Replacement picture tube out of warranty?

[geoff]

In message , half_pint writes

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose

[half_pint]

The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to do with art. Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks. Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide. Bit odd that eh?

You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.

[geoff]

In message , half_pint writes

Not an art connoisseur are we? Who said it was - golden rectangles are normally used to highlight important areas of interest

Why should I need to lug a TV about? I have one in every main room of the house

[Bob Brenchley.]

No.

Who would want to lug a large TV about?

[half_pint]

Yes.

Someone who has a large portable?

Forgive me if I am overstating the obvious.

--------------- regards half_pint

[David Hemmings]

You find it quite funny that a portrait is taller than it is wide ?

[half_pint]

No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's fovea and macular.)

>

[The Natural Philosopher]

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

[geoff]

In message , half_pint writes

I don't recall making it an argument for widescreen TV, I was just making an observation

Not got a real grip on the world have you ?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Ah. So what you are saying is that a squeare scereen would be good because you could watch it lying on your side?

[half_pint]

--

--------------- regards half_pint

Garbage - If you think there is a GR in Mona face you are deluded, there are so many points on a persons face I could make any shape fit into it 4:3, 2:1, 5:3, 9:4, 7:2

All natures creatures, apart form a few specalists such as seagulls evolved a circular visual system to do its panning and scanning. This is to be expected since given any random selection of images you will find a best coverage is achieved with a circular apperture.

Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot, maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot. Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take up too much room, ditto for the bedroom. There must be a market for portable TV's (which you appear to deny) because they make up about 30-50 percent of the TV market . Also not everyone wants to spend £280 on a TV when they can get one for £69, but I guess you call paying 4 times what you used to pay is 'progress', just like digital radio, where you can pay

10 times the price for a product which will not even work unless you pay a futher £400 for an ariel the size of Jodrell Bank.

[half_pint]

No thats what you said.

--

--------------- regards half_pint

[James Sweet]

Where are you even getting that from? A portrait display (taller than wide) is great for showing just that, a portrait of one person, or a full document, but since our eyes are side by side, not one over the other, when you look out over a scene you see more width than height. There's little of interest on the ground or up in the sky, hence the popularity of panoramic photos for showing a scene.

Just the same, yes if the standard was square and movies were shot assuming a square screen it would work just fine and dandy aside from having to try harder to keep mic booms, etc out of the picture and needing to be zoomed out unnessesarily far to fit many scenes, but the fact of the matter is that's not the case, and movies are filmed wider than they are tall. That's the way it's been for a long time and it's unlikely for that to change. Are you a troll or what? You must have been one of those kids who'd try to jam the round peg in the square hole for reasons not apparent to anyone else.

[half_pint]

16/9 =1.8 GR = 1.618

[James Sweet]

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.

[half_pint]

What is your observation and how is it relevant?

What makes you think that and what characteristics are displayed (in your opinon) by someone with a 'grip on the world'?

[James Sweet]

There's a plentiful supply of used 4:3 sets, and that will only get larger as 16:9 gains popularity, so if anything you should be happy, supply will be high, demand will be low, prices will be cheap. The 4:3 format will likely remain popular for quite some time for portable sets, but 4:3 is virtually dead for large projection sets even today, with no signs of that slowing down. I rather like the trend, if I had my choice I'd go WS but I got my 50" standard set for free, I'm sure after a few years I'll come across an even nicer one as someone upgrades.

[geoff]

In message , half_pint writes

Again, I made no mention of the Mona Lisa - it's a portrait over a portrait. You have to dig a bit deeper into the art world than that

Did you miss my comment above?

Nah - 28" in the bedroom, portable but static in the kitchen (4:3 portable)

I don't recall having said anything of the kind

Aah - you like sex channels then

Who needs Joderell Bank ?

What I'm saying is:

The 16:9 is becoming the new standard, like it or not. You are in a changing world, you can dig your heels in, but you're not going to win because it's a massive business whose primary interest is not what you happen to find aesthetically pleasing, but what, economically , is going to generate best profits.

Digital TV will eventually take over from analogue and you can sit in front of your old TV looking at snow if you want to - the constant, safe secure world that you once knew is no more, get used to it

[geoff]

In message , half_pint writes

It was that 16:9 was a golden rectangle, and I claimed no relevance

Someone who recognises that the world is changing and that standing still is, in effect moving backwards.

Analogue TV will be switched off as soon as is practicable. The fact that a total mess has been made of it (the changeover) is irrelevant, it will happen.

[half_pint]

You mentioned leonardo, the ML is a common example given for the GR.

No I didn't, you appear to have missed my point however. ( which is there are few/no portable WS vacuum tube TV's)

I don't fancy a paying £280 for a TV in the bedroom which I would hardly ever watch, besides it would take up too much room anyway.

Not explicitly no.

Not really I can get all my filth on line for free.

And you are right but wrong. I was considering buying a new main TV and two portables but all this WS crap has put me off. So where is the profit in that?

The poll tax was good for business but it died a death.

16:9 looks ok on a 4:3 but 4:3 on a 16:9 looks s**te. Most of my viewing is still 4:3, the soaps (which I don't watch) are in 16:9 but soap viewers will watch anything. (Actually soaps look bad in 16:9 cos its mainly indoors so no landscape shots, its mainly portrait type shots). My footie is still 4:3 :O)

Don't under estimate the power of the masses, we may have no cake to eat Marie Anttiornette(?). It will be a brave polititian who says "Let them watch snow!!"

I have noticed a lot of heavy pushing of 'new technology' by the BBC though. It make me wonder who is controling the situation. MAybe we will be required to have a portrait of the Governer General of the BBC in every room?

We haven't gone digital yet and it will take a long time I expect.