Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can screen burn-in really be quantified?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
January 22, 2005 12:10:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

As I've mentioned in earlier posts, I'm going with a CRT RP HD monitor
which is supposedly high on the scale for potential screen burn-in. Can
anyone really quantify this? I see that direct view sets are also
considered at risk, albeit just above immune DLPs, yet I have first hand
knowledge of direct view sets that have been left on in my place of work
24/7/365 literally for years with no burn-in. Admittedly, video games
were not played, but static station logos were displayed for the last
few years with no effect. My own TV has been accidentally left on for
up to two weeks while on vacation with no ill effect, even on a station
such as Headline News with the ticker tape screen crawl. Does this mean
direct view is that much more robust with little risk and I should
really worry about my RP CRT? Or is the risk exaggerated with normal
use being of little consequence?

mb

More about : screen burn quantified

Anonymous
January 22, 2005 2:06:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"mb" <relax@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5b8012bde5e306989692@news.east.cox.net...
> As I've mentioned in earlier posts, I'm going with a CRT RP HD monitor
> which is supposedly high on the scale for potential screen burn-in. Can
> anyone really quantify this? I see that direct view sets are also
> considered at risk, albeit just above immune DLPs, yet I have first hand
> knowledge of direct view sets that have been left on in my place of work
> 24/7/365 literally for years with no burn-in. Admittedly, video games
> were not played, but static station logos were displayed for the last
> few years with no effect. My own TV has been accidentally left on for
> up to two weeks while on vacation with no ill effect, even on a station
> such as Headline News with the ticker tape screen crawl. Does this mean
> direct view is that much more robust with little risk and I should
> really worry about my RP CRT? Or is the risk exaggerated with normal
> use being of little consequence?

Burn-in is highly unlikely to be an issue with most folks, on Plasmas,
CRT's, or other technologies, especially so on projection sets. Two
exceptions to this are if you indeed watch the ticker type shows constantly,
or don't adjust your aspect to cover the whole screen, and even then, it has
to be left on for a LONG time.

It's mostly hype, which is too bad, as it keeps more folks from buying
plasmas, keeping the prices high.

Pagan
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 6:15:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In order for the picture on a rear projection TV to be viewable, the guns
have to be MUCH stronger than with a regular TV. So burn in is much more of
an issue than it is with a typical television set. You will definitely want
to adjust the brightness once you get the unit set up. The risk is not
exaggerated bit can be reduced by lowering the brightness from the typical
factory setting.

"mb" <relax@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5b8012bde5e306989692@news.east.cox.net...
> As I've mentioned in earlier posts, I'm going with a CRT RP HD monitor
> which is supposedly high on the scale for potential screen burn-in. Can
> anyone really quantify this? I see that direct view sets are also
> considered at risk, albeit just above immune DLPs, yet I have first hand
> knowledge of direct view sets that have been left on in my place of work
> 24/7/365 literally for years with no burn-in. Admittedly, video games
> were not played, but static station logos were displayed for the last
> few years with no effect. My own TV has been accidentally left on for
> up to two weeks while on vacation with no ill effect, even on a station
> such as Headline News with the ticker tape screen crawl. Does this mean
> direct view is that much more robust with little risk and I should
> really worry about my RP CRT? Or is the risk exaggerated with normal
> use being of little consequence?
>
> mb
Related resources
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 12:09:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"mb" <relax@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5b8012bde5e306989692@news.east.cox.net...
> As I've mentioned in earlier posts, I'm going with a CRT RP HD monitor
> which is supposedly high on the scale for potential screen burn-in. Can
> anyone really quantify this? I see that direct view sets are also
> considered at risk, albeit just above immune DLPs, yet I have first hand
> knowledge of direct view sets that have been left on in my place of work
> 24/7/365 literally for years with no burn-in. Admittedly, video games
> were not played, but static station logos were displayed for the last
> few years with no effect. My own TV has been accidentally left on for
> up to two weeks while on vacation with no ill effect, even on a station
> such as Headline News with the ticker tape screen crawl. Does this mean
> direct view is that much more robust with little risk and I should
> really worry about my RP CRT? Or is the risk exaggerated with normal
> use being of little consequence?
>
> mb

I've had mine for the past 2.5 years, and no issues. Just make sure you
keep the contrast out of torch mode (maxed out), and it should be fine
(though I don't do Xbox-PS2 on it.....caveat emptor)....
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 12:47:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>" It's mostly hype, which is too bad, as it keeps more folks from buying
> plasmas, keeping the prices high.
> Per "Pagan"

I've Seen, and serviced. way too many of the CRT RPTV with QVC, HSN, or the
logos of particular stations burnt into the phosphor of the CRTS. One SONY
in particular was less than 6 weeks old and had the nice EAGLE LOGO of a
foreign station, off satellite, burnt into the items.<
> Plasma sets are more prone to the syndrome, and we all know that Computer
> Monitors at one time were extremely prone to the same situation, why
> "Screen Savers" were invented, Eh?? <
>Also have seen quite a few with Video Game figures overlaying the rest of
>the picture because someone paused the game while needing to do something
>else apparently much more important.<
> No, Not Hype, it does happen, and the manufacturers will not warranty the
> CRTS when they have a burns; other than from a failure induced within
> their respective device. <
>Suggestion, as posted, lower the contrast and brightness settings from the
>manufacturer's settings, adjust the picture quality to your personal
>preference, use video games if you care to, most of the newer ones have a
>screen saving function that automatically starts after the item is left
>unattended for a while. Or buy a LCD or DLP set.
"Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
news:10v3uqpka3e2c97@corp.supernews.com...
> "mb" <relax@home.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c5b8012bde5e306989692@news.east.cox.net...
>> As I've mentioned in earlier posts, I'm going with a CRT RP HD monitor
>> which is supposedly high on the scale for potential screen burn-in. Can
>> anyone really quantify this? I see that direct view sets are also
>> considered at risk, albeit just above immune DLPs, yet I have first hand
>> knowledge of direct view sets that have been left on in my place of work
>> 24/7/365 literally for years with no burn-in. Admittedly, video games
>> were not played, but static station logos were displayed for the last
>> few years with no effect. My own TV has been accidentally left on for
>> up to two weeks while on vacation with no ill effect, even on a station
>> such as Headline News with the ticker tape screen crawl. Does this mean
>> direct view is that much more robust with little risk and I should
>> really worry about my RP CRT? Or is the risk exaggerated with normal
>> use being of little consequence?
>
> Burn-in is highly unlikely to be an issue with most folks, on Plasmas,
> CRT's, or other technologies, especially so on projection sets. Two
> exceptions to this are if you indeed watch the ticker type shows
> constantly,
> or don't adjust your aspect to cover the whole screen, and even then, it
> has
> to be left on for a LONG time.
>
> It's mostly hype, which is too bad, as it keeps more folks from buying
> plasmas, keeping the prices high.
>
> Pagan
>
>
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 12:47:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Art" <plotsligt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-KSdndEAfv0O-m_cRVn-1w@comcast.com...
> >" It's mostly hype, which is too bad, as it keeps more folks from buying
> > plasmas, keeping the prices high.
> > Per "Pagan"
>
> I've Seen, and serviced. way too many of the CRT RPTV with QVC, HSN, or
the
> logos of particular stations burnt into the phosphor of the CRTS. One SONY
> in particular was less than 6 weeks old and had the nice EAGLE LOGO of a
> foreign station, off satellite, burnt into the items.<

I've seen 10 year old sets, used heavily, that have absolutely no problem.

Remember to take this in context. If your job is to service and repair
TV's, then of course most of the sets you see will have some problem.

When I was a cop, most of the people I saw were bad guys. That's hardly a
basis for judging everybody. Or is it? heh

Anyway, I suppose a CRT projection monitor of any type will naturally be
more prone to burn in, having a CRT that smaller and much brighter than a
regular TV. However, most folks don't watch QVC all day every day except
bored seniors and slug housewives. One isn't likely to notice, the other
has it coming. Otherwise, I'd say you have to try mighty hard to burn in a
set with normal viewing habits.

