VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or Try ConvertXtoDVD and convert all your movies to DVD. Free trial ! :)
Closed Thread
Page 2 of 2
FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 56 of 56
Thread
  1. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by smrpix View Post
    Video acquisition and presentation exists and has existed in literally thousands of different forms and different media. Simply look at the RED.com site to see how many one single, innovative, mainstream, un-stuffy company uses right now. Filmmakers (and engineers) continually push the envelope in creativity and technology.
    Indeed, the stuffy old engineers are not found in innovative companies and among creative people, they are mostly found in the ancient and dominant TV industry.

    Insisting on title/action safe for HD, insisting on interlaced HD, insisting on MPEG-2 for HD, IRE 7.5, video levels idiocy, butchering movies with pan and scan, the list goes on an on.

    Those are indeed not decisions made by innovative people, they are made by stuffy old "can't teach an old dog" job security worried, hippie turned conservative engineers.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	vids.jpg
Views:	1755
Size:	178.2 KB
ID:	29634
    Last edited by newpball; 11th Jan 2015 at 14:20.

  2. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    Hey, newpball, you can make your videos any way you want. Who said you couldn't?
    - My sister Ann's brother

  3. Member FulciLives's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA in the USA
    Search Comp PM
    newpball is very clearly bat shit crazy insane.

    - John "FulciLives" Coleman
    "The eyes are the first thing that you have to destroy ... because they have seen too many bad things" - Lucio Fulci
    EXPLORE THE FILMS OF LUCIO FULCI - THE MAESTRO OF GORE

  4. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Given the vehement diatribes against engineers, you'd think one killed his mother (a stuffy one, I'm sure).

    (the engineers, not the mother)

    Scott
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 11th Jan 2015 at 18:41.

  5. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    India
    Search Comp PM
    There is one aspect of video resolution definitions and actual usage that escapes me entirely. 1080P/I is defined as 1920 x 1080 pixels and 720P/I is defined as 1280 x 720 pixels. For whatever reason, and I would hazard a guess here, the actual videos as described are almost always in compliance with horizontal resolution BUT almost never in compliance so far as vertical resolution is concerned. Then why not change the defined names by their horizontal resolutions in stead of vertical ?

    Recently I have switched to ffmpeg based Video to Video application for all my conversions and file size reduction. They have 720 as one of the presets for video size. It does an honest job of it but have - on a couple of occasions - also come across situation where the original horizontal resolution of 1080P video actually increased beyond 1920 pixels because it was originally less than 720 vertically or was just barely reduced as the original was close to 800 pixels vertically.

    An engineer like me who looks for logic in everything can't find any here !

  6. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    It's real simple:

    #1 You are assuming "actual videos as described are almost alway in compliance with horizontal resolution..." because you are only considering material taken from a (wildly non-standard) consumer/user/p2p/pirating communities. NOT from actual professional content distribution, where there IS compliance with vertical resolutions.

    #2 You are assuming these dimensions have come from ONE standards pathway, but actually they have come from (mainly) 3 pathways, each with their own historical continuity traditions: Computer (screen size equivalents), Digital TV (HD & SD, derived & extrapolated from old Analog standards), and Digital Cinema (derived & extrapolated from Film/Celluloid/Analog Cinema). There is the matter of streamlining & combining these disparate influences and providing from commonality and continuity for them all.

    Computer sizes started by using a convention of both HxW and shorthand acronyms. Think: 800x600, SVGA, etc.
    TV had undefined/infinite horizontal, and ONLY a clearly defined & discreet vertical (scanlines). Easy when there was just one aspect ratio, but then there was 2 (with maybe more to come). Think: 480, 576, then 720, 1080. For UHD, they've decided to use "UHDTV1" for TV equivalent of 4k (3840x2160) and "UHDTV2" for TV equivalent of 8k (7680x4320).
    Cinema has had a major head start over TV WRT aspect ratios, so when they branched into digital, the common dimension was more often the horizontal, less so the vertical. However, it wasn't an exact resolution, but more like a family of similar resolutions. Think: 2k DCI Native Full frame (2048x1080), 2k DCI Scope image (2048x858, 2.39DAR) or 2k DCI Flat image (1998x1080, 1.85DAR) or 2k DCI Academy image (1480x1080). And note that those continue to use the Full frame container, but include letterboxing to pad out the remainder.

    #3 You are paying too much attention to consumers, press & marketers who are the ones confusing the different standards. For example: there is no such thing as a 4k TV! Only UHD TVs (or experimentally, UHD2 TVs). The designator 2k or 4k or 8k derives from Cinema, but enough people have confused it with TV (since most monitoring happens electronically) that many companies have given in and adopted the nomenclature, even though it is inaccurate and continues to muddy the waters.

    Again, your anecdotal examples are a result of consumer-based inaccuracies. For example: you'll find plenty of examples of oddly sized converted rips online, but you will NEVER find any HD-rez Blu-rays that are anything but 1280x720 or 1920x1080.

    #4 You seem to be confusing the idea of "active picture" (aka the content area inside of the letterboxing) with the actual image (which INCLUDES the letterboxing), as many consumers seem to do. Those 2 HD BD resolutions of the image mentioned above are designed to perfectly match the native standard HDTV image size (which is 16:9). Consumer attempts to bypass letterboxing in encoding end up re-implementing it upon playback with a standard 16:9 screen (when in full-screen scale mode).

    Scott

  7. Originally Posted by pmshah View Post
    For whatever reason, and I would hazard a guess here, the actual videos as described are almost always in compliance with horizontal resolution BUT almost never in compliance so far as vertical resolution is concerned.
    You're asking about your (probably illegally) downloaded videos that have been cropped and reencoded from the original Blu-Rays or television broadcasts. If it bothers you so much, then add back the letterboxing when you reencode yet again.

  8. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Search PM
    It saddens me that some people cannot think outside the box (pun intended).

    Why some people seem to think there is actually a technical need to force a horizontal and vertical resolution for high definition video is completely beyond me. All we need is a horizontal and vertical pixel description. That is it, nothing more nothing less. No "standard" sizes, no anamorphic idiocy, no forcing of framerates.

    That's how the new HD standard should have been.

    ~

    " Daddy, thank you for that Harry Potter book, but eh, why is it split in three books of exactly 100 pages? The last one only has 10 pages of actual print and 90 pages of nothing! And why is there this funny black above and below all the pages? Isn't that strange?" "My son, you have a lot to learn, and please cut out that critical thinking. This is the way it should be, compliance and standardization my son, it is for the good of the people! Don't ask or question, just accept and your dad tells you it is good!"

    Click image for larger version

Name:	compliant.jpg
Views:	1535
Size:	170.9 KB
ID:	29663
    Last edited by newpball; 12th Jan 2015 at 12:00.

  9. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    I'm dead sure someone can build a TV and media storage/players that can handle all that. When will you be getting started? And who knows? Maybe they're already working on it, those new creativity guys.
    - My sister Ann's brother

  10. Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    All we need is a horizontal and vertical pixel description. That is it, nothing more nothing less. No "standard" sizes, no anamorphic idiocy, no forcing of framerates.
    Don't be so stuffy.
    Last edited by smrpix; 12th Jan 2015 at 11:49.

  11. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Mattadore View Post
    Alternately, I could use VLC but unless my subtitled Scope videos have the 'black bars' cropped off, the subtitles don't display (as they're normally in the black at the bottom of the picture).
    Dark subtitles would also be difficult to read if they were super-imposed on a movie that is mainly composed of dark scenes. You would still need to do something to correct the problem even with no letter-boxing.

    If these are not graphics-based subtitles, VLC does allow you to change the subtitle colors to provide adequate contrast.

  12. Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post

    Dark subtitles would also be difficult to read if they were super-imposed on a movie that is mainly composed of dark scenes. You would still need to do something to correct the problem even with no letter-boxing.
    As I understand it, his problem isn't the subtitle main color but that fact that they show below his oddly shaped screen and aren't seen at all.

    He was, I believe, trying to make the case for cropping the black bars from 2.39:1 movies. And not very well.

