![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
This is why I'm not impressed by The Police.
What it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO7q5z5wbNc
What it could have been:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHO5KWIMZUo
That one remix was worth the whole movie, IMO. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling togeher,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 20-3-2010 20:15, Darren New wrote:
> This is why I'm not impressed by The Police.
??
> What it is:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO7q5z5wbNc
>
> What it could have been:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHO5KWIMZUo
>
> That one remix was worth the whole movie, IMO. :-)
The music is OK but the singing is just tolerable (once) because there
was another famous song with sort of the same lyrics. Your comment does
not make sense because it violates the basic principles of cause and effect.
If that was the best part of the movie. I'll add it to my list of movies
that do not have to be watched. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
4ba51ed5$1@news.povray.org...
> This is why I'm not impressed by The Police.
>
> What it is:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO7q5z5wbNc
>
> What it could have been:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHO5KWIMZUo
>
> That one remix was worth the whole movie, IMO. :-)
>
> --
Well OK but what do you mean?
Sting composed and The Police recorded this song in 1977.
A guitar , a drums set, a bass, a voice, playable everywhere with small
technical needs.... elegance.
The movie cover 24 years later is not so bad if you like when it costs a lot
of money and takes 20 times as much people.
I still prefer simplicity
Small is beautiful :)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Speaking of music reimaginings...
Date: 20 Mar 2010 20:12:43
Message: <4ba5647b@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
M_a_r_c wrote:
> Small is beautiful :)
That's what *she* said.
SCNR :)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
I think the things I like about the second song are the parts that aren't in
the first one at all.
As a side note, I find it amusing that the second movie has black bars on
the sides *and* the top and bottom, and yet still has the wrong aspect
ratio!
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Slime <fak### [at] email address> wrote:
> As a side note, I find it amusing that the second movie has black bars on
> the sides *and* the top and bottom, and yet still has the wrong aspect
> ratio!
In order for a video to not to fill the entire YouTube player horizontally,
you have to explicitly make the video have a 4:3 resolution. This means that
for a widescreen movie clip you have to add empty space above and below in
order to make the video have a 4:3 resolution. (If you sent a video to
YouTube which had eg. a 16:9 resolution, it would automatically fill the
player window horizontally.)
This raises the question: Why does someone explicitly convert a widescreen
movie clip to a 4:3 resolution by adding empty space before sending the video
to YouTube? Why go through the trouble in the first place?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> In order for a video to not to fill the entire YouTube player
> horizontally,
> you have to explicitly make the video have a 4:3 resolution. This means
> that
> for a widescreen movie clip you have to add empty space above and below in
> order to make the video have a 4:3 resolution. (If you sent a video to
> YouTube which had eg. a 16:9 resolution, it would automatically fill the
> player window horizontally.)
Yeah, but they added too much black space and squished the movie in the
process. It's funny that they cared enough to try, but still got it wrong.
> This raises the question: Why does someone explicitly convert a
> widescreen
> movie clip to a 4:3 resolution by adding empty space before sending the
> video
> to YouTube? Why go through the trouble in the first place?
I guess they may have added the video before YouTube went widescreen.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |