Where on earth can I buy an LCD TV WITHOUT a TV Tuner
Chris
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70349-0.html
What all this means in the marketplace is that it's no longer necessary
(or even all that desirable) to have a built-in analog tuner on your
TV. Since most people get their TV signal from a set-top box anyway,
almost all built-in tuners are a waste of space -- and money. And if
you buy a TV with no tuner at all (just a monitor), you can sometimes
save a couple hundred bucks without sacrificing any of the features
you've grown accustomed to from your cable or satellite company."
I have a Sony HDD recorder (RDR HX 510) - which can output scart,
s-video, component etc.
I have been thinking - there *must* be a company that sells a really
nice lcd screen with no tv tuner and no speakers (since speakers on
these things are rubbish anyway.. and I have my own speakers)
Right now my monitor takes VGA and DVI. If only there was some magical
way of converting scart to DVI
Stan The Man
Chris <Chris.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
When I was hunting for a plasma screen without a built-in tuner, I
discovered that http://www.krishav.co.uk were selling continental
flavours of the Panny Viera for a few hundred quid less than the UK
models with built-in tuners. Ask if they can do the same for a good LCD
screen. Zero difference by the way apart from the lack of tuner.
Stan
Steve Firth
> I have a Sony HDD recorder (RDR HX 510) - which can output scart,
> s-video, component etc.
>
> I have been thinking - there *must* be a company that sells a really
> nice lcd screen with no tv tuner and no speakers (since speakers on
> these things are rubbish anyway.. and I have my own speakers)
Hyundai do a range of SCART input monitors without speakers, but I have
a suspicion that they have 2xDVB tuners as standard. Acer do a well
reviewed 21" LCD with SCART, no tuner but it does have speakers.
Chris
I did a quick search on google
They do have a built in tv tuner though -
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/lcdtv19.html
I'm hoping to buy a tv minus tv tuner to save money
Chris
Let me get this right - they did have tv tuners (but for say, France so
wouldn't work in this country) so they reduced the prices?
Interesting.. will ring them up
Thanks for the tip
Chris
Oh yeah, another idea: maybe I could order them from europe (outside
'rip-off britain')
Hmm... needs to be 240V though
But i'm curious... I bet the LCD screens are much cheaper
Colin Forrester
> Oh yeah, another idea: maybe I could order them from europe (outside
> 'rip-off britain')
>
> Hmm... needs to be 240V though
Shouldn't be a problem buying a product destined for other EU Countries.
In fact some of my equipment accepts input in the range 110 - 240v.
the dog from that film you saw
"Chris" <Chris.H...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143252456.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> For the reasons outlined here:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70349-0.html
>
> What all this means in the marketplace is that it's no longer necessary
> (or even all that desirable) to have a built-in analog tuner on your
> TV. Since most people get their TV signal from a set-top box anyway,
> almost all built-in tuners are a waste of space -- and money. And if
> you buy a TV with no tuner at all (just a monitor), you can sometimes
> save a couple hundred bucks without sacrificing any of the features
> you've grown accustomed to from your cable or satellite company."
>
how much do you suppose an analogue tuner on a chip costs? - given that a
freeview box can be had for under 50l, i'd say a couple of quid at most.
if you really want no tuner, just get one of the lcd monitors with s-video
and HDMI inputs.
--
Gareth.
A french man who wanted a castle threw his cat into a pond.
http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/dsbmusic/
Adrian A
That's the range equipment is guaranteed to work at, in reality it's often a
lot more. I have an old JVC VCR which works happily down to 80v.
--
Adrian A
Stuart Bell
wrote:
> how much do you suppose an analogue tuner on a chip costs? - given that a
> freeview box can be had for under 50l, i'd say a couple of quid at most.
>
> if you really want no tuner, just get one of the lcd monitors with s-video
> and HDMI inputs.
There's also the issue that in some areas most channels can be received
on digital terrestrial, but not all. In such circumstances, an analogue
tuner is better than nothing.
STuart
--
Try stuartsmacs at dsl dot pipex dot com to email me.
Chris Howells
> Oh yeah, another idea: maybe I could order them from europe (outside
> 'rip-off britain')
If you order from outside the EU you will have to pay VAT. After you've
paid VAT and the shipping cost most of the saving has disappeared. Added
to the fact that the manufacturer may refuse to honor an overseas
warranty and it's slightly hard to haul someone on the other side of the
world into your local county court and it's certainly not worth the
hassle. IMO.
