MeBeJedi

The fact that you think I did any of those things is an absolute riot. ROFL!

[EDIT]

For the folks who are so concerned about Obama flip-flopping on the very minor issue of campaign funding - a choice he was absolutely within his rights to make - let me make it clear why I did NOT choose to vote for McCain. It wasn't necessarily on a single, particular stance on REAL NATIONAL POLITICAL ISSUES of his, but rather his inability to MAINTAIN a single, particular stance on said issues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_qZOjrxEMI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYsKiA3Myyw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rio6xL8XFZw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W_K4RCisxc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

The guy who was the most vocal against pandering ended up becoming the greatest panderer of them all, and on every MAJOR issue as well. But you guys go on pointing to election spending as an indication of how Barack will preside (despite the fact that Republicans have been outspending Democrats for decades), for all the good it'll do you.

No it is not. "trickle-down economics" runs on the premise that when rich people pay less taxes then they in turn invest the gains into other businesses or companies who thus hire people to work and giving many jobs and you products to buy. The wealth of the rich guy was invested and subsequently paid to a guy who put in a days work he took the money home to feed his family. Redistributing wealth? Yeah, but honorably and in everyone favor. That is my scenerio.

It is still redistribution, because by your very own scenario, the money goes to the rich and "trickles down" to the poor (the blue collar worker). The name, itself, indicates the "flow" of the wealth. LOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_economics

However, all the economic reports indicate this has not happened. The biggest reason why people were able to buy as much as they did in recent years was due to increased use of credit, rather than real increases in wages. And look where that's gotten us now.

Regardless, the middle class is disappearing because "trickle-down" doesn't work. The whole point of this mindset was so that the rich Republicans could keep as much money as they could, and most of that was stored in off-shore accounts.

In fact, Republicans are so enamored by all things off-shore, that they've even sent jobs overseas. That way, they don't have to pay actual Americans all that extra money they've been receiving under Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Hell, even Halliburton, based in Texas, partically run by Cheney, and made rich by the Middle East war..........has opened a new headquarters IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

(That being said, here's some more irony: the current economy has been bringing jobs back to US soil. Since the dollar has lost so much value compared to other currencies, it's actually become cheaper for foreign companies to produce their goods in the US. Attaboy, Bush. LOL)

Obama's redistribution of wealth plan is that the rich guy has his money taken forcefully by taxes and then given to God knows who.

"taken forcefully"?


Obama's gonna force you at gunpoint to pay taxes?

And as I've said before, and any history book will tell you, that's been going on since we've had income tax. So again, we've been a Marxist nation long before Obama was even born. ;)

But we do have our resident Neiman Marxist:

Of course, she should be "spreading the wealth" by donating all those expensive clothes. And for a real hoot, take a look at the clothing store that she likes to buy her clothes from in Alaska. See if you can guess the sexual preference of the owners. More and more irony. :)


http://www.outofthecloset.org/

This "country" does not support welfare for the rich. Allowing them to keep money they legitimately earn is fine, but that's not welfare.

What do you think subsidies are? You do realize we are paying farmers to NOT grow crops?

Democrats have continually tried to crush the ability of people to get ahead and build wealth there.

LOL. You do realize that the current financial and housing crisis - the biggest since the Great Depression - is happening under a Republican administration?

I hope Barack Obama tries to bring us back to the sound fiscal policies of Ronald Reagan.

Oh yes, more borrow and spend. Check your history. Reagan and both Bushes were all about deficit spending - spending money that we don't even have. Do you like being in debt to countries like China, Japan and the Middle East? The only president under whom we had a deficit surplus was Clinton!

Oh, and "small government" GREW under Reagan and the Bushes, rather than shrank.

Man, you guys are all about making the big statements without checking facts.

        but I don't see a single, substantial reason as to why that would be.)

    

    Winning an election comes to mind...

"Winning an election" is why I wouldn't see evidence? . . . Hmm, I don't get the logic there.

No, "winning an election" is the REASON, not the CAUSE.

Yes, a few, rare, low-level Republicans do shitty things when nobody's looking. But, does MeBeJedi believe that every last low-level Democrat is a perfect little Sunday school student by comparison? Don't make me laugh (just a warning).