  13. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post

    Dark subtitles would also be difficult to read if they were super-imposed on a movie that is mainly composed of dark scenes. You would still need to do something to correct the problem even with no letter-boxing.
    As I understand it, his problem isn't the subtitle main color but that fact that they show below his oddly shaped screen and aren't seen at all.
    Yes, you are right. The problem is explained in more detail here: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zyber/HD_Advisor/HD_Advisor_Tutorial__23...rojection/2798

  14. Originally Posted by pmshah View Post
    There is one aspect of video resolution definitions and actual usage that escapes me entirely. 1080P/I is defined as 1920 x 1080 pixels and 720P/I is defined as 1280 x 720 pixels. For whatever reason, and I would hazard a guess here, the actual videos as described are almost always in compliance with horizontal resolution BUT almost never in compliance so far as vertical resolution is concerned. Then why not change the defined names by their horizontal resolutions in stead of vertical ?

    Recently I have switched to ffmpeg based Video to Video application for all my conversions and file size reduction. They have 720 as one of the presets for video size. It does an honest job of it but have - on a couple of occasions - also come across situation where the original horizontal resolution of 1080P video actually increased beyond 1920 pixels because it was originally less than 720 vertically or was just barely reduced as the original was close to 800 pixels vertically.

    An engineer like me who looks for logic in everything can't find any here !
    1080p is 1920x1080, but that includes any black bars top or bottom. Often when re-encoding such video the black bars are removed. What's left might be something like 1920x810 etc.... whatever the case may be. The resolution of the "picture" itself hasn't changed. It was always only 1920x810, so it's still generally referred to as 1080p.

    It makes sense, because if you removed the black bars and the remaining video is 1920x810, and you referred to it as 810p, that could mean anything. There's no 810p standard. By referring to it as 1080p, you've got an "industry standard" point of reference, so to speak. If it's 1080p, it'll be 1920 wide. 720p would be 1280 wide.
    Using the same logic, 900p would be 1600 wide, even if it's 1600 x 670.

    That all assumes the video has an aspect ratio of 16:9 or wider. If it's not, using 4:3 video as an example, the black bars are removed from the sides, so 1440x1080 would be referred to as 1080p, and 960x720 would be 720p.

    Most conversion programs with presets for 720p or 1080p would (I imagine) apply the same logic. For example if a video is 1280x540 and you want to resize to 1080p, it'd be resized to around 1920x810, black bars added top and bottom, and the output would be 1920x1080. I don't know what program you're using, but if the 1080p and 720p presets don't work that way, to my way of thinking they don't work as expected.

    Originally Posted by pmshah View Post
    Then why not change the defined names by their horizontal resolutions in stead of vertical ?
    I'd assume it's a "way it's always been done" thing, and a "number of scan lines" description, because it can be either 1080p or 1080i.
    Ultra HD formats are defined by their width, I assume because they're always progressive. 4K is "officially" 4096 x 2160. UltraHD TV isn't really quite 4K, it's 3840 x 2160 (16:9 aspect ratio) but it's mostly referred to as 4K, which would be 2160p using the traditional method. So one day you'll probably have a 2.40:1 aspect ratio video at 3840 x 1600 and it'll be generally referred to as 4K.
    Last edited by hello_hello; 14th Jan 2015 at 10:58.

  15. Originally Posted by smrpix View Post
    Previous standards weren't developed out of stupidity or ignorance, they were developed as real, often ingenious engineering solutions using the best minds and technologies of the time. As they continue to do now.
    I agree, standards have to exist otherwise how to distribute and to be sure that everybody views as you meant video to be viewed, including subtitles.

    On the other hand. I can see only one problem with getting rid of "put everything in letterbox" for BD standard today( omitting that tablets and phones and whatever viewing screen does not have to have 16:9, thus making it slightly non standard right away) and that is that image subtitles could be all over the place on screen if there is no fixed aspect ratio (16:9), so each BD player remote would have to have button to offset it if needed, which is kind of ridicules demand, it has to play always correctly. But anyway that might be doable, I'd say it is going to happen at some point in the future simply because some people will have different TV sizes and most importantly resolutions, so sitting close to some big ass UHD you'd need smaller subs on screens, not for giants, or for somebody reading it from distance (that negates UHD resolution in the first place). I'd say, those things are right now in progress of developing ....

    edit: I thought that discussion ended on page 1, not reading page 2 ... there is some mentioning of those higher resolutions, where things start to work differently ...

  16. Member spiritgumm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    is there an equivalent version of Restream for this type of video? I've used that for changing widescreen home recorded dvd video which should have been fullscreen. If the blu-ray was in an MKV container could the display ratio can be changed with Mkvtoolnix?

  17. I'm a MEGA Super Moderator Baldrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Sweden
    Search Comp PM
    Yes. You can change aspect ratio and also cropping in mkvtoolnix. In mkvmergegui open the mkv, click on the video stream and under format specific options /picture properties can you change that.

    But a standalone media player might ignore it.

  18. Originally Posted by Deraillor View Post
    Originally Posted by Noahtuck View Post
    I almost replied right when this was posted.......
    But i held my tongue.....

    Then i read the OP's second post.....

    and Satan got the best of me.....

    OY VEY!!!!!

    Not a clue....

    And i won't even go into this ridiculous comment,
    It's like converting an mp3 to a wav file
    LOL!!
    So how about being useful and explaining to people who might now know as much as you do why that's ridiculous?

    Does everyone else get that the OP understood the ridiculous prospect of converting an MP3 to a WAV file, and was using it to illustrate his point? I don't care if this is an older post.
    lmao I found this thread on google and had to make an account just because of what a monument to idiocy and fanatics clinging to dogma and tradition for no reason other than "that's how it's always been done" it is. reading this thread was embarrassing.

    the guy asked a simple question and you all launched into ranting and raving about people wanting to cut off the picture cause they hate black bars on tv and converting lossy files to lossless (not even remotely what the guy was talking about?) cause you're an insane pack of video snobs

    I've got a lossless copy from bluray of a tv show that's 4:3 aspect ratio. If I watch it on a tv it's fine. but if I watch it on my 16:10 monitor it's in a black box, which wouldn't happen if I could crop out just the black bars (but I don't want any compression to the actual video either, yeah it's giant file sized, I don't give a shit) and have just the actual picture. then I could watch it on any conceivable size resolution screen and it would fit appropriately. did any of you idiots ever think that all your assumptions and experiences and video fetishes might not apply to every other person on this planet? I'm glad this thread stands here as a reminder and example of the dangers of fanaticism and misunderstanding lol.

    I've seen this same shit in every other kind of "subculture" or hobby. Boys clubs for tired old men who act like any idea they hadn't considered is the most insane shit and is "just not done," half the time because they can't concieve of a need for it themselves (so obviously there's no possibly legitimate need right?) and half because they completely misunderstand the idea to begin with. It becomes painfully obvious why actual innovation is so rare.
    Last edited by ripsteakjaw; 21st Aug 2015 at 19:43.

  19. Originally Posted by ripsteakjaw View Post
    lmao I found this thread on google and had to make an account just because of what a monument to idiocy and fanatics clinging to dogma and tradition for no reason other than "that's how it's always been done" it is. reading this thread was embarrassing.
    I'm trying to work out if you understood any of what was previously posted.

    Originally Posted by ripsteakjaw View Post
    the guy asked a simple question and you all launched into ranting and raving about people wanting to cut off the picture cause they hate black bars on tv and converting lossy files to lossless (not even remotely what the guy was talking about?) cause you're an insane pack of video snobs
    The guy asked about removing the black bars without re-encoding the video and losing quality. It can't be done. You need to re-encode using a lossy encoder which reduces quality, or using a lossless format, which isn't practical.

    Originally Posted by ripsteakjaw View Post
    I've got a lossless copy from bluray of a tv show that's 4:3 aspect ratio.
    No, it's not lossless. It was encoded with a lossy encoder, but for the purpose of the exercise, lets assume the Bluray copy is the "original" and therefore maximum quality.

