New "Safety Zoom" and "Digital Teleconverter"

[cvicisso]

Ok. I understand what 'normal' digital zoom means (so - no need to explain). I never (ever!) use it. But these new 'safety zoom' and 'digital teleconverters' sound... different. Anyone have any idea what's up??

It sounds sort of like the way Panasonic and Sony (and probably some others) take advantage of today's larger megapixels by essentially cropping your images for you by using less of the CCD (but NOT digitally interpolating). You end up with a lower-res image, but at a larger 'magnification.' Is this how these features work?

I'm intrigued because I want more zoom and will settle for less megapixels... this may be the ticket for me.

Thanks!

[bascom]

I'm intrigued also but it's going to take a while to figure this out. We may need to wait for reviews. I see no mention of it on the Canon website, even with the A630/A640/A700 specs.

[cvicisso]

We may need to wait for reviews. :eek: I'll never survive that long!!

I see no mention of it on the Canon website, even with the A630/A640/A700 specs.Yeah - I just scoured their websites looking for more info too. Google search was equally ineffective. The only mention of it (that I see) is in the press release. Well, it won't be long before someone starts talking...

[XaiLo]

digital zoom = safety zoom = digital teleconverters, This is a guess, but like digital zoom, this is probably the latest iteration of a marketing ploy tweaked. :rolleyes:

[cvicisso]

digital zoom = safety zoom = digital teleconverters, This is a guess, but like digital zoom, this is probably the latest iteration of a marketing ploy tweaked. :rolleyes:
I hope you're wrong. FWIW, do you consider the Panasonic "Extended Optical Zoom" or the Sony "Smart Zoom" to be = digital zoom? (I don't)

[BowerR64]

I agree with XaiLo, its just another attempt to push more zoom. The fact is no one uses it so they better change somthing.

IMO its to much, i mean i can see 2-4X digital zoom but they always go overboard. Its like 4X optical zoom and 32X! digital, comon who would use 32X digital zoom? lol :rolleyes:

[cvicisso]

I agree with XaiLo, its just another attempt to push more zoom. The fact is no one uses it so they better change somthing.


True. If it's just plain ol' vanilla digital zoom with a new name, I certainly won't use it. BUT, if it's something 'new' and potentially useful, like (for the third time) Panasonic's 'Extended Optical Zoom' or Sony's 'Smart Zoom' - then it's a least worth a look (for my purposes).

I'll pose the question to you too, BowerR64: do you consider the Panasonic "Extended Optical Zoom" or the Sony "Smart Zoom" to be = digital zoom?

[BowerR64]

Ive never used either so i dont know how they work. Optical is using lenses, digital is like cropping. Thats why some cameras wont zoom when they are in the max resolution.

I started a post about this a few days ago about digital zoom.

Imagine a camera that had like a 50mp sensor. Would you even need lenses? i now know you need atleast one to focus the light into the sensor but if its 50mp wouldnt that have a little usable zoom? i mean like 10X at the least?

If this camera was 2 long 50mp sensors
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y191/BowerR64/Junk/FutureCCD.jpg

[cvicisso]

Ive never used either so i dont know how they work. Optical is using lenses, digital is like cropping. I agree with you... up to a point. :D While digital IS like 'cropping' - what makes it true 'digital' zoom is when the camera then takes the cropped image and attempts to blow it back up to the higher resolution using interpolation. The Panasonic and Sony 'Smartish' zooms that I mentioned above do not interpolate back to the higher resolution - they just keep the cropped image at the lower resolution. It sounds from your comments below that you and I are talking about the same thing. :D If you have a big enough sensor (enough megapixels), you could just crop down to whatever resolution you want and effectively get the equivalent of true 'optical' zoom.


I started a post about this a few days ago about digital zoom.Where is this thread? I'd really like to read it - since I think you and I are on the same wavelength with this (a scary thing).


Imagine a camera that had like a 50mp sensor. Would you even need lenses? i now know you need atleast one to focus the light into the sensor but if its 50mp wouldnt that have a little usable zoom? i mean like 10X at the least?Exactly!! :D


If this camera was 2 long 50mp sensors
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y191/BowerR64/Junk/FutureCCD.jpgYour link doesn't work. :confused:

[wutske]

From what I've read on DPR;
digital teleconverter is nothing else but digital zoom, but just implemented in another way, like having a teleconverter, it gives a constant amount of extra tele (PowerShot A640: 1.4x /2.3x, PowerShot A630: 1.6x /2.0x).

