Now that Red is the acknowledged Future King...

[Bruce Allen]

...can someone at Red please fix the sleazy marketzoid half-truths on the "INTRODUCING RED ONE" page on the site? That single page is the thing I hate most about Red.

I love the camera, love the people, love the footage, love the community.

I hate the way the misleading comparisons on that page make Red out to be some kind of confidence trickster and generally cheapen Red's image.

EDIT: specifically the "PIXEL SHIFTING AND UP-REZZING NOT SPOKEN HERE" paragraph...
http://www.red.com/cameras

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[jaadgy akanni]

Bruce I have to agree with you-making a statement like that is so beneath RED.

[Graeme Nattress]

We've been totally up-front on the sensor, it's dimensions, it's Bayer pattern, it's pixel count, it's a-to-d bit depth right from day one. Compare and contrast with the launch of the HVX200.... How long was it after HDCAM was launched that it's 1440x1080 and 3:1:1 became common knowledge?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

EDIT: specifically the "PIXEL SHIFTING AND UP-REZZING NOT SPOKEN HERE" paragraph...
http://www.red.com/cameras


What's wrong with that paragraph? It's right on the money, IMO.

[Bruce Allen]

Hang on, I will Photoshop a parody together quickly...

But basically, I content they are using wordplay in a sleazy way - due to the built in ambiguities of the English language, the statement "typical high-end HD camcorders have 2.1M pixel sensors" implies
"a typical high-end HD camcorder has ONE 2.1M pixel sensor"
when that is not true.

If Red said "typical high-end HD camcorders have THREE 2.1M pixel sensors" there would be no ambiguity, but some marketing nitwit has decided to deliberately not do that in order to mislead people.

After trying to paint current HD cameras as 2.1M pixel only, they say that "12,065,000 pixels deliver resolution that can only be called Ultra High Definition". Again, this is trying to get the reader to erroneously think that the Red will have 6 times the resolution of the puny 2.1Mpixel res competition.

My other contention is: pixel shifting (where the r,g,b sensors are sensing at different spatial positions) is pretty similar to the Bayer concept (barring the fact that the Bayer system has more G pixels).

Seriously, I love Red but I have to apologize to my friends in advance about that damn page every time I tell them to go there. Because they can smell cheap marketing a mile away.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Bruce Allen]

How long was it after HDCAM was launched that it's 1440x1080 and 3:1:1 became common knowledge?

Everyone hates Sony because they pull things like that. Do you really think just because they did it, it makes it not scummy for you guys to do it?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Graeme Nattress]

As I've said, we've always been up front about what we're doing.

As for the resolution comparison - all you need to do is measure the image and look at the numbers. Make sure you've got a really sharp lens on and looks for alissing issues.

[Justin Kirchhoff]

Bruce, to be honest, I think you're taking it far beyond RED's meaning. I have not felt that way once about this company, and with so many people backing the company and their revolution, it's hard to think that THAT many people think the same about their advertising slogan.

I think they brought this company out of nowhere in a great way. I mean, look at all the people that actually caught on to the slogan. They are upfront, truthful, and immensely intelligent.

[Bruce Allen]

Also, Graeme, I apologize to be taking up your weekend time with this! Get some rest, man! Much more important things to do.


As I've said, we've always been up front about what we're doing.

Yes, you guys are totally great. You are more than upfront. You are amazingly open and wonderful about communicating every detail on the Red. I love the wonderful up-frontness from you guys, both personally and from Red as a company.

You go way, way beyond what's expected of you and behave with true class.

All I have a problem with is that stupid paragraph on the Red.com page which is unfortunately the first thing most people read and runs totally counter to the superb up-front attitude of practically everything Red has done, before or afterwards.

Imagine if Ferrari was a start-up company in a world of Model T fords. They're just making their first car now, have fantastic buzz, all of the engineers and the company head were on the forums being amazingly transparent, the car was kicking ass on the road.

The only problem is that on Ferrari.com the first thing you see is "our competitor, the Model T Ford, has a top speed of 45 mph. Our Ferrari One has a top speed of 310 kph."