Ironically, Elizabeth Dole (R), wife of Bob Dole, publicly aired TV ads that accused Karen Hagen (D) of being a Godless American. Guess what....Hagen was a sunday school TEACHER!

"It was bitter, negative, and costly race, with both parties investing heavily. In the days leading up the decision day, Dole was criticized for an attack ad questioning Hagan's Christian faith, though the challenger is an elder in a Presbyterian church and Sunday school teacher." http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/11/04/elizabeth-dole-beaten-by-little-known-democratic-challenger-in-north-carolina.html

So, your facetious post beautifully points out your ignorance of current events. Thanks for making me laugh! LOL!

(Of course, the even bigger irony is that Republicans, who complain ferociously when their religion is attacked, have no problems attacking the religion of others - even those who believe in God.)

Politics is messy and has always been messy. A person who is trying to be fair-minded will realize this.

Obama did. It's a big reason why he won. :)

Contrary to what's reported, buying a gun is nothing like buying a gallon of milk.

Uhm, that's kind of a good thing, IMO.

He is very obviously a Marxist. A better approach would be for you to defend Marxism, which would be perfectly legitimate.

Explain to me exactly how, and with proof, anything he's said or done OTHER THAN THIS makes him a Marxist.

If it's about his not wanting to tax the middle class, then you're gonna have a hell of a time explaining that one. If it's about taxes in general, then we've been a Marxist nation ever since income tax came into being in America. If it's about "redistributing wealth", then I remind you that "trickle-down economics" was a way of "redistributing wealth" as well.


Sorry, but if "speading the wealth" is the best you've got, then you've got nothing.

Also your use of Palin's talking about how Alaska shares in the wealth of money that comes from the use of Alaska's resources has absolutely nothing to do any sort of socialism. How are you even pretending it does?

I'm not pretending it does. I'm pointing out how two different people saying the same thing are viewed two completely different ways. Ironic, no?

The problem is that he said was going to stick with public financing until it became apparent that he was going to get a shit ton of money from donations.  If McCain had done this, people would be all over him for it.  But when Obama did it, it's "change".

Hey, it's his choice to make, and his choice to change. Sorry, but his choice not to take federal funds is a tempest in a teapot. Let's not pretend that he's the only politician to ever change his mind. McCain has changed his stance on many issues when it suited his purposes - most egregiously on offshore drilling, which he was against right up until the point that gas prices shot through the roof, and he thought it would be the best issue to pull votes away from Obama. Up until then, he and Obama were both against offshore drilling. Ironic, no?

Anyways, it's all academic at this point. Congrats, President Obama. :)

With the WYSIWYG editor (current), it is not possible to break up quotes into segments to address individual points in the parent post one by one. I have to quote it in its entirety and then write a large block - which becomes confusing, or post multiple messages.

Actually, it's possible.....try putting 3 small paragraphs into the posting box. If you add about 3-4 lines in between the paragraphs, you can highlight and quote the middle section, though you may have to go back and erase a few extra lines.

But yeah, the quote function sucks, and [blockquote] apparently doesn't work. :(

Background checks and such would make it very difficult for many of these types to aquire weapons legally.

But not impossible. A responsible American citizen with a clean criminal history is not, in any way, being deprived of their right to own a weapon in this scenario.

Unless, of course, you are in favor of people with problematic criminal or mental histories having easier access to firearms?

Oh come on guys.  Obama has raised the most money ever of any candidate.

I never said he didn't. I'm just making the point that when Pro-McCain folks single out Obama for all the money he's raised and spent, they are ignoring the historical fact that, up until now, Republicans have historically been ever more guilty of such "attrocities". All of a sudden, it's a problem? Give me a break.

Obama is not a saviour.

The discussion was about campaign funds....so what's the point of this comment?

I just don't see one ounce of evidence that anyone in the mainstream is knowingly trying to deceive anyone for political gain. (I could be wrong, but I don't see a single, substantial reason as to why that would be.)

Winning an election comes to mind...

Come on, who is being naive? I've no doubt there are kooks who freak out about Obama's middle name

...

Anyway, buttom line is, it is you pro Obama guys that brought up the issues of his name sounding like Osama, his being black, and his middle name being Hussein. None of us who are against him ever brought it up.

Soooooo......you admit people are using his middle name for nefarious purposes......but also claim that pro-Obama people are the problem? That's called putting the cart before the horse. Do you also think the Jews are responsible for the Holocaust because they keep talking about it?

