PDF difficulties
John Williams (News)
Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
> However, !PDF totally ignores this file. Any suggestions?
Load into PDFView and save as text. The text file is then readable.
If you want it better formatted, save as Drawfile.
Hope this helps,
John
Resent as cross-posting seemed to prevent first attempt.
--
John Williams, Brittany, Northern France - no attachments to these addresses!
Non-RISC OS posters change user to johnrwilliams or put 'risc' in subject!
Who is John Williams? http://petit.four.free.fr/picindex/author/ Somewhere nice to stay in Brittany? http://petit.four.free.fr/visitors/locate
Dr Peter Young
> In article <na.2f11c750bd...@orpheusmail.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
>> However, !PDF totally ignores this file. Any suggestions?
> Load into PDFView and save as text. The text file is then readable.
> If you want it better formatted, save as Drawfile.
> Hope this helps,
Alternatively, another solution posted on a.a.v by me.
With best wishes,
Peter.
--
Peter, \ / zfc Yb \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52
Anne \/ __ __ \ England.
and / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
family / \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \______________ pny...@ormail.co.uk
John Williams (News)
Dr Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> Alternatively, another solution posted on a.a.v by me.
But exclusive to argonet users? That's a bit unhelpful to the rest of the
RISC OS community!
John
Paul Stewart
Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
> If you click on...
> http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Services/Freeview-HD
> ..it says you can find out more (about HD beginning on Freeview) by
> downloading a rollout plan, and gives a link to a small PDF file.
> However, !PDF totally ignores this file. Any suggestions?
!GView doesn't like it either, claiming xref section interpretation
error
Regards
--
Paul Stewart - Far Bletchley, Milton Keynes, England.
(msn:pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk)
Martin Wuerthner
> If you click on...
> http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Services/Freeview-HD
> ..it says you can find out more (about HD beginning on Freeview) by
> downloading a rollout plan, and gives a link to a small PDF file.
> However, !PDF totally ignores this file. Any suggestions?
That is a PDF 1.5 file. For reasons I have never understood Adobe
allowed these to be completely incompatible with earlier PDF formats
(at the discretion of the program that produces them - you can write
1.5 files that are fully backwards compatible). That move is really
strange after the huge effort they have put in to make sure that each
new revision of the PDF format is backwards compatible. It is a bit
like building a carefully balanced tower from building blocks and then
pulling out the complete row at the bottom.
ArtWorks loads that file. Since ArtWorks uses the same underlying PDF
library as !PDF, that suggests that a rebuild of !PDF with a newer
version of the library would fix it.
GView has the same problem as !PDF, so you cannot view the file with
Ghostscript even though it is unlikely that Ghostscript itself has any
problems with the file.
Martin
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner MW Software http://www.mw-software.com/
ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier
spam...@mw-software.com [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
Dr Peter Young
Repeated here, as the a.a.v posting hasn't appeared yet.
> On 20 Nov 2009 Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
>> If you click on...
>> http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Services/Freeview-HD
>> ..it says you can find out more (about HD beginning on Freeview) by
>> downloading a rollout plan, and gives a link to a small PDF file.
>> However, !PDF totally ignores this file. Any suggestions?
> I have four RISC OS pdf reader programs here, and none of them will
> open this file. I've opened it in Foxit Reader in Windows, re-saved it
> and !PDF is now happy with it. Send me, off-list, a valid e-mail
> address, and I'll send it to you. (Run out of time ATM; it'll be this
> afternoon.)
> With best wishes,
> Peter.
Bill (Adopt)
> http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Services/Freeview-HD
> ..it says you can find out more (about HD beginning on Freeview) by
> downloading a rollout plan, and gives a link to a small PDF file.
> However, !PDF totally ignores this file. Any suggestions?
It knows where you live ..and will not give you any
details unless:
your tv licence is paid up
you have been through d.s.o., and have New!
Digitil Ariel bubbling in your washer.
BT has sold you something Virgin by mistake..
No idea. It seems to load; perhaps something (eof?) is
missing..?
Might be fixed so - or perhaps an observation to Freeview?
--
Adoption InterLink UK with -=- http://www.billsimpson.com/
Domain Host Orpheus Internet -=- http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
Bill (Adopt)
Bill (Adopt) <ad...@billsimpson.com> wrote:
> In article <na.2f11c750bd...@orpheusmail.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
> > If you click on...
> > http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Services/Freeview-HD
> > ..it says you can find out more (about HD beginning on Freeview) by
> > downloading a rollout plan, and gives a link to a small PDF file.
> > However, !PDF totally ignores this file. Any suggestions?
> No idea. It seems to load; perhaps something (eof?) is
> missing..?
> Might be fixed so - or perhaps an observation to Freeview?
Apologies: meant to add that there appears to be something
missing (necessary meta data?) towards the end of the file,
but not being a techie, I'm not sure what should be in the
'gap'?
btw.. is there a reason for posting to three groups?
(!Puto's wondering).
Not a negative comment :)) ..just wondering if you've been
or are having problems?
Bill ZFC
John
Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
> If you click on...
> http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Services/Freeview-HD
> ..it says you can find out more (about HD beginning on
> Freeview) by downloading a rollout plan, and gives a link
> to a small PDF file.
> However, !PDF totally ignores this file. Any suggestions?
I can't help with the problem as such but you (and others)
might be interested in this item which appeared a couple of
days ago on The Register:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/11/19/freeview_hd_kit/
It's suggesting that we have to buy new TVs/set-top boxes
if we want to receive HD transmissions via Freeview and
that they aren't yet available.
John
--
John
new...@blueyonder.co.uk
j dot mccartney atte blueyonder dot co dot uk
David
Dr Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2009 Dr Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> Repeated here, as the a.a.v posting hasn't appeared yet.
>> On 20 Nov 2009 Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
>>> If you click on...
>>> http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Services/Freeview-HD
>>> ..it says you can find out more (about HD beginning on Freeview) by
>>> downloading a rollout plan, and gives a link to a small PDF file.
>>> However, !PDF totally ignores this file. Any suggestions?
PDFVIEW with vector turned on reads it fine.
--
Dave Wisnia, Leeds, UK
Tony Moore
> In article <bcbc49bd...@freeuk.net>,
[snip]
> > PDFVIEW with vector turned on reads it fine.
>
> Thanks David, that turned out to be the solution. I downloaded
> !PDFView from http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janus-g/PDFView.zip then
> clicked*2 on the Freeview-HD file. At first I got a blank window, but
> hitting CRTL-T produced the familiar toolbar and a CRTL-V brought up
> the vector text.
>
> Is there a way to save these settings as the default?
Yes. Menu over the open PDFView window > View > Choices... > Save
Tony
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> In article <50bd22f...@billsimpson.com>,
> "Bill (Adopt)" <ad...@billsimpson.com> wrote:
>
> > btw.. is there a reason for posting to three groups?
> > (!Puto's wondering).
>
> Tell !Pluto that he can't count; I posted to *two* groups. :P
>
> What happened was I started by clicking on "Download difficulties"
> to start off a new thread, changed 'ownload' to F and added a P.
Oh for goodness sake!
What you did DID NOT create a new thread.
It created a reply to a post in an existing thread, albeit with a different
subject line. The point is that in what you did, the post you made
contained internal references to the posts in the 'Download difficulties'
thread.
For anyone who uses a 'threaded newsreader' eg nearly all the newsreaders,
this means your post would have appeared as part of the thread about
download difficulties. People not interested in those may not even have
seen your post.
To start a new thread properly, you probably have to select the newsgroup or
mail-list name then click on the 'write a new message' icon. That will
start one with no references to previous posts/mails.
You'll note that I've changed the subject line in this post. That's because
it's not about PDF difficulties any longer, but is /is/ still part of the
thread you placed it in.
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsre...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "nnn" by "284".
John
Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <50bd34d6...@blueyonder.co.uk>, John
> <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > I can't help with the problem as such but you (and
> > others) might be interested in this item which appeared
> > a couple of days ago on The Register:
> > http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/11/19/freeview_hd_kit/
> > It's suggesting that we have to buy new TVs/set-top
> > boxes if we want to receive HD transmissions via
> > Freeview and that they aren't yet available.
> You can't expect a SD set-top box to produce a HD
> picture, and if your existing TV is HD-ready then you
> won't need a new one.
That's only a valid comment if the person to whom it is
addressed understands the technical issues involved. If
they don't understand those issues, they can expect almost
anything.
The Register has published a further (and more detailed)
exposition of those issues here:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/11/23/freeview_hd_questions_answered/
Rob Kendrick
Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
> > It's suggesting that we have to buy new TVs/set-top boxes
> > if we want to receive HD transmissions via Freeview and
> > that they aren't yet available.
>
> You can't expect a SD set-top box to produce a HD picture, and
> if your existing TV is HD-ready then you won't need a new one.
Except that nobody sells a TV with an HD-enabled DVB-T2 Freeview tuner
yet, because the standard has only just been ratified, and the
manufacturers were going to wait for the details of the BBC's efforts
to encrypt BBC HD.
"HD Ready" relates only to the number of pixels the device can display,
and has nothing to do with any tuner that may be in it.
The words to look for on a new TV is "Freeview HD" or "Freesat HD".
Additionally, some "SD" set-top boxes are perfectly able to produce
HD-type resolutions. The original DVB-T can carry HD channels, but
because of its old transmission system and no ability to use a codec
other than MPEG2, a single channel essentially consumes a whole
multiplex. The only problem you have then is getting the picture out
of it, and some high-end SD set-top boxes and HD TVs with DVB-T1 tuners
were equipt to do this.
B.
Chris Evans
Rob Kendrick <URL:mailto:nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:02:00 GMT
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > It's suggesting that we have to buy new TVs/set-top boxes
> > > if we want to receive HD transmissions via Freeview and
> > > that they aren't yet available.
> >
> > You can't expect a SD set-top box to produce a HD picture, and
> > if your existing TV is HD-ready then you won't need a new one.
>
> Except that nobody sells a TV with an HD-enabled DVB-T2 Freeview tuner
> yet, because the standard has only just been ratified, and the
> manufacturers were going to wait for the details of the BBC's efforts
> to encrypt BBC HD.
>
> "HD Ready" relates only to the number of pixels the device can display,
> and has nothing to do with any tuner that may be in it.
>
> The words to look for on a new TV is "Freeview HD" or "Freesat HD".
Until the service has been around for a couple of years I'd recommend using
a seperate STB (Set Top Box) to decode.
> Additionally, some "SD" set-top boxes are perfectly able to produce
> HD-type resolutions. The original DVB-T can carry HD channels, but
> because of its old transmission system and no ability to use a codec
> other than MPEG2, a single channel essentially consumes a whole
> multiplex. The only problem you have then is getting the picture out
> of it, and some high-end SD set-top boxes and HD TVs with DVB-T1 tuners
> were equipt to do this.
An easy way to tell.
Any STB that doesn't have HDMI output definetly can't do HD, if it does have
an HDMI output it possible might be upgradeable to HD. (Some may be able to
scale SD to HD but that gives liitle if any improvement in picture quality)
Chris Evans
--
CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: 01903 523222 Fax: 01903 523679
ch...@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN
The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile!
Rob Kendrick
Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> An easy way to tell.
> Any STB that doesn't have HDMI output definetly can't do HD, if it
> does have an HDMI output it possible might be upgradeable to HD.
Unless it has component, DVI or VGA out. Or is built into a TV already.
B.
Chris Evans
I knew I must have missed something.
Though having just read The Registers article it seems to say no existing
STBs/TVs can be upgraded and no new FreeviewHD hardware is available yet.
Rob Kendrick
Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <20091123140...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
> Rob Kendrick <URL:mailto:nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:50:49 +0000
> > Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > An easy way to tell.
> > > Any STB that doesn't have HDMI output definetly can't do HD, if it
> > > does have an HDMI output it possible might be upgradeable to HD.
> >
> > Unless it has component, DVI or VGA out. Or is built into a TV
> > already.
>
> I knew I must have missed something.
> Though having just read The Registers article it seems to say no
> existing STBs/TVs can be upgraded and no new FreeviewHD hardware is
> available yet.
Correct; none can be upgraded to DVB-T2 (it requires a different tuner
circuit and a significantly more powerful DSP.)
Just don't confuse HD with FreeviewHD: the old DVB-T system can handle
HD content just fine.
B.
Rob Kendrick
Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
> >> You can't expect a SD set-top box to produce a HD picture, and
> >> if your existing TV is HD-ready then you won't need a new one.
>
> > Except that nobody sells a TV with an HD-enabled DVB-T2 Freeview
> > tuner
>
> I'm aware of that, but John also mentioned set-top boxes. If he buys a
> new one that does receive HD, then a HD-ready TV will do just fine.
I was confused by your statement "if your exiting TV is HD-ready then
you won't need a new one"; I had assumed it was referring to tuners,
given the other half of the sentence concerned them.
Of course, you can't buy a FreeviewHD-compatible tuner yet, and won't
likely be able to until February.
B.
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> In article <gemini.ktji0...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid>,
> Jeremy Nicoll <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
> >> What happened was I started by clicking on "Download difficulties"
> >> to start off a new thread, changed 'ownload' to F and added a P.
>
> > Oh for goodness sake! ...
> Instead of giving me a lecture, Mr.Nicoll, please be so good as to show
> me where in my post exist ANY internal references to an earlier thread.
>
> Next time, CHECK YOUR FACTS before firing accusations at me.
I'm sorry if I wrongly accused you, but I replied to /your/ statement about
how you started the thread. By then I'd deleted the posts at the start of
the thread.
How you described the way you started the thread exactly matches the way
that people so often don't start new threads.
I'm quite puzzled how, if you meant what you said, you avoided picking up
references to the 'Download difficulties' article you started off from. What
news client did you use (seeing as the article headers don't say)?
Rob Hemmings (News)
If you can't buy a tuner until February then what is the point of the
service starting in December!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Hemmings Southport
rhn...@dsl.pipex.com
Rob Kendrick
"Rob Hemmings (News)" <rhn...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > Of course, you can't buy a FreeviewHD-compatible tuner yet, and
> > won't likely be able to until February.
>
> If you can't buy a tuner until February then what is the point of the
> service starting in December!
Well, you need to start broadcasts before boxes go on sale...
B.
Russell Hafter News
Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
> please be so good as to show me where in my post exist
> ANY internal references to an earlier thread.
In the headers, where I find References:
<na.2f11c750bd...@orpheusmail.co.uk>
<gemini.ktji0...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid>
The first of these is your original (I think) post "PDF
difficulties"
Which stated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you click on...
http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Services/Freeview-HD
..it says you can find out more (about HD beginning on
Freeview) by downloading a rollout plan, and gives a link
to a small PDF file.
However, !PDF totally ignores this file. Any suggestions?
Tennant Stuart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTH
--
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
Martin Wuerthner
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid>
wrote:
> In article <na.adedcd50be...@orpheusmail.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
>> please be so good as to show me where in my post exist
>> ANY internal references to an earlier thread.
> In the headers, where I find References:
> <na.2f11c750bd...@orpheusmail.co.uk>
> <gemini.ktji0...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid>
Yes, those references are in Tennant's message to which you replied,
but that was not the point.
> The first of these is your original (I think) post "PDF
> difficulties"
Exactly, and the discussion was about references in *that* post. As
Tennant has rightly pointed out, there were no references in that
post, thus setting Jeremy right who claimed otherwise.
Alan Griffin
> > In article <na.2f11c750bd...@orpheusmail.co.uk>,
> > Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
> >> However, !PDF totally ignores this file. Any suggestions?
> > Load into PDFView and save as text. The text file is then readable.
> > If you want it better formatted, save as Drawfile.
If you drag it in to PDFView it opens with a completly blank white page.
If you then export this page as a drawfile, it appears as if by magic!
Alan Griffin
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> Exactly, and the discussion was about references in *that* post. As
> Tennant has rightly pointed out, there were no references in that
> post, thus setting Jeremy right who claimed otherwise.
I didn't precisely claim otherwise, I just assumed it.
But I still don't understand why what he said he did didn't produce
references. I mean, it sounds the same as what you'd do to produce a reply
to an existing post.
Rob Kendrick
Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> I also suspect that there are a number out there already for test
> purposes.
As of last week, it still hadn't been decided how or even if BBC HD
would be encrypted, so I doubt it. They don't have long left to
decide, either!
B.
T M Smith
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
Although O/T this subject interests me since I am trying to decide on
a new TV. I was looking for one with built-in FreeSat tuner.
Is the message that this is the wrong direction to go since it may not
function shortly. I am not on Sky or cable.
Malcolm Smith
--
T M Smith
Using an Iyonix and RISC OS 5.13 in the North Riding of Yorkshire
Vince M Hudd
> Martin Wuerthner <spam...@mw-software.com> wrote:
> > Exactly, and the discussion was about references in *that* post. As
> > Tennant has rightly pointed out, there were no references in that post,
> > thus setting Jeremy right who claimed otherwise.
> I didn't precisely claim otherwise, I just assumed it.
> But I still don't understand why what he said he did didn't produce
> references. I mean, it sounds the same as what you'd do to produce a
> reply to an existing post.
It perhaps depends on the news client he's using. While one might use a
selected post as the basis of a reply (ie including the existing references
and adding its message-id to the list, just without quoting anything since
the selected post wasn't actually opened), it's possible that Tennant's
merely sets up a completely new post with the same subject line (which he
then edited).
--
Vince M Hudd - Soft Rock Software
http://www.softrock.co.uk
http://misc.vinceh.com
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
It must depend on it (unless he also edited the outbound post to remove
references before sending it).
I asked which client's involved, because I really am curious.
Steve Fryatt
<2ada64bf50.Broadband@thomas/smith57.ntlworld.com>:
[FreviewHD]
> Although O/T this subject interests me since I am trying to decide on a
> new TV. I was looking for one with built-in FreeSat tuner.
>
> Is the message that this is the wrong direction to go since it may not
> function shortly.
No: Freesat and FreeviewHD are not the same thing. Freesat is the free
satellite service; FreeviewHD is the forthcoming free service via
terrestrial broadcast.
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England
David Holden
On 25-Nov-2009, Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> As of last week, it still hadn't been decided how or even if BBC HD
> would be encrypted, so I doubt it. They don't have long left to
> decide, either!
They're probably waiting for Murdoch to demand that they charge for HD as
it's not fair that anyone should be giving away something on Freesat that he
needs to charge premium rates for :-)
--
David Holden - APDL - <http://www.apdl.co.uk>
Chris Evans
<URL:mailto:ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 24 Nov, T M Smith wrote in message
> <2ada64bf50.Broadband@thomas/smith57.ntlworld.com>:
>
> [FreviewHD]
>
> > Although O/T this subject interests me since I am trying to decide on a
> > new TV. I was looking for one with built-in FreeSat tuner.
> >
> > Is the message that this is the wrong direction to go since it may not
> > function shortly.
>
> No: Freesat and FreeviewHD are not the same thing. Freesat is the free
> satellite service; FreeviewHD is the forthcoming free service via
> terrestrial broadcast.
It is also worth mentioning that there is:
FreeSAT from Sky
FreeSAT from BBC/ITV... www.freesat.co.uk
[1] it used to be freesatfromsky.com but they've now burried it at
http://www.sky.com/portal/site/skycom/skyhelpcentre/producthelp?title=Freesat+from+Sky&nodeId=0
When our FreeView signal went from poor to dire I went for FreeSat from Sky,
I'm planning on moving to the other version when suitable HD PVRs have come
down to a reasonable price.
Dave Plowman (News)
Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> > No: Freesat and FreeviewHD are not the same thing. Freesat is the free
> > satellite service; FreeviewHD is the forthcoming free service via
> > terrestrial broadcast.
> It is also worth mentioning that there is:
> FreeSAT from Sky
> FreeSAT from BBC/ITV... www.freesat.co.uk
> [1] it used to be freesatfromsky.com but they've now burried it at
> http://www.sky.com/portal/site/skycom/skyhelpcentre/producthelp?title=Freesat+from+Sky&nodeId=0
> When our FreeView signal went from poor to dire I went for FreeSat from
> Sky, I'm planning on moving to the other version when suitable HD PVRs
> have come down to a reasonable price.
You don't actually need FreeSat as such - I have an HD satellite tuner
which gets both BBC and ITV HD - as well as some other FTA HD services.
You don't have the same EPG, however. So have to find ITV HD as a channel
number then re-name it.
--
*Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
T M Smith
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <ant25100...@client.cjemicros.co.uk>,
> Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
>> > No: Freesat and FreeviewHD are not the same thing. Freesat is the free
>> > satellite service; FreeviewHD is the forthcoming free service via
>> > terrestrial broadcast.
>
>> It is also worth mentioning that there is:
>> FreeSAT from Sky
>> FreeSAT from BBC/ITV... www.freesat.co.uk
>
>> [1] it used to be freesatfromsky.com but they've now burried it at
>> http://www.sky.com/portal/site/skycom/skyhelpcentre/producthelp?title=
>> Freesat+from+Sky&nodeId=0
>
>> When our FreeView signal went from poor to dire I went for FreeSat from
>> Sky, I'm planning on moving to the other version when suitable HD PVRs
>> have come down to a reasonable price.
>
> You don't actually need FreeSat as such - I have an HD satellite tuner
> which gets both BBC and ITV HD - as well as some other FTA HD services.
> You don't have the same EPG, however. So have to find ITV HD as a channel
> number then re-name it.
>
Thanks Chris, I have learnt more from these sites.
Malcolm
T M Smith
Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 24 Nov, T M Smith wrote in message
> <2ada64bf50.Broadband@thomas/smith57.ntlworld.com>:
>
> [FreviewHD]
>
>> Although O/T this subject interests me since I am trying to decide on a
>> new TV. I was looking for one with built-in FreeSat tuner.
>>
>> Is the message that this is the wrong direction to go since it may not
>> function shortly.
>
> No: Freesat and FreeviewHD are not the same thing. Freesat is the free
> satellite service; FreeviewHD is the forthcoming free service via
> terrestrial broadcast.
>
Thanks for that welcome information. This search for best technology
at an affordable price is enough of a headache already. Samsung LED or
Sony LCD, 100Hz or 200Hz, it question after question????
Rob Kendrick
T M Smith <thomas....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Thanks for that welcome information. This search for best technology
> at an affordable price is enough of a headache already. Samsung LED
> or Sony LCD, 100Hz or 200Hz, it question after question????
