Chip with simple program for Toy

[Mike]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 06:53:21 -0400, "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote:

what software is best used to make the images for the DIY laser printer PCB
resist trick ?

ie. print image on the laser printer, iron on copper cover board, wash away
paper, disolve exposed copper, remove the plastic, drill holes .....

thanks for any help,
rob

I would have to agree with budgie on his reccomendation for using Protel Autotrax.
I have tried every freebie layout program that I could find and Protel is by far the easiest to use. I bought
Easytrax (an earlier version of Autotrax) back in the old days for $450 and still use it today, but it does
require that your computer be able to run DOS programs. I use an old HP Laserjet III that got donated to
Goodwill and get excellent results. I guess that I'm too dumb, but I have never been able to get the gerber
output to work although the program works very well for printing my boards.

Mike



When truth is absent politics will fill the gap.

 

[Robert Peffers]

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:13f9uftm80qerf8@corp.supernews.com...

"JANA" wrote ...
The early TV sets did not have any anti-glare coatings on the screen.

And the latest computer screens (including laptops) are switching
back to the very shiny surface apparently because the "non-glare"
treatment also reduces the clarity of the image you are viewing
from the screen.

The natural colour of the non activated phosphors was a type
of greenish colour. Some phosphors were slightly lighter or darker.

Some of that may have been from the thick glass envelope
over the front of the screen. Most glass looks slightly greenish
under conditions where you can see the glass itself vs. whatever
is on the other side.

When watching the screen under normal operation, your eyes had the
illusion
that the screen was black, because the surrounding white emission was
very
bright in relation to the dark or non-illuminated parts.

Indeed, one of the many psychological effects that modern
technology depends on to interface with humans.
Not to mention the psychological fact that we humans, when watching TV,

expect the grass to be much greener that it is in real life. What we see as
a green lawn is, in face, quite brownish in fact.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

 

[Bob Myers]

"JosephKK" <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:za1Ji.51313$Um6.16763@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...

About the matching of the gamma curves, when i was young and had very
good eyes, and color TV was just becoming popular. There were still
plenty of broadcasts in monochrome and i could watch them on B&W sets
and color sets "side by side" on the showroom floors. There was
scant (if any, i sure did not notice) difference in the viewing
experience (at a reasonable distance from the screen). If there were
obvious/significant differences in the gamma correction they would
have showed up at that time. The changes to better match YUV were
rather minor tweaks, and the monochrome shows that i watch have no
observable color artefacts as a result of the change.

Yes.

"Gamma" and so-called "gamma correction" are among the
most misunderstood topics in electronic displays, and have
been for about as long as CRTs have been in common use.
For this discussion, it should be sufficient to note that the
"gamma" characteristic of CRTs results inevitably from the
physics of the electron gun, and for any CRT will be fairly
close to a power-law curve where the exponent is close
to 2.5, give or take a bit. In TV practice, the inverse curve
which is required of the camera output, etc., is modified
slightly at the dark end, to take care of some real-world
factors and to help reduce the effects of noise at that end
of the curve as seen in the final CRT-displayed image. There
is no difference in the "gamma correction" used with
monochrome ("black and white") and color CRTs.

If you really want to get a great look at the basics of
"gamma", Charles Poynton's "FAQ" paper on the subject
is a good place to start:

http://www.poynton.com/GammaFAQ.html

Bob M.

 

[Joerg]

JosephKK wrote:

Joerg notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net posted to
sci.electronics.design:


Richard Fry wrote:


Other than brief portions of the evening news the question arises:
What's the whole point in restoration these days? If OTA-TV really
goes digital some distant day we might not even bother buying a new
set.

_________

Accurate colour reproduction requires accurate transmission of the
luminance (brightness) value of each colour, which is set by a
specific, DC-coupled voltage. If the video signal was transmitted
using AC coupling, then luminance values would be a function of the
average voltage of the video waveform.

For that matter accurate monochome reproduction also requires DC
coupling, but it is not as objectionable if not used (cheap TV set,
etc).

Also - the purpose of inverting video for transmission is to
transmit the peaks of sync pulses at +100% modulation, which allows
TV receivers to show the most stable picture in the presence of
noise (eg, fringes of the coverage area of the TV station).

RF
RCA Broadcast Field Engineer, retired


I know how it works, Richard. My point was, why restore the clamp
level or any other level if the contents of the transmission itself
ain't worth watching? It they did more re-runs of Andy Griffith or
Bonanza or whatever, ok, but not with the average programming these
days.



True, but a lot of the best stuff is B&W (notably much of Andy
Griffith, Bonanza, The Outer Limits, Masterpiece Theater, and so on).
Often a lot of the old good stuff is available on cable or satellite
that OTA stations cannot use because the audience is too small.

Yes, but then they make us pay around $50/month where $49 of those
Dollars are going towards junk I don't care for. Luckily there is the
VCR. Occasionally our video rental place in town has an old movie. Much
of that has never even been ported to DVD.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

JosephKK wrote:

(snip)

About the matching of the gamma curves, when i was young and had very
good eyes, and color TV was just becoming popular. There were still
plenty of broadcasts in monochrome and i could watch them on B&W sets
and color sets "side by side" on the showroom floors. There was
scant (if any, i sure did not notice) difference in the viewing
experience (at a reasonable distance from the screen). If there were
obvious/significant differences in the gamma correction they would
have showed up at that time.

I suppose I was always surprised that gamma correction was noticed
in the first place, but I suppose it is.

I believe that NTSC did tests to show that it wouldn't be a
significant problem. Probably also expecting most people
to switch to color sets.

-- glen

 

[Michael Black]

Rich Grise (rich@example.net) writes:

Have you tried asking any deaf people who use the thing?

Or the phone company? They're usually happy to share their information -
just ask for "vertical engineering" or the local equivalent.

One fascinating development is that I'm not seeing "Radium's" messages,

and I'm not running a killfile.

His obnoxious messages were viewable before, but when I saw this
thread reappear today, I thought someone was replying to an older
post. Because in retrospect, I've not seen any "radium" posts for
at least a few weeks.

So at some higher level, someone's decided that he really is a troll,
and keeping his posts out. I don't know whether it's local or somewhere
upstream, but I find it fascinating.

Michael

 

[Eeyore]

Michael Black wrote:

Rich Grise (rich@example.net) writes:

Have you tried asking any deaf people who use the thing?

Or the phone company? They're usually happy to share their information -
just ask for "vertical engineering" or the local equivalent.

One fascinating development is that I'm not seeing "Radium's" messages,
and I'm not running a killfile.

His obnoxious messages were viewable before, but when I saw this
thread reappear today, I thought someone was replying to an older
post. Because in retrospect, I've not seen any "radium" posts for
at least a few weeks.

So at some higher level, someone's decided that he really is a troll,
and keeping his posts out. I don't know whether it's local or somewhere
upstream, but I find it fascinating.

I've seen this effect with some posters too. It may depend on the 'peering'
arrangements your newserver has.

Graham

 

[robb]

yes, i saw that, DOS.

I think i threw the last DOS bootable floppy out ages ago.
oh well i hope the Dr DOS or some other downloadable form works.
might have to break out one of my old PC boxes to test those DOS
versions out.

thanks for help,
robb


"Mike" <nomtrxspam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ccs9f3psl4450ork8i8va3mjvi11211jpf@4ax.com...

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 06:53:21 -0400, "robb" <some@where.on.net
wrote:

what software is best used to make the images for the DIY
laser printer PCB
resist trick ?

ie. print image on the laser printer, iron on copper cover
board, wash away
paper, disolve exposed copper, remove the plastic, drill
holes .....

thanks for any help,
rob


I would have to agree with budgie on his reccomendation for
using Protel Autotrax.
I have tried every freebie layout program that I could find and
Protel is by far the easiest to use. I bought
Easytrax (an earlier version of Autotrax) back in the old days
for $450 and still use it today, but it does
require that your computer be able to run DOS programs. I use
an old HP Laserjet III that got donated to
Goodwill and get excellent results. I guess that I'm too dumb,
but I have never been able to get the gerber
output to work although the program works very well for
printing my boards.

Mike



When truth is absent politics will fill the gap.

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 05:03:29 GMT, JosephKK <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

Al in Dallas alfargnoli@yahoo.com posted to sci.electronics.design:

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:00:22 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Joel Kolstad wrote:

"Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1190316861.873947.152340@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Some distant day in the US is Feb 17, 2009.


Looks like it's really going to happen this time too -- all the
analog TV
boxes now have the, "Warning! This TV will stop receiving
over-the-air broadcast in 2009!" stickers on them these days.


Yeah but it has been postponed how many times now? I guess this
deadline is more serious though as some spectra have supposedly been
auctioned off. And at least out here no converters in sight. Oh man,
I do not want to be in the shoes of a local politician on Feb-18,
2009.

Somebody will be selling digital tuners with analog outputs so
people can put the box between their antennas and their old TVs.


They are already available, just google. Watch the price spike, and
then the sheeple bitch, and then the regulators step in. Time your
investments carefully.

You guys are dopes. There will be no spikes on a subject that has been
known about and previously covered for years.

Readily available. Sheesh!

 

[Robert Roland]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:04:46 -0400, "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote:

might have to break out one of my old PC boxes to test those DOS
versions out.

Take a look at "VMWare Server". It is a free virtualisation software.
It works spectacularly well.
--
RoRo

 

[Radiosrfun]

"Sam" <samcohenmoney@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190566082_5251@sp12lax.superfeed.net...

Turn 12 dollars into thousands

IT'S SIMPLE AND IT'S LEGAL!!!!!!!

Not sure about the "legal" part - but any one who falls for this - IS -
SIMPLE!

SUCKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PLONK!

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:58:51 +0000, JosephKK wrote:

Joerg notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net posted to
Richard Fry wrote:

Other than brief portions of the evening news the question arises:
What's the whole point in restoration these days? If OTA-TV really goes
digital some distant day we might not even bother buying a new set.

Accurate colour reproduction requires accurate transmission of the
luminance (brightness) value of each colour, which is set by a
specific, DC-coupled voltage. If the video signal was transmitted
using AC coupling, then luminance values would be a function of the
average voltage of the video waveform.

For that matter accurate monochome reproduction also requires DC
coupling, but it is not as objectionable if not used (cheap TV set,
etc).

Also - the purpose of inverting video for transmission is to transmit
the peaks of sync pulses at +100% modulation, which allows TV receivers
to show the most stable picture in the presence of noise (eg, fringes
of the coverage area of the TV station).

I know how it works, Richard. My point was, why restore the clamp level
or any other level if the contents of the transmission itself ain't
worth watching? It they did more re-runs of Andy Griffith or Bonanza or
whatever, ok, but not with the average programming these days.

True, but a lot of the best stuff is B&W (notably much of Andy Griffith,
Bonanza, The Outer Limits, Masterpiece Theater, and so on). Often a lot of
the old good stuff is available on cable or satellite that OTA stations
cannot use because the audience is too small.

We have a couple of local indies here in So. Cal that show reruns of old
classics:
http://www.kdoctv.net/schedule.htm
http://ktla.trb.com/entertainment/?track=nav

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Michael Black wrote:

Rich Grise (rich@example.net) writes:

Have you tried asking any deaf people who use the thing?

Or the phone company? They're usually happy to share their information -
just ask for "vertical engineering" or the local equivalent.

One fascinating development is that I'm not seeing "Radium's" messages,
and I'm not running a killfile.

His obnoxious messages were viewable before, but when I saw this
thread reappear today, I thought someone was replying to an older
post. Because in retrospect, I've not seen any "radium" posts for
at least a few weeks.

So at some higher level, someone's decided that he really is a troll,
and keeping his posts out. I don't know whether it's local or somewhere
upstream, but I find it fascinating.