Obama and his supporters respond with offense! Guy needs to grow some skin if he is going to be president. It is only his middle name!

It has nothing to do with whether or not Obama can "shake it off". it simply illustrates the low levels that Republicans will stoop to in order to win a presidential campaign. Obama's not going to change his name, but Republicans should consider changing their practices if they want to win future elections. Even Ed Rollins, an ardent McCain backer, has said the Republicans have a loooooong history of such political practices. Several states have had phone calls and fliers targeted to Democrats telling them that they are supposed to vote on Nov. 5, instead of Nov. 4. Imagine that - wanting to disenfranchise huge numbers of Americans from even voting.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/04/obama-supporters-targeted-in-bogus-messages/

And as to the party, itself, doing this:

As we conclude, I thought it was interesting, in your report, Republican officials, as you said, challenging 6,000 registered voters, among them a former Montana state rep., Kevin Furey, a first lieutenant in the Army Reserve, on the challenge list because he’s currently in New Jersey planning to deploy to Iraq. His quote: “It’s ironic, at the same time I’m about to return to Iraq to help build a democracy, that my own right to vote is being challenged at home for partisan purposes. These challenges are a blatant and offensive attempt to suppress the rights of voters.”

if you want folks to stop talking about the Republican tactics, then maybe someone needs to tell the Republicans to stop using such tactics. Seems the better idea, don'cha think?

At the suggestion that Obama is socialist you guys basically say that it is not true and it is sheepery to believe so.

Obama: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Palin: "And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans."

The problem, again, is that Republicans want to pretend that "Spread the wealth" automatically means socialism.....except, of course, when Palin says the very same thing!

Oh, and McCain voted for the biggest American government experiment in socialism ever when he voted for the bank bail-out bill.

The problem isn't whether you are a low-brow right-wing nutjob....but whether or not you believe and/or regurgitate the bullshit being slung around by obvious right-wing nutjobs. Unfortunately, it appears that you do.

Oh, and furthermore, the "expert" who described Obama's plan as socialism and a possible burden on his plumbing business - Joe the Plumber - has apparently changed his tune:

As ThinkProgress and many others noted yesterday, the premise of Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher’s complaints about Barack Obama’s tax plan was ill-informed. Contrary to Wurzelbacher’s claims, “neither his personal taxes nor those of the business where he works are likely to rise if Mr. Obama’s tax plan were to go into effect.”

As CBS News reported, even “Joe The Plumber” acknowledges this fact now:

So today, Joe, who said he makes much less than $250,000, reluctantly admitted Obama would lower his taxes.

“I would, if you believe him, I would be receiving his tax cuts,” Wurzelbacher said.

Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/17/joe-the-plumber-obama-cut/

Bloomberg reports that “one other problem in making Wurzelbacher a symbol of the overtaxed” is that — even if he did earn an adjusted gross income of $280,000 — “he would pay just $773 more in taxes under Obama’s plan than McCain’s.” That amount would hardly deal a crippling blow to his potential small business.

Last night, Sarah Palin said she didn’t want to talk about Wurzelbacher. “I begged our speechwriters, ‘Don’t make me say Joe the Plumber, please, in any speeches,” she said. After failing to properly vet Wurzelbacher’s situation, the McCain campaign is apparently now throwing him overboard and moving on.

The campaign is holding a conference call today with Russ Duker, an individual the McCain camp is calling “a Missouri ‘Joe the Plumber.’”

Though why people are looking to a plumber to explain national economics is beyond me....

Being as his middle name actually IS Hussein, seems like it is fair game. Anybody with half a brain knows that it is just a middle name, something his parents gave him and has nothing to do with him as a person.

This......coming from the guy claiming that the amount of money Barack has been spending somehow reflects negatively on his campaign?

I don't know why you are pretending that Reps aren't deliberately using his middle name as a code word for their core constituents. There have been interviews on the street with people mentioning their dislike of someone running for president with the name "Hussein", not to mention the resemblance of "Obama" with "Osama". You go right on ahead and plead ignorance, but the Republcans are trying to smear Obama in any way possible, and there is absolute and deliberate intent when they pronounce his name with emphasis. Joe Six-Pack can be swayed by such subliminal suggestions.