Guess who makes all of Sony's panels? :) Buy the Samsung. Sonys are
just Samsungs with a brand tax. (Not to mention the LED-backlit one
will have greater dynamic range and will be much more power efficient.)
B.
T M Smith
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
Rob, I was not aware that Samsung and Sony used the same screens so
that is good to know. I shall put a heavy weighting on your reply
since I have spent the entire evening looking at TV info again.
I think the LG will have to come off my short list as well.
Malcolm
Rob Kendrick
T M Smith <thomas....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Guess who makes all of Sony's panels? :) Buy the Samsung. Sonys
> > are just Samsungs with a brand tax. (Not to mention the
> > LED-backlit one will have greater dynamic range and will be much
> > more power efficient.)
>
> that is good to know. I shall put a heavy weighting on your reply
> since I have spent the entire evening looking at TV info again.
> I think the LG will have to come off my short list as well.
I am completely delighted (although it could boot a bit quicker;
takes about 15 seconds) with my 42" 7-series Samsung. I highly recommend
them for such TVs.
B.
Chris Hughes
Not strictly correct, not all the Sony's uses Samsung panels and even
those that do use Sony's electronics which is what makes the
difference.
In terms of reliability its:
Sony
Panasonic
Samsung
..
..
LG
bottom of pile is
Proline etc.
You really need to compare them in front of you and then decide.
--
Chris Hughes
Rob Kendrick
Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
> Not strictly correct, not all the Sony's uses Samsung panels and even
> those that do use Sony's electronics which is what makes the
> difference.
Most use Samsung panels, and use the driver logic. The power supply
circuitry, tuner and peripheral control may be different. However, fed
with digital video via HDMI or DVI, the signal path is identical.
> In terms of reliability its:
>
> Sony
> Panasonic
> Samsung
I have to say that I've had and heard of far more Sony panels dying or
becoming faulty than either Panasonic or Samsung.
B.
Rob Kendrick
Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> I've yet to see a Samsung that didn't have appallingly bad speakers
Hear, surely? :)
> which is fine if you intend to use a surround sound system with it
> all of the time but otherwise its a deal breaker for me. The speakers
> in the Sony I eventually chose are vastly better.
I don't think I've ever tried the speakers in my Samsung; I didn't even
realise it had any until I just checked! (I use it with a pair of
external speakers [not 5.1] share with my CD player.)
B.
charles
but, if as you say the panels and driver circuitry are identical, how do
you account for that? Perhaps you have more friends who have Sony sets?
I remember, when colour first started, Which? had a survey of reliability
of sets. In that survey, HMV were very unreliable while Ferguson were
quite reliable. Since the electronics were identical, I was puzzled how
they could come to that conclusion. It transpired that this was a
readership survey, in which only 2 people had paid the extra for the wooden
cased HMV (rather than the plastic cased Fergusson) and one of these had a
set which developed a fault. Not the msot reliable statistics. Are yours
equally reliable?
> B.
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
Rob Kendrick
charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > I have to say that I've had and heard of far more Sony panels dying
> > or becoming faulty than either Panasonic or Samsung.
>
> but, if as you say the panels and driver circuitry are identical, how
> do you account for that? Perhaps you have more friends who have Sony
> sets?
Any number of reasons; including poor build quality of casework and
PCBs, bad power supply design, mistreatment in warehouse and factory,
Samsung keeping the better quality panels for them selves, etc etc etc.
B.
Chris Hughes
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:26:15 GMT
> Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
>> Not strictly correct, not all the Sony's uses Samsung panels and even
>> those that do use Sony's electronics which is what makes the
>> difference.
> Most use Samsung panels, and use the driver logic. The power supply
> circuitry, tuner and peripheral control may be different.
They are.
> However, fed
> with digital video via HDMI or DVI, the signal path is identical.
So what, it's the other parts that do all the extra bits and make the
difference between the models. The panels may be the same.
>> In terms of reliability its:
>>
>> Sony
>> Panasonic
>> Samsung
> I have to say that I've had and heard of far more Sony panels dying or
> becoming faulty than either Panasonic or Samsung.
The figures if you want some percentages come from someone who works
to repair all the various makes (big company under contract for most
of the main makes) and has to produce the regular reports for
manufacturers on reliability and failures of one kind or another. (he
did add that the top three always seem to be between 7 and 9% in terms
of failure)
Sony 7%
Panasonic 7.5%
Samsung 9%
LG over 50% (but have started to improve in last 12 months - he
expected it to drop to nearer 30% for next report)
There are the only ones I was given figures for or can remember.
--
Chris Hughes
Rob Kendrick
Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
> > However, fed
> > with digital video via HDMI or DVI, the signal path is identical.
>
> So what, it's the other parts that do all the extra bits and make the
> difference between the models. The panels may be the same.
Except the differences in the parts that are different are so minor as
to be inconsequential, apart from Sony's historically bad PCB and power
supply design.
> The figures if you want some percentages come from someone who works
> to repair all the various makes (big company under contract for most
> of the main makes) and has to produce the regular reports for
> manufacturers on reliability and failures of one kind or another. (he
> did add that the top three always seem to be between 7 and 9% in
> terms of failure)
>
> Sony 7%
> Panasonic 7.5%
> Samsung 9%
These are basically close enough to be statistical variation. And
given that Samsung sells more devices than Sony, the difference slides
into meaninglessness.
B.
Dave Plowman (News)
Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > I don't think I've ever tried the speakers in my Samsung; I didn't even
> > realise it had any until I just checked!
> Is it possible to sell an item described as a 'television' that doesn't
> have a speaker? I wouldn't have thought so however much its obvious that
> some manufacturers (esp. since flat panel TVs) stretch the point to its
> limit.