Look at your message path:
sn-us!sn-feed-sjc-04!sn-xt-sjc-10!sn-xt-sjc-07!sn-xt-sjc-12!supernews.com!nntp.csufresno.edu!tethys.csu.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.kjsl.com!ncf.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!et472


Supernews drops all posts from Google Groups with excessive cross
posting.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Bob Masta]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:45:27 -0700, "Green Xenon [Radium]"
<glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:

Hi:

How does ultrasound do this?

Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality :

“On April 7, 2005, Sony went public with the information that they had
filed for and received a patent for the idea of the non-invasive beaming
of different frequencies and patterns of ultrasonic waves directly into
the brain to recreate all five senses.[2] There has been research to
show that this is possible.”

Quotes from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article378077.ece :

“The patent has few details, describing only a device that would fire
pulses of ultrasound at the head to modify the firing patterns of
neurons in targeted parts of the brain.”

This is so interesting. Please don’t feel insulted by the cross-posts. I
only posted to relevant NGs.

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.

I am so interested in how ultrasound can “recreate all five senses”. Yet
I am also extremely frustrated because I can’t find any additional
information on this topic.


Thanks,

Radium

Sounds to me like horse-puckey! (I guess that accounts for the
senses of hearing and olfaction, at a minimum... <g&gt

Even if we suppose that their ultrasound system can target
the brain at very fine resolution, and that it can stimulate any
neurons it focuses on, that's a *looong* way from having a
useful system. My suspicion is that they are simply able to
produce the same sort of random sensations that neurosurgeons
elicit by direct contact or stimulation during neurosurgery.
If they aim for the visual cortex, they get visual sensations,
auditory from the auditory cortex, and so on. If the stimulation
apparatus is really nailed down tight to the subject's head,
they may even be fairly repeatable distinct sensations, such
as "smell of violets" or "moving bar of red light". But they won't
be the same for the next subject, nor even the same subject
on another day unless the setup can be reattached exactly the
same. That's partly due to the limits of trying to locate any
given brain region by "stereotaxis" (measurements relative to
known landmarks on the skull or whatever), and partly due to
the fact that brains are all different at fine enough detail (because
they have been shaped by different experiences as well as
heredity).

So to use this in any practical way would involve some sort of
semi-permanent attachment to the subject, followed by a
*looong* learning period of tweaking the controls, and mapping
out the response regions. In essence, it would be a larger-scale
version of what cochlear prosthesis recipients have to go through
to eventually achieve what can be called "hearing". The device
can be adjusted to adapt somewhat to the subject, but the
subject has to do a large amount of learning to interpret the
output of the device.

Best regards,


Bob Masta

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

 

[Randy Poe]

Crossposting trimmed somewhat

On Sep 25, 1:45 am, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite.com>
wrote:

Hi:

How does ultrasound do this?

Quotes fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality:

"On April 7, 2005, Sony went public with the information that they had
filed for and received a patent for the idea of the non-invasive beaming
of different frequencies and patterns of ultrasonic waves directly into
the brain to recreate all five senses.[2] There has been research to
show that this is possible."

Quotes from
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article378077.ece:

"The patent has few details, describing only a device that would fire
pulses of ultrasound at the head to modify the firing patterns of
neurons in targeted parts of the brain."

Few details. Exactly.
"New Scientist says in its Saturday issue that it was denied an
interview with the unnamed inventor..."

Hmmm. The inventor of this brilliant idea doesn't admit
to having a name, and they won't let the press talk to
the supposed inventor.

"Elizabeth Boukis, the Sony Electronics spokeswoman, said
that the work was a "prophetic invention" and no experiments
at all had been performed on it. 'It was based on an inspiration
that this may someday be the direction that technology will
take us,' she told the magazine."

Hmm. They don't have any idea how it would be possible.
They just want to get the royalties if anyone ever does
figure out a way to do it.

This is so interesting. Please don't feel insulted by the cross-posts. I
only posted to relevant NGs.

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.

I am so interested in how ultrasound can "recreate all five senses". Yet
I am also extremely frustrated because I can't find any additional
information on this topic.

That would be because there isn't any. Somebody unnamed
had a science-fiction idea without details, and Sony management
decided to pay to file a patent on it.