Oh, and back to the amounts of money being spent on presidential campaigns...

Filings Show Democrats Catching GOP in Funds

Listen Now add to playlist

All Things Considered, July 24, 2006 · For years, the GOP has enjoyed a comfortable fundraising advantage over Democrats, especially in Senate races. But the latest federal election filings indicate that the Democrats have closed the fundraising gap.

Michele Norris talks with Stuart Rothenberg, of the Rothenberg Political Report.

Rothenberg says that the margin is still slim for the House campaign committees. There, Democrats raised $9.8 million compared with $9.5 million for Republicans. But in Senate campaign committees, Democrats took in almost twice as much as Republicans -- $8.8 million compared with $4.8 million for the GOP.

Still, the Republican Party maintains that, on the whole, its candidates are better-financed than Democrats, especially the incumbents. The Republicans are defending 35 competitive seats in the November elections, compared with 10 seats for the Democrats.



Public Choice and Campaign Finance

Campaign finance reform has been a heated topic with John McCain’s nomination to the Republican Party. Fred Thompson even before the nomination was tied up had the problem of supporting campaign finance reform when he was a senator. In order to educate myself I took a look at a Public Choice article that is about campaign finance.

It is called “A Public Choice Perspective on Campaign Finance Reform,” by Burton Adams and Russell Settle. They begin by giving a brief overview of the history of campaign finance. It began with the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and was later amended in 1974. This is where the idea of public funding for campaign came in and a restriction on campaigns spending crazy amounts of money and getting lots of money from individuals. This did not work so then came the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. This tried to rein in some soft money contributions. Those who do not know “soft money” is money that can go to political parties for “party building” while hard money is money going straight to the campaign. Soft money was being limited in this case through individuals, unions, businesses, and PACs.

Some ask why is this important and is money important in campaigns? The answer is yes. The correlation between voter turnout and amount of money spend is positive and of course in most cases turnout equals good outcome. Also since 1960 to 2000 campaign spending has increased by 400%. Other interest bits are that it was also found that the greater the office the greater amount of money that is needed. This may seems to be obvious but what is interesting is that the greater office is a function of how much political appointment power and how long you are there for. Obviously, the more equals more power which means you need more money.

Capping money for campaigns would like most economists would allow the marginal benefit (MB) and marginal costs (MC) to be below and equilibrium. This is of course the benefit and costs of raising money and getting the office. The model shows an interesting point is that if we were to cap private funds and meet them with the exact public funds the equilibrium would still be lower. This is because you have eliminated the time spend raising money and now the candidates can substitute time getting more voters. There is also another fundamental flaw with campaign finance reform is that the caps are not inflation adjusted. The cap used to be $1,000 for an individual but that was in 1974. In 1994, that same money was only worth $250.

What have the candidates done to counteract this and has this actually accomplished anything? The answer is no. It instead has the campaigns try to figure out a way around. The most obvious is that donors now give to parties and they no longer use the money to “party build” instead they run commercials and funnel money for the campaigns. Noticed I used the word “for” and not “to.” This is because when you would set up a phone bank or a commercial it would be to bash the other candidate and can be ran by staffers paid by the GOP or DNC and not John McCain or Barack Obama. Bill Clinton was one of the first to figure this out and it was truly entrepreneurial.

The empirical work that was done was to see who benefited the most from the legislation. It was obvious that in general Democrat benefited because the GOP in the last six cycles has outraised the DMC by 16%. The bill was in now was “Bipartisan” like the title suggests. In the House, 94% of Dems voted for it while only 19% of Repubs did. In the Senate, 96% of the Dems voted for it while 22% of the Repubs did. The last interesting find was that years in office didn’t matter when it came to voting but the margin of victory did. The closer the margin the more likely the person was to vote for it. That is because they were probably scared of soft money being thrown their way next time.

My Thoughts: Campaign finance reform doesn’t seem to be doing much good politicians and parties seem to be getting around it. The Public Choice aspect is that initially the vote was seen to help safe up districts for those congressmen who are really worried. It somewhat limited the soft money through those organizations mentioned above, but that is about all it did. Bill Clinton’s campaign was an entrepreneur in their design to funnel soft money to the campaign. This model has been and will be used in future campaigns. We might as well as get rid of campaign finance legislation. It is a waste on society to try to get around the rules and doesn’t do anything to rein in spending.

