Replacement picture tube out of warranty?

Page 2 of 6  
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:35:21 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"

Best we can muster at the moment, although some of the new tvs give pseudo increased definition that works quite well.

How very true. they almost got it right quality vs. quantity, 50:50 choice better luck next time.
The choice of programmes during this holiday has been appaling, luckily i have a reserve of some nice films.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:35:21 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"

Yes, I have seen HDTV. Resolution though, has little to do with aspect ratio.

There is a growth of HDTV production in the States, but it has a long way to go.
--
Bob.

The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[17 lines snipped]

That's been true for 20 years ...
--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:04:28 +0000, Bob Brenchley. wrote:

But has a lot to do with "a more natural view". B-)
--
Cheers snipped-for-privacy@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:32:18 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"

Not really, 625 line PAL in 16:9 may not be a good as IMAX but it is good enough up to the size of realistic size home TVs. Certainly a person with average eyesight in an average room will have a more natural view that the old 4:3 TV sets that half-brain thinks are better.
--
Bob.

The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I seem to remember reading that widescreen cinema came in to combat TV in the US - in the early days of TV it wasn't possible to make widescreen tubes, the originals were actually round. And when colour TV arrived in the UK, the tubes were 5:4 rather than the transmitted 4:3.
--
*Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an incompetent slacker *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen". You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I watch films in the aspect ratio they were made in, period. You wouldn't take the Mona Lisa and cut some of it out to fit a nice frame you happen to have available. And as TV generally sucks, most of my TV watching is movies. So I have a widescreen TV. Must I apologise for that to you?

Nonsense, learn some film history. Widescreen came about as the movie industries counter to television, which was affecting it's income. They were still showing news reels etc at the time, which TV negated the need for, and in many ways surpassed. Some directors didn't take to it for a long time, Stanley Kubrik for example. Mind you, most of his films were also made in mono sound!!

No, this time learn some DVD history and consumer electronics marketing. The first lot of people to buy DVD were the enthusiasts. We wanted digital surround, multiple audio tracks, all that sort of thing. To be a success, you have to get their buy in, then capture the public. Laser disk never got popular with the enthusiasts, so it died. My player cost 750 at the time, but that was with being chipped etc. Most of us want widescreen, so that's the way it was. Releases got slated in all the review mags if they were masked down to 4:3. DVDs were intended to be the "perfect" delivery mechanism for movies, and cutting parts of the movie out didn't fit into that picture.
Who exactly is doing this brainwashing anyway? :-) Does your tinfoil hat protect you?

Which is very true. Look at a blank wall and see how much of it you can see without moving your eyes. Not much in the up & down department, but you've got around 120 degrees (a lot) of horizontal view. The widest common format, 2.35:1, is a lot closer to this than TVs traditional 4:3. For framing "normal" images, such as landscapes, groups of people, text/signs, widescreen is more natural. Just look at the unusual ways people stand in 4:3 media, they usually much closer than normal people are in day-to-day life. It's unnatural.
Fraser.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fraser wrote:

Can I just surprise you there? If you look at a wall and focus on a point which is far enough away to be in focus (about 10 inches, but a reasonable distance for discussion is about say 4 feet?) the image you can see in detail is round effectively perfectly round. This is because visual sensitivity on the eyes retina is round. (Consult any text book or google on fovea and macula). And you can forget any two eyes arguement, both eyes are focused on the same point, this is how our eyes work. Yes the field of vison when moving your eyes is wider, due to the bone structure of the face, but if I look between my legs I have 360 degrees vision in the horizontal range.

Lol you mean like the way a picture of two men carrrying a ladder is used to advertise WS TV?
If you look at a randon selection of 'art' pictures you will find only about 10% in a WS format. Unsurprisingly you will find that on average the ratio is 1:1. Pick up any newspaper and count the WS images (I just did) there are hardly any, most are taller than wide. How do you explaing that? Answer - You can't.
I actually have a copy of the Sun here with an article on the Beckams (which was filmed in WS), 3 out of the four pictures printed are in a portrait format (taller than wide). (I only bought it for a cheap TV guide btw).
However if the visual sensitivity of the eye does evolve into a WS format I will conceed it is a more natural format.
In the mean time I think you are living in the land of clouds and cookoo's ( or should I say seagulls, which do actually have a WS visual sensitivity)

-- --------------- regards half_pint
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:28:40 -0000, "half_pint"

No it isn't. If your eyes are working correctly you will be seeing a widescreen view of the wall.

But your view on the world, as you have two eyes, is NOT round - it is widescreen.

No i isn't. Learn about vision.

You what???

Very rare that you will find a square picture.

Because newspapers and magazines are designed to be read in columns.

It already is.

They have a wider view than us, but ours is still a widescreen view.

--
Bob.

The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Half_pint's eyes work about as well as his brain!
--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

I do indeed have perfect vision.
-- --------------- regards half_pint
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:41:05 -0000, "half_pint"

Not if you claim a circular view on the world.
--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nothing down there either?

Says it all
--
geoff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.
Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally croaks - stop watching TV?
--
geoff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

and
question,
Why all the argument? The reason behind widescreen is irrelevant, the fact is that it's the format of the future, virtually every movie in existance was filmed in something closer to 16:9 than 4:3. Regardless of the reason, this means that the director intended it to be viewed in a widescreen format so with a 4:3 screen you miss things on the edges of the screen. If theaters were all 4:3 then the shots would be made so as to not place things off the edges. That said, I don't own a widescreen set, but I do have one large enough that WS movies are of acceptable size. Many DVD's have both formats on one disc so there's no compromise, and to me DVD is an amazing format, it's the first to really catch on since VHS and side by side there's no comparison. The picture and sound quality from DVD is amazing, the whole movie fits on one side of one disc, there's random access, no rewinding, and the discs themselves are compact and cheap, they don't wear out, it's the only format I buy anymore.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
James Sweet wrote:

Actually 35mm film is 36mmx24mm - 3:2. Most early films were shot on that format....

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

fact
existance
Which is almost exactly in the middle between 4:3 and 16:9, my interpretation of that is that for older fims it's a tossup, for newer films 16:9 is the clear winner, looks like a point scored for WS.
Perhaps my view on this subject is also due to the fact that I can't think of anything worth watching on TV aside from movies and a very occasional show on the history channel, if 95% of the TV's use is for wide material then it would make sense to go with a wide set should I ever get a newer one than I have.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

films
one
Nature chose a circular image for human visual perception, do you think your cinema proprietor knows better. I think he is more influenced by the the economics of audiance seating, a wide seating area allows him more 'bums' (pun intended) per unit volume, hence greater profits. With a taller screen you cannot seat people in vertical space required to show the film. Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious phrase)

-- --------------- regards half_pint
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:58:32 -0000, "half_pint"

Well, better than you anyway - at least he knows that humans have a wide angle view on the world which widescreen comes closer to than 4:3 TV.

Rubbish.
Why not?

--
Bob.

If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.