KERRY!!!!!!!!!

[bigburma]

But Kerry, You are supposed to be sending me one of those DVD's little brother :?

[davipu]

no....  it can't be....   it is!   welcome to the board.

[Kerry]

But Kerry, You are supposed to be sending me one of those DVD's little brother

That does it.  A brother in need is a brother indeed!  I'll get back to work on the DVD in a couple days.

(Are you sure your PC won't handle a video on CD?  Did you upgrade yet?)

['04gs500f]

kerry, if you send me the video i can pop it on a dvd and it would be ready to play on any dvd player in 5 minutes.

if you have broadband i could just download the video off you

[davipu]

f you have broadband

that's a pretty good one

[Kerry]

Well, the DVD version is going to have menus, occasional music, an extra section, some "fluff" cut out, a "blooper" at the end, etc etc.

The footage is all done - it's the menu and sound that are holding me up.  It just takes time.... :dunno:

['04gs500f]

oh ok, i thought it was a simple hardware matter,
heh have fun with that

['04gs500f]

im tempted to ask, so might as well,
why all the "fluff"
you seem like the kind of person that would be very content if it ran efficiently, did its job and nothing more

[Kerry]

No no - I'm cutting out some fluff!  

For example, the 14-minute ho-hum "watch Kerry put the bike back together" section has been sped up to 5x speed.  But rather than have it be silent, I've added music.  I plan to tack the original 14-minute version on as a bonus track in case someone really wants to watch it and hear my occasional "word of wisdom".  

Splitting the video into sections that can be navigated via DVD menus should make it a whole lot more usable.  With the current CD version you either have to scroll to something that looks interesting (when trying to find a certain section later) or you have to use the hour-minute-second index that I (ony recently) started including on the CD.  Yuck!

What it boils down to is that I'm a lazy perfectionist....  :dunno:   Bad combo!

['04gs500f]

your not alone!

[nathanael]

although statistically correct, the popcorn roofing is not applied evenly nor are popcorn pieces designated an exact number per square foot, im afraid i can't accomplish my task in that manner

Although technically you're right, in reality a statistical sample might be much more accurate. If you attempt to count the millions of protrusions in your ceiling individually, the chances of error are pretty great. If you choose a small patch to count and than use a statistical model, the end result might actually be more accurate, ironically. A 1X1 foot area should give you a large enough sample size. Even a sample size of just a couple of thousand will yield an error rate somewhere in the .000 range.

['04gs500f]

of course human error is always a factor,
we could always rent some form of lasor that could sense protrusions and do each room in a matter of minutes