Not only have Republicans historically outspent Democrats.......THEY ARE ALSO THE BIGGEST OPPONENTS OF CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS!!! No big surprise, since they've generally been able to get more money than the Democrats. Of course, now that the Dems are beating them at their own game, you can be sure they're going to insist on limits in the future. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwpfdbbrsvM

Here's a simple Youtube search for "Obama Hussein". Notice how most of the videos are targeted against him. Interesting that they use the name "Hussein", even though "Barack Obama" (or simply one or the other) would be more than enough info to make it clear who they are referring to.

But no...."Hussein" keeps popping up, as if it's a clue to something nefarious...

When you say, "the Republicans tried to get Obama in combination with Osama" what do you mean? You mean they tried to smear him because his name sounds like Osama? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I'd need some evidence for that. Who did that? When, where? I don't think the "Republicans" did anything of the sort.

I guess you don't watch the news much then. Take a listen the next time you hear someone on TV explicitly mention his middle name HUSSEIN, and then take a little gander at what party they claim to belong to.

And as for the amount of spending being any kind of indication as to the candidate, I remind you - AGAIN - that Republicans historically outspend democrats (proving the inverse of what you are attempting to insinuate), and the amount of spending in presidential campaigns on these campaigns goes up every four years.

Then again, it's becoming more and more clear that you aren't paying attention to news reports, choosing rather to focus on meaningless minutia to make questionable points.

We stand to loose a lot with an Obama win. Any of us old dinosaurs clinging to our guns and our religion are at risk of loosing a lot of liberty. Hell, everyone is at risk of loosing a lot of liberty, they just don't give a damn about that liberty because they don't see it taking away anything they feel they need, not yet anyway.

More FUD. Give it a rest...

As for fiscal responsibilty? Let's compare how much McCain spent campaigning compared to how much Obama spent campainging... if that is a shadow of things to come... then, uh, wow!

Are you telling me that McCain wouldn't love to have the same amount of funding Obama had? Why do you think McCain wanted Obama to stick to federal funding?

Not to mention the fact that the Republican Party has historically outspent the Dems in past decades. Your complaint is not only completely off-topic, but it completely ignores reality as well. In fact, not a day after McCain derided the amount of money spent on Obama's 30-minute infomercial and accused him of "buying the vote",  McCain's camp announced that they would OUTSPEND Obama.

Senator John McCain’s campaign advisers pressed their argument on Friday morning that no one should write off their candidate and said yet again that their own polls showed a tightening race.

“We’re pretty jazzed up about what we’re seeing as movement in this election,” Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, told reporters in a lengthy morning conference call. He added that “we are witnessing, I believe, probably one of the greatest comebacks that you’ve seen since John McCain won the primary.”

As Mr. Davis spun it out in the conference call, McCain campaign polls show a “dead even’’ race in Iowa as well as competitive positions with Mr. Obama in battleground states. Mr. Davis also asserted that the McCain campaign would outspend Mr. Obama on television by $10 million in the final days of the race.

So, tell me......is this still a "shadow of things to come?" Before you make your decision, consider this:

NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - A week after the Obama campaign booked $5 million worth of advertising time during NBC's upcoming Beijing Olympics telecasts, the rival McCain camp said it has ponied up $6 million for summer's biggest TV event.

It isn't clear how much the Republican presidential candidate will be spending per spot. A primetime 30-second spot for a regular advertiser is going for as much as $750,000.

McCain's buy includes multiple dayparts on NBC, including primetime, as well as cable for the 2-1/2 weeks of the games, which begin on Friday.

The buys by Obama and McCain are the first national broadcast TV spots by a presidential campaign since Bob Dole bought a single national TV commercial in 1996.

(Guess what - Dole was a REPUBLICAN! He did it first, and Obama's just copying him. Still think it's a "bad" idea just because a Democrat is doing it? ;) ) 

And if you're running with 4 GB or more of RAM, the 64-bit version of Vista has much better driver support than XP ever did.  Vista also has much better support for multi-core systems.  Since most new systems are running multiple cores, you're much better off with Vista than you would be with XP.