The ones on mine are detachable. Big enough to sound reasonable, and if
you want to use better can be removed so only the screen shows. Seems a
good compromise.
--
*60-year-old, one owner - needs parts, make offer
Bill (Adopt)
Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <50bd22f...@billsimpson.com>,
> "Bill (Adopt)" <ad...@billsimpson.com> wrote:
> > btw.. is there a reason for posting to three groups?
> > (!Puto's wondering).
> Tell !Pluto that he can't count; I posted to *two* groups. :P
> What happened was I started by clicking on "Download difficulties"
> to start off a new thread, changed 'ownload' to F and added a P.
> The original was cross-posted to AAV/CSAM, so I let it stand.
Ha! OK.. :))
I've told !Pluto, but it just sits and sort of looks
at me ..blank like..
As long as there's no problem.. :))
--
Adoption InterLink UK with -=- http://www.billsimpson.com/
Domain Host Orpheus Internet -=- http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
Rob Kendrick
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <50c066...@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > > I don't think I've ever tried the speakers in my Samsung; I
> > > didn't even realise it had any until I just checked!
>
> > Is it possible to sell an item described as a 'television' that
> > doesn't have a speaker? I wouldn't have thought so however much its
> > obvious that some manufacturers (esp. since flat panel TVs) stretch
> > the point to its limit.
>
> The ones on mine are detachable. Big enough to sound reasonable, and
> if you want to use better can be removed so only the screen shows.
> Seems a good compromise.
The ones on my Samsung are on the rear of the set, facing the wall.
Which means they're invisible, but I suspect it also means they're
going to sound quite weedy.
B.
Rob Kendrick
Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <20091126110...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> > I don't think I've ever tried the speakers in my Samsung; I didn't
> > even realise it had any until I just checked!
>
> Is it possible to sell an item described as a 'television' that
> doesn't have a speaker? I wouldn't have thought so however much its
> obvious that some manufacturers (esp. since flat panel TVs) stretch
> the point to its limit.
Wouldn't that be a teleaudiovision? :) Anyway, I bought mine from a hi
fi shop, and it simply didn't occur to me at all to investigate any
speakers built-in.
B.
Graham Thurlwell
On the 20 Nov 2009, Paul Stewart <pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <na.2f11c750bd...@orpheusmail.co.uk>
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>> However, !PDF totally ignores this file. Any suggestions?
> !GView doesn't like it either, claiming xref section interpretation
> error
I've seen the same error with the Install Guide PDF that came with our
Netgear WN111v2 wireless dongle, but the other PDFs load OK with !PDF.
--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
nos...@jades.org is currently broken, please reply on group!
Martin Wuerthner
Graham Thurlwell <nos...@jades.org> wrote:
> [a.a.v removed as my news server doesn't carry it]
> On the 20 Nov 2009, Paul Stewart <pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <na.2f11c750bd...@orpheusmail.co.uk>
>> Tennant Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
>>> However, !PDF totally ignores this file. Any suggestions?
>> !GView doesn't like it either, claiming xref section interpretation
>> error
> I've seen the same error with the Install Guide PDF that came with our
> Netgear WN111v2 wireless dongle, but the other PDFs load OK with !PDF.
So they use different PDF versions. As I have explained earlier in the
thread, only PDF 1.5 files with cross reference streams and without a
pre-1.5 xref section cause that problem.
Martin
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner MW Software http://www.mw-software.com/
ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier
spam...@mw-software.com [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
Dave Symes
Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
[Snippy]
> So by that usage of the word you could sell binoculars as a television.
> Somehow I think trading standards would have a different argument in
> either case.
> Bob.
But I think a TV would need a somewahat larger case than binoculars. ;-)
dave
--
Dave Triffid
Alan Griffin
Stuart <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote:
> > If you drag it in to PDFView it opens with a completly blank white
> > page. If you then export this page as a drawfile, it appears as if
> > by magic!
> I know it's full of TV stuff, but have you not read this thread, Alan?
> The thing to do is hit CTRL-T to produce the familiar toolbar, then
> do a CRTL-V to show the vector text. If you click the MENU button
> over the window and go through View > Choices... you can save these
> as default.
Done that! Thanks!
Alan
Dave Plowman (News)
Relying on a wall to bounce the sound back is a bit variable to say the
least. Most don't live in a bare box.
But TV sets since the '50s have always had pretty poor speakers. What most
want apparently is only the actual screen. However good speakers will
outlast several generations of TVs - since they don't change in design
every couple of years.
I'm certain that many of the complaints about TV sound - background music
being too loud etc - are actually down to the poor speakers and sometimes
amps in the actual set. And that's before you introduce things like
'enhanced' stereo etc which some makers fit in an attempt to compensate
for inadequate speakers and their position.
Oh dear - OT again. ;-)
--
*Of course I'm against sin; I'm against anything that I'm too old to enjoy.
Rob Kendrick
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm certain that many of the complaints about TV sound - background
> music being too loud etc - are actually down to the poor speakers and
> sometimes amps in the actual set. And that's before you introduce
> things like 'enhanced' stereo etc which some makers fit in an attempt
> to compensate for inadequate speakers and their position.
I don't doubt it. Although the speakers I use with my TV most likely
have twice the TV's volume (in terms of space, not loudness :), so I
suspect the problem has only become worse as televisions have gotten
thinner: nobody wants to put electrostatic speakers in them :)
B.
Tim Hill
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm certain that many of the complaints about TV sound - background
> music being too loud etc - are actually down to the poor speakers and
> sometimes amps in the actual set. And that's before you introduce
> things like 'enhanced' stereo etc which some makers fit in an attempt
> to compensate for inadequate speakers and their position.
