Posts by coppersailor28

slywolf45 said:Are we really posting high-res images on a forum this low-budget?

Your "little picture" used up the bandwidth of 10 (ten) similar ones:


but this one below (from the "Reaction GIFs" thread), for 144 of those above:

Thomas Carter8 said:...how do I actually do this?

Go to "Borders and Shading" > Style and pick the line you want. Click it, and you're done.

Roger Phillips said:I'm trying to fix an issue with HandBrake. No matter which setting I pick, the final result always looks muddy and lacks clarity...

The phrase "when I crop a gif" is vague...

- Are you taking a GIF animation and cropping/saving it as a GIF?
- Or are you taking a JPEG (or video) and saving it as a GIF?

Do I need to select something specific here ((image)), or change something...?

Heh. It seems HandBrake isn't exactly the best tool for fine-tuning GIF exports via custom settings...

I tried, but the colors are always messy and "muddy."
It's always like this ((image)) or similar—color issues.
What's the problem?🤷

If this is a "GIF from a GIF," then you have to accept that the source quality dictates the outcome.
However, if the GIF comes from a JPEG (or a video), the "problem" is simply your expectation that the quality will remain identical.

A JPEG can display 16 million colors; a GIF is limited to just 256.

Your GIF likely has a very rich color profile. It probably utilizes all 256 available slots.
If it’s being cropped from even moderately decent video (rather than another GIF), you shouldn't expect much better. When forced, the GIF format groups adjacent shades into single blocks of one color.

True, HandBrake lacks certain granular controls that might improve the output—like dithering, anti-aliasing, or specific color palette adjustments—though those are likely baked into the various preset profiles (Standard, Mobile, HD, etc.).

Ashley Murphy said:🙂 How do I change the display text for a link? 🙂

http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=488947&page=4http://a

Fine. Then what exactly is that in your signature if it isn't a "renamed link"?

.
.
........
http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-nf...IQ/s1600/h.gif

Kyle Carter2 said:The Person is bolding their dream because they can't follow the post, which apparently means they can't participate in the discussion either.

The topic is actually titled "Hadiths and Sayings"

Why even bother jumping into an argument if you don't understand the "technical" terminology of the subject matter? 🤷
Go complain to the Photography subforum because you can't join a debate on digital photography since you aren't familiar with the jargon used there by unknown experts...

By that logic, a Muslim or an atheist could demand that terms like "Trinity," "Gospel," "Host," or "Eucharist" come with mandatory definitions for those "technical"—meaning exclusively Christian—terms.

Gerald Thomas65 said:How can I shift the entire subtitle track forward by, say, 3 seconds in Subtitle workshop 2.5?

click

In the "set delay" window, you need to use the plus sign ("+") to move things forward by 3 seconds.

Instead of 00:00:00,000 -> 00:00:03,000

And make sure "for all the subtitles" is selected.

(If you use "Save" instead of "Save as",
it's smarter to work on a copy rather than messing with the original file.)

rustywalker1 said:So I just made a post and now I want to delete it, but I can't find the button anywhere. Where is it? Is this some glitch with the PDF or what?

Let's wait and see. Patience. 😁

(As a regular user here, my layout and button options look exactly like yours, so...)

P.S.:
It's there. Click "Edit," then hit the third button... you know, the one that says... let me see... "Delete."

I suspect that option is only available for a limited window after the post goes live.

Laura Palmer25 said:Quote:

John Peterson3 says: SPOILER The ink contains iron, so it reacts to magnets...

🙏 Nice analysis... honestly, it would’ve taken me two full days to figure out what the hell the connection was between the damn ink and the hair.

And yeah, I agree—those teeth Alice saw through the coffin crack were definitely meant to look like the inspector's... they even did a close-up of his molars later on, almost like they were trying to throw us off the scent.

Look. That’s just one of the opening scenes.
If the realization happens too early in the movie... half the plot is wasted.
If it happens too late... or not at all... the ending is ruined.

Or was that character just "brilliant" enough to predict exactly when and how everyone would catch on?

Daniel Perez6 said:I get why you'd see some plot holes, but I can't wrap my head around you finding this logical. What movie actually makes sense to you? 🤔

That whole bit with the teeth is clearly just playing the audience; I had my suspicions that the inspector was behind everything too. Honestly, at this point, I'd bet anything those were his teeth in that scene.

Those "holes" are exactly what I meant. It’s illogical—unrealistic, really. The plan completely ignores variables like chance encounters, unpredictable reactions, or random people. It fails to account for anything that could derail a scheme like that.

John Peterson3 said:Why isn't that logical? Nowhere does it state the killer decided to target Poe on a whim. There’s no mention of how long he planned this game, or what resources he used. We have to assume there was preparation—that he knows Poe, his works, and his motives. It seems almost impossible that he would go through the effort of constructing an entire "pendulum." 😬 Given the nature of his character, it isn't exactly surprising for his game. At the end of the day, the device itself isn't some technological marvel.

If every movie had to include an exhaustive prologue just to patch up its own plot holes, they wouldn't be movies anymore.

coppersailor28 said:Who on earth would even attempt to construct something of that scale or weight? Not to mention the logistics of the other "projects" shown in that film. It’s just not feasible when you consider... Just something. Unlikely. And there are a million logical reasons why that wouldn't happen, whether we're talking about timing or any other factor. It fits.Turns out it was completely useless.

Go ahead. Study me all you want. Use everything you think you know about my character to provoke me on this forum if that helps you reach your goal. I’ll respond exactly how you expect—it’s not like you don't know me by now. But what about Ann? Or Joseph? What about Isaac?
What if they start trolling, talk back to the moderator, and get the thread shut down?

So what now? You’ve got those hundred ready to go, haven't you? Just sitting there.

John Peterson3 said:I was headed out to build the entire pendulum. 😬

🥳

You could have a hundred pendulums ready—maybe even a thousand—but it won't change a thing. It’s useless.

Laura Palmer25 said:Don't be such a nitpicker. Pendulum (the swing) is one of the most famous inventions from Poe's stories. If a maniac hadn't used it here, we wouldn't even realize there was a void to begin with. Maniacs aren't exactly known for being lazy when they find something worth obsessing over, even if the payoff is minimal. I guess that's why they call them maniacs.

Well... I typed "pandelum" into Google—I knew it was spelled something like that—and I completely missed this: "Showing results for pendulum; Search instead for pandelum"... Thought I had nailed it on the first try. 🤷
The rest of it would be a total spoiler... but it doesn't matter anyway. You find the movie logical; I don't.

Laura Palmer25 said:This movie is great. Solid directing, strong acting, and most importantly, the plot actually makes sense without any glaring holes. It’s a really well-constructed story.

Visually stunning, too—you can tell they didn't cut corners when it came to recreating mid-19th century Baltimore. I'd give it an 8/10.

Are you joking?

Do you honestly believe one man could handle the fabrication and assembly of something like the Big Ben pendulum? Even better—who would bother constructing something of that scale and weight just for "five minutes" of attention? Especially when that attention was strictly focused on the victim and the method of death. Furthermore, if these types of "projects" didn't fit perfectly into a specific timeline—and there are a million logical reasons why they wouldn't—they would be utterly useless.

How can you claim you aren't interested in seeing if this works with a second post (for example, by actually giving me an answer)?

Or is it genuinely not working?

Patrick Gonzalez36 said:Just wondering why I can't make any new posts.

Or rather, "everyone else is posting, yet here I am, doing nothing."

And what exactly was that thing you just wrote, if not a new post?

Sean Moore said:Watch it. As a moderator...

...
so, in a thread this serious, you as a moderator...

Pathetic.

Making things up out of thin air... Truly pathetic. 🙂

Sean Moore said:Did I say Pathetic?

Yes.

Nicholas King said:...proved herself...

Now they'll sue you for calling him a d*ck (you completely ignored the Ciceipic part) 😬

driftingfalcon3 said:Look, man, coppersailor28, are you joking, or do you actually think you can perform some kind of logical acrobatics using the word "joint" to suggest that mentioning it implies atheists are just animals?

I’m sorry, but I haven't heard anything funnier in my life.

It’s possible you didn't mean it that way, but only if intelligence and logic aren't working in your favor.

But fine, let's assume you didn't mean it (only assume; because I don't believe that's even a possibility):
What exactly is your explanation for what you wrote?
If this whole "joint" thing is spun from string theory, evolutionary theory, etc., there’s no question. So who is smoking that joint? Catholics? Muslims? Buddhists? ... Me and "my people," or you and "your people"? Or just some "third party"?

Your explanation (response) is... what?

______________

driftingfalcon3 said:But yeah, you caught onto something; that joint is being smoked intentionally and forced on everyone if they don't want to be banned, all to push the thesis that humans are just slightly more advanced animals, but ultimately still animals.

Who is forcing the smoking of this joint (string theory, evolutionary theory, etc.)? Because if you claim I understood correctly, then I've drawn a valid conclusion... /fine, I'll participate in "proving" things, even though it's ridiculous to try to prove something by calling atheists animals in the first place./

driftingfalcon3 said:So, what kind of insult would it be to call an atheist-evolutionist believer an animal, if they represent that very thesis and declare themselves as such?

But here is the DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED truth: Creationists are precisely the ones trying to convince evolutionists that they AREN'T animals, but it's futile.

So, what purpose does your response to my post and complaint serve?

According to evolutionary theory, all humans are considered to originate from the so-called animal kingdom and are classified within it.
But, to be a biological animal (quoting Wikipedia)

Animals are living beings that do not obtain their energy through photosynthesis, but rather feed on other animal or plant organisms, and require oxygen to breathe. They exhale carbon dioxide, which plants need to produce oxygen. Most animals are mobile and possess senses. Like humans, they can be male or female. All animals move. They move to find nutrients, a mate of the opposite sex for reproduction and to be able to escape from an enemy. Almost all animals utilize some form of sexualreproduction. Certain cells and organs are specifically specialized for reproduction...

including higher mammals or placental animals (Eutheria), which includes humans from a zoological standpoint.

To continue: ...However, being a biological animal is fundamentally incompatible with your claim:

driftingfalcon3 said:So why smoke that joint in the first place? To be able to call oneself an animal, because being an animal is that broad path leading to ruin.

It is obvious you are using "animals" (calling atheists animals) in a pejorative, insulting sense rather than a biological one.

driftingfalcon3 said:Can someone explain why my posts were deleted from the religion thread regarding Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion? My main one was this:

No idea why your post got nuked. If it wasn't banned, then I don't know why it isn't banned...

driftingfalcon3 said:And those who claim to be the "experts" in unspecified quantum mechanics are also the best candidates to smoke string theoryin the same joint where evolution theory is rolled up with...

I'm only quoting that part to clarify what I meant by "joint"...

below:

driftingfalcon3 said:But why actually smokethat joint? To be able to be an animal, because being an animal is that wide road leading to ruin.

Contextually, the word "animal" in the quote above refers to atheists:
"Why actually smoke that joint? So one can be an atheist, because being an atheist is that wide road leading to ruin."

Richard Jones542 said:Just chilling.

Just vibing.

Show me the proof, or it’s just noise. ☕

Real 13 is like this:

drot13 said:What time is it?👍

drot13 said:Hit the jackpot.👍

Dammit. Just took a nasty fall. Now my front teeth are gone.👍

Yes.👍

No.👍