    Originally Posted by ripsteakjaw View Post
    If I watch it on a tv it's fine. but if I watch it on my 16:10 monitor it's in a black box, which wouldn't happen if I could crop out just the black bars (but I don't want any compression to the actual video either, yeah it's giant file sized, I don't give a shit) and have just the actual picture. then I could watch it on any conceivable size resolution screen and it would fit appropriately. did any of you idiots ever think that all your assumptions and experiences and video fetishes might not apply to every other person on this planet? I'm glad this thread stands here as a reminder and example of the dangers of fanaticism and misunderstanding lol.
    It's in a "black box" because the picture plus the black bars = 16:9 and your monitor is 16:10. If you crop the side black bars when encoding it probably won't have black bars top and bottom on playback any more, but it'll still have black bars down the sides. The 4:3 picture doesn't magically fill the whole 16:10 screen.

    Cropping black bars when re-encoding makes sense, but you can't re-encode without losing quality (at least in theory, even if it's not noticeable) and that's what the original question was asking. You don't care about file size? Well.... you might if you understood your Bluray video is encoded with a lossy encoder and converting it to a lossless format (even a compressed one) would increase the file size substantially. Hundreds of GBs, probably. That's what the "converting MP3 to wave file" analogy you quoted was referring to. Maybe one poster didn't understand the point being made initially, but now you've posted it might make two of you. Converting a Bluray video to a lossless format simply to remove the black bars would be impracticable.

    The majority of the people here would crop the black bars when re-encoding. Sure there's some who don't, and believe we all should be using the same aspect ratio screen watching the same aspect ratio video (including black bars) forever, but most of us crop. The problem is, often people post here asking about cropping, under the assumption after removing the black bars they can somehow make a 4:3 picture fill a 16:9 screen. I doubt anyone here would generally recommend re-encoding for no other reason than removing the black bars though. Of course there's always special circumstances where it might be beneficial.... re-encoding losslessly and creating files hunderds of GBs in size so a 4:3 picture can fill more of a 16::10 screen, rather than simply use a media player with a zoom function that'll zoom in until the extra black bars top and bottom are gone.......

    Originally Posted by ripsteakjaw View Post
    I've seen this same shit in every other kind of "subculture" or hobby. Boys clubs for tired old men who act like any idea they hadn't considered is the most insane shit and is "just not done," half the time because they can't concieve of a need for it themselves (so obviously there's no possibly legitimate need right?) and half because they completely misunderstand the idea to begin with. It becomes painfully obvious why actual innovation is so rare.
    You're not newpball by any chance, are you? He'd somehow manage to equate a discussion on cropping to an apparent lack of innovation, probably while re-encoding his video with a modern, open source encoder, or while using a portable media player with a non-standard aspect ratio screen to play back 4k h265 video.... while still being absolutely confident innovation is quite rare.

  20. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    India
    Search Comp PM
    I have faced situations like this when the original was ripped poorly. I have had to resort to cropping feature of the player - VLC or Daum Pot Player - on the required sides to maximise the video without loosing out on quality or distorting the aspect ration. These 2 players doa pretty good job of scaling. Hope this helps.

  21. Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    The guy asked about removing the black bars without re-encoding the video and losing quality. It can't be done. You need to re-encode using a lossy encoder which reduces quality, or using a lossless format, which isn't practical.
    THEN THAT WAS ALL THAT NEEDED TO BE SAID, instead of the rest of this bullshit discussion mocking a guy for asking a simple question.

    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    No, it's not lossless. It was encoded with a lossy encoder, but for the purpose of the exercise, lets assume the Bluray copy is the "original" and therefore maximum quality.
    Obviously that's what I mean, a lossless rip from the bluray, jesus do you all have autism or what or just obsession with pedantry.


    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    It's in a "black box" because the picture plus the black bars = 16:9 and your monitor is 16:10. If you crop the side black bars when encoding it probably won't have black bars top and bottom on playback any more, but it'll still have black bars down the sides. The 4:3 picture doesn't magically fill the whole 16:10 screen.
    Holy shit, how is that not EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. I know why it is the way it is, I don't need a lecture on aspect ratio. I don't think 4:3 picture is going to magically fill a 16:10 screen with the black bars taken it way, but it wouldn't have bars on the top and bottom with the picture in a little box . It would at least fill out the top and bottom but then still have black bars on the sides. Holy shit are you nerds dense or what?

