Windy wrote:
1. it has the capability to take a screenshot of any particular spot without having to edit it. Lets say you only want to take a 1 inch (more or less) shot of a certain spot on your desktop or webpage. Just click on Region after it's open and then click Capture. Of course make sure Image File is selected near the bottom. Crosshairs will appear and you can drag and release to your liking to save the screenshot. Try it!
I've tried it, mate, but I still don't have the need for it. Whenever I've needed screenshots of something, I've always had PaintShop Pro open, so I just take a full-screen shot and then crop through PSP. I find it more useful to get an accurate screenshot and then crop to liking -- with an option to undo and re-select the crop region -- rather than have to re-set the screenshot target (windows, positions, etc) and re-do a "region" shot.
Besides, I don't take screenshots *that* often that I'd need a special programme running all the time. Like I said, Windows on its own can do a full-screen shot as well as an active window shot without needing a special programme running. I don't see why I'd have it running in the background 24/7, so that I can use it *maybe* once a month.
Windy wrote:
2. It can do the same with pics on the web that cannot be saved to a computer. This is the one feature that is icing on the cake! Believe me, it has made me one happy camper numerous times.
3. It can capture video on the web that cannot be saved to a computer albeit the quality won't be as good as if it were able to be saved.
I have almost never come across a pic or video on the web that cannot be saved.
If you are a bit knowledgeable on HTML and CSS, get AdBlock Plus and also "Element Hiding Helper for Adblock Plus". You can then very easily hide away all the overlaying elements that make images seem "unsaveable".
If you're more knowledgeable on HTML, you don't even need that; all you need is right-click Q (in Firefox). The Element Inspector can show you what's not allowing you to save an image but also the image itself.
Third option (Firefox): right-click, "View Page Info", then "Media" tab (no plug-in or add-on required). You have all the media files included on any webpage, listed and saveable.
Windy wrote:
P.S. Couldn't resist the Star Wars reference. It just popped into my head as I was typing. Don't know how many of you are Star Wars fans as well as Star Trek.
P.P.S. While I'm at it, for fans of either one or both, a must see DVD is the original Buck Rogers released in 1939. I might make a thread on it.
I wouldn't say I'm a big fan of Star Wars, but I enjoy it just fine. I like a good lightsabre fight and "the Force" as much as anyone, but I really get annoyed with all the silly creatures, especially in the "prequels" and especially in the first two of them.
I strongly believe that, if Lucas had any brains, instead of re-mastering and re-making them over and over, he should make a "serious" director's cut or re-make, removing most of the idiotic elements -- like Jar-Jar (or whatever the fμ©k its name is) or the wookies or Jabba and his equally idiotic group of stupid creatures -- completely get rid of the annoying kids and especially the infant version of Anakin, and he'd have a killer, dark, serious, powerful sci-fi movie universe in his hands. And please, drop those "midichlorians" or whatever... let the Force be the Force and STFU about it already!!!
There. Rant over. I'll check out the Buck Rogers though. Don't think I've seen the 1939 one...
For the record, Star Trek and Star Wars fans are rarely compatible. You see, Star Trek is a LOT more "scientific", everything has an explanation, a reason, a solution. Star Wars, on the other hand, has always been more "simple". It doesn't care to be "serious", nor does it try to explain every tiny detail with scientific terms (at least, until the midichlorians).
Fans of Trek don't usually like Wars, ranging from mild annoyance down to downright hatred, and vice versa. However, I should note that Star Wars fans hate Star Trek a lot more than the opposite. Star Wars is a lot easier to watch, when you're not a big Sci-Fi fan. Star Trek, with all its science, techno-babble, convoluted explanations as to why or why not this gimmick cannot be used to solve that problem, or why this cosmic phenomenon behaves 'this' way and not 'that' way... that puts off people who just want to watch a movie without needing a PhD in astrophysics, or at least a very solid background on science fiction (and some knowledge in sciences). So, Star Wars fans are not as "hard core" sci-fi fans (generally speaking) and Star Trek is an overload for them. On the other side, Trek fans who are used to everything being explained, founded, logical and "scientific" get annoyed with the Star Wars universe being completely "childish" and "un-scientific". Silly robots, even sillier creatures, things not conforming to any known law in physics... well, I guess you get the point.
P.S.
Having said all that, Star Trek, in all its scientific righteousness, has left all the telepathy and telekinesis in the "scientifically unexplained" realm. It's had its fair share of telepathy and some telekinesis episodes (which could be compared to the "Force"), but on every occasion they've left it out of the scientifically analysable category. Instead, they're always saying "telepathy cannot be detected by our sensors" or "we do not know the exact origin of telekinesis" or something like that. In effect, they've left the mystery intact.
Star Wars, on the other hand, in all its craziness, has actually done it; they've tried to provide a sci-fi-entific explanation to the Force. And from what I heard, fans didn't like that one bit...