Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why do the HDTV's at circuit city look so awful?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 7:23:27 PM

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

I just got a new job, and I wanted to celebrate by entering the world of
HDTV thats been marketed down my throat the last few weeks. I havent had
cable in years(except for a few months for football last year), but im
ready to start forking over the cash. It's gonna be in my bedroom, so I
wanted something around 25" widescreen. I headed down to circuit city,
and they didnt have the one I wanted (panasonic CRT 26" around $550), so
I looked around for a while. All the screens looked ok, till I changed
the channel. Oh man. They looked HORRIBLE. My $97 20" magnavox with a
half busted roof antenna is getting a better picture. What is the deal?
Is that how all SD channels are going to look, or is it because of the
weak signal at the store? How can I find out for sure before bringing
one of these things home? I was planning on using it with Brighthouse
digital cable in Tampa, but its so expensive I might just get regular
cable until that new Verizon FIOS comes out.
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 7:23:28 PM

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

reggie white wrote:
>
> I just got a new job, and I wanted to celebrate by entering the world of
> HDTV thats been marketed down my throat the last few weeks. I havent had
> cable in years(except for a few months for football last year), but im
> ready to start forking over the cash. It's gonna be in my bedroom, so I
> wanted something around 25" widescreen. I headed down to circuit city,
> and they didnt have the one I wanted (panasonic CRT 26" around $550), so
> I looked around for a while. All the screens looked ok, till I changed
> the channel. Oh man. They looked HORRIBLE. My $97 20" magnavox with a
> half busted roof antenna is getting a better picture. What is the deal?
> Is that how all SD channels are going to look, or is it because of the
> weak signal at the store? How can I find out for sure before bringing
> one of these things home? I was planning on using it with Brighthouse
> digital cable in Tampa, but its so expensive I might just get regular
> cable until that new Verizon FIOS comes out.


This Std Def Analog picture quality on an HDTV digital set has been
debated before...

Two Solutions......

The Picture processing software (converting an Analog Pic to
Digital) is
not equal for all TV sets... Better TVs(like a Sony) do the
job
a lot better. You kind of get what you pay for...

For possibly better Analog picture only, use the S Video Input port
that uses the Analog tuner just like the 'old' TV sets.

Pure Digital HDTV Programs require using the HDMI, DVI, or
lesser Component TV port... to watch superb HD TV.
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 7:23:28 PM

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

I think its kinda a combination of things. First of all SD does look like
hell on a HD TV. Your also standing right in front of the TV's at CC. That
doesn't help either. Try to step back 3-4 feet and see what the pictures
look like. The other thing to consider is the human factor. We ALL play with
the TV sets when were in the store so the adjustments get all outa whack.
There are some skilled people that work at these stores but unfortunately
they are shadowed by the morons that are there so they can get a discount on
Xbox games. They can make the best TV in the world look like is 50 years
old...


"reggie white" <reggie@white.com> wrote in message
news:p jESe.3182$4i6.948@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>I just got a new job, and I wanted to celebrate by entering the world of
>HDTV thats been marketed down my throat the last few weeks. I havent had
>cable in years(except for a few months for football last year), but im
>ready to start forking over the cash. It's gonna be in my bedroom, so I
>wanted something around 25" widescreen. I headed down to circuit city, and
>they didnt have the one I wanted (panasonic CRT 26" around $550), so I
>looked around for a while. All the screens looked ok, till I changed the
>channel. Oh man. They looked HORRIBLE. My $97 20" magnavox with a half
>busted roof antenna is getting a better picture. What is the deal? Is that
>how all SD channels are going to look, or is it because of the weak signal
>at the store? How can I find out for sure before bringing one of these
>things home? I was planning on using it with Brighthouse digital cable in
>Tampa, but its so expensive I might just get regular cable until that new
>Verizon FIOS comes out.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 7:23:28 PM

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

Matt Mac Donagh wrote:
> I think its kinda a combination of things. First of all SD does look like
> hell on a HD TV. Your also standing right in front of the TV's at CC. That
> doesn't help either. Try to step back 3-4 feet and see what the pictures
> look like. The other thing to consider is the human factor.

3-4 feet isn't enough either. You're not going to sit 3 feet in front
of your 60" TV. Stand back 10-15 feet, then evaluate.
September 4, 2005 7:23:28 PM

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

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:23:27 GMT, reggie white <reggie@white.com>
wrote:

>I just got a new job, and I wanted to celebrate by entering the world of
>HDTV thats been marketed down my throat the last few weeks. I havent had
>cable in years(except for a few months for football last year), but im
>ready to start forking over the cash. It's gonna be in my bedroom, so I
>wanted something around 25" widescreen. I headed down to circuit city,
>and they didnt have the one I wanted (panasonic CRT 26" around $550), so
> I looked around for a while. All the screens looked ok, till I changed
>the channel. Oh man. They looked HORRIBLE. My $97 20" magnavox with a
>half busted roof antenna is getting a better picture. What is the deal?
>Is that how all SD channels are going to look, or is it because of the
>weak signal at the store? How can I find out for sure before bringing
>one of these things home? I was planning on using it with Brighthouse
>digital cable in Tampa, but its so expensive I might just get regular
>cable until that new Verizon FIOS comes out.

The typical Circuit City store typically uses a cable provider and
LOTS of splitters to drive dozens of sets. The signal level at the set
you're looking at may be much lower than what you're getting at home.
Also, if you're not aware, only a FEW stations actually transmit in
HDTV during the week. The major networks transmit HDTV in prime time
"only" during the week plus some sports during the weekend day time
hours. So, what your actually seeing at Circuit City is (usually) weak
analog signals. The EXCEPTION is if your particular store is playing
from a DVR and not receiving an OTA (over the air) signal. In this
case, if they do it right, you should see a high quality picture.

To find our for sure just WHAT is actually being transmitted in HD in
your area, go to www.titantv.com. Sing up (its free), input your zip
code and ask to see only the HD listings.

JoAnne
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 8:45:44 PM

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

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:23:27 GMT, reggie white <reggie@white.com>
wrote:

>I just got a new job, and I wanted to celebrate by entering the world of
>HDTV thats been marketed down my throat the last few weeks. I havent had
>cable in years(except for a few months for football last year), but im
>ready to start forking over the cash. It's gonna be in my bedroom, so I
>wanted something around 25" widescreen. I headed down to circuit city,
>and they didnt have the one I wanted (panasonic CRT 26" around $550), so
> I looked around for a while. All the screens looked ok, till I changed
>the channel. Oh man. They looked HORRIBLE. My $97 20" magnavox with a
>half busted roof antenna is getting a better picture. What is the deal?
>Is that how all SD channels are going to look, or is it because of the
>weak signal at the store? How can I find out for sure before bringing
>one of these things home? I was planning on using it with Brighthouse
>digital cable in Tampa, but its so expensive I might just get regular
>cable until that new Verizon FIOS comes out.

At Best Buy I commented on the quality of the HD pictures. The sales
guy told me that these were HD signals but suggested that they might
be losing quality because of the way they distribute the signal to all
the sets with "coaxial cable." Can't speculate on just what he meant,
but I could see that HD in the stores looks pretty bad. The pictures
are fuzzy, snowy, noisy (herringbone), and give the impression that HD
just magnifies faults with a bigger picture.

I have yet to see a projection TV that wasn't out of focus with color
fringes. They're really awful.

Do these retailers really expect to induce me to spend so much money
by presenting the product so poorly? When I shop for a car they at
least wash and wax the cars to present them in the best light. How
does HD ever expect to achieve any market penetration when the product
is presented so poorly in the stores?

I've just had an old TV die that I don't think I can fix and I've made
a resolution to not spend any more money on obsolescent technology.
But when I go to the store, I'm rather disappointed by HD, considering
the hype that the press has generated. Maybe HD really isn't as good
as they claim. Maybe I just expect too much.

Bob Henry
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 8:45:45 PM

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

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:45:44 GMT, RK Henry
<robert.henry@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Do these retailers really expect to induce me to spend so much money
>by presenting the product so poorly?

Apparently, Walmart does. And, judging from overheard comments, they
will.