I can think of only one plausible technology that might have
prompted these speculations. There's something called
"time reversal" in signal processing. It has nothing to do with
making time run backward. The name has to do with the
fact that the technique involves reversing the time order
of a recorded signal.

When coherent waves (such as ultrasound) hit a body
with a complicated structure, they experience a lot
of scattering and the signal becomes severely
decoherent. By measuring the scattering and using
time-reversal techniques, you can compensate for
that scattering in such a way that you could cause
the sound wave to come to a sharp focus at any
desired point inside the body. Such a technique has been
successfully applied to noninvasive destruction of kidney
stones.

I suspect somebody asked "if you apply time reversal
techniques to focus ultrasound on specific neurons,
can you stimulate them to fire?" And probably somebody
found the answer was "yes".

- Randy

 

[Benj]

Randy Poe wrote:

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.

Sorry "Radium" but your spamming stupid posts are well known here.
While this one is considerably improved over most, why would you have
the chutzpa to think that we should fall all over ourselves because
YOU are "really interested" in something. How about you CONTRIBUTE
something "interesting" here instead? Just who are you to tell ME to
be "reasonable"?

That would be because there isn't any. Somebody unnamed
had a science-fiction idea without details, and Sony management
decided to pay to file a patent on it.

Hmm. They don't have any idea how it would be possible.
They just want to get the royalties if anyone ever does
figure out a way to do it.

I dunno. Seemed to have worked with the Laser!

 

[Eric R Snow]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:39:24 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

...

I carreied a spare capacitor, pouints and distributor cap with me in
my vehicle's tool box, so i didn't ned to improvise critical parts away
from the shop.

This was a friend's boat and I trusted him. It turned out not to be
equipped with RDF (not unusual in the late 40s), compass, bailing pump
or even bucket, to say nothing of ship-to-shore radio. I nearly lost my
life, and I actually lost my naiveté. Since then, I check a boat's
equipment before I accept a joyride.

A large tesla coil do in a pinch.

The pilot had a broken leg. My friend improvised a windbreak from the
broken-off wing, and made fire by soaking clothes from his suitcase in
fuel. I don't know how he made his interrupter. His 300 or so pounds --
mostly blubber -- probably insulated him. It may also have contributed
to the plane's breakup on touching down.

Jerry
Years ago a friend of mine had an ignition problem on his old wooden

boat. The ballast resistor vaporised or something like that. The
sparkplug wires were arcing to the engine block when the ballast
resistor was bypassed with a wire so my friend wired in a light bulb
which got him home OK. After that incident he made sure he had a
complete ignition system replacement kit. Plugs, wires, points,
resistor, condenser, rotor, and cap.
ERS

 

[robb]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:473243FC.6DF1C352@hotmail.com...

tonym924@gmail.com wrote:

"robb" <s...@where.on.net> wrote:

no shorts on any of the power regulator chips 5v L387 or
the L298s

and still get 76 ohm continuity between 5v an 0v ref.

Ummm, what's wrong with that? I = E/R: 66mA. This
(static) current isn't blowing the fuse.

Yes.

I thought it was a SHORT ! Not 76 ohms ! Looks like there may
be hope yet.

Graham

apologies graham and anyone else who thpught i knew what i was
saying :{

well i did say i was an amateur, i guess everyone forgot to ask
me if i plugged it in :}

ok, well i thought any thing less than couple of 100K Ohms was
bad news ( rather a short )

i said short because my meter (fluke 177) has continuity setting
that measures anything less than 250 Ohms as having continuity
(beep) and i thought this was a bad thing between high/low that
is 5v and 0v rails

so does this new light change my tactics any ?

maybe all are to upset with my mis-use of "short" ?


still in need of help,
robb

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> hath wroth:

Kevin Martin, FCC Chair has been issuing anual press releases
indicating his support for ala carte cable programming. Here's the
lastest:

They have been beating this dead horse since the early '80s, when I
designed and built CATV headends.

