Film Q.

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/03/2009 2:54 AM:

A normal, intelligent person would take that as a very strong hint that your
LaCompagnie monitor is just as uncalibrated as the Dell **** you have at work.
But not you: it's all OK provided it reinforces your monumental need for
approval, ain't it?


On the contrary, it would appear that your monitor is the problem
since apparently you are the only one seeing this mysterious banding.

Or both your monitors are absolute crap. Given that you admit one is crap and
the other gicves the same images, the logical conclusion is obvious.

And the fact that you can't point to where it occurs in the photo or

Really? You can't read, can you? What does the word "sky" mean to you?
Pie?

provide and example just proves you're talking out of your ass as
usual.

I'm not talking, moron. I'm writing. Can't you tell the difference? No wonder
you can't even sort out a monitor...


My Lacie monitor is a few years old, but when I calibrate it with my
Gretag-Macbeth Eye-One it does fine.

Sure...

Hey, I think I figured it out!

You don't know enough maths to work out a figure, moron.

Noons is running his PC in Safe mode, aka VGA mode.

It's not my PC, moron.

This does in fact give you 8-bit, 256 color resolution, and lotsa
banding.

Sure. Just like your "8-bit monitor".
You better stop before you embarrass yourself even more...

jimkramer wrote,on my timestamp of 26/03/2009 6:51 AM:

This one before Noons did the Pedo crap:
http://groups.google.com/groups/prof...CWhSvJ88-QDybg

Just like you to provide a lie for "proof", ain't it, Jim-boy?

Now ya'all talk about pictures, and stop being rude to each other.


**** off.

Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 26/03/2009 3:08 AM:


He's not even worth the energy to reply to. Simply put, Noons creates
lies to create arguments. He wants people to think he's one tough
hard-ass, when in reality....well everyone knows exactly what he is.

What am I, Helen? Ah yes: you, the extremely knowledgeable and computer-savvy
moron who can't even figure out how to click a mouse, you are gonna provide the
light?

I remember reading his profile where he stated that he loves to cause
trouble.

You better provide proof of that crap, you ****head STUPID BITCH...

John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 26/03/2009 1:14 PM:

Now be good and go back to the putrid hole you crawled from and stop
insulting everyone's intelligence with your idiotic remarks.
There's a good bitch.

Have you figured out yet how to reply to posts, moron?

John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 26/03/2009 1:16 PM:


Certainly the latter guess is correct. First two might be as well.

Really? When are you gonna crawl up the courage to tell me that face to face,
coward? Or you think hiding out west is enough?


Oh, me, me!

Sure.

John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 26/03/2009 1:12 PM:

noons be on a foam of his own type....


**** off, dickhead.

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/03/2009 3:12 AM:


This does in fact give you 8-bit, 256 color resolution, and lotsa
banding.
Sure. Just like your "8-bit monitor".
You better stop before you embarrass yourself even more...


So you are disputing that monitors can run at only 8-bit resolutions?

When you revert back to English, we'll talk again about that stupid question.
Hint: read your statement above and my reply. And stop asking idiotic
questions, you're only proving what a moron you really are.

Back on topic, why can't anyone else see the banding you mention?

Because no one else has even bothered checking, dip****. Haven't you noticed
they "kf-ed" me ages ago? Or so they claim...

Surely, not everybody in the world has crappy monitors.

The quality of the monitor has nothing to do with it, moron.
It's the calibration that counts. You only need a high quality monitor if you
do a lot of printing and want the images to match n both monitor and printer.
To just look at them like you do, any monitor suffices. It just needs to be
properly adjusted.


Like I said: look at the sky just above the bird on the "large" image in that
crap site of yours. Then look at the legs on the "original" image. I don't
know which one is more objectionable.

Only the arsekissers who follow you everywhere could consider either of those
acceptable.