Kal
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 8:45:45 PM

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

"RK Henry" <robert.henry@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:919mh1tgipmfdhccsl6ogbd75vqgml4vfq@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:23:27 GMT, reggie white <reggie@white.com>
> wrote:

> At Best Buy I commented on the quality of the HD pictures. The sales
> guy told me that these were HD signals but suggested that they might
> be losing quality because of the way they distribute the signal to all
> the sets with "coaxial cable." Can't speculate on just what he meant,
> but I could see that HD in the stores looks pretty bad. The pictures
> are fuzzy, snowy, noisy (herringbone), and give the impression that HD
> just magnifies faults with a bigger picture.
>
Without getting into a long tale, I looked at how HD sets were connected at
the local CC and Best buy. I saw flat panel sets fed a component video
signal, others only with RG6 going to the RF connector. When I asked tha
salesman how they get cable HD into a set through the RF connector, he told
me they were distributing the 480i out of a digital cable box Yuk yuk.

Another store was doing the same with a sat signal. The local CompUSA plays
their own commercials from a DVD player. A step up, but at 480P, it is not
HDTV.

Tam
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 8:45:45 PM

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

RK Henry wrote:

> Do these retailers really expect to induce me to spend so much money
> by presenting the product so poorly? When I shop for a car they at
> least wash and wax the cars to present them in the best light. How
> does HD ever expect to achieve any market penetration when the product
> is presented so poorly in the stores?
>
> I've just had an old TV die that I don't think I can fix and I've made
> a resolution to not spend any more money on obsolescent technology.
> But when I go to the store, I'm rather disappointed by HD, considering
> the hype that the press has generated. Maybe HD really isn't as good
> as they claim. Maybe I just expect too much.
>
> Bob Henry

When I bought my 26" Sharp Aquos in Best Buy, it looked "pretty good"
with the HD program in the store.

When I connected it through HDMI when I got home (actually it took 3
days for me to connect it through HDMI since I didn't know what the hell
an HDMI connection was at the time!) the picture on HD channels looked
absolutely immaculate.

I went to Best Buy a few days later and I found out that most of their
HD sets are either connected through component video or RF. Yikes!
That should tell ya that they don't care (or know) that connecting their
HD sets through HDMI or DVI would make their TVs look better.
September 4, 2005 9:15:26 PM

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

RK Henry <robert.henry@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:919mh1tgipmfdhccsl6ogbd75vqgml4vfq@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:23:27 GMT, reggie white <reggie@white.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I just got a new job, and I wanted to celebrate by entering the world
>>of HDTV thats been marketed down my throat the last few weeks. I
>>havent had cable in years(except for a few months for football last
>>year), but im ready to start forking over the cash. It's gonna be in
>>my bedroom, so I wanted something around 25" widescreen. I headed down
>>to circuit city, and they didnt have the one I wanted (panasonic CRT
>>26" around $550), so
>> I looked around for a while. All the screens looked ok, till I
>> changed
>>the channel. Oh man. They looked HORRIBLE. My $97 20" magnavox with a
>>half busted roof antenna is getting a better picture. What is the
>>deal? Is that how all SD channels are going to look, or is it because
>>of the weak signal at the store? How can I find out for sure before
>>bringing one of these things home? I was planning on using it with
>>Brighthouse digital cable in Tampa, but its so expensive I might just
>>get regular cable until that new Verizon FIOS comes out.
>
> At Best Buy I commented on the quality of the HD pictures. The sales
> guy told me that these were HD signals but suggested that they might
> be losing quality because of the way they distribute the signal to all
> the sets with "coaxial cable." Can't speculate on just what he meant,
> but I could see that HD in the stores looks pretty bad. The pictures
> are fuzzy, snowy, noisy (herringbone), and give the impression that HD
> just magnifies faults with a bigger picture.
>
> I have yet to see a projection TV that wasn't out of focus with color
> fringes. They're really awful.
>
> Do these retailers really expect to induce me to spend so much money
> by presenting the product so poorly? When I shop for a car they at
> least wash and wax the cars to present them in the best light. How
> does HD ever expect to achieve any market penetration when the product
> is presented so poorly in the stores?
>
> I've just had an old TV die that I don't think I can fix and I've made
> a resolution to not spend any more money on obsolescent technology.
> But when I go to the store, I'm rather disappointed by HD, considering
> the hype that the press has generated. Maybe HD really isn't as good
> as they claim. Maybe I just expect too much.
>
> Bob Henry

I guess you have not looked at the JVC hd ila sets yet
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 10:24:15 PM

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

I was referring to smaller sets, the 20 some inches.

"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125859174.846656.77510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Matt Mac Donagh wrote:
>> I think its kinda a combination of things. First of all SD does look like
>> hell on a HD TV. Your also standing right in front of the TV's at CC.
>> That
>> doesn't help either. Try to step back 3-4 feet and see what the pictures
>> look like. The other thing to consider is the human factor.
>
> 3-4 feet isn't enough either. You're not going to sit 3 feet in front
> of your 60" TV. Stand back 10-15 feet, then evaluate.
>
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 10:24:21 PM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> | Can't speculate on just what he meant,
> | but I could see that HD in the stores looks pretty bad. The pictures
> | are fuzzy, snowy, noisy (herringbone), and give the impression that HD
> | just magnifies faults with a bigger picture.
>
> A digital signal will NEVER look like that.

For pure HD-sourced material, this is true. But, for SD-sourced material,
it's not uncommon to see such artifacts. It all depends on what what in
the chain before the conversion to digital.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/NoHelpDesk.jpg
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 10:46:03 PM

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

In article <wvKdnVjJmpNpsIbeRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
"Matt Mac Donagh" <gamefixer@gmail.com> wrote:

> First of all SD does look like
> hell on a HD TV.

<snort> No it doesn't.
September 4, 2005 11:19:37 PM

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

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:23:27 GMT, reggie white <reggie@white.com>
wrote:

>I just got a new job, and I wanted to celebrate by entering the world of
>HDTV thats been marketed down my throat the last few weeks. I havent had
>cable in years(except for a few months for football last year), but im
>ready to start forking over the cash. It's gonna be in my bedroom, so I
>wanted something around 25" widescreen. I headed down to circuit city,
>and they didnt have the one I wanted (panasonic CRT 26" around $550), so
> I looked around for a while. All the screens looked ok, till I changed
>the channel. Oh man. They looked HORRIBLE. My $97 20" magnavox with a
>half busted roof antenna is getting a better picture. What is the deal?
>Is that how all SD channels are going to look, or is it because of the
>weak signal at the store? How can I find out for sure before bringing
>one of these things home? I was planning on using it with Brighthouse
>digital cable in Tampa, but its so expensive I might just get regular
>cable until that new Verizon FIOS comes out.

Here's my take on HDTV sets.

I have yet to see any HDTV display as good a SD picture as either my
11 year old Hitachi 46" Ultravision RPTV or my 13" Sony does! Not a
one. Is there such a set out there? Or are they all a compromise on
SD? Is there a SD connection like SVideo that would make the SD
picture look good??

I even had hopes and drove 35 miles across to the other side of
Atlanta to the only store in town that carries the 65" Hitachi 65X500
Directors Series CRT RPTV. I thought it would likely look good enough
on SD satellite channels, it being their top of the line CRT RPTV.
Nope, it looked horrible even 20' away. Oh well.

These $3000 Sony LCDs and other sets just look so bad on SD why would
people buy them see how bad they look on SD and not take them back?
Are there people that now only watch HD exclusively, that would seem
to be the only market for these sets. Am I missing something here?

Bob
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 11:44:34 PM

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

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-630DAC.18460304092005@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
> In article <wvKdnVjJmpNpsIbeRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
> "Matt Mac Donagh" <gamefixer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> First of all SD does look like
>> hell on a HD TV.
>
> <snort> No it doesn't.
>
We have an Aquos GA series. Interestingly, analog stations look better
through the Comcast SA 3250 cable box then thay do direct (still cable).
However, even direct the picture is much better than the non HD set it
replaced. The GAs are sold as HDTV monitors; so, they probably did not spend
a lot of money on the NTSC tuner and A/D. Box puts out 1080i.

Also, I do not know in what form Comcast receives analog the broadcast
signals, other than that they do not intercept a regular OTA transmission.
All microwave. Maybe composite, maybe not.

Tam
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 11:44:35 PM

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

Looks like someone else thinks that SD signals on HD TV's doesn't look so
good either.


> We have an Aquos GA series. Interestingly, analog stations look better
> through the Comcast SA 3250 cable box then thay do direct (still cable).
> However, even direct the picture is much better than the non HD set it
> replaced. The GAs are sold as HDTV monitors; so, they probably did not
> spend a lot of money on the NTSC tuner and A/D. Box puts out 1080i.
>
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 12:44:24 AM

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

In article <q62dnbPL8tx4DYbeRVn-uQ@comcast.com>,
"Matt Mac Donagh" <gamefixer@gmail.com> wrote:

> Looks like someone else thinks that SD signals on HD TV's doesn't look so
> good either.

When you say SD, are you saying "analog transmissions" or are you saying
"standard definition digital transmission"?

SD means digital, in standard def.

SD looks great on an HD set.
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 12:44:25 AM

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

I'm referring to standard def via S-Video, Composite Video and RF.

I must have missed the "Newsgroup dictionary monthly" last time around.

So what's the meaning of SD then? 480i, 480p?

Matt


"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-ABB1EF.20442404092005@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
> In article <q62dnbPL8tx4DYbeRVn-uQ@comcast.com>,
> "Matt Mac Donagh" <gamefixer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Looks like someone else thinks that SD signals on HD TV's doesn't look so
>> good either.
>
> When you say SD, are you saying "analog transmissions" or are you saying
> "standard definition digital transmission"?
>
> SD means digital, in standard def.
>
> SD looks great on an HD set.
>
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 1:42:20 AM

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

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:38:00 -0400 SayItAintSo <WAP007@overtheair.com> wrote:

| I went to Best Buy a few days later and I found out that most of their
| HD sets are either connected through component video or RF. Yikes!
| That should tell ya that they don't care (or know) that connecting their
| HD sets through HDMI or DVI would make their TVs look better.

Is that analog RF or digital RF? Digital RF should be very good, if there
is currently HD content coming over.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 1:47:27 AM

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

In article <F6mdnTFuA5RGB4beRVn-2Q@comcast.com>,
"Matt Mac Donagh" <gamefixer@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm referring to standard def via S-Video, Composite Video and RF.

no, in the world of HDTV, there's also standard definition--but it's
delivered via digital transmission.
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 2:16:26 AM

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

"Sorry I don't know everything about Hi Def." Done in an Artie Lang's voice
doing a Bill Marr impression ...

Thanks for the info!

Matt

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-216D6F.21472704092005@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
> In article <F6mdnTFuA5RGB4beRVn-2Q@comcast.com>,
> "Matt Mac Donagh" <gamefixer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm referring to standard def via S-Video, Composite Video and RF.
>
> no, in the world of HDTV, there's also standard definition--but it's
> delivered via digital transmission.
>
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 3:32:02 AM

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

> These $3000 Sony LCDs and other sets just look so bad on SD why would
> people buy them see how bad they look on SD and not take them back?

well at least half of the models at best buy and circuit city were
discounted "open box" items, so it looks like a LOT of people are taking
them back. I sure as hell want to get on the hdtv wave but absolutely
nothing i have seen comes anything close to the hype.
September 5, 2005 4:49:54 AM

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

I agree, my DLP Mits looks great, beats the hell out of my old Sony..

K

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-ABB1EF.20442404092005@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
: In article <q62dnbPL8tx4DYbeRVn-uQ@comcast.com>,
: "Matt Mac Donagh" <gamefixer@gmail.com> wrote:
:
: > Looks like someone else thinks that SD signals on HD TV's doesn't
look so
: > good either.
:
: When you say SD, are you saying "analog transmissions" or are you
saying
: "standard definition digital transmission"?
:
: SD means digital, in standard def.
:
: SD looks great on an HD set.
:
September 5, 2005 6:01:34 AM

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

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 23:32:02 GMT, reggie white <reggie@white.com>
wrote:

>> These $3000 Sony LCDs and other sets just look so bad on SD why would
>> people buy them see how bad they look on SD and not take them back?
>
>well at least half of the models at best buy and circuit city were
>discounted "open box" items, so it looks like a LOT of people are taking
>them back. I sure as hell want to get on the hdtv wave but absolutely
>nothing i have seen comes anything close to the hype.

Good!
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 6:59:18 AM

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

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 18:24:21 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> | Can't speculate on just what he meant,
|> | but I could see that HD in the stores looks pretty bad. The pictures
|> | are fuzzy, snowy, noisy (herringbone), and give the impression that HD
|> | just magnifies faults with a bigger picture.
|>
|> A digital signal will NEVER look like that.
|
| For pure HD-sourced material, this is true. But, for SD-sourced material,
| it's not uncommon to see such artifacts. It all depends on what what in
| the chain before the conversion to digital.

In such a case, the "content" as far as the digital domain sees it _is_
that herringbone pattern, or whatever the OP is seeing.

A wise store manager will do what he can to be sure clean HD content is
available on all HD displays at all times, and other content is available
on customer demonstration request. OTOH, Best Buy store managers have
not impressed me as being anywhere near wise (if they were, they'd be
looking for work, and getting hired, elsewhere, anyway). I find Circuit
City a bit better, but not by that much. Frys seems to be trying their
best to unseat Best Buy from the bottom.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 8:25:17 AM

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

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 18:24:15 -0600 Matt Mac Donagh <gamefixer@gmail.com> wrote:

| I was referring to smaller sets, the 20 some inches.
|
| "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:1125859174.846656.77510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|>
|> Matt Mac Donagh wrote:
|>> I think its kinda a combination of things. First of all SD does look like
|>> hell on a HD TV. Your also standing right in front of the TV's at CC.
|>> That
|>> doesn't help either. Try to step back 3-4 feet and see what the pictures
|>> look like. The other thing to consider is the human factor.
|>
|> 3-4 feet isn't enough either. You're not going to sit 3 feet in front
|> of your 60" TV. Stand back 10-15 feet, then evaluate.

Are there any 20 inchers that do HD _and_ have ATSC tuners, yet? I don't
regular go to the city these days, so I haven't been in BB, CC, lately.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 8:25:18 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Are there any 20 inchers that do HD _and_ have ATSC tuners, yet?

http://www.pricescan.com/electronics/03010102.asp

--
Jeff Rife | Coach: What's doing, Norm?
|
| Norm: Well, science is seeking a cure for thirst.
| I happen to be the guinea pig.
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 2:08:54 PM

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

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 01:32:02 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> Are there any 20 inchers that do HD _and_ have ATSC tuners, yet?
|
| http://www.pricescan.com/electronics/03010102.asp

Since you didn't enter any refinement selection to narrow it down to HD
and ATSC, I had to do it for you. There was no refinement selection for
ATSC. But there was for HDTV, so I did at least that, along with at most
20 inch size. The result was "There are no products in our database that
match all your specifications". That was for both the "HDTV 1080" and the
"HDTV 720" selection. The "HDTV ready" selection did result in exactly
ONE product, which was the Zenith L15V26, which is a 1024x768 LCD in 4:3.
That sure seems like a silly response for a CRT category. No ATSC or
HDMI or HDCP, so I'm sure no one in their right mind here would ever
recommend such a thing, anyway.

Maybe you should do a better job of refining your searches before you go
off giving useless URLs.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 2:08:55 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 01:32:02 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> | (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> |> Are there any 20 inchers that do HD _and_ have ATSC tuners, yet?
> |
> | http://www.pricescan.com/electronics/03010102.asp
>
> Since you didn't enter any refinement selection to narrow it down to HD
> and ATSC, I had to do it for you. There was no refinement selection for
> ATSC. But there was for HDTV, so I did at least that, along with at most
> 20 inch size. The result was "There are no products in our database that
> match all your specifications". That was for both the "HDTV 1080" and the
> "HDTV 720" selection. The "HDTV ready" selection did result in exactly
> ONE product, which was the Zenith L15V26, which is a 1024x768 LCD in 4:3.
> That sure seems like a silly response for a CRT category. No ATSC or
> HDMI or HDCP, so I'm sure no one in their right mind here would ever
> recommend such a thing, anyway.
>
> Maybe you should do a better job of refining your searches before you go
> off giving useless URLs.
>

You really are a lazy son of a bitch, aren't you?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 3:10:57 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 01:32:02 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> > | (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > |> Are there any 20 inchers that do HD _and_ have ATSC tuners, yet?
> > |
> > | http://www.pricescan.com/electronics/03010102.asp
> >
> > Since you didn't enter any refinement selection to narrow it down to HD
> > and ATSC, I had to do it for you. There was no refinement selection for
> > ATSC. But there was for HDTV, so I did at least that, along with at most
> > 20 inch size. The result was "There are no products in our database that
> > match all your specifications". That was for both the "HDTV 1080" and the
> > "HDTV 720" selection. The "HDTV ready" selection did result in exactly
> > ONE product, which was the Zenith L15V26, which is a 1024x768 LCD in 4:3.
> > That sure seems like a silly response for a CRT category. No ATSC or
> > HDMI or HDCP, so I'm sure no one in their right mind here would ever
> > recommend such a thing, anyway.
> >
> > Maybe you should do a better job of refining your searches before you go
> > off giving useless URLs.
> >
>
> You really are a lazy son of a bitch, aren't you?

