One gives you vertical resolution the other horizontal. And the number of lines is fixed. It all depends on the how close you are to the different screen sizes. Hence my comment about magnifying a smaller one. You need the same amount filling your view to compare.
Well, I get the relationship between lines and pixels and resolution but pixels still count even on the horizontal shirley?
405 / 625 etc
Sure, so, is it unlikely that my small Panasonic portable TV had as many pixels (proportionally) to actually give the best resolution possible?
I actually still have it so can check the model etc (OOI).
Cheers, T i m
I think your Straw Man has fallen over.
But what about monochrome tubes? My old Sony 9-9OUB and various Rigondas and Vegas, and little CCTV monitors, seemed sharp enough back in the day.
Bill
I live in ethics, so don't try that one ;-)
So why is a workshop different from the garden. All the heat you generate in the workshop will end up outside anyway. All you are doing is making your time there more comfortable.
What if you were working outside? Would it be ok to use a radiant heater then?
(I have a tripod mounted worklight with a couple of 500W halogens on it. Sometimes I use it specifically because it does project lots of heat - say when crouched in a damp corner outside wiring up some SWA)
That is kind of why, outside is a safer option - less transmission risk. Also, legal.
Fairer? Do me a sausage!
Coats don't necessity keep all of you warm, especially if sedentary.
I know, knit a onesie.
Sometimes its nice to be outside for a bit even when you do have a warm indoors.
Especially of a bit sheltered on a nice clear night. Hmmm, garden bus stop, I feel a project coming on...
I don't want to see animals treated with cruelty, but I don't associate the breading of animals, and killing them humanely for food as cruelty. Being regularly fed, having access to veterinary care, and a swift demise is probably more than most "wild" animals could hope for. Heck its more than many humans get, and yet some are fussing about animals instead?
While all your rhetoric involving words like rape and torture are not emotive or negative at all?
Highly nutritious and delicious what's wrong with that...
I have little regard for the media on the subject. In fact I am quite content to let vegans get on living with their preferences, much as I am Morris dancers and Jehovah's witnesses. However when they feel compelled to force the topic into every conversation, or lecture you on your doorstep, they become more tiresome and do their cause harm. When they decide to "invade" a restaurant during a busy meal time, and disrupt, and vandalise as some of the more extreme ones do on occasion, then they massively prejudice the chances of achieving their goals and engender hostility to all vegans.
They seem incapable of understanding that one has looked at the situation and made an informed choice.
Enslaving?
The human race would likely not even exist were it not for the "enslaving" of animals. A primitive population would unlikely achieve adequate energy return on energy investment to survive without them.
In fact, grazing animals are an effective way of extracting food from land otherwise unusable for agriculture, not only that they keep the food fresh without refrigeration, look after transporting it.
Well you have argued, and now we are better informed. On balance I think I will still enjoy my Turkey dinner.
We have a farmer in the family (dairy & arable), and I have seen them exhibit nothing but care and compassion for their herds.
You should work for Disney - they are good at anthropomorphising as well.
It's not "someone", it's a pig (or whatever)
Dirty work? You mean slaughtering? Having visited a slaughter house and watched the process, I did not leave with any concern about the treatment of the animals.
We are talking Impact Driver and Drill driver rather than Identity and Direct Debit I take it?
Yup, I would say that it's on topic and acceptable for me to answer questions about power tools for driving threaded fasteners. You will note that I don't append a diatribe about the subject to posts about boilers, or tiling, or wiring, or other subjects unless actually relevant.
Consider me pinned down. So yup suffering bad, don't want that to happen. Killing humanely for food? Yup, fine with that. Next?
You think that killing and suffering are intertwined and one can't be separated from the other? Yup ok I am fine with you believing that. It's not a view I share, but I have no problem with you thinking that. Take up train spotting, or mediaeval battle re-enactment as well if you fancy. You don't need my permission. (free society see - automatically licensed to do anything unless controlled by legislation)
A road to Damascus moment huh? Sure I get that, now you want to right the error of you former ways.
