Led vs LCD TVs and 720 pixels vs 1080.

It's indistinguisable at 720p.

Reply to
Fillet
Loading thread data ...

You don't want the music coming out backwards, do ya?

-- Bobby G.

Reply to
Robert Green

Yes...I'm listening to the Beetles!

Reply to
Bob Villa

Reply to
Robert Green

Is it possible that what you're looking at really isn't the old 4:3 aspect ratio, ie that channel is now in HD 16:9 ratio? I haven't seen a set yet where the picture isn't distorted to make it fill up the screen. They do have algorithms that stretch some parts more than others, the sides I think, to try to make it less noticeable. But there is only so much you can do and every one I've seen makes people look fat.

Reply to
trader4

One is the Cooking Channel (not broadcast in HD), it fills the screen but does not have the "fat face" syndrome. On a couple of other channels, it reverts to the 4:3 ratio. I'm not sure if DirecTV or the content provider that has any control over that, or even the circuitry of the DVR box.

Does not matter much to me anyway. I've become a bit of an HD snob. The difference between SD and HD is so significant, I avoid most shows not available in HD these days. I've been watching Great Migrations tonight and was wowed by some of the visual quality and detail of the finest stuff, like blades of grass, animal fur, etc. We've come a long way from the 12" B &W with Milton Berle.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski
[snip]

I like the increaded spatial resolution, but find other things more inportant. Things like the way the picture is much more stable (not wiggling around all the time like analog video), and better color. One of the first things I saw in HD was a football game, where the grass was green instead of a sick yellow.

BTW, I don't think 3DTV is worthwhile. Maybe if they made it work without the glasses.

Reply to
Mark Lloyd

"Mark Lloyd" wrote

I was in a Best Buy store and they had a 3D set playing. Without glasses, it looked like a poor 2D. I did not see any glasses around to try and did not want to get a salesperson and have to listen to them. It is also recommended to limit the time watching the 3D to a couple of hours a day as it can bother the eyes.

I wonder if I'll be able to get prescription 3D glasses in the future. Right now, it is still a novelty, but in a few years . . . . .

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

The problem is that enough lawyer-fearing recipients of these threat letters enter into settlements rso that companies like Monster actually start believing they are in the right. That is right until they run into someone who *won't* settle and Monster makes the mistake of litigating, where the rubber meets the road. I'll bet Monster folds like a cheap suit when that happens because they can't afford to lose and set a damaging precedent.

It will be interesting to see where the Blue Jean Cable "threatfest" ends up. I seen Monster getting chased out by villagers with torches.

-- Bobby G.

Reply to
Robert Green

I wonder if they could or would sue my brother for his handle, "Uncle Monster"? The name was given to him by a four year old back in 1986 and it stuck.

TDD

Reply to
The Daring Dufas

What about the Monster energy drink?

formatting link

Reply to
Meat Plow

Me and Brother Monster drink those too. FLNF

TDD

Reply to
The Daring Dufas

"Meat Plow" wrote

They pay a royalty for the name, and they also must have the pull tab on each can facing north so the carbonation bubbles are released in the proper pattern for full energy.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.