Yes, he is. He wants to do zero work and be rewarded for it. I suspect
he worked for a dot-com.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/SupportTraining.gi...
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 6:59:30 PM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 09:36:37 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 01:32:02 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
|> | (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> |> Are there any 20 inchers that do HD _and_ have ATSC tuners, yet?
|> |
|> | http://www.pricescan.com/electronics/03010102.asp
|>
|> Since you didn't enter any refinement selection to narrow it down to HD
|> and ATSC, I had to do it for you. There was no refinement selection for
|> ATSC. But there was for HDTV, so I did at least that, along with at most
|> 20 inch size. The result was "There are no products in our database that
|> match all your specifications". That was for both the "HDTV 1080" and the
|> "HDTV 720" selection. The "HDTV ready" selection did result in exactly
|> ONE product, which was the Zenith L15V26, which is a 1024x768 LCD in 4:3.
|> That sure seems like a silly response for a CRT category. No ATSC or
|> HDMI or HDCP, so I'm sure no one in their right mind here would ever
|> recommend such a thing, anyway.
|>
|> Maybe you should do a better job of refining your searches before you go
|> off giving useless URLs.
|>
|
| You really are a lazy son of a bitch, aren't you?
|
| Matthew

Let's see. Jeff didn't do the work and posted a misleading worthless
URL. Then I followed by going there, and even did the work of checking
things he could have done. And somehow you figure this shows that I
am the lazy one?

Your entire motivation for posting this and most everything else is
your sociopathic attitudes.

Maybe you should get a clue. The 20 inch (and smaller) true HDTV sets
with ATSC tuners have not arrived yet.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 8:33:40 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 09:36:37 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 01:32:02 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> |> | (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> |> |> Are there any 20 inchers that do HD _and_ have ATSC tuners, yet?
> |> |
> |> | http://www.pricescan.com/electronics/03010102.asp
> |>
> |> Since you didn't enter any refinement selection to narrow it down to HD
> |> and ATSC, I had to do it for you. There was no refinement selection for
> |> ATSC. But there was for HDTV, so I did at least that, along with at most
> |> 20 inch size. The result was "There are no products in our database that
> |> match all your specifications". That was for both the "HDTV 1080" and the
> |> "HDTV 720" selection. The "HDTV ready" selection did result in exactly
> |> ONE product, which was the Zenith L15V26, which is a 1024x768 LCD in 4:3.
> |> That sure seems like a silly response for a CRT category. No ATSC or
> |> HDMI or HDCP, so I'm sure no one in their right mind here would ever
> |> recommend such a thing, anyway.
> |>
> |> Maybe you should do a better job of refining your searches before you go
> |> off giving useless URLs.
> |>
> |
> | You really are a lazy son of a bitch, aren't you?
> |
> | Matthew
>
> Let's see. Jeff didn't do the work and posted a misleading worthless
> URL. Then I followed by going there, and even did the work of checking
> things he could have done. And somehow you figure this shows that I
> am the lazy one?
>
> Your entire motivation for posting this and most everything else is
> your sociopathic attitudes.
>
> Maybe you should get a clue. The 20 inch (and smaller) true HDTV sets
> with ATSC tuners have not arrived yet.
>

Stupid son of a bitch, too.

There is obviously no market for 20 inch and smaller HDTV sets. If there
were a market it would be being served.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 1:11:59 AM

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

When I was loooking for an HDTV I stopped at Circuit City. ABC's The View
was on which is a 4:3 braodcast but the picture was set at 16:9 (Star Jones
looked even bigger).

When I questioned the salesperson on the floor, he told me the manager had
stated all TVs must be in 16:9 mode regardless of the broadcast because
people want to buy widescreen TVs.

My recommendation is go to a store where the salespeople including the
manager knwo something about aspect ratios, HDTV, NTSC, etc.

That place would not be Circuit City.

"reggie white" <reggie@white.com> wrote in message
news:p jESe.3182$4i6.948@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> I just got a new job, and I wanted to celebrate by entering the world of
> HDTV thats been marketed down my throat the last few weeks. I havent had
> cable in years(except for a few months for football last year), but im
> ready to start forking over the cash. It's gonna be in my bedroom, so I
> wanted something around 25" widescreen. I headed down to circuit city,
> and they didnt have the one I wanted (panasonic CRT 26" around $550), so
> I looked around for a while. All the screens looked ok, till I changed
> the channel. Oh man. They looked HORRIBLE. My $97 20" magnavox with a
> half busted roof antenna is getting a better picture. What is the deal?
> Is that how all SD channels are going to look, or is it because of the
> weak signal at the store? How can I find out for sure before bringing
> one of these things home? I was planning on using it with Brighthouse
> digital cable in Tampa, but its so expensive I might just get regular
> cable until that new Verizon FIOS comes out.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 2:01:11 AM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:33:40 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

| Stupid son of a bitch, too.
|
| There is obviously no market for 20 inch and smaller HDTV sets. If there
| were a market it would be being served.

Clueless. Just so utterly clueless.

And never helpful. At least I explain things and/or provide info.

The technology to do HDTV, which requires DTV and for OTA also ATSC, adds
to the cost of the sets. At first this only makes marketing sends for the
large screen expensive sets (where a few hundred dollars extra for the new
electronics is not much compared to the thousands the whole thing costs).
As the market scales up, and the prices of the new parts drop, they can go
into lower and lower cost sets, and hence not be such a significant price
add on cost.

ATSC will clearly have to be added soon, anyway, as that is a mandate, and
has to be there to work after the analog cutoff. As the ATSC costs go down,
lower priced sets get the new feature.

HD can come in a number of forms for smaller sets. One is conversion to
an SD grade video and displayed as SD (zoomed or letterboxed). Another is
an extended or high definition display in 4:3 aspect ratio. It would look
nicer, but I don't know if the market would want this. And finally, there
is the ultimate high definition 16:9 CRT.

High definition CRTs in smaller sizes are not only possible, but they are
also not too terribly expensive. The PC display monitor markets have seen
to that. That may result in some 4:3 products initially (use the very same
tubes as PC monitors). 16:9 would, of course, require a new tube.

There are broadcast market products already for HDTV in these sizes. They
are not cheap, but much of the cost is in high level calibration and quality
control. But it's also a knowledge base that can allow a boost to consumer
grade products. There are small 16:9 TFT LCD displays available, although
I doubt they have full resolution.

Lots of people have 20 inch and smaller TVs, and are quite happy with them.
My current TV is 14 inch diagonal viewable, and I don't need anything more
beside getting ATSC receive capability (most important), and increased
resolution (less important but would be nice) and 16:9 ratio (if much of
the future content is made that way).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 2:01:12 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> ATSC will clearly have to be added soon, anyway, as that is a mandate

No, it isn't. You again misunderstand.

There is never going to be a requirement for an ATSC tuner in all displays...
only displays that have NTSC (analog) tuners will be required to have ATSC
tuners.

With the success of plasma and other flat panels that have no tuners at all,
it is possible that CE companies will go to that model to save money. By
building an external ATSC tuner that works with all their displays, they
can remove the need to build a tuner into every display. In addition, they
could have their tuner work "better" with their displays than with other
displays (better remote integration, easier hookups, etc.) to promote brand
loyalty. Last, people with other means of tuning TV (cable, satellite,
phone companies, etc.) would appreciate the savings.

So, CE companies could just choose to remove tuners entirely. If there is
any really major change to the ATSC spec (and there have already been some
big ones that current ATSC receivers can't handle), this might become a
very attractive economic choice for the manufacturers.

