FredCDobbs

For several days this board was saving the large ATTATCHMENT photos as JPGs, but today I couldn't get that to work. So I had to turn my photos today into JPGs using TINYPIC, which also has a feature that allows for the reduction of photo sizes. I use an odd method to turn a screen copy, a computer screen grab, into a JPG photo. First, I saved a completely white photo by scanning a white sheet of paper. Then I have a small Microsoft photo editing program that allows me to put one photo on top of another. So I bring up the white photo, and then I copy my computer screen when I need to, then I paste that copy over the white photo, and that somehow turns my screen grab into a JPG photo, and I can add text and arrows to it and save it as a JPG. Then I copy it to TinyPic to the size that I need. And that is what you are seeing on this page as my screen grabs.

This is the method I have to use to post an embedded YouTube video. I think this is the board's standard method. See HOW TO POST A YOUTUBE VIDEO: http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/48488-test-photo-sizes-here/

Hi Jake, I just tried your method but it doesn't work for me. I'm using IE 8 on Windows XP. However, some of the old films I posted the links to on the old version of the board, turned up here as embeds as soon as this new board was ready to view. I like the variety of older films we are seeing in my YouTube thread. They give something for every one, and people can scan backwards to find several film listings on each page. Fred

test YOUTH ON PAROLE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07LQplCGswU

HOW TO POST A YOUTUBE VIDEO: On a new message text page, click on this button: When the BBCODE selection comes up, click on it, then click on "MEDIA". THEN ADD THE REGULAR YOUTUBE VIDEO CODE, THEN POST THAT AND YOUR WHOLE MESSAGE. The Video should then show up on your thread page post.

Kid, I think that as the internet expands and new types of computers are invented and more software is invented, more incompatibility creeps into everyone’s systems. It must be very difficult now for any message board program to be made that is totally compatible with every operating system (old and new) and every new browser and every new media player. But in general, I'm very pleased with this new message board and how fast the techs at TCM got it up and going, with all the stuff successfully brought over from the old board.

Sorry. I was just feeling old and grumpy last night. I'm ok this morning.

If people would go to their REPLY box and scroll their mouse arrow over every symbol and see what they are there for, they wouldn't have to ask so many questions.

In your REPLY box, under the smiley face and a little to the left, is a blue-green square. Put your mouse arrow over that and it says IMAGE. Click on it and it says URL. Put your photo URL address in there and that will post the photo.

My personal opinion is.... The biggest problem with trying to convert a book into a movie is because a book contains so much material, it takes many hours to read, while a movie takes only one to four hours to watch. We can watch GONE WITH THE WIND in 3 1/2 hours, but we can’t read the whole book in 3 1/2 hours. So, this means there is usually more stuff in books than in movies based on them. Other than the fact that we can see things in movies that have to be described in words in a book, which helps cut down the time-length of a book, but still, a movie is almost always a very very short version of any book. This is the problem Von Stroheim ran into when he tried to film every page of the book GREED. He wound up with about an 8 hour movie, and no one wants to watch an 8 hour movie, while plenty of people will gladly enjoy many hours of reading a thick book. About the only movie/book I ever watched and then read was Faulkner’s Sanctuary and Requiem for a Nun, which were both combined in the 1 1/2 hour movie, SANCTUARY. Well, in that case, the movie was less than nothing, while the two books had a lot of stuff in them. On the other hand, if we watch THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE, which is based on the book SANCTUARY, and if we watch it without ever reading the book, then we get a pretty good story from the movie, and we don’t notice the stuff missing from the book. But in this case we must be honest and say this movie is simply “based on the book” and is NOT a filmed version of the book. It just takes a few highlights from the book and leaves out 95% of the rest of the book, which is ok for a movie to do, if it is a very good movie, such as REBECCA.

I have too. The 1930s and 40s is the best era for the Golden Age of Mexican Cinema. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Mexican_cinema http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Figueroa I watch them on Galavision on Satellite TV, but none have any English subtitles. Here is one that does: LA PERLA, 1947

I wonder if this the only American film or the first American film to show people living in Japan during the war who are not supporters of the war, although they can't say anything against it? This is such a good movie. Did you see her when she saw the American POWs? Did you notice some of the bombing raid footage came from 30 SECONDS OVER TOKYO?

That is a great idea and the location of the new forum is just right. Thanks so much for helping us along. You've been a big help getting this new board off to a great start!

And look TEXT COLOR!!

Helen, welcome back! There is a lot of new stuff to learn here, but it is fairly easy to learn. I've noticed if I'm careless with my mouse, my arrow slips up in the FONT and text SIZE boxes and changes the settings. But I am able to change them back and get either larger or smaller type when I want it. See? See?

I wish they would use some of these people again. They did use a few of the original group again several times. I think CineMaven and Filmlover were used again several times or maybe they were in some promos. That 10 year old kid needs to come back several times. Also, that lady last night, and the guy before her.

I saw this in a theater in 1960 and I loved it. What an interesting story. Carroll Baker and James Shigeta are just perfect together in this film. Thank you TCM for showing it!

The staff of TCM certainly knows how to pick these people. They all look so "average", but they seem so nice looking and intelligent. I think the 10 year old is on later tonight.

Hey, at the top left of this forum, you can click on MEMBERS then do a search for their names, then see if they have posted any recent posts. If you think they have added a 1 or 2 to the end of their names, just type in the first few letters of their names and do a search for that.

Scroll down a couple of posts: http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/46677-tcm-ultimate-fan-video-entries/?hl=%2Bprogrammer+%2Bcontest&do=findComment&comment=937607 Here is what I said about him: Posted 06 November 2013 - 05:10 PM I think TCM needs to get that 10 year old kid in the studio with Bob.One thing I learned about kids, while in the news business, is that they are often afraid to let other kids know they like "old folks stuff". But if just one of them speaks out, like this 10 year old, and especially if he gets on TV, then all the other kids will want to imitate him, and will know that it is ok to like Adult Stuff.

lz, Hi, thanks. I pointed that kid out several months ago when he had his audition film posted on YouTube. I said he was one of the best of the contest entries I saw on YouTube.

Go to your PROFILE page and MY SETTINGS and change your time zone.

I see that we most likely won WW II because our soldiers were given cigarettes in the field by the military. The Japs and Nazis didn't seem to have any cigarettes. And notice when any Nazi or European is offered a cigarette by an American soldier or spy, the foreigner always says, "Ah, an AMERICAN cigarette, thanks!!"

I have HD only on my local broadcast stations, received with an outdoor antenna. The picture quality is very good, but I don't watch the local stations much, except for the news and PBS. I have one small HDTV TV sitting near me on my desk, but I have noticed when TCM is showing an HD video copy of a film. The picture is very high quality, like a new theatrical print as seen in the 1930s and 40s. So, I discovered that there is a mid-range in between SD and HD, and that is when an HD movie is shown on TCM. It looks much better on my HD TV, even though my satellite receiver is only an SD receiver. I figure that the reason why is becuase the CCD (or whatever they call it) that records films dubbed to HD must be larger and more detailed than an old SD CCD pick-up tube or chip. I can't imagine these new electronic dubs being any better than I see them now, even though I'm receiving them through an SD tuner. So, I'm not going to order any expensive HD channels from Directv. I notice the same higher quality on a couple of other channels that broadcast in HD, even though I have only an SD receiver. Fred