Take a hint, from this perspective you are not doing a particularly effective job of it. In fact no skip that, you are actually making folks dig into entrenched beliefs and harming your cause.
What do you mean stopped? - we have Twitter, and Trump, and the Kardashians, and fidget spinners!
Enthusiastic might mention in passing how they feel better or have lower cholesterol since giving up meat. Posting links to shock vids all over a DIY group and diverting every conversation, is firmly in the militant camp for me.
There are no pixels as such on the horizontal. The level of detail dictated by the upper frequency bounds of the luminance signal.
With a shadow mask / aperture grill you might argue that creates pixels, but even then there is no guarantee that adjacent ones are individually addressable.
The emissivity of the phosphor will dictate a certain amount of beam current for adequate picture brightness. So there are practical limits on how "fine" a line you can focus. So while a small screen might be subjectively "sharper" it may well actually have lower resolving power than a larger screen. There is probably a "sweet spot" size where you reach the point where you get as much resolution displayed as can be extracted from the video carrier.
Yes. As I said pro small monitors (for location use) that gave the best resoluting were extremely expensive. Not all about resolution of course, but easy to compare to a domestic small screen one, used just for viewing purposes. The pro ones were noticeably sharper.
It's obviously easier to provide a small mono 'pixel' than the three needed to produce colour and mono.
No shadow mask, so the horizontal limit is just down to the available video bandwidth, and how cleanly it is processed. Normally suggested to be something akin to 720 "pixels". Vertical is down to the number of visible scan lines (c. 575 lines)
Yup, you might carry on evolving at some point Neanderthal ...
Don't you remember all the headlines, "Arsenal score! and fifteen pensioners die of hypothermia!" :-)
Do you have those supermarket plastic screens installed to make them genuinely 'independent' ?.
If you have 5 people on board that makes 10 feet, but you still only have 4 'zones'.
Ok ....
That's what I was thinking, and aren't the phosphor dots arranged in alternate inverted triangles (Sony 'Trinitron' anyway) and so *are* directly liked to the (horizontal / scan) resolution, along with the shadow mask? No different (effectively) from a TFT display?
Ok.
Sure, that's 'brightness' (which is part of 'picture quality' of course) but doesn't impact on the resolution as such.
Yes, that's what I think what Dave was saying.
Agreed, and (in principal) the 'best data density' would be observed in the smallest size screen that displayed all of the data available.
So, could it be possible that what I believe was probably a 'pretty expensive' (in domestic terms) portable TV did in fact hit that target?
Cheers, T i m
On 06/12/2020 12:15, John Rumm wrote: ... snipped
Oy! Some Morris Dancers are very active DIYers ;-)
Why I used pixels in inverted commas. You need enough individual lumps of phosphor to be switched on and off by the beam. Why many low end tubes don't make use of the available upper frequency.
they're not pixels in as much as they're not synced to the video feed, so one can't get picture resolution as good as the tube face dots.
no mainstream tube used triangles. An early triple neck type of tube did, it never reached mass production. Trinitrons used lines, older delta tubes used round dots.
quite different. the dot pattern is also not linear with the scan. You've got no chance of addressing the dots individually
405 line B&W TVs often exceeded their crt resolution. But 625 colour didn't often. And higher end sets weren't about high resolution: the Sonys eg had a nice low noise picture with better linearity, flatness & alignment, their resolution was often lower than cheaper sets though.NT
Erm, because it's 'indoors' ... ?
As will happen with your house, however, your house, like my workshop is still not 'outdoors'.
Yeas, but with a certain proportion of that heat / energy being 'retained' (albeit only for a finite period) unlike 'outdoors' were it's instantly lost.
It would depend on all sorts of variables like need, alternatives (like if you can work with gloves on), practicality (effort / reward) etc.
