Not superstitious by nature. Let see, when they have kids signing in horror movies that's kind of creepy.

theycallmeRP

Starts singing in a kiddie voice:

"Onnnnne two Freddy's coming for youuuu,

threeee four better lock your door,

fiiiiiivveee six get a crucifix,

seeeevenn eight better stay up late,

niiiineee ten never sleep again ..."

hello,this is my first time using forum and I want help regarding the display settings of my xbox 360,I have a LG 32'' 32lh20r and I use HDMI but every time I play the games(like the guns in COD MW2 or the armor edges in dead space ....)look pixelated and the edges are zigzag , I tried a lot of configurations but no result ,I couldn't find anything on the internet that could help me.Can anyone please tell me which reference level,color space and output I should use(my TV is native 720p and 1080i).

norair

Use native output, you'll do your TV a diservice if you output @1080 on a 720. Use whatever reference level you think looks best on your TV and ALWAYS use sRGB color space (aka Rec 709).

Make sure you post things in their appropriate forums, ok?

[QUOTE="JasonDarksavior"]

There was an artcile I read. It said that camera cannot film things when one is extremely bright or something among those lines.

Edit****: I found the answer and I'm sure it's 99% correct. Film cannot capture a very faint object next to a very bright one.

MrGeezer

It CAN.

The problem is, the dynamic range of film doesn't match the dynamic range of the human eye. Modern digital photography is actually worse at this than the film stock that they were using back in the 60's.

What this means is that they absolutely COULD have captured the stars on film. The problem here is that they'd have to give a LONGER EXPOSURE in order to make the stars show up. And guess what happens then? If they're giving a longer exposure to the STARS, then they're also giving a longer exposure to the astronauts and to the moon. The moon and the astronauts would then look like washed out white blobs of garbage. It's just be a picture of stars with some ugly-ass white **** in the foreground.

Yes, the dynamic range of the scene exceeded the dynamic range of the film. They therefore had to determine what were the most important elements of the scene, and expose for those elements at the expense of other less-important elements. And yes, the stars are less important than the astronauts and the moon, so the stars got cut out. They didn't expose for the stars, because no one gives a **** about the stars.

I do. I love overexposed, washed-out pictures especially with stars in them. I especially love when the stars streak across the sky due to Earth's rotation. If they had published TWO pictures, the one above and the one you describe, I'd go with the washed out one.

I guess I'm just peculiar that way.

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"]

the moon have no atmosphere right ?? we see in this picture the man on the moon , and the universe around him , my question is , where are all the stars !!??? isnt the universe full of them , in this picture , non of them is visible , why ??

thats my question.

MrGeezer

Because they didn't spend millions of dollars to go to the ****ing moon, just to take pictures of the stars. You can see the same stars here on Earth, so how does what you're saying make a lick of sense?

The pictures weren't exposed for the stars, because then all you'd see is stars. The foreground, the part that MATTERS, would just be a big white blob because it was OVEREXPOSED. Then you'd have people looking at the pictures and saying "that doesn't look like men on the moon. That just looks like a big white blob in front of a lot of stars."

Or to put it this way, try it yourself. Go outside on a dark night. Make sure that the sky is clear, and that you can see the stars. Now turn on the floodlights on your porch, take a picture of your buddies drinking beer under the floodlight. Now look at the picture, and tell me if the stars show up in the freaking picture.

I'm not asking you to take my word on this. Everyone has a camera these days. So you can try it out for yourself, and you'll see that I'm right. You don't see stars because the footage wasn't exposed for the stars. It wasn't exposed for the stars, because no one cared about the stars. This was the pride of a nation. No one wanted to turn on the TV and see ****ing STARS, they wanted to turn on the TV and see a men on the freaking MOON.

Ahem, Mr Geez. I think he meant that without an atmosphere, the stars should be a lot brighter, and should have shown up in that exposure. I can agree with that. I am an amatuer photographer, and I know everything you said about the porch pic is right, but it makes sense that you should see SOMETHING, even if it's faint. And we don't know the exposure settings of the pic in question, now do we? What if it was taken at 1/60 @ F4 as opposed to 1/120 @ F8?

And I can actually see one star in that. :P

brandontwb

You sure it's not screen crud? It looks pure black to me.

I squinted real hard and thought I saw a faint dot of a star, but it turned out to be a piece of crust on my screen. :D

first i didnt say i dont believe but i have a question , lets take a look on this picture shall we ............

the moon have no atmosphere right ?? we see in this picture the man on the moon , and the universe around him , my question is , where are all the stars !!??? isnt the universe full of them , in this picture , non of them is visible , why ??

thats my question.

gubrushadow

Well *puts on high and mighty "I'm clearly smarter than you, so lemme explain it like you're 5" airs* you see the answer is obvious and simple ...

... stars give off faint light that wouldn't be captured by such a quick snapsh ....

no ... umm, the blackness of space washes out the light coming from the st ....

no .... ahhh, the light from our own sun is so bright that starlight cannot possible compete ...

NO! dangit ... the angle of the light? no, maybe the area in view is a very sparse sector of space with few stars??

I dunno. Hell, we SHOULD be able to see stars. What gives?

[QUOTE="LIONHEART-_-"]

[QUOTE="bigblunt537"]

Joke post?

bigblunt537

I don't think so. I myself seen some videos of some "girls [censored for kids]". I can PM you the link.

I seriously hope you're just joking. And you took my comment the wrong way. I'll let you figure it out on your own wise one.

And I'll translate: he means are you kidding in thinking women hardly or rarely masturbate They can rub one out while driving, a job interview or during a squash match ...

[QUOTE="my_mortal_coil"]

I once ate TWO Double Bacon Western Cheeseburgers from Carl's Jr./Hardy's in one sitting.

Celldrax

Two large burgers is typically enough to satisfy me, but not make me full :P

Dude, either you've stretched your stomach out or you are a big dude (as in height and skeletal size, not fat necc.)