Black Friday's sales suck
Lawyerkill
Uncle_vito
hate crowds so totally skip shopping on BF or any weekend. Life is good.
Vito
"Lawyerkill" <Lawye...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:27fadf47-eebc-4449...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Last year was better.
>
bob wald
to watch it.
and you pay 3times to get it serviced..thats where you pay for big
screen tvs.......lol
plus the high electic usage.
they got you n didnt even use lub.....lol
Lawyerkill
> Just bought a 50 inch 1080p �Plasma for $800. � �Pre black friday sale. I
> hate crowds so totally skip shopping on BF or any weekend. � Life is good.
>
> Vito
>
>
> news:27fadf47-eebc-4449...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Last year was better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A few years ago I purchased a 47 inch LCD TV on black Friday at BJ's.
I got to the store about an hour before they openned, there was
already a line.
It was about 25 degress out and very windy, with nothing to block the
wind. By the time the stores openned I was frozen in place and if it
wasn't for all the people behind me pushing I think I would still be
frozen there untill springtime.
Uncle_vito
I just smoked a Turkey. I am glad they explained it more to me. I was
ready to light it and put it in my mouth.
BTW I had been waiting on HD TV for years since I only watch it for sports.
and the total system price was not worth it.
Now with prices down, it makes sense. Power consumption is not an issue
because it will not be ON all the time. We also have a 32 inch LCD upstairs
that we have had for a while. I want to compare LCD to Plasma even with the
different sizes.
Vito
"bob wald" <bob36...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26231-4B0...@storefull-3113.bay.webtv.net...
bob wald
i just bought a 32in lcd....$439......with a disc player.
i figure the disc players worth $139.....so,
rca.
i bought it right when the tv signal changed.
i was going to buy a 45in until i thought about it.
thats how i know about all the extras you gotta pay to bo big.
32s just right for my sized room any ways....
i sat on the front row at the movies once...uugghh....it was hell.....
youll find out with that 50inch tv...haHAhaHahAHAhA.........
i bought my tv at waimart....a 2yr service contract $30....the bigger
tvs were $69....
thats a steal compared to the service charges youll pay on big tvs......
Lawyerkill
> i bought my tv at waimart....a 2yr service contract $30....the bigger
> tvs were $69....
> thats a steal compared to the service charges youll pay on big tvs......
The biggest problem for me to over come before buying my LCD TV was
the idea that I may have to pay someone to repair it at sometime.
I can't remember when I ever had to pay anyone to repair anything
electronic.
Now if you're lucky enough to find the bad part, you can hardly see it
on the circuit board let alone find a replacement for it.
Gone are the days of going down to the tube tester at the drug store,
testing the tubes and asking the guy to get you a replacement for a
bad 5U4.
shortT
The most likely to fail component on an LCD screen is the back-light.
If you purchase an LCD screen that has an LED back-light then you can
extend it's life
by many years.
shortT
-=DirtBag©
Thats old tech Vito! Take it back and buy something newer. Stop buying
the discount OLD tech crap, and get the new stuff Dude <smile>
-=DirtBag©
http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-un55b8500/4505-6482_7-33740174.html?tag=centerColumnArea2.1
This is the good stuff Vito. Easy to view and great dark ratios. I
found plasma too heavy and they break easily. LCD back lit is the new
big deal I read. Super HD with the huge contract ratios. 100000:1
200000:1 is now available. Samsung is nice.
Uncle_vito
take all the tubes to the tube tester at the supermarket and then buy new
tubes to replace the failed. My grandmother couldn't believe I could
repair TV's when I was 12 years old. I since became an electronic engineer.
My plasma TV cost me $1000. That is like 500 shares of AAPL up $2.00. How
many times has AAPL been up $2.. About 50 times if you count the run from
$100 to $200.
You know what that means if my TV quits and the repair bill is huge? TV
goes into the crapper and I buy another one.
I know I do not have the latest tech. Latest tech changes everyday. I
suppose if you went out and bought a projection system for $10,000 on a
giant screen you would have the ultimate.
LCD TV's have poor off-angle viewing. Low dynamic range (even with LED's)
and have fast motion issues. However I have an LCD 32 incher for upstairs.
For downstairs, I have the larger Plasma 50.
My son works the sound at the TV show Extra. He has both a Plasma and LCD
TV at home because their benefits/deficiencies are different. Movies are
best on LCDs. Sports on Plasma, IN GENERAL.