Then that *could* be considered one of the examples that (some) might consider acceptable because of the situation. Like the time you will be out there and the difficulty of the alterative's. Also, you may well also use the light with the heat being a welcome (in this instance) side effect. It might not be so welcome in a dark cupboard or loft in the summer.
Yeas, I understand that, but one might consider the bigger picture re the value of the final result (David has already hit hurdles re following the guidance re valid installation location).
Yup, but legal doesn't have to equal ethical / moral eh.
Fairer when viewed in concept and the bigger picture. Like, you might want to cycle to work on your folding bike and pop it under your desk. If it's just you doing so it might not be an issue. But what if everyone was doing it? There could be an issue with 300 doing it that wasn't there with one (and why they may well stop the one).
The only reason David might be able to get away with a few kW of heat 'outdoors' is because not many other people are doing it and further, are managing their heating down to reasonable levels *indoors*, as part of a general energy conservancy plan, on top of their house being well insulated etc?
What's the point of all of us doing our best to conserve energy, when some people want to waste it outdoors for no (societally agreeable) justifiable reason. If it doesn't happen, the chances are an alternative will be found and even if it isn't, no one is going to die. People could die of hypothermia if the power is cut.
<snip>
Coats (and other suitable clothing / accessories, like hand warmers) can keep you warm, even if sedentary.
;-)
<snip>
Yup, I'm about to go for a ~8 mile walk and I'll end up 'hot'. No IR heaters involved. ;-)
That makes sense ... like an open fronted 'summer house' or even a boat stood on it's transom and made into a 'nook'. 'Shelter' to keep the wind off can make a big difference.
I know, many don't, in spite of it being the case, that's the problem. ;-(
But you can't conflate the two John. What happens in nature is
*natural*, what we do with sentient, gentle animals is not.Indeed, however, they can at least talk.
'Fussing'? See, you either really don't *actually* care about how animals have to live or even come into existence, let alone how they die or you are unaware or in denial of the details?
No, they are the truth. Just because we use terms like 'artificial insemination' you can't treat that as a parallel to a woman wanting children and using IVF. These animals will mate on their own if they want to, they don't need us putting an arm up their arses to position the cervix or using an 'electro stimulator' on a bull to collect it's s**en. If you (and I appreciate it's a big IF for some) you actually respect the rights of animals not to be molested thus, you wouldn't support the process.
And 'torture' doesn't have to mean an active action to cause harm, like water boarding or giving someone the lashes, it can include the emotional 'torture' a mother might suffer when it's newborn child is taken away from her or being denied the ability to roam, set / defend territory etc etc. I'm not even talking about the cutting off a piglets tail, or teeth, or de-beaking a chicken to minimise any damage it may cause to 'the product' when forced into a non natural and emotionally torture situation.
Because you are viewing animals as food when they aren't. They only are because you *choose* them to be., simply because you are 1) indoctrinated into doing so and 2) like how they taste. An animal has to be murdered (as they don't give up their lives freely), simply so you can 'enjoy' them. They are not needed for a healthy diet / life and further, are actually causing us harm, both from their consumption and the environmental damage.
That's very kind of you I'm sure.
Same as those pesky people holding up the traffic trying to get the vote for women or rights for the disabled I bet. How dare they? Sometimes things are big and important enough for people to get a little wake-up to get them to smell the roses.?
Cite? I thought you didn't fall for this media stuff? How often do they do that compared with how many animals have to die for them to 'enjoy'?
Only from those not willing to open their eyes and ears and try to hear the message. This isn't like some religion or political party trying to force people into believing or doing something their way 'because', it's to try to minimise the suffering and exploitation of millions of animals who are victims of your (meat eaters etc) choices.
If that were the case, you wouldn't be seeing them as you do. Either that or you do actually think *ALL* animals are there to treat as you choose?
Yup. Put a sow in a pen and keep it there all the time. Keep a mink in a cage not much bigger than itself, till you kill it. And on and on ...
Ah, the 'history' bit.
Except we evolved without meat to a point where we worked out how we could manage meat to make it digestible.
Except it's now known that we wouldn't even use that land for grazing and allow it back as it was (Re-wilding they call it?) if we weren't trying to live inefficiently of plants that were re-processed by animals.
Sure, problems in 'olden days', no so now (for the vast majority).
Well, I have argued ...
As would I, from the taste POV but it's not all about that and what I might 'like'. There are loads of things I might 'like' to do that I don't, some of which might be illegal and others because they would be considered immoral, unethical or anti-social.
As they take their lives when they didn't give them up freely. There is no right / kind way of doing the wrong thing, but that's the point that many (but an increasingly shrinking number) don't get.
They aren't 'your food', they are living, sentient, intelligent, often social creatures you are taking the life from, simply because you like how they taste? Do you think your pleasure can justify the loss of their lives?
And why not see if there is anything else out there you might like the taste of, especially other animals that are regularly eaten around the world. Labrador, cat, rat ...? Or is it that you are exhibiting ''speciesism', where (for some reason) you are selective about what animals you will or won't eat, even though they are all 'edible' as such?
You are better than that John (Or I thought you were). ;-(
Again, this is where you have allowed your cognitive dissonance to lead your decisions / thinking. Why is a pig any different from a dog and you wouldn't typically refer to your dog as an 'it' would you?
Ah, then therein may be the 'problem' (as I see it).
;-)
Not the point.
See above.
No such thing as 'humane slaughter' John so you had better stick with 'I'm ok supporting the suffering and exploitation'. ;-(
I don't 'think', I know.
Again, not a belief, it's a fact. Possibly for reason you either didn't consider or did but don't care about. That doesn't stop it being the case though.
How kind.
But not ethics or morality then?
Not possible I'm afraid, but I might try to point out the errors I made to others in the hope it might educate them like I was. TBF, times are very much a changing so it's far easier to make to move to less animal cruelty now than it was 25 years ago. Not that it wasn't possible then of course, just not as easy.
No, you are probably right, see, I've never been a vegan before so it's all pretty new to me as well.
Quite possibly, but with different groups you need different approaches and I tried getting people to just think about it and they then argued why the supporting of animal suffering and exploitation was ok.
Quite.
That aren't the key points or why I did it though John.
Except that's another emotive (and lying) comment.
See above.
Thanks for the conversation at least though (genuinely).
Cheers, T i m
snip
The only things that are not "natural" are those that are supernatural, and therefore probably don't exist. Man has evolved to exploit animals, and lay waste to his environment, and that is as natural as anything else in the world. Particularly there is little or no fertile land in the world that would remain in its present "natural" state without human agriculture.
I have some sympathy with veganism, as an enlightened lifestyle derived from human-invented ethics and consideration for our fellow creatures. It also seems sensible to move towards a sustainable industry and agriculture, while hoping that this can be done without sacrificing any present or future technology. After all, it only needs to be sustainable on a geological time scale! And only needs to last as long as the sun. Perhaps our appetite for life will enable us ultimately to migrate to the stars, but we don't have to worry too much about that for a few hundred millennia.
This sentimental distinction between "natural", meaning something like mediaeval feudalism for even pre-human ecology, and modern human activities which are somehow not "natural" seems to have no rational foundation. We are just more successful animals, so we can do massacres, torture and famines at will, but I see nothing unnatural about that. I am largely opposed to such things but that is because of the ethics we have invented, not some natural law.
Is human life natural, is war natural, is open cast mining natural, is sex natural - is love, or ethics? Of course, where else did they come from?
In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter snipped-for-privacy@hayter.org writes
Fair enough.
I think the objection to Tim is not his ethical position but his inability to distinguish between legitimate thread drift and an opportunity to broadcast his off topic views.
Not so many months back he was engaged in wars with what he claimed were our resident trolls. Sadly he now seems to have joined them.
I think lack of response is non-confrontational:-)
More likely, anything I do. What others do is unnatural. If I don't like it.
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.