It makes every fan's heart sink - "WHAAAT? Why are they doing some stupid mph / kph switch when their car OBVIOUSLY CRUSHES the competition. No need to resort to snake oil tricks."

And then you tell your buddies about this new Ferrari and your buddies check it out and say "it looks good but Bruce, looks like you fell for some kind of kph / mph bait and switch? You're stupider than we thought."

Again, that paragraph just bugs me because it's so out of line... Eveything else is about Red WAY BEYOND FANTASTIC. It's just that the presence of that paragraph makes me always wonder why Red doesn't just acknowledge the intelligence of their customers and not try any sneaky wordplay.

Red is great because they believe in the intelligence of the consumer 99.999%. I just wish it would be 100%. Sorry, I'm a crazy perfectionist. But you guys are too I think ;)

Happy weekend.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Bruce Allen]

Bruce, to be honest, I think you're taking it far beyond RED's meaning. I have not felt that way once about this company, and with so many people backing the company and their revolution, it's hard to think that THAT many people think the same about their advertising slogan.

I think they brought this company out of nowhere in a great way. I mean, look at all the people that actually caught on to the slogan. They are upfront, truthful, and immensely intelligent.

Yeah, totally agree. This one thing is totally miniscule and inconsistent. It's like you're shooting a huge crowd scene Gandhi and there's one frikkin' extra wearing a digital wristwatch. It just irrationally bugs the heck out of me.

I do think that RED intentionally meant to be ambiguous, though, because it's such a simple change to make it non-ambiguous. Just add the word "three" - eg "Typical high-end HD camcorders have THREE 2.1M pixel sensors".

Hopefully in the future this will be replaced with some nice image examples or something... besides I think that this paragraph doesn't sell the Red in the best way, either.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Jeff Kilgroe]

If Red said "typical high-end HD camcorders have THREE 2.1M pixel sensors" there would be no ambiguity, but some marketing nitwit has decided to deliberately not do that in order to mislead people.

Oh, I see...

Funny though, I always looked at it differently than that... I never considered the 3-chip cameras to have THREE pixel sensors. In most cases, they are using a three-layer CCD with one layer assigned to a specific RGB value. Besides, many current model cameras have gone the route of single CMOS... I suppose it's a matter of semantics. But I always felt that companies who marketed their cameras as having 2.7M pixels sensors when they're really talking about 3-CCD 1280x720, were a bit slimy. T/GV does this with the Viper and many feel it's a load of rubbish, intended to make it sound like it's much more than it really is.

[Desert Rune]

...can someone at Red please fix the sleazy marketzoid half-truths on the "INTRODUCING RED ONE" page on the site?

EDIT: specifically the "PIXEL SHIFTING AND UP-REZZING NOT SPOKEN HERE" paragraph...

This phrase tells me that Red is uncompromising in its pursuit of quality images. It's a positive in my opinion. There is nothing sleazy about the product page... you may be reading way too much into things.

[Stuart English]

What's wrong with that paragraph? It's right on the money, IMO.

Its probably too kind to the competition.

I can't think of a single HD camcorder whose combination of color purity, resolution or dynamic range even comes close.

When you see our images on a 4K projector that is crystal clear.

And yes, quality does translate to smaller screens (and print)

[Airlawn]

I'm confused what Bruce Allen is trying to say at least what I get is that he and rightly so just doesn't like the wording on the camera page. I don't understand how the conversation veered towards how good of an image Red creates none of his discussion focuses on performance just on wording. That the slogan read by some people is slightly incorrect in that many 3ccd cameras have more then 1 chip but three and regardless of how it is used and what the final result is, it is still more then One 2.1 MP chips. Also by how the camera works it does move pixels around and shifts them even if it isn't any kind of squashing or stretching in order to try and fake a higher resolution. I don't think there is any accusing of misleading or anything just that the statement if only read at face value and without digging deeper into the entire workings of Red and other cameras on the market it is technically wrong.

[Rob Lohman]

but some marketing nitwit has decided to deliberately not do that in
order to mislead people.

I thought you were supposed to taunt the competition a bit? :) Btw, Jim probably wrote that....

