or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Screenshots - Page 3

post #61 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
[python] "What an eccentric performance" [/python]....



]
Harkness i must have got you mixed up with someone else.
My Bad.
You are right all have the right to speak there comments in threads,
there is freedom of speech unless you are Paster Terry Jones...lol

Like i said I if one leaves comments on screen shots in a negitive way like you have done,
Your Comments go alot further when you show a in living color example of a screen shot that is current.

And that beef harkness is not just directed at yourself but it is a statement in general.

enough Said,
Steve looking forward to more of your shots
post #62 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
SteveMo,

Not to be a downer, but I'm a teeny bit baffled about this thread.
I'm with you. For me, a good screen capture is about wow factor and has even been the decider when buying a film on BD. I would not buy any of the films he has used for screen cap because they do not impress me. If I didn't already own the same projector (BenQW5000) and know what it can do, I would not be keen to buy one either based on any of his screen shots.

Apparently this is his thread to 'test'. Exactly what his 'tests' will prove remains to be seen. If he wants to show noise (pretending it is film grain) why use DVD? Why not use laser disc or even VHS?
post #63 of 130
Thread Starter 





post #64 of 130
Thread Starter 


post #65 of 130
Thread Starter 
post #66 of 130
Thread Starter 
post #67 of 130
I am still confused what the experiment is or the difference.

I agree I would not even think of theis projector as a good one based on the screen captures.

No I have not posted screen captures of my projector as I have a cheap camera that would make anything look bad and I do not want that impression of my pj as it is a very good piece of equipment. That being said anyone that is into HT can tell the quality of the pictures presented.
post #68 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by rovingtravler View Post
I am still confused what the experiment is or the difference.

I agree I would not even think of theis projector as a good one based on the screen captures.

No I have not posted screen captures of my projector as I have a cheap camera that would make anything look bad and I do not want that impression of my pj as it is a very good piece of equipment. That being said anyone that is into HT can tell the quality of the pictures presented.
My Camera is a 10mp Insignia Under 60$..
And i make it work,
All my Screen shots are done on that Camera...

I understand this thread and am not confused at all...
post #69 of 130
[quote=SteveMo;20228876]This thread is for my sreenshots so as not to interupt others. I'm looking at genre, subject, photo and media quality. My camera is a Sigma DP2 and my source is a HTPC.

Thread purpose is spelled out in the first post.....
post #70 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraisa View Post

QUOTE=SteveMo:This thread is for my sreenshots so as not to interupt others. I'm looking at genre, subject, photo and media quality. My camera is a Sigma DP2 and my source is a HTPC.

Thread purpose is spelled out in the first post.....

No actually it's not.

What does he mean he is "looking at" genre, subject, photo and media quality? If he is just "looking" at those things, for some inscrutable reason of his own, he could look at the photos on his computer. Yet he's posting them on a public forum, so apparently he is inviting public comment. But what are we on the forum supposed to say about the images?

If we are to join in scrutinizing the "media and photo quality" then some of us have pointed out that they are very wanting in quality. What else are we supposed to be doing with this thread? If SteveMo doesn't want any scrutiny of his shots, why post them here? And if scrutiny is given, it's silly to call foul.
post #71 of 130
Fraisa,

I agree with Harkness. "Looking at" media quality is not spelled out.

I have a sub 4 megapixel digital and a camera on my phone. I do have a some very good still cameras and lenses, but have not made the jump. I listed this only because berated someone for not posting pictures. I said this because I too have not posted and I stated my reasons why.

So far there has been no talk by the OP about what the differences or what was or was not achieved from the different sessions. Just more and more photos.

I think we would all be better serviced if some additonal information was given by the OP if he is truely try to "look at" different aspects of HT add the impact it has on his HT.
post #72 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by rovingtravler View Post

Fraisa,

I agree with Harkness. "Looking at" media quality is not spelled out.

I have a sub 4 megapixel digital and a camera on my phone. I do have a some very good still cameras and lenses, but have not made the jump. I listed this only because berated someone for not posting pictures. I said this because I too have not posted and I stated my reasons why.

So far there has been no talk by the OP about what the differences or what was or was not achieved from the different sessions. Just more and more photos.

I think we would all be better serviced if some additonal information was given by the OP if he is truely try to "look at" different aspects of HT add the impact it has on his HT.

I agree,
that we need steve answer these questions since this is his thread and he knows his purpose...
post #73 of 130
Thread Starter 
"looking at" I have already defined here previously in my first screenshot thread. "looking at" means I am expecting in this thread to see that the screen photo is directly related to the recent subject or genre. This means if there is a new vampire movie hiting theaters this week, I might post shots from "Let The Right One In", or if for example I think a scene where someone might be at a table eating would be the subject of my post, that is what I post. Another might be color, If I want to look at different shots with similar colors, like red for example.
post #74 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMo View Post

or if for example I think a scene where someone might be at a table eating would be the subject of my post, that is what I post.

in other words, pure randomness
It does not change the fact that the blacks are washed in most of your shots.
post #75 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

in other words, pure randomness

It's page one, and the reason this convo started. You have now entered The Twilight Zone.

Quote:


It does not change the fact that the blacks are washed in most of your shots.

The projector is calibrated by a certified professional and the image taken by a certified graphic designer and trained photographer.
post #76 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMo View Post

It's page one, and the reason this convo started. You have now entered The Twilight Zone.

And you've been there for quite some time...

Quote:


The projector is calibrated by a certified professional and the image taken by a certified graphic designer and trained photographer.

If you paid for these services, get your money back. Your BenQ W5000 looks as bad as they do out of the box.
post #77 of 130
Thread Starter 


post #78 of 130
These look much better but still look like they used DVD as the source.
post #79 of 130
Thread Starter 
post #80 of 130
I can't figure out why SteveMo's screen shots look so low-res.

Steve, are you in fact using HD/Blu-Ray sources? Or do you have a bunch of DVD sources in your screen shots as well?
post #81 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I can't figure out why SteveMo's screen shots look so low-res.

Steve, are you in fact using HD/Blu-Ray sources? Or do you have a bunch of DVD sources in your screen shots as well?

I have posted five in this thread. You can see my Star Wars DVDs and the others I have in the photo. I have about twenty other DVDs and near 10 HD DVDs at my other home.
post #82 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

These look much better but still look like they used DVD as the source.

Here is a photo (using my Sigma DP2) of a movie that is 4 X more compressed than DVD.

post #83 of 130
i don't think there is any real purpose to this thread other than steve likes to post screenshots of his pj in action. many have ratted on him in the other screenshot thread as to why he continues and insists on posting more screenshots of his pj when there must be over 100 of them from him in that thread, all looking the same. if you ask me, thats his thing. no reason for it, just that its fun for him to do.
post #84 of 130
Thread Starter 
post #85 of 130
Thread Starter 
post #86 of 130
that looks bad
post #87 of 130
come on guys. This is Stevemo's thread, let him post what he sees fit to post. After all this is a public forum for people to post. Simple as that.

I know people see this thread as a good thing, as I will let the viewed times of this thread speak for itself. Views so far...3,863 [Not bad at all]
post #88 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstosity12 View Post

come on guys. This is Stevemo's thread, let him post what he sees fit to post. After all this is a public forum for people to post. Simple as that.

I know people see this thread as a good thing, as I will let the viewed times of this thread speak for itself. Views so far...3,863 [Not bad at all]

Totally Agree 150 %
post #89 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc View Post

that looks bad

post #90 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMo View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMo View Post


So what was done in this 2nd shot to look so different?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home