Lord, give me strength
TJ
from such things, but today's newspaper contained some one-day-only
Thanksgiving Day sale ads, and I saw what at first glance looked like
some pretty good deals on some LCD TV sets. For a little while there, I
was tempted. I *wanted* one, just because it sounded like a good deal.
That has to be the poorest reason to want one, but there it was, anyway.
This is how people get into financial trouble.
I was lucky this time, for the sensible part of my brain soon took over.
All the reasons why I *don't* want a new TV came flooding to the
surface. For one thing, the entertainment center that would house any
new TV I might buy - a big, hulky furniture dinosaur from another age of
style that seems welded to the room's decor now - has a TV slot that's
just 28 inches wide. It now holds a 26-inch analog TV which fills it
quite well. If I were to buy a wide-screen set that would fit in that
spot I would be giving up a good third of my current screen real estate,
something I find wholly unacceptable. (Don't talk of "missed content."
I've looked, using the settings of my converter box, and about 90% of
the time there's nothing on those wide-screen edges I'd ever miss.) And
as for watching 4:3 content on a wide-screen... forget it. It's
downright tiny.
For another thing, there's not a thing wrong with what I'm watching now.
The converter does its job in an excellent fashion, providing a
consistently better picture than I ever had with analog OTA, and I have
nothing to be dissatisfied with. In fact, there's a decent probability
that a new TV might not perform as well as my current setup when it came
to reception. Why play with a good thing?
For yet another, the combination of losing one income that once paid a
share of household expenses without lowering those expenses and a bad
growing year weatherwise has put me in a potentially dangerous
situation. I'll weather it if I'm careful, but not if I buy every new
toy that temporarily strikes my fancy. Like many folks these days, I
have to watch every single penny just to survive. That means I have to
be happy with what I have, rather than pine away for what I don't.
I thought I had mastered that particular skill, but it seems that even I
have to be extra vigilant. Sigh. I need more strength.
TJ
Daniel Who Wants to Know
everything should always be shown in its OAR (original aspect ratio) and
that means letterboxing 16:9 content on a 4x3 screen, letterboxing >16:9
content (such as 2.35:1 movies) on a 16x9 screen, pillarboxing 4x3 content
on a 16x9 screen, and NO "pan and scan" (AKA the BS term "full screen")
DVDs, Blu-Rays, etc.
Just today I was at my local Hy-Vee foods store and they are selling a 42"
Panasonic plasma TV for ~$500 and the video source for the display model is
a 4x3 (pan and scan) copy of the live action version of "The Cat In The Hat"
being played back by the cheapest Magnavox DVD player you can get
(http://www.walmart.com/Magnavox-DVD-Player-Dp100Mw8B/ip/7958349 I think)
and hooked to the set using the CVBS (composite video) RCA connectors. The
TV is set to stretch the picture horizontally (as it should be if the source
were anamorphic WS) so everybody is short and fat and round objects like the
wheels on the lime green Ford Focus wagons are squatted ovals. To top it
all off they have HDMI cables on sale in front of this clusterfack setup.
It strikes me as odd and stupid that they are trying to sell these sets and
they couldn't even be bothered to use a source that would make the picture
quality worth a damn.
It steams my clams that even with the WS image that is being sent out the
networks are still putting the titles, network logos, etc in the center 4x3
part of the frame so if you are watching TV either letterboxed or on a 16x9
set as you should IMO the logos etc are no longer in the corners as they
should be but instead are out closer to the middle.
ATSC content: They should have made an aspect ratio flag standard mandatory
on CECBs and all other consumer electronics so that when I am watching a
16x9 program letterboxed on a 4x3 TV and a 4x3 commercial, local segment,
etc. comes on it auto-zooms to fill the screen instead of "postage stamping"
it with black all the way around.
Consumers should also be taught how to properly hook up the equipment. Case
in point: My sister once had a 46" 4x3 rear projection TV from "Rent A
Center" that had a full gamut of inputs but they had the DVD player hooked
to it as follows: DVD-RCA cables-mono VCR-RF cable-TV. This gave them
crappy video quality and mono sound with one channel missing. And to top it
all off she has a severe case of "black bar hater-itis" so she had the DVD
player set to think it was hooked to a WS TV which resulted in all of the
(few) anamorphic WS DVDs they watched being stretched vertically.
