BB
He is probably referring to the postage stamp sized videos on your site. Even I can't stand watching the clips because they're so small, on my big monitor it's rather painful to strain ones eyes to see it.
I would like to see larger, better quality clips. And also I would like to see the material you acquired from the now defunct Schools TV left as it is, and not resized or resampled, as the quality of their material was good.
tvarksouthwest posted:
Serious question - what do you mean by "quality"?
He is probably referring to the postage stamp sized videos on your site. Even I can't stand watching the clips because they're so small, on my big monitor it's rather painful to strain ones eyes to see it.
I would like to see larger, better quality clips. And also I would like to see the material you acquired from the now defunct Schools TV left as it is, and not resized or resampled, as the quality of their material was good.
TW
I like both. TV Ark is great for classics and they do say that size doesn't matter. 
The TV Room is good for more modern stuff. You have to hand it to the owners and helpers of both sites for providing a great archive, especially with the amount of time put in to creating the clips from the tapes they had.
The TV Room is good for more modern stuff. You have to hand it to the owners and helpers of both sites for providing a great archive, especially with the amount of time put in to creating the clips from the tapes they had.
TV
Try watching in the original RealPlayer window...small can sometimes be beautiful.
SchoolsTV and TV Ark are now the same operation. TV Ark schools and former SchoolsTV material are merging as SchoolsTV @ TV Ark, but the clips will remain as originally made.
BBC TV Centre posted:
He is probably referring to the postage stamp sized videos on your site. Even I can't stand watching the clips because they're so small, on my big monitor it's rather painful to strain ones eyes to see it.
Try watching in the original RealPlayer window...small can sometimes be beautiful.
Quote:
I would like to see larger, better quality clips. And also I would like to see the material you acquired from the now defunct Schools TV left as it is, and not resized or resampled, as the quality of their material was good.
SchoolsTV and TV Ark are now the same operation. TV Ark schools and former SchoolsTV material are merging as SchoolsTV @ TV Ark, but the clips will remain as originally made.
NI
So you judge TV Ark not from its MATERIAL but from one person writing the editorial? Swap the playground for the pub Nini. I cannot comment personally on your ban, but obviously you did something to justify it.
It's not the editorial and you've already been brought up on your style of editorial within the main site which is the crux of my argument and that got you in slightly warm water which still has your strange, uneccesary and slightly pleading little disclaimer at the bottom should anyone find fault (god forbid, eh?)
Swap the playground for the pub? Says the man who bothered to call me Ninny when quoting me, grow up you turgid little man.
If you have any CONSTRUCTIVE criticism we'll be pleased to hear from you. Otherwise, spare me the sour grapes and don't expect the forum ban to end any time soon.
What about "If anyone from TVA's forum wishes to continue this little thing then PM me, no point doing it here" did you decide to ignore? If you want constructive criticism then I'll be happy to give it but you're so certain you're right regardless of if you're speaking from your rectum or not then why waste my time? The only bitter grapes seems to be coming from you because I dared to say a bad word against your oh-so glorious site, which the only fault I find with it is with it's miserable video size that you seem to defend even though most would appreciate more realistic sizes. My ban was a completely pointless one that you have zero idea about anyway yet you stand adamant that the ban will remain, what is wrong with you? Don't appreicate being told something opposite of "yur sit iz tha R0CK0RZZ!!!11"? Also, it's Miss to you.
tvarksouthwest posted:
Ninny posted:
<snip>
So you judge TV Ark not from its MATERIAL but from one person writing the editorial? Swap the playground for the pub Nini. I cannot comment personally on your ban, but obviously you did something to justify it.
It's not the editorial and you've already been brought up on your style of editorial within the main site which is the crux of my argument and that got you in slightly warm water which still has your strange, uneccesary and slightly pleading little disclaimer at the bottom should anyone find fault (god forbid, eh?)
Swap the playground for the pub? Says the man who bothered to call me Ninny when quoting me, grow up you turgid little man.
tvarksouthwest posted:
Nini posted:
<snip> If anyone from TVA's forum wishes to continue this little thing then PM me, no point doing it here.
If you have any CONSTRUCTIVE criticism we'll be pleased to hear from you. Otherwise, spare me the sour grapes and don't expect the forum ban to end any time soon.
What about "If anyone from TVA's forum wishes to continue this little thing then PM me, no point doing it here" did you decide to ignore? If you want constructive criticism then I'll be happy to give it but you're so certain you're right regardless of if you're speaking from your rectum or not then why waste my time? The only bitter grapes seems to be coming from you because I dared to say a bad word against your oh-so glorious site, which the only fault I find with it is with it's miserable video size that you seem to defend even though most would appreciate more realistic sizes. My ban was a completely pointless one that you have zero idea about anyway yet you stand adamant that the ban will remain, what is wrong with you? Don't appreicate being told something opposite of "yur sit iz tha R0CK0RZZ!!!11"? Also, it's Miss to you.
TV
OK, so I got into hot water ONCE. As a result of which, we agreed to the disclaimer on our pages to cover our backs, though not all team members have followed this. I take pride in the fact I have managed to keep my write-up style more or less the same while exercising caution. The last thing I want is people to think I'm running scared!