He also recommends getting all your TV cables such as HDMI cables at
Monoprice.com.
Vito
"Lawyerkill" <Lawye...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:57ff09a3-0ce2-49fb...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Lawyerkill
> Last year was better.
OK, so I break down and go to Walmart at 4AM this morning to buy a HP
Laptop they had for $ 298.00. By the time I got there the line was a
mile long. I waited in line for about 10 minutes and found out that
they handed out about 20 tickets to buy these laptops to the people
that were already in line since about 10PM the night before and there
were no more left.
Gawd, I hate Santa
Lawyerkill
Well thinking about it, I never like to use HP test equipment anyway.
Always found their scopes to be cheap crap.
The Visitor
I am mainly a movie person, are you sure about the LCD?
John
"Uncle_vito" <uncle_v...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:S-6dnXWoCdQn0ZLW...@linkline.com...
ausound
07bc68...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
> Gawd, I hate Santa
I hear he's gonna be sittin' in a chair at da Mall
go kick his ass
Lawyerkill
> Last year was better.
They was just showing the parking lots of the malls here in Jersey and
they are still packed.
Lawyerkill
> Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote in news:166f4518-d810-4194-b7d4-
> 07bc687ae...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Gawd, I hate Santa
>
> I hear he's gonna be sittin' in a chair at da Mall
>
> go kick his ass
My granddaughter would disown me.
Uncle_vito
thumb but I could be mistaken.
I do know LCD had problems with fast motion. Now where do you see the
faster motion? Live sports or movies. I guess you could say movies.
However many movies are not 'filmed' in HD. They are converted to HD from
movie film (24 frames per second stuff). I know there is something involved
with this conversion to 720p and 1080i and how fast motion converts. This
issue likely applies to both plasma and LCD.
I think it is the speed of the LCD crystals changing. I have seen some
advertisements promoting this speed improvement on LCD;s lending me to
believe that this is/was an issue.
My son who works for the XTRA TV show has both LCD and Plasma TV's and
stated that LCD looks great with a great signal and lousy with a bad signal.
Plasma looks good with any signal. Not sure you can make a buying decision
with that comment, though.
I essentially got my plasma because it was the biggest screen for a
reasonable amount of money. I do not think you will go wrong regardless of
what you buy/have.
Vito
"The Visitor" <aksjhdfl...@hfjdakl.com> wrote in message
news:%fSPm.20955$gd1....@newsfe05.iad...
Uncle_vito
Also the Santa Claus rally is coming up.
Vito
"Lawyerkill" <Lawye...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c211f527-56b1-46fc...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Lawyerkill
>
> I do know LCD had problems with fast motion. �Now where do you see the
> faster motion? �Live sports or movies. �I guess you could say movies.
> However many movies are not 'filmed' in HD. �They are converted to HD from
> movie film (24 frames per second stuff). �I know there is something involved
> with this conversion to 720p and 1080i and how fast motion converts. �This
> issue likely applies to both plasma and LCD.
>
You know back around 1972 when I was up at IBM we were playing with
LCD panel displays, but they only showed digits. You could watch the
digits on a clock change they was so slow. I never pictured LCD TV. I
felt the same about CMOS logic, it would never over take TTL and if
you wanted real speed the only way to go was ECL.
Maybe in the next 10 years we will have 3D TV where you're in the
middle of the action.
Blash
Can you picture buffy in a Santa outfit at the mall???........
With his charm & charisma, some little old lady would beat the shit outta
him within 5 minutes.......
shortT
I remember those displays.
Some were sophisticated and you could create your own characters in an
8 by 8 matrix.
Had 7 bit interface and a pin to control the brightness.
Man those were the days.
shortT
Blash
> Man those were the days.
I'm buying a 55" set.......spent some time researching and ended up talking
with 3 guys who all came up with the same conclusions.......
Plasma is on it's last legs......Forget it........
LCD with LED backlighting is the best way to go now.......
They ALL recommended Samsung......
shortT
Good choice.
Plasma is old technology and prone to pixel failure.
A better choice would be an Organic-Led but they are hard to find and
very expensive.
They would be the most reliable since they do not require a back-light
at all.
shortT
-=DirtBag©
Any recommended sites for this Organic-Led tech? I have read a little
about it and am interested in what the talk is..
-=DirtBag©
This is what I am talking about! This is the good stuff and Samsung is
the Big Dick Daddy on the BIG TV's.
shortT
I saw one not too long ago at a Sony store. I think it was 28" It
looked amazing.
I found this link on Google video.
shortT
Blash
I want it now......NOT 2015......
http://tinyurl.com/yh7r6oa
shortT
True, after all you want to enjoy it before the world ends :)
I looked for the one I saw at the Sony store but this tiny one is all
I could find.
shortT
bob wald
bob wald
stores..but it was too cold for me to wait late at night to get in to
get them before they were gone.....lol
i didnt wanna wait n get nothing like
you.....hAHAhahAHAHahaHAHahaHAHahaHAHahAHAHahAHAHahaHA!!!!!!!!!
Blash
> True, after all you want to enjoy it before the world ends :)
> I looked for the one I saw at the Sony store but this tiny one is all
> I could find.
You read too many posts from our "Headcases"......
Size DOES Matter!!!
-=DirtBag©
Nice. I will upgrade for that. But till then I am good with what I have.
Uncle_vito
table.
Vito
"bob wald" <bob36...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3427-4B1...@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
bob wald
pre bf sale.....lol
thats a day to bring shoppers in like bf is.its the same thing...how
stupid are these people..hAHAhahAHa........
shortT
LOL
You just have to sit closer to it.
shortT
Uncle_vito
LCDs and the fact that the first plasmas sold are now about 9 years old, the
retailers are trying to not only bring in new HD buyers but replacers of
previous HD sets. LCD is the logical mode since the first sets were Plasma.
As far as I am concerned, TV programming is so shitty that I will only spend
a max of $1000 on HD TV. So I went for the biggest picture for $1000
because BIGGER IS ALWAYS BETTER. Plasma fit the bill.
I just saw the Star Trek movie on my Blue Ray player. Seems the movie is
wider than 16:9. I still have bands at the top and bottom of my 50 inch
screen. Also means is not using all 1080 horizontal lines. For these
reasons get the biggest screen you can afford (your view movie will be
smaller) and get 1080P. Lots of cheap plasmas with 720p but likely should
pass on those, same for LCDs.
Also stores being more PC selling LCD since do not want to anger the
government folks who want to force HD TV power consumption.
Vito
"Blash" <bla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C735DF66.DB14D%bla...@comcast.net...
Lawyerkill
>
> Also stores being more PC selling LCD since do not want to anger the
> government folks who want to force HD TV power consumption.
>
Cash for HDTV's
Lawyerkill
> Last year was better.
Well at lease sales are up for black Friday
Uncle_vito
http://led-tv.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/
"Uncle_vito" <uncle_v...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6fGdnTf8W8vbkJPW...@linkline.com...
> Just bought a 50 inch 1080p Plasma for $800. Pre black friday sale. I
> hate crowds so totally skip shopping on BF or any weekend. Life is good.
>
> Vito
>
>
> "Lawyerkill" <Lawye...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:27fadf47-eebc-4449...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> Last year was better.
>>
>
>
>
Bill Reid
>
> Not sure why Plasma is on its last legs.
>
>
straight on a whole bunch of things in this thread...
I just got back from vacation, and had to pick up some
crap from Target for next week. As I quite often do when
I shop at Target, I torment myself by looking at the current
price of the LCD TV I bought about a year ago (as of
today, I'm out $150 for buying a year ago). So I'm in
the TV department, and notice they have two 46 inch
TVs side-by-side, one LCD, the other plasma.
Now according to MOST measurements of picture
quality, such as color rendition and saturation, contrast
ratio, viewing angles, motion refresh, plasma is superior,
even after all the tremendous improvements made
in LCDs over the last few years (they used to be
completely worthless, not surprising considering
trying to make LCD technology display a video
picture is the engineering equivalent of using
plastic surgery to make Rosie O'Donnell a sex
symbol).
But here's the problem, why practically nobody
buys plasma anymore, and PARTICULARLY why
they don't buy them in Target. Plasma pictures
are DIM, kind of like a 30-year-old CRT TV with
about 85% of its phosphors burned out, and of
necessity have to use a very reflective screen
to put out as much light as possible, which does
a TREMENDOUS job of reflecting distracting
ambient light back at YOU, the hapless plasma
viewer.
Now in Target, they just have all the TVs in one
section of the store on the same kind of racks as
mouthwash with no special treatment, in contrast
to the electronics superstore about threee blocks
from here, where they have the TVs in this special
dimly-lit area, and they furthermore mostly marshall
the plasmas to a VERY dark area so it's hard to
tell how DIM the plasmas are compared to the
LCDs. So in Target, looking at the two 46-inch
TVs side-by-side under the brilliant flourescent
store lights, it's no contest: the plasma looks
hopelessly dark and is reflecting all those brilliant
flourescent store lights right back at you
instead of the picture. And the LCD is just
the opposite, the picture is brilliantly bright and
not a trace of reflection, even though it is right
next to the plasma.
But that's not all, cuz there's another problem.
Another rap on plasma is they have had trouble
building "Blu-Ray" 1080 definition screens, so
the plasma is only 720 and the LCD is the full
1080, and you practially count the chunky pixels
in the plasma (they are more obvious in plasma
due to their construction in the first place) while
the LCD is seamlessly high-definition.
And then there's the unexpected killer: the plasma
is priced at $899, the LCD at $879, negating the
conventional wisdom that for a given screen size,
plasma is cheaper. Any wonder then that for the
"Target audience" (not necessarily the hard-core
"home theater" people), they ain't selling many
plasmas, and by this time next year I would
expect they will not have ANY plasmas for sale.
>
> Obviously from the sale prices of
> LCDs and the fact that the first plasmas sold are now about 9 years old, the
> retailers are trying to not only bring in new HD buyers but replacers of
> previous HD sets. LCD is the logical mode since the first sets were Plasma.
>
Well, I don't know what you're trying to say here, no do I
understand what you said your son the AV technician said
about "plasma always has a good picture no matter what
the signal quality"--if that wasn't a misquote of him by
you, I'm thinking he's to AV technology what Jason "Please
Excuse All My Defaults Cuz I'se Retarded" Tenenbaum
is to the practice of law...
>
> As far as I am concerned, TV programming is so shitty that I will only spend
> a max of $1000 on HD TV.
>
Well, here you raise a good point...what's the point of
"HDTV" in the first place? Do you really need to see every
zit on the "ShamWow!(TM)" guy's face?
>
> So I went for the biggest picture for $1000
> because BIGGER IS ALWAYS BETTER. Plasma fit the bill.
>
At the local electronics superstore, they had a very nice 52 inch
Mitsubishi LCD on sale for $900 a few weeks back , which brings
me to my next correction to this thread, the idea that you have to
stand in line with other media-addlepated morons on "Black Friday"
to get a great deal on stuff...ATTENTION K-MART HYPNOTIZED
IDIOTS, RETAILERS HAVE BETTER SALES ALL YEAR ROUND.
For example, I'm viewing this thread on my 23-inch HP 1080
flat screen monitor, which I bought less than a year ago at no
particular sale time for the whopping price of ONE HUNDRED
TWENTY FRIGGIN' BUX at the electronics superstore,
discounted from the usual list price of like $260. Works
just great as a monitor, and also reasonably well as a "Blu Ray"
quality TV, which I use it for all the time since the facist
Obama administration, under the leadership of his
Sino-Japano-Koreo-Malaysio one-world masters, invalidated
my little portable TV I watched in my home office by
depriving me of my beloved analog TV and forcing me
to switch to the commie "digital TV"...
>
> I just saw the Star Trek movie on my Blue Ray player. Seems the movie is
> wider than 16:9. I still have bands at the top and bottom of my 50 inch
> screen. Also means is not using all 1080 horizontal lines. For these
> reasons get the biggest screen you can afford (your view movie will be
> smaller) and get 1080P.
>
Well, no, not necessarily, although I tend to agree that
"letter-boxing" is annoying. Let me tell you about some
"secret" technology I use to view digital TV a LOT of the
time, technology that is so superior to LCD and plasma
that I will likely not even turn on the LCD in my living
room tonight even though I will be vegging out watching
a lot of TV to decompress from my travel day; rather
I will preferentially use this other display technology
located right under the LCD, technology that when
people who see it who aren't familiar with it are amazed
at the color and clarity and contrast and brilliance
of the picture, and they even remark that it seems like
it's a 3D picture, there is such a sense of presence
and depth of objects in the picture.
Of course, I am talking about the display technology
developed by the brilliant Russian comrade Andrei
Zworkin, then stolen by the capitalist pig theif Philo
T. Farnsworth, called a "cathode ray tube". Like
plasma, it uses luminescent phosphors, but shoots
them with 50,000 volts to make them glow brightly
unlike the weak-ass voltages in the dim plasmas.
Now for almost all "standard definition" TV, and for
badly converted HD TV with a lot of artifacting, my
26 inch CRT has a MUCH better picture than the
MUCH LARGER 1080 LCD, which looks all fuzzy
and washed out and pixellated in comparison.
This is just a VERY GOOD TV, but still just a
TV, it is NOT a HD "fine-pitch" monitor (the only
slightly special "trick" is that it accepts and I feed
it "s-video" input so it has a exceptionally crystal-clear
picture free of chrominance sub-carrier intermodulation
noise), but for everything EXCEPT very well-converted HD
content it looks MUCH better, though SMALLER
and "low" definition, and a large part of that is
the brilliant rendering of colors and high contrast
ratio that a good CRT is capable of.
So the bottom line is, if you haven't figured it
out: you may have just wasted the $1000 if you
just want to watch TV...god knows I don't need
a HD TV to watch the friggin' cartoons I'm watching
tonight, like "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy",
even though the idiots at "The Simpsons" are
now producing it in 4:3 UNsafe wide-screen HD...
>
> Also stores being more PC selling LCD since do not want to anger the
> government folks who want to force HD TV power consumption.
>
That would be the commie "Uncle Arnie" Schwarzenegger,
who along with his socialist buddy Obama is trying to force
innocent god-fearing Calieearforniaans to buy solar-powered
TVs under orders from their Sino-Japano-Koreo-Malaysio
one-world masters...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: about 15 million less than all the people who
had most or all of their free broadcast TV stolen from them
by the facist Obama administration
shortT
> I just got back from vacation,
Well... all good things come to an end.
shortT
Uncle_vito
http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv-plasmavslcd.shtml
I know about 1 year ago I compared LCD to Plasma and preferred LCD.
However, last week, in the darkened Best Buy, both LCD and Plasma looked
the same. For max contrast, the LCD needs an LED backlight. Then you see
LCD get more pricey than Plasma.
Later (idiots?)
Vito
"Bill Reid" <horme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:98a182e3-046b-4daf...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Bill Reid
>
> Can you picture buffy in a Santa outfit at the mall???........
> With his charm & charisma, some little old lady would beat the shit outta
> him within 5 minutes.......
>
beating is necessary...she might try to beat it back INTO
him, however...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: much less than the yearly gallon count
of "Buffy" diarrhea
The Visitor
One thing I noticed in comparing the two. Plasma has better dark detail. LCD
jsut goes black but the plasma showes some detail in the darkest areas. I
did play with the lcd and lower the contrast too. And tried to increase the
contrast on the plasma to see if it would loose the detail and display a
pure black sooned. The black seems nicer but too much goes black when it
shouldn't. So I do tend to favour plasma. I will get one with at least 4
hdmi inputs too.
John
"Uncle_vito" <uncle_v...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:l9OdnT4dLeRdhI3W...@linkline.com...
> No I am not sure. I get Home Theater Magazine and try to develop rules of
> thumb but I could be mistaken.
>
> I do know LCD had problems with fast motion. Now where do you see the
> faster motion? Live sports or movies. I guess you could say movies.
> However many movies are not 'filmed' in HD. They are converted to HD from
> movie film (24 frames per second stuff). I know there is something
> involved with this conversion to 720p and 1080i and how fast motion
> converts. This issue likely applies to both plasma and LCD.
>
> I think it is the speed of the LCD crystals changing. I have seen some
> advertisements promoting this speed improvement on LCD;s lending me to
> believe that this is/was an issue.
>
> My son who works for the XTRA TV show has both LCD and Plasma TV's and
> stated that LCD looks great with a great signal and lousy with a bad
> signal. Plasma looks good with any signal. Not sure you can make a buying
> decision with that comment, though.
>
> I essentially got my plasma because it was the biggest screen for a
> reasonable amount of money. I do not think you will go wrong regardless
> of what you buy/have.
>
> Vito
>
>
> "The Visitor" <aksjhdfl...@hfjdakl.com> wrote in message
> news:%fSPm.20955$gd1....@newsfe05.iad...
>> Movies are better on LCD? Somebody was telling me the opposite?
>> I am mainly a movie person, are you sure about the LCD?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> "Uncle_vito" <uncle_v...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:S-6dnXWoCdQn0ZLW...@linkline.com...
>>>I used to repair my grandmothers TV when I was about 12 years old. Would
>>>take all the tubes to the tube tester at the supermarket and then buy new
>>>tubes to replace the failed. My grandmother couldn't believe I could
>>>repair TV's when I was 12 years old. I since became an electronic
>>>engineer.
>>>
>>> My plasma TV cost me $1000. That is like 500 shares of AAPL up $2.00.
>>> How many times has AAPL been up $2.. About 50 times if you count the
>>> run from $100 to $200.
>>>
>>> You know what that means if my TV quits and the repair bill is huge? TV
>>> goes into the crapper and I buy another one.
>>>
>>> I know I do not have the latest tech. Latest tech changes everyday. I
>>> suppose if you went out and bought a projection system for $10,000 on a
>>> giant screen you would have the ultimate.
>>>
>>> LCD TV's have poor off-angle viewing. Low dynamic range (even with
>>> LED's) and have fast motion issues. However I have an LCD 32 incher for
>>> upstairs. For downstairs, I have the larger Plasma 50.
>>>
>>> My son works the sound at the TV show Extra. He has both a Plasma and
>>> LCD TV at home because their benefits/deficiencies are different.
>>> Movies are best on LCDs. Sports on Plasma, IN GENERAL.
>>>
>>> He also recommends getting all your TV cables such as HDMI cables at
>>> Monoprice.com.
>>>
>>> Vito
>>>
>>>
>>> "Lawyerkill" <Lawye...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:57ff09a3-0ce2-49fb...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Nov 26, 12:07o?=pm, bob36sw...@webtv.net (bob wald) wrote:
>>>
>>>> i bought my tv at waimart....a 2yr service contract $30....the bigger
>>>> tvs were $69....
>>>> thats a steal compared to the service charges youll pay on big
>>>> tvs......
>>>
>>> The biggest problem for me to over come before buying my LCD TV was
>>> the idea that I may have to pay someone to repair it at sometime.
>>>
>>> I can't remember when I ever had to pay anyone to repair anything
>>> electronic.
>>>
>>> Now if you're lucky enough to find the bad part, you can hardly see it
>>> on the circuit board let alone find a replacement for it.
>>>
>>> Gone are the days of going down to the tube tester at the drug store,
>>> testing the tubes and asking the guy to get you a replacement for a
>>> bad 5U4.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
The Visitor
"Blash" <bla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C735DF66.DB14D%bla...@comcast.net...
Lubow
How could that creep go on vacation when he told the judge he needed
taxpayer support to pay his $350 court fee?
shortT
You are telling me that your system gives one money for litigation but
not medication?
That sucks.
shortT
Lubow
Well, you're right about one thing. Bill DOES need help from the
government but not in the form of waived court fees.
Bill Reid
>
> Valid comparison. Here is some more info.
>
> http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv-plasmavslcd.shtml
>
> I know about 1 year ago I compared LCD to Plasma and preferred LCD.
> However, last week, in the darkened Best Buy, both LCD and Plasma looked
> the same. For max contrast, the LCD needs an LED backlight. Then you see
> LCD get more pricey than Plasma.
>
One day I dropped into this home theater store next to the
supermarket. Their business is building home theater systems
in the mansions of all the secretaries who are $billionaires
because of stock options in this area.
The guy showed me their top of the line "model", a dimly-lit
30-seat theater with super-plush reclining seats with built-in
cup-holders and food trays which reminded me of the
screening rooms that movie studios have in major cities
for movie reviewers back when I was writing movie reviews.
I think they would build this thing for you for about $150,000,
a bargain...
The centerpiece was a very large super-expensive plasma
TV, and they ran the expected "rigged demo" video designed
to show this TV off to its best advantage, some type of
deep-sea footage of weird mutated fish that was very
dark, something that would just be black mush on ANY
LCD, but was absolutely stunning on this plasma, like
nothing you've ever seen before ANYWHERE...
Unfortunately, I had to inform them that I WASN'T
a $billionaire and had no mansion so I wouldn't be
making a purchase that day...the point is, as always,
particularly these days, is that for the mass market
GOOD ENOUGH IS ALL YOU NEED, which explains
i-Tunes, i-Pods, Windows(TM), VHS, etc. The
average IDIOT just ignores the fact that moving
just a few inches in one direction or another radically
changes the picture quality on ANY LCD, who cares,
as long as it was CHEAP ENOUGH and GOOD
ENOUGH, who cares about the weird washed-out
fun-house color picture, as long as it's GOOD
ENOUGH and CHEAP ENOUGH THAT'S ALL
YOU NEED WHEN YOU'RE THE AVERAGE
LOW-CLASS MEDIA BRAINWASHED AMERICAN
IDIOT...