Safety zoom prevents interpolation ...


Similar to placing an accessory lens on the front of the camera, Canon’s Digital Tele-Converter adds a constant digital zoom to every shot (PowerShot A640: 1.4x /2.3x, PowerShot A630: 1.6x /2.0x). While optical converter lenses cause a reduction in aperture and consequently require a slower shutter speed, the Digital Tele-Converter maintains aperture size, reducing the risk of image blur.
Safety Zoom protects the image from interpolation at high levels of digital zoom, allowing users to extend zoom magnification without sacrificing image quality.

[BowerR64]

The post was on a different forum.

[cvicisso]

The post was on a different forum.Ok, thanks. I'll start looking for it... the internet can't be that big, right? :rolleyes:

But seriously, maybe you could PM me the link? Thanks. :D

[BowerR64]

http://forums.powershot-a.com/

[cvicisso]

http://forums.powershot-a.com/Thanks again. That's a big forum. Any other breadcrumbs would be helpful... which topic, what date, etc... Can you maybe just link directly to the specific thread you are referring to? Sorry to be so persistent, but I'm really interested in reading your post. :o

[sHanzek]

... If you have a big enough sensor (enough megapixels), you could just crop down to whatever resolution you want and effectively get the equivalent of true 'optical' zoom.


I have to disagree with this, from a depth of field standpoint. Cropping an image taken at 25mm to the same size as one taken at 250mm will yield a different result, as the 25mm would have much greater depth of field. You would never be able to selectively focus and isolate people for portraits...

Steve
S2IS and A620

[BowerR64]

I have to disagree with this, from a depth of field standpoint. Cropping an image taken at 25mm to the same size as one taken at 250mm will yield a different result, as the 25mm would have much greater depth of field. You would never be able to selectively focus and isolate people for portraits...

Steve
S2IS and A620


Who cares? what would be the difference then a camera that has no lens?

There are many cameras that have no mechanical moving lenses. They are a fixed F stop and are set to infinity focal distance.

Im not talking about an SLR with no lenses, the people that are into that type of camera probobly wont be interested in this.

[XaiLo]

I hope you're wrong. FWIW, do you consider the Panasonic "Extended Optical Zoom" or the Sony "Smart Zoom" to be = digital zoom? (I don't)


Design and photography by Peter iNova

With the V1 came a new concept. Sony engineers had cleverly figured out that digital zoom isn't always a benefit, so they created a "Smart Zoom" feature that limited the digital enlargement to the inverse of a smaller-than-full-frame's proportional size reduction. A half size frame could only receive a two times digital enlargement.

Lumix DMC- FZ7K Digital Camera - 6.0MP, 12X Optical Zoom, 2.5" LCD, Black

The DMC-FZ7 has Panasonic's Extended Optical Zoom. While causing minimal deterioration by using the center part of the high resolution CCD, this function magnifies the image to give you total zoom power of 16.5x.

So exactly what is in these product descriptions don't you equate with digital zoom :confused:

[XaiLo]

I agree with you... up to a point. :D While digital IS like 'cropping' - what makes it true 'digital' zoom is when the camera then takes the cropped image and attempts to blow it back up to the higher resolution using interpolation. The Panasonic and Sony 'Smartish' zooms that I mentioned above do not interpolate back to the higher resolution - they just keep the cropped image at the lower resolution. It sounds from your comments below that you and I are talking about the same thing. :D If you have a big enough sensor (enough megapixels), you could just crop down to whatever resolution you want and effectively get the equivalent of true 'optical' zoom.

Where is this thread? I'd really like to read it - since I think you and I are on the same wavelength with this (a scary thing).

Exactly!! :D

Your link doesn't work. :confused:

Now you have me just plain confused :confused: when you zoom in optically no matter if it's 1x or 12x all things being equal it will still have same height and width (resolution). Cropping is not the same thing as optical zoom so ineffect all this is just hype. You do not gain any more detail or magnification by cropping an image it's just changing the emphasis of the information that is already present.

Edit: I should have added that on the other hand, moving from 1x to 12x optically should produce higher detail without any IQ degradation, along with increased magnification, relatively speaking.

