User talk:Ὁ οἶστρος/Archive 001

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ὁ οἶστρος. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Changing username request

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Having seen your rename request, you're not doing anything wrong. Technical limitations in MediaWiki software means that the first letters of all usernames are by default capitalized. However, you may put {{lowercase}} on your userpages and alter your signature to suit your preferences. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Having changed your signature in Special:Preferences from the default you need to include a like to your user page or/and this, your talk page. [[User talk:Ὁ οἶστρος|ὁ οἶστρος]] will create ὁ οἶστρος, with a link to this page. It doesn't link when placed on this page but will when you sign anywhere else. Or you could have [[User:Ὁ οἶστρος|ὁ οἶστρος]] ([[User talk:Ὁ οἶστρος|talk]]) which will give you the style of the default signature, but with lower case: ὁ οἶστρος (talk). Or you could create something more fancy such as my signature; i am trying out using characters that look similar to "delirious & lost" just for some simple fun this week. The one taboo is to exactly copy the style of someone else's signature.

I hope this is of help for you. δεʟɪʀɪοuς & ʟoςτ ☯ ^~нuɢѕ~ 18:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:5544_Meier1.jpg)

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for uploading File:5544_Meier1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Melesse. I'm still working on the article for which the image is meant for; that's why the link provided currently doesn't go anywhere YET. So, as soon as the corresponding article is online, I can add it back, correct? Thanks. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, done, the article is now live. I hope I went about it the right way. If not, please let me know. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Blu-ray Disc

Latest comment: 14 years ago32 comments3 people in discussion

Almost every European Blu-ray Disc packaging states 1080p plus the rest of the article also claims this.

It's written in English. If you can't understand it, that's not my problem. I assume from your name that you are also European, so have a look at the back of some of your Blu-ray Discs. 86.182.66.217 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. At the end of this conversation, you might find your condescending tone inappropriate and yourself considerably embarrassed. European feature film BDs are (by free choice) indeed mostly in 1080p, but 1080p24 (!).

No they are not. Films released in 24p would be unplayable on most European TV sets as they are not required to support the format. Indeed no European TV set supported the format until comparatively recently (and then only for compatibility with US discs privately imported - or more likely due to commonality of internal circuitry). 86.182.66.217 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Most documentary features and concerts, on the other hand, are predominantly 1080i, either 1080i50 or 1080i60. That's actually the case the world over, with 60Hz on non-feature film discs used mainly in Japan and the US. But there is no such thing as 1080p50 in the official BD specs, and I've yet to encounter a disc where that would've been tried (I presume they wouldn't be readable by the BD players on the market).

As I said nearly all Blu-ray discs sold in Europe are stated on the back as being in 1080p format and play perfectly on European Blu-ray players and TV sets that DO NOT support 24p mode (as indeed my TV does not). My TV set supports 1080/50i and 1080/60i (not 'p' as it is too old). It does not support 24p. The Blu-ray player doubless converts the 1080p material into 1080i so that it can be shown. The info button reveals that the input is 1080x540 at 50 frames (the 540 comes about because one field of interlaced video contains 540 actual lines of video). That some material is actually released in 1080i format is totally irrelevant to this point. 86.182.66.217 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

See here (the relevant information is on page 18). You might have been confused by thinking of the PAL (Europe, 50Hz, resulting in the WRONG playback speed of feature films –> see PAL speed-up) and NTSC (Japan and USA, 60Hz – or 60 Hz/1.001, to be precise) standards used up to the DVD format. Well, these days are OVER, BDs are neither NTSC nor PAL, not ANYwhere. So would you please have the kindness as to enlighten me and show me how I was inaccurate in describing your claims as not making any sense? And you do realize that in writing "plus the rest of the article also claims this" your aren't referencing ANY article, do you? WHAT article? I'm sorry, but I not only have limited command of the English language,

So you are not in a position to critisize others use of English. If you fail to understand what I write that's not anything to do with what I write. The Blu-ray spec does support NTSC video (but not PAL as, unlike NTSC, that refers purely to an analogue colour encoding system - NTSC also covers the format of 480/60i or 480/59.94i video). 86.182.66.217 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I also cannot read people's minds... Thanks, I'm very much looking forward to your answer. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am referencing the rest of the Blu-ray article. It is mentioned in there several times (and specifically 1080/50p). Try the info box at the top of the article for instance. 86.182.66.217 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, it is riddled with mistakes and you confuse many terms and concepts. But since you don't seem ready to actually try and understand what I have written, I doubt that continuing this conversation would lead anywhere. Everything I've stated is verifiable, all you'd have to do is researching it yourself – but for that it would be necessary that you and your current notions don't stand in your own way (don't believe something because I wrote it, but also DON'T believe yourself without making sure you got it right). I tried to help you, but you chose to refuse it. Your decision. So, if you really want to grow and learn, help yourself: Take your claims, one by one, read up on them and then check them against the facts. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to give you the chance to correct your mistake yourself, but you didn't take it.

OK, I'll give it one last shot: NOBODY is suggesting European feature film BDs wouldn't be produced in 1080p – as they ARE –, but, BUT, BUT they're produced in 1080p24, NOT 1080p50. What we're talking about here is the ENCODING, the way film images are stored on a disc – in the case of a BD that's the original 24 film frames per second (24fps).

That has got NOTHING to do with your TV being able to handle 24p or not. If it can't, the 50Hz playback in Europe is the result of a CONVERSION (called 2:2 pulldown).

Think of 25 empty holes in the ground, next to each other, all put together representing one video second. Each hole you fill in with one frame from any old motion picture you have (virtually every movie up to this day – no matter, whether shot "traditionally" or digitally – was made using 24fps cameras). What you'll realize is that after having spent all 24 frames of the first film second that there is still one empty hole staring at you. So what did the geniuses in Europe do? They just took the first frame from the next film second and squeezed it into the last last "hole" of the first video second. This results in an odious speed-up of the source by 4%. Had you actually read and tried to understand my last post, you'd already know all of this, as there, I had posted a link to this "phenomenon", called PAL speed-up (it's the same idiotic method used in the god-awful PAL days).

From there, 25 images are interlaced and sometimes additionally de-interlaced (please, look up those processes yourself) to achieve a 50i or an artificial and DEFICIENT 50p output, respectively, BOTH of which still exhibiting the wrong speed (and therefore also pitch).

1080p50 on the other hand would mean that a FILM was shot with 50fps (meaning the ORIGINAL SOURCE would contain 50 DIFFERENT images per second). That has NOT been done anywhere in the world, although there are VIDEO cameras used for TV that DO record 50 individual pictures per second.

That's just how things are NOW, that doesn't mean specs (whether for BD, HDMI or even the cameras used in the film industry – by going 48fps, for example) couldn't be changed or freshly designed from the ground up in the future.

If all of the above is too complicated to understand for you, just take one of the film BDs you claim are present in the format 1080p50 and read its raw data out on a PC (maybe a friend can help you install the necessary software – and you will need a BD drive, a DVD drive won't work). Then you'll at least actually SEE that the film is there in 24p, even though the why will continue to escape you. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just followed from your edit exchange on the article Blu-Ray Disc to find the exchange above. Sadly, you appear to know little about the subject, and to be fair, it has become confusing because much of the terminology has become abused.

First, European Blu-Ray discs are not produced in 24p format. That is almost exclusively the preserve of the American regions. Secondly, the Blu-Ray format does not support the proper 1080 progressive high definition formats (1080/50p and 1080/60p (and I include the 59.95p in that). This is because the data rate is not fast enough for these formats. The European sourced discs that state 1080p on the packaging are discs produced from film originated material and is one of the abuses of the term progressive. The term progressive strictly defines a video format where the lines of video information are recorded in strict numerical order,

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 ... 1078 - 1079 -1080.