Steve Firth
I'd say like for like you don't save any money by missing out the TV
tuner. There are some analogue input, S-VHS, Composite, component RGB
LCD monitors on this page:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/lcd20.html
I don't know what size you are after but the Belinea at £250ish seems a
reasonable buy. When you get up to 26"+ sizes then the LCD TVs seem to
be a better buy than the monitors.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/lcdtv26p.html
The Hyundai HQL320WR 32" in particular seems a good price. A Dell
widescreen monitors with composite/analogue input is priced at about 2x
the price of the Hyundai. The Dell probably offers higher resolution but
if your main use is watching video then you probably wont notice the
missing megapixels.
Mike Redrobe
> I have been thinking - there *must* be a company that sells a really
> nice lcd screen with no tv tuner and no speakers (since speakers on
> these things are rubbish anyway.. and I have my own speakers)
Look for monitors with video input, not for TVs without tuners...but
they are generally poor quality when displaing video..
> Right now my monitor takes VGA and DVI. If only there was some
>magical way of converting scart to DVI
There is, but since it involves analogue to digital conversion, and
scaling, it isn't a simple lead.
Try searching on "scaler", or "Up converter" but they aren't cheap:
http://www.keene.co.uk/pages/cat/13con/13F.html (£199)
..and they get more expensive from there.
You'll often get better quality using something like that with the
TV's DVI input, rather than directly using the SCART input of
many LCD TVs.
A lot of LCD TVs have cheap low quality scaler circuits, so it makes
sense to use a dedicated scaler.
--
Mike
Nigel Barker
He said Rip-of Britain not Rip-off Europe. He didn't say he was going to order
from outside the EU. Historically Germany has always had great bargains on Hi Fi
& other electrical goods.
--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur
Emperor's New Widescreen
It's like buying a car without a boot because you will never use it.
Mark Carver
Yes, I discovered that my Sony TV set works OK at about 75 volts,
after a local mains supply fault reduced the voltage to that. I didn't
realise there was a problem, until a neighbour alerted me, and I put a
lamp on !
Needless to say as soon as I realised what was going on, I hit all the
breakers on the consumer unit !
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
Chris
Emperor's New Widescreen wrote:
> You don't have to use the analogue tuner you know.
> It's like buying a car without a boot because you will never use it.
I kind of assumed TVs weren't as good as monitors
I suppose TV licensing might be a good reason for some.
But you guys have pointed out that the tv tuner (analogue) is probably
cheap as chips so oh well... there goes my idea for a bargain.
I'll keep my eyes peeled on richersounds.com and comet.com
please let me know of any others
I live in central London so can pick up from a london retailer
Emperor's New Widescreen
What makes you think you will save money?
Do you think they will remove the tuner from the rest of the
circuitary? Or do you think that having a new TV designed
(with all the associated costs) to suit your needs will be cheaper?
>
Pyriform
> Yes, I discovered that my Sony TV set works OK at about 75 volts,
> after a local mains supply fault reduced the voltage to that. I didn't
> realise there was a problem, until a neighbour alerted me, and I put a
> lamp on !
>
> Needless to say as soon as I realised what was going on, I hit all the
> breakers on the consumer unit !
Did you actually have time to measure it, or was that an estimate?
I have noticed that my TV (also a Sony) seems to sail on regardless,
even if there's a brownout of sufficient depth to dim the lights and
make the PC reboot.
Chris
Emperor's New Widescreen wrote:
It' s certainly what this journalist seems to think:
Emperor's New Widescreen
To quote the hack:
"And if you buy a TV with no tuner at all (just a monitor), you can
sometimes
save a couple hundred bucks without sacrificing any of the features you've
grown
accustomed to from your cable or satellite company"
Now $200=Ł150 approx, however since I recently bought a portable TV
with a built in tuner for less than Ł50 one wonders where he dream't up his
$200 figure from. I don't no precisely how much a tuner costs but when you
consider that you can buy a portable radio or radio alarm clock for less
than
Ł4 you can get some sort of idea. Indeed I actually bought a portable
radio WITH BUILT IN TORCH :O) for the princely sum of Ł1!!!!!!!!!!
(one pound). The price included headphones (ear pieces IIRC).
So his figure is about 100 times over inflated assuming no other costs.
