Troll
No - prove it - give a some links - you cannot. EOS
That as a smaller cheapo set. It's £380 for a set 10% bigger. (32 in)
WS has causes me to stop buying TV's, mugs like you cough up merrilly.
For the filthy rich yes.
You get what you are served not what you choose.
Not where I live (central UK).
Wrong.
Yes and a cure for cancer is just around the corner.
Is she blind and senile? (like you)
--
--------------- regards half_pint
Wrong our field of viable 20/20 vision is about 20 degrees IIRC, look it up. You *cannot* effectively use peripheral vison to watch TV.
Thats a bit garbled. It is a fact the the taller the picture the less people you can seat per unit area, a 10 year old child could work that out. ( You may find tha maths a bit taxing presumably)
And most are not even WS, I seem so many complaints about it from pretentious 'purists'
The fashion of economics and profit, not good picture making.
--
--------------- regards half_pint
Yes people who don't have a clue and no evidence to support them.
Nobody sells em - slight problem
You are wrong EOS.
Its worked ok the last 5 years and I am not changing it.
--
--------------- regards half_pint
Completely wrong. Prove it. You can't
Wrong.
--
--------------- regards half_pint
Hohohoho!! Add a zero to that dumbo.
It is *not possible* to watch a film using
Ideally the picture should be far wider.
Try doing the same dumbo - maybe then you would not look so stupid.
No it isn't.
Not been to an Imax cinema have you?
Your the only zero here.
Hence our eyes in the back of our heads.
Don't argue with better educated people.
No I don't flush my money down the loo either.
--------------- regards half_pint
In article , Bob Brenchley. writes
Half_pint's eyes work about as well as his brain!
You are, and a very sick one at that.
They have been posted in the past, you ignored them.
28" @ £280 is not smaller and not cheaper. You want small, go smaller. You want cheap then go cheaper - you can get WSTVs for under £200 these days.It will be very good for the television industry - this promotion of widescreen you do for them. Because if Half-Brain says it is bad then it must be a "must have" for normal people.
For everyone.
That is broadcasting for you. Apply to set up your own station and then you can dish out your own programming. See if you can find a few mugs that think 4:3 is better than 16:9.
Yes, where YOU live.
No, the switch off of analogue broadcasts started several years ago when Sky and the Cable companies started to move to Digital. Sky completed its move two years ago, most cable companies have also switched off analogue or plan to do so very soon. Normal terrestrial TV will start in the next three or four years - first with relay transmitters but then the main ones. 6 or 7 years from now there will be not analogue broadcasts in the UK.
Many are already cured, others are just around the corner - what to stop that development as well?
Stupid Troll.
I do indeed have perfect vision.
--
--------------- regards half_pint
Not if you claim a circular view on the world.
Still well above you.
The human field of vision is about 200 degrees by the way.
Looking in the mirror again dumbo.
I'm not - I'm arguing with a moron like you.
Holy crap guys, can we stop feeding the troll already? *one* person stirring up *many* other people, *nobody* agreeing with him, if that doesn't define a troll then what does? Let's kill it already, it was interesting for a while, now it's just lame.
Are widescreen TVs closer to 625 or 415 lines?
I have a 625 line "old fashioned" tv, and when watching stuff in W/S (which I prefer for movies), there must be a whole lot of lines which are "black" - but I have never seen figures as to what the number of lines on a W/S TV actually is.
So... how many lines on a W/S TV?
Thanks
Noz
I believe there are 625 but it is hard to get any real info, there doesn't seem to be any available. the mugs who buy WS TV's would buy anything. I also see some references to 480 lines but these may be from USA or other countries sites. The only thing which is clear is that the whole thing is a mess. Black bars all over the place - yuck.
4:3 is best, you can pan and scan a WS movie with excellent results. You cannot however pan and scan a 4:3 picture with a WS apperture. I have no doubt that the slitty eyed Japs are behind it all (Sony).When the switch to digital TV takes place I will stop watching TV and use the license money to pay for a fast broadband connection. It seems like the only solution to this fiasco. TV will be so f*cked up by then it wont be worth watching. They can shove their WS TV's up their arses (it should be a good fit). I have no intension of becoming a WS TV victim. Its not WideScreen its WankerScreen. WSTV = WankerScreen.TechnoVictim.
--
--------------- regards half_pint
No, widescreen TVs are the same 625 line standard as old fashioned 4:3 sets.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required