Alternatively, there is the interlaced format which displays the odd lines ony first (odd field) and then follows them by the even lines (even field). (You probably know this already).

1 - 3 - 5 - 7 ... 1077 - 1079 - 2 - 4 - 6 ... 1078 - 1080

They are actually stored in the digital video frame the other way around due to the digital video format's origins in the NTSC world. In true video source material, the even field displays a time slice that is 20 milliseconds later than the odd field and the two together give a comlete video frame. This is also largely true in the Americas, except the even field precedes the odd field by ~16.6 miliiseconds.

There is a largish group of enthusiasts (if that's the right word) who have become somewhat anally retentive over the progressive video formats and who have convinced themselves that progressive is the only way to go. The reality is that any improvement in the visual perception of the video is marginal at best and certainly not worth the doubling of the required digital data to support it. But for them, everything has to be progressive. I shall coin the word 'progressivists' for this discussion.

When film originated material is transferred to video in Europe, the film is run slightly fast by 4% which allows one film frame to occupy both the the odd and even fields of the video frame (known as 2:2 pulldown). Thus the even field displays a time slice that is 0 milliseconds later than the odd field. In order to satisfy the progressivists, the Blu-Ray producers state that such material is in 1080p format, but using something called a 'Progressive Segmented Frame' technique (though they don't mention that last bit on the box). That is: that it is progressive video, but the odd lines have been recorded together and then they are followed by the even lines. It is really interlaced video, but by the time the display device or the Blu-ray player has de-interlaced the video (it doesn't matter one jot where it actually happens), the result is perceptually indistinguishable from true 1080/25p video (assuming the deinterlacing algorithm works properly). If watched on a CRT display then, of course, the video will be interlaced as there is no deinterlacing prior to display, but with that number of lines, no one is likely to notice (unless they sit inches away from the screen). The description 1080p on the box is, technically at least, wrong but percetually the same as 1080/25p video. The 4% speed up goes completely un-noticed especially these days when the sound is adjusted back to the original pitch - and obviously you hadn't noticed it yourself if you had convinced yourself that you were watching films at the original speed.

Once we cross to the Americas, different problems occur. Obviously, running the film at 30 frames per second is not an option, so instead, film is converted to video by storing the same film frame on 3 half video frames, followed by storing the next frame on 2 half video frames and then repeating 3 - 2 - 3 - 2. Thus 4 film frames occupy 5 video frames (the technique is 3:2 pulldown - often wrongly called 2:3 pulldown). Properly deinterlaced, such material is perfectly watchable and the viewer unlikely to feel anything is wrong. But the progressivists have decided that it is not the way to watch film material and have even invented faults to justify a move to a progressive format. I have even seen claims (obviously failing to understand the technique) that movement in the resultant video is uneven in that it jumps 50% further every other jump due to the 3 half fields.

The result was the 24p format. The only problem with the 24p format is that if you try to watch it on a CRT display (and A CRT is still unbeatable for contrast and colour reproduction), the result will be unviewable to bad flicker - something that was known as long ago as 1936 when television was broadcast in the 240 line 25 field progressive format (known in those days by the more correct term of 'sequential') leading to its very rapid demise (it survived just a few months!) and the resultant success of the interlaced 405 line system.

Because of its American origins, European players and TV sets have not officially supported the format until relatively recently. Early equipment either didn't support it at all, but if they did it was only because the internal circuitry was common to its American counterpart. Although 24p has become a selling point in the last year or so (it's usually prominent on the box), it is of little value to Europeans because if they do import 24p Blu-Rays from America, practically all current output (if not all current ouptut) is region locked to Region A machines. Selling 24p discs in Europe would be risky because many are likely to be returned as unplayable (on older equipment). I B Wright (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"First, European Blu-Ray discs are not produced in 24p format" (I B Wright, 2010-05-31)

Any official sources for that claim? As I wrote above, read them out on a PC.

Problem is: that the discs can be authored to report any format the author cares to ascribe them. What matters is the format of the output video. If I grab a random film Blu-ray off of the shelf and check the format reported in the file headers, I find it reports (interstingly) as 23 fps (?) progressive. The video stream is according to the info from the monitor 1920x540@50Hz (which is the reported format for 1080/50i video and for 1080/25p using PSF. I could easily author up a BD disc that reports its video as 128 fps progressive, but that would be obviously absurd. It would still play correctly because fortunately, BD video players do not rely on the reported format but output whatever is avaiable. This contrasts with DVD where some DVD video players did rely on the reported format and complained if the video wasn't actually in that format (usually with a stuttering output, but sometimes not outputting anything or giving an error message). One of the more popular video editing packages marks 'PAL' format DVDs as being in NTSC format and they don't play correctly on a few DVD video players (including nearly all Panasonic players). I B Wright (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Secondly, the Blu-Ray format does not support the proper 1080 progressive high definition formats (1080/50p and 1080/60p (and I include the 59.95p in that)." (I B Wright, 2010-05-31)

You are kidding, right? I NEVER claimed otherwise. THE 1080P50 CLAIM WAS ACTUALLY WHAT I REMOVED FROM THE ARTICLE –> click here to see the edit yourself. How about reading what I really wrote first?

As for the other comments, I didn't have time to dissect all your technical claims properly, but I'm sorry to inform you that those concerning European BD encoding, PAL speed-up being the only option to play back European BDs and playability of US BDs in Europe are rubbish (you are right about the – as opposed to the DVD days irregularly used – region locks, but they can be circumvented; and if you took the time to go through the pertinent lists, you'd be surprised to LEARN how many US BDs are actually released region-free): I own dozens of US AND European BDs (from the UK, from Germany, from Switzerland – not always identical with the German ones – and other regions), and they ALL play fine and ARE in 24p. Again, check it yourself on a PC.

Hardly any Blu-ray discs were region locked while HD DVD was still a viable format (HD DVD doesn't support region locking). However following the demise of HD DVD virtually all subsequently released Blu-ray discs are now region locked with the occasional example that is not. In spite of what the disc publishers claim, region locking serves solely to enforce price differentials across the globe. The publishers have every interest in preventing European consumers from importing discs from the US, where they are (typically around) 33% cheaper. Personally, it doesn't stop me because I can play them. I B Wright (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop Press: Just checked my catalogue of Blu-ray discs (I put all DVDs and BDs in database so that I don't buy the same one again - rather easy when you have over 1500 discs). All (Yes; That meansd 'All') the movie originated Blu-rays that I have bought that were produced from around the summer of 2008 onwards are all Region Locked to Region A or B (depending on which side of the pond they were sourced). Not all the video sourced discs are however. I B Wright (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with some of the other remarks about progressivists and such, but that could be the topic of an interesting discussion.

Bottom line, I fail to see what you attacked me for – and I'm very open to be corrected on things I'm wrong or ignorant about (as, especially of the latter, there's a multitude, and I'm always eager to learn), but as long as you don't make a cogent case against my position I wouldn't know why I should abandon it. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall atacking you as such, merely pointing out the facts (that you clearly know less about the subject than you claim). I actually author Blu-ray discs so know quite a bit about the subject. I can but lead the horse to water, but I cannot force him to drink. I B Wright (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Before we get to the 24p part, first things first: So, you do agree with me on the falsehood of the whole 1080p50 business and realize you accused me of something I never asserted (on the contrary, as is obvious to anyone who reads what I wrote and linked to), right?

I never accused you of anything. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Now to your other main claim:

"European Blu-Ray discs are not produced in 24p format. That is almost exclusively the preserve of the American regions." (I B Wright, 2010-05-31)

As you'll see farther below, you're doubly wrong.

"[...] I find it reports (interstingly) as 23 fps (?) progressive." (I B Wright, 2010-06-02)

I can only presume, by that you mean "23.976", correct? (If not, then I'm at a loss just what you could've done, but I'd doubt that you used a commerically available BD that contains the representation of a feature film and read it out on the proper hard- and with proper software)

I didn't do anything. I assume that whoever put the 23 into the disc files either made an error and put 23 by mistake or maybe did it deliberately knowing that players don't read that information anyway. Either way, we'll never know. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If so, then we're there: that's it! In everyday speech, that is 24p, although, technically, it isn't. Confusing? You bet! And that's exactly why I didn't want to open that can of worms. As it would've been (and is now) very cumbersome to go into even more detail in this setting here (writing to and fro), and since I was (and still am) under the impression that the person who first came along with those weird 1080p25 and 1080p50 claims with regards to motion pictures ported onto the BD format was already out of his depths enough, I decided to simplify matters and did so on numerous occasions (not just in this relation) – and will do in the elaborations to follow, as well.

The only person confused around here seems to be you as you are apparently so convinced that you a right, you just can't accept it when someone tells you that you are not. I apologise: TWO people have told you that you are wrong. That should tell you something. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, had you read my very first post before responding, you'd have already encountered the mysterious number "23.976", as it is contained in the official BDA (= Blu-ray Disc Association) white paper to which I explicitly pointed – I even spoon-fed the exact page with the pertinent spec sheet, no less!

Now you're trying to teach grandma to suck eggs. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you go there now, at least, you'll see that there is mandatory playback support for both, 1080p23.976 and 1080p24, and in practice, both formats are employed, although it seems 23.976p is much more common. Why? Well, probably mostly for infrastructural reasons, and because that's the most hassle-free way to get to the 2:3 pulldown required for playback on hardware that's not capable of rendering native 23.976p and 24p, respectively.

In Europe, sometimes (not very often, if I'm not mistaken), they go for "real" 24p. And that's why I wrote you were doubly wrong in stating "European Blu-Ray discs are not produced in 24p format. That is almost exclusively the preserve of the American regions.", when it's actually the other way around – only that, of course, in neither region BDs are present in 1080p25. And that misguided conviction of yours is the real problem, as when "facts" such as this are worked into Wikipedia articles, disinformation gets spread even further and more rapidly; the other observation is just funny.

European discs may report and claim that they are 24p, but they are not. 24p was not a mandatory format in the original specs (it probably is now). The specs were originally put together to be compatible with the most common type of display at that time which were CRT displays. 24p would not play well on a CRT as it would flicker like hell. As a result, early players and displays don't necessarily support it. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, would it have been preferable if exact 24p was the norm, the single standard? Yeah, sure, but the difference between it and 23.976p is so super-minimal that it really is imperceptible (no comparison to the atrocious 4% PAL speed up) – just don't mix the two while editing, otherwise audio will get out of sync (lips won't match with what is spoken anymore).

You keep putting down the 4% speedup for PAL. Yet you haven't noticed it in those discs that you wrongly believe are formatted in 24p. The reality is that nobody is really aware that the film has been speeded up at all. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, when "pure" 24p is used, it's not done out of respect for the source material but simply because, that way, the abhorrent 2:2 pulldown is easier realized for 50Hz-only TVs. But since those are virtually non-existent in Europe today, anyway (I dare you to show me one that still can't handle 60Hz), that's just silly. But, hey, I won't complain: I get 24p, and those fond of altered speed and pitch can still watch the movie in that mode (tragically, many continue to do that, even if they own 24p-enabled equipment).

And what's so wrong with 2:2 pulldown? That is the way the film was intended to be shown in the cinema in the first place. Again most people are perceptually unaware of it, just as they are equally unaware of films encoded in the NTSC system using 2:3 pulldown. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're curious which BDs are in "true" 24p and which ones are in 23.976p, here is a partial list ("default" is 1080p23.976, meaning, in 24p are only those discs specifically designated as such).

By the way, even within the industry, especially on the marketing end (it's another story with the tech people: see remark about editing above), 24p often is the only term used, no matter whether the discs refered to are actually produced in 24p or rather in 23.976p.

Or that they are really 50i. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As for the region coding thing (and I still fail to see why you brought that into the arena, as the simple fact that many studios still haven't wised up and continue to try and boss around paying customers who believe in a free market was never in contention), here's a small, random sample of 2009 releases that are region free (the number in brackets behind the title denotes the year of its theatrical release, NOT of its BD release – which, again, in each case is 2009):

An American Crime (2007) (DE BD)
Bad Boy Bubby (1993) (UK BD)
Body of Lies (2008) (DE BD)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) (UK BD)
Drag Me to Hell (2009) (DE BD)
Due occhi diabolici (1990) (US BD)
Gran Torino (2008) (DE BD)
The Hangover (2009) (DE BD)
A History of Violence (2005) (US BD)
The Last House on the Left (2009) (UK BD)
Pineapple Express (2008) (UK BD)
Role Models (2008) (US BD)
Step Brothers (2008) (UK BD)
The Wizard of Oz (1939) (US BD)
Zodiac (2007) (US BD)

For more, turn here or here (Region A) and here (Region B).

Not got any of those. As I said, ALL the films that I have bought are region protected. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

How could you possibly know whether this is true (which it is) or not? I B Wright (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I wouldn't know why that topic should matter so much to you, especially since you state you already own an unlocked playback device. In case it's not working properly and you'd like to replace it, just let me know, I can give you a few URLs for both Europe and the US.

It works perfectly. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And yes, all the titles I've listed are in 24p (again, simplified), not in in 25p, not in 50i, not in 50p.

You mean the European ones claim to be in 24p. They are not otherwise they wouldn't play on older equipment. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And yes, I know, 1080i50 IS part of the BD specs (as is 1080i60, for that matter), but that format is mainly used for documentary and concert / music features, where there is NO PAL speed-up involved, since that material was ORIGINALLY SHOT in 50Hz (or 60Hz). I've mentioned all of this before, but so I have most of what's written here...

I B Wright

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Now, thinking about it, those 86.x.x.x guys (two addresses, same guy) and I B Wright are indeed seem to be the same person. By the way, Ὁ οἶστρος, notice that he replies to you from his registered and unregistered accounts. He does not know much, he modifies his attack by using the opponents words so it is hard to see what he is claiming and what you are fighting with.

Now, why he is doing this? For fun? Or maybe this is a larger network of individuals with a goal to discourage real people from editing Wikipedia and as such to acquire control over the resource that is supposed to be unbiased? I can venture a conspiracy theory here, but maybe he DOES do this just for his own perverted fun. We got to reopen the sock puppet case.

And yes, European HD ready TVs must support 60/59.94 Hz scan rates. Mikus (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No one has claimed otherwise. 86.177.26.9 (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There's evidence of sockpuppetry and it's a repeat offense; go ahead and report it. Gin bot₈₆ 03:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone else made a similar allegation around 2 years ago (different IP address though). It was rejected by Wikipedia as there was no link. Never heard of Ginbot so can't comment further. 86.180.173.157 (2010-06-08) + 86.177.26.9 (2010-06-08) – the last sentence was contributed via the latter IP address; see here – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I would ignore Mikus because he's just pissed off that he is a persistent vandal (6 counts) and has been reported for the offence. He is also a persistent abuser of other users and persitent edit warmonger. Speaking of which... 86.180.173.157 (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That whole blanking thing (the concept of which he clearly doesn't grasp) seems to be a constant theme with the Lernaean Hydra that is I B Wright and its many heads. If I had to play Freud here, I would speculate that stems from his spat with Signalhead, where he must have felt deeply hurt.