Steve Fenwick
"Daniel Who Wants to Know" <danielt...@merrychristmasi.com>
wrote:
> Everyone has their opinion, and yours is no more right than mine. I believe
> everything should always be shown in its OAR (original aspect ratio) and
> that means letterboxing 16:9 content on a 4x3 screen, letterboxing >16:9
> content (such as 2.35:1 movies) on a 16x9 screen, pillarboxing 4x3 content
> on a 16x9 screen, and NO "pan and scan" (AKA the BS term "full screen")
> DVDs, Blu-Rays, etc.
You need to know the format of the original material to know what the
right format is. There was a lot of material originally produced in
Academy (AKA 4:3) format that is labelled "Full Screen" on the DVDs.
Some original Cinemascope (2.55:1 or 2.37:1) films may only be found in
16:9, so a DVD in 16:9 (which doesn't match any mainstream film format)
may not actually be preserving the original format.
Steve
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
TJ
> In article <hekbvn$s2j$1...@news.netins.net>,
> "Daniel Who Wants to Know" <danielt...@merrychristmasi.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Everyone has their opinion, and yours is no more right than mine. I believe
>> everything should always be shown in its OAR (original aspect ratio) and
>> that means letterboxing 16:9 content on a 4x3 screen, letterboxing >16:9
>> content (such as 2.35:1 movies) on a 16x9 screen, pillarboxing 4x3 content
>> on a 16x9 screen, and NO "pan and scan" (AKA the BS term "full screen")
>> DVDs, Blu-Rays, etc.
>
> You need to know the format of the original material to know what the
> right format is. There was a lot of material originally produced in
> Academy (AKA 4:3) format that is labelled "Full Screen" on the DVDs.
> Some original Cinemascope (2.55:1 or 2.37:1) films may only be found in
> 16:9, so a DVD in 16:9 (which doesn't match any mainstream film format)
> may not actually be preserving the original format.
>
> Steve
>
morph Transformer-like into the "proper" size and shape to display the
content being shown. That would surely be something to watch, eh?
Probably better than the movies, and definitely better than most of
today's TV shows...
TJ
Daniel Who Wants to Know
news:hekt23$oac$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Obviously, technology is lacking. What we need is a screen that will morph
> Transformer-like into the "proper" size and shape to display the content
> being shown. That would surely be something to watch, eh? Probably better
> than the movies, and definitely better than most of today's TV shows...
>
> TJ
There are front projectors such as the Infocus 7205 that have 2 12v trigger
outputs that can be hooked to special motorized screens. Trigger 1 makes
the screen come down when you power on the projector and trigger 2 makes
side curtains come in to change (matte) the screen from 16x9 to 4x3.
K. B.
<T...@noneofyour.business> posted:
>and I saw what at first glance looked like
>some pretty good deals on some LCD TV sets.
There are allegations that some of the lower priced LCD
(D)TVs have serious reliability problems, I always recommend
Sony or Panasonic TVs.
>In fact, there's a decent probability
>that a new TV might not perform as well as my current setup when it came
>to reception.
When CD players first appeared in 1982/83, a special test CD
with known defects was used to test how well a CD player
could cope with damaged CDs, I don't know of a comparable
(probably multipath ridden) ATSC test signal for testing
ATSC tuners.
Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://avdtv.tripod.com/avdtv.htm>
Steve Fenwick
> "TJ" <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote in message
There are also screens that have 4 masked positions; e.g. Da-Lite
Horizon Electrol. You can have just about any format within the
boundaries of the screen itself (4:3) and your ability to program it
(not the easiest task to get it set just right).
TJ
>
> When CD players first appeared in 1982/83, a special test CD
> with known defects was used to test how well a CD player
> could cope with damaged CDs, I don't know of a comparable
> (probably multipath ridden) ATSC test signal for testing
> ATSC tuners.
>
Reality?
TJ
TJ
> Apparently, I need it more than I thought I did. I thought I was immune
> from such things, but today's newspaper contained some one-day-only
> Thanksgiving Day sale ads, and I saw what at first glance looked like
> some pretty good deals on some LCD TV sets. For a little while there, I
> was tempted. I *wanted* one, just because it sounded like a good deal.
> That has to be the poorest reason to want one, but there it was, anyway.
Man, I thought the Thanksgiving-only ads were bad enough. The Black
Friday ads are much, much worse. I had resolved my irrational new TV
desires, but today's ads have $200 LAPTOPS!
Sigh.
TJ
robinlos
I find it not so hard to accept what I have, I guess I'm lucky. This
time of the year I can get out a little, and, I see almost nothing I
want. Although I think others will not believe this, my SD CRT DTV
reciever is as good as I have seen. I suppose that is why I have it.