So it's OK for you to drag us through the mud as long as we don't return fire? Oh please.
I would never be so conceited as to think TV Ark is the bees' knees and expect everyone to agree. For the record, it would be nice to offer bigger clips but with the amount of material we offer, 160x120 or 192x144 are more practical.
If you want to criticise TV Ark that is your right, we are equally entitled to explain our position and if necessary, defend ourselves when issues are raised. It's true I have "zero idea" about your ban, but you my friend seem to have little idea how TV Ark works. So please, stop and think before you accuse me of "speaking from the rectum".
Nini posted:
It's not the editorial and you've already been brought up on your style of editorial within the main site which is the crux of my argument and that got you in slightly warm water which still has your strange, uneccesary and slightly pleading little disclaimer at the bottom should anyone find fault (god forbid, eh?)
OK, so I got into hot water ONCE. As a result of which, we agreed to the disclaimer on our pages to cover our backs, though not all team members have followed this. I take pride in the fact I have managed to keep my write-up style more or less the same while exercising caution. The last thing I want is people to think I'm running scared!
Quote:
What about "If anyone from TVA's forum wishes to continue this little thing then PM me, no point doing it here" did you decide to ignore? If you want constructive criticism then I'll be happy to give it but you're so certain you're right regardless of if you're speaking from your rectum or not then why waste my time?
So it's OK for you to drag us through the mud as long as we don't return fire? Oh please.
Quote:
The only bitter grapes seems to be coming from you because I dared to say a bad word against your oh-so glorious site, which the only fault I find with it is with it's miserable video size that you seem to defend even though most would appreciate more realistic sizes. My ban was a completely pointless one that you have zero idea about anyway yet you stand adamant that the ban will remain, what is wrong with you? Don't appreicate being told something opposite of "yur sit iz tha R0CK0RZZ!!!11"? Also, it's Miss to you.
I would never be so conceited as to think TV Ark is the bees' knees and expect everyone to agree. For the record, it would be nice to offer bigger clips but with the amount of material we offer, 160x120 or 192x144 are more practical.
If you want to criticise TV Ark that is your right, we are equally entitled to explain our position and if necessary, defend ourselves when issues are raised. It's true I have "zero idea" about your ban, but you my friend seem to have little idea how TV Ark works. So please, stop and think before you accuse me of "speaking from the rectum".
DB
To be honest Simon, for the bandwidth TV ARK is encoding their clips, for 150kbps, it should be 240x180. (4:3)
It did bother me, you encoded the Ian Stirling video and the Westcountry ITV50 etc...at a better quality but the video size is too bloody small.
TV ARK is a great site, just their need to be a generic rule into how you encode your clips.
It did bother me, you encoded the Ian Stirling video and the Westcountry ITV50 etc...at a better quality but the video size is too bloody small.
TV ARK is a great site, just their need to be a generic rule into how you encode your clips.
SA
I'm suprised no-ones mentioned the rest. TV Whirl is a fantastic website and there's quite a few MediaPlayer clips,which i can put in MovieMaker etc!
Also,TVA is quite good.Its another RealPlayer site but there's some good GMTV clips on there.There's the News Hour titles from 2001 with the nighttime ident before it!
Also,TVA is quite good.Its another RealPlayer site but there's some good GMTV clips on there.There's the News Hour titles from 2001 with the nighttime ident before it!
BO
My advice to The TV Room
Needs a new layout as the current one is getting old, and the new ones are confusing - also it needs more video clips and material.
My advice to TV Ark
Keep updating the video clips with better quality and keep using the plain TV Ark copyright thing with the white background and fades into the clip. It's nothing to do with selling but the ones that last five seconds get irritating and waste space.
Needs a new layout as the current one is getting old, and the new ones are confusing - also it needs more video clips and material.
My advice to TV Ark
Keep updating the video clips with better quality and keep using the plain TV Ark copyright thing with the white background and fades into the clip. It's nothing to do with selling but the ones that last five seconds get irritating and waste space.
PE
there's nowt wrong with the layout / look (aside from it being a bit heavy on the html but that's code not layout).
i think it's a very nice looking site
Pete
Founding member
BOL I0X posted:
My advice to The TV Room
Needs a new layout as the current one is getting old, and the new ones are confusing - also it needs more video clips and material.
Needs a new layout as the current one is getting old, and the new ones are confusing - also it needs more video clips and material.
there's nowt wrong with the layout / look (aside from it being a bit heavy on the html but that's code not layout).
i think it's a very nice looking site
BO
there's nowt wrong with the layout / look (aside from it being a bit heavy on the html but that's code not layout).
i think it's a very nice looking site
But you have to admit it can do with a makeover.
Hymagumba posted:
BOL I0X posted:
My advice to The TV Room
Needs a new layout as the current one is getting old, and the new ones are confusing - also it needs more video clips and material.
Needs a new layout as the current one is getting old, and the new ones are confusing - also it needs more video clips and material.
there's nowt wrong with the layout / look (aside from it being a bit heavy on the html but that's code not layout).
i think it's a very nice looking site
But you have to admit it can do with a makeover.