[Stuart English]

I don't think there is any accusing of misleading or anything just that the statement if only read at face value and without digging deeper into the entire workings of Red and other cameras on the market it is technically wrong.

With respect, no it isn't technically wrong. (We do not say one 2.1MP sensor, we say sensors i.e. plural. We said 5 times not 6. Most HD camcorders do not have 2.1MP pixel sensors, and high end 3-CCD HD camcorders don't do pixel shift)

If you were to look at the just the central 9.4 million pixels that represent our 4K REDCODE RAW recorded image and measure resolution x bit depth v's the two most popular high end HD camcorders you would see -

(4096*2304*12) / (1440 * 1080*8) = 9.10 x more

(4096*2304*12) / (960 * 720*8 ) = 20.48 x more

Or compare our 4K deliverable output image and measure resolution x bit depth v's the two highest quality HD video formats..

(4096*2304*12) / (1920*1080*10) = 5.46 x more

(4096*2304*12) / (1280*720*10 ) = 12.28 x more

Thats just comparing 4K v's HD at the same frame rate, operating as a camcorders or output frame size. That ignores delivering in 4:4:4 v's 4:2:2 color spaces, and recording even higher frame rates and 12.1MP resolution over the RAW PORT to a high end DDR.

[Bruce Allen]

With respect, no it isn't technically wrong. (We do not say one 2.1MP sensor, we say sensors i.e. plural.

Yes, but you have a plural "cameras" before that. If "a camera has a CCD", we know it's one camera with one CCD. If "a camera has CCDs" , we know it's one camera with many CCDs (3CCDs for our purposes). If it's "cameras have CCDs", we don't know if it's one CCD per camera or many.

There is ambiguity in your statement and I don't think you can deny it when any high school student could point this out.



We said 5 times not 6. Most HD camcorders do not have 2.1MP pixel sensors, and high end 3-CCD HD camcorders don't do pixel shift)


Totally agreed.



If you were to look at the just the central 9.4 million pixels that represent our 4K REDCODE RAW recorded image and measure resolution x bit depth v's the two most popular high end HD camcorders you would see -

(4096*2304*12) / (1440 * 1080*8) = 9.10 x more

(4096*2304*12) / (960 * 720*8 ) = 20.48 x more


You should say that then! You're obviously making a veiled comparison to the Sonys but yeah, Red crushes the Varicam (although I wouldn't say by 20x, because you are only recording one channel of color per pixel, whereas they are 4:2:2 - let's say 18x better tops ;). Versus the Viper, Genesis and D20 it gets a lot more tricky (we get into Genesis' striped R,G,B and weird latitude setup, the Viper's interesting pixel layout, etc) but you still have the edge and you crush them on price and workflow.

As I said, I also don't think your current paragraph sells your camera very well. You should re-write.



Thats just comparing 4K v's HD at the same frame rate, operating as a camcorders or output frame size. That ignores delivering in 4:4:4 v's 4:2:2 color spaces, and recording even higher frame rates and 12.1MP resolution over the RAW PORT to a high end DDR.

Yes, although on your side, you happily point out the competition being 3:1:1 but ignore the fact that Red is only recording a single color channel per pixel. I know you can reconstruct but it will not be the same as a true 4:4:4 capture.

Anyway, who cares, your cameras rock. Just want to point out that you have a weird ambiguity, that it upsets many people I send to your site and that you could perhaps sell the camera better.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[wshultz]

Maybe there should be a nitpic clever complaint of the day forum. Then I could get on and complain that of all the things Jim and everyone must do to make every single person happy, this would have to rank really really low.

[Bruce Allen]

Maybe there should be a nitpic clever complaint of the day forum. Then I could get on and complain that of all the things Jim and everyone must do to make every single person happy, this would have to rank really really low.

No contest. That's why it's in Off Topic and I have already admitted its insignificance multiple times in above posts. You're right. It's a total nitpick. Like having a spelling mistake on the front page. Who cares. It's stupid. If it were just me noticing, I wouldn't care.

