Replacement picture tube out of warranty?
Fraser
My 3.5 year old Toshiba 32" widescreen has died, due to a faulty picture
tube. The problem is that now and again the green gun overloads, filling the
screen with a green zig-zag pattern, then the TV shuts down. The repair shop
say this is due to a bad design in the picture tube, causing overheating.
This is a well known problem in this tube (Philips) apparently, and this
tube is no longer used in new products.
Now, my question is, can I get Toshiba to provide me with a replacement
picture tube without me having to pay for it? IMHO, the set was very very
expensive when I bought it, and a three and a half year life span is simply
unacceptable for something like this. Is there any recourse under UK law to
do this? I was thinking about going along the usual "fit for purpose" and
"merchantable quality" lines. Does anyone know of any successes/failures of
people trying to do this?
I've googled around, but couldn't see anything. I swear I read/heard
something about forcing electronics manufacturers to repair out with
warranty, but I can't remember or find the source.
Thanks in advance,
Fraser.
Stuart
I have seen it suggested in this NG -uk.diy,that 6 years is a reasonable
time to expect such items to "live" but haven't seen anything to back this
up.
Stuart
Andy Hall
It isn't the manufacturer's issue directly, it is the retailer's.
Your contract of purchase is with the retailer and not the
manufacturer. The warranty is merely a convenience for both the
retailer and the manufacturer, and during that period they are
agreeing, subject to certain terms and conditions to fix problems.
The warranty does not replace your statutory rights. Goods do have to
be fit for purpose but reasonableness would be applied by the courts.
In other words, if this were a cheap Chinese TV costing £100 then if
it failed after 3 years it would probably not be worth pursuing since
you probably would not be awarded much if anything.
From a technical perspective, I would expect a CRT in a quality TV to
last a good 5 years depending on amount of use.
Given this and that the product was expensive, I think that you can
make a very reasonable case to the retailer that it needs to be
addressed at his cost. It's his problem if he wants to take that up
with the manufacturer but the buck stops with the retailer from your
perspective.
I would suggest contacting the manager of the store where you bought
the product and if need be the area manager. If you meet with
resistance, put the claim in writing and send by special delivery.
You have the option of pursuing a complaint through the Small Claims
Division of the court. This can be done as a DIY exercise. In the
context of a TV, I would not consider using a solicitor for this
because the meter will run rapidly.
Ultimately you have to decide whether the time and cost of pursuing
are justified.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Sparks
> I have seen it suggested in this NG -uk.diy,that 6 years is a reasonable
> time to expect such items to "live" but haven't seen anything to back this
> up.
> Stuart
Have a look on www.tradingstandards.gov.uk they have a lot of information in
their advice leaflet's.
If I were you, I would give Trading Standards a call, and see what they feel
about it - they will advise you of what to do if they feel you have
reasonable grounds.
Just enter your postcode on their site, and it will give you the phone
number of a local office.
Sparks...
Dave Plowman
Fraser <no4...@spam.com> wrote:
> My 3.5 year old Toshiba 32" widescreen has died, due to a faulty picture
> tube. The problem is that now and again the green gun overloads, filling
> the screen with a green zig-zag pattern, then the TV shuts down. The
> repair shop say this is due to a bad design in the picture tube, causing
> overheating. This is a well known problem in this tube (Philips)
> apparently, and this tube is no longer used in new products.
They're pulling your plonker. I can't think of any tube fault that would
cause a zig-zag pattern - or to cause the SMPS to shut down the set.
--
*Even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn now and again *
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
half_pint
"Fraser" <no4...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:XflGb.10061$FN....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
deserve all you get, its a bloody stupid format, which seems set
to ruin my TV enjoyment for ever. If your TV won't work have a look
out of you letter box, you will get a similar effect to WS.
I believe I mentioned here earlier that WS tubes would be more
prone to failure for various reason which I won't explore here.
Why not but a portable and a mignifying lens which stretches the
picture horizontally? It will be a lot cheaper and more reliable.
I doubt you will have much luck complaining, because you bought
a WS in the first place you are already marked out as a mug with
more money than sense, so they will not be forthcoming.
Harsh word I know, but true.
But anyway have a Merry Xmas.
--
---------------
regards half_pint
> Fraser.
>
>
Kevin Thornton
have a look at:
it is up ro you to show that the fault was inherent at time of purchase, you
can persue a claim against the retailer up to 6 years after purchase - 6
years is an absolute limit and does not apply to all goods as a matter of
course
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/calitem.cgi?file=ADV0054-1111.txt
http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/salegoodsact.htm
http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/saleandsupply.htm
there is a good posting at:
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&frame=right&rnum=11&thl=994049202,993991500,993912497,993982043,993968990,993964144,99
3893351,993881376,993859354,993879828,993859643,993374340&seekm=brjuh9%24416
kb%241%40ID-176063.news.uni-berlin.de#link16
Andy Hall
<mustb...@shawsMYPANTS2000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Not quite.
There is a 6 year statute of limitations. This means that you have up
to 6 years following purchase to pursue a claim. It does not mean
that the law is providing the equivalent to a 6 year warranty. A test
of reasonableness in the context of the item, its price, the market
and the circumstance is used.
Bob Brenchley.
That is so nice to hear.
>If your TV won't work have a look
>out of you letter box, you will get a similar effect to WS.
>I believe I mentioned here earlier that WS tubes would be more
>prone to failure for various reason which I won't explore here.
Good, because with your incredibly limited knowledge of electronics we
know you will get it totally wrong.
>Why not but a portable and a mignifying lens which stretches the
>picture horizontally? It will be a lot cheaper and more reliable.
>
>I doubt you will have much luck complaining, because you bought
>a WS in the first place you are already marked out as a mug with
>more money than sense, so they will not be forthcoming.
>
>Harsh word I know, but true.
>But anyway have a Merry Xmas.
--
Bob.
The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
summed up in one word -- YOU.
Andy Cuffe
It sounds like a heater to cathode short in the green gun. This can
usually be worked around by isolating the heaters from ground. I've
done it many times in other TVs with good results. If you can't get a
new CRT for a reasonable price someone may be able to try this.
--
Andy Cuffe
balt...@psu.edu
Jerry G.
warranty has to comply to the purchase agreement contract. TV's without an
extended warranty are sold with a one year contract. You can optionally
purchase more time.
If the tube goes one day after the warranty, the manufacture is legally not
obliged to change it, or service the set. I tell people that for the little
more than the cost of the TV set, it is best to buy the extended warranty.
Servicing a TV set can be expensive. The few extra dollars for the extended
warranty can be well worth the investment.
I have heard some people saying that the dealers make a lot of money on
these warranties. Actually this is not very true. The mark-up on all these
products is not very great. If the set turns out to be a lemon, the
manufacture will end up paying the cost of service, and maybe even the
exchange the set for a new one.
--
Greetings,
Jerry Greenberg GLG Technologies GLG
=========================================
WebPage http://www.zoom-one.com
Electronics http://www.zoom-one.com/electron.htm
=========================================
"Fraser" <no4...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:XflGb.10061$FN....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
Mike Tomlinson
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> writes
>They're pulling your plonker. I can't think of any tube fault that would
>cause a zig-zag pattern - or to cause the SMPS to shut down the set.
It's quite common. A cathode short in one of the RGB guns will cause
the entire screen to turn that colour, and the zig-zag pattern is the
retrace lines. As the cathodes are fed from a ~200v supply, the load
caused by a short on this can cause the PSU to go into shutdown to
protect itself.
Mike Tomlinson
<despam....@ntlworld.com> writes
>That's not a tube fault.
It most likely is I'm afraid. A fault in the drive electronics would
result in a permanent failure. The OP says the fault is intermittent.
Andy Hall
wrote:
>Where we are located, we are under similar law to that of the UK. The
>warranty has to comply to the purchase agreement contract. TV's without an
>extended warranty are sold with a one year contract. You can optionally
>purchase more time.
I have no idea what Canada does, but in this respect it is not similar
to the UK. The manufacturer and the retailer can provision whatever
kind of warranty that they like, but it is only a convenience.
>
>If the tube goes one day after the warranty, the manufacture is legally not
>obliged to change it, or service the set.
In the UK the retailer may be, and a test of reasonableness,
accounting for the type of goods and the price is considered by the
court if the customer wishes to pursue it.
Retailers and manufacturers do quite well out of customer's ignorance
of the law and a natural British reticence to complain.
> I tell people that for the little
>more than the cost of the TV set, it is best to buy the extended warranty.
I'll bet.
>Servicing a TV set can be expensive.
What a surprise.
>The few extra dollars for the extended
>warranty can be well worth the investment.
A few extra dollars!? In the UK, extended warranties can be 20-25%
of the new price of a set.
>
>I have heard some people saying that the dealers make a lot of money on
>these warranties.
Here they do. The retailers push them like hell to boost their
margins. In reality, all that is achieved is the customer not
having to argue their statutory rights with the retailer. Even then,
there is typically no guaranteed time to repair.
>Actually this is not very true. The mark-up on all these
>products is not very great.
Yeah, right.
> If the set turns out to be a lemon, the
>manufacture will end up paying the cost of service, and maybe even the
>exchange the set for a new one.
As indeed they should do. However, here that is not the customer's
issue it's the retailer's.
Jet
"Stuart" <mustb...@shawsMYPANTS2000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7lpjuvsh36gt0jgfa...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:52:40 -0000, "Fraser" <no4...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >My 3.5 year old Toshiba 32" widescreen has died, due to a faulty picture
> >This is a well known problem in this tube (Philips) apparently, and this
> >tube is no longer used in new products.
Join the club Stuart...
Try a Philips 32" widescreen failing after 18 months... :(
--
Jet
(watching a Sharpe set this Christmas)
Niel A. Farrow
You have rights under the consumer purchase (or whatever it's called) law
and should be able to get a replacement of it meneded free of charge. A
judge would also find a 3.5 year lifespan unaccepatable.
Go back to shop and ask them to replace or repair it free of charge. Be
polite etc.
If they say no tell them you are prepared to do it the 'hard way'.
Go back home and write a recorded letter saying what you want doing. Keep
it short and polite.
Then make a claim under small claims. Info on web sites.
All a bit time consuming but you can claim for time taken off work and
travel expenses, and you may find the claim process galvanises the shop
into action before going to court.
Good luck,
Neil
Bill Renfro
If it is the tube and Toshiba will not replace it, the tech should be able
to isolate the filiment from ground by using a seperate winding on the
flyback core. Worth a shot before buying a new tv.
Bill
Christian Technology
"Fraser" <no4...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:XflGb.10061$FN....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
The Natural Philosopher
> Hi All,
>
> My 3.5 year old Toshiba 32" widescreen has died, due to a faulty picture
> tube. The problem is that now and again the green gun overloads, filling the
> screen with a green zig-zag pattern, then the TV shuts down. The repair shop
> say this is due to a bad design in the picture tube, causing overheating.
> This is a well known problem in this tube (Philips) apparently, and this
> tube is no longer used in new products.
I have a sony that is tsill doing this after over two years of
intermittent problems.
Its not worth fixing: Tube plus labor is pretty much new set.
N. Thornton
> Could be a fault in the drive circuits, not the tube.
> If it is the tube and Toshiba will not replace it, the tech should be able
> to isolate the filiment from ground by using a seperate winding on the
> flyback core. Worth a shot before buying a new tv.
>
> Bill
> Christian Technology
Entirely correct. And adding a new winding onto the LOPTF is very
easy. But dont DIY it as there are important issues you wont
appreciate unless you have some electronic knowledge.
A cathode to heater short is not too bad as it can be worked round.
Regards, NT
Gel
http://www.oxon-tss.org.uk/cgi-bin/con1item.cgi?file=*ADV0006-1011.txt
n...@alumni.caltech.edu (Niel A. Farrow) wrote in message news:<bseice$31q$1...@naig.caltech.edu>...
half_pint
"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:lkekuv0n52ovkvhc0...@4ax.com...
Garbage.
His post proves I am correct.
