Entirely correct. And adding a new winding onto the LOPTF is very easy. But dont DIY it as there are important issues you wont appreciate unless you have some electronic knowledge.
A cathode to heater short is not too bad as it can be worked round.
Regards, NT
overheating.
successes/failures
Garbage. His post proves I am correct.
--
--------------- regards half_pint
to draw any conclusions from a study size of one is a total rubbish
please go away and learn something useful before posting something you allege is fact again.
btw, your post on WS is rubbish as well. I predominantly use my WS tv to watch dvds as content from tv is generally crap, as you should know
16:9 is more representative than 4:3 for most transfers to dvd.
I include the thousands who didn't post.
I dont watch DVD period. Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?
--
--------------- regards half_pint
For shame, did they ask you to post on their behalf, guessing and misrepresentation don't count either.
fucktard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound and audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the question, the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films as they were intended (seeing as there is scare little tv programmes of any merit anymore) and those desparately clinging to to past, i'm surprised you don't argue that the colour guns make tvs less reliable.
What do you use you tv for, putting plants on ?
Niche - 4:3 tvs, VCR, good tv.......
Never know it in this life. Please hurry forward to the next life where you may have a brains and stand a chance of being right for once.
LOL the irony!!!!
--
--------------- regards half_pint
They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*, hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.
There is plenty of merit, if you find no merit in real life, ie news sport, music, politics and comedy then maybe not.
Thalidomide was a new drug for pregnant women once.
You can get more plants on a widescreen so no.
Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the seating.
In addition, as most films now make far more from the video/DVD release then from the box office, and given the extra content the film makers have to plan for the DVD, their thoughts are always with the home viewer.
And is now a highly successful drug in combatting a number of medical problems.
Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.
I agree. Let's ignore half_pint from now on....his views are clearly the result of inverted snobbery, ignorance, envy...or all three.
but still at a pathetic resolution. Not seen high definition have you? Now that is an "open window".
Of course with the "never mind the quality, count the channels" philosophy of UK broadcasters we are highly unlikely to see Hi-Def in the UK for at least the next 10 years or more.
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.
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.
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.
That's been true for 20 years ...
But has a lot to do with "a more natural view". B-)
And your views are those of a mindless simpleton who will happily buy what ever the salesman pushes his way, even though from experience he knows 99% is overpriced useless garbage.
"I bet my neighbour has not got one of these" is his prime motivation.
--
--------------- regards half_pint
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.
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.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required