[BowerR64]

Wait maybe i think cropping is the wrong word.

ok say your taking a picture of a class of students but your really only wanting your childs photo. You set the camera so that it has a full frame focus F8 and correct shutter and iso. You take the image at the max resolution say 20,000 X 20,000 (example) ok so now you have this mega size image that cant posibly fit on your screen or anyone elses for that matter. So to make the image usable you crop and shrink it down. First you cut out the section of your child then you fit it into a usable size that can be posted on the forums. I like to use 640X480 just because it seems like a fair size.

So a crop is when you pickout a 640X480 section of an orignal 20,000X 20,000 pixal image. correct?

Since the LCD screens on our cameras cant handle the full size image they are shrank into a thumbnail to view on the LCD screen right? So with digital zoom its like setting the camera to the max resolution 20,000X 20,000 but only showing a thumbnail of the cropped 640X480 image your focusing on. Is this right or am i way off here?

To me it seems like somthing that you can just do yourself. Take the image at the max resolution and then crop out the good part wich looks better then digital.

[BowerR64]

Now you have me just plain confused :confused: when you zoom in optically no matter if it's 1x or 12x all things being equal it will still have same hieght and width. Cropping is not the same thing as optical zoom so ineffect all this is just hype. You do not gain any more detail by cropping an image it's just changing the emphasis.


Well i wasnt saying it gains detail but if you have a sensor that is like 4" X4" the max resolution shot should be so crisp and tight that if you blow up a certin section it should look similar to an S2 with 12X at its max resolution. It will still have limits to how far it can be blown up before it starts to pixalize but it should be able to take somthing like a poster size image. so to speak.

[XaiLo]

Firstly, my reply was to the OP, secondly, we are not talking about 4x4 sensors either. But the answer to your question would be no the bit depth would or at least should be higher in a 4x4 sensor.

[cvicisso]

So exactly what is in these product descriptions don't you equate with digital zoom :confused:
Again... [True] digital zoom interpolates images back to original resolution. For example, if your 'native' resolution is 8000x6000 pixels, and you 'digitally zoom' past your max 'optical' zoom to an image which is just 4000x3000 pixels - true digital zoom and the Panasonic system are totally the same up to this point. They use a smaller portion of the CCD. What happens NEXT is how the systems differ (pay attention to this part!):

A true digital zoom THEN takes the smaller 4000x3000 pixel image and uses software to interpolate it back to 8000x6000 pixels!!!! The degradation in quality is the reason that this is not a popular option. You could do the same with software afterwards if you really wanted to (and get better results). The Panasonic (and Sony) systems just keep the smaller image and leave it alone. What BowerR64 is saying (and I tend to agree) is that if you get a big enough sensor, you can theoretically eliminate the need for a moving lens --> just crop down to whatever 'zoom' level you want - either in-camera or via post-processing. The trick is the large megapixel sensor. If your threshold for acceptance is 3MP, then you'll need something larger than that (and the larger the better) in order to 'crop down' to that resolution.

See?

[cvicisso]

Or, think of it another way:

If you really want a 3MP (or pick a resolution) image of a sailboat that is 1,000 meters away (or whatever distance), and you want the sailboat to fill the image as much as possible, you have TWO options:

1) If you have a 3MP (or better) camera and a big enough optical zoom, just zoom in to the appropriate level and <click!>... you're done.

2) If you have a mega-MEGA-pixel camera and zoom that's not big enough, just zoom to max optical and crop later. If your sensor is big enough THE RESOLUTION WILL BE THE SAME (or could even be better - depending on how many megapixels you're using). The Panasonic and Sony systems just automate this step - but you could do it later with a computer.

A third option (not a good one) is to 'digitally' zoom to fill the screen with the sailboat and take the shot. The camera will then do its voodoo and interpolate the smaller image back up to whatever the native resolution was. Not cool. :cool:

[cvicisso]

Su-weet. I found a great description (much better than my rambling :p ) of smart vs digital zoom online. Check it out here (http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/smart-zoom.cfm).

Quote:

"Digital zoom works in a very similar way up to a point. It happily cuts away the outer sections of the image in the same way that Smart Zoom does. What is does next is attempt to restore the image to its full resolution. If we take the example above and consider the camera has chopped away three megapixels worth of information from the outer edge of a photo it then attempts to rebuild the lost three megapixels by adding them back to the remaining portion of the picture. It does this by guesswork. The guesswork is very intelligent, but nonetheless it cannot do this perfectly and this causes a decrease in the quality of the final image. "

Make sense now? :cool:

[XaiLo]

Dude I'm not the one that's confused read my posts again. I'm not the one interjecting theoretical sensors in an attempt to validate a point. Reread my initial post.

Here it is:


digital zoom = safety zoom = digital teleconverters, This is a guess, but like digital zoom, this is probably the latest iteration of a marketing ploy tweaked. :rolleyes:


"Smart Zoom" feature that limited the digital enlargement to the inverse of a smaller-than-full-frame's proportional size reduction.

I'll go on record here and say digital enlargement is another way of saying digital zoom!

and in the case of the Panisonic...


Lumix DMC- FZ7K Digital Camera - 6.0MP, 12X Optical Zoom, 2.5" LCD, Black

The DMC-FZ7 has Panasonic's Extended Optical Zoom. While causing minimal deterioration by using the center part of the high resolution CCD, this function magnifies the image to give you total zoom power of 16.5x.

For some odd reason Panasonic states this is only a 12x camera optically. Now notice carefully at the end there this 12x optical camera, now achieves 16.5x zoom power. How does it do this by "magnification of the image" this is a digital process not an opitical process or it would be 16.5x optical. Tell you what call Panasonic and Sony and tell them how wrong they are. I stand by my original statement they are marketing ploys.

Both of these provide results that are inferior to optical zoom and are digital manipulations in nature now what part of that don't you understand. Hey if your happy with this type of solution, cool! Buy into it, but you need not try to convince me it is something it is not.

[cvicisso]

Dude I'm not the one that's confused read my posts again. I'm not the one interjecting theoretical sensors in an attempt to validate a point. Reread my initial post.

Here it is:





I'll go on record here and say digital enlargement is another way of saying digital zoom!

and in the case of the Panisonic...



For some odd reason Panasonic states this is only a 12x camera optically. Now notice carefully at the end there this 12x optical camera, now achieves 16.5x zoom power. How does it do this by "magnification of the image" this is a digital process not an opitical process or it would be 16.5x optical. Tell you what call Panasonic and Sony and tell them how wrong they are. I stand by my original statement they are marketing ploys.

Both of these provide results that are inferior to optical zoom and are digital manipulations in nature now what part of that don't you understand. Hey if your happy with this type of solution, cool! Buy into it, but you need not try to convince me it is something it is not.Lighten up, Francis! :cool:

I actually agree with you that it's a marketing ploy. Who said anything about 'digital enlargement (besides you)?' Yes, digital enlargement is digital zoom (duh). If you would re-read my statements (ahem!), all I'm saying is that there is a fundamental difference between true 'digital' zoom and 'smart' zoom. That difference is software interpolation (that results in what you're calling 'digital enlargement'). The former uses it, the latter does not. Period. There is no 'digital enlargement' in 'smart zoom' - it's a smaller image. The answer to your 12x vs. 16.5x babble is in the link I provided above and in my posts.

Now, can't we all just get along? :o

[BowerR64]

The reason i use a "theoretical sensor" is because ive seen an image of i think a 25" sensor that was taken from an airplane down on to a beach. Suposably the sensor was the worlds largest digital sensor ever or somthing.

When you look at the full image you dont see alot of detail till you view it at its actual size and man the image is freakin HUGE!

I think it was on the powershot forums, but i remember it was along the coast and you could see people surfing, hang gliding and then you could see these photographers laying on the edge of a cliff with high power zoom lenses taking pictures of people on the beach.

Ill see if i can find it.

It was a super large digital camera for like shooting land shots for maps or somthing. I remember it said the whole camera filled the whole plane. There was jsut enough room in the plane for the pilot and the camera and that was it. It was that big.

[cvicisso]

Both of these provide results that are inferior to optical zoom and are digital manipulations in nature now what part of that don't you understand. Hey if your happy with this type of solution, cool! Buy into it, but you need not try to convince me it is something it is not.Apart from your spelling/grammar mistakes, I understand everything you said above - and even agree with you. An optical zoom definitely gives the most versatility, so yes - everything else is a compromise. See? We can get along! :) Of course, toting around my mammoth S2 IS can also be seen as a compromise (compared to keeping a Pany TZ1 in my pocket).