Yes, but how many people do you know that are running programs that are multi-core aware? The extra cores won't help you if the programs as well as the OS don't recognize them.

but I thought ME was great

Oops...forgot about ME. I didn't use that version either. In fact, the only reason I went from 98 to 2000 was to recognize file sizes larger than 2Gb.

for those people that constantly use software, and need the newest versions,

 

we'll be the ones trying it out, while you wait or get left behind...

"Left behind"? Interesting description. I was running Win2000 up until about a little over a year ago. The only reason I upgraded to XP was because it was necessary for pulling HD video files off my new HD camcorder. Other than that, I was more than happy with 2000, and didn't feel "left behind" in the slightest.

But yeah, I will most likely leapfrog completely over Vista. It has nothing I need (assuming Win7 does). It's the only other Operating System other than Bob that I've never used (I started in the days of DOS 6.0).

All three films were transferred.

Certainly...I've just got to share time with other video projects as well as my family. I've been buying a 1Tb drive every month to offload and group various projects from the smattering of 150, 250 and 500Gb drives I've got lying around, and I need to get my X0 files off that measly 250GB drive on to something larger.

What did you expect from a JPG?

Yes, it was said.....by me, no less.

And I have my own set of copies of the capture as well. That's what I was doing the speck-removal on.

Doctor M said:

@MeBeJedi - It sounds like you should add a new member or two to the team to help you out.

I dunno....it's beginning to feel like a curse now.... :(

I don't think anyone besides Zion and Laserman know how much of the project was completed.

Well, Laserman was the certainly the most technically advanced of all of us, but his contributions were largely intellectual after he handed out the AVIs to us. His contacts in our private boards have been sporadic, but the last I've heard from him was April 18. He was going to have some testing done.

Zion was in the process of building up a new computer for higher-level programming, but neither I nor anyone else who regularly contacts him has been able to make any contact with him for months now. I've tried a Whois on his website to look for address/phone information, and some searches on PeopleFinder based on his last known address. Unfortunately, he was between moves at the time, and I'm not sure how valid the information I have on him is anymore. (In addition to his personal health and welfare, I'm also a bit concerned about the LD I sent him from my Definitive Collection set. :( )

So, at this point, I may have to archive the technical aspects of what had been discussed (before Z's webite goes down), and see if I can replicate them on my own without L's assistance. I have some of the software, and could give it an attempt, but I still need to finish the speck-removal I was working on. That's been on hiatus for a while, but I could get back to it this month.

That's about the best info I can give you guys right now. Sorry it's not great. The project's certainly not dead, but with 2 of its members gone, it's a bit of a zombie.

[EDIT] By the way...anyone know of a quick way to archive a whole website?

ThrowgnCpr said:

Vegas doesnt handle MPG (here in your case in VOB format) editing that well. I have never had good results with this. You are correct though that lossless AVI is going to require a TON of space.

Agreed on all counts. Vegas can handle most MPGs/VOBs, but it's not great, and VOBs with branching video get screwed up (try putting in the opening crawl from one of the SW DVDs...you can see the languages switching back and forth. Very weird.)

Buy a big hard drive (they're very cheap now), and render out to lossless AVI first. It'll also render out of Vegas much faster this way.

I love DVD Lab as well...

and I can design all my menus in Photoshop and import the layered .psd into Architect to create the custom menu.

DVD Lab allows this as well. You can import with or without layers.

Well, what's your source material? Keep in mind that commercial DVDs are made from film masters with a great deal more resolution. If you are making an DVD from an NTSC source (i.e. a videocamera), then it's not going to look like the transfer on a commercial DVD.

And that's not even going into comparing the quality of a consumer videocamera versus a profession TV camera...

I meant to your pinnacle pctv hd stick.

 

i found a vcr, that someone was getting rid of, for free..

 

went home, hooked it up, figured out something about switching to

to channel 4... and it works,we have video...

Then I gotta tell ya, it should work without the VCR as well (which is good, because the fewer electronics you have between the source and computer, the less noise you will get.)

The LD player should be outputting at either channel 3 or 4 (there might be a switch on the back of the player). Connect the RF cable to your Pinnacle, and try those two channels.

Is the playback jerky in Windows Media player, or in Vegas?

Also, have you tried changing the framerate settings?

There's always SnailMail if all else fails for contact...

Yeah, I do have a physical address for him. I guess it's better than nothing (I lost his personal email address somehow. :( )