So when you weigh up the negligible cost of the tuner against cost of
designing
from scratch a new tunerless TV and a new production line, marketing
(bribing
journalist) it is pretty clear to me the 'tunerless' TV will be considerable
more
expensive.
So you can take what journalists say with a pinch of salt.
The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
>
Stan The Man
Widescreen <m...@invalid.net> wrote:
>So when you weigh up the negligible cost of the tuner against cost of
>designing from scratch a new tunerless TV and a new production line,
>marketing (bribing journalist) it is pretty clear to me the 'tunerless'
>TV will be considerable more expensive.
The flaw in your logic is that tuner-less TVs don't need to be made to
order. They are a standard production item and throught all the world
markets may even outnumber TVs with tuners. They certainly outnumber by
many orders of magnitude the number of TVs with UK-compatible tuners.
Now they DO have to be made to order for our little market here. Hence,
buying a bog standard tuner-less model costs less.
Stan
Mark Carver
Pyriform wrote:
> Mark Carver wrote:
> > Yes, I discovered that my Sony TV set works OK at about 75 volts,
> > after a local mains supply fault reduced the voltage to that. I didn't
> > realise there was a problem, until a neighbour alerted me, and I put a
> > lamp on !
> >
> > Needless to say as soon as I realised what was going on, I hit all the
> > breakers on the consumer unit !
>
> Did you actually have time to measure it, or was that an estimate?
That was a measurement, once I'd shut everything off except the
lighting circuit, leaving just one lamp on to monitor what was going
on.
> I have noticed that my TV (also a Sony) seems to sail on regardless,
> even if there's a brownout of sufficient depth to dim the lights and
> make the PC reboot.
At the point the mains must have dropped down to its low value, I did
notice (though I wasn't sure at the time) the picture glitch 'inwards',
but that was the only symptom.
I was alerted because my neighbour came round about 20 mins later, to
say 'her lights were very dim', and nothing else in her house was
working. I then switched on my hall light and the rest is history.
Peter Hayes
> The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
--
Peter
Emperor's New Widescreen
"Stan The Man" <m...@pr100.com> wrote in message
news:270320060752051883%m...@pr100.com...
"tunerless TV" returns 700 results on google, none on froggle, "tv tuner"
returns 52 million. I think your are obviously wrong.
http://thomashawk.com/2005/05/joe-wilcox-on-tv-tunerless-media.html
Dell charges an extra $38 for a TV tunerless Media Center.
> Stan
Emperor's New Widescreen
"Peter Hayes" <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1hcuz5a.19ce55ovd6pp8N%not_i...@btinternet.com...
> Emperor's New Widescreen <m...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
>
> We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
view 4:3. Ask any optician, as opposed to TV salesman or 'film buff'
(couch potato).
>
> --
>
> Peter
Pyriform
Please don't goad the resident piss-autist. It only upsets him.
the dog from that film you saw
"Emperor's New Widescreen" <m...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:keTVf.25690$5B4...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
dont be daft - i can see thing all around me, but not something 2 foot above
me.
your vision is far wider than tall - a whole lot wider than 2.35:1 that's
for sure.
+tacos+
> "Emperor's New Widescreen" <m...@invalid.net> wrote in message
>> Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
>> view 4:3. Ask any optician, as opposed to TV salesman or 'film buff'
>> (couch potato).
>
> dont be daft - i can see thing all around me, but not something 2 foot
> above me.
This has been explained to him 100 times but he'll repeat his round
vision thing endlessly. It looks like a disorder in the autistic
spectrum. Changes in his environment - in this case the change from 4:3
to 16:9 - traumatise him. He has actually said that 16:9 has damaged a
part of his LIFE. He really said that. It's astonishing, but that's the
way he is.
Emperor's New Widescreen
"the dog from that film you saw" <d...@REMOVETHECAPITALSbtinternet.com> wrote
in message news:48qf2aF...@individual.net...
>
> "Emperor's New Widescreen" <m...@invalid.net> wrote in message
> news:keTVf.25690$5B4...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Peter Hayes" <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:1hcuz5a.19ce55ovd6pp8N%not_i...@btinternet.com...
> >> Emperor's New Widescreen <m...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
> >>
> >> We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
> >
> > Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
> > view 4:3. Ask any optician, as opposed to TV salesman or 'film buff'
> > (couch potato).
>
>
> dont be daft - i can see thing all around me, but not something 2 foot
above
> me.
> your vision is far wider than tall - a whole lot wider than 2.35:1 that's
> for sure.
Sure it is, I am saving up for one of the new 2:35:1 TV's right now
(the next big ting apparently), I love a good laugh.
Luke Bosman
> "Peter Hayes" <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:1hcuz5a.19ce55ovd6pp8N%not_i...@btinternet.com...
> > Emperor's New Widescreen <m...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >
> > > The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
> >
> > We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
>
> Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
> view 4:3.
Your field of view may be 4:3. Mine isn't. It sounds like you need to
seen an optician.
Cheers,
Luke
--
No-one reads signatures these days.
Chris Ridd
1hcvakz.1f36vzz1dfacsfN%southend.areNinePointsClearMuchToMySurprise.5.lukebo
sm...@spamgourmet.com, "Luke Bosman"
<southend.areNinePointsClearM...@spamgourmet.com>
wrote:
Perhaps the lenses in his specs are 4:3 shape.
Cheers,
Chris
Adrian A
You do know he's a cyclops, don't you?
--
Adrian A
Graeme Wall
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
It's not really widescreen it's been stretched to fill, which is why we have
an obesity problem.
Also makes owls look bigger.
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
the dog from that film you saw
"+tacos+" <ghgf...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:e0919q$tko$1...@emma.aioe.org...
>> dont be daft - i can see thing all around me, but not something 2 foot
>> above me.
>
> This has been explained to him 100 times but he'll repeat his round
> vision thing endlessly. It looks like a disorder in the autistic
> spectrum. Changes in his environment - in this case the change from 4:3
> to 16:9 - traumatise him. He has actually said that 16:9 has damaged a
> part of his LIFE. He really said that. It's astonishing, but that's the
> way he is.
>
maybe he has an undiscovered case of tunnel vision! - i work with someone
like that - when they walk down the street they have to constantly sweep
their head from left to right over and over.
the dog from that film you saw
>> dont be daft - i can see thing all around me, but not something 2 foot
> above
>> me.
>> your vision is far wider than tall - a whole lot wider than 2.35:1 that's
>> for sure.
>
> Sure it is, I am saving up for one of the new 2:35:1 TV's right now
> (the next big ting apparently), I love a good laugh.
so you're not saying i'm wrong then?
Graeme Wall
"Emperor's New Widescreen" <m...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> "Stan The Man" <m...@pr100.com> wrote in message
> news:270320060752051883%m...@pr100.com...
> > In article <q8HVf.12528$Ph2....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, Emperor's New
> > Widescreen <m...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >
> > >So when you weigh up the negligible cost of the tuner against cost of
> > >designing from scratch a new tunerless TV and a new production line,
> > >marketing (bribing journalist) it is pretty clear to me the 'tunerless'
> > >TV will be considerable more expensive.
> >
> > The flaw in your logic is that tuner-less TVs don't need to be made to
> > order. They are a standard production item and throught all the world
> > markets may even outnumber TVs with tuners. They certainly outnumber by
> > many orders of magnitude the number of TVs with UK-compatible tuners.
> > Now they DO have to be made to order for our little market here. Hence,
> > buying a bog standard tuner-less model costs less.
> >
>
> "tunerless TV" returns 700 results on google, none on froggle, "tv tuner"
> returns 52 million. I think your are obviously wrong.
On the other hand 'TV monitor', which is the correct term for a 'tunerless
tv' returns 122 million hits. Not so obvious?
Sara Kirk
<Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1hcuz5a.19ce55ovd6pp8N%not_i...@btinternet.com>
> not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > Emperor's New Widescreen <m...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >
> > > The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
> >
> > We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
> >
>
> It's not really widescreen it's been stretched to fill, which is why we have
> an obesity problem.
>
> Also makes owls look bigger.
I knew there was a reason.
--
Sara
I'm smaller than people think
Luke Bosman
> In message <1hcuz5a.19ce55ovd6pp8N%not_i...@btinternet.com>
> not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > Emperor's New Widescreen <m...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >
> > > The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
> >
> > We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
> >
>
> It's not really widescreen it's been stretched to fill, which is why we have
> an obesity problem.
Yet most of the output on mainstream TV is in widescreen these days and
not stretched at all.
cheers,
Stan The Man
Widescreen <m...@invalid.net> wrote:
>"Stan The Man" <m...@pr100.com> wrote in message
>news:270320060752051883%m...@pr100.com...
>> In article <q8HVf.12528$Ph2....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, Emperor's New
>> Widescreen <m...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>> >So when you weigh up the negligible cost of the tuner against cost of
>> >designing from scratch a new tunerless TV and a new production line,
>> >marketing (bribing journalist) it is pretty clear to me the 'tunerless'
>> >TV will be considerable more expensive.
>>
>> The flaw in your logic is that tuner-less TVs don't need to be made to
>> order. They are a standard production item and throught all the world
>> markets may even outnumber TVs with tuners. They certainly outnumber by
>> many orders of magnitude the number of TVs with UK-compatible tuners.
>> Now they DO have to be made to order for our little market here. Hence,
>> buying a bog standard tuner-less model costs less.
>>
>
>"tunerless TV" returns 700 results on google, none on froggle, "tv tuner"
>returns 52 million. I think your are obviously wrong.
I think you're being serious but there's no such word as 'tunerless' so
700 results is way too many imho. There are many world markets where it
is the norm to sell a TV without a tuner so it wouldn't even be
mentioned as a 'feature'. To get the true picture you would have to
look at TV manufacturers'/resellers' websites in different languages.
What's Chinese for 'tunerless'?
>http://thomashawk.com/2005/05/joe-wilcox-on-tv-tunerless-media.html
> Dell charges an extra $38 for a TV tunerless Media Center.
As I said way back when, I bought a tunerless Viera Plasma from KrisAV
a year ago and they were charging £200 less for it than for the
tuner-inside version of an otherwise identical TV. That's the kind of
research I trust.
Stan
Graeme Wall
.5.luke...@spamgourmet.com>
southend.areNinePointsClearMuchToMySurprise.5.lukebosman@spamgourme
t.com (Luke Bosman) wrote:
I meant the world, not the tv :-)
Emperor's New Widescreen
Marketing, it is immaterial what they charged you for it as I have
no doubt it was vastly overpriced in the first place.
As soon as you mentioned tunerles I expect £ notes were registering in
their eyes.
But don't wory you can buy a TV tuner for your plasma for
a mere £400
LOL
I would not believe it had I not seen it with my own eyes!!!
WHAT A JOKE.
THEY OBVIOUSLY REALISE 99.9% OF THEIR CUSTOMERS
ARE MUGS!!!!
>
> Stan
Emperor's New Widescreen
"Graeme Wall" <Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:518243e4e%Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk...
Wrong "tv monitor" gives 2 million "tv" 2 billion.
Emperor's New Widescreen
"the dog from that film you saw" <d...@REMOVETHECAPITALSbtinternet.com> wrote
>
> "Emperor's New Widescreen" <m...@invalid.net> wrote in message
> news:5_TVf.12625$Ph2....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
>
> >> dont be daft - i can see thing all around me, but not something 2 foot
> > above
> >> me.
> >> your vision is far wider than tall - a whole lot wider than 2.35:1
that's
> >> for sure.
> >
> > Sure it is, I am saving up for one of the new 2:35:1 TV's right now
> > (the next big ting apparently), I love a good laugh.
>
>
> so you're not saying i'm wrong then?
I think you knew that ;O)
Emperor's New Widescreen
"Chris Ridd" <chri...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:C04DCEFA.1892E5%chri...@mac.com...
They are round to match the ones in my eyes, I expect your
glasses are 2:35:1 to match the widescreen lens in your eye?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
Graeme Wall
Please note single quotes, double quotes gives 3,410,000, rather more than 2
million. But a TV tuner is not a TV with a tuner.
Luke Bosman
> > > > We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
> > > It's not really widescreen it's been stretched to fill, which is why we
> > > have an obesity problem.
> >
> > Yet most of the output on mainstream TV is in widescreen these days and
> > not stretched at all.
> >
>
> I meant the world, not the tv :-)
Ah, with you.
Luke Bosman
> "Chris Ridd" <chri...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:C04DCEFA.1892E5%chri...@mac.com...
> > On 27/3/06 5:01, in article
> >
> 1hcvakz.1f36vzz1dfacsfN%southend.areNinePointsClearMuchToMySurprise.5.lukebo
> > sm...@spamgourmet.com, "Luke Bosman"
> > <southend.areNinePointsClearM...@spamgourmet.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Emperor's New Widescreen <m...@invalid.net> wrote:
> > >> Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
> > >> view 4:3.
> > >
> > > Your field of view may be 4:3. Mine isn't. It sounds like you need to
> > > seen an optician.
> >
> > Perhaps the lenses in his specs are 4:3 shape.
>
> They are round to match the ones in my eyes, I expect your
> glasses are 2:35:1 to match the widescreen lens in your eye?
There's the difference. You have one eye. I have two. Mine are arranged
side by side and, strangely enough, the field of view is distinctly
wider than it is high.
Emperor's New Widescreen
"Luke Bosman"
<southend.areNinePointsClearM...@spamgourmet.com>
wrote in message
news:1hcvpwo.1fdereoo2eooxN%southend.areNinePointsClearM...@spamgourmet.com...
I have two eyes which correctly focus on the same point giving a
round image. I am not sure how yours are working, do you see two
of everything by any chance?
+tacos+
> "Luke Bosman"
>> There's the difference. You have one eye. I have two. Mine are
>> arranged side by side and, strangely enough, the field of view is
>> distinctly wider than it is high.
>
> I have two eyes which correctly focus on the same point giving a
> round image. I am not sure how yours are working, do you see two
> of everything by any chance?
See. It was pointed out that this ENW guy is mentally ill. It's already
been well established that he's incapable of rational discourse.
Adrian A
Like every village used to have an idiot, these days it's every newsgroup.
ENW is this groups idiot.
--
Adrian A
Luke Bosman
> > > They are round to match the ones in my eyes, I expect your
> > > glasses are 2:35:1 to match the widescreen lens in your eye?
> >
> > There's the difference. You have one eye. I have two. Mine are arranged
> > side by side and, strangely enough, the field of view is distinctly
> > wider than it is high.
>
> I have two eyes which correctly focus on the same point giving a
> round image. I am not sure how yours are working, do you see two
> of everything by any chance?
No. Why did you suggest that I have only one eye? Your two eyes together
give a round image, so see an optician. They can do wonders these days.
Dave Fawthrop
southend.areNinePointsClearM...@spamgourmet.com
(Luke Bosman) wrote:
|
|Luke
|
|--
|No-one reads signatures these days.
What make you think that?
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.
Roger Hunt
of view, Shirley.
--
Roger Hunt
Peter Ceresole
> It's only the eyebrows and cheekbones that obstruct the subjective field
> of view, Shirley.
Given the way the eye works, not by sending an 'image' back to the brain
but by analysing what falls on the retina into edges and movements and
colours, at varying definitions working from the centre, and scanning
the eye mechanically in small movements continually, then reconstructing
what's there into an awareness of the view, you have to be right. I
don't reckon that 'aspect ratio' makes much sense for human vision; more
a 'visual domain'. After all, sharp colour vision is only available over
a few degrees near the center whereas mono movement awareness extends
out to at least 90 degrees from the centre in an unobstructed direction.
With both eyes in action of course, that's 180 degree lateral vision, of
a kind. Looking at the result of visual field tests, it looks roughly
circular.
--
Peter
Emperor's New Widescreen
"Luke Bosman"
<southend.areNinePointsClearM...@spamgourmet.com>
wrote in message
news:1hcvpwo.1fdereoo2eooxN%southend.areNinePointsClearM...@spamgourmet.com...
I think this link might be useful for you!!!
http://www.testvision.org/decide.html
Roger Hunt
>Roger Hunt <x...@carewg.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It's only the eyebrows and cheekbones that obstruct the subjective field
>> of view, Shirley.
>
>Given the way the eye works, not by sending an 'image' back to the brain
>but by analysing what falls on the retina into edges and movements and
>colours, at varying definitions working from the centre, and scanning
>the eye mechanically in small movements continually, then reconstructing
>what's there into an awareness of the view, you have to be right. I
>don't reckon that 'aspect ratio' makes much sense for human vision; more
>a 'visual domain'.
'Visual domain' - sort of rolls off the tongue and sums it up nicely!
>After all, sharp colour vision is only available over
>a few degrees near the center whereas mono movement awareness extends
>out to at least 90 degrees from the centre in an unobstructed direction.
My bikini movement awareness extends to at least 270 degrees.
>With both eyes in action of course, that's 180 degree lateral vision, of
>a kind. Looking at the result of visual field tests, it looks roughly
>circular.
I'm quite short-sighted and wear glasses but I'm still aware of how
sensitive peripheral vision is, even though it's blurred.
--
Roger Hunt
Peter Ceresole
> My bikini movement awareness extends to at least 270 degrees.
That'll be your swivelling Google eyes.
--
Peter