--
Jeff Rife | Coach: What's doing, Norm?
|
| Norm: Well, science is seeking a cure for thirst.
| I happen to be the guinea pig.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 5:58:40 AM

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

sed wrote:
> When I was loooking for an HDTV I stopped at Circuit City. ABC's The View
> was on which is a 4:3 braodcast but the picture was set at 16:9 (Star Jones
> looked even bigger).
>
> When I questioned the salesperson on the floor, he told me the manager had
> stated all TVs must be in 16:9 mode regardless of the broadcast because
> people want to buy widescreen TVs.
>
> My recommendation is go to a store where the salespeople including the
> manager knwo something about aspect ratios, HDTV, NTSC, etc.
>
> That place would not be Circuit City.

I didnt know such a place existed. What are some ?
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 6:08:22 AM

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

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 20:19:14 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> ATSC will clearly have to be added soon, anyway, as that is a mandate
|
| No, it isn't. You again misunderstand.
|
| There is never going to be a requirement for an ATSC tuner in all displays...
| only displays that have NTSC (analog) tuners will be required to have ATSC
| tuners.

This is what I said.


| With the success of plasma and other flat panels that have no tuners at all,
| it is possible that CE companies will go to that model to save money. By
| building an external ATSC tuner that works with all their displays, they
| can remove the need to build a tuner into every display. In addition, they
| could have their tuner work "better" with their displays than with other
| displays (better remote integration, easier hookups, etc.) to promote brand
| loyalty. Last, people with other means of tuning TV (cable, satellite,
| phone companies, etc.) would appreciate the savings.

Still, the tuner, wherever it is, will have to handle ATSC.


| So, CE companies could just choose to remove tuners entirely. If there is
| any really major change to the ATSC spec (and there have already been some
| big ones that current ATSC receivers can't handle), this might become a
| very attractive economic choice for the manufacturers.

Oooh, so they do like to break things that are already out there. I seem
to recall you saying the FCC wanted to make sure that cannot happen.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 6:08:23 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 20:19:14 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> | (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> |> ATSC will clearly have to be added soon, anyway, as that is a mandate
> |
> | No, it isn't. You again misunderstand.
> |
> | There is never going to be a requirement for an ATSC tuner in all displays...
> | only displays that have NTSC (analog) tuners will be required to have ATSC
> | tuners.
>
> This is what I said.

No, you never said anything about it. Your only statement was that ATSC
is a mandate, which it isn't.

> Still, the tuner, wherever it is, will have to handle ATSC.

So, why are you looking so hard for a <20" TV with built-in ATSC tuner?
You've been bitching about there not being any available yet, but you've
just agreed that they may never happen.

> | So, CE companies could just choose to remove tuners entirely. If there is
> | any really major change to the ATSC spec (and there have already been some
> | big ones that current ATSC receivers can't handle), this might become a
> | very attractive economic choice for the manufacturers.
>
> Oooh, so they do like to break things that are already out there. I seem
> to recall you saying the FCC wanted to make sure that cannot happen.

The FCC hasn't changed ATSC. The Advanced Television Systems Committee
has changed it. The changes seem to be aimed primarily at pay services,
which the FCC doesn't regulate.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/TechSupport.gif
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 11:36:02 AM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:33:40 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
> | Stupid son of a bitch, too.
> |
> | There is obviously no market for 20 inch and smaller HDTV sets. If there
> | were a market it would be being served.
>
> Clueless. Just so utterly clueless.

Yes, exactly, you are completely clueless. The only other reason that
there are no 20 inch and under HDTVs is an internation conspiricy to
prevent you from getting what you want.

> And never helpful. At least I explain things and/or provide info.
>
> The technology to do HDTV, which requires DTV and for OTA also ATSC, adds
> to the cost of the sets. At first this only makes marketing sends for the
> large screen expensive sets (where a few hundred dollars extra for the new
> electronics is not much compared to the thousands the whole thing costs).
> As the market scales up, and the prices of the new parts drop, they can go
> into lower and lower cost sets, and hence not be such a significant price
> add on cost.

What you say is true, but irrelevant. There is no market for 20 inch and
under HDTVs for many reasons.

> ATSC will clearly have to be added soon, anyway, as that is a mandate, and
> has to be there to work after the analog cutoff. As the ATSC costs go down,
> lower priced sets get the new feature.

So this explains nothing.

> HD can come in a number of forms for smaller sets. One is conversion to
> an SD grade video and displayed as SD (zoomed or letterboxed). Another is
> an extended or high definition display in 4:3 aspect ratio. It would look
> nicer, but I don't know if the market would want this. And finally, there
> is the ultimate high definition 16:9 CRT.

You really do like to type. How about addressing the subject at hand.

> High definition CRTs in smaller sizes are not only possible, but they are
> also not too terribly expensive. The PC display monitor markets have seen
> to that. That may result in some 4:3 products initially (use the very same
> tubes as PC monitors). 16:9 would, of course, require a new tube.

Please list five 20 inch or smaller PC monitors that do a good job with
1920x1080 and cost less than $300 (the price point where an ATSC tuner
could profitably be built in). How about citing one.

There are plenty of reasonably priced CRTs that can do a good job with
1280x720. There might be some of these under $300.

> There are broadcast market products already for HDTV in these sizes. They
> are not cheap, but much of the cost is in high level calibration and quality
> control. But it's also a knowledge base that can allow a boost to consumer
> grade products. There are small 16:9 TFT LCD displays available, although
> I doubt they have full resolution.

You know you might just want to remove that doubt by doing the tinyest
bit of research. Oh, I forgot _you_ are too important to do research.
You will try to find some good doobie on usenet to do it for you.

> Lots of people have 20 inch and smaller TVs, and are quite happy with them.
> My current TV is 14 inch diagonal viewable, and I don't need anything more
> beside getting ATSC receive capability (most important), and increased
> resolution (less important but would be nice) and 16:9 ratio (if much of
> the future content is made that way).
>

So, just because _YOU_ want something that isn't available doesn't mean
anything about anything. Just like your crusade for finding a use of an
ATSC modulator. You want it, virtually no one else sees the need, but
HDTV is, in your little mind, flawed because you can't get what you want.

That makes you a lazy, stupid, self centered son of a bitch.

Matthew

--
"... Mr. (Gregory) LaCava, a producer-director who could be called a
genius except for the fact that Orson Welles has debased the term ...",
H. Allen Smith, "Lost in the Horse Latitudes"
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 12:16:02 PM

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

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 00:18:25 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 20:19:14 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
|> | (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> |> ATSC will clearly have to be added soon, anyway, as that is a mandate
|> |
|> | No, it isn't. You again misunderstand.
|> |
|> | There is never going to be a requirement for an ATSC tuner in all displays...
|> | only displays that have NTSC (analog) tuners will be required to have ATSC
|> | tuners.
|>
|> This is what I said.
|
| No, you never said anything about it. Your only statement was that ATSC
| is a mandate, which it isn't.

I referred to the ATSC mandate. You know what the hell that means.


|> Still, the tuner, wherever it is, will have to handle ATSC.
|
| So, why are you looking so hard for a <20" TV with built-in ATSC tuner?
| You've been bitching about there not being any available yet, but you've
| just agreed that they may never happen.

I'm not saying it will never happen. Because 20 inch TVs are lower in
price than 40 inch TVs, it will be later when the ATSC/8VSB tuners are
low enough in price to not be a major increment of cost to what a 20
inch TV normally sells for. But it is possible the manufacturers could
decide to omit tuners in all models around that range of size. They
will eventually have to either omit or do ATSC.

Even smaller portable sets, which is what I am really looking for (around
the 12 inch size), don't have an ATSC mandate scheduled, yet. But clearly
there will be an issue when the analog cutoff happens. And adding an STB
is not so practical for a portable TV that is intended to be carried around
and operated from batteries.


|> | So, CE companies could just choose to remove tuners entirely. If there is
|> | any really major change to the ATSC spec (and there have already been some
|> | big ones that current ATSC receivers can't handle), this might become a
|> | very attractive economic choice for the manufacturers.
|>
|> Oooh, so they do like to break things that are already out there. I seem
|> to recall you saying the FCC wanted to make sure that cannot happen.
|
| The FCC hasn't changed ATSC. The Advanced Television Systems Committee
| has changed it. The changes seem to be aimed primarily at pay services,
| which the FCC doesn't regulate.

Well, then maybe the FCC is making sure things don't break by not allowing
these changes on OTA.