Sorta. Kevin Martin seems to be the most vocal of the assorted FCC
commissars on the issue. His predecessor, Michael Powell avoided the
issue entirely. Before that, William Kennard seemed in favor, but
never really pushed it very hard. I don't recall what Reed Hundt
preferred and haven't followed the issue carefully. It's been
discussed since must-carry appeared in 1992. Note that must-carry
arrived from congressional action, not from the FCC.

Yes. The old "Must carry" regulations. They were a pain in the '80s
when the switching equipment wasn't versatile enough, and reliable
enough to block some programming, so some channels that people wanted
added to a system required someone to manually switch when something
actually started or stopped. Local ball games that weren't sold out had
be blocked, along with a lot of other crap.

Some of that is still with us. This year, we added digital
broadcasting to the must-carry rule. I don't know where the cable
companies are going to find all the channels to regurgitate the
digital must-carry content. Fortunately, it's only for 3 years after
the demise of analog date.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry>

the same local advertisers who try to sell me overpriced furniture
and vehicles, I neither need, nor want. As far as the sports channels,
I wouldn't care if they ALL went bankrupt.

Do the math. The cable companies are not going to allow themselves to
lose revenue. Their total receipts (gross income) is going to remain
the same or they go out of business. So, ala carte programming allows
you to pay for fewer channels. Fine, but with penetration bordering
on saturation in most metro areas, the number of customers isn't going
to change much. So, the price of each channel goes up to compensate,
and your monthly bill remains the same.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Don Bowey wrote:

On 9/26/07 3:53 PM, in article 8iolf314uqs99kkapffuse1e1g5t3edpls@4ax.com,
"ChairmanOfTheBored" <RUBored@crackasmile.org> wrote:

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:02:07 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:

On 9/26/07 4:51 AM, in article sshkf3lac1s5gi2cvlhlsos67at58lfr0r@4ax.com,
"ChairmanOfTheBored" <RUBored@crackasmile.org> wrote:

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 06:12:27 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> hath wroth:

I was given a two year old 32" Sony HDTV 'Capable' TV a few weeks
ago, and have no idea what I'm going to do with it. I have considered
converting it to a computer monitor.

You'll probably find that your Sony is limited to WXGA (1366x768).
Check the specs. WXGA is ok, but is nowhere near what can be done
with a "real" 32" LCD computah monitor. For example, an HP LP3065 30"
monitor will do WQXGA (2560x1600) or roughly twice the number of
pixels.


I already have a 22" HP monitor that will do 2048 * 1536. I use it
on the computer that I use for graphic work and web design.


You can blame the cheap ass networks who switched to KU band digital
feeds with barely enough bandwidth to supply a fixed image without
problems. After they piggyback all the control and timing data, its no
wonder the system freezes.

DTV compression levels were established by cranking up the compression
until the complaints rolled in on the support phone numbers. I also
went through that exercise with CATV. Cramming extra channels into
the pipe is worth lots of money. What we have today is "adequate"
picture quality that paying customers can afford. There may be a
market for high quality broadcast video, but the GUM (great unwashed
masses) prefer cheap. So, we get maximally compressed video of
minimal quality. I don't like it, but my DirecTV subscription is
affordable, so I'll tolerate the loss in quality.


All I watch is local news, and a little Sci-Fi Channel. Cable TV
costs me about $15 a month for that. I can't get the Sci Fi channel
without paying for a tier of sports channels that I don't have time to
watch. The cheapest package with the Sci-Fi channel is ?$45 a month on
Direct TV, and Dish network wants $30 a month.


Hi res display, and zero digital or HD channels...

Yeah, you're a real brain, bozo.

You are a mouthy POS. Why not put a cork in it?

Perhaps he likes the quality for watching DVDs, not that it's anyone's
business.


Standard DVDs are NOT he res either, idiot.

How much you want to bet the retard is too cheap to have either HD
format yet? Hell, I'd even bet that he doesn't even have an upscaling
DVD player for std DVDs for it either.

I'll bet this is the first he'll have even heard of it, and they are
sub-$100 products.

You're almost as big a fucking idiot as he is.

And yes, here in Usenet, the bullshit he spews is anyone's business,
dumbfuck.

Boring, very boring.

He's startimg to make 'Radium' look brilliant.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida