Posted by JoeBloe on 10/11/06 05:23

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:10:26 +1000, jd <jd@syd.net> Gave us:

>Big deal. One hardly notices the longer running time. PAL is still
>superior to NTSC in every way.


You fucking know NOTHING retard. 4% faster would yield a SHORTER
running time. D'OH!


It is always amusing to catch a know nothing twit that merely posts
peanut gallery comments based on brainless assumptions.

Especially when his mistake is so stupid as that of inverting the
math!

Hahahahaha! Good one, asswipe!

• Next in forum: Re: using stills
• Prev in forum: WMV video with high pixel resolution, fast sample rates, long time, and only 1-bit file size
• Thread view: Re: IMHO, Digital SECAM video is better than Analog NTSC video

[Reply to this message]