>
> >Why not but a portable and a mignifying lens which stretches the
> >picture horizontally? It will be a lot cheaper and more reliable.
> >
> >I doubt you will have much luck complaining, because you bought
> >a WS in the first place you are already marked out as a mug with
> >more money than sense, so they will not be forthcoming.
> >
> >Harsh word I know, but true.
> >But anyway have a Merry Xmas.
>
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:33:39 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> That is so nice to hear.
>>>
>>>> If your TV won't work have a look
>>>> out of you letter box, you will get a similar effect to WS.
>>>> I believe I mentioned here earlier that WS tubes would be more
>>>> prone to failure for various reason which I won't explore here.
>>>
>>> Good, because with your incredibly limited knowledge of electronics
>>> we know you will get it totally wrong.
>>
>>
>> Garbage.
>> His post proves I am correct.
>>
I include the thousands who didn't post.
>
> please go away and learn something useful before posting something you
> allege is fact again.
>
> btw, your post on WS is rubbish as well. I predominantly use my WS tv
> to watch dvds as content from tv is generally crap, as you should know
> 16:9 is more representative than 4:3 for most transfers to dvd.
I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?
--
---------------
regards half_pint
Bob Brenchley.
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Garbage.
>His post proves I am correct.
Never know it in this life. Please hurry forward to the next life
where you may have a brains and stand a chance of being right for
once.
half_pint
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:33:39 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Garbage.
> >His post proves I am correct.
>
> Never know it in this life. Please hurry forward to the next life
> where you may have a brains and stand a chance of being right for
> once.
LOL the irony!!!!
>
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
"David Hemmings" <davids....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:2mbpuv419d8fikc3t...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:18:05 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >David Hemmings wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:33:39 -0000, "half_pint"
> >> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> That is so nice to hear.
> >>>>
> >>>>> If your TV won't work have a look
> >>>>> out of you letter box, you will get a similar effect to WS.
> >>>>> I believe I mentioned here earlier that WS tubes would be more
> >>>>> prone to failure for various reason which I won't explore here.
> >>>>
> >>>> Good, because with your incredibly limited knowledge of electronics
> >>>> we know you will get it totally wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Garbage.
> >>> His post proves I am correct.
> >>>
> >> to draw any conclusions from a study size of one is a total rubbish
> >
> >I include the thousands who didn't post.
> >>
>
> misrepresentation don't count either.
>
> >> please go away and learn something useful before posting something you
> >> allege is fact again.
> >>
> >> btw, your post on WS is rubbish as well. I predominantly use my WS tv
> >> to watch dvds as content from tv is generally crap, as you should know
> >> 16:9 is more representative than 4:3 for most transfers to dvd.
> >
> >I dont watch DVD period.
> >Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?
>
> audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the question,
> the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
> as they were intended
They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.
> (seeing as there is scare little tv programmes
> of any merit anymore)
There is plenty of merit, if you find no merit in real life, ie news
sport, music, politics and comedy then maybe not.
> and those desparately clinging to to past, i'm
> surprised you don't argue that the colour guns make tvs less reliable.
Thalidomide was a new drug for pregnant women once.
>
> What do you use you tv for, putting plants on ?
You can get more plants on a widescreen so no.
>
> Niche - 4:3 tvs, VCR, good tv.......
Bob Brenchley.
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >I dont watch DVD period.
>> >Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?
>>
>> fucktard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound and
>> audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the question,
>> the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
>> as they were intended
>
>They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
>hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.
Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.
In addition, as most films now make far more from the video/DVD
release then from the box office, and given the extra content the film
makers have to plan for the DVD, their thoughts are always with the
home viewer.
>
>> (seeing as there is scare little tv programmes
>> of any merit anymore)
>
>There is plenty of merit, if you find no merit in real life, ie news
>sport, music, politics and comedy then maybe not.
>
>> and those desparately clinging to to past, i'm
>> surprised you don't argue that the colour guns make tvs less reliable.
>
>Thalidomide was a new drug for pregnant women once.
And is now a highly successful drug in combatting a number of medical
problems.
>
>>
>> What do you use you tv for, putting plants on ?
>
>You can get more plants on a widescreen so no.
>
>>
>> Niche - 4:3 tvs, VCR, good tv.......
>
Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Bob Eager
<B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote:
> >They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
> >hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.
>
> Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
> seating.
I agree. Let's ignore half_pint from now on....his views are clearly the
result of inverted snobbery, ignorance, envy...or all three.
--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70...
Dave Liquorice
> Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.
<splutter> but still at a pathetic resolution. Not seen high
definition have you? Now that is an "open window".
Of course with the "never mind the quality, count the channels"
philosophy of UK broadcasters we are highly unlikely to see Hi-Def in
the UK for at least the next 10 years or more.
--
Cheers new...@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
Dave Plowman
Bob Brenchley. <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote:
> >They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
> >hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.
> Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
> seating.
I seem to remember reading that widescreen cinema came in to combat TV in
the US - in the early days of TV it wasn't possible to make widescreen
tubes, the originals were actually round. And when colour TV arrived in
the UK, the tubes were 5:4 rather than the transmitted 4:3.
--
*Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an incompetent slacker *
Bob Brenchley.
<new...@howhill.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 10:37:25 +0000, Bob Brenchley. wrote:
>
>> Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.
>
><splutter> but still at a pathetic resolution. Not seen high
>definition have you? Now that is an "open window".
Yes, I have seen HDTV. Resolution though, has little to do with aspect
ratio.
>
>Of course with the "never mind the quality, count the channels"
>philosophy of UK broadcasters we are highly unlikely to see Hi-Def in
>the UK for at least the next 10 years or more.
There is a growth of HDTV production in the States, but it has a long
way to go.
--
Bob.
The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The
distinction is yours to draw...
Dave Liquorice
>>> Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.
>>
>> <splutter> but still at a pathetic resolution. Not seen high
>> definition have you? Now that is an "open window".
>
> Yes, I have seen HDTV. Resolution though, has little to do with
> aspect ratio.
But has a lot to do with "a more natural view". B-)
half_pint
"Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-p...@rikki.tavi.co.uk...
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 10:37:25 UTC, Bob Brenchley.
> <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote:
>
> > >They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
> > >hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.
> >
> > Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
> > seating.
>
> I agree. Let's ignore half_pint from now on....his views are clearly the
> result of inverted snobbery, ignorance, envy...or all three.
And your views are those of a mindless simpleton who will happily buy
what ever the salesman pushes his way, even though from experience
he knows 99% is overpriced useless garbage.
"I bet my neighbour has not got one of these" is his prime motivation.
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >I dont watch DVD period.
> >> >Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?
> >>
> >> fucktard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound and
> >> audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the question,
> >> the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
> >> as they were intended
> >
> >They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
> >hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.
>
> Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
> seating.
Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.
Bob Brenchley.
<new...@howhill.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:04:28 +0000, Bob Brenchley. wrote:
>
>>>> Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.
>>>
>>> <splutter> but still at a pathetic resolution. Not seen high
>>> definition have you? Now that is an "open window".
>>
>> Yes, I have seen HDTV. Resolution though, has little to do with
>> aspect ratio.
>
>But has a lot to do with "a more natural view". B-)
Not really, 625 line PAL in 16:9 may not be a good as IMAX but it is
good enough up to the size of realistic size home TVs. Certainly a
person with average eyesight in an average room will have a more
natural view that the old 4:3 TV sets that half-brain thinks are
better.
Bob Brenchley.
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
>news:ttnquvcldnp5tarh6...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
>> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I dont watch DVD period.
>> >> >Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?
>> >>
>> >> fucktard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound and
>> >> audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the question,
>> >> the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
>> >> as they were intended
>> >
>> >They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
>> >hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.
>>
>> Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
>> seating.
>
>
>Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
>space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
>we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
>pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
>in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
>You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
>was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.
You do talk some rubbish - but the above really is setting new
standards.
>
>>
>> In addition, as most films now make far more from the video/DVD
>> release then from the box office, and given the extra content the film
>> makers have to plan for the DVD, their thoughts are always with the
>> home viewer.
>> >
>> >> (seeing as there is scare little tv programmes
>> >> of any merit anymore)
>> >
>> >There is plenty of merit, if you find no merit in real life, ie news
>> >sport, music, politics and comedy then maybe not.
>> >
>> >> and those desparately clinging to to past, i'm
>> >> surprised you don't argue that the colour guns make tvs less reliable.
>> >
>> >Thalidomide was a new drug for pregnant women once.
>>
>> And is now a highly successful drug in combatting a number of medical
>> problems.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> What do you use you tv for, putting plants on ?
>> >
>> >You can get more plants on a widescreen so no.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Niche - 4:3 tvs, VCR, good tv.......
>> >
>> Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>>
>> If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
>
Still can't use a newsreader I see.
--
Bob.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance.
Fraser
"half_pint" <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bsk84p$d1jnb$2...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
> news:ttnquvcldnp5tarh6...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
> > <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> >I dont watch DVD period.
> > >> >Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?
I watch films in the aspect ratio they were made in, period. You wouldn't
take the Mona Lisa and cut some of it out to fit a nice frame you happen to
have available. And as TV generally sucks, most of my TV watching is movies.
So I have a widescreen TV. Must I apologise for that to you?
> Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
> space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
> we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
> pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
> in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
Nonsense, learn some film history. Widescreen came about as the movie
industries counter to television, which was affecting it's income. They were
still showing news reels etc at the time, which TV negated the need for, and
in many ways surpassed. Some directors didn't take to it for a long time,
Stanley Kubrik for example. Mind you, most of his films were also made in
mono sound!!
> You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
> was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.
No, this time learn some DVD history and consumer electronics marketing. The
first lot of people to buy DVD were the enthusiasts. We wanted digital
surround, multiple audio tracks, all that sort of thing. To be a success,
you have to get their buy in, then capture the public. Laser disk never got
popular with the enthusiasts, so it died. My player cost £750 at the time,
but that was with being chipped etc. Most of us want widescreen, so that's
the way it was. Releases got slated in all the review mags if they were
masked down to 4:3. DVDs were intended to be the "perfect" delivery
mechanism for movies, and cutting parts of the movie out didn't fit into
that picture.
Who exactly is doing this brainwashing anyway? :-) Does your tinfoil hat
protect you?
> > Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.
Which is very true. Look at a blank wall and see how much of it you can see
without moving your eyes. Not much in the up & down department, but you've
got around 120 degrees (a lot) of horizontal view. The widest common format,
2.35:1, is a lot closer to this than TVs traditional 4:3. For framing
"normal" images, such as landscapes, groups of people, text/signs,
widescreen is more natural. Just look at the unusual ways people stand in
4:3 media, they usually much closer than normal people are in day-to-day
life. It's unnatural.
Fraser.
Fraser
"Jerry G." <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bsdp7k$m65$1...@news.eusc.inter.net...
> Where we are located, we are under similar law to that of the UK. The
> warranty has to comply to the purchase agreement contract. TV's without
an
> extended warranty are sold with a one year contract. You can optionally
> purchase more time.
>
not
> obliged to change it, or service the set.
Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years provided
the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.
> I tell people that for the little
> more than the cost of the TV set, it is best to buy the extended warranty.
> Servicing a TV set can be expensive. The few extra dollars for the
extended
> warranty can be well worth the investment.
I always tell people not to bother with these, except on items that will
have wear and tear. Usually things with moving parts like washing machines,
dishwashers etc. I'm usually capable of fixing most things, so I never
bother getting them myself.
For consumer electronics, if it's going to fail, the chances are that it'll
be within the first year. Solid state electronics are pretty reliable if
treated well and with the extended warranty often being up to 50% of the
purchase price, it's not worth it. Consider the value of the item at the end
of the term. Hi-tech gizmos often devalue quicker than cars. As an example,
when the Sony playstation was around £300, I took out an 5 year extended
warranty for around £120 IIRC. At the end of the term, the item cost £89
brand new. It's a gamble, but one usually worth taking.
> I have heard some people saying that the dealers make a lot of money on
> these warranties. Actually this is not very true. The mark-up on all these
> products is not very great. If the set turns out to be a lemon, the
> manufacture will end up paying the cost of service, and maybe even the
> exchange the set for a new one.
In most large electronic stores in the UK, the staff get commission on these
but not purchases, so they push them hard. I've seen many articles and TV
shows on how bad they are, and given our consumer law they seem unnecessary
for a lot of things.
Things may be totally different where you are of course!!
Fraser.
Fraser
"Dave Plowman" <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4c65f8f6fc...@argonet.co.uk...
> > tube. The problem is that now and again the green gun overloads, filling
> > the screen with a green zig-zag pattern, then the TV shuts down. The
> > repair shop say this is due to a bad design in the picture tube, causing
> > overheating. This is a well known problem in this tube (Philips)
> > apparently, and this tube is no longer used in new products.
>
> cause a zig-zag pattern - or to cause the SMPS to shut down the set.
See post in response to Chris Steets post, I've put more details of the
fault on there.
Cheers,
Fraser.
Fraser
into one place:
"Chris Street" <despam....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3fed07b7...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> >The problem is that now and again the green gun overloads, filling the
> >screen with a green zig-zag pattern, then the TV shuts down.
>
> That's not a tube fault. The line driver or frame flyback is up the
> spout. Failures of the tube itself are very rare - it's always the high
> voltage control circuits that tend to have problems.
"Andy Cuffe" <balt...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:3FEA40...@psu.edu...
> It sounds like a heater to cathode short in the green gun. This can
> usually be worked around by isolating the heaters from ground. I've
> done it many times in other TVs with good results. If you can't get a
> new CRT for a reasonable price someone may be able to try this.
What Andy said. :-) That's exactly what the guy at the repair shop said, and
they are waiting for me to get back to them on what the
retailer/manufacturer say.
The TV has always had a green tint as well, as if the bias was way off.
Tried using the service menu once to bring it down, but there was no change,
so I set it back to it's original setting. Don't know if that's related, but
worth a mention.
> email me with the TV model and I'll ask a friend who does this sort of
> thing what the cost to the retailer would be - may be handy to know.
Cool, that would be handy! It's a Toshiba 32W8DB.
Cheers,
Fraser.
Fraser
"Kevin Thornton" <ke...@bizarre98.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bsctrf$4q3$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> it is up ro you to show that the fault was inherent at time of purchase,
you
> can persue a claim against the retailer up to 6 years after purchase - 6
> years is an absolute limit and does not apply to all goods as a matter of
> course
The sites you list (which are pretty good btw, thanks) kinda differ from
that description though. There doesn't seem to be any mention of the fault
being inherent when the item is bought. What does seem to be the case is the
concept of a "resonable period" which would differ depending on the item.
Some examples of this are mentioned in the sites, e.g. a car oil filter
would be around a year, a new battery could discharge on-the-shelf in six
months. The upper limit, 6 years from purchase in England, 5 years from
fault discovery in Scotland (me) only applies to what you can actually bring
a civil court case up for. Obviously, if you can't do that, then the shop
really doesn't have to do anything.
For an expensive TV, the consensus seems to be that 3.5 years is
"unreasonable". Hopefully the store will see it that way!
Fraser.
Fraser
"Sparks" <thi...@real.com> wrote in message
news:3fe9e882$0$52879$bed6...@news.gradwell.net...
> > >Fraser.
> > I have seen it suggested in this NG -uk.diy,that 6 years is a reasonable
> > time to expect such items to "live" but haven't seen anything to back
this
> > up.
> > Stuart
>
> Have a look on www.tradingstandards.gov.uk they have a lot of information
in
> their advice leaflet's.
That website has pretty much the same claim. From the FAQ at:
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/calitem.cgi?file=ADV0054-1111.txt
--- >8 ---
Q. I bought a fridge/freezer about 18 months ago, and the freezer section
has completely failed. I went back to the shop, but they refused to do
anything as it was outside the original 12 month guarantee. What are my
rights?
A. Firstly, when you buy goods from a shop, you enter into a contract under
the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended). This holds the shop liable for up
to six years after purchase (Limitation Act 1980), providing that you can
show that the problem is down to an unreasonable fault and not normal wear
and tear. Secondly, remember that the guarantee is in addition to these
statutory legal rights. Don't be taken in by the shop's argument here - they
are using the issue of the guarantee as a red herring to try to avoid their
legal obligations toward you. See our leaflet 'Buying Goods' for more
information on your rights.
--- >8 ---
Oh yeah, probably should have mentioned I'm in Scotland, so things may be a
little different (5 years from discovery of fault, as opposed to 6 from
purchase). I put part (but not all) of the purchase on my Visa, which also
may have relevance. The Trading Standards website says "This means that the
credit card company and the supplier have the same obligations and
responsibilities to you for the goods being satisfactory.", however that may
not apply because 100% of the purchase wasn't put on the credit card. I'll
probably keep that as a last resort.
I'll be getting in touch with the store on Monday. Gives me a chance to find
the receipt (which Trading Standards says isn't actually necessary!) and let
the store quieten down a bit after the Christmas sales. It will be easier if
the manager is in a good mood!! ;-) Fingers crossed!!
Fraser.
Andy Hall
>
>"Jerry G." <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:bsdp7k$m65$1...@news.eusc.inter.net...
>> Where we are located, we are under similar law to that of the UK. The
>> warranty has to comply to the purchase agreement contract. TV's without
>an
>> extended warranty are sold with a one year contract. You can optionally
>> purchase more time.
>>
>> If the tube goes one day after the warranty, the manufacture is legally
>not
>> obliged to change it, or service the set.
>
>Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years provided
>the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.
>
>
Be careful here. The 6 year period is a statute of limitations which
in effect lets the retailer off the hook at the end of that time.
It doesn't mean that they *have* to fix problems with *any* product
for that whole period.
In effect, the manufacturer's warranty period means that problems that
occur during the warranty period should be fixed without your having
to negotiate the issue. Between the end of that and 6 years you
*may* have a case, depending on the product, its position in the
market and what it cost. The issue then comes to whether the
retailer wants to play ball - this may well not be a store manager
decision - and how far you then want to pursue the issue.
Ultimately, you can take it to the court where you may win something.
Before embarking on that course, I would certainly talk to Trading
Standards for an opinion on what you are likely to get. One factor in
this is whether you are prepared to invest the effort required and
wait the amount of time that it will take to get a hearing.
You mentioned that the there had always been a green caste over the
picture. This could well have been a manufacturing defect which was
a precursor to the catastrophic failure that has happened now.
Arguably, you should have reported that at the outset, but it's too
late for that now.
There is new legislation as a result of an EU Directive which puts the
onus on the retailer to prove that there was not a manufacturing
defect. However, IIRC, you only have 6 months after purchase to
report a problem due to that. Also, I believe that the UK has not
yet fully implemented all of the Directive provisions into statute,
and possibly Scotland will be different anyway. It may be that this
won't apply anyway since your purchase probably predates the new
legislation. Again TS will be able to help you.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
half_pint
If you look at a wall and focus on a point which is far enough away
to be in focus (about 10 inches, but a reasonable distance for discussion
is about say 4 feet?) the image you can see in detail is round effectively
perfectly round. This is because visual sensitivity on the eyes retina is
round. (Consult any text book or google on fovea and macula).
And you can forget any two eyes arguement, both eyes are focused on the
same point, this is how our eyes work.
Yes the field of vison when moving your eyes is wider, due to the bone
structure of the face, but if I look between my legs I have 360 degrees
vision in the horizontal range.
Lol you mean like the way a picture of two men carrrying a ladder
is used to advertise WS TV?
If you look at a randon selection of 'art' pictures you will find only
about 10% in a WS format.
Unsurprisingly you will find that on average the ratio is 1:1.
Pick up any newspaper and count the WS images (I just
did) there are hardly any, most are taller than wide.
How do you explaing that? Answer - You can't.
I actually have a copy of the Sun here with an article on
the Beckams (which was filmed in WS), 3 out of the four
pictures printed are in a portrait format (taller than wide).
(I only bought it for a cheap TV guide btw).
However if the visual sensitivity of the eye does evolve
into a WS format I will conceed it is a more natural format.
In the mean time I think you are living in the land of clouds and
cookoo's ( or should I say seagulls, which do actually have a
WS visual sensitivity)
>
> Fraser.
--
---------------
regards half_pint
Bob Brenchley.
No it isn't. If your eyes are working correctly you will be seeing a
widescreen view of the wall.
>This is because visual sensitivity on the eyes retina is
>round. (Consult any text book or google on fovea and macula).
But your view on the world, as you have two eyes, is NOT round - it is
widescreen.
>
>And you can forget any two eyes arguement, both eyes are focused on the
>same point, this is how our eyes work.
No i isn't. Learn about vision.
>Yes the field of vison when moving your eyes is wider, due to the bone
>structure of the face, but if I look between my legs I have 360 degrees
>vision in the horizontal range.
>
You what???
>>
>>
>>>> Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.
>>
>> Which is very true. Look at a blank wall and see how much of it you
>> can see without moving your eyes. Not much in the up & down
>> department, but you've got around 120 degrees (a lot) of horizontal
>> view. The widest common format,
>> 2.35:1, is a lot closer to this than TVs traditional 4:3. For framing
>> "normal" images, such as landscapes, groups of people, text/signs,
>> widescreen is more natural. Just look at the unusual ways people
>> stand in 4:3 media, they usually much closer than normal people are
>> in day-to-day life. It's unnatural.
>
>Lol you mean like the way a picture of two men carrrying a ladder
>is used to advertise WS TV?
>
>If you look at a randon selection of 'art' pictures you will find only
>about 10% in a WS format.
>Unsurprisingly you will find that on average the ratio is 1:1.
Very rare that you will find a square picture.
>Pick up any newspaper and count the WS images (I just
>did) there are hardly any, most are taller than wide.
>How do you explaing that? Answer - You can't.
Because newspapers and magazines are designed to be read in columns.
>
>I actually have a copy of the Sun here with an article on
>the Beckams (which was filmed in WS), 3 out of the four
>pictures printed are in a portrait format (taller than wide).
>(I only bought it for a cheap TV guide btw).
>
>However if the visual sensitivity of the eye does evolve
>into a WS format I will conceed it is a more natural format.
It already is.
>
>In the mean time I think you are living in the land of clouds and
>cookoo's ( or should I say seagulls, which do actually have a
>WS visual sensitivity)
They have a wider view than us, but ours is still a widescreen view.
>
>>
>> Fraser.
Bob Brenchley.
>Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years provided
>the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.
Wrong. You get "up to 6 years". It depends very much on the product
and the fault - and it is up to you to prove that the fault was
inherent in the product from the time of purchase.
Mike
Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>>I have heard some people saying that the dealers make a lot of money on
>>these warranties.
>
>Here they do. The retailers push them like hell to boost their
>margins.
Even to the point of stupidity. Consider a salesman's job. It's to sell
you the product, right? So you build up how good the product is etc. right?
Then, me having decided on the product (in this case a video), out comes
the extended warranty spiel. "No thanks." says I. Salesman's response?
"Well, these devices are very unreliable and prone to breaking down.
The repair costs are astronomical, you really should get the warranty".
The temptation was to say "You're right, they are total crap. I'm not
buying one of those. See ya!" ... and put in a good word to the manager
for his honest salesman :)
In practice: the item was a Goldstar (LG) PW904i video. I had one, my
uncle had one. Both saw day to day domestic use.
Uncle: First one packed up within warranty (display lights up every
segment, and just keeps cycling, won't power up). Power supply replaced.
Broke again, same fault, about 12 months later.
Mine: Broke just out of warranty (14 months?) Replacement PSU would be 50
pounds. Broke again after about 18 months. Replacement electrolytics for
existing PSU, a couple of pounds. Still going OK.
So the salesman was right, they are unreliable rubbish (for longevity).
Someone has cut the corners on the design of this PSU so that it will last
(guaranteed) 12 months, and anything beyond that is a bonus. A total of 4
manufacturer's original PSUs, all gone phut with duff electrolytics. I'd
call that unreasonable. I wish I'd known about the 6 year limit referenced
above ...
Mike.
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[at]pootle.demon.co.uk | http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/
Fraser
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:r1atuv0pd906ds7ot...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:02:56 -0000, "Fraser" <no4...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years
provided
> >the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.
> >
> >
> Be careful here. The 6 year period is a statute of limitations which
> in effect lets the retailer off the hook at the end of that time.
> It doesn't mean that they *have* to fix problems with *any* product
> for that whole period.
My bad; over simplification in the post, I understand what the 6 year thing
refers to i.e. raising civil cases. Doesn't mean you'll win!! ;-)
> In effect, the manufacturer's warranty period means that problems that
> occur during the warranty period should be fixed without your having
> to negotiate the issue. Between the end of that and 6 years you
> *may* have a case, depending on the product, its position in the
> market and what it cost. The issue then comes to whether the
> retailer wants to play ball - this may well not be a store manager
> decision - and how far you then want to pursue the issue.
Having found the receipt, I now realise that it cost £1050, so that should
help the case. It was a top of the range set, highly rated in What HiFi (or
some other mag), and made by one of the largest TV manufacturers. Should be
a reasonable case that it should last four years (receipt confirms purchase
date as Sept 1999). Hopefully!
> Ultimately, you can take it to the court where you may win something.
> Before embarking on that course, I would certainly talk to Trading
> Standards for an opinion on what you are likely to get. One factor in
> this is whether you are prepared to invest the effort required and
> wait the amount of time that it will take to get a hearing.
Definitely a good idea, I'll look them up tomorrow & pay them a visit. It
may well be that they provide the tube, and I the labor. It's actually been
in for repair since October, so I don't expect to be charged a lot for the
work given their slowness in even getting it up onto the test bed (about 3-4
weeks ago).
> You mentioned that the there had always been a green caste over the
> picture. This could well have been a manufacturing defect which was
> a precursor to the catastrophic failure that has happened now.
> Arguably, you should have reported that at the outset, but it's too
> late for that now.
Would that be negative to my cause? If so, I could keep quiet about it as I
haven't spoken to Comet yet about it.
Also, it's not always been there; I'd say around 6-9 months before the
current failure. Before that, there were no issues, other than a little
picture foldback, but there were user-accessable screen position controls
I'd used to minimise that.
All in all, I've had several problems. Could these help my case, or should I
just focus on the current fault?
> There is new legislation as a result of an EU Directive which puts the
> onus on the retailer to prove that there was not a manufacturing
> defect. However, IIRC, you only have 6 months after purchase to
> report a problem due to that. Also, I believe that the UK has not
> yet fully implemented all of the Directive provisions into statute,
> and possibly Scotland will be different anyway. It may be that this
> won't apply anyway since your purchase probably predates the new
> legislation. Again TS will be able to help you.
When you say manufacturing defect, do you mean a defect unique to my item,
or would it also include a generic design defect? The guy in the repair shop
mentioned it as a known problem with this tube, and in my mind that would be
suitable justification for repair.
Fraser.
Fraser
"Mike" <m...@posie.local.dom> wrote in message
news:bsoskl$4jt$1...@posie.local.dom...
> In article <nbfluv8p9b0b4la4e...@4ax.com>,
>
> Someone has cut the corners on the design of this PSU so that it will last
> (guaranteed) 12 months, and anything beyond that is a bonus. A total of 4
> manufacturer's original PSUs, all gone phut with duff electrolytics. I'd
> call that unreasonable. I wish I'd known about the 6 year limit referenced
> above ...
There was a bad batch of capacitors a while back, perhaps related to your
problem. Just about everything they were used on failed due to electrolyte
leakage. If that's the case, going on the advice seen here, it's an inherent
fault and you should be entitled to compensation. I think.
Fraser.
Fraser
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:02:56 -0000, "Fraser" <no4...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years
provided
> >the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.
>
> Wrong. You get "up to 6 years". It depends very much on the product
> and the fault - and it is up to you to prove that the fault was
> inherent in the product from the time of purchase.
Not according to the following at:
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/calitem.cgi?file=ADV0054-1111.txt
(in reference to the latter part of your statement that is, I agree on the
"up to 6 years" bit, my post was badly worded)
----------- >8 -----------
Q. I bought a fridge/freezer about 18 months ago, and the freezer section
has completely failed. I went back to the shop, but they refused to do
anything as it was outside the original 12 month guarantee. What are my
rights?
A. Firstly, when you buy goods from a shop, you enter into a contract under
the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended). This holds the shop liable for up
to six years after purchase (Limitation Act 1980), providing that you can
show that the problem is down to an unreasonable fault and not normal wear
and tear. Secondly, remember that the guarantee is in addition to these
statutory legal rights. Don't be taken in by the shop's argument here - they
are using the issue of the guarantee as a red herring to try to avoid their
legal obligations toward you. See our leaflet 'Buying Goods' for more
information on your rights.
----------- >8 -----------
No mention of having the fault present at the time of purchase at all, just
that's it's considered "unreasonable". I'll ask them tomorrow when I am in
Trading Standards and post back results.
Thanks for all the input everyone, appreciated!!
Fraser.
Andy Hall
Based on that, I would certainly pursue it.
>
>
>> Ultimately, you can take it to the court where you may win something.
>> Before embarking on that course, I would certainly talk to Trading
>> Standards for an opinion on what you are likely to get. One factor in
>> this is whether you are prepared to invest the effort required and
>> wait the amount of time that it will take to get a hearing.
>
>Definitely a good idea, I'll look them up tomorrow & pay them a visit. It
>may well be that they provide the tube, and I the labor. It's actually been
>in for repair since October, so I don't expect to be charged a lot for the
>work given their slowness in even getting it up onto the test bed (about 3-4
>weeks ago).
>
That's not good service at all.
I think that offering a compromise position won't do any harm either.
>
>> You mentioned that the there had always been a green caste over the
>> picture. This could well have been a manufacturing defect which was
>> a precursor to the catastrophic failure that has happened now.
>> Arguably, you should have reported that at the outset, but it's too
>> late for that now.
>
>Would that be negative to my cause? If so, I could keep quiet about it as I
>haven't spoken to Comet yet about it.
I wouldn't mention it unless you get completely stonewalled. If that
happens then I might be tempted to push the point. The problem is
that they can say that you should have reported it earlier. However
since the purchase pre-dates the new legislation, it probably doesn't
matter too much.
I suppose the lesson here is, if you buy something top of the line
then go over it very carefully and if it is not perfect then return
it.
>
>Also, it's not always been there; I'd say around 6-9 months before the
>current failure. Before that, there were no issues, other than a little
>picture foldback, but there were user-accessable screen position controls
>I'd used to minimise that.
>
>All in all, I've had several problems. Could these help my case, or should I
>just focus on the current fault?
>
If you can catalogue them then yes, I suppose you could argue
manufacturing defect or design problems.
>
>> There is new legislation as a result of an EU Directive which puts the
>> onus on the retailer to prove that there was not a manufacturing
>> defect. However, IIRC, you only have 6 months after purchase to
>> report a problem due to that. Also, I believe that the UK has not
>> yet fully implemented all of the Directive provisions into statute,
>> and possibly Scotland will be different anyway. It may be that this
>> won't apply anyway since your purchase probably predates the new
>> legislation. Again TS will be able to help you.
>
>When you say manufacturing defect, do you mean a defect unique to my item,
>or would it also include a generic design defect?
AIUI, it can be either, because a design defect could make it unfit
for purpose - assuming it does.
>The guy in the repair shop
>mentioned it as a known problem with this tube, and in my mind that would be
>suitable justification for repair.
Is the repair shop associated with the retailer or a separate
organisation? Either way he's your ally, but if he's a separate
organisation, would he be prepared to state that the tube has a known
design problem? Have you tried searching on the web using the part
number of the tube to see if there is any mention of it? Perhaps
some enquiries at Philips would reveal something.
Another thing to think about before you go too far with this is the
residual value in the product. How long would you expect it to last
before buying a replacement? Let's say 8 years for the sake of
argument. Therefore you have £500 of value left if you assume a
linear write down. So, before committing to a lot of time and
direct and indirect cost if you consider legal action or other
remedies, keep in mind that that is really the value that you are
protecting, not the original purchase price.
>
>Fraser.
Millie Meecher
"Fraser" <no4...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:pD0Ib.12797$FN....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> When you say manufacturing defect, do you mean a defect unique to my item,
> or would it also include a generic design defect? The guy in the repair
shop
> mentioned it as a known problem with this tube, and in my mind that would
be
> suitable justification for repair.
>
> Fraser.
>
Sorry Fraser, only just seen this post.
Had a Toshiba tube go at three year old (not the same model as yours). Wrote
to them, and they requested proof of purchase and an engineer's report
stating the tube had failed.
Never heard a word from them myself, but they contacted the engineer and
offered to pay for the tube. I paid the labour.
The address I wrote to was at Camberley, Surry. GU15 3DT
HTH
The Natural Philosopher
> I suppose the lesson here is, if you buy something top of the line
> then go over it very carefully and if it is not perfect then return
> it.
>
I think this is extremely good advice, and, if followed, would actually
improve product quality.
I have a Land Rover Defender that has been back for about half a dozen
warranty repairs, including repsraying bits of it that corroded. As I
understand it, every time a warranty repair is undertaken, teh car
manufacture gets the bits back, sends them back to its supplier, and
they bear the cost of replacement. If this happenes often enough, those
parts don't get replaced with et same parts, but with better parts,
because the manufacturers stop making any profit.
You have to be ruthless. Laziness is what allows teh manufactures to
believe that they cheapo crap they are bolting in is of acceptable
quality. In teh case of 99% of teh British Car industry, what happened
was that people didn't send the cars back, they simply stopped buying
them and the whole industry vanished.
I have some sympathy with manufactureres: Its not easy to control
component quality. As a designer for productiomn my designs were often
compromised by the buyer attempting to save pence by buying substandard
components. Or productin engineers removing them altogether ("but they
still work: Yes, but not when they get hot/a low spec bunch of
trnsasitors get used/ under exterem power conditions etc etc).
In the OP's case, the fact that the set is worth better than a grand,
and a picture tube fitted is probably far less than that, its worth
pursuing even on a split/parts labour cost. Go direct to the
manufacturers and complain about the quality of the product, and the
quality of service from the retailer. In the car world at least, car
dealers who have a slew of complaints against them lose franchises.
geoff
<esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
>news:ttnquvcldnp5tarh6...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
>> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I dont watch DVD period.
>> >> >Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?
>> >>
>> >> fucktard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound and
>> >> audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the question,
>> >> the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
>> >> as they were intended
>> >
>> >They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
>> >hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.
>>
>> Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
>> seating.
>
>
>Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
>space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
>we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
>pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
>in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
>You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
>was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.
>
I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.
Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?
--
geoff
James Sweet
"geoff" <ra...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:DL$C3PlXed8$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
Why all the argument? The reason behind widescreen is irrelevant, the fact
is that it's the format of the future, virtually every movie in existance
was filmed in something closer to 16:9 than 4:3. Regardless of the reason,
this means that the director intended it to be viewed in a widescreen format
so with a 4:3 screen you miss things on the edges of the screen. If theaters
were all 4:3 then the shots would be made so as to not place things off the
edges. That said, I don't own a widescreen set, but I do have one large
enough that WS movies are of acceptable size. Many DVD's have both formats
on one disc so there's no compromise, and to me DVD is an amazing format,
it's the first to really catch on since VHS and side by side there's no
comparison. The picture and sound quality from DVD is amazing, the whole
movie fits on one side of one disc, there's random access, no rewinding, and
the discs themselves are compact and cheap, they don't wear out, it's the
only format I buy anymore.
half_pint
There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.
>
> Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
> way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
> croaks - stop watching TV?
>
No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.
Eventually people will realise they have been sold a pig in a poke.
If someone can tell me who is responsible for the introduction of
widescreen TV perhaps I can sue them.
I am sure some corrupt practice must have taken place for
it to happen.
I can't believe 99% of the population are morons
On second thoughts.........
You know I have even seen some programs resorting
to splitting the WS down the middle and showing two
propper pictures. Crazy.
I guess I will just have to suffer along in this insane world.
You can now pick up a didgtal transistor radio for £100 would you
believe, then you need add on another £300 for and ariel to
get half decent reception.
Ain't milk brilliant eh?
What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer
--
---------------
regards half_pint
>
geoff
<esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
>>!
>>
>Can I just surprise you there?
>If you look at a wall and focus on a point which is far enough away
>to be in focus (about 10 inches, but a reasonable distance for discussion
>is about say 4 feet?) the image you can see in detail is round effectively
>perfectly round. This is because visual sensitivity on the eyes retina is
>round. (Consult any text book or google on fovea and macula).
>And you can forget any two eyes arguement, both eyes are focused on the
>same point, this is how our eyes work.
>Yes the field of vison when moving your eyes is wider, due to the bone
>structure of the face, but if I look between my legs I have 360 degrees
>vision in the horizontal range.
Nothing down there either?
>
>
>I actually have a copy of the Sun here
>
Says it all
--
geoff
geoff
<esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>> >
>>
>> I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.
>
>There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
>in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
>avoid the red herring sites.
Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it
>>
>> Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
>> way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
>> croaks - stop watching TV?
>>
>No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
>propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
>ridiculously expensive.
>
>What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
>TV croaks bye the way?
>I look forward to hearing your answer
>
I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose
--
geoff
half_pint
> In message <bssmil$117v1$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.
> >
> >There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
> >in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
> >avoid the red herring sites.
>
> Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it
The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?
>
> >>
> >> Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
> >> way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
> >> croaks - stop watching TV?
> >>
> >No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
> >propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
> >ridiculously expensive.
> >
> >What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
> >TV croaks bye the way?
> >I look forward to hearing your answer
> >
> I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose
You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.
> --
> geoff
Bob Brenchley.
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"geoff" <ra...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:5cU8Cx16re8$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
>> In message <bssmil$117v1$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
>> <esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
>> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.
>> >
>> >There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
>> >in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
>> >avoid the red herring sites.
>>
>> Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it
>
>
>The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
>do with art.
>Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
>Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
>quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
> Bit odd that eh?
No.
>
>
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
>> >> way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
>> >> croaks - stop watching TV?
>> >>
>> >No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
>> >propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
>> >ridiculously expensive.
>> >
>> >What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
>> >TV croaks bye the way?
>> >I look forward to hearing your answer
>> >
>> I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose
>
>You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.
Who would want to lug a large TV about?
>
>> --
>> geoff
geoff
>> >> I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.
>> >
>> >There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
>> >in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
>> >avoid the red herring sites.
>>
>> Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it
>
>
>The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
>do with art.
>Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
>Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
>quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
> Bit odd that eh?
>
Not an art connoisseur are we?
Who said it was - golden rectangles are normally used to highlight
important areas of interest
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
>> >> way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
>> >> croaks - stop watching TV?
>> >>
>> >No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
>> >propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
>> >ridiculously expensive.
>> >
>> >What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
>> >TV croaks bye the way?
>> >I look forward to hearing your answer
>> >
>> I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose
>
>You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.
>
Why should I need to lug a TV about?
I have one in every main room of the house
--
geoff
half_pint
"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:6c04vvsj012tder7e...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:14 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"geoff" <ra...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:5cU8Cx16re8$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
> >> In message <bssmil$117v1$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
> >> <esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.
> >> >
> >> >There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which
developed
> >> >in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
> >> >avoid the red herring sites.
> >>
> >> Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it
> >
> >
> >The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
> >do with art.
> >Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
> >Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
> >quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
> > Bit odd that eh?
>
> No.
Yes.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on
it's
> >> >> way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
> >> >> croaks - stop watching TV?
> >> >>
> >> >No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
> >> >propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
> >> >ridiculously expensive.
> >> >
> >> >What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
> >> >TV croaks bye the way?
> >> >I look forward to hearing your answer
> >> >
> >> I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose
> >
> >You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.
>
> Who would want to lug a large TV about?
Someone who has a large portable?
Forgive me if I am overstating the obvious.
> >
> >> --
> >> geoff
> >--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
"David Hemmings" <davids....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:lm24vvomc21c42tfb...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:16:33 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
> >news:6c04vvsj012tder7e...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:14 -0000, "half_pint"
> >> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"geoff" <ra...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:5cU8Cx16re8$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
> >> >> In message <bssmil$117v1$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
> >> >> <esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which
> >developed
> >> >> >in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
> >> >> >avoid the red herring sites.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
> >> >do with art.
> >> >Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
> >> >Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
> >> >quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
> >> > Bit odd that eh?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >Yes.
> >
No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)
>
The Natural Philosopher
Actually 35mm film is 36mmx24mm - 3:2. Most early films were shot on
that format....
The Natural Philosopher
Ah. So what you are saying is that a squeare scereen would be good
because you could watch it lying on your side?
>
>
geoff
<esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
>> >> >
>> >> >The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
>> >> >do with art.
>> >> >Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
>> >> >Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
>> >> >quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
>> >> > Bit odd that eh?
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >Yes.
>> >
>> You find it quite funny that a portrait is taller than it is wide ?
>
>No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
>arguement for WS TV's
I don't recall making it an argument for widescreen TV, I was just
making an observation
>when the rectangle is as likely to be
>horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
>for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
>best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
>human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
>fovea and macular.)
Not got a real grip on the world have you ?
--
geoff
half_pint
--
---------------
regards half_pint
"geoff" <ra...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:zQ0+BhA61f8$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
> In message <bsss1g$14r78$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
> >> >> I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.
> >> >
> >> >There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which
developed
> >> >in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
> >> >avoid the red herring sites.
> >>
> >> Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it
> >
> >
> >The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
> >do with art.
> >Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
> >Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
> >quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
> > Bit odd that eh?
> >
>
> Not an art connoisseur are we?
> Who said it was - golden rectangles are normally used to highlight
> important areas of interest.
Garbage - If you think there is a GR in Mona face you are deluded, there
are so many points on a persons face I could make any shape fit into
it 4:3, 2:1, 5:3, 9:4, 7:2
All natures creatures, apart form a few specalists such as seagulls
evolved a circular visual system to do its panning and scanning.
This is to be expected since given any random selection of images
you will find a best coverage is achieved with a circular apperture.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on
it's
> >> >> way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
> >> >> croaks - stop watching TV?
> >> >>
> >> >No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
> >> >propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
> >> >ridiculously expensive.
> >> >
> >> >What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
> >> >TV croaks bye the way?
> >> >I look forward to hearing your answer
> >> >
> >> I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose
> >
> >You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.
> >
> Why should I need to lug a TV about?
> I have one in every main room of the house
Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot,
maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot.
Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable
in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take
up too much room, ditto for the bedroom.
There must be a market for portable TV's (which you appear
to deny) because they make up about 30-50 percent of the TV
market .
Also not everyone wants to spend £280 on a TV when they can
get one for £69, but I guess you call paying 4 times what you used
to pay is 'progress', just like digital radio, where you can pay
10 times the price for a product which will not even work unless
you pay a futher £400 for an ariel the size of Jodrell Bank.
>
> --
> geoff
James Sweet
>
> No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
> arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
> horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
> for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
> best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
> human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
> fovea and macular.)
> >
>
>
Where are you even getting that from? A portrait display (taller than wide)
is great for showing just that, a portrait of one person, or a full
document, but since our eyes are side by side, not one over the other, when
you look out over a scene you see more width than height. There's little of
interest on the ground or up in the sky, hence the popularity of panoramic
photos for showing a scene.
Just the same, yes if the standard was square and movies were shot assuming
a square screen it would work just fine and dandy aside from having to try
harder to keep mic booms, etc out of the picture and needing to be zoomed
out unnessesarily far to fit many scenes, but the fact of the matter is
that's not the case, and movies are filmed wider than they are tall. That's
the way it's been for a long time and it's unlikely for that to change. Are
you a troll or what? You must have been one of those kids who'd try to jam
the round peg in the square hole for reasons not apparent to anyone else.
half_pint
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:3FF217D2.1070407@b.c...
No thats what you said.
--
---------------
regards half_pint
>
> >
> >
>
>
half_pint
16/9 =1.8 GR = 1.618
James Sweet
> >
> > Why all the argument? The reason behind widescreen is irrelevant, the
fact
> > is that it's the format of the future, virtually every movie in
existance
> > was filmed in something closer to 16:9 than 4:3.
>
>
> Actually 35mm film is 36mmx24mm - 3:2. Most early films were shot on
> that format....
>
>
Which is almost exactly in the middle between 4:3 and 16:9, my
interpretation of that is that for older fims it's a tossup, for newer films
16:9 is the clear winner, looks like a point scored for WS.
Perhaps my view on this subject is also due to the fact that I can't think
of anything worth watching on TV aside from movies and a very occasional
show on the history channel, if 95% of the TV's use is for wide material
then it would make sense to go with a wide set should I ever get a newer one
than I have.
half_pint
> In message <bst2qm$16312$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing
to
> >> >> >do with art.
> >> >> >Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
> >> >> >Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
> >> >> >quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
> >> >> > Bit odd that eh?
> >> >>
> >> >> No.
> >> >
> >> >Yes.
> >> >
> >> You find it quite funny that a portrait is taller than it is wide ?
> >
> >No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
> >arguement for WS TV's
>
> I don't recall making it an argument for widescreen TV, I was just
> making an observation
What is your observation and how is it relevant?
>
> >when the rectangle is as likely to be
> >horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
> >for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
> >best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
> >human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
> >fovea and macular.)
>
> Not got a real grip on the world have you ?
What makes you think that and what characteristics are displayed
(in your opinon) by someone with a 'grip on the world'?
>
> --
> geoff
James Sweet
>
> Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot,
> maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot.
> Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable
> in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take
> up too much room, ditto for the bedroom.
> There must be a market for portable TV's (which you appear
> to deny) because they make up about 30-50 percent of the TV
> market .
> Also not everyone wants to spend £280 on a TV when they can
> get one for £69, but I guess you call paying 4 times what you used
> to pay is 'progress', just like digital radio, where you can pay
> 10 times the price for a product which will not even work unless
> you pay a futher £400 for an ariel the size of Jodrell Bank.
> >
> > --
> > geoff
There's a plentiful supply of used 4:3 sets, and that will only get larger
as 16:9 gains popularity, so if anything you should be happy, supply will be
high, demand will be low, prices will be cheap. The 4:3 format will likely
remain popular for quite some time for portable sets, but 4:3 is virtually
dead for large projection sets even today, with no signs of that slowing
down. I rather like the trend, if I had my choice I'd go WS but I got my 50"
standard set for free, I'm sure after a few years I'll come across an even
nicer one as someone upgrades.
geoff
<esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
>> >
>>
>> Not an art connoisseur are we?
>> Who said it was - golden rectangles are normally used to highlight
>> important areas of interest.
>
>Garbage - If you think there is a GR in Mona face you are deluded, there
>are so many points on a persons face I could make any shape fit into
>it 4:3, 2:1, 5:3, 9:4, 7:2
Again, I made no mention of the Mona Lisa - it's a portrait over a
portrait. You have to dig a bit deeper into the art world than that
>
>All natures creatures, apart form a few specalists such as seagulls
>evolved a circular visual system to do its panning and scanning.
>This is to be expected since given any random selection of images
>you will find a best coverage is achieved with a circular apperture.
>
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on
>it's
>> >> >> way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
>> >> >> croaks - stop watching TV?
>> >> >>
>> >> >No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
>> >> >propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
>> >> >ridiculously expensive.
>> >> >
>> >> >What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
>> >> >TV croaks bye the way?
>> >> >I look forward to hearing your answer
>> >> >
>> >> I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose
>> >
>> >You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.
>> >
>> Why should I need to lug a TV about?
>> I have one in every main room of the house
>
>Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot,
>maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot.
Did you miss my comment above?
>Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable
>in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take
>up too much room, ditto for the bedroom.
Nah - 28" in the bedroom, portable but static in the kitchen (4:3
portable)
>There must be a market for portable TV's (which you appear
>to deny) because they make up about 30-50 percent of the TV
>market .
I don't recall having said anything of the kind
>Also not everyone wants to spend £280 on a TV when they can
>get one for £69,
Aah - you like sex channels then
> but I guess you call paying 4 times what you used
>to pay is 'progress', just like digital radio, where you can pay
>10 times the price for a product which will not even work unless
>you pay a futher £400 for an ariel the size of Jodrell Bank.
Who needs Joderell Bank ?
What I'm saying is:
The 16:9 is becoming the new standard, like it or not. You are in a
changing world, you can dig your heels in, but you're not going to win
because it's a massive business whose primary interest is not what you
happen to find aesthetically pleasing, but what, economically , is going
to generate best profits.
Digital TV will eventually take over from analogue and you can sit in
front of your old TV looking at snow if you want to - the constant, safe
secure world that you once knew is no more, get used to it
>>
>> --
>> geoff
>
>
--
geoff
geoff
<esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>What is your observation and how is it relevant?
It was that 16:9 was a golden rectangle, and I claimed no relevance
>>
>> >when the rectangle is as likely to be
>> >horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
>> >for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
>> >best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
>> >human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
>> >fovea and macular.)
>>
>> Not got a real grip on the world have you ?
>
>What makes you think that and what characteristics are displayed
>(in your opinon) by someone with a 'grip on the world'?
Someone who recognises that the world is changing and that standing
still is, in effect moving backwards.
Analogue TV will be switched off as soon as is practicable.
The fact that a total mess has been made of it (the changeover) is
irrelevant, it will happen.
--
geoff
half_pint
> In message <bst6bk$15gbn$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
> >> >
> >>
> >> Not an art connoisseur are we?
> >> Who said it was - golden rectangles are normally used to highlight
> >> important areas of interest.
> >
> >Garbage - If you think there is a GR in Mona face you are deluded, there
> >are so many points on a persons face I could make any shape fit into
> >it 4:3, 2:1, 5:3, 9:4, 7:2
>
> Again, I made no mention of the Mona Lisa - it's a portrait over a
> portrait. You have to dig a bit deeper into the art world than that
You mentioned leonardo, the ML is a common example given for the GR.
>
> >
> >All natures creatures, apart form a few specalists such as seagulls
> >evolved a circular visual system to do its panning and scanning.
> >This is to be expected since given any random selection of images
> >you will find a best coverage is achieved with a circular apperture.
> >
> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on
> >it's
> >> >> >> way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3
finally
> >> >> >> croaks - stop watching TV?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
> >> >> >propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
> >> >> >ridiculously expensive.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
> >> >> >TV croaks bye the way?
> >> >> >I look forward to hearing your answer
> >> >> >
> >> >> I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose
> >> >
> >> >You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.
> >> >
> >> Why should I need to lug a TV about?
> >> I have one in every main room of the house
> >
> >Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot,
> >maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot.
>
> Did you miss my comment above?
No I didn't, you appear to have missed my point however.
( which is there are few/no portable WS vacuum tube TV's)
>
> >Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable
> >in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take
> >up too much room, ditto for the bedroom.
>
> Nah - 28" in the bedroom, portable but static in the kitchen (4:3
> portable)
I don't fancy a paying £280 for a TV in the bedroom which I would
hardly ever watch, besides it would take up too much room anyway.
>
> >There must be a market for portable TV's (which you appear
> >to deny) because they make up about 30-50 percent of the TV
> >market .
>
> I don't recall having said anything of the kind
Not explicitly no.
>
> >Also not everyone wants to spend £280 on a TV when they can
> >get one for £69,
>
> Aah - you like sex channels then
Not really I can get all my filth on line for free.
>
> > but I guess you call paying 4 times what you used
> >to pay is 'progress', just like digital radio, where you can pay
> >10 times the price for a product which will not even work unless
> >you pay a futher £400 for an ariel the size of Jodrell Bank.
>
> Who needs Joderell Bank ?
>
> What I'm saying is:
>
> The 16:9 is becoming the new standard, like it or not. You are in a
> changing world, you can dig your heels in, but you're not going to win
> because it's a massive business whose primary interest is not what you
> happen to find aesthetically pleasing, but what, economically , is going
> to generate best profits.
And you are right but wrong.
I was considering buying a new main TV and two portables but all this
WS crap has put me off. So where is the profit in that?
The poll tax was good for business but it died a death.
16:9 looks ok on a 4:3 but 4:3 on a 16:9 looks shite.
Most of my viewing is still 4:3, the soaps (which I don't watch)
are in 16:9 but soap viewers will watch anything.
(Actually soaps look bad in 16:9 cos its mainly indoors so no
landscape shots, its mainly portrait type shots).
My footie is still 4:3 :O)
>
> Digital TV will eventually take over from analogue and you can sit in
> front of your old TV looking at snow if you want to - the constant, safe
> secure world that you once knew is no more, get used to it
>
Don't under estimate the power of the masses, we may have no cake
to eat Marie Anttiornette(?).
It will be a brave polititian who says "Let them watch snow!!"
I have noticed a lot of heavy pushing of 'new technology' by the BBC though.
It make me wonder who is controling the situation.
MAybe we will be required to have a portrait of the Governer General of
the BBC in every room?
We haven't gone digital yet and it will take a long time I expect.
> >>
> >> --
> >> geoff
> >
> >
>
> --
> geoff
half_pint
> In message <bst6u8$19240$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
> >
> >What is your observation and how is it relevant?
>
> It was that 16:9 was a golden rectangle, and I claimed no relevance
I dont think it is, 16:9 is 1:1.8
A golden ratio is 1:1.62
(unless I have screwed up big time) (rare)
>
> >>
> >> >when the rectangle is as likely to be
> >> >horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
> >> >for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
> >> >best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
> >> >human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
> >> >fovea and macular.)
> >>
> >> Not got a real grip on the world have you ?
> >
> >What makes you think that and what characteristics are displayed
> >(in your opinon) by someone with a 'grip on the world'?
>
> Someone who recognises that the world is changing and that standing
> still is, in effect moving backwards.
I am recognising the world is moving backwards.
By standing still I am effectively advancing :O)
>
> Analogue TV will be switched off as soon as is practicable.
Never if it means swithcing to widescreen?
Digital and WS have been married to produce an ugly bastard,
(if its possible to produce a bastard under wedlock).
Its a total cockup.
We would not be in this mess if I was in charge :O|
> The fact that a total mess has been made of it (the changeover) is
> irrelevant, it will happen.
Its a mess cos its bad, is a backwards step.
Backwards steps in evolution are rare and don;t usualy last long.
> --
> geoff
James Sweet
> Analogue TV will be switched off as soon as is practicable.
> The fact that a total mess has been made of it (the changeover) is
> irrelevant, it will happen.
> --
> geoff
I don't think that will particularly matter, we're in the age of one chip
does everything, it costs only pennies per unit to provide an analog output
in whatever video standard is desired from a digital cable box. Digital will
slowly creep in, but the analog TV will be with us for a while in one form
or another. The majority of the people I know with digital cable use it with
a standard TV, the only reason I see for HD is for movies.
geoff
<esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>>
>> The 16:9 is becoming the new standard, like it or not. You are in a
>> changing world, you can dig your heels in, but you're not going to win
>> because it's a massive business whose primary interest is not what you
>> happen to find aesthetically pleasing, but what, economically , is going
>> to generate best profits.
>
>And you are right but wrong.
>I was considering buying a new main TV and two portables but all this
>WS crap has put me off. So where is the profit in that?
You are (as I am ) totally insignificant in the big picture (so to
speak)
>
>The poll tax was good for business but it died a death.
>16:9 looks ok on a 4:3 but 4:3 on a 16:9 looks shite.
>Most of my viewing is still 4:3, the soaps (which I don't watch)
>are in 16:9 but soap viewers will watch anything.
Never watched more than one episode of Coronation street 30 years ago -
but with an anterior motive
>(Actually soaps look bad in 16:9 cos its mainly indoors so no
>landscape shots, its mainly portrait type shots).
>My footie is still 4:3 :O)
Football on TV is shite whatever resolution you use
>>
>> Digital TV will eventually take over from analogue and you can sit in
>> front of your old TV looking at snow if you want to - the constant, safe
>> secure world that you once knew is no more, get used to it
>>
>Don't under estimate the power of the masses, we may have no cake
>to eat Marie Anttiornette(?).
>It will be a brave polititian who says "Let them watch snow!!"
It will happen
>
>I have noticed a lot of heavy pushing of 'new technology' by the BBC though.
>It make me wonder who is controling the situation.
>MAybe we will be required to have a portrait of the Governer General of
>the BBC in every room?
>
>We haven't gone digital yet and it will take a long time I expect.
>
I agree, but the format is changing, what ever your wishes might be
--
geoff
geoff
<esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>> >What makes you think that and what characteristics are displayed
>> >(in your opinon) by someone with a 'grip on the world'?
>>
>> Someone who recognises that the world is changing and that standing
>> still is, in effect moving backwards.
>
>I am recognising the world is moving backwards.
>By standing still I am effectively advancing :O)
>>
>> Analogue TV will be switched off as soon as is practicable.
>
>Never if it means swithcing to widescreen?
Sorry, it's going to happen
>
>Digital and WS have been married to produce an ugly bastard,
>(if its possible to produce a bastard under wedlock).
>Its a total cockup.
>We would not be in this mess if I was in charge :O|
>
>
>> The fact that a total mess has been made of it (the changeover) is
>> irrelevant, it will happen.
>
>Its a mess cos its bad, is a backwards step.
>Backwards steps in evolution are rare and don;t usualy last long.
You're losing it here
>
>> --
>> geoff
>
>
--
geoff
half_pint
"James Sweet" <james...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I2pIb.79969$VB2.162248@attbi_s51...
>
> >
> > No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
> > arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
> > horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
> > for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
> > best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
> > human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
> > fovea and macular.)
> > >
> >
> >
>
> Where are you even getting that from? A portrait display (taller than
wide)
> is great for showing just that, a portrait of one person, or a full
> document, but since our eyes are side by side, not one over the other,
when
Your eyes may be side by side but they produce a single 3D circular image.
( Unless you are pissed out of your mind and have double vision)
> you look out over a scene you see more width than height. There's little
of
> interest on the ground or up in the sky, hence the popularity of panoramic
> photos for showing a scene.
Unfortunatly only ~10% of images are panoramic most are portrait, unless you
are a seagull which require a widescreen view as viewing the horizon seems
to
the be all and end all of their exiatance.
> Just the same, yes if the standard was square and movies were shot
assuming
> a square screen it would work just fine and dandy aside from having to try
> harder to keep mic booms, etc out of the picture and needing to be zoomed
> out unnessesarily far to fit many scenes, but the fact of the matter is
> that's not the case, and movies are filmed wider than they are tall.
That's
> the way it's been for a long time and it's unlikely for that to change.
Are
> you a troll or what? You must have been one of those kids who'd try to jam
> the round peg in the square hole for reasons not apparent to anyone else.
I think u r the troll, the movie of 911 will look great in WS, you will have
to film it from 20 miles away to get both towers in.
Images on average are of a random shape so round, like our eyes vision is
best.
>
>
half_pint
Nature chose a circular image for human visual perception, do you think
your cinema proprietor knows better.
I think he is more influenced by the the economics of audiance seating, a
wide
seating area allows him more 'bums' (pun intended) per unit volume, hence
greater profits. With a taller screen you cannot seat people in vertical
space
required to show the film.
Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious phrase)
>
>
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
So you prefer WS TV but have not experienced it yet? bit odd?
Films can be 'doctored' to look OK in WS ( stick a lampost/hatstand in the
wasted space) but you cannot do that to real life broadcasts (sport, news
etc).
In real life people have tops on their heads.( no wonder hats went out of
fashion).
>
>
half_pint
> In message <bstbv2$15uim$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
> >
> >>
> >> The 16:9 is becoming the new standard, like it or not. You are in a
> >> changing world, you can dig your heels in, but you're not going to win
> >> because it's a massive business whose primary interest is not what you
> >> happen to find aesthetically pleasing, but what, economically , is
going
> >> to generate best profits.
> >
> >And you are right but wrong.
> >I was considering buying a new main TV and two portables but all this
> >WS crap has put me off. So where is the profit in that?
>
> You are (as I am ) totally insignificant in the big picture (so to
> speak)
its a thin picture to be correct.
>
> >
> >The poll tax was good for business but it died a death.
> >16:9 looks ok on a 4:3 but 4:3 on a 16:9 looks shite.
> >Most of my viewing is still 4:3, the soaps (which I don't watch)
> >are in 16:9 but soap viewers will watch anything.
>
> Never watched more than one episode of Coronation street 30 years ago -
> but with an anterior motive
It used to have some great humour in it at one time, but still not really
my cup of tea.
>
> >(Actually soaps look bad in 16:9 cos its mainly indoors so no
> >landscape shots, its mainly portrait type shots).
> >My footie is still 4:3 :O)
>
> Football on TV is shite whatever resolution you use
It is if your watching Nottm Forest these days sadly :O(
Well personally I think most films are shite, but then horses for courses.
I have to have a real interest in the result/players to watch most footballs
though,
otherwise is basically a bag of air being kicked arouond.
>
> >>
> >> Digital TV will eventually take over from analogue and you can sit in
> >> front of your old TV looking at snow if you want to - the constant,
safe
> >> secure world that you once knew is no more, get used to it
> >>
> >Don't under estimate the power of the masses, we may have no cake
> >to eat Marie Anttiornette(?).
> >It will be a brave polititian who says "Let them watch snow!!"
>
> It will happen
hopefully not in my lifetime and I have plenty of years left (I hope).
half_pint
I don't lose often, you should seee my yahoo pool rating (when sober).
>
>
> >
> >> --
> >> geoff
> >
> >
>
> --
> geoff
James Sweet
> So you prefer WS TV but have not experienced it yet? bit odd?
> Films can be 'doctored' to look OK in WS ( stick a lampost/hatstand in the
> wasted space) but you cannot do that to real life broadcasts (sport, news
> etc).
Again where are you getting this information? I don't *own* a widescreen set
but I *would* prefer one, it just so happens that I'm satisfied enough with
what I have until something better comes along. It's not like I've never
watched one before, but I still would find it nice if the screen fit the
image rather than wasting a couple inches of the screen.
I don't even know why I'm continuing to discuss this, some day perhaps
you'll realize that you're in the minority, WS sets sell, and they fetch a
premium price, you may not like them but that doesn't change the fact that
they're gradually becoming a standard. Why is this such an issue for you?
It's not like 4:3 will disapear in your lifetime, if you choose to cling to
it nobody will stop you, most anyone will agree it *is* cheaper so if it
suits your needs stick with it and stop arguing against the majority.
Andy Hall
>
>Never watched more than one episode of Coronation street 30 years ago -
>but with an anterior motive
>
It's normally "ulterior". "Anterior" in connection with Corrie St?
There would be an interesting tale there.......:-)
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Andy Hall
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>I don't lose often, you should seee my yahoo pool rating (when sober).
>>
>>
Do you score well at pocket pool as well?
Bob Brenchley.
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"James Sweet" <james...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:08pIb.175235$8y1.531705@attbi_s52...
>>
>> > >
>> > > Why all the argument? The reason behind widescreen is irrelevant, the
>> fact
>> > > is that it's the format of the future, virtually every movie in
>> existance
>> > > was filmed in something closer to 16:9 than 4:3.
>> >
>> >
>> > Actually 35mm film is 36mmx24mm - 3:2. Most early films were shot on
>> > that format....
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> Which is almost exactly in the middle between 4:3 and 16:9, my
>> interpretation of that is that for older fims it's a tossup, for newer
>films
>> 16:9 is the clear winner, looks like a point scored for WS.
>>
>> Perhaps my view on this subject is also due to the fact that I can't think
>> of anything worth watching on TV aside from movies and a very occasional
>> show on the history channel, if 95% of the TV's use is for wide material
>> then it would make sense to go with a wide set should I ever get a newer
>one
>> than I have.
>
>Nature chose a circular image for human visual perception, do you think
>your cinema proprietor knows better.
Well, better than you anyway - at least he knows that humans have a
wide angle view on the world which widescreen comes closer to than 4:3
TV.
>I think he is more influenced by the the economics of audiance seating, a
>wide
>seating area allows him more 'bums' (pun intended) per unit volume, hence
>greater profits.
Rubbish.
> With a taller screen you cannot seat people in vertical
>space
>required to show the film.
Why not?
>Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious phrase)
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Bob Brenchley.
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"geoff" <ra...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:urrJ$6bGei8$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
>> In message <bst6bk$15gbn$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
>> <esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
>> >> >
>> Again, I made no mention of the Mona Lisa - it's a portrait over a
>> portrait. You have to dig a bit deeper into the art world than that
>
>You mentioned leonardo, the ML is a common example given for the GR.
No it isn't.
>> >Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot,
>> >maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot.
>>
>> Did you miss my comment above?
>
>No I didn't, you appear to have missed my point however.
>( which is there are few/no portable WS vacuum tube TV's)
There are several 16/17" sets (which have the same vertical screen
height as a 14" standard.
>
>>
>> >Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable
>> >in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take
>> >up too much room, ditto for the bedroom.
>>
>> Nah - 28" in the bedroom, portable but static in the kitchen (4:3
>> portable)
>
>I don't fancy a paying £280 for a TV in the bedroom which I would
>hardly ever watch, besides it would take up too much room anyway.
Then get a smaller/cheaper set.
>>
>>
>> The 16:9 is becoming the new standard, like it or not. You are in a
>> changing world, you can dig your heels in, but you're not going to win
>> because it's a massive business whose primary interest is not what you
>> happen to find aesthetically pleasing, but what, economically , is going
>> to generate best profits.
>
>And you are right but wrong.
>I was considering buying a new main TV and two portables but all this
>WS crap has put me off. So where is the profit in that?
The profit is the extra sales generated by people like you.
>
>The poll tax was good for business but it died a death.
The Community Charge system was the fairest tax ever used.
>16:9 looks ok on a 4:3 but 4:3 on a 16:9 looks shite.
One reason so few programmes are made in 4:3.
>Most of my viewing is still 4:3, the soaps (which I don't watch)
>are in 16:9 but soap viewers will watch anything.
>(Actually soaps look bad in 16:9 cos its mainly indoors so no
>landscape shots, its mainly portrait type shots).
>My footie is still 4:3 :O)
No it isn't. All football is now recorded and most is transmitted in
widescreen.
>>
>> Digital TV will eventually take over from analogue and you can sit in
>> front of your old TV looking at snow if you want to - the constant, safe
>> secure world that you once knew is no more, get used to it
>>
>Don't under estimate the power of the masses, we may have no cake
>to eat Marie Anttiornette(?).
>It will be a brave polititian who says "Let them watch snow!!"
It is already on its way. In a few years time you will not be able to
watch analogue broadcasts.
>
>I have noticed a lot of heavy pushing of 'new technology' by the BBC though.
>It make me wonder who is controling the situation.
>MAybe we will be required to have a portrait of the Governer General of
>the BBC in every room?
>
>We haven't gone digital yet and it will take a long time I expect.
But we are going digital. The majority of people now have digital TV
and the size of that majority grows every day.
If my 78 year old Mother can see the advantage of digital then so will
everyone else - except idiots like you.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
friends so they may learn as well.
Bob Brenchley.
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
>news:6c04vvsj012tder7e...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:14 -0000, "half_pint"
>> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"geoff" <ra...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> >news:5cU8Cx16re8$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
>> >> In message <bssmil$117v1$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
>> >> <esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
>> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.
>> >> >
>> >> >There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which
>developed
>> >> >in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
>> >> >avoid the red herring sites.
>> >>
>> >> Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it
>> >
>> >
>> >The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
>> >do with art.
>> >Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
>> >Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
>> >quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
>> > Bit odd that eh?
>>
>> No.
>
>Yes.
You have been told no - by lots of people.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on
>it's
>> >> >> way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
>> >> >> croaks - stop watching TV?
>> >> >>
>> >> >No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
>> >> >propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
>> >> >ridiculously expensive.
>> >> >
>> >> >What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
>> >> >TV croaks bye the way?
>> >> >I look forward to hearing your answer
>> >> >
>> >> I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose
>> >
>> >You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.
>>
>> Who would want to lug a large TV about?
>
>Someone who has a large portable?
But "large" and "portable" do not equate. If you want a portable then
you have a portable - a 16/17" Widescreen is only a couple of pounds
heavier than a normal 14".
>
>Forgive me if I am overstating the obvious.
I will forgive you, this time, for being stupid.
>
>> >
>> >> --
>> >> geoff
>> >--
>---------------
>regards half_pint
>
>> --
>> Bob.
>>
>> The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
>> summed up in one word -- YOU.
>
Still can't work out how to use a newsreader I see.
--
Bob.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why you appear bright until
we hear you talk.
The Natural Philosopher
> Nature chose a circular image for human visual perception,
Ah, but that is where you are completely wrong.
depending on teh species, there are huge variations in visual
perecp[ion. Cats for example have vertical irises,which allow extermely
shapr vision in teh horizontal plane, less so in teh vertical, at night.
Horses have near 360 degree vison horizontally, but only 180 vertically.
And precious little binocular.
We as tree and plains dwellers, have good binocular, and about 120
degree horizontally and about 90 degree vertically peripheral vision.
> do you think
> your cinema proprietor knows better.
> I think he is more influenced by the the economics of audiance seating, a
> wide
> seating area allows him more 'bums' (pun intended) per unit volume, hence
> greater profits. With a taller screen you cannot seat people in vertical
> space
> required to show the film.
Er, you can. Old formay 35mm screens worked juts fine on seating, but
more and more they only got the film projected in teh middle bit. So the
newer cinemas are a bit lower. Wide screen - e.g. cinerama - has been
around a while. The main driver has always been te ability to show more
sideways. Its so happens that teh majority of pictures do not featire a
single talking head, and things like car chases benefit from gerater
horizontal stuff.
> Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious phrase)
Both, but not your ecomomic argument. Most films are really mde for
DVD/video these days. Only teh really big blockbusters make cinema money.
Its an artistic and practical thing. And the equipment makers follow fashions
to help obosolete old kit.
>
>>
>
> --
> ---------------
> regards half_pint
>
>
>
Bob Brenchley.
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"James Sweet" <james...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:I2pIb.79969$VB2.162248@attbi_s51...
>>
>> >
>> > No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
>> > arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
>> > horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
>> > for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
>> > best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
>> > human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
>> > fovea and macular.)
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Where are you even getting that from? A portrait display (taller than
>wide)
>> is great for showing just that, a portrait of one person, or a full
>> document, but since our eyes are side by side, not one over the other,
>when
>
>
>Your eyes may be side by side but they produce a single 3D circular image.
No they don't. The produce a wide angle view, which modern widescreen
TVs still can't achieve but at least they come closer to a natural
view than the old 4:3 sets.
>( Unless you are pissed out of your mind and have double vision)
>
>> you look out over a scene you see more width than height. There's little
>of
>> interest on the ground or up in the sky, hence the popularity of panoramic
>> photos for showing a scene.
>
>Unfortunatly only ~10% of images are panoramic most are portrait, unless you
>are a seagull which require a widescreen view as viewing the horizon seems
>to
>the be all and end all of their exiatance.
We naturally have a panoramic view on ther world - regardless of what
we are looking at.
>
>> Just the same, yes if the standard was square and movies were shot
>assuming
>> a square screen it would work just fine and dandy aside from having to try
>> harder to keep mic booms, etc out of the picture and needing to be zoomed
>> out unnessesarily far to fit many scenes, but the fact of the matter is
>> that's not the case, and movies are filmed wider than they are tall.
>That's
>> the way it's been for a long time and it's unlikely for that to change.
>Are
>> you a troll or what? You must have been one of those kids who'd try to jam
>> the round peg in the square hole for reasons not apparent to anyone else.
>
>I think u r the troll, the movie of 911 will look great in WS, you will have
>to film it from 20 miles away to get both towers in.
>
>Images on average are of a random shape so round, like our eyes vision is
>best.
But your vision is NOT round - that is the part you keep getting
wrong.
>>
>>
>
--
Bob.
Education would be your best defense, at the moment you are totally
defenseless.
geoff
<an...@hall.nospam> writes
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:47:49 +0000, geoff <ra...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Never watched more than one episode of Coronation street 30 years ago -
>>but with an anterior motive
>>
>
>It's normally "ulterior". "Anterior" in connection with Corrie St?
>
It was a typo, although how I got a&u and n&l mixed up, I have no idea,
they're not even close on the kbd.
I read it in several replies and winced, but wasn't going to correct it
as I have given up on this thread
--
geoff
Andy Hall
Quite, although I suppose in the sense of 'anterior' it could be
described as a f*ck up. IYSWIM :-)
half_pint
That garbage, the human field of active 20/20 vision is very narrow
about 20 degrees IIRC. It is *not possible* to watch a film using
*peripheral vision*.
Please read up on how human vision works (but not on a site
designed for 5 year old children), before contributing more misleading
and inaccurate garbage.
>
>> I think he is more influenced by the the economics of audiance
>> seating, a wide
>> seating area allows him more 'bums' (pun intended) per unit volume,
>> hence greater profits.
>
> Rubbish.
Fact
>
>> With a taller screen you cannot seat people in vertical
>> space
>> required to show the film.
>
> Why not?
Because anyone below then has their vision obscured, a high and
distant 'upper circle' is the best that can be managed, with abour
10% of the seating capacity below.
>
>> Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious
>> phrase)
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:21:20 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "geoff" <ra...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:urrJ$6bGei8$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
>>> In message <bst6bk$15gbn$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
>>> <esboell...@yahoo.com> writes
>>>>>>
>
>>> Again, I made no mention of the Mona Lisa - it's a portrait over a
>>> portrait. You have to dig a bit deeper into the art world than that
>>
>> You mentioned leonardo, the ML is a common example given for the GR.
>
> No it isn't.
>
>>>> Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot,
>>>> maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot.
>>>
>>> Did you miss my comment above?
>>
>> No I didn't, you appear to have missed my point however.
>> ( which is there are few/no portable WS vacuum tube TV's)
>
> There are several 16/17" sets (which have the same vertical screen
> height as a 14" standard.
No - prove it - give a some links - you cannot. EOS
>>
>>>
>>>> Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable
>>>> in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take
>>>> up too much room, ditto for the bedroom.
>>>
>>> Nah - 28" in the bedroom, portable but static in the kitchen (4:3
>>> portable)
>>
>> I don't fancy a paying £280 for a TV in the bedroom which I would
>> hardly ever watch, besides it would take up too much room anyway.
>
> Then get a smaller/cheaper set.
That as a smaller cheapo set. It's £380 for a set 10% bigger. (32 in)
>>>
>
>>>
>>> The 16:9 is becoming the new standard, like it or not. You are in a
>>> changing world, you can dig your heels in, but you're not going to
>>> win because it's a massive business whose primary interest is not
>>> what you happen to find aesthetically pleasing, but what,
>>> economically , is going to generate best profits.
>>
>> And you are right but wrong.
>> I was considering buying a new main TV and two portables but all this
>> WS crap has put me off. So where is the profit in that?
>
> The profit is the extra sales generated by people like you.
WS has causes me to stop buying TV's, mugs like you cough up merrilly.
>>
>> The poll tax was good for business but it died a death.
>
> The Community Charge system was the fairest tax ever used.
For the filthy rich yes.
>
>> 16:9 looks ok on a 4:3 but 4:3 on a 16:9 looks shite.
>
> One reason so few programmes are made in 4:3.
You get what you are served not what you choose.
>
>> Most of my viewing is still 4:3, the soaps (which I don't watch)
>> are in 16:9 but soap viewers will watch anything.
>> (Actually soaps look bad in 16:9 cos its mainly indoors so no
>> landscape shots, its mainly portrait type shots).
>> My footie is still 4:3 :O)
>
> No it isn't. All football is now recorded and most is transmitted in
> widescreen.
Not where I live (central UK).
>>>
>>> Digital TV will eventually take over from analogue and you can sit
>>> in front of your old TV looking at snow if you want to - the
>>> constant, safe secure world that you once knew is no more, get used
>>> to it
>>>
>> Don't under estimate the power of the masses, we may have no cake
>> to eat Marie Anttiornette(?).
>> It will be a brave polititian who says "Let them watch snow!!"
>
> It is already on its way. In a few years time you will not be able to
> watch analogue broadcasts.
Wrong.
>>
>> I have noticed a lot of heavy pushing of 'new technology' by the BBC
>> though. It make me wonder who is controling the situation.
>> MAybe we will be required to have a portrait of the Governer General
>> of
>> the BBC in every room?
>>
>> We haven't gone digital yet and it will take a long time I expect.
>
> But we are going digital. The majority of people now have digital TV
> and the size of that majority grows every day.
Yes and a cure for cancer is just around the corner.
>
> If my 78 year old Mother can see the advantage of digital then so will
> everyone else - except idiots like you.
Is she blind and senile? (like you)
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
> half_pint wrote:
>
>
>> Nature chose a circular image for human visual perception,
>
> Ah, but that is where you are completely wrong.
>
> depending on teh species, there are huge variations in visual
> perecp[ion. Cats for example have vertical irises,which allow
> extermely shapr vision in teh horizontal plane, less so in teh
> vertical, at night.
>
> Horses have near 360 degree vison horizontally, but only 180
> vertically.
> And precious little binocular.
>
> We as tree and plains dwellers, have good binocular, and about 120
> degree horizontally and about 90 degree vertically peripheral vision.
Wrong our field of viable 20/20 vision is about 20 degrees IIRC, look it up.
You *cannot* effectively use peripheral vison to watch TV.
>
>
>
>
>> do you think
>> your cinema proprietor knows better.
>> I think he is more influenced by the the economics of audiance
>> seating, a wide
>> seating area allows him more 'bums' (pun intended) per unit volume,
>> hence greater profits. With a taller screen you cannot seat people
>> in vertical space
>> required to show the film.
>
>
> Er, you can. Old formay 35mm screens worked juts fine on seating, but
> more and more they only got the film projected in teh middle bit. So
> the newer cinemas are a bit lower. Wide screen - e.g. cinerama - has
> been
> around a while. The main driver has always been te ability to show
> more sideways. Its so happens that teh majority of pictures do not
> featire a single talking head, and things like car chases benefit
> from gerater horizontal stuff.
Thats a bit garbled. It is a fact the the taller the picture the less people
you can seat per unit area, a 10 year old child could work that out.
( You may find tha maths a bit taxing presumably)
>
>
>> Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious
>> phrase)
>
>
> Both, but not your ecomomic argument. Most films are really mde for
> DVD/video these days. Only teh really big blockbusters make cinema
> money.
And most are not even WS, I seem so many complaints about it from
pretentious 'purists'
>
> Its an artistic and practical thing. And the equipment makers follow
> fashions
>
> to help obosolete old kit.
The fashion of economics and profit, not good picture making.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ---------------
>> regards half_pint
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
Yes people who don't have a clue and no evidence to support them.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is
>>>>>>> on it's way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty
>>>>>>> old 4:3 finally croaks - stop watching TV?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
>>>>>> propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
>>>>>> ridiculously expensive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
>>>>>> TV croaks bye the way?
>>>>>> I look forward to hearing your answer
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose
>>>>
>>>> You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.
>>>
>>> Who would want to lug a large TV about?
>>
>> Someone who has a large portable?
>
> But "large" and "portable" do not equate. If you want a portable then
> you have a portable - a 16/17" Widescreen is only a couple of pounds
> heavier than a normal 14".
Nobody sells em - slight problem
>>
>> Forgive me if I am overstating the obvious.
>
> I will forgive you, this time, for being stupid.
You are wrong EOS.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> geoff
>>>> --
>> ---------------
>> regards half_pint
>>
>>> --
>>> Bob.
>>>
>>> The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can
>>> be summed up in one word -- YOU.
>>
> Still can't work out how to use a newsreader I see.
Its worked ok the last 5 years and I am not changing it.
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:49:51 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "James Sweet" <james...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:I2pIb.79969$VB2.162248@attbi_s51...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
>>>> arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
>>>> horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
>>>> for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
>>>> best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
>>>> human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
>>>> fovea and macular.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where are you even getting that from? A portrait display (taller
>>> than wide) is great for showing just that, a portrait of one
>>> person, or a full document, but since our eyes are side by side,
>>> not one over the other, when
>>
>>
>> Your eyes may be side by side but they produce a single 3D circular
>> image.
>
> No they don't. The produce a wide angle view, which modern widescreen
> TVs still can't achieve but at least they come closer to a natural
> view than the old 4:3 sets.
Completely wrong. Prove it. You can't
>
>> ( Unless you are pissed out of your mind and have double vision)
>>
>>> you look out over a scene you see more width than height. There's
>>> little of interest on the ground or up in the sky, hence the
>>> popularity of panoramic photos for showing a scene.
>>
>> Unfortunatly only ~10% of images are panoramic most are portrait,
>> unless you are a seagull which require a widescreen view as viewing
>> the horizon seems to
>> the be all and end all of their exiatance.
>
> We naturally have a panoramic view on ther world - regardless of what
> we are looking at.
Wrong.
>>
>>> Just the same, yes if the standard was square and movies were shot
>>> assuming a square screen it would work just fine and dandy aside
>>> from having to try harder to keep mic booms, etc out of the picture
>>> and needing to be zoomed out unnessesarily far to fit many scenes,
>>> but the fact of the matter is that's not the case, and movies are
>>> filmed wider than they are tall. That's the way it's been for a
>>> long time and it's unlikely for that to change. Are you a troll or
>>> what? You must have been one of those kids who'd try to jam the
>>> round peg in the square hole for reasons not apparent to anyone
>>> else.
>>
>> I think u r the troll, the movie of 911 will look great in WS, you
>> will have to film it from 20 miles away to get both towers in.
>>
>> Images on average are of a random shape so round, like our eyes
>> vision is best.
>
> But your vision is NOT round - that is the part you keep getting
> wrong.
yes it is.
--
---------------
regards half_pint
Bob Brenchley.
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Bob Brenchley. wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:58:32 -0000, "half_pint"
>> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, better than you anyway - at least he knows that humans have a
>> wide angle view on the world which widescreen comes closer to than 4:3
>> TV.
>
>That garbage, the human field of active 20/20 vision is very narrow
>about 20 degrees IIRC.
Hohohoho!! Add a zero to that dumbo.
It is *not possible* to watch a film using
>*peripheral vision*.
Ideally the picture should be far wider.
>Please read up on how human vision works (but not on a site
>designed for 5 year old children), before contributing more misleading
>and inaccurate garbage.
Try doing the same dumbo - maybe then you would not look so stupid.
>
>>
>>> I think he is more influenced by the the economics of audiance
>>> seating, a wide
>>> seating area allows him more 'bums' (pun intended) per unit volume,
>>> hence greater profits.
>>
>> Rubbish.
>
>Fact
No it isn't.
>
>>
>>> With a taller screen you cannot seat people in vertical
>>> space
>>> required to show the film.
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Because anyone below then has their vision obscured, a high and
>distant 'upper circle' is the best that can be managed, with abour
>10% of the seating capacity below.
Not been to an Imax cinema have you?
>>
>>> Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious
>>> phrase)
--