  22. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    Just chill out,no need to get so angry over what people are advising,no one else here is swearing or cursing over what they think should be displayed,if you prefer to have any video displayed to what ever ratio you want is your choice,we just give our own onion as to what is the we think is right.

    The op just asked a option that can never be done.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.

  23. Originally Posted by ripsteakjaw View Post
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    The guy asked about removing the black bars without re-encoding the video and losing quality. It can't be done. You need to re-encode using a lossy encoder which reduces quality, or using a lossless format, which isn't practical.
    THEN THAT WAS ALL THAT NEEDED TO BE SAID, instead of the rest of this bullshit discussion mocking a guy for asking a simple question.
    It was also three years ago. Dragging up such an old discussion just to express your disapproval of the opinions given achieves nothing. Contribute to current topics. Offer an alternative opinion if you don't agree with what others are saying. Do it without sounding like a spoiled child and you might achieve something. You picked one post to quote and you're ranting like everyone here was expressing the same view which was obviously not the case.

    Originally Posted by ripsteakjaw View Post
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    No, it's not lossless. It was encoded with a lossy encoder, but for the purpose of the exercise, lets assume the Bluray copy is the "original" and therefore maximum quality.
    Obviously that's what I mean, a lossless rip from the bluray, jesus do you all have autism or what or just obsession with pedantry.
    If you'd spent much time posting in video forums you'd know people post based on all sorts of incorrect ideas and assumptions and it pays to be pedantic about clarifying what they're asking/stating so as not to waste time posting around in circles.
    Have you managed to notice my first post in this thread was to explain the only method I know of for cropping without re-encoding and losing quality, answering the question asked? Have you worked out my next post supported the OP's MP3 to wave file analogy? Did you understand my third post contained detailed instructions for cropping the black bars from a particular video? Did you notice my fourth post re-stated the original question in order to clarify it? Or are you just too busy with childish name-calling to notice anything like that?

    Originally Posted by ripsteakjaw View Post
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    It's in a "black box" because the picture plus the black bars = 16:9 and your monitor is 16:10. If you crop the side black bars when encoding it probably won't have black bars top and bottom on playback any more, but it'll still have black bars down the sides. The 4:3 picture doesn't magically fill the whole 16:10 screen.
    Holy shit, how is that not EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. I know why it is the way it is, I don't need a lecture on aspect ratio. I don't think 4:3 picture is going to magically fill a 16:10 screen with the black bars taken it way, but it wouldn't have bars on the top and bottom with the picture in a little box . It would at least fill out the top and bottom but then still have black bars on the sides. Holy shit are you nerds dense or what?
    No I'm not dense. It was more to clarify what you'd written in case I'd misunderstood what you were saying, which wasn't necessarily clear amongst all the ranting. Did I not later state that people often post here with odd assumptions regarding cropping, aspect ratio and video filling a screen? I'm sorry you think you were being given a lecture on aspect ratio when a lecture on manners would have been more appropriate. You come across as another forum hero who wouldn't say boo to a child in real life but you're Rambo hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.

    So..... some abuse because you think I repeated what you said, while everything else I wrote that followed you're completely ignoring? I'm astounded...... was that because it gave you no excuse to rant and rave?
    Last edited by hello_hello; 22nd Aug 2015 at 07:21.

  24. Member FulciLives's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA in the USA
    Search Comp PM
    This thread should be closed from further posting. It's retarded and dumb at this point.
    "The eyes are the first thing that you have to destroy ... because they have seen too many bad things" - Lucio Fulci
    EXPLORE THE FILMS OF LUCIO FULCI - THE MAESTRO OF GORE

  25. aBigMeanie aedipuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    666th portal
    Search Comp PM
    hard to believe this thing has been graverobbed multiple times. and what he said /\
    --
    "a lot of people are better dead" - prisoner KSC2-303

  26. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    Time to close this thread,it's run its course.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.




Similar Threads