It's also not going to be as noticable on a projection set, simply due to
it's nature.

My father watched CNN almost exclusively on his old, German bunker type
projection monitor, and there's no trace of burn in.

As for newer sets, my Panasonic CRT projection has newer gadgets that help
protect it from burn in. It'll bump the picture around or some such thing.

Pagan

> > Plasma sets are more prone to the syndrome, and we all know that
Computer
> > Monitors at one time were extremely prone to the same situation, why
> > "Screen Savers" were invented, Eh?? <
> >Also have seen quite a few with Video Game figures overlaying the rest of
> >the picture because someone paused the game while needing to do something
> >else apparently much more important.<
> > No, Not Hype, it does happen, and the manufacturers will not warranty
the
> > CRTS when they have a burns; other than from a failure induced within
> > their respective device. <
> >Suggestion, as posted, lower the contrast and brightness settings from
the
> >manufacturer's settings, adjust the picture quality to your personal
> >preference, use video games if you care to, most of the newer ones have a
> >screen saving function that automatically starts after the item is left
> >unattended for a while. Or buy a LCD or DLP set.
> "Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
> news:10v3uqpka3e2c97@corp.supernews.com...
> > "mb" <relax@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1c5b8012bde5e306989692@news.east.cox.net...
> >> As I've mentioned in earlier posts, I'm going with a CRT RP HD monitor
> >> which is supposedly high on the scale for potential screen burn-in.
Can
> >> anyone really quantify this? I see that direct view sets are also
> >> considered at risk, albeit just above immune DLPs, yet I have first
hand
> >> knowledge of direct view sets that have been left on in my place of
work
> >> 24/7/365 literally for years with no burn-in. Admittedly, video games
> >> were not played, but static station logos were displayed for the last
> >> few years with no effect. My own TV has been accidentally left on for
> >> up to two weeks while on vacation with no ill effect, even on a station
> >> such as Headline News with the ticker tape screen crawl. Does this
mean
> >> direct view is that much more robust with little risk and I should
> >> really worry about my RP CRT? Or is the risk exaggerated with normal
> >> use being of little consequence?
> >
> > Burn-in is highly unlikely to be an issue with most folks, on Plasmas,
> > CRT's, or other technologies, especially so on projection sets. Two
> > exceptions to this are if you indeed watch the ticker type shows
> > constantly,
> > or don't adjust your aspect to cover the whole screen, and even then, it
> > has
> > to be left on for a LONG time.
> >
> > It's mostly hype, which is too bad, as it keeps more folks from buying
> > plasmas, keeping the prices high.
> >
> > Pagan
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 1:27:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

My Samsung manual recommends no more than 15% viewing of 4:3 programming
to avoid burn-in. Heck, the commercials in most HD programs are shown in
4:3 and exceed that percentage. I suspect the manual is overly
conservative. I've had my HDTV for seven months now and haven't noticed
any bad effects. We also watch a number of SD programs, like the local
news, in 4:3 mode.

Bill

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:VcOdnRizpoVZFW_cRVn-hg@comcast.com...

"mb" <relax@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5b8012bde5e306989692@news.east.cox.net...
> As I've mentioned in earlier posts, I'm going with a CRT RP HD monitor
> which is supposedly high on the scale for potential screen burn-in.
> Can
> anyone really quantify this? I see that direct view sets are also
> considered at risk, albeit just above immune DLPs, yet I have first
> hand
> knowledge of direct view sets that have been left on in my place of
> work
> 24/7/365 literally for years with no burn-in. Admittedly, video games
> were not played, but static station logos were displayed for the last
> few years with no effect. My own TV has been accidentally left on for
> up to two weeks while on vacation with no ill effect, even on a
> station
> such as Headline News with the ticker tape screen crawl. Does this
> mean
> direct view is that much more robust with little risk and I should
> really worry about my RP CRT? Or is the risk exaggerated with normal
> use being of little consequence?
>
> mb

I've had mine for the past 2.5 years, and no issues. Just make sure you
keep the contrast out of torch mode (maxed out), and it should be fine
(though I don't do Xbox-PS2 on it.....caveat emptor)....
January 22, 2005 3:18:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:08:15 -0800, "Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com>
wrote:

>When I was a cop, most of the people I saw were bad guys. That's hardly a
>basis for judging everybody. Or is it? heh

When you were a cop you probably had the us versus them mentality. I
did.
Thumper

To reply drop XYZ in address
January 22, 2005 3:51:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

As stated in most RP and Plasma owners manuals ."... to prevent uneven
wear (aka burn-in) limit static viewing to no more than 15-20% of your
total viewing time"

Static viewing would be the amount of time you spend watching something
with a fixed artifact on the screen (e.g. network logo, stock ticker,
black side-bars from movies, video game status bars, etc...). For time
frame I was recommend (by Hitachi) to mesaure viewing time in "time
watched per week."

So if you watch TV for 10 hours a week you need to make sure that no
more 2 hours is spend displaying static content. This is easier said
than done. For example, let's say you don't watch a lot of TV. Maybe
you watch FOX news ever night and then you watch The Late Show and on
weekends you may watch a few movies, so you're viewing time is about 10
hours Mon-Friday and 4 hours on the weekend for movies. Then you might
watch 6 hours of other varried programming on Saturday and Sunday,
bringing your total viewing hours up to 20 for a given week. Breaking
it down, 25% of that time is spent watching the late show and 25% is
spent watching FOX news. So in this scenario you're already subjecting
you set to potential uneven burn, because the FOX logo is on your
screen 25% of it's viewing time.

Some people do much worse, let's say you only watch the news (on FOX or
your choice of network) for an hour each night and then on weekends you
may watch a few movies, you total viewing time is only at around10
hours for week, but now almost 50% of that time is spent on with the
FOX logo (of the CBS, ABC, logo etc). So the chance of uneven burn with
this persons veiewing habits are pretty high.

If you're the kind of person who only watches movies a good number of
them are in 2:35:1 widescreen (produces small black top and bottom bars
on 16x9 sets) so your chance of burn in is high.

The best way to prevent uneven burn is to varying viewing habits, it's
the only true counter you have (all manufacters will back me on this,
you can find PDF versions of most owners manuals on-line if you doubt
it), this is because varying your viewing habits creates even burn when
is the opposite uneven burn.

Properly calibrating your set (adjusting brightness, contrast, etc...)
is also an important factor, but only to the extent that if your
contrast is all the way up you're just multiplying the problem.
-Jeremy
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 6:16:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
news:10v4ujb7adsuc0f@corp.supernews.com...
> I've seen 10 year old sets, used heavily, that have absolutely no problem.

You surely did not look into the lenses. Any "heavily used" 10 year old CRT
based RPTV will certainly have a raster area that is significantly darker
than the surrounding unused phosphor. The degree to which differential burn
appears will certainly depend on how the set is used, but the problem is
much more common than you might think. We often notice uneven phosphor
burns and have to point it out to clients before fixing other problems.
They have it but don't know it.

It is easy to mitigate the problem and make the set last longer as well. It
just takes a little education.

Leonard
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 8:49:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"mb" <relax@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5b8012bde5e306989692@news.east.cox.net...
| As I've mentioned in earlier posts, I'm going with a CRT RP HD monitor
| which is supposedly high on the scale for potential screen burn-in. Can
| anyone really quantify this? I see that direct view sets are also
| considered at risk, albeit just above immune DLPs, yet I have first hand
| knowledge of direct view sets that have been left on in my place of work
| 24/7/365 literally for years with no burn-in. Admittedly, video games
| were not played, but static station logos were displayed for the last
| few years with no effect. My own TV has been accidentally left on for
| up to two weeks while on vacation with no ill effect, even on a station
| such as Headline News with the ticker tape screen crawl. Does this mean
| direct view is that much more robust with little risk and I should
| really worry about my RP CRT? Or is the risk exaggerated with normal
| use being of little consequence?
|
| mb

For CRTs it can be quantified, but not easily if at all by the lay person.
It all boils down to coulombs (accumulated charge). Which is mostly
determined by the CRT beam current. The higher the brightness, the higher
the beam current, the shorted the life.

Actually it's not "burn" but phosphor aging that appears as dark areas. The
efficiency of the phosphors has deteriorated. As the phosphor ages it's
efficiency drops.

CRT manufactures publish aging curves, which show light output versus
coulombs. Not at all useful to the consumer.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 8:50:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:D JyId.32647$jn.29902@lakeread06...
>
> "Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
> news:10v4ujb7adsuc0f@corp.supernews.com...
> > I've seen 10 year old sets, used heavily, that have absolutely no
problem.
>
> You surely did not look into the lenses.

You got me there. It's not my favorate viewing position. heh

> Any "heavily used" 10 year old CRT
> based RPTV will certainly have a raster area that is significantly darker
> than the surrounding unused phosphor. The degree to which differential
burn
> appears will certainly depend on how the set is used, but the problem is
> much more common than you might think. We often notice uneven phosphor
> burns and have to point it out to clients before fixing other problems.
> They have it but don't know it.

This begs the question, if you have a 'problem' with your TV, and you can't
tell by looking at it, is it still a problem?

> It is easy to mitigate the problem and make the set last longer as well.
It
> just takes a little education.

What would you suggest?

My stuff is fairly current. Both my DVD players have screen savers, and the
set itself has some protection.

Pagan
January 22, 2005 11:28:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I really appreciate everyone's input. Are gray bars less damaging than
black bars or is that too simplistic a way of considering it?

mb
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 12:07:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
news:10v60oc4190gt35@corp.supernews.com...
> "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
> news:D JyId.32647$jn.29902@lakeread06...
> >
> > "Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
> > news:10v4ujb7adsuc0f@corp.supernews.com...
> > > I've seen 10 year old sets, used heavily, that have absolutely no
> problem.
> >
> > You surely did not look into the lenses.
>
> You got me there. It's not my favorate viewing position. heh
>
> > Any "heavily used" 10 year old CRT
> > based RPTV will certainly have a raster area that is significantly
darker
> > than the surrounding unused phosphor. The degree to which differential
> burn
> > appears will certainly depend on how the set is used, but the problem is
> > much more common than you might think. We often notice uneven phosphor
> > burns and have to point it out to clients before fixing other problems.
> > They have it but don't know it.
>
> This begs the question, if you have a 'problem' with your TV, and you
can't
> tell by looking at it, is it still a problem?
>
> > It is easy to mitigate the problem and make the set last longer as well.
> It
> > just takes a little education.
>
> What would you suggest?
>
> My stuff is fairly current. Both my DVD players have screen savers, and
the
> set itself has some protection.
>
> Pagan

Turn down the contrast.

Leonard
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 2:27:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"mb" <relax@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5cc7d789c50929989693@news.east.cox.net...
> I really appreciate everyone's input. Are gray bars less damaging than
> black bars or is that too simplistic a way of considering it?

Personally, I change the aspect of everything I watch to fill the screen.
The set does some self-correction, though folks still look a little fat,
which is to me just a trade off of having a wider screen. Plus, it has the
added benefit of making folks feel better about their own weight. heh

Pagan
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 7:56:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
news:10v7ulu530ouc3c@corp.supernews.com...
> "mb" <relax@home.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c5cc7d789c50929989693@news.east.cox.net...
>> I really appreciate everyone's input. Are gray bars less damaging than
>> black bars or is that too simplistic a way of considering it?
>
> Personally, I change the aspect of everything I watch to fill the screen.
> The set does some self-correction, though folks still look a little fat,
> which is to me just a trade off of having a wider screen. Plus, it has
> the
> added benefit of making folks feel better about their own weight. heh
>
> Pagan

Must be nice at your place with carnival mirror aspect ratios and the
inability to see the difference between SD and HD.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 10:18:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:rKGdnRa5ktZ-2mncRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
> news:10v7ulu530ouc3c@corp.supernews.com...
> > "mb" <relax@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1c5cc7d789c50929989693@news.east.cox.net...
> >> I really appreciate everyone's input. Are gray bars less damaging than
> >> black bars or is that too simplistic a way of considering it?
> >
> > Personally, I change the aspect of everything I watch to fill the
screen.
> > The set does some self-correction, though folks still look a little fat,
> > which is to me just a trade off of having a wider screen. Plus, it has
> > the
> > added benefit of making folks feel better about their own weight. heh
> >
> > Pagan
>
> Must be nice at your place with carnival mirror aspect ratios and the
> inability to see the difference between SD and HD.

So much for "Plonk"

Today, I'm in such a good mood, I decided to agree with you.

In fact, HD is so great I stopped banging my wife so I could make sure
everything I watch is in HD. I'm going to the studios on Monday to make
sure every camera, computer, transmitter, storage device, and lenses
complies with HD. Any station that dares to broadcast that nasty, dirty SD
will receive a peanut laden turd on their doorstep.

After all, HDTV is so great, so awesome, that to not change one's religion
is foolhardy. We must organize crusades to eliminate any infidel who
blasphemes "Well, it's nice." Anyone who doesn't physically bow to their HD
set shall be punished.

Anybody who buys such a set so they can watch mere DVD's will be burned at
the stake.

Before, I foolishly used to believe posters who couldn't read and
comprehend, but decided to post anyway, were deserving of contempt. How
silly of me! Now I know, I realize, I understand, that it's those who don't
slobber all over themselves upon seeing the glimmer of HD are truly fools
who must be purged from the gene pool immediately.

Woe to the unbeliever. Stories of Redemption:

"Before I converted, I tried to donate my non-HD TV's to a homeless shelter,
but they threw rocks at me."

"Tried to give my old SD set to grandma. She hit me in the head with her
colostomy bag."

"Put my old TV up on Ebay, and they banned me."

Pagan
January 26, 2005 3:17:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <10va52e7gm2lte6@corp.supernews.com>, DirtySanchez@chonch.com
says...
> "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> news:rKGdnRa5ktZ-2mncRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
> > news:10v7ulu530ouc3c@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "mb" <relax@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.1c5cc7d789c50929989693@news.east.cox.net...
> > >> I really appreciate everyone's input. Are gray bars less damaging than
> > >> black bars or is that too simplistic a way of considering it?
> > >
> > > Personally, I change the aspect of everything I watch to fill the
> screen.
> > > The set does some self-correction, though folks still look a little fat,
> > > which is to me just a trade off of having a wider screen. Plus, it has
> > > the
> > > added benefit of making folks feel better about their own weight. heh
> > >
> > > Pagan
> >
> > Must be nice at your place with carnival mirror aspect ratios and the
> > inability to see the difference between SD and HD.
>
> So much for "Plonk"
>
> Today, I'm in such a good mood, I decided to agree with you.
>
> In fact, HD is so great I stopped banging my wife so I could make sure
> everything I watch is in HD. I'm going to the studios on Monday to make
> sure every camera, computer, transmitter, storage device, and lenses
> complies with HD. Any station that dares to broadcast that nasty, dirty SD
> will receive a peanut laden turd on their doorstep.
>
> After all, HDTV is so great, so awesome, that to not change one's religion
> is foolhardy. We must organize crusades to eliminate any infidel who
> blasphemes "Well, it's nice." Anyone who doesn't physically bow to their HD
> set shall be punished.
>
> Anybody who buys such a set so they can watch mere DVD's will be burned at
> the stake.
>
> Before, I foolishly used to believe posters who couldn't read and
> comprehend, but decided to post anyway, were deserving of contempt. How
> silly of me! Now I know, I realize, I understand, that it's those who don't
> slobber all over themselves upon seeing the glimmer of HD are truly fools
> who must be purged from the gene pool immediately.
>
> Woe to the unbeliever. Stories of Redemption:
>
> "Before I converted, I tried to donate my non-HD TV's to a homeless shelter,
> but they threw rocks at me."
>
> "Tried to give my old SD set to grandma. She hit me in the head with her
> colostomy bag."
>
> "Put my old TV up on Ebay, and they banned me."
>
> Pagan
>

ROFLMAO.

That was funny. A little uncharitble, but still funny. It -does- feel
that way around here some days... but then this is the usenet hdtv
group. Who did you expect to find here?
!