BTW, a normal person that knew what changes these are would, at least in
part, describe at least one example. This shows you either do not know
the changes, or are not a normal person (maybe even both).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 5:42:25 PM

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

The same reason that even non-HD sets look their worst: the people
at stores like Circuit City are for the most part completely
uninformed about the technology. At a recent visit to Best Buy,
I saw a "high def" plasma being demonstrated with a DVD input -
The Return of the King - but the DVD was in full-screen, not
widescreen mode, stretched to fill the screen. Even Gollum looked
fat.

Still, I suppose this will match the experience of consumers who
buy widescreen equipment (not necessarily HD) and watch SD broadcasts
or DVDs in just this way, convinced that they are watching HD (and
either persuading themselves that it looks positively brilliant or
else wondering what all the fuss is about).
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 5:42:58 PM

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

Bob (blablabla!@bla.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Also, I have seen no SD cable channels that look good enough to watch
> on any HDTV, digital distribution wise or analog either via cable,
> directv or dish.

There's no doubt that SD looks a lot worse than HD, but 4:3 SD on my 38" RCA
looks pretty much the same as it does on any 32" 4:3 set (the 4:3 picture
on a 38" set is about 32" diagonal).

Some of the DirecTV channels are wretchedly unwatchable, but they are that
way on any display larger than about 20"...HD or not.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/MotherGooseAndGrimm/Gatewa...
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 5:46:39 PM

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

In article <kJ6Te.14142$xl6.12158@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
reggie white <reggie@white.com> wrote:
>sed wrote:
>> When I was loooking for an HDTV I stopped at Circuit City. ABC's The View
>> was on which is a 4:3 braodcast but the picture was set at 16:9 (Star Jones
>> looked even bigger).
>>
>> When I questioned the salesperson on the floor, he told me the manager had
>> stated all TVs must be in 16:9 mode regardless of the broadcast because
>> people want to buy widescreen TVs.
>>
>> My recommendation is go to a store where the salespeople including the
>> manager knwo something about aspect ratios, HDTV, NTSC, etc.
>>
>> That place would not be Circuit City.
>
>I didnt know such a place existed. What are some ?

In Los Angeles, Ken Crane's - or at least, their people were pretty
sharp when I was looking at such things 2-3 years ago. I bought some
of my home theatre cabinetry there, it's pretty nice.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 7:02:48 PM

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

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 07:36:02 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

|> And never helpful. At least I explain things and/or provide info.
|>
|> The technology to do HDTV, which requires DTV and for OTA also ATSC, adds
|> to the cost of the sets. At first this only makes marketing sends for the
|> large screen expensive sets (where a few hundred dollars extra for the new
|> electronics is not much compared to the thousands the whole thing costs).
|> As the market scales up, and the prices of the new parts drop, they can go
|> into lower and lower cost sets, and hence not be such a significant price
|> add on cost.
|
| What you say is true, but irrelevant. There is no market for 20 inch and
| under HDTVs for many reasons.

And you say this because you personally have no interest in having one?

Sure, lots of people will step up to a big screen they never had before
for HDTV. But lots of other people won't for various reasons, such as
not having the room for it, or the money (high def at 20 inches will be
lower cost than high def at 40 inches once the processing circuits that
would be the same in either come down in price). But you being stuck in
your own little world, you have no way to see this.


|> HD can come in a number of forms for smaller sets. One is conversion to
|> an SD grade video and displayed as SD (zoomed or letterboxed). Another is
|> an extended or high definition display in 4:3 aspect ratio. It would look
|> nicer, but I don't know if the market would want this. And finally, there
|> is the ultimate high definition 16:9 CRT.
|
| You really do like to type. How about addressing the subject at hand.

Which one?


|> High definition CRTs in smaller sizes are not only possible, but they are
|> also not too terribly expensive. The PC display monitor markets have seen
|> to that. That may result in some 4:3 products initially (use the very same
|> tubes as PC monitors). 16:9 would, of course, require a new tube.
|
| Please list five 20 inch or smaller PC monitors that do a good job with
| 1920x1080 and cost less than $300 (the price point where an ATSC tuner
| could profitably be built in). How about citing one.

When they come out, I might be able to do that. When the processing
circuits come down in price to where they don't make a 20 inch unit
overpriced, then these should be showing up. But for now there is a
big marketing push for the "big ticket" items because the profits are
there. They won't make 20 inch versions until it is profitable. There
is a market that caps the price, so it won't happen until they can meet
the price point.


| There are plenty of reasonably priced CRTs that can do a good job with
| 1280x720. There might be some of these under $300.

CRTs can handle 1920x1080 in sizes under 20 inch quite well. But right
now they only come in the form of computer monitors or broadcast grade
equipment. The former are reasonably priced because they don't have to
have all that "TV circuitry". The latter exist because most broadcasters
can pay the price (and demand the quality: well calibrated and durable).


|> There are broadcast market products already for HDTV in these sizes. They
|> are not cheap, but much of the cost is in high level calibration and quality
|> control. But it's also a knowledge base that can allow a boost to consumer
|> grade products. There are small 16:9 TFT LCD displays available, although
|> I doubt they have full resolution.
|
| You know you might just want to remove that doubt by doing the tinyest
| bit of research. Oh, I forgot _you_ are too important to do research.
| You will try to find some good doobie on usenet to do it for you.
|
|> Lots of people have 20 inch and smaller TVs, and are quite happy with them.
|> My current TV is 14 inch diagonal viewable, and I don't need anything more
|> beside getting ATSC receive capability (most important), and increased
|> resolution (less important but would be nice) and 16:9 ratio (if much of
|> the future content is made that way).
|>
|
| So, just because _YOU_ want something that isn't available doesn't mean
| anything about anything. Just like your crusade for finding a use of an
| ATSC modulator. You want it, virtually no one else sees the need, but
| HDTV is, in your little mind, flawed because you can't get what you want.

You made that up.

I've never asked people to do research for me. Maybe you misunderstand
things being posted. I knwo Jeff did because he decided to do some kind
of research for something that wasn't even what I asked for very early on,
and then claimed I didn't do my research for it ... well DUH ... what he
went looking for was NOT at all what I asked for. All this because he
didn't get it.


| That makes you a lazy, stupid, self centered son of a bitch.

It seems to give you pleasure to make personal attacks on people. You
two join about a couple dozen other people out of about a million that
regularly post throughout the newsgroups.

And what kind of email address is: <nothere@notnow.never>

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 7:02:49 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 07:36:02 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
> |> And never helpful. At least I explain things and/or provide info.
> |>
> |> The technology to do HDTV, which requires DTV and for OTA also ATSC, adds
> |> to the cost of the sets. At first this only makes marketing sends for the
> |> large screen expensive sets (where a few hundred dollars extra for the new
> |> electronics is not much compared to the thousands the whole thing costs).
> |> As the market scales up, and the prices of the new parts drop, they can go
> |> into lower and lower cost sets, and hence not be such a significant price
> |> add on cost.
> |
> | What you say is true, but irrelevant. There is no market for 20 inch and
> | under HDTVs for many reasons.
>
> And you say this because you personally have no interest in having one?
>
> Sure, lots of people will step up to a big screen they never had before
> for HDTV. But lots of other people won't for various reasons, such as
> not having the room for it, or the money (high def at 20 inches will be
> lower cost than high def at 40 inches once the processing circuits that
> would be the same in either come down in price). But you being stuck in
> your own little world, you have no way to see this.
>
>
> |> HD can come in a number of forms for smaller sets. One is conversion to
> |> an SD grade video and displayed as SD (zoomed or letterboxed). Another is
> |> an extended or high definition display in 4:3 aspect ratio. It would look
> |> nicer, but I don't know if the market would want this. And finally, there
> |> is the ultimate high definition 16:9 CRT.
> |
> | You really do like to type. How about addressing the subject at hand.
>
> Which one?

20" CRT HDTVs. The above has _nothing_ to do with the market for same.

> |> High definition CRTs in smaller sizes are not only possible, but they are
> |> also not too terribly expensive. The PC display monitor markets have seen
> |> to that. That may result in some 4:3 products initially (use the very same
> |> tubes as PC monitors). 16:9 would, of course, require a new tube.
> |
> | Please list five 20 inch or smaller PC monitors that do a good job with
> | 1920x1080 and cost less than $300 (the price point where an ATSC tuner
> | could profitably be built in). How about citing one.
>
> When they come out, I might be able to do that. When the processing
> circuits come down in price to where they don't make a 20 inch unit
> overpriced, then these should be showing up. But for now there is a
> big marketing push for the "big ticket" items because the profits are
> there. They won't make 20 inch versions until it is profitable. There
> is a market that caps the price, so it won't happen until they can meet
> the price point.

