 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering ElectronicsKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Electronics Forum / Basics / October 2006Fields per second vs. Frames per second
Hi: PAL video system uses 50 fields per second and 25 frames per second. Whats the difference between "field" and "frame"? Thanks, Radium > Hi: > > PAL video system uses 50 fields per second and 25 frames per second. > Whats the difference between "field" and "frame"? A field is where the electron gun sweeps all the way from the top to the bottom of the screen. A frame is a complete picture of scan lines from the top to the bottom of the screen. The difference is that PAL (and NTSC), take two fields to draw one frame because each field shows alternating scanlines on the screen. You can see this by slow stepping video that has rapid side to side motion. The alternative is to draw the entire picture with each field (at one field per frame), which is called progressive scan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan -HJC > PAL video system uses 50 fields per second and 25 frames per second. > Whats the difference between "field" and "frame"? The traditional popular TV standards (NTSC, PAL) are interlaced and use 2 fields per frame. Each field is composed of every-OTHER line. For example one field has all the odd-numbered lines, and the next has all the even-numbered lines. Curiously enough they are commonly refered to as the "Even Field" and the "Odd Field". > PAL video system uses 50 fields per second and 25 frames per second. > Whats the difference between "field" and "frame"? See <http://lurkertech.com/lg/fields/fields.html> and then the sample pictures here: <http://www.100fps.com/>. (Examine especially the three pictures below the words "Here is an example of what your digital camcorder does".)  Signatureznark >> PAL video system uses 50 fields per second and 25 frames per second. >> Whats the difference between "field" and "frame"? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > <http://www.100fps.com/>. (Examine especially the three pictures below > the words "Here is an example of what your digital camcorder does".) One field delivers the odd lines and the other delivers the even lines of the same frame. >>> PAL video system uses 50 fields per second and 25 frames per second. >>> Whats the difference between "field" and "frame"? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > One field delivers the odd lines and the other delivers the even lines > of the same frame. sounds like the Robot Color modes used for Slow scan TV. Signature"I am never wrong, once i thought i was, but i was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5 "Jamie" wrote... > sounds like the Robot Color modes used for Slow scan TV. Even/Odd field interlace has been the way it was done for NTSC/PAL/SECAM since day one here on our planet. Nice to know you have more advanced technology on your planet. Where are you writing from? > "Jamie" wrote... > > sounds like the Robot Color modes used for Slow scan TV. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nice to know you have more advanced technology on your > planet. Where are you writing from? One where they can't set their clocks. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida >>"Jamie" wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > One where they can't set their clocks. and what is wrong with my clock?, i just checked www.time.org, its with in 30 secs.. Signature"I am never wrong, once i thought i was, but i was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5 > >>"Jamie" wrote... > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and what is wrong with my clock?, i just checked > www.time.org, its with in 30 secs.. It must be set for the wrong tinme zone. Look at your posting times. People reply to your messages BEFORE you post them. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida >>>>"Jamie" wrote... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It must be set for the wrong tinme zone. Look at your posting > times. People reply to your messages BEFORE you post them. i did, and it's correct. currently my clock is saying 10:25 PM Signature"I am never wrong, once i thought i was, but i was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5 > >>>>"Jamie" wrote... > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > i did, and it's correct. > currently my clock is saying 10:25 PM You need to check with your news provider then, because it is reportedly posted on 10/23/2006 1:@5 AM, which is still a few hours fast. What time do you see in my reply? SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida >>>>>>"Jamie" wrote... >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > What time do you see in my reply? i see 7:39 and i just check my zone, it was off. i fixed it. i still don't know why it reports the correct time over here in anycase. Signature"I am never wrong, once i thought i was, but i was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5 > i see 7:39 > and i just check my zone, it was off. i fixed it. i still don't know > why it reports the correct time over here in anycase. It shows your post time as 10:46 PM now, so it looks like you finally got it right. ;-) SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida > "Jamie" wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for NTSC/PAL/SECAM since day one here on our planet. Nice to know you > have more advanced technology on your planet. Where are you writing from? Ha, the last time i looked, it was Earth, but then again, i do wake up at times asking my self "Where am i? " check my web page out below. Signature"I am never wrong, once i thought i was, but i was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5 > One field delivers the odd lines and the other delivers the > even lines of the same frame. That description may lead one astray, since in interlaced video, the fields are not only displayed but also acquired at different instants in time. A "video frame" is not a frame in the same sense as a film frame is. Signatureznark > > One field delivers the odd lines and the other delivers the > > even lines of the same frame. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > znark That is why they are called fields, not frames. If you can't understand the difference, its time to crack the books, or find another job. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida >>>> PAL video system uses 50 fields per second and 25 frames per >>>> second. Whats the difference between "field" and "frame"? >>> One field delivers the odd lines and the other delivers the >>> even lines of the same frame. >> That description may lead one astray, since in interlaced video, the >> fields are not only displayed but also acquired at different >> instants in time. A "video frame" is not a frame in the same sense >> as a film frame is. > That is why they are called fields, not frames. If you can't > understand the difference, its time to crack the books, or find > another job. The original poster was trying find out the difference between fields and frames by asking about it here. Smartass responses or circular reasoning won't help him much, and explaining fields using "frame" as a starting point - without explaining how that "frame" came to be (and how it differs from, say, a film frame) - is not too helpful, either. The "rec" in the front of the name of this group means "recreational". Not everyone in here - perhaps not even the majority - is involved with video out of professional interests, so your comment about "finding another job" is poorly thought out and inappropriate. If you can name a book the original poster should read on the subject, that would be helpful, of course. Signatureznark > >>>> PAL video system uses 50 fields per second and 25 frames per > >>>> second. Whats the difference between "field" and "frame"? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > book the original poster should read on the subject, that would be > helpful, of course. The original poster is a troll who does his best to get people like you to run in circles and repeat the same answers. Enjoy. Even better, look at all the crap he's posted about over the past six months, or so and how he refuses to accept the facts. Any book references I would have would have been out of print for 30 years, or more. They were all rather old when I started working as a broadcast engineer, over 31 years ago. Public libraries used to have decent technical sections, but the books I taught myself from were printed in the '40s and '50s, all with tube circuitry. Some of the books were only available to members of the IEEE, but were in the libraries of defense plants where I've worked. Most people equate "Video" with "TV". It is used in Television, but it is only one application. RADAR, Telemetry, and other technologies refer to the complex waveforms involved as "Video". SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida > The original poster is a troll who does his best to get people > like you to run in circles and repeat the same answers. Enjoy. Of course he is. The recent thread started by him - where a hypothetical HD video file is supposedly being compressed down to a single-bit size, and yada yada - is a prime example of that silliness (and that's why I have not even bothered commenting on that thread.) The question about the difference between fields and frames is something else, though. That question is asked too seldom up-front, and the matter is often understood poorly. Usually people only ask questions related to interlacing when they have already run into problems with interlaced video, or - regrettably - when they have been butchering their interlaced video by needlessly deinterlacing it for quite a while. Hence, it doesn't really matter _who_ is asking that question and whether he really needs the answers himself if it gives the opportunity to publicly discuss the subject again. (Newsgroups are usually passively read by far more people than only those who visibly participate in the discussions, so going through that kind of exercise from time to time is useful as a preventive measure - kind of like in some groups where the FAQ document is regularly posted even without anyone actively asking those questions.) A recent question by the same person draws parallels between certain audio and video editing procedures. Given the history of the poster, that was quite likely _intended_ to be a troll question as well - but at the same time, it is an interesting topic in itself, and there really _are_ such parallels, even though the person asking those questions might not originally have imagined there being any. Again, it doesn't really matter _who_ is asking the questions if he's asking sufficiently interesting or useful questions. After all, this is Usenet, where discussion itself may be valuable, interesting, informative, and entertaining, even if it was started by someone with malicious intents, or even if it doesn't answer the original question at all. "You post something, we discuss its implications. If the discussion happens to answer a question you've asked that's incidental." [1] > Any book references I would have would have been out of print for 30 > years, or more. Perhaps Internet, and not the books, is the most easily-accessible source for that information now. :) > Most people equate "Video" with "TV". It is used in Television, but > it is only one application. RADAR, Telemetry, and other technologies > refer to the complex waveforms involved as "Video". There's nothing wrong with that, though "rec.video.desktop" implies processing the "video" on a "desktop" computer (in other words, primarily on a personal computer, instead of relying on specialized equipment such as tape decks or racks full of auxiliary gear.) Processing digitized RADAR data - or some other, more exotic forms of video - on a desktop computer would make for an interesting discussion topic, so I for one would welcome that kind of discussion in r.v.d if there is no other, better-suited "specialist" group for it. (Seeing that this has also been cross-posted to sci.electronics.basics, and my answer does not really touch the topic of electronics on any deeper level, I'm now setting further followups to "rec.video.desktop" only.) _____ [1] <http://google.com/groups?selm=u93dhkluz2.fsf%40wcl-l.bham.ac.uk> Signatureznark >> One field delivers the odd lines and the other delivers the >> even lines of the same frame. > > That description may lead one astray, since in interlaced video, the > fields are not only displayed but also acquired at different instants in > time. A "video frame" is not a frame in the same sense as a film frame is. Thank you. >> One field delivers the odd lines and the other delivers the >> even lines of the same frame. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > time. A "video frame" is not a frame in the same sense as a film frame > is. Only by virtue of the fact that a video frame is delivered half at a time. A film frame is exactly where they got the name for a video frame. They're at slightly different rates, typically film is 24 FPS, and US TV is 30 FPS, but other than that and the interlace, the defninition of what a "frame" _is_ is practically identical. You might be interested to know that 24FPS movie projectors actually project each frame twice, so you get an effective flicker rate of 48 FPS. Cheers! Rich On 10/24/2006, Rich Grise posted this: >>> One field delivers the odd lines and the other delivers the >>> even lines of the same frame. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Cheers! > Rich Well, to be exact, the two fields of video are not quite the same as the three frames (not two, as I recall it - but it probably varies from projector to projector) of a film. The two or three frames (or call it fields - why not?) of the film are identical to each other, since they are just the identical piece of film projected again. If there is any motion in the subject, the two fields of the video are different from each other, since they are taken at different times. I'm just repeating Jukka Aho's point here for emphasis. SignatureGene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") > On 10/24/2006, Rich Grise posted this: > >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I'm just repeating Jukka Aho's point here for emphasis. As usual, the greaseball is wrong. A TV projector in a film chain has a special shutter that runs the 24 FPS film to match the 30 FPS video rate by showing every 4th frame twice: Frames: Video Film 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 04 06 05 07 06 08 07 09 08 10 09 11 09 12 10 13 11 14 12 15 12 16 13 17 14 18 15 19 16 20 16 21 17 22 18 23 19 24 20 25 20 26 21 27 22 28 23 29 24 30 24 This was done on the RCA TP-66 film chain projectors used by TV stations for decades. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida > As usual, the greaseball is wrong. A TV projector in a film chain has > a special shutter that runs the 24 FPS film to match the 30 FPS video > rate by showing every 4th frame twice: [example deleted] > This was done on the RCA TP-66 film chain projectors used by TV > stations for decades. Hate to have to disagree with you, Michael, but that's no longer the way it's done, the TP-66 method notwithstanding. In modern practice, 24 FPS film is actually run at ~23.97 FPS (to enable a match to the 59.94+ Hz "NTSC" field rate), and then converted to video using a method generally known as "3:2 pulldown," in which frame films are alternately captured as either 3 or 2 video fields (i.e., one frame of film winds up as 1.5 frames of video, while the next winds up as 1.0 frames). An example: if we have four successive film frames, A, B, C, and D, the resulting pattern of video FIELDS (not frames) would then contain the following: A A A B B C C C D D ... and so forth. While this still introduces errors (motion artifacts) into the resulting video stream, the errors are in general more acceptable than those which resulted from the earlier frame- doubling process. The original point in all this, though, I believe has been missed. TV "frames" are in almost all cases almost a fiction from the standpoint of image content; we speak of them only because, with the 2:1 interlaced scanning format, it's the only way to justify talking about the effective vertical resolution of the system (at least for still images). The two fields, however, DO represent different sample points in time, and therefore cannot in reality be assembled to produce a complete frame of the resolution (or line count) that one would expect, if there is any motion in the scene. (Moving objects, of course, will appear in slightly different positions between the two fields.) This is one of the factors that reduces the effective as-delivered resolution of an interlaced system. Bob M. >> As usual, the greaseball is wrong. A TV projector in a film chain has >> a special shutter that runs the 24 FPS film to match the 30 FPS video [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hate to have to disagree with you, Michael, but that's no longer the > way it's done, the TP-66 method notwithstanding. Perhaps that is why Mr Terrell used the past-tense "was"? OTOH, his "greaseball" remark raises his "plonkability" score on my end. > >> As usual, the greaseball is wrong. A TV projector in a film chain has > >> a special shutter that runs the 24 FPS film to match the 30 FPS video [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > OTOH, his "greaseball" remark raises his "plonkability" > score on my end. I am tired of all his rants and preaching alchol and nicotine addiction and pushing a religious cult. I have 18 different screen names of his kill filtered, and still have to add new ones a couple times a year. If you want to "Plonk" me, go ahead. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida >> Perhaps that is why Mr Terrell used the past-tense "was"? >> OTOH, his "greaseball" remark raises his "plonkability" >> score on my end. > I am tired of all his rants and preaching alchol and nicotine > addiction and pushing a religious cult. I have 18 different > screen names of his kill filtered, and still have to add new > ones a couple times a year. The "greaseball" remark was (seemingly) posted in reference to me in your post <news:453F1D09.1687B113@earthlink.net>. Given the context in which that was remark was uttered, it's quite hard to interpret it in any other way. From the sound of the segment quoted above, it however now appears that you have me confused with the OP, who has displayed some trollish behavior in some of the other recent threads, and whom you specifically claimed to be a troll earlier in this thread (with much of the same kind of accusations about his earlier behavior.) We actually agreed on his trollishness, if you can still remember. I have never used anything but my own name on Usenet. You can check out my posting history from the Google Groups Usenet archives: <http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=D3PrTBAAAA CQBxjOrkrNYwvJW2bfk89k> I have also no recollection of ever discussing alcohol, religious cults, or smoking on Usenet at any great length, other than what could be made in passing reference during a normal discussion. (I'm not much of a drinker, I don't smoke, and if anything, I would preach against religious cults rather than for them.) (I hope the above-mentioned URL is not temporary, but in case it is, look up any message by me from the Google Groups archives and click on the "view profile" link.) Signatureznark On 10/25/2006, Jukka Aho posted this: >>> Perhaps that is why Mr Terrell used the past-tense "was"? >>> OTOH, his "greaseball" remark raises his "plonkability" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > post <news:453F1D09.1687B113@earthlink.net>. Given the context in which that > was remark was uttered, it's quite hard to interpret it in any other way. However, the "greaseball" remark was in a direct reply to my post in this part of the thread, so I assumed he meant me. Maybe he meant you, maybe he meant Radium, I don't know. Also consider that the post to which I replied was from someone name Rich Grise; maybe Terrell thinks his name is pronounced like 'grease'. If he meant me, it is in truth the most complimentary remark I've received today; also the *only* remark I've received today :-) As for rest of your remarks below, it happens that I am in complete compliance & agreement (except for the URL, of course). It also happens that my remarks about movie projector shutters were in the context of projecting for view, not in the context of film chains for converting to video. > From the sound of the segment quoted above, it however now appears that you > have me confused with the OP, who has displayed some trollish behavior in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > any message by me from the Google Groups archives and click on the "view > profile" link.) SignatureGene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") >> The "greaseball" remark was (seemingly) posted in reference to me in >> your post <news:453F1D09.1687B113@earthlink.net>. Given the context >> in which that was remark was uttered, it's quite hard to interpret >> it in any other way. > However, the "greaseball" remark was in a direct reply to my post in > this part of the thread, so I assumed he meant me. Maybe he meant you, > maybe he meant Radium, I don't know. Also consider that the post to > which I replied was from someone name Rich Grise; maybe Terrell thinks > his name is pronounced like 'grease'. Hmm, yes, I can see now how there are other possible ways to interpret it. But, my name was mentioned in the quoted segment just above that comment, and the comment seemed to be in some sort of disagreement with what I had said. Or what you said I had said, and seemed to agree with, if you know what I mean. (This is the sort of confusion we get when people quote entire messages without trimming their quotes to the point.) > If he meant me, it is in truth the most complimentary remark I've > received today; also the *only* remark I've received today :-) Perhaps he meant himself. There are certain archetypical