The LCDs look washed out to me, and, any increased definition doesn't
do anything for me. But the great contrast ratio on the CRT does do
things for me. I love the black, and the dark colors. And the whites,
which are not just light areas on the screen. I'm actually dreading
the day I won't have such a picture anymore.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
news:e07sg5d0n13cnu28c...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:43:36 -0500, TJ
> <T...@noneofyour.business> posted:
>
>>and I saw what at first glance looked like
>>some pretty good deals on some LCD TV sets.
>
> There are allegations that some of the lower priced LCD
> (D)TVs have serious reliability problems, I always recommend
> Sony or Panasonic TVs.
>
>>In fact, there's a decent probability
>>that a new TV might not perform as well as my current setup when it came
>>to reception.
>
> When CD players first appeared in 1982/83, a special test CD
> with known defects was used to test how well a CD player
> could cope with damaged CDs, I don't know of a comparable
> (probably multipath ridden) ATSC test signal for testing
> ATSC tuners.
>
a 1mm hole drilled through them (although a radial scratch can actually do
worse, go figure). The consumer could easily repeat such a test, by taking a
CD (preferably not their only irreplacable copy), carefully drilling a 1mm
hole in a part of the disc without cracking the disc, and seeing if it still
played through the area where the hole was located.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
message news:hel7aj$aeg$1...@news.netins.net...
That's a start, but would still have the black bar issue with 2.35:1, 2.55:1
and 2.76:1 aspect ratios.
16:9 pan-and-scan would be a solution for the other aspect ratios above,
though OAR purists would not like that.
Andy from Dover
> ATSC content: They should have made an aspect ratio flag standard
mandatory
> on CECBs and all other consumer electronics so that when I am watching a
> 16x9 program letterboxed on a 4x3 TV and a 4x3 commercial, local segment,
> etc. comes on it auto-zooms to fill the screen instead of "postage
stamping"
> it with black all the way around.
>
antiquated if not obsolete screen format we wouldn't have to deal with new
material in square screen.
Everything should be 16x9 minimum, nothing narrower. News field footage,
commercials and programming all included. There's no excuse for new material
in 4x3. If you have a 4x3 TV you should be used to "letterbox" as it's been
used since when, the 80's?
All IMHO, YMMV. ;-)
K. B.
fairly lenient, my 1st generation RCA STB has poor
reception.
I think there should be a standard ATSC test signal (or
group of signals) that could be used to quantify the OTA DTV
reception abilities of ATSC DTVs.
Steve Fenwick
One might make the argument that once should be used to P&S since it has
been in use since what, the 60's? Certainly the 70's. There's a lot of
16:9 material that has no need to be 16:9 if that's more practical for
the presentation.
Guru
the bedroom, 2 digital cameras, a Garmin GPS, a netbook, a still quite
usable desktop, a 911 Carrera S in the garage and a good supply of CC
cookies and left-overs from Thanksgiving in the "fridge"...., 2
granddaughters (2 blocks away), a daughter who can cook up a storm, and a
wife who is still working. I ask you, what more is there?
Oh...and (from experience): The "extended warranty" on the human body
expires at 50. Since then, I've learned to pronounce the names of medical
specialties that I hardly knew existed
WGD: Keep the faith down there in sunny Florida
Best holiday regards from Texas to all!
GMAN
>"Daniel Who Wants to Know" <danielt...@merrychristmasi.com> wrote in
>message news:hel7aj$aeg$1...@news.netins.net...
>> "TJ" <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote in message
>> news:hekt23$oac$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Obviously, technology is lacking. What we need is a screen that will
>>> morph Transformer-like into the "proper" size and shape to display the
>>> content being shown. That would surely be something to watch, eh?
>>> Probably better than the movies, and definitely better than most of
>>> today's TV shows...
>>>
>>> TJ
>>
>> There are front projectors such as the Infocus 7205 that have 2 12v
>> trigger outputs that can be hooked to special motorized screens. Trigger
>> 1 makes the screen come down when you power on the projector and trigger 2
>> makes side curtains come in to change (matte) the screen from 16x9 to 4x3.
>
>That's a start, but would still have the black bar issue with 2.35:1, 2.55:1
>and 2.76:1 aspect ratios.
>
It's only an issue for those whose brains have "issues".
Most people arent bothered by it.
>16:9 pan-and-scan would be a solution for the other aspect ratios above,
>though OAR purists would not like that.
>
Seems nothing is ever perfect for you.
