[MEncoder-users] Trimming video

[Pete Davis]

> 
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 12:23:36PM -0500, Pete Davis wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:02:10 -0700
> > > "Scott W. Larson" <scowl at pacifier.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I haven't seen anyone here
> > > > who didn't want to learn about how something works.
> > >
> > > Really?  I've seen quite a few people on this list, from time to time,
> > > who want everyone here to just tell them what command-line to use, and
> > > don't want to bother to read docs, or understand any of the concepts.
> > > Of course the large majority are trying to learn, but there's still
> > > quite a few who can't be bothered.
> > >
> >
> > Not everyone wants to take the time to be experts in every piece of
> software
> > they use. Sometimes they just want to use the software.
> >
> > I use word processors all the time, but I don't have the need nor the
> time,
> > for that matter, to become a word processing expert. If I can set the
> > margins, fonts, and handle other basics, that fits most of my needs. I
> don't
> > want to be bothered with all the other aspects of it because it's a
> waste of
> > my time to learn stuff I'm never going to have to use.
> >
> > The same applies to any piece of software. Unless there's some reason I
> NEED
> > to be an expert in it, why should I spend time becoming an expert in it?
> > Software is supposed to make our lives easier, not harder.
> 
> Repairing video from the crap that studios release/broadcast into
> something of decent quality IS a task at which you need to be an
> expert. At the very least it requires thoroughly understanding what
> they did to butcher it, and sometimes it even requires WRITING
> specialized software for the particular content you're dealing with.
> This is not child's play.
> 

Well, you just said the key words: "decent quality". What you consider
decent quality and what I consider decent quality, I can almost guarantee
you is different. It's entirely subjective.

I've done some encodings that probably wouldn't meet your standards, but
they meet mine just fine. Again, as long as it looks okay on MY TV, I'm
happy. If it looks like crap on your computer/TV, that doesn't really matter
to me unless I'm making it for your consumption.

So far, all my encodings have been for my own consumption and my mediocre
encodings fit my needs just fine without me having to be an expert in
mencoder.

> > While technically that is "ignorance," calling them ignorant, as Rich
> did,
> > is a little harsh, I think. I'm sure a number of them are competent in
> areas
> > that Rich is ignorant of and I'm sure he wouldn't want to be called
> ignorant
> > if he asked them a question in one of those areas.
> 
> If I ask a question, no. If I presume I can do something I have no
> idea about, then yes it's fair to call me ignorant.
> 

Everyone makes presumptions. It's part of being a human being. We have
preconceived ideas of how things operate and presume based on those ideas.
Asking questions based on those preconceived ideas is perfectly normal.
Insulting people for doing so is just plain rude.

But I guess I'm suggesting the use of the word "ignorant" is a loaded word.
I suspect your intention is to mean that they're ignorant in the ways of
video encoding or something along those lines.

However ignorant also means lacking in intelligence and knowledge in a more
general sense and that's how it's usually taken. That's certainly how I
normally interpret it if people don't qualify it. If you asked a bunch of
people what ignorant means, I bet a good percentage would say "stupid." And
frankly, to suggest that someone is ignorant in the general sense, based on
their lack of knowledge of video encoding would be ridiculous.

The fact is, calling someone ignorant is generally considered rude and I
think in this case, unwarranted. But maybe I'm just overly sensitive.

Pete