So now you know why I have LCDs all around...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: a lot, thinking about outsourcing a
precise count to an Indian post-counter
Uncle_vito
difference between that and regular DVD. I am looking at many of my old
DVDs in progressive (non interlaced) mode. I almost cannot tell the
difference between that and blue ray (DVD non interlated is 480p, Blu Ray
is 720p to 1080p).
Those $150,000 home theaters crack me up also. Only purpose is to snob out
your neighbors and friends. Aslo shows the theater installer that you have
more money than brains.
Vito
"Bill Reid" <horme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:499451f0-ed6a-458b...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Lawyerkill
> One reason Blu Ray is not doing that well. �Most folks cannot tell the
> difference between that and regular DVD. �I am looking at many of my old
> DVDs in �progressive (non interlaced) mode. �I almost cannot tell the
> difference between that and blue ray � (DVD non interlated is 480p, Blu Ray
> is 720p to 1080p).
>
> Those $150,000 home theaters crack me up also. �Only purpose is to snob out
> your neighbors and friends. �Aslo shows the theater installer that you have
> more money than brains.
>
> Vito
You know what use to amaze me? Back in the 60's when Hi-Fi was really
starting to take off I saw person after person go out and buy high
priced stereos for, "natural sound" and then take it home and adjust
the bass to max and the treble to min, their damn transistor radio
sounded better.
Speaking of transistors there were also a lot of people that believed
that Tubes gave you a truer sound, when the fact is that Tubes
distorted the sound way more than transistors.
Oh and when I had my CB radio stores we also sold some car stereo's.
The suppliers taught us a trick to make people buy the speakers we
wanted to push. Have a switch on the display to switch sets of
speakers and play the speakers you wanted to sell louder than the ones
you didn't. I never tried it but other dealers said it worked.
Bill Reid
> On Dec 1, 7:48 am, "Uncle_vito" <uncle_vito2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > One reason Blu Ray is not doing that well. Most folks cannot tell the
> > difference between that and regular DVD. I am looking at many of my old
> > DVDs in progressive (non interlaced) mode. I almost cannot tell the
> > difference between that and blue ray (DVD non interlated is 480p, Blu Ray
> > is 720p to 1080p).
>
it's my superior LCD TV versus your crappy plasma that makes
the difference visible...
The thing to keep in mind is that just because something is
labeled "DVD" or "Blu Ray HD" doesn't mean anything in particular
as to how good the content looks, since those terms really
just refer to a storage capacity and read-back technology
and not the digital conversion quality, the same as how you
could have VHS tapes of WIDELY varying transfer quality, or
the widely-varying quality of "HD TV", which also depends
on the cameras used and probably the sensibilities of
the producers concerning the facial wrinkling of the show
hosts.
Probably you have some very well-converted DVDs and
some not-so-well converted "Blu Ray"s (I actually wouldn't
put it past the bastards to just put out the old DVD
conversion on the "Blu Ray" disc with some more
extras--or not--to justify the GREATLY increased cost).
The biggest joke to me is that about the time those
Sino-Japano-Koreo-Malaysio bastards started brain-washing
gullible Americans to buy the much more expensive
DVDs, Hollywood had gotten scary good at transferring
films to VHS, and DVDs actually looked like a step
backward in terms of picture quality...and now the
same bastards are ripping us off again with "Blu
Ray"...
> > Those $150,000 home theaters crack me up also. Only purpose is to snob out
> > your neighbors and friends. Aslo shows the theater installer that you have
> > more money than brains.
>
Hey, some of those $billionaire secretaries typed as much as
eight pages of their boss's memos at 15 wpm with only 10 errors
a page to earn their money...
>
> You know what use to amaze me? Back in the 60's when Hi-Fi was really
> starting to take off I saw person after person go out and buy high
> priced stereos for, "natural sound" and then take it home and adjust
> the bass to max and the treble to min, their damn transistor radio
> sounded better.
>
Yeah, all my idiot friends had the friggin' bass turned up
to "11" back in the day, sounded like the inside of Cummins
diesel engine not music.
>
> Speaking of transistors there were also a lot of people that believed
> that Tubes gave you a truer sound, when the fact is that Tubes
> distorted the sound way more than transistors.
>
Well, they said that tubes had a "warmer" sound, but
I think they were conflating the sound with the heat waves
emanating from the back of the amplifier...
> Oh and when I had my CB radio stores we also sold some car stereo's.