You really are a moron. If a market exists it will be filled. You are
the one who is putting a price on the object. If people saw any value in
a 20" or under HDTV, they would be buying them at a reasonable price
point. The fact is that most people want HDTV on larger screens, that is
what is being bought. The fact that large screen HDTVs are dropping
below the $1000 mark makes that pretty clear.

> | There are plenty of reasonably priced CRTs that can do a good job with
> | 1280x720. There might be some of these under $300.
>
> CRTs can handle 1920x1080 in sizes under 20 inch quite well.

But you haven't cited _ANY_, you lazy son of a bitch. Look some up! Put
some facts in one of your posts for once instead of whinging about what
should be.

> But right
> now they only come in the form of computer monitors or broadcast grade
> equipment. The former are reasonably priced because they don't have to
> have all that "TV circuitry". The latter exist because most broadcasters
> can pay the price (and demand the quality: well calibrated and durable).

So, cite one at a price where a $100 ATSC tuner could be added and hit
your price point. _ONE_. It shouldn't take more than five minutes to
prove that such a device exists. You're the one that's claiming that
such a thing has to exist for HDTV to be successful.

> |> There are broadcast market products already for HDTV in these sizes. They
> |> are not cheap, but much of the cost is in high level calibration and quality
> |> control. But it's also a knowledge base that can allow a boost to consumer
> |> grade products. There are small 16:9 TFT LCD displays available, although
> |> I doubt they have full resolution.
> |
> | You know you might just want to remove that doubt by doing the tinyest
> | bit of research. Oh, I forgot _you_ are too important to do research.
> | You will try to find some good doobie on usenet to do it for you.
> |
> |> Lots of people have 20 inch and smaller TVs, and are quite happy with them.
> |> My current TV is 14 inch diagonal viewable, and I don't need anything more
> |> beside getting ATSC receive capability (most important), and increased
> |> resolution (less important but would be nice) and 16:9 ratio (if much of
> |> the future content is made that way).
> |>
> |
> | So, just because _YOU_ want something that isn't available doesn't mean
> | anything about anything. Just like your crusade for finding a use of an
> | ATSC modulator. You want it, virtually no one else sees the need, but
> | HDTV is, in your little mind, flawed because you can't get what you want.
>
> You made that up.

What did I make up? The description of your posts? Go read some of your
own writing. That is what you have been saying in a nutshell, nutcase.

> I've never asked people to do research for me. Maybe you misunderstand
> things being posted. I knwo Jeff did because he decided to do some kind
> of research for something that wasn't even what I asked for very early on,
> and then claimed I didn't do my research for it ... well DUH ... what he
> went looking for was NOT at all what I asked for. All this because he
> didn't get it.
>
>
> | That makes you a lazy, stupid, self centered son of a bitch.
>
> It seems to give you pleasure to make personal attacks on people.

Not everyone, just people like you.

> You
> two join about a couple dozen other people out of about a million that
> regularly post throughout the newsgroups.
>
> And what kind of email address is: <nothere@notnow.never>

Exactly what I want it to be. If I want to correspond directly with a
usenet poster I negotiate with them. We exchanged email addresses and go
on with life. Are you too stupid to have figured that out?

--
Matthew

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 7:06:59 PM

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

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:42:25 +0000 (UTC) Michael Urban <urban@panix.com> wrote:

| The same reason that even non-HD sets look their worst: the people
| at stores like Circuit City are for the most part completely
| uninformed about the technology. At a recent visit to Best Buy,
| I saw a "high def" plasma being demonstrated with a DVD input -
| The Return of the King - but the DVD was in full-screen, not
| widescreen mode, stretched to fill the screen. Even Gollum looked
| fat.
|
| Still, I suppose this will match the experience of consumers who
| buy widescreen equipment (not necessarily HD) and watch SD broadcasts
| or DVDs in just this way, convinced that they are watching HD (and
| either persuading themselves that it looks positively brilliant or
| else wondering what all the fuss is about).

They see a BIG screen (most people still do not have one at home) and
they think this _is_ what HD is all about. Afterall, a big screen
does make it look a bit better.

OTOH, getting high def content ever minute the store is open is something
they do have to go out of their way for. The HD discs are not out, yet,
and OTA is not 100% HD. Some premium satellite channels could do the job.
But I guess they are too cheap to do that ... look at who they hire to do
the sales.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 7:07:00 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:42:25 +0000 (UTC) Michael Urban <urban@panix.com> wrote:
>
> | The same reason that even non-HD sets look their worst: the people
> | at stores like Circuit City are for the most part completely
> | uninformed about the technology. At a recent visit to Best Buy,
> | I saw a "high def" plasma being demonstrated with a DVD input -
> | The Return of the King - but the DVD was in full-screen, not
> | widescreen mode, stretched to fill the screen. Even Gollum looked
> | fat.
> |
> | Still, I suppose this will match the experience of consumers who
> | buy widescreen equipment (not necessarily HD) and watch SD broadcasts
> | or DVDs in just this way, convinced that they are watching HD (and
> | either persuading themselves that it looks positively brilliant or
> | else wondering what all the fuss is about).
>
> They see a BIG screen (most people still do not have one at home)

You have had this assertion refuted. Why do you keep making it. It
appears you are intellectually dishonest as well as being a lazt,
stupid, self centered, lying son of a bitch.

--
Matthew

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 8:32:10 PM

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

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:12:51 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

|> | Please list five 20 inch or smaller PC monitors that do a good job with
|> | 1920x1080 and cost less than $300 (the price point where an ATSC tuner
|> | could profitably be built in). How about citing one.
|>
|> When they come out, I might be able to do that. When the processing
|> circuits come down in price to where they don't make a 20 inch unit
|> overpriced, then these should be showing up. But for now there is a
|> big marketing push for the "big ticket" items because the profits are
|> there. They won't make 20 inch versions until it is profitable. There
|> is a market that caps the price, so it won't happen until they can meet
|> the price point.
|
| You really are a moron. If a market exists it will be filled. You are
| the one who is putting a price on the object. If people saw any value in
| a 20" or under HDTV, they would be buying them at a reasonable price
| point. The fact is that most people want HDTV on larger screens, that is
| what is being bought. The fact that large screen HDTVs are dropping
| below the $1000 mark makes that pretty clear.

If the product cannot be made at the price point people would buy it,
then there won't be a product to buy. Supply/demand is NOT linear.
It faces the fact that alternatives exist, either with a competing
product, or with consumers not buying at all.

Of course most people _will_ want a larger screen. But it is a fact
that escapes your closed little world that most people cannot afford
the costs of a bigger screen. Large numbers of them also do not have
the proper space for a big screen TV which should be viewed at more
of a distance. I sure as hell would not put a big screen that needs
to be viewed 10 feet back in an 8x8 room. Yet in that room, a nice
17 inch CRT TV works well. And I know a CRT can successfully dipsplay
much more resolution than 480 lines or 720 pixels. At proper viewing
distance, you're basically going to see the picture at about the same
viewing angle. Assuming your vision is good enough, and your display
is good enough, high definition can be seen.


|> | There are plenty of reasonably priced CRTs that can do a good job with
|> | 1280x720. There might be some of these under $300.
|>
|> CRTs can handle 1920x1080 in sizes under 20 inch quite well.
|
| But you haven't cited _ANY_, you lazy son of a bitch. Look some up! Put
| some facts in one of your posts for once instead of whinging about what
| should be.

I see you are utterly ignorant about BOTH CRT technology, as well as
economics.

My Sony Multiscan 200sx has a CRT tube that is fully capable of showing
high definition at 1920x1080. I know because I have pushed it beyond
that level from my computer and it resolved the test patterns I put up
on it. I did that years ago. Things could only get better since for
newer models.

CRT technology CAN show high definition. The problem is, CRT technology
is also mature and much lower in price at the small sizes, compared to
the processing electronics that is needed to get the HD content off the
DTV signal, and into the CRT tube.