categories of people who are said to refer to themselves in third person, and self-hate is not a too uncommon disorder. It could be taken as some sort of self-irony as well. :) Signatureznark On 10/25/2006, Jukka Aho posted this: >>> The "greaseball" remark was (seemingly) posted in reference to me in >>> your post <news:453F1D09.1687B113@earthlink.net>. Given the context [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > too uncommon disorder. It could be taken as some sort of self-irony as well. > :) Yeah! That's it! Thanks, Jukka (is that your given name or family name? I know that some Ugrics put their family name first, but I don't know about the Finno branch... :-) ). SignatureGene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") > Thanks, Jukka (is that your given name or family name? I know that > some Ugrics put their family name first, but I don't know about the > Finno branch... :-) ). "Jukka" is my given name. Finns usually prefer marking their last name last, where possible. Common exceptions to this rule are alphabetized catalogs (such as phone books) or official forms and certificates (such as a driver's license, or the form you would fill when applying for one.) Those would typically place the last name before the given name(s). I have a second and a third given name as well, but I don't usually use the full form of my name, except if required by authorities or some other sort of bureaucrats. Those two other names really only live on paper and in official registers. I've sometimes considered taking the initials in use but have not yet found any sufficiently compelling reason for that. There just haven't been too many incidents where I would have been mistaken for someone else by the same name - even though there _are_ people by the same name. * * * The etymology of the name "Jukka" is discussed here (this is one of those "more information than you could possibly want" pages, but there's a brief "executive summary" at the beginning): <http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/jukka.html> My last name ("Aho") means "a clearing in the forest; an open field". Not particularly poetical, is it? The meaning is all but forgotten now, though, and the word is not really actively used in that sense any longer. I don't think too many among the younger generation (or among my own generation, either) are even aware that it _has_ a meaning. For them it's "just a surname". Signatureznark Jukka, Having traveled as an English-speaking American in Helsinki and elsewhere in Finland, I have to add that the majority of Finnish words including names and proper nouns is among the most daunting languages I have encountered, in some respects exceeding Japanese and Chinese which I also find totally intimidating. On the bright side, the many Finns I have met are truly wonderful and kind, and your Lakka cloudberry liquor is heavenly, and among my absolute favorites, despite the fact that is nearly impossible to find in the U.S. Smarty >> Thanks, Jukka (is that your given name or family name? I know that >> some Ugrics put their family name first, but I don't know about the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > generation, either) are even aware that it _has_ a meaning. For them it's > "just a surname". > Jukka, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > languages I have encountered, in some respects exceeding Japanese and > Chinese which I also find totally intimidating. That's to be expected when you're dealing with a language that belongs to a completely different language family. Speakers of major Indo-European languages get it easy: they share much of similar grammatical structures and vocabulary among each other. It should be relatively straightforward to pick up, say, Dutch if you already speak English, and German once you know Dutch. Or if you know Spanish or French, Portuguese or Italian newspaper stories might already appear nearly readable. But when you switch from one major language family to the other, all bets are off: nothing you previously knew about sentence structures and vocabulary is any longer relevant, or in any way useful. :( > On the bright side, the many Finns I have met are truly wonderful > and kind, and your Lakka cloudberry liquor is heavenly, and among my > absolute favorites, despite the fact that is nearly impossible to find > in the U.S. To commemorate that liquor, the obverse side of Finnish 2 euro coins is minted with a depiction of a cloudberry plant. [1] Or was it the liquor that commemorates the coin? One can never know these things for sure. (Just pulling your leg. :) I'd better Finnish now before I tell more lies!) _____ [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_euro_coins> Signatureznark Thanks Jukka for your comments. The Slavic influence on your language is apparently one of the reasons Americans like myself are daunted. I was unaware of the coin image of the cloudberry, but can understand why it is so exalted. Maybe the U.S. dollar will someday get a Budweiser beer emblem... Smarty >> Jukka, >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_euro_coins> > Thanks Jukka for your comments. The Slavic influence on your language > is apparently one of the reasons Americans like myself are daunted. There's Baltic, Germanic, and Slavic influence in the vocabulary, but I'm not sure how significant the Slavic influence alone has been when compared to the others. Wikipedia has something on the subject: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_language#Borrowing> I'd imagine the Swedish influence is probably the strongest - at least among the relatively recent loans - since Swedish has been the admistrative language for most of the written history of the country. Loan words will usually assimilate fast, though, becoming more "Finnishized" in the process in both their pronunciation and spelling, so the origins of a given word may not always be too obvious. Moreover, for the last 150 years (or so), there has also been an on-going conscious effort of producing new "truly Finnish" words for new concepts instead of just importing words from other languages. (Compare to the French language and the French Academy.) This doesn't always work out as intended, but many concepts and gadgets that were originally called by their foreign names when they were first introduced now have firmly rooted Finnish names because of this policy (i.e. the original loan word has fallen into disuse and oblivion.) Geography will also play part, of course. For example, the dialects spoken near the Eastern border have some Russian influence in their vocabulary - this can be witnessed most easily in the religious vocabulary of those Karelians who subscribe to the Eastern Orthodox faith - whereas the dialects spoken on or near the West coast (such as in Ostrobothnia, where I come from) borrow many words from Swedish. TV - the great equalizer - has made those differences much less pronounced, though. When not among their "own people", most people will speak Finnish in a fairly neutral or "standard" way, without necessarily giving away the part of the country where they're from. > I was unaware of the coin image of the cloudberry, but can understand > why it is so exalted. Maybe the U.S. dollar will someday get a > Budweiser beer emblem... Heh. That's a coin I'd like to see! :) Signatureznark >Having traveled as an English-speaking American in Helsinki Yeah, Finland is nice, except for the mosquitos ;-) -m- -- Never encountered them. In Lapland and the Arctic Circle portion of Finland, they are not as likely an issue, but Jukka may know for sure... Smarty >>Having traveled as an English-speaking American in Helsinki > > Yeah, Finland is nice, except for the mosquitos ;-) > > -m- > -- >> Yeah, Finland is nice, except for the mosquitos ;-) > Never encountered them. In Lapland and the Arctic Circle portion of > Finland, they are not as likely an issue, but Jukka may know for > sure... Actually - as strange as it might seem - Lapland is kind of notorious for its mosquitos. They're fierce and plentiful in there, but will only reign during the summertime, of course! There's more about them on these pages: <http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Europe/Finland/Lap pi/Ivalo-240898/Warnings_or_Dangers-Ivalo-BR-1.html> <http://www.ebnitalia.it/trips/trip08.htm> <http://wikitravel.org/en/Finland#Stay_healthy> Mosquitos can be found all over the country during the summer - especially near swamps, streams, and lakes, since they need a bit of water in order to reproduce - but the ones in Lapland usually seem to get particularly bad rap. I have never been to Lapland during the mosquito season myself so I can't really say whether this notoriety is justified or not. Signatureznark > Mosquitos can be found all over the country during the summer - especially > near swamps, streams, and lakes, since they need a bit of water in order > to reproduce - but the ones in Lapland usually seem to get particularly > bad rap. I have never been to Lapland during the mosquito season myself so > I can't really say whether this notoriety is justified or not. Sounds like the north woods of Canada! >Actually - as strange as it might seem - Lapland is kind of notorious >for its mosquitos. They're fierce and plentiful in there, but will only >reign during the summertime, of course! There's more about them on these >pages: Yep. I was there at the summer (in July) up in the forrests in the north, where we did some camping in the wild. Anti-mosquito gel, and a mask around your head will help. The last thing you want to do is to go to do your business in the wild. You get eaten alive :-)) But, at least I saw Santa and Rudolph for real, and know they exist! -m- -- On 27 Oct 2006 09:14:56 +0200, in 'rec.video.desktop', in article <Re: OT: Finnish names (was: Fields per second vs. Frames per second)>, Martin Heffels <feipbjszfo@oxeszdjnlp.xercdpvueppjtmougcqvtz.net> wrote: >But, at least I saw Santa and Rudolph for real, and know they exist! And you have footage to show to us to substantiate that claim, Martin? SignatureFrank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY [Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.] Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/ >And you have footage to show to us to substantiate that claim, Martin? No. But by golly I swear, he lives in Rovanimi in his summer residence. This is a webcam of his house: http://www.santaclaus.fi/?deptid=11779 The actual reason I wanted to go there was because there is a lake where you could do a submarine-trip in a tourist submarine (1992). However, the sub was sold to Spain so that one didn't happen, but then we discovered about Santa's house, and went there. The fun thing is the post-office where they keep letters from children all over the world, in letterboxes, arranged by country. It seems that if you write on your letter "To Santa, North Pole", most of the mail gets sent to there. I lost the footage because I tried to compress it to 1-bit-148.50MHz-1920x1080pix, and then accidently erased the original footage on my computer. And the original tape is gone, because the cat grabbed it, and ran away with it. Sorry for that :"> cheers -martin- -- > However, the > sub was sold to Spain so that one didn't happen, but then we discovered [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > arranged by country. It seems that if you write on your letter "To Santa, > North Pole", most of the mail gets sent to there. In Canada, children know to use the correct Postal Code: H0H 0H0 That way their mail goes to the REAL Santa's workshop. On 27 Oct 2006 11:48:20 +0200, in 'rec.video.desktop', in article <Re: OT: Finnish names (was: Fields per second vs. Frames per second)>, Martin Heffels <feipbjszfo@oxeszdjnlp.xercdpvueppjtmougcqvtz.net> wrote: >>And you have footage to show to us to substantiate that claim, Martin? > >No. But by golly I swear, he lives in Rovanimi in his summer residence. > >This is a webcam of his house: >http://www.santaclaus.fi/?deptid=11779 Yes, I seem to recall reading about that somewhere. By the way, I do appreciate the rather unusual 25 second update, as opposed to the typical 30-second Webcam update interval. Christmas here in the States is the 25th of December, so 25 seconds seems appropriate. >The actual reason I wanted to go there was because there is a lake where >you could do a submarine-trip in a tourist submarine (1992). However, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >arranged by country. It seems that if you write on your letter "To Santa, >North Pole", most of the mail gets sent to there. I'll keep that in mind. >I lost the footage because I tried to compress it to >1-bit-148.50MHz-1920x1080pix, and then accidently erased the original >footage on my computer. And the original tape is gone, because the cat >grabbed it, and ran away with it. Sorry for that :"> Here we would say "the dog ate it". :) >cheers > >-martin- SignatureFrank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY [Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.] Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/ My one and only trip to Lapland was in the late summer pf 1972, and no bugs of any type were an issue. We never did any camping or outdoor living, so I imagine we were not alerted to the danger by our tour guides, or perhaps the bugs have only become prevalent in the ensuing 34 years. I must confess that I never thought of mosquitoes as being a particular problem in very cold climates..... Smarty >>Actually - as strange as it might seem - Lapland is kind of notorious >>for its mosquitos. They're fierce and plentiful in there, but will only [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -m- > -- > Never encountered them. In Lapland and the Arctic Circle portion of Finland, > they are not as likely an issue, but Jukka may know for sure... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> -m- Having spent a good deal of time in arctic portions of Alaska, I can say with itchy certainty that mosquito's have a very annoying presence during the short summer season. In fact, there were so damn many of them, I wondered what the hell they ate? I expected to see an occasional caribou lying flat on the ground completely drained of blood. (That said, it is not unknown that a caribou heard will occasionally fleet in mass from a a particularly bad mosquito cloud.) I would wager that Finland is not immune to this situation. On 10/25/2006, Jukka Aho posted this: >> Thanks, Jukka (is that your given name or family name? I know that >> some Ugrics put their family name first, but I don't know about the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > either) are even aware that it _has_ a meaning. For them it's "just a > surname". Thanks for the etymology lesson, I enjoyed it (I read it all, but hey, I am interested in such things!). Early in the piece, I had wondered if the kk in Jukka reflected the ch (pronounced as in German "ach") in the Hebrew name Jochanan, but I now think the argument presented about the Swedish G is more compelling. SignatureGene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") > The "greaseball" remark was (seemingly) posted in reference to me in > your post <news:453F1D09.1687B113@earthlink.net>. Given the context in > which that was remark was uttered, it's quite hard to interpret it in > any other way. It wasn't amied at you, but the person you replied to. (grice) He is kill filed under 18 aliases, and keeps adding new ones. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida On 10/25/2006, Michael A. Terrell posted this: >> The "greaseball" remark was (seemingly) posted in reference to me in >> your post <news:453F1D09.1687B113@earthlink.net>. Given the context in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It wasn't amied at you, but the person you replied to. (grice) He is > kill filed under 18 aliases, and keeps adding new ones. On the other hand, it was in a reply to *my* post, not Grise's, and right below a comment of mine. Also, it was not particularly in any context of those posts. As I said, it was the nicest thing anyone had said to so far in the day :-) SignatureGene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") > On 10/25/2006, Michael A. Terrell posted this: > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > As I said, it was the nicest thing anyone had said to so far in the day > :-) WHat kind of day WAS it? ;-) SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida On 10/26/2006, Michael A. Terrell posted this: >> On 10/25/2006, Michael A. Terrell posted this: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > WHat kind of day WAS it? ;-) :-) Actually, at that time, it was the *first* thing anyone had said to me - but what the heck... So it wasn't a bad day, really - and thanks for asking. SignatureGene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") > On 10/26/2006, Michael A. Terrell posted this: > >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > So it wasn't a bad day, really - and thanks for asking. Any day you wake up is better than the alternative! SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida On 10/30/2006, Michael A. Terrell posted this: >> On 10/26/2006, Michael A. Terrell posted this: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Any day you wake up is better than the alternative! Otherwise I wouldn't have answered your post :-) SignatureGene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") > On 10/30/2006, Michael A. Terrell posted this: > > > > Any day you wake up is better than the alternative! > > Otherwise I wouldn't have answered your post :-) I caught a bad case the flu years ago, and didn't wake up for over five days. It really did a number on my health. I lost over 25 pounds in those five days, and couldn't walk for a month. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida On 10/30/2006, Michael A. Terrell posted this: >> On 10/30/2006, Michael A. Terrell posted this: >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > five days. It really did a number on my health. I lost over 25 pounds in > those five days, and couldn't walk for a month. Man! It surely gives you new respect for that sunrise each morning... I can see what motivated you to make the other post above! I just got this year's flu shot last week...but you never know. SignatureGene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") > On 10/30/2006, Michael A. Terrell posted this: > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I just got this year's flu shot last week...but you never know. I'm supposed to get one from the VA when they get their supply. I get that, and a new pair of bifocals every year. :) SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida On 10/25/2006, Richard Crowley posted this: >>> As usual, the greaseball is wrong. A TV projector in a film chain has >>> a special shutter that runs the 24 FPS film to match the 30 FPS video [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > OTOH, his "greaseball" remark raises his "plonkability" > score on my end. :-) SignatureGene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") > > As usual, the greaseball is wrong. A TV projector in a film chain has > > a special shutter that runs the 24 FPS film to match the 30 FPS video [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Bob M. Bob, since the video camera scans both fields from the same frame of film, there is no "Difference in Time". The TP 66 could also run the color scan rates, and did in most installations. The pair that I maintained and ran happened to be used at a B&W station, but I've seen them in use at color stations. As far as slight differences, the persistence of the human eye tends to average out the minor differences. Most people can't see a single frame that doesn't match the film content, yet I could see the single "Insert Commercial here" frames in the AFRTS 16 mm films we ran. No one at the station believed me, so they opened a case of films that had just arrived, and loaded one. I hit stop when I saw it, and a few frames from where the shutter stopped, they saw it. I did it on six reels before they believed me. You may not like the "Frame" concept, but I find "Progressive Scan" to be stupid. Progressive? they went back to the earliest video scan method, and have the nerve to call it "Progressive"? The NTSC developers were not concerned about minor differences between fields, and unless a scene has a lot of motion, there may be no difference other than the offset spacing. Some talking head is on the screen, with nothing but their lips moving, and an occasional blink. Who cares about minor timing errors you can't see? SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida >> The original point in all this, though, I believe has been missed. >> TV "frames" are in almost all cases almost a fiction from the standpoint [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Bob, since the video camera scans both fields from the same frame of > film, there is no "Difference in Time". I realize now that it may not have been clear that I'd switched contexts in the above, from film-originated material to interlacing in general (and more specifically, the sort which originates AS "video", i.e., what comes out of a standard TV camera. > As far as slight differences, the persistence of the human eye tends > to average out the minor differences. Yes, but that's exactly where the "motion problem" in interlaced material (again, that which originates that way, from a camera) comes into play. You DO average out successive fields, but since they're being presented in an interlaced manner (at least in a properly-adjusted receiver or monitor), the effect is a blurring of details. This is one of the reasons that an interlaced system doesn't actually deliver the resolution one would assume from the scan format. For instance, the 525/60 scanning standard (as used in North America) provides a bit over 480 "active" lines per frame, but delivers only about 340 lines' worth of effective vertical resolution. (Another way this is often expressed is to say that the standard assumes a "Kell factor" of 0.7; 0.7 times 484 lines is 338.8 lines.) Another contributing factor to this effect, at least for CRT- based displays (which is all there was, of course, when the standard was written) is that a CRT running interlaced can't be focused to the point where the individual lines are fully resolved (to do so would result in horrible line "twitter" owing to the 30 Hz refresh rate for any single line). > You may not like the "Frame" concept, but I find "Progressive Scan" > to be stupid. Progressive? they went back to the earliest video scan > method, and have the nerve to call it "Progressive"? Well, "progressive" of course doesn't refer to it being a more advanced method. It IS, if you have the bandwidth, a better way to scan. Interlaced scanning really was adopted in the first place only because it's a crude-but-effective form of analog "compression," permitting a higher image resolution than otherwise would be the case in the available bandwidth. It surely doesn't benefit the system in any other way (it is harmful in terms of image quality, somewhat) and you wouldn't go to all the trouble involved in an interlaced system (the half-lines at the end of the fields, the "equalization" pulses, the need to adjust the relative field positions at the display end, etc., etc., etc.). Bob M. > Interlaced scanning really was adopted in the first place only because > it's a crude-but-effective form of analog "compression," permitting a > higher image resolution > than otherwise would be the case in the available bandwidth. The origins of interlaced scanning (as a patented invention) and the contemporary reasoning behind adopting that scheme were discussed some time ago in another thread. Most of s.e.b readers probably missed that thread because it was not crossposted there. Here's a link to that discussion: (You may need to manually copy and paste the two-line URL together.) <http://google.com/groups?threadm=PxiPg.14203$NS2.6927%40rea der1.news.jippii.net> The message linked above contains an excerpt from Randall C. Ballard's 1932 patent, and provides a link to the full patent text. (Note that Ballard's tv system - the one described in the patent - has a different field rate and a much coarser resolution than modern tv systems.) > It surely doesn't benefit the system in any other way There are two other benefits: 1) When compared to a progressive scan system that has the same bandwidth and (nominally) the same spatial resolution for full screen images, interlaced scanning provides twice the temporal resolution (that is, motion updates per second.) The price to be paid for this is that objects in motion will only receive half the (perceived) vertical resolution when compared to objects that stay still. It can be argued whether this difference is noticeable enough that anyone should care. Some people say it is, some others think it isn't. In any case, motion will appear very smooth and fluid with 50 Hz or ~60 Hz updates, which is great for e.g. sports, and allows for fast, smooth pans and zooms without making the picture incomprehensible flickery jumble. (Those who have ever shot Super8 film know how careful and slow one must be with zooms and pans when dealing with a medium that has a low temporal resolution.) 2) Scanning through the whole CRT screen twice as many times per second will dramatically reduce perceived flicker. (Again, when compared to a corresponding progressive scan system that has the same bandwidth and [nominally] the same spatial resolution.) This benefit comes with a price as well: it will introduce some annoying twitter in thin, contrasty horizontal lines. Line twitter can be reduced quite nicely by employing modern image processing algorithms, though. (There are video encoder chips that do this kind of parameter-based intelligent, adaptive, dynamic vertical filtering in real time.) Signatureznark [awkward display of personal animosity snipped] > A TV projector in a film chain [...] The OP's question was "PAL video system uses 50 fields per second and 25 frames per second. Whats the difference between 'field' and 'frame'?" He did not further specify the source or acquisition method, much less describe any practical situation from where it could be derived that film was the likely source medium. Keeping that in mind (and observing that the question was posted to "rec.video.desktop" which mostly deals with home and hobbyist video shot with home and prosumer video cameras), a reasonable assumption is that we're talking about "video" in its purest and most original form: interlaced video shot with an interlacing video camera. My comments in this thread have been based on that basic assumption (interlaced video shot with an interlacing video camera), and I have also explicitly _restated_ that assumption in a couple of my posts, precisely because there are some other acquisition and post-processing methods that can deprive video of its natural, smooth 50 Hz or ~60 Hz temporal resolution, or underutilize that capability. (Followups set to "rec.video.desktop" once again.) Signatureznark > The OP's question was "PAL video system uses 50 fields per second and 25 > frames per second. Whats the difference between 'field' and 'frame'?" And I'm thinking at this point that we still haven't answered that particular question very well, so I'm going to take a stab at it. In the most general sense I can think of, the word "frame" refers to the smallest unit in a motion image stream (a clumsy phrase, perhaps, but I'm trying to cover both film and video usage here) which includes ALL of the information for a single, complete image (i.e., it contains all the color, luminance, etc., information for one image at the full resolution of the system). Ideally, it represents one temporal sample - i.e., it is an image which is captured at one particular point in time, in a series of such images which together are used to give the illusion of motion when displayed. This last point is where the notion of a "frame" in video starts to break down, since clearly in a raster-scanned system the entire image is not captured at the same time. But we still use the term nonetheless. A "field," on the other hand, is some defined sub-part of a frame. In the most common usage of this term - interlaced video, which is what we're talking about here - two "fields" are produced, which are supposed to correspond to (or be capable of being combined into) one complete frame. Again, it's not quite that simple, since in interlaced video the two fields are generally produced as such, separately, by the camera or telecine, as opposed to actually being the result of separating the odd and even lines of an original complete frame. This isn't the only possible use of the term; for instance, in "field-sequential" color systems (as in the case of the original CBS color system approved by the FCC in the early 1950s), the full-color frame is separated not into odd- and even-line fields but rather into red, green, and blue fields. These, when shown in rapid succession, restore the appearance of a full-color image. > (Followups set to "rec.video.desktop" once again.) Hope you don't mind my adding sci.electronics.basics back in, as many of us (myself included) are following the thread there. Bob M. >> The OP's question was "PAL video system uses 50 fields per second >> and 25 frames per second. Whats the difference between 'field' and >> 'frame'?" > And I'm thinking at this point that we still haven't answered that > particular question very well, so I'm going to take a stab at it. That was a fairly good explanation, assuming the OP didn't know what a "frame" was in the first place. :) > In the most general sense I can think of, the word "frame" refers > to the smallest unit in a motion image stream (a clumsy phrase, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > raster-scanned system the entire image is not captured at the > same time. But we still use the term nonetheless. Originally - with tube cameras - none of the image was captured at the same time. Instead, it was a continuous process where the tube camera scanned the scene line by line, sweeping across the length of each scanline in lock-step with the tv sets painting the same picture on screen at homes. Essentially, each point in the picture was captured at a different time. There is a good illustration of this near the bottom of this page, below the ominous-sounding heading "It's Not Even That Simple": <http://lurkertech.com/lg/fields/fields.html#reality> Telecine processes and modern CCD-based video cameras of course do not produce images this way, but it is still useful to keep in mind that video cameras originally did - as late as in the 1980s. The original reality of "video" - and its "temporal dimension", so to speak - was fundamentally different from that of any frame-based system. Over the time, video has _become_ more like film, though - first by ditching the "scanning" cameras in favor of CCD-based ones, and now by introducing "progressive-scan" [1] HD formats, where video frames really _are_ frames, in the film sense. > Hope you don't mind my adding sci.electronics.basics back > in, as many of us (myself included) are following the thread > there. I don't mind if that's OK with the rest of the people in s.e.b. I just thought this subject might be a bit too off-topic there, and better suited for r.v.d only. _____ [1] "Progressive scan" is becoming more and more of a misnomer in itself. These days, usually neither the camera producing the images - and, increasingly, not even the display device - "scans" any longer. Signatureznark > [1] "Progressive scan" is becoming more and more of a misnomer in itself. > These days, usually neither the camera producing the images - and, > increasingly, not even the display device - "scans" any longer. Good point; a lot of things in TV standards, though, make sense only if you adopt a mid-1960s (or even earlier!) mindset when looking at them! :-) Bob M. >> Well, to be exact, the two fields of video are not quite the same as >> the three frames (not two, as I recall it - but it probably varies from [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a special shutter that runs the 24 FPS film to match the 30 FPS video > rate by showing every 4th frame twice: He was talking cinema not tv. cinema projectors have the shutter close several times per frame. also where TV is 25 frames per second they run the film at 25FPS, and have more time for advertising. SignatureBye. Jasen > >> Well, to be exact, the two fields of video are not quite the same as > >> the three frames (not two, as I recall it - but it probably varies from [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > also where TV is 25 frames per second they run the film at 25FPS, and > have more time for advertising. Then the audio frequencies would be off by about 4%. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida >> also where TV is 25 frames per second they run the film at 25FPS, and >> have more time for advertising. > > Then the audio frequencies would be off by about 4%. Yes, they are - but it still often IS done that way, and they simply live with the errors that result. Bob M. >>> also where TV is 25 frames per second they run the film at 25FPS, >>> and have more time for advertising. >> Then the audio frequencies would be off by about 4%. > Yes, they are - but it still often IS done that way, and they > simply live with the errors that result. ...or time-compress the sound track without changing the pitch. (The wonders of modern technology, and all that.) Signatureznark >>> One field delivers the odd lines and the other delivers the >>> even lines of the same frame. >> That description may lead one astray, since in interlaced video, the >> fields are not only displayed but also acquired at different >> instants in time. A "video frame" is not a frame in the same sense >> as a film frame is. > Only by virtue of the fact that a video frame is delivered half at a > time. No, in other respects, too. Didn't you read the text you quoted above? > They're at slightly different rates, typically film is 24 FPS, and US > TV is 30 FPS, US TV is 60 * 1000/1001 fields per second. The picture will update 60 * 1000/1001 (~59.94) times per second. If a moving object - say, a ball rolling across the screen from left to right - is shot with an NTSC video camera, its motion (location on the screen) updates 60 * 1000/1001 (~59.94) times per second. (That is, if we're still talking about material that was shot with a regular tv/video camera running in interlaced mode.) The location of the rolling ball differs from field to field, not only from frame to frame. > but other than that and the interlace, the defninition > of what a "frame" _is_ is practically identical. It's not. Fields are shot at different times. When two adjacent fields are paired and combined into a single video frame, the end result will contain material from two different instants of time. A film frame only contains material from a single instant of time. (This is the reason why motion recorded with a video camera looks a lot smoother than motion shot on 24 fps film. Video _is_ smoother, by a factor of (about) 2.5.) > You might be interested to know that 24FPS movie projectors actually > project each frame twice, so you get an effective flicker rate of 48 > FPS. It was interesting when I first heard about it. But that was a long time ago. :) Signatureznark >You might be interested to know that 24FPS movie projectors actually >project each frame twice, so you get an effective flicker rate of 48 >FPS. Or three times each, giving a flicker rate of 72 Hz. This is better for smaller theatres, where the screen brightness tends to be higher, since the eye's flicker fusion frequency is higher in frequency at higher brightness. On the other hand, it wastes light (since each of the dark periods needs to be the same length, and each dark period needs to be as long as the pulldown time, having 3 dark periods per 1/24 second always wastes more light than two) so there's no point doing it when screen brightness is already low with a two-flash shutter. Dave > Hi: > > PAL video system uses 50 fields per second and 25 frames per second. > Whats the difference between "field" and "frame"? What does it matter to you ? You'll just misunderstand it because you're so damn stupid. Graham >> Hi: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >You'll just misunderstand it because you're so damn stupid. --- Driving in those coffin nails from the inside of the coffin... How _do_ you manage to do that??? SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer On 10/25/2006, John Fields posted this: >>> Hi: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Driving in those coffin nails from the inside of the coffin... How > _do_ you manage to do that??? Malleum mortuorum. SignatureGene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.