I won't post on this again. It's there, it's wrong, it's tiny, hopefully one day someone'll fix it. Again, Red - people, community, camera, company, etc - is fantastic.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Poi Boy]

Bruce, what are you babeling about ????
On another note, How are the monitors coming along ?
Aloha
-A

[Lauri Kettunen]

It sounds like Bruce says the well knwon fact that one can employ numbers (statistics) to emphasize the message one wants to make. A simple example reveals the point. One can put it this way to emphasize the message in another way:

Canon XL H1, three 1440x1080 sensors:
G channel: 1.5 M pixels
R channel: 1.5 M pixels
B channel: 1.5 M pixels
In total 4.5M pixels

2K camera with 2048x1152 CMOS sensor:
G: 1.18M pixels,
R: 0.59M pixels,
B: 0.59M pixels.
In total 2.36M pixels.

4K RED with 4520x2540 sensor:
G: 5.74M pixels
R: 2.87M pixels
B: 2.87M pixels
In total 11.48M pixels

Now, compare if one puts it this way:

XL H1: 1.5M pixels
2K: 2.36M pixels
4K: 11.48M pixels

Bruce does have a point, doesn't he; In the rigourous sense of the word, in fact, the deBayer process is about uprezzing, isn't it? That is, one creates -the technical term is by "cultivated guessing"- data which is not actually captured by the sensor. This means, if you know the algorithm, you can always deliberately create an image in which the algortihm will somewhat fail. From the practical point of view this is water on the duck's back, for the odds to meet such situation in practice is negligible. So, one may as well say this is all hair splitting.

[Graeme Nattress]

I think of the bayer pattern on the sensor as a clever form of 3:1 compression. The bayer demosaic algorithm being decompression.

It's possible to feed any compression a "pathalogical" image.

However, one of the hardest images for any camera is a zone plate, (they show up resolution and aliassing quite clearly) and that image didn't confuse the demosaic algorithm.

Graeme

[Stuart English]

Last comment on this.

You might say that statistics can prove anything, but the fact is that through appropriate image processing each pixel in the Mysterium sensor can be used to generate both a luminance signal and a color signal. So your number of derived samples (and hence resolution) is based on 11.4MP.

That is not true of a 3 x 2.1M sensor. It that case, its true that each pixel on each sensor can also be used to generate a luminance signal and a color signal but as all the CCD's are co-sited, the total number or derived samples (and hence resolution) will still be based on 2.1MP, not 6.3MP.

[Bruce Allen]

Bruce, what are you babeling about ????
On another note, How are the monitors coming along ?
Aloha
-A

Poi Boy, okay, I am shutting up. I have moved on to post crazy photos of my rig plus monitor.
(http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3918)

Graeme, I agree about Bayer being smart 3:1 compression. But then 3:1:1 is also a pretty smart move and you guys rip them apart for using that in your paragraph I don't like ;)

Now I'm going to leave this argument and next time someone I refer to your site asks me about your paragraph (and they will, because most of your prospective customers are smart and inquisitive and are also very jaded after years of Sony marketing) I can tell them I have posted on the forums and you guys responded.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Lauri Kettunen]

As RED is a fantastic camera this will also be my last comment as well.

This twist of words is hidden here:


derived samples

The bayer demosaic algorithm being decompression.

The total number of R, G, and B samples is 11.4M, and all other data is, in fact, lost. And formally speaking, there is no way to generate it back afterwards. However, if one makes a reasonable assumption, say that the colors change from one pixel to another in somewhat regular manner, then you can create based on the assumption employed the lost/missing 22.8M RGB pixel data. That's the deBayer process.

Formally, in the technical sense and in words of logic, the sensor creates a so called equivalence class, meaning there is a large number of images corresponding to the one and the same RAW-data of the sensor. Now, there is no way to pick the canonical 3 x 11.4M image RGB-data from the (equivalence class of) 11.4 samples one has available. The rest of data is lost and lost for ever. But now, there room for cultivated guesses one can make here, such as the lost data was somewhat regular. Based on this the deBayer process constructs a so called representative of the equivalence class and the representative -or you may call it "proxy"- is close enough to what the canonical data would be.

So, my answer to Graeme is, if you consider the sensor sampling as compression, it's definitely a lossy compression. The answer to Stuart is, yes, they are indeed derived samples but not genuine or real samples. For this reason one may well call the deBayerian uprezzing It's just a matter of taste which words one employes here.

All this is indeed just hair splitting, if one is not able to come up with a practical case where all this had a meaning. And I think this is basically what Stuart and Graeme say: those cases where the reconstruction did not work are "pathological". However, there is a chance that the issue is not studied in depth for typical resolution charts fall into the category of "somewhat regular images". But, if the resolution charts were fractals, such as the snow flake (made of an equilateral triangle, having an equilateral triangle on each side and so on) then the basic assumption of somewhat regular data did not hold any longer.

If -and I emphasize, I have no idea how you do it- the RED deBayer process relies on the assumption of "somewhat regular data", then RED and a 3-sensor 2K camera shots on fractal resolution charts should show the 3-sensor approach has its advantages.

[Graeme Nattress]

The data is not totally lost though.... Because of the anti-alias filter. If you have a camera without an anti-alias filter you get nasty artifacts. Because of the necessary anti-alias filter, a 3 chip system does not have it's rated pixel resolution either. Some cameras omit or don't have adequate filtering and produce artifacts. The bayer process is not an uprez as the output resolution is not greater than the input resolution - it's a decoding or reconstruction process.

Another way to look at things is "efficiency". For us to make a 12mp image, we need 12MB * 12 / 8 = 18MB. Say the measured horizontal resolution is 3400 lines (not unreasonable). To achieve such a measured resolution on a 3 chip system you'd need 6.5mp sensors, giving a total of 6.5MB * 3 * 12 / 8 = 29.25MB. In that respect our "compression" ratio of bayer to 3 chip equivalent is 1.6:1 not 3:1. And of course, the measured resolution of a 3 chip 6.5mp system would be lower than that which I've assumed as it too would need and optical low pass filter. To get the resolution the same as our 12mp sensor, it would probably need more like 8mp or 10mp to account for the filtering.

Graeme

[James T Mather]

It seems to me that some people have too much time on their hands.

[Desert Rune]

After mulling over what Bruce has to say, I'll agree with him. Red has shown the goods. There's no more need to "prove" to the skeptics of what Red is, and so if the product introduction page goes through a rewrite, it would benefit us all.

All this tech talk about Bayer, sampling etc. doesn't really matter as long as we know the technology produces stunning imaging.

[Wayne Morellini]

I think of the bayer pattern on the sensor as a clever form of 3:1 compression. The bayer demosaic algorithm being decompression.

Graeme

There are certain domains in the data that overlap making debayering more realistic, but there is something even more aggressive I was thinking about doing years ago, before Red even started I think. 1/3rd three color pixel shift, needing three times less pixels again. So a three chip 2k chip can render 18mp, a nice amount. It is a shame that the three layer sensor manufactures have dropped the ball in terms of high quality video. Sigma sees it as unimportant, but if I buy an expensive still camera camera I want high quality video, and preferably 4k video. The Panasonic gh2 is one of the few that cones close, and that is after the hack, and it is cheap. What I could do with a competent ultra low crosstalk, high snr and dynamic range, 50 to 100fps, 100% fillfactor, bs 4k 3 layer sensor (closer to 100% the better). The patents must be running out, You could still use this for red code Bayer, by dropping the other channels, but I same up with some other compression techniques, at the least you can store the difference from the assumed difference between colored pixels. In this you assume the value of missing pixels of a color as an average from surrounding pixels of that color in Bayer or other domain (I do have more advanced techniques but am keeping them to myself as I do not remember if I revealed them or not) when the result from the sensor is different from the assumed, you store the difference as a general combined values of colors, or as individual channels alongside the Bayer to improve accuracy. There is a lot of extra stuff I explored. I was thinking of a Bayer sensor design that registered the primary and left over light per pixel.