Probably true and due also to the young people in edit suites listening
to playback on Rolls Royce kit with perfect hearing kit whilst we have a
Smart car with the window open and tinnitus. I wonder how many production
staff at the beeb still insist that sound engineers play back their stuff
on relatively crappy equipment too. Not BBC Wales, obviously. Russell T.
Davies dropped the ball and his co-producer told POV complainers they
were wrong. What an arrogant Tw@. She needs to look up 'incidental' in a
dictionary and learn that we don't all have 5.1 and the ability to
correct their mistakes. Methinks they have been listening to Stargate and
others in the genre and assume we all want to be blasted from our seats
by music which doesn't even need to be there. Compare a theatre.
I wonder what was shouted by David Tennant et al in the latest Who. I
shall probably never know. The first episode since 1963 that I missed
hearing all of. :-(
In an attempt to drag this back into RISC OS land...I shall always
remember the remarkable results playing sound fx from an Archimedes over
a big PA in a huge venue. We had to filter out a lot of background noise
but the results were professional enough for our mock quiz show. A pity
nobody has ported Audacity to RISC OS though I understand the many
reasons why not.
--
Tim Hill
------------
tjrh.eu
Russell Hafter News
Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <50c13e7...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
> <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > I'm certain that many of the complaints about TV sound
> > - background music being too loud etc - are actually
> > down to the poor speakers and sometimes amps in the
> > actual set. And that's before you introduce things like
> > 'enhanced' stereo etc which some makers fit in an
> > attempt to compensate for inadequate speakers and their
> > position.
> Probably true and due also to the young people in edit
> suites listening to playback on Rolls Royce kit with
> perfect hearing kit whilst we have a Smart car with the
> window open and tinnitus.
Surely the place for adjustment of levels for this sort of
situation should be in the receiving kit, not at the
broadcast end.
Some people do pay a fortune for very high end kit in their
homes, on the understanding that what is broadcast should
have a full dynamic range.
Car radios, in particular, must be a big enough market for
the development of circuitry and / or software that can
adjust this for when we listen with the windows open.
--
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
Andre
"Rob Kendrick" <nn...@rjek.com> wrote in message
news:20091126110...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net...
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:26:15 GMT
> Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Not strictly correct, not all the Sony's uses Samsung panels and even
>> those that do use Sony's electronics which is what makes the
>> difference.
>
> Most use Samsung panels, and use the driver logic. The power supply
> circuitry, tuner and peripheral control may be different. However, fed
> with digital video via HDMI or DVI, the signal path is identical.
Still having an old CRT TV which I will have to replace soon
I often read the tests of TVs in internet magazines.
If we are speaking TVs here, you have to take into account all the signal
post-processing circuitry like dynamic contrast, motionflow, etc.
I'm often told that most of these "corrections" like dynamic contrast
makes the rendering often less natural and it's better to be turned off
(which according to reviews from lesnumeriques.com, is not possible
on some recent Samsung models without invalidating the warranty),
but I guess that's it will depend on the user's preferences.
Another thing to take into account is the scaling of sources
not using the native resolution of the LCD panels,
something well known to any RISC OS user which connects
his old machines to an LCD monitor.
The case will occur for anything beside playing a blue-ray disc:
- either the connection is not HD aware (cable TV, antenna,
old DVD players) and the TV has to do the scaling.
- or the player is HD aware and it can either do the scaling
itself or leave it to the TV.
According to all test I've read so far the Sony 5500 series
provides a marginally better image than the rest but also
does a far better job at scaling non native-resolutions.
Also, as stated in another post, if you don't want
to invest into an home theater system, but use the TV's
internal speakers: it should be noted that LCDs TVs,
like the Samsungs, have far worse speakers than the old CRT
models. Sony is usually rate as so-so but some Philips models
are noted for having decent sound.
Regarding to LED TVs, so far the concensus seems to be,
not worth the price difference. Image quality remains
glabally the same (it's just an LCD panel with a different
back-lighting system), with a little improvement to contrast
(as usual the stated numbers are pure bullshit) and
a usually slightly lower power consumption (for the Ecolos,
the only models that are drastically better here are
the new Sharp E600/E700 series but that seem to be
their only good feature).
Andr�
Rob Kendrick
"Andre" <andre....@siemens.com> wrote:
> I'm often told that most of these "corrections" like dynamic contrast
> makes the rendering often less natural and it's better to be turned
> off (which according to reviews from lesnumeriques.com, is not
> possible on some recent Samsung models without invalidating the
> warranty), but I guess that's it will depend on the user's
> preferences.
I have mine in "just scan" mode, which does appear to do what you're
wanting. It's in the menu system on the TV, so it might be worth
asking a sales guy in a shop if you can have the remote and have a hunt
around.
B.
Dave Plowman (News)
> <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > I'm certain that many of the complaints about TV sound - background
> > music being too loud etc - are actually down to the poor speakers and
> > sometimes amps in the actual set. And that's before you introduce
> > things like 'enhanced' stereo etc which some makers fit in an attempt
> > to compensate for inadequate speakers and their position.
> Probably true and due also to the young people in edit suites listening
> to playback on Rolls Royce kit with perfect hearing kit whilst we have a
> Smart car with the window open and tinnitus.
Actually most edit suites have less than perfect sound monitoring. These
days they're more often than not a temporary affair for the duration of
the series being made - so just a pile of equipment dumped in an office
somewhere. With all the noisy fan cooled stuff in the same room. Those
palatial edit suites are more the thing for commercials.
> I wonder how many production
> staff at the beeb still insist that sound engineers play back their stuff
> on relatively crappy equipment too.