And while it is PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE to remove faulty "information" from articles, contrary to what he claims here, I DIDN'T EVEN DELETE ANYTHING from the Overscan article but ADDED some paragraphs on its TALK PAGE, asking people with the required time and information at hand to please clean up the article and purge it from I B Wright's baseless interspersions.

WHY is that sockpuppet master allowed to make those frivolous accusations by abusingly putting those Vandalism Warning tags on my talk page, thus attempting to smear my name?

By the way, currently, he's vandalizing the Blu-ray Disc article again (here) – under yet another pseudonym... – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(To I B Wright: If you intend to continue posting here – I wouldn't be sad if you went away FOR GOOD –, could you please stop putting those nuggets of wisdom of yours in between paragraphs of other people's comments? It's a tedious habit displayed by the official you as well as all of your sockpuppets, and it makes things confusing and needlessly hard to read. Thanks.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Overscan, you will be blocked from editing.

The fact that you logged out to do it does not hide the fact that it was you. It is amazing that a fact has stood in the article for years and then is suddenly deleted as soon as your attention is edrawn to it. Now that is Sockpupetry and maybe I should report it.

Just because you (and only you) disbelieve something, does not give you the right to remove something from a Wikipedia article. AFAICT, the presence of HD overscan has been in the overscan article for some time unchallenged. Given that it has been unchallenged (not even a ^{[citation needed]} tag) it has been accepted by concensus (which is acceptable under Wikipedia policy). Also have a look here where there is no shortage of discussion on the subject groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.tech.digital 86.180.173.157 (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And here is a gadget to correct it (bit expensive though) 86.177.26.9 (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was me and I'm not connected to this guy. I looked at your editing history and I'm going to report you to administrators.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So, 90.179.235.249, you're not I B Wright, right? Then what do you think of my comment on the Overscan talk page? (And what do you mean by "it was me"? He clearly made the referenced post. Did he copy information from you?) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant it was me who removed the paragraph, not you. I got here because of this edit. Personally I think that I B Wright is a troll, all his edits are dubious at best, often obvious nonsense (see this, for example). Also I B Wright sound like "I be right", that is another indirect evidence that his actions are intentionally disruptive. All his IP's should be identified and all his post checked and corrected.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And yes, I agree that better HD sets (possibly all today) use 1:1 pixel mapping. And AFAIK, if the stream is marked as "no overscan" it must be respected, but not the opposite.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, now THAT makes sense. Stupid me! Since I B Wright wasn't even willing or able (?) to articulate properly what my supposed act of vandalism was, I assumed he meant my talk page comment. Sure, the sentence "The fact that you logged out to do it does not hide the fact that it was you." didn't make sense in that context, but SO DOESN'T MOST of what our wanna-be Gyro Gearloose writes. So I just chalked it up to the general "addle-brainedness" he put on display so far. Turns out I did him an injustice in the regard that he accused me of and was lying about something else – something I had nothing whatsoever to do with, but which I STRONGLY ENDORSE. It all adds up now.

Did you read the rest of this page? (WARNING: it's exasperating!) I'm not fully convinced he's deliberately deceiving. Given his long history of such behaviour, going back YEARS (as you certainly are aware of, since you noted you had been perusing the version history of his talk page as well), maybe he really can't help himself. I can't write more clearly what I'm inclined to surmise since I don't want to be held "liable for libel" (or whatever that's called correctly), but in case a legal guardian for a certain person is reading this, it would be a good idea to limit that certain person's internet access...

Anyway, I'm with you, something should be done about it, since he's been aggressively degrading Wikipedia, causing a considerable mess in many articles, leading unsuspecting readers to believe – and in turn pass along themselves (!) – a great many hokum. However, I'd be much obliged if somebody a bit more familiar with the workings of Wikipedia would attend himself / herself to the matter. And I guess, not even being registered, 90.179.235.249 couldn't do it, either (or could you? By the way: Why not properly sign up here? – if only because that way you wouldn't run the risk of being mistaken for a sock of puppet masters like I B Wright anymore...) So what about you, Mikus, could you take it up? Or maybe you, Ginbot86? I know, you're least involved, but you seem most competent concerning such issues. I was also thinking of I B Wright's old nemesis, Signalhead, but he doesn't seem to have been online, lately.

In closing, let me reach out my hand to you, I B Wright: I don't care who or what you are, and I don't want any quarrel with you: Just either learn how to reason and to distinguish between arguments and you yourself as a person (it's no shame to be wrong about something, it's a shame not being able to admit it and therefore refusing to evolve and develop) or leave topics alone you have only superficial knowledge of at best, as ego-puffing sciolism won't impress anybody around here. Choose either of those, and we're all fine. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ὁ οἶστρος, (jeez, the only way I can write your name is by copy-pasting it), I will try opening another sockpuppetry case against IBW when I have time. I am myself a long time editor but don't know much about internal bureaucracy of Wikipedia, need to read up on it. Mikus (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks!

I gotta tell you: All those vandalism signs on your talk page really gave me a bad first impression of you upon visiting it. It takes one to look closer to understand the weirdness going on – and not many people are likely to do that. Apart from all the woozy edits, the guy shouldn't be allowed to do such stuff.

Speaking of which: He's been conspicuously absent (or at least silent) lately, let's hope the potential dawning realization that he just might not be the sharpest tool in the box after all didn't drive him to do something stupid against himself or the folks around him! Listen, bud, nobody wants you ill, just get a grip and stop pulling our legs – that hurts!

(By the way: I'm not able to type my user name, either! Can only handwrite it. Been meaning to learn some kind of Ancient Greek keyboard layout for quite some time now, but so far, I haven't gotten around it – yep, "Ancient Greek", I've zero insight into the variant used in Greece today) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is that IP who talks alot and makes fake threats to you?

And ha, someone undid my edit. -- 209.188.63.194 (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. It's a user who calls himself I B Wright (!) and employs many, many alter egos to spread the Gospel according to He Be Right and place his various threats.

I became virtually acquainted with him through this argy-bargy, but turns out he's already been badgering fellow Wikipedians for quite some time now (as you can see if you go through the history of his talk page), two of which have tuned in here, another one a few paragraphs above in this thread you're currently reading.

(I moved your message here because I didn't think a new section was necessary for it and this talk page is already chaotic enough at the moment. As for the deletion of your previous comment: Ginbot86 – he's one of the good guys here! – probably mistakenly thought you were yet another of I B Wright's sock puppets.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Overscan

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Your discussion style is certainly consistent. You are right and reality is wrong.

Have a look at the digital signal specifications (applicable to both HDMI and DVI interface). Now what do you suppose the overscan flag is for? It can be set to 'Computer Mode' (no overscan) or 'Video Mode' (apply overscan). But do please tell us: the world is waiting to hear what it is really for.

Overscan is a problem that everyone who has tried to interface a laptop's HDMI output (set to 1920x1080) to the HDMI input of a Video flat panel display is aware of (and it afects desktops as well, but their graphic cards usually allow you to correct it). Why not try it for yourself and see? You will discover that just under one icon plus half a single size task bar is lost off the edge of the display all round, not to mention nearly all of Vista/Windows 7's start button off the bottom left corner. To be precise, if the display meets the specs, 42 pixels are lost from the left side and 43 from the right side with 40 lost from the top and bottom. Guess what 1092-42-43 equals? Yes 1877. Similary 1080-40-40 leaves 1000. Erasing this information from the Overscan article doesn't make you any more right or overscan go away. It just leaves an incomplete article which qualifies your edit as disruptive.