[Wayne Morellini]

Forgot, what professionals don't tell us, is that the more colors you use in combination, the more accuracy you can get, and the more pixels you can get out of shift. In real life this might not matter too much in recording, but it has uses (very important) and at some point the quality of pixels from shift is going to break too much. But I wonder what we could get out of complimentary layers, or at least infrared and uv for security scientific study, which I wanted to do. However, recently I same up with a method to record virtually infinite seperate frequencies, but I can't remember how, I had another idea for this years ago too. Some of the stuff I have been theorising would be hard to shake a stick at, there is so much of it and years and years beyond what is happening. My scientific research is more radical. That's how you know a real businessman, how quickly he jumps on that to explore making money. There are not too many real businessmen out there.

Some wisdom there, between the lines.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

That line is still a pet peeve of mine as well. Pixel shifting and Bayer patterns seem like at most 1st cousins of the exact same system. They both use spacial offsets of different channels to interpolate the other colors. Which is in of itself a form of uprezzing.

"Pixel shifting not spoken here! (We use pixel sheefting.)"

[Meryem Ersoz]

just get rid of it and state the obvious - "most frickin beautiful images available on the planet today at this or any price point"

done and out.

[Graeme Nattress]

Zombie threads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gavin, the situation was, way back then, that things like pixel-shifting were done without informing the consumer that they were going on. Some companies were very cagey about the sensor resolution and how they achieved their output image. The difference being, we've always been very open about how we use a Bayer Pattern CFA sensor, what the pixel dimensions are and what the measured resolution you can expect is.

Graeme

[Wayne Morellini]

Whoops, I didn't realise this one was an older thread too, going have to apologise to Evin.

Threads that are too old should be archived.

[Matt Ryan]

lol I think Wayne is on a roll today hahaha

:auto:

[Wayne Morellini]

Ha, ha, funny thing is that is the color of my Car, and it is a Turbo diesel, and I don't drive it like that (not saying I could not).

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Threads that are too old should be archived.

I have suggested that to our admin gods on more than a few occasions in the past. Most the time threads get resurrected, it's accidental. Usually brought on by a quick reply after a search and bam, there it is. Often times, it's not such a bad thing in terms of a post or two that are relevant to the latest addition to the thread... Unfortunately, so many of these threads that come back to life contain old or outdated info. Too many occasions where we actually see a 3 year old thread pop up with old specs or info on something and the next thing you know, people are quoting it elsewhere on the forum or it's causing confusion because they don't look at the dates.

...If I had my way, any thread on these forums that goes for 90 days without posting activity will automatically lock itself. That's a rough amount of time off the top of my head, but probably not too far off the mark. It's usually better if someone starts a thread and then links to the old thread, or better yet, specific posts, for the necessary references.

[Bruce Allen]

Often times, it's not such a bad thing in terms of a post or two that are relevant to the latest addition to the thread... Unfortunately, so many of these threads that come back to life contain old or outdated info. Too many occasions where we actually see a 3 year old thread pop up with old specs or info on something and the next thing you know, people are quoting it elsewhere on the forum or it's causing confusion because they don't look at the dates.

Totally true. Plus they also confuse the guy who started the thread 4 1/2 years ago, haha!

I was like "WTF, I don't remember writing this! Did I sleepwalk off to my computer and go and post on REDUSER last night?"



I love the camera, love the people, love the footage, love the community.


At least that part still holds true :) And the Future King bit!

OK - maybe 2007 Bruce knew what he was talking about :)

Wow. 2007. I think that was a few months before we did the ol' Ringo video. Crazy!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Jay Birch]

quite funny to start a thread about hyperbole with the title "Now that Red is the acknowledged Future King..."

[Emanuel A.]

Yes, Bruce is a nice and interesting guy but I concur that to see him to spend his energy in this thing is a waste of time ;-) His talent and enthusiasm deserve much more (E :-)

[Wayne Morellini]

I have suggested that to our admin gods on more than a few occasions in the past. Most the time threads get resurrected, it's accidental. Usually brought on by a quick reply after a search and bam, there it is. Often times, it's not such a bad thing in terms of a post or two that are relevant to the latest addition to the thread... Unfortunately, so many of these threads that come back to life contain old or outdated info. Too many occasions where we actually see a 3 year old thread pop up with old specs or info on something and the next thing you know, people are quoting it elsewhere on the forum or it's causing confusion because they don't look at the dates.