A high definition display can be made for $200 or less in these small
sizes. The market *IS* there, but at a price point around that level.
If you offer 17 inch HD TV set at $500, people will NOT buy it because
the demand is for them to be at $200 or maybe about $250 or so. A few
people might buy it at $500 (even I might buy it at $500), but the
majority will NOT buy it until the price gets down to $250 (figures
are approximate for illustrative purposes).

Manufacturers are not making smaller high definition TVs right now for
various reasons. The big one is they can't meet the price point the
market demands, and still make profit. Once they get manufacturing
costs down enough, they will be able to reach that price point. By
then, we'll probably have all the tuner frequency synthesizing, DSP
based channel filtering, 8VSB decoding, ATSC demuxing, decompression,
and where necessary image rescaling, on a single chip. At that point
it becomes something that can be put in every unit and the price goes
down due to the economy of scale.

Eventually, high definition will be made in smaller sets. And more
people will find it to be worthwhile as more programming is regularly
available in HD.

I do want to eventually buy a TV with HD capability for my home. But
I don't need larger than about 24 inches. I'd rather have about 18
inches.

I also want (and I'd buy right now or at least fairly soon) a PORTABLE
TV that can tune both analog AND digital, in a compact light weight
size. It should be between 7 inch and 12 inch screen size. It needs
to work with all 18 ATSC formats, but rescaling them to SD and showing
them on 4:3 is fine for this PORTABLE model. Even this is not practical
for manufacturers to make at this time due to the same issues, even
though the display doesn't need to be high definition for my purposes.
But one thing that will NOT work is a separate ATSC "STB" tuner. This
is a portable need, and a separate box just does not cut it.

Another reason manufacturers are NOT making smaller sets is so they can
spend their resources (product design and manufacturing scheduling) on
big screen TVs that are their high profit products (because lots of the
people buy these are less strict about the price).


|> But right
|> now they only come in the form of computer monitors or broadcast grade
|> equipment. The former are reasonably priced because they don't have to
|> have all that "TV circuitry". The latter exist because most broadcasters
|> can pay the price (and demand the quality: well calibrated and durable).
|
| So, cite one at a price where a $100 ATSC tuner could be added and hit
| your price point. _ONE_. It shouldn't take more than five minutes to
| prove that such a device exists. You're the one that's claiming that
| such a thing has to exist for HDTV to be successful.

I'm saying it has to exist for it to be feasible to market.

I'm also saying it DOES NOT EXIST at this time. I also explained WHY it
does not exist, yet.

Once things get to the point where adding ATSC only costs $50, which I
do believe can happen, then I think the price differential will make it
work, and then manufacturers will see profit in producing for the small
set market.

What I don't know is whether that $50 point can be met before the date
of analog cutoff. But if tuner mandates at least force all the new
products to have ATSC tuners, whether then can display high definition
or not, even though the prices will be higher, this will at least get
some sales in because people want to continue to receive OTA TV (those
that are not on cable). Some might well choose cable as means to get
TV and abandon OTA, if they have to pay extra money for one or the other.
Some won't have the extra money and will be out cold.

But once you have TVs on the market that can receive and display ATSC,
in the sizes that CRTs are practical (e.g. 12 to 24 inch), and when most
standard programming does come in HD, they might as well make the display
work at full HD resolution. That might be the only way to maximize the
sale of such items if the analog cutoff comes before the cheap ATSC tuner.


|> |> There are broadcast market products already for HDTV in these sizes. They
|> |> are not cheap, but much of the cost is in high level calibration and quality
|> |> control. But it's also a knowledge base that can allow a boost to consumer
|> |> grade products. There are small 16:9 TFT LCD displays available, although
|> |> I doubt they have full resolution.
|> |
|> | You know you might just want to remove that doubt by doing the tinyest
|> | bit of research. Oh, I forgot _you_ are too important to do research.
|> | You will try to find some good doobie on usenet to do it for you.
|> |
|> |> Lots of people have 20 inch and smaller TVs, and are quite happy with them.
|> |> My current TV is 14 inch diagonal viewable, and I don't need anything more
|> |> beside getting ATSC receive capability (most important), and increased
|> |> resolution (less important but would be nice) and 16:9 ratio (if much of
|> |> the future content is made that way).
|> |>
|> |
|> | So, just because _YOU_ want something that isn't available doesn't mean
|> | anything about anything. Just like your crusade for finding a use of an
|> | ATSC modulator. You want it, virtually no one else sees the need, but
|> | HDTV is, in your little mind, flawed because you can't get what you want.
|>
|> You made that up.
|
| What did I make up? The description of your posts? Go read some of your
| own writing. That is what you have been saying in a nutshell, nutcase.

You are making up what you think I want.


|> I've never asked people to do research for me. Maybe you misunderstand
|> things being posted. I knwo Jeff did because he decided to do some kind
|> of research for something that wasn't even what I asked for very early on,
|> and then claimed I didn't do my research for it ... well DUH ... what he
|> went looking for was NOT at all what I asked for. All this because he
|> didn't get it.
|>
|>
|> | That makes you a lazy, stupid, self centered son of a bitch.
|>
|> It seems to give you pleasure to make personal attacks on people.
|
| Not everyone, just people like you.

Either way, it is in appropriate, and you should leave the newsgroup.
If you do this on AVS Forum, or any other, I would hope they would
cut off your access.


|> You
|> two join about a couple dozen other people out of about a million that
|> regularly post throughout the newsgroups.
|>
|> And what kind of email address is: <nothere@notnow.never>
|
| Exactly what I want it to be. If I want to correspond directly with a
| usenet poster I negotiate with them. We exchanged email addresses and go
| on with life. Are you too stupid to have figured that out?

Oh, I have figured it out. You're just paranoid (along with all of your
other mental issues). Presumably Jeff's address is valid, though I have
never tested it. I'm not saying you can't use a fake address. But normal
people at least provide some means for figuring out a valid email address,
as you can see in my sig box. The fact that you don't provide your email
address at all tells me things about your attitude issues.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 8:35:39 PM

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

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:14:44 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:42:25 +0000 (UTC) Michael Urban <urban@panix.com> wrote:
|>
|> | The same reason that even non-HD sets look their worst: the people
|> | at stores like Circuit City are for the most part completely
|> | uninformed about the technology. At a recent visit to Best Buy,
|> | I saw a "high def" plasma being demonstrated with a DVD input -
|> | The Return of the King - but the DVD was in full-screen, not
|> | widescreen mode, stretched to fill the screen. Even Gollum looked
|> | fat.
|> |
|> | Still, I suppose this will match the experience of consumers who
|> | buy widescreen equipment (not necessarily HD) and watch SD broadcasts
|> | or DVDs in just this way, convinced that they are watching HD (and
|> | either persuading themselves that it looks positively brilliant or
|> | else wondering what all the fuss is about).
|>
|> They see a BIG screen (most people still do not have one at home)
|
| You have had this assertion refuted. Why do you keep making it. It
| appears you are intellectually dishonest as well as being a lazt,
| stupid, self centered, lying son of a bitch.

You are just plain wrong in that regard. Most people do NOT have a
big screen TV at home. And you have never even attempted to provide
any proof to the contrary.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 8:49:20 PM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> | But, even with a lucky sync beyond the spec, that monitor has a display area
> | of 325mm x 240mm and a dot pitch of 0.25mm, which means it can display an
> | absolute maximum of 1300x960 in a 4:3 aspect ratio. The 16x9 area would
> | only show 1300x720.
>
> It doesn't have dots. Maybe you should do some research.

All CRTs have dots. Some have screens of holes in front of those dots,
and some (like this one) just use a screen that has only a couple of
horizontal wires to support it.

In this case, the vertical wires are 0.25mm apart.

> There are enough vertical stripes to allow one to see that high resolutions
> do in fact pass through the amplifier.

No, there are exactly 1300 vertical stripes.

> Explain all you want, however you want, but it did get up to that resolution.

You might have gotten it up to 1920x1080 geometry, but not at full
resolution.

> Higher resolution computer monitors are also being sold now. I bet they
> will do the 1920x1080 even better than mine did.

Indeed, and they cost around $1500-2000 in for a 20" diagonal unit.

> | No it didn't. Just like your claims to have done research, this is a
> | complete lie.
>
> You were not here to observe it, so you are not qualified to say.

Anybody but a moron can see that 1300 vertical stripes can't resolve a
full 1920 pixels. So, that's why you *thought* you saw 1920 pixels.


--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/NoHelpDesk.jpg
!