You see, XaiLo, life is all about compromise... we're just exploring that fact. You can either embrace it, or continue to rage against it. I'm certainly not trying to push you one way or another, and if you re-read my posts, I think you'll see this. These forums are about open dialogue and sharing ideas... unfortunately, they all too often denegrate into flame-throwing and mud-slinging. And that's too bad. :(

[XaiLo]

Apart from your spelling/grammar mistakes.


Next time don't ask a question in which you do not want an honest answer to, unless that answer fits your fanciful world. You argue a point that was never an issue, at least not by me. Then you get called on it and when proven wrong, the best that you can offer is to attack my grammer and spelling! Dude, it's just a forum, or are you so delusional that you think you never make any mistakes. And you talk of compromise???

While you say that (now) you agree with me that was not the case in your initial post or the following posts. While they may have been grammatically blah blah correct... they made no sense in relation to the context of my post.


I hope you're wrong. FWIW, do you consider the Panasonic "Extended Optical Zoom" or the Sony "Smart Zoom" to be = digital zoom? (I don't)


I actually agree with you that it's a marketing ploy. Who said anything about 'digital enlargement (besides you)?' Yes, digital enlargement is digital zoom (duh).

duh??? you did. duh... yeah, see up there in your first quote. and if you understood that then this would make sense to you but obviously it's going over your head.


"Smart Zoom" feature that limited the digital enlargement to the inverse of a smaller-than-full-frame's proportional size reduction.


If you would re-read my statements (ahem!), all I'm saying is that there is a fundamental difference between true 'digital' zoom and 'smart' zoom. That difference is software interpolation (that results in what you're calling 'digital enlargement'). The former uses it, the latter does not. Period. There is no 'digital enlargement' in 'smart zoom' - it's a smaller image.

Ole Jedi mind trick, eh. If you say it enough times I might believe it...


The answer to your 12x vs. 16.5x babble is in the link I provided above and in my posts.

Yet again you show the flavor of your ignorance and inconsideration.

I did not respond with my opinion I gave you the manurfactuers information. Then you go on to rant about how it's not true "digital zoom" and interpolation. As I stated earlier take that up with Sony and Panasonic. Maybe you know something they don't. Thanks for the insults, I'm sure you'll be the better man because of them.

Now just in case you're still lost here... my original post was not arguing that all three were technically identical, but rather they were all simply marketing ploys... with that said, they are still all forms of digital manipulation. So continue to explain to me this execise in semantics and futility...not!

I think I spelled "semantics" properly so you should have no problems with it.

Have a nice life.

[cvicisso]

Awwww... now I've gone and offended you. :( Listen, if I could offer you my hand in appology I would (the internet has it's limitations). I certainly didn't mean to come off as a better-than-thou type, and after re-reading this thread it still seems to me that you drew 'first blood' (can I get an unbiased opinion on this... was I being rude?)... but nevertheless, I'm not too proud to be the bigger man and admit that I was wrong:

Please accept my appologies for offending you, XaiLo. Let's drop this flame-throwing, shall we? :o

Now, back to the topic.

My original question (this is my thread after all), was concerning the new Canon "Safety Zoom" and/or "Digital Teleconverter." I made the statement that 'smart' zooms such as those of Panasonic and Sony are not true 'digital' zooms because they don't attempt to transform smaller images back into larger ones, and I was wondering if that's how the new Canon feature really works. I went to great lengths to try to explain this concept, but obviously I didn't do a very good job. I really thought that the quote from that other web site did a much better job of explaining it, but again, I guess it still doesn't make sense. Here's the quote again:

"Digital zoom works in a very similar way up to a point. It happily cuts away the outer sections of the image in the same way that Smart Zoom does. What is does next is attempt to restore the image to its full resolution. If we take the example above and consider the camera has chopped away three megapixels worth of information from the outer edge of a photo it then attempts to rebuild the lost three megapixels by adding them back to the remaining portion of the picture. It does this by guesswork. The guesswork is very intelligent, but nonetheless it cannot do this perfectly and this causes a decrease in the quality of the final image. "

Does this make sense to anyone but me? Anyone? Bueller?

[BowerR64]

ok i got the link, this is really amazing. Some of the shots are mind blowing im not kidding.

Giga pixl camera (http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-Parasail.htm)

When you look at the full image you cant see hardly anything. But when the sections are then blown up or "zoomed in on" you can see the most amazing detail that just doesnt seem real at all.

When you look at the camera you think, no way that ugly ass camera took these shots. It looks like somthing from the old west days.

[BowerR64]

I found this looking at the specs for the pany FZ30, looks like a cool camera.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz30-review/ez-chart1.jpg

[wutske]

I found this looking at the specs for the pany FZ30, looks like a cool camera.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz30-review/ez-chart1.jpg

That's nothing else but cropping.

[BowerR64]

So if its an 8mp camera, the "extended optical zoom" is like taking a 5mp shot. :confused:

Im confused it must work :rolleyes:

[wutske]

So if its an 8mp camera, the "extended optical zoom" is like taking a 5mp shot. :confused:

Im confused it must work :rolleyes:

Yup, the more you 'extend zoom', the lower the resolution will be.

[XaiLo]

May I add it is still a digital process in essense, by way of sensor data manipulation or sensor cropping if you will.

[Steve_Max]

But it is a "legitimate" digital process. It does not degrade image quality, makes the auto settings take into account only the region you want, uses less space (than a full resolution shot that you will crop later on your computer), and (assuming that the camera uses JPEG) means less degradation of the final image due to multiple saves.

[XaiLo]

But it is a "legitimate" digital process. It does not degrade image quality, makes the auto settings take into account only the region you want, uses less space (than a full resolution shot that you will crop later on your computer), and (assuming that the camera uses JPEG) means less degradation of the final image due to multiple saves.

Panasonic does not seem to share your opinion...

Lumix DMC- FZ7K Digital Camera - 6.0MP, 12X Optical Zoom, 2.5" LCD, Black

The DMC-FZ7 has Panasonic's Extended Optical Zoom. While causing minimal deterioration by using the center part of the high resolution CCD, this function magnifies the image to give you total zoom power of 16.5x.

[BowerR64]

Panasonic does not seem to share your opinion...

Lumix DMC- FZ7K Digital Camera - 6.0MP, 12X Optical Zoom, 2.5" LCD, Black

The DMC-FZ7 has Panasonic's Extended Optical Zoom. While causing minimal deterioration by using the center part of the high resolution CCD, this function magnifies the image to give you total zoom power of 16.5x.


But see thats a realistic way to do it. Leaving it at the cropped size IMO is a better way to do it. Thats how you would do it if you used photo editing. The way canon does it makes it unusable. Also they stretch it, 16.5X total zoom is more reasonable over 20X digital on the S2 it says 4X combined with optical its 48X

What would be cool is if they put an EOS sensor in a P&S but restrict the sensor down to an A series size. THEN when you use digital zoom it opens the full sensor size and you THEN shoot with the FULL size and quality EOS sensor. Now THAT would be a cool "extended" zoom. :cool:

So the quality would get BETTER the more you zoom right?
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y191/BowerR64/Junk/extendedzoom.jpg

[dev]

Apart from your spelling/grammar mistakes, I understand everything you said above - and even agree with you. An optical zoom definitely gives the most versatility, so yes - everything else is a compromise. See? We can get along! :) Of course, toting around my mammoth S2 IS can also be seen as a compromise (compared to keeping a Pany TZ1 in my pocket).

You see, XaiLo, life is all about compromise... we're just exploring that fact. You can either embrace it, or continue to rage against it. I'm certainly not trying to push you one way or another, and if you re-read my posts, I think you'll see this. These forums are about open dialogue and sharing ideas... unfortunately, they all too often denegrate into flame-throwing and mud-slinging. And that's too bad. :(

Hey buddy!:eek: This where you hang out? I see you're just as personable over here!:p

[cvicisso]

Hey buddy!:eek: This where you hang out? I see you're just as personable over here!:pHa - busted. :D That's it. I'm obviously not being clear (my problem - not anyone else's) because people keep misinterpretting me as being a 'troll' or worse... and I'm really just asking questions (honestly). Although I admitedly 'crossed the line' a bit in this thread when I felt that Xailo was unfairly pinging me... (and by 'crossing the line' I mean insulting Xailo's spelling - that was childish of me... like you calling me a troll was).

I'm making my posts all flowery and sugary from now on. :o

So, thanks dev, for the kind words and good sense of humor! :D Your witty style makes this forum and the world a better place. :) Keep it up, man!! :D

[dev]

Glad to see you could laugh about it. I sure did.