...If I had my way, any thread on these forums that goes for 90 days without posting activity will automatically lock itself. That's a rough amount of time off the top of my head, but probably not too far off the mark. It's usually better if someone starts a thread and then links to the old thread, or better yet, specific posts, for the necessary references.

That, closing threads, was going to be my other suggestion, but the people you want to talk to in the original thread will not know about the new tgread., see the followup email with Evin. 3 or 6 months (Jim tends to stretch these things out too long before giving an official release post). Actually I would love to go back to the original ff35 or pocket scarlet posts and ask "where are these" (sorry watching "whose line is it anyway", and it is activating my funny bone) ;) . I came up with a simple methord, creating linked threads, so everybody in the original thread gets notified that a linked thread is created, and the furst post, so they can come over if they want, with auto links to each other in each thread, and previous post and thread title with the link. Makes it a simple single click process and lets the people you want to talk to find you.

Graeme, Jeff and Bruce:
Bruce, just pointing out you predicted the future, retrospectively ;) . But the direct relevance was about improvements to the technical art discussed, however, the rest of the posts since then are mostly off the subject, shame, shame. So maybe Graeme or Jeff would like to discuss my post topic? ;)

[Steve Gibby]

An ancient sage once said:

"It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"

Great advice...;)

[KETCH ROSSi]

An ancient sage once said:

"It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"

Great advice...;)


He he, I love this one Steve... Problem is... I have a big mouth... ;)

[Steve Gibby]

He he, not a problem at all though Ketch - because you have a big mind and big goals to match it ;)

[Wayne Morellini]

An ancient sage once said:

"It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"

Great advice...;)

It's ussually the people that quote that. For a fool often does not know the wisdom he hears.

[Steve Gibby]

It's ussually the people that quote that. For a fool often does not know the wisdom he hears.

No need to take the wisdom quote personally - and if you're going to spell "usually", wisdom dictates it is spelled with only one "s" ;-))

Actually my original wisdom quote was directed at all of us. I don't know anyone, including myself, who hasn't spoken out occasionally on something here on Red User without putting their foot in their mouth. It has happened to everyone...

Again, my post was offered as humor directed at all of us - thus the smiley face in the original post. It wasn't directed at you or anyone else personally. Forum rules prohibit personal attacks - so lets both just move on.

[Wayne Morellini]

Thanks Steve. The usually was a innocent typo or auto spell check failure, it must think that it is spelled that way somewhere in the world.

I ussually check my mouth up to several times before I post rewriting, but you can take horses to water but not make him drink (understand what's happening) the saying goes.

Sorry about the comeback, but it was not such a good fit here, and I have had people like that before around here, and don't particularly want to put up with them again, their pointed points of view ussually extend from misunderstandings, biase, vested interest, self interest (more generally) pride etc, maliciously, or even dumb ignorance. It might be a better fit over at the other thread I'm getting my but kicked in. I don't care if people make innocent mistakes, I don't think we should be, but if they keep it for other reasons I am not so impressed.

But the biggest thing that people miss, is moral intelligence, the moral imperitive/need to learn right, versus being dumb for the sake of being dumb. Thus, they will nit listen for whatever reason, and you can't have a sound discussion with them. I know that the word moral has all sorts of connotations in today's society, but in this respect it is just the sound practical logical functioning of society and reality (truth and logic) (emotions are part of reality and morality but more covered in other aspects). Is too much, too much, or are we too little, that is what we need to ask ourselves? We need to consider this when we think too much is being said, and consider what to do, his much to appropriately read or pass on to subjects addressed to them, before deciding it is too much.

[Wayne Morellini]

Hmm, sorry, I missed at least one aspect in this, as to wherever something is too much, is it appropriate and to determine that we have to listen and understand (enough). Many people who are inappropriate think things are inappropriate because they are not saying it ;) and are themselves innapropriate.