being a webforum that anyone can post to under any alias.

Adarx is doing little more than misquoting me.

[Enlightenment]

I posted several links that show that VHS resolution is 240 lines, thus proper capture resolution is 320x240.

If you found links that said that the proper resolution to capture from VHS is 320x240 then the links are full of shit. The the DivX pages cited by mughi are correct: VHS is 240 lines per field but because NTSC is interlaced, the resolution per frame is 480 lines. Therefore, for optimum quality, VHS should be captured at 480 rather than 240 lines. Of course, none of this makes any difference whatsoever to the accuracy of pixel scaling.

[Lord Poe]

They get away with this smart-ass bullshit because he's too much of a nice guy to let 'em have it with both barrels. I know Brian Young and he's a great guy, but there are times when a not-so-nice approach is the only way to deal with certain people. He should flame them until they're reduced to petrified ash, and then preserve their idiocy on a dedicated page in his website. He might call it, oh, say, a "hate mail" page

I just put an update on my site last night that was so venomous, I actually got out of bed at 2:30am to erase the liberal uses of "motherfucker" "piece of shit".

Man, I've lost my edge....

[Darth Wong]

If you found links that said that the proper resolution to capture from VHS is 320x240 then the links are full of shit. The the DivX pages cited by mughi are correct: VHS is 240 lines per field but because NTSC is interlaced, the resolution per frame is 480 lines. Therefore, for optimum quality, VHS should be captured at 480 rather than 240 lines. Of course, none of this makes any difference whatsoever to the accuracy of pixel scaling.

VHS doesn't store more than 240 lines of resolution. The NTSC standard is 480, but NTSC and VHS are two different things. VHS does not come anywhere near the limits of NTSC.

[Connor MacLeod]

If you found links that said that the proper resolution to capture from VHS is 320x240 then the links are full of shit. The the DivX pages cited by mughi are correct: VHS is 240 lines per field but because NTSC is interlaced, the resolution per frame is 480 lines. Therefore, for optimum quality, VHS should be captured at 480 rather than 240 lines. Of course, none of this makes any difference whatsoever to the accuracy of pixel scaling.

VHS doesn't store more than 240 lines of resolution. The NTSC standard is 480, but NTSC and VHS are two different things. VHS does not come anywhere near the limits of NTSC.

Heh. Apparently his "Friend" has materialized now, and JMS emailed him and answered his question.

Do ytou think I have reason enough to suspect him of ulterior motives?

[Brian Young]

VHS resolution is limited to 240 lines. The fileds are identical.
Capturing VHS video at 640x480 resolution does not yield more detail, just a bigger picture. I use this resolution very often though, because a bigger picture is prettier to look at, and those small details are easier to find.

No, this makes no difference to pixel scaling. If you capture at 80x60, that is okay too, because you are still in the correct aspect ratio, and everything will be in perfect perspective.

What do you mean by saying those links are "full of shit?" Did you look at them. Three of the five were from that Divx website you mention, stupid.

[Brian Young]

I just sent an e-mail challenging Aradx to a debate one-on-one, Michael Wong style.

[Connor MacLeod]

I just sent an e-mail challenging Aradx to a debate one-on-one, Michael Wong style.

Are you going to put up your "Debate" with mughi on babtech for posterity? You should, as a note to further morons who attempt to do this.

[Ender]

I just sent an e-mail challenging Aradx to a debate one-on-one, Michael Wong style.

Good. I for one am absolutly sick of this "Well, I have nothng to back up my position, but my claims are more valid then onscreen evidence" bullshit.

And I'd like to cap it with the fact that I don't understand why that thread was closed.

[Vertigo1]

They get away with this smart-ass bullshit because he's too much of a nice guy to let 'em have it with both barrels. I know Brian Young and he's a great guy, but there are times when a not-so-nice approach is the only way to deal with certain people. He should flame them until they're reduced to petrified ash, and then preserve their idiocy on a dedicated page in his website. He might call it, oh, say, a "hate mail" page

I just put an update on my site last night that was so venomous, I actually got out of bed at 2:30am to erase the liberal uses of "motherfucker" "piece of shit".

Man, I've lost my edge....

rofl

You should've left them there. People like Adarx really deserve it.

[Vertigo1]

If you found links that said that the proper resolution to capture from VHS is 320x240 then the links are full of shit. The the DivX pages cited by mughi are correct: VHS is 240 lines per field but because NTSC is interlaced, the resolution per frame is 480 lines. Therefore, for optimum quality, VHS should be captured at 480 rather than 240 lines. Of course, none of this makes any difference whatsoever to the accuracy of pixel scaling.

VHS doesn't store more than 240 lines of resolution. The NTSC standard is 480, but NTSC and VHS are two different things. VHS does not come anywhere near the limits of NTSC.

Heh. Apparently his "Friend" has materialized now, and JMS emailed him and answered his question.

Do ytou think I have reason enough to suspect him of ulterior motives?

I'll believe it when I see a screenshot of this said e-mail with full headers displayed.

[Brian Young]

You'll never see a screenshot of the message, because the message never existed. JMS DOES NOT RESPOND to private e-mails. He has said so many tims in no uncertain terms.
Even if he DID send the message, even if the charts WERE legit, they are still not official until they are put into an official publication, and then they would conflict with current official publications.
He posted some links to websites that either clearly show the resolution of VHS as 240 lines, or had nothing to do with his argument. I looked at them all. I posted 5 links to websites (Divx, Virtualdub, and Crutchfield) that support my comments directly. After all, so did his links, when they related at all.
He claims that VHS resolution rivals DVD resolution (420 vs 480). I saw nothing that resembled that. Even superVHS is 400 lines.
He never addressed the point that regardless of the resolution you capture with, keeping the 4:3 aspect ratio is the important thing. My capture card has a setting for 80x60, which falls into the 4:3 ratio just fine.
He said that computer monitors don't have the same aspect ratio. My screen resolution is 800x600. GASP! A 4:3 ratio! There are settings for 640x480 (gasp!, my capture resolution, the same setting that Divx says professionals use), and a few others that also represent a 4:3 aspect ratio.
He has no point to make, and pulls off that goal well. That is what a troll is.

As far as Adarx is concerned, just keep this here. Don't mention it at Spacebattles for a few days, because I bet he won't even respond without peer pressure to do so. Then, you are witnesses that he avoided it.