Steve Fenwick
winnie...@100acrewoods.com (GMAN) wrote:
> In article <vMadnYsZebOoVZPW...@nethere.com>, "Daniel W. Rouse
> Jr." <dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> >"Daniel Who Wants to Know" <danielt...@merrychristmasi.com> wrote in
> >message news:hel7aj$aeg$1...@news.netins.net...
> >> "TJ" <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote in message
> >> news:hekt23$oac$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>> Obviously, technology is lacking. What we need is a screen that will
> >>> morph Transformer-like into the "proper" size and shape to display the
> >>> content being shown. That would surely be something to watch, eh?
> >>> Probably better than the movies, and definitely better than most of
> >>> today's TV shows...
> >>>
> >>> TJ
> >>
> >> There are front projectors such as the Infocus 7205 that have 2 12v
> >> trigger outputs that can be hooked to special motorized screens. Trigger
> >> 1 makes the screen come down when you power on the projector and trigger 2
> >> makes side curtains come in to change (matte) the screen from 16x9 to 4x3.
> >
> >That's a start, but would still have the black bar issue with 2.35:1, 2.55:1
> >and 2.76:1 aspect ratios.
> >
>
> It's only an issue for those whose brains have "issues".
>
> Most people arent bothered by it.
With a projector (the first replier's example), the bars are white/light
grey (the color of the screen material). While not distracting more or
less than black bars, they cause the viewer to not perceive the
gradations in the source material as well as if the unprojected areas
were masked black.
TJ
> In article <vMadnYsZebOoVZPW...@nethere.com>, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>> That's a start, but would still have the black bar issue with 2.35:1, 2.55:1
>> and 2.76:1 aspect ratios.
>>
>
> It's only an issue for those whose brains have "issues".
>
> Most people arent bothered by it.
>
grateful. But it's not the bars that bother me half so much as the
reduction in viewable screen area that results. And when 4:3 content
from an HD channel is shown on a 4:3 TV as letterboxed to 16:9 with bars
on the sides that put it back to a 4:3 postage stamp - well, that's just
plain wrong. If you're watching on a 4:3 screen, cropping makes more
sense most of the time.
Note that I said *most* of the time. There are always exceptions to any
generality, including this one.
TJ
cjdayton...@cox.net
I suppose it really bothers you when the rim of
your sun glasses shows in your field of vision.
Chip
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
TJ
>
> I suppose it really bothers you when the rim of
> your sun glasses shows in your field of vision.
>
> Chip
>
sun on the water makes it hard to see, and occasionally when driving,
for the same reason. That's it. But I don't get nearly as much time to
fish as I would like, and as a farmer I don't have to drive as much as a
commuter might. And when I do wear them I like to have them close to my
eyes, because I find the nose piece uncomfortable anywhere else.
Besides, restricting the field of vision can be dangerous for anybody
operating heavy machinery, something that I do often.
I'm human, like the rest of you. When confronted with a choice between
things that might or might not annoy me, I will choose the one that *I*
find the least annoying. I expect you to do the same, and your choices
will most likely be different from mine. That's fine with me. It should
be fine with you, too. And if there is no choice, I adapt as best I can.
TJ
George Kerby
On 11/29/09 7:58 AM, in article hetumn$4k4$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
"TJ" <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
> cjdayton...@cox.net wrote:
>>
>> I suppose it really bothers you when the rim of
>> your sun glasses shows in your field of vision.
>>
>> Chip
>>
> Most of the time, I don't wear any. When fishing, because the reflected
> sun on the water makes it hard to see, and occasionally when driving,
> for the same reason. That's it. But I don't get nearly as much time to
> fish as I would like, and as a farmer I don't have to drive as much as a
> commuter might. And when I do wear them I like to have them close to my
> eyes, because I find the nose piece uncomfortable anywhere else.
> Besides, restricting the field of vision can be dangerous for anybody
> operating heavy machinery, something that I do often.
>
TJ, if you spend a lot of time on the water, you should wear some uv eye
protection to prevent cataracts.
<http://www.allaboutvision.com/faq/sunglasses.htm>
My .02
TJ
> TJ, if you spend a lot of time on the water, you should wear some uv eye
> protection to prevent cataracts.
>
One week a year. That's it. And when I'm there, I wear sunglasses most
of the time on the water, simply because I find it more comfortable that
way.
Would that it could be more. After all, a bad day of fishing beats a
good day of hay-baling all to heck. But I should consider myself
fortunate, since many farmers don't take *that* much of a vacation.
TJ
Kalarama
I never swim without my sunglasses, and I've lost a few in the surf to prove
it. ;-)