> The suppliers taught us a trick to make people buy the speakers we
> wanted to push. Have a switch on the display to switch sets of
> speakers and play the speakers you wanted to sell louder than the ones
> you didn't. I never tried it but other dealers said it worked.
I'm sure it worked, just like cranking up the backlight brightness
of an LCD to draw people in like moths to a flame. In McLuhanesque
terms, TV is kind of paradoxically reverting to the iconic "hot"
medium he said it was, where the viewer can't see details of
objects in the pictures, so they have to project their own
emotions onto what they can't see...and as usual, the
advertising industry seems to have grasped this most
fully, evidenced by the "iconic" nature of most full HDTV
commercials they've developed...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: hundreds of $billions less than
the amount ripped off from the American consuming
public by the Far East consumer cabal of evil
Uncle_vito
lossy, then the reproduced picture will be crap regardless of whether they
call it HD or not. I know cable and satellite use compression/decompression
algorithms. Mpeg-3, mpeg-4 or whatever.
Since I am not at work and do not need to do an engineering analysis of the
crap, I will just watch it.
Hey, my old throwaway DVD pornos have now got a new life. Look great when
non interlaced at 480p.
Vito
"Bill Reid" <horme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:27023ef9-18fb-4444...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
shortT
> What has me most concerned is the compression algorithms used. If they are
> lossy, then the reproduced picture will be crap regardless of whether they
> call it HD or not. I know cable and satellite use compression/decompression
> algorithms. Mpeg-3, mpeg-4 or whatever.
>
> Since I am not at work and do not need to do an engineering analysis of the
> crap, I will just watch it.
>
> Hey, my old throwaway DVD pornos have now got a new life. Look great when
> non interlaced at 480p.
>
> Vito
>
It is a never ending cycle. Just as the storage capacity goes up as in
the case of Blue-ray
so does the resolution of displays thereby demanding more storage.
I love my CRT :)
shortT
Bill Reid
>
> What has me most concerned is the compression algorithms used. If they are
> lossy, then the reproduced picture will be crap regardless of whether they
> call it HD or not.
>
ALL consumer digital video "codecs" are VERY compressed
and VERY "lossy": DVDs, "Blu Ray", digital broadcast TV,
satellite TV, ALL current American cable TV, EVERYTHING
NOW IS "LOSSY" COMPRESSED VIDEO.
> I know cable and satellite use compression/decompression
> algorithms. Mpeg-3, mpeg-4 or whatever.
>
I think everything is MPEG-2...in any event, MPEG
uses EVERY compression (both "lossy" and lossless)
and data processing trick in the book to get the data
storage and processing rate down to the level of
currently available consumer hardware.
The FIRST thing the MPEG encoder does is throw
away about 90% of the colors in the picture, which is
actually beyond the generally accepted threshhold
of perception of 75% typically used for JPEG
compression...
I remember back a few years ago when my cable
company went digital...I tested the digital picture
quality versus the same picture received from an
antenna on one of the channels I receive the
best over-the-air. By flipping the "input" button
on my remote I could toggle back and forth
between the digital and original analog video
picture of the five o'clock news.
The analog video was much brighter, more
defined, higher definition than the digital picture.
I could count every pore in the anchorwoman's
face in the analog picture; in the digital picture,
it looked like she was wearing an extra coat
of makeup...the difference was startling and
VERY apparent.
Here's the deal about one of the biggest lies
of all the lies "they" tell you about digital video:
they always advertise the lines of resolution
(480, "standard definition" because NTSC video
has 480 scan lines, 720, 1080), but they neglect
to tell you, it's NOT just the lines of resolution,
IT'S THE RESOLUTION IN THE LINES.
And when you reduce the number of colors
in a line by 90%, you shouldn't be surprised
that the "standard" analog picture is more
"defined" than the "equivalent" digital
picture.
>
> Since I am not at work and do not need to do an engineering analysis of the
> crap, I will just watch it.
>
Well, it is what it is, the various industries have jumped
all over digital primarily because of compression NOT
picture quality (the cable companies can send something
like 20-25 channels of "standard definition" digital TV using
the same bandwidth as a single analog channel, freeing
up their cables to carry high-speed Internet, and a local
broadcast station here is sending 15 "sub"-channels of
digital TV on a single 6 MHz channel frequency).
> Hey, my old throwaway DVD pornos have now got a new life. Look great when
> non interlaced at 480p.
>
Well, there you go, technology marches on...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: about 6000 less than all the colors
that are lost in a single frame of digital video