Big snag is just how crappy do you make it? And do you then try and
balance things so they sound their best on that - to the possible
detriment of someone who is using adequate equipment? Rob gave a perfect
example - reward firing speakers. If you made the sound 'bright' enough
for those squirting into thick curtains it would be excessive on forward
facing ones.
> Not BBC Wales, obviously. Russell T.
> Davies dropped the ball and his co-producer told POV complainers they
> were wrong. What an arrogant Tw@. She needs to look up 'incidental' in a
> dictionary and learn that we don't all have 5.1 and the ability to
> correct their mistakes. Methinks they have been listening to Stargate and
> others in the genre and assume we all want to be blasted from our seats
> by music which doesn't even need to be there. Compare a theatre.
That is another problem. How it is going to be listened to. Some will want
to concentrate on a prog and can appreciate subtleties. Others will have
half an ear on things but still expect to hear every word.
> I wonder what was shouted by David Tennant et al in the latest Who. I
> shall probably never know. The first episode since 1963 that I missed
> hearing all of. :-(
I actually worked on Ep 1 in '63 - it was made twice. I worked on the
second one made in Riverside Studios.
> In an attempt to drag this back into RISC OS land...I shall always
> remember the remarkable results playing sound fx from an Archimedes over
> a big PA in a huge venue. We had to filter out a lot of background noise
> but the results were professional enough for our mock quiz show. A pity
> nobody has ported Audacity to RISC OS though I understand the many
> reasons why not.
The RPC has pretty poor sound - lots of extraneous background noise. So
you'd need to add a decent sound card too. The Irlam is ok if you have the
digital in/out one. But I do some simple editing on the RPC using WavEdit
or SampleEd. Same sort of fun as driving an Austin 7. ;-)
--
*Gargling is a good way to see if your throat leaks.
Dave Plowman (News)
Andre <andre....@siemens.com> wrote:
> Regarding to LED TVs, so far the concensus seems to be,
> not worth the price difference. Image quality remains
> glabally the same (it's just an LCD panel with a different
> back-lighting system), with a little improvement to contrast
> (as usual the stated numbers are pure bullshit) and
> a usually slightly lower power consumption (for the Ecolos,
> the only models that are drastically better here are
> the new Sharp E600/E700 series but that seem to be
> their only good feature).
I've not had prolonged experience of one - but a pal who is a lighting
director and also a RISC OS user has - and wasn't impressed. Seems they
are incapable of reproducing accurate flesh tones. So have much in common
with many modern sets. ;-)
--
*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me.
Dave Plowman (News)
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> Car radios, in particular, must be a big enough market for
> the development of circuitry and / or software that can
> adjust this for when we listen with the windows open.
And of course DAB was designed to include just this. But has a very low
penetration in the ICE market. I'm the only person I know with a DAB car
radio. ;-) Round the London area reception is extremely good - far better
than FM in the parts with tall buildings. But that's what it was designed
for anyway.
--
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *
Rob Kendrick
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>> <LED TVs>
> I've not had prolonged experience of one - but a pal who is a lighting
> director and also a RISC OS user has - and wasn't impressed. Seems
> they are incapable of reproducing accurate flesh tones. So have much
> in common with many modern sets. ;-)
But they do have the advantage in the better models that they can
actually reproduce black, which CRTs and cold-cathode LCDs can't.
B.
Rob Kendrick
It's a shame neither of the USB stacks support isochronous transfers;
there are many excellent USB sound cards out there. I have a little 24
bit/96kHz thingy that cost about 50 quid. It's only got an
(advertised) 100db SNR, so it's scarcely worth using more than 16 bits,
but it performs remarkably well, and better than almost every internal
sound system I've head. (Basically, better than everything until you
get up to Lynx's products, and such.)
B.
Rob Kendrick
Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > But they do have the advantage in the better models that they can
> > actually reproduce black, which CRTs and cold-cathode LCDs can't.
>
> Well yes and no, as I understand it.
>
> Yes, in the absolute sense that LEDS can be turned off and hence you
> have black. The question is though, which LEDs? All of them? No
> problem, we have black but no picture information.
It's about the number of LEDs you have, and what control you have over
them. For example, some better panels have fine enough control to be
able to disable the back-lighting on letter-boxed video, meaning you
don't get that glow above and below the picture.
B.
Dave Plowman (News)
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> > I've not had prolonged experience of one - but a pal who is a lighting
> > director and also a RISC OS user has - and wasn't impressed. Seems
> > they are incapable of reproducing accurate flesh tones. So have much
> > in common with many modern sets. ;-)
> But they do have the advantage in the better models that they can
> actually reproduce black, which CRTs and cold-cathode LCDs can't.
CRTs can and do produce black by turning off the phosphors. In the same
way as the LEDs are turned off. But since those phosphors make up the
pixels or whatever they do it rather more accurately.
--
*Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them *
druck
[A load of inaccurate second hand conjecture about TVs]
If this wasn't a topic about PDFs on a RISC OS newsgroups, I'd put you
right about everything you've written, but it is. Why not go to an AV
forum where it will all be explained by people with actual knowledge of
the issues.
---druck
Rob Kendrick
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <20091130153...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> > > I've not had prolonged experience of one - but a pal who is a
> > > lighting director and also a RISC OS user has - and wasn't
> > > impressed. Seems they are incapable of reproducing accurate flesh
> > > tones. So have much in common with many modern sets. ;-)
>
> > But they do have the advantage in the better models that they can
> > actually reproduce black, which CRTs and cold-cathode LCDs can't.
>
> CRTs can and do produce black by turning off the phosphors. In the
> same way as the LEDs are turned off. But since those phosphors make
> up the pixels or whatever they do it rather more accurately.
You're quite right, this was a complete braino; I meant plasmas, which
can suffer significant light leakage between bordering cells.
B.