Now whether HD flat panel displays should overscan in this manner is a whole different debate. I B Wright (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. No one cares about you. You need to get off Wikipedia, find a life, and stop flamming Wiki. 209.188.63.194 (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on other Editors

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I have removed a substantial section from the discussion page of the article Overscan. the section was clearly a personal attack on one or more fellow editors. Such attacks are not permitted in Wikipedia no matter how justified you believe you be.

On the subject of which ... 62.188.122.162 (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

After checking the Overscan history page and reviewing your section blanking, can you please explain how said section was an attack on another editor(s)? ^GB86 20:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see now...

1. "... mess caused by I B Wright ..."

2. (I.B.Wright's) "version serves to rapidly and extensively spread disinformation."

The critisised material was accompanied by a valid citation and was fairly accurate in every particular. In fact it is Ὁ οἶστρος who is spreading disinformation.

Maybe you have a strange view on what constitutes a personal attack, but those examples count in my book. In any case, article discussion pages are for discussion of the article not their authors, or anything else. 62.188.100.206 (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I was thinking that you were calling the article section blanking a personal attack. That said, it's against the rules to delete another editor's comment on a talkpage. That said, personal attacks are also not allowed (but I'd find this more of a bit of incivility which isn't grounds for appropriately deleting a comment), but to be quite frank I B Wright has been a little overzealous in how he states his information and probably can use a little more civility in discussions on the topics of overscan and such. ^GB86 07:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted.

Looking at this from the outside, I had interpreted Ὁ οἶστρος's remarks as a deliberate attempt to discredit an editor who had otherwise contributed valid (and cited) material with the deliberate attempt of including uncited disinformation (maybe with the best of intentions, Wikipedia is rather infamous for disinformation).

I fail to understand your comments on I.B.Wright's incivility on the Overscan discussion page as he does not appear to have ever placed a comment there. I can certainly detect a measure of frustration on this user's discussion page as there does appear to be a measure of this user not accepting the view of others when it conflicts with his own inaccurate view of the world. 62.188.122.4 (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

See within this section for my two cents. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Overscan in HD systems

Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

I'm sorry to have to tell you that overscan on HD systems is very real and that I.B.Wright and the other contributors (?) above are more or less correct, even though they have only given part of the story and got a few details incorrect. Incidentally, I work in the TV industry and my main employment is editing Blu-ray based HD material, but we are in the specialised field of training material, so nothing of mine is actually broadcast. But the same rules apply.

Whilst, one is entitled to expect a digital source such as a blu-ray disc when played back on a digital based 1920 by 1080 display to be in 1:1 pixel alignment, it isn't.

The origins were indeed with CRT based, as it is impossible to build a CRT besed TV set such that if the picture is made the correct size and exactly fits the display area at the factory, it will remain so when it leaves. It will cease to do so the moment the TV set is moved. This is because the CRT is sensistive to magnetic fields including the earth's magnetic field (though the higher accelerating voltages encountered with modern tubes mean that they are less sensitive than older tubes). Simply overscanning the picture and omitting any circuitry that sizes and centres the picture makes for a cheaper set.

The bit that was omitted above, was that the broadcasters took advantage of this situation to include digital codes within the picture area, but in the area not normally displayed just as they did with lower resolution programme material. These typically appear as flickering white blocks along the top edge of the picture. They flicker because they are usually only on the even field. Some US based broadcasters have also used codes down the left side of the picture. I am aware of at least one leading camcorder manufacturer who has included such codes in the video output of their HDV based camcorders. Since the code is not recorded on the tape but added during replay, its purpose is unknown.

The practical upshot is that no HD television manufacturer would consider releasing to the market a set that does not overscan. Although the digital data stream contains overscan information, all television sets ignore it. The manufacturers would be hit by a substantial number of returns as users would consider the flickering digital blocks as a picture defect. All of this was addressed in the citation from the original version of the Overscan article even though you claimed that it did not.

The bit that was not correct is that the degree of overscan is not a part of the HD specification. Indeed, the specification was written expecting the full picture to be displayed. The actual degree of overscan comes from the chips used to process the video prior to displaying it on the screen. All of the chips that I am aware of rescale the central 1877 by 1000 pixels to the 1920 by 1080 pixels of the display device (but it is quite posible that other rescale ratios exist). Indeed test cards in use in the industry have scales for variable amounts of overscan).

Googling for any form of HD overscan turns up hundreds of hits (depending on exact search parameters). Googling for 1:1 pixel mapping in consumer TV sets turns up nothing at all. Indeed Memestream cited a specific Panasonic TV and claimed it offered dot for dot mode. Nothing in Panasonic's literature on that set (or indeed any set) supports that claim. The result is that what should be 1920 by 1080 video suffers a loss of resolution when the rescaling takes place, and indeed in my opinion FWIW the 1366 by 768 panels actually seem to offer a better perceived resolution. I can tell you that 1920 by 1080 material viewed on a professional non overscanning monitor looks absolutely stunning but becomes relatively crap once the overscan is switched on.

We use professional monitors for our editing functions. They are switchable between overscan and no overscan. In the latter mode they have a menu option to display a red rectangle representing the area normally presented to the viewer. 62.188.122.162 (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, he's back!

Seriously, Mr. IPs 62.188.122.162, 62.188.100.206, 62.188.122.4 et al. (or do you prefer to be addressed as the Great King and Censor-in-Chief 62.188.122.162?), you smack heavily of yet more sock puppets of the self-proclaimed "professional engineer in the UK Aerospace sector" with "a wide ranging knowledge on some often surprising subjects" who goes by the "apposite if modest description" I B Wright and also happens to "actually author Blu-ray Discs".

"Why so?" you might ask.

Well, apart from your writing style in general and idiosyncrasies like your peculiar – and once somebody has replied and therefore added another paragraph confusing and pointless – way of segueing from a comment made within an existing section into a newly created section heading (as evident here and here), there are other indicators.

For starters, like with our right by default friend, to you too, it seems important to put great emphasis on your [purported] societal status, probably somehow thinking that would validate any- and everything you write. Here's news for you: Sure, Argument from authority, Appeal to accomplishment and Proof by verbosity are neat fallacies, but as such not concepts apt for an honest discussion. There's the odd scientific idea that one should actually be able to substantiate one's claims with sources, ya know...

Which brings us to the next charactristic you share with I B Wright CEng: the penchant for lengthy, tedious and often IRRELEVANT (e.g.: the verbose spoutings about cathode ray tubes) pseudo-techno babble. Not only do you constantly address stuff that's simply beside the point – we're NOT talking about overscanning of CRT sets: what we're talking about is overscanning of 1080p consumer TV sets, which you acknowledge yourself in your "lecture" above ("overscan on HD systems", "a digital source [...] when played back on a digital based 1920 by 1080 display", "the 1920 by 1080 pixels of the display device", "consumer TV sets", ...) and in your remark on the Overscan talk page; which is what the paragraph you blanketed in the corresponding article is about; and which are almost exclusively (with a few exceptions that are negligible in terms of sales numbers and NONE of which are CRT-based) LCD- and PDP-based (anybody else reminded of I B Wright's fixation on region coding further up?) –, you also seem to expect people to take everything you state at face value by completely refraining from naming scrutable specifics or supporting sources. There's a nice little something called verifiability, ever heard of it?

To summarize the preceding two paragraphs:

Please, either put up or shut up (that's a common saying, by the way, so please do us all a favor, stop crying and don't go into another Personal attack! Personal attack! fit).

Now, in case it is really you, I B Wright CEng, how have you been doing? Must have been terribly taxing on a chap like you who's so eager to share his intellectual findings with others to sit still for so long... Have you at least come to terms with the whole European BDs aren't present in 24p debacle by now? I mean, you were pushing that assertion so fiercely, it must've been hard to let go.

If, on the other hand, you're not the Great Caped Irate Sour Grapes Shapeshifting Mate, I'd suggest you contact him at once, as in all likelihood you'll get along fabulously and have a grand ol' time talking shop and pitying lads like me who just can't keep up with your ilk.

But back to your claims. Ready for a dissenting voice? Of course you're not, but here is it, anyway:

All 1920x1080 pixels will be displayed on modern HDTVs, when driven by an HDMI interface. My company is a leading manufacturer of HDMI and analog component video test equipment. We have a test image that renders single pixel test lines on the extreme borders of the 1920x1080 active area to test for such aberrations. Today, I ran the test image at 1080p60 into the HDMI inputs of three modern HDTVs we had sitting around and all of the pixels were visible without any scaling or overscan on all of them (see attached photos). [Editor's note: Pictures of TV sets – from three different manufacturers, Panasonic, Sony and Westinghouse Digital – displaying a test image were included.]

Years ago, consumer displays did overscan as a rule – especially the CRT-based ones, which overscanned in order to hide geometric distortion and vertical interval signaling. With modern HDTVs, this is no longer the case – so the Wikipedia user is wrong WRT modern HDTVs. When fed a 1920x1080 HDMI test signal, modern HDTVs typically display all of the pixels.

Mark Stockfisch, co-chair of CEA’s R4.8 WG7 Uncompressed A/V Digital Interfaces Workgroup and Vice President & CTO of Quantum Data – a company specializing in video test instruments used by product design engineers worldwide [2010-08-23]

"But wait," you might say, "you're also just using authority to counter me! How's that any different from what I'm doing?"

Well, for one, that person's actually verifiably active within the industry, identifying himself and his functions (and not just vaguely stating "I work in the TV industry"), and, two, HE PUT THIS CRAZY NOTION OF HIS TO THE TEST.

Speaking of which, there are various inexpensive commercially available calibration tools out there, so any- and everybody interested in the reality of things can conduct a similar test as described above him- or herself (and since you, Mr. John Doe, are such a savvy industry insider, this shouldn't pose a problem, anyway). To divulge some personal information here, to calibrate my private home theater setup, I used this here (the US BD version of it, to be precise, which was released on the 2008-03-25 – and those of you somewhat familiar with the industry will probably have heard of the man behind that product: Joe Kane). Among other things, this disc also lets you check wether the picture of a 1080p Blu-ray Disc can be displayed natively in 1920×1080 mode, i.e.: without overscan, on a respective screen.

At home, for BD viewing, I currently use a unit from the «Panasonic VIERA TH-50PZ800» PDP TV series. In default mode, if I remember correctly (bought that TV on the 2008-08-10, so that model is already over two years old – so, on a different-yet-related note, there wouldn't be any use in trying to twist your statements into something like "with modern digital displays I only meant ones out before this year"), my PDP had overscan on, but all you had to do to turn it off, was to navigate through an on-screen menu and change the corresponding option. It goes like this:

Menu > Setup > Picture Overscan > Off

It's easy and intuitive enough to find directly on-screen but it's also in the manual – in the ones for UK version (just type TH50PZ800E into the webform on the page linked) on pp. 15 and 19 and on pp. 23 and 27, respectively –, so I'd be curious to learn how that could slip your awe-inspiring attention when above in the second to last paragraph writing the following:

Indeed Memestream cited a specific Panasonic TV and claimed it offered dot for dot mode. [Editor's note: I would assume he's referring to this.] Nothing in Panasonic's literature on that set (or indeed any set) supports that claim. (62.188.122.162, 2010-08-15)

(You sure seem to like the word "indeed", by the way.)

And do I really have to say that utilizing the aforementioned calibration disc confirms that there really is no overscan? OK, I will:

According to that software's test images, my «Panasonic VIERA TH-50PZ800» PDP TV set is capable of displaying 1080p material without overscanning.

There you go. Again, all of this can be easily checked up on by everyone out there.

For the hell of it, I even took the time to contact Panasonic and presented them with your claims. And guess what? They don't know what the heck you're talking about, either, and affirmed my "view" of things.

(Incidentally, as you propably can imagine, they don't take lightly to falsehoods about their products and would welcome you stepping out of the shadow of anonymity and then repeating your allegations in the light of day.)

But then again, it might all just be one huge, intricate conspiracy, with hard- and software manufacturers, designers, engineers and tech journalists all colluding to manipulate specifications, data sheets, measuring instruments, procedures and results (or, maybe better yet – no: genius! –, this dirty "little" secret of the industry is so well guarded that only a chosen few are really in on it all, all-controlling, deciding which cog in the wheel needs to know which part of the puzzle, only bewraying what is absolutely necessary for it to operate smoothly, while the big picture remains unbeknownst to the vast majority of those willing Orc-like minions, unconscious of the evil goals they help further); a sham of gigantic proportions, concocted to deceive the people of the world, the wicked reason for which we can only speculate about.

And they were darn close to getting away with it, if it wasn't for you and your superior intellect, courageously standing up from within their midst (since you're an insider), swiftly bestriding your high horse and galloping in to foil their diabolic plans and thusly save the day!

If you can offer PROOF for your "truth", I'll readily concede that Panasonic is bullshitting me when they say you can turn off overscan on their consumer PDP TV sets, that the calibration and testing software out there is a load of hokum and that basically everyone disagreeing with you is a member of the Bunch of Liars Club.

Should you decide to reply and enlighten us unworthy creatures (even more), please do so without [your usual habit of – if you're I B Wright CEng] breaking up paragraphs by writing in between them – you know, I quoted you, too, and still managed to avoid that nasty behaviour.

My apologies for the rather harsh tone, but I'm really starting to get fed up with this, and I'm not sure how many fellow users would be calmly putting up with your abusing kind frivolously attacking and vandalizing their talk page under the guise of bogus personal attack and vandalism accusations time and again. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I regret to inform you that I am not this 'I B Wright' bloke, but if he is a C Eng then he probably does know more than you, but he certainly doesn't seem to know the whole story.

You appear to be continuing your style of belittling others. You also have the writing style of a 13 year old who regards himself as right and everone else as wrong. I don't doubt that Panasonic stated that their TV doesn't overscan. Indeed most TV salesman, like you, have probably never heard of overscan, or have ever been asked about it. Now try reading the citation that you deleted from the overscan article. Everything you need to know is there. Also try googling 'HD overscan' and variations thereof. You will get hundreds of hits. If you publish rubbish on Wikipedia you will need to get used to people pointing out that you are wrong so there is no point getting 'fed up' withn it.

You are wrong. Get used to it. 62.188.122.204 (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that it's much use to reply – since your latest posting makes it abundantly clear you didn't [properly] read what I wrote, as you don't refute (or even address) anything stated therein, instead you just pretend like nothing ever happened that might, just might have challenged your notions and trot out yet another uninformed, repetitive – if only there were anything in it worth repeating! – and hazy "response" (Oh my Gawd, this SO feels like replying to I B Wright CEng...) –, but given that you kept it so mercifully short, I'll force myself once more (likely for the last time – rejoice!) to do so anyway.

"[...] but if he is a C Eng then he probably does know more than you, [...]" (62.188.122.204, 2010-09-02)

Certainly possible, but if so you ha..., er, I mean he has successfully hidden his vast knowledge from the people here at Wikipedia so far. Hitherto, it's all, well, mostly been big talk, many words, no substance.

"You also have the writing style of a 13 year old [...]" (62.188.122.204, 2010-09-02)

I kinda doubt your average 13-year-old would be able to write like that; I do wish, however, I was 13 years old. And, sure, I'm undoubtedly making fun of you [two?] in that text, but guess what? I happen to think you deserved it. Just too bad it didn't provoke a more inspired ad hominem attack in return than the one you could come up with. Sorry, but it's way too silly to feel insulted.

"Indeed most TV salesman, like you, [...]" (62.188.122.204, 2010-09-02)

Indeed my ass... And where did you get the idea from that I was a TV salesman? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I'm not.

"Now try reading the citation that you deleted from the overscan article." (62.188.122.204, 2010-09-02)

And which one would that be? Oh, but then, I NEVER deleted ANYTHING from (or added to, for that matter) the Overscan article (and in case you confused the two, NEITHER did I remove anyone's comment from its talk page – you're the self-appointed censor, remember?).

"Everything you need to know is there." (62.188.122.204, 2010-09-02)

Again, where? I'd be curious to see that citation that disproves everything I've written above.

"Also try googling 'HD overscan' and variations thereof. You will get hundreds of hits." (62.188.122.204, 2010-09-02)

There you go again, the googling dare reloaded. A couple of remarks on that "point":

"You will get hundreds of hits." – and so you will entering "Hitler loved the Jews" (oops...). Does that make it so? (to be fair, though, some results are questions, like "Are you saying Hitler loved the Jews?" and such) Earth to Planet 62.188.122.204, come in please. We call to inform you of an epistemological breakthrough: quantity does not equal quality. That alone actually ends your "argument" right here and now, but, for the fun of it all, let me point out some of the other ways you're wrong here.
In this context, "HD overscan" is a "neutral" search expression, if you want. It doesn't say "consumer HDTVs aren't capable of displaying content without overscan" – or in some of your own words: "Whilst, one is entitled to expect a digital source such as a blu-ray disc when played back on a digital based 1920 by 1080 display to be in 1:1 pixel alignment, it isn't." (62.188.122.162, 2010-08-15), "Indeed Memestream cited a specific Panasonic TV and claimed it offered dot for dot mode. Nothing in Panasonic's literature on that set (or indeed any set) supports that claim." (62.188.122.162, 2010-08-15) etc. pp. –, nor does it say the opposite.
Humoring you and googling "HD overscan", the first hit one will get [at least I did on the 2010-09-02] is this. Let me quote from that article:

HD 101: Overscan and why all TVs do it

By Ben Drawbaugh • posted May 27th 2010 2:43PM

The concept of overscan seems particularly difficult for geeks to comprehend -- normal people usually don't care to even understand it -- and some even get down right confrontational when they first learn that all TVs do it. But the fact is that even the latest LCDs and plasmas don't show all 2 million pixels of a 1080p signal out of the box. Instead about 3 percent of 'em are cropped off the edges (as illustrated by the red line in the image above) and the remaining pixels are scaled to fill in all the pixels of your HDTV. [...]

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/05/27/hd-101-overscan-and-why-all-tvs-do-it

Holy moly, the dude got it right all along, right? I'm afraid not. If you care to read on, you will come across this:

[...] In the meantime we're just happy that most TVs have a way to turn it off. When an image is displayed properly, it's sometimes referred as 1:1 pixel mapping. This simply means that every pixel in the signal is displayed by a single pixel on the display. Of course each manufacture has its own name for this mode; like Samsung who sometimes calls it Screen Fit, and Pioneer called it Dot by Dot. No matter what it's called, it's rarely on by default -- even when watching 1080p24 from Blu-ray which never has garbage on the edges! -- so you'll have to find the button on the remote called something like format or P.size, depending on the brand. Your best bet is to read the manual -- shocker. [...]

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/05/27/hd-101-overscan-and-why-all-tvs-do-it

Blimey, your detractors have struck again, this time even by following your wise guidance!

Now that it's hopefully established even in your beautiful mind that it's a patently downright idiotic thing to tell someone to just go google it when asked to give "concrete proof" (a redundant phrasing, anyway) for (yours) and against (mine) a disputed claim, how about finally actually providing a single, teeny-weeny link that backs up your and invalidates my claims?

"If you publish rubbish on Wikipedia you will need to get used to people pointing out that you are wrong [...]" (62.188.122.204, 2010-09-02)

Where did you copy & paste that from? Maybe you should listen to "yourself", then?

Now, I have no illusions about this. To get you to own up to something is in all probability (if experience is any indicator) as futile as trying to make a gecko stick to a Teflon surface. But heaven knows, I can't be blamed for not trying. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how the above IP addresses not only choose not to pick a username to use, but that they ironically cry wolf about incivility when they themselves refuse to keep things civil. ^GB86 21:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, true that, it's preposterous.

Not that I myself have been at my most polite throughout all of this, but as I write above, I'm not convinced too many people would be willing to take so much abuse by that guy, er, sorry, by those guys [rolls eyes] just lying down.

Thanks, by the way, for providing another perspective (here and here) when I wasn't around to defend myself. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement for any Wikipedia user to create a named account. If you regard it as preposterous (and yes it is you because this is another of your sockpuppets (see below) and a pretty obvious one as he always supports you and critisises your oponents), then it is your opinion, which as far as I am concerned is worth nothing. Wikipedia disagrees. It also gives one less username and password to manage. 62.188.105.142 (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason I don't 'properly read what I wrote' (your bad English) is that your responses are verbose beyond belief. So verbose that I can't be bothered to read the whole lot.

However, the fundamental point remains that you seem to have changed your position, in that you now admit that HD overscan exists in HD TV sets having previously denied it. The fact that you are now introducing the concept of TV sets that can turn overscan off is an admission that overscan must exist in the first place.

As far as those TV sets are concerned: they don't seem to be as commonplace as you claim. Whilst I applaud the fact that it is now possible to buy TV sets that display HD video exactly as it should be (it wasn't just over a year ago), then number of sets offering this facility is still only a relative handfull, and then only at the 'prosumer' end of the market. In any case this is all realy irrelevant as the HD overscan is set on by default.

As for you claims that you didn't delete the material in the Overscan article: you are insulting everyones' intelligence. The article has had a reference to HD overscan in it for over 4 years which has gone unchallenged despite a moderate amount of contribution and editing. The frequency of editing betrays that the article probably qualifies as one of the more unexplored backwaters of Wikipedia. Then I B Wright includes a link to the article and then by an astonishing coincidence, within 24 hours, an anonymous editor (an obvious sockpuppet of you) vandalises the article by blanking the whole section. And then a couple of other sockpuppets chime in in support of you (I count that you have at least 4 sockpuppets). And then there is that other characteristic of the sock puppeteer - accuse all the people who point out that you are wrong of sockpuppetry as a smokescreen. 62.188.105.142 (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, you're such a tool, it boggles the mind. Many a thing may seem to you, that's become painfully obvious to all of us who had the misfortune of being pestered by you, and as it is clear that you can't seem to be fazed by something as trivial as facts.

You know full well (if not you're even dumber than I thought – and who would've thunk that to be possible?) this was NEVER about overscan per se, but about your (and your alter egos') inane claims with regards to modern consumer HDTV sets and their alleged inability to play back sources such as BDs in their native resolution. It's all been documented here, plain for everyone to see who said what when, and it's amazing you seem to have no sense of shame whatsoever in piling up BS on BS. Don't you register that you're the object of utter ridicule here? Everyone can see what you're doing. It's like getting caught faking an injury in a televised sports game, the incident being repeated over and over again in super slo-mo. EVERYONE CAN SEE IT AND IS LAUGHING AT YOU. Are you really that fucking stupid?

In my initial (or, if that was "too bad English" for you: in my very first) response to your claims, among other things you couldn't "be bothered" with, one can read this:

At home, for BD viewing, I currently use a unit from the «Panasonic VIERA TH-50PZ800» PDP TV series. In default mode, if I remember correctly (bought that TV on the 2008-08-10, so that model is already over two years old – so, on a different-yet-related note, there wouldn't be any use in trying to twist your statements into something like "with modern digital displays I only meant ones out before this year"), my PDP had overscan on, but all you had to do to turn it off, was to navigate through an on-screen menu and change the corresponding option.

(ὁ οἶστρος, 2010-08-31)

Do you even realize all the paroxysms of laughter you are causing the poor folks who have actually followed or will follow this "correspondence" when they learn that over a week AFTER the above you write drivel like this?:

However, the fundamental point remains that you seem to have changed your position, in that you now admit that HD overscan exists in HD TV sets having previously denied it. The fact that you are now introducing the concept of TV sets that can turn overscan off is an admission that overscan must exist in the first place.

(62.188.105.142, 2010-09-09)

Or how about this?:

Whilst I applaud the fact that it is now possible to buy TV sets that display HD video exactly as it should be (it wasn't just over a year ago), then number of sets offering this facility is still only a relative handfull, and then only at the 'prosumer' end of the market.

(62.188.105.142, 2010-09-09)

But why am I continuing to point things out to you when you evidently either haven't even read or don't comprehend ANYTHING of it? Hard to decide which is worse, someone aggressively talking out of his ass without "bothering" to take into account anything that could challenge his views or someone just as aggressively lecturing on things that simply go over his head – or maybe it's both: even if you wanted you couldn't. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is pointless... talking, that is. On another note, the section he has removed was weak and was giving recommendations, which is not a proper style for wikipedia. Overscan is undesirable? Yes, for 1920x1080 panel with 1920x1080 signal. But there are other panels and other signals. Lots of 1080-line HD is sent with 1440 or even 1280 pixels wide and scaled to screen, so dot-by-dot relationship can be probably achieved only while watching BD. Also, AFAIK 1920x1080 is actually encoded with 1088 lines, with lower 8 pixels ignored by TV sets. Are these pixels part of overscan or should they be called something different? Should they be called MPEG-2 padding? What about clean aperture for 1920x1080, which seems to be 1888x1062? Reading up on "clean aperture", it does not say that this is a visible portion of the video, but the portion that defines aspect ratio, so does not seem directly relevant to overscan. Clean aperture comes to play for formats with non-square pixels, when you have to maintain proper aspect ratio, like 720x486 DV but it is not 4:3 (or 16:9) as is, 704x480 is 4:3 (or 16:9), so to properly handle AR 16 pixels must be stripped. Is this overscan? But again, this is not HD. HD uses square pixels and it seems that no matter what "clean aperture" is, AR does not change, so it is possible to display all of the pixels. I think that section should have been written less didactic("modern HD TVs allow turning overscan off, which is how it should be"), should use more prooflinks and needs better research. If we are talking about HD TVs in general, not just 1080p signal shown on a 1080p panel, then we need to use more careful wording, because SD can be shown on an HD TV too.

Now reading it, the whole article is weak and looks more like a personal blog than a wiki article. This bit for example: "The "standard" pixel aspect ratio data found in video editors, certain ITU standards, MPEG etc is usually based on an approximation of the above, fudged to allow either 704 or 720 pixels to equate to the full 4x3 or 16x9 picture at the whim of the author." Certain standards? MPEG etc? Fudged? Whim? "The 525-line system originally contained 486 lines of picture, not 480." - AFAIK, it still contains 486 lines when broadcast, 6 lines are just not used/shown, and DV does not use them. "Digital foundations to most storage and transmission systems since the early 1990s have meant that analogue NTSC has only been expected to have 480 lines of picture" - 480 lines with actual content, maybe, still no links. "How this affects the interpretation of "the 4:3 ratio" as equal to 704x480 or 704x486 is unclear, but the VGA standard of 640x480 has had a large impact." - Unclear? Large impact? Seriously, this is a bad article.

Sorry for blabbering. Dot-by-dot is great for use a TV as a computer screen, no arguing with that one. Mikus (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Now reading it, the whole article is weak and looks more like a personal blog than a wiki article." (Mikus, 2010-09-10)

personal blog, I don't know, but I certainly agree that the article is weak and has been probably since its inception. It feels like a patchwork rug, where everbody has just added or subtracted bits and pieces, meaning, there never seems to have been any systematic larger structure to it, a framework that could've been fleshed out over time. It would be great if someone like you could fundamentally revamp it. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic-ish: Tapping your tech-savviness, do you happen to know which format each the films

Antichrist (2009) [Lars von Trier] and
[REC] (2007) [Jaume Balagueró & Paco Plaza]

were originally shot and then edited and completed in? 24p? 25p? 50i? – obviously, a source would be swell as well. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No idea. http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/issues/fall2009/antichrist.php -- "After doing several films that were shot on video, you've made a visually gorgeous film. ... This is the film that I might have expected you to make with a tiny crew and a video camera." -- I assume it has been shot on film, which pretty much implies 24 fps.

http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/theatrical-reviews/rec-2/ - "the most accomplished camcorder horror ever made." http://www.cineworld.co.uk/films/3470 - "[REC] was acclaimed as one of the scariest camcorder horror films since The Blair Witch Project." Not sure about frame rate. Mikus (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, with [REC], there doesn't seem to be much specific information out there (either that, or I just looked in the wrong places). I'm still wondering whether it was really shot with camcorders or just made to look like that in post-production.

As for Antichrist, this one is just as puzzling or maybe even more so. At first, I also thought it would have to have been shot in 24p, especially since the upcoming Criterion Collection release also seems to be present in that format (although, because of compatibility issues, there probably isn't much of a choice for US distributors, anyway). But then, I came across stuff like this:

“Antichrist” is technically speaking very interesting. The slow motion scenes at the begining of the film were shot with Phantom HD cameras from Vision Research. This cameras are able to shot at 1000 fps. [...] The others parts of the film were shot with two RED ONE cameras in 4K 25 fps REDCODE 36 (= 36 MB/s date rate, using less compression than REDCODE 28 = 28 MB/s; see also American Cinematographer Nov 2009). For distortion effects DOP Anthony Dod Mantle mounted a Lensbaby onto the RED ONE cameras. [...] Blu-ray does not support 1080p with 25 fps just 1080i with 25 fps. As the film was shot in 1080p25 the picture could only be encoded as 1080i 25fps. In cinemas the film was slowed down to 24 fps.

http://www.hd-reporter.de/blu-ray-reviews/antichrist-blu-ray

However, as convincing as most of that might sound, none of it is official (lots of generic company links and the article in the November '09 issue of American Cinematographer can't be accessed without subscription).

For both movies, there are BD editions out in 24p and 50i, respectively (the latter ones employing PsF, I would hope), leaving me perplexed as to what to buy... – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't read all this nonsense. HD ready 1080p requires that the display does not use overscan. While it is possible that some poor HDTVs do use overscan, it is clearly undesirable.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Feedback reorganization

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! You recently posted a Request for Feedback here. We are currently "remodeling" the Requests for Feedback system and all entries have been archived. They can be found here. Any responses or posts there, however will not be seen. If you need additional feedback or have any questions, feel free to post at my talk page, or, when it is done, the new Feedback page. Also, we encourage you to help provide feedback! - No matter how new you may be, anyone can read an article and provide constructive comments!

If you have any questions or need help, feel free to leave me a message at my talk page. You can also talk to us live, with this or this. Happy editing! Chzz ► 07:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ὁ οἶστρος. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.