CRT widescreens generally

[Sylvia Else]

After discovering how heavy the Rank Arena screen was, I've been looking
around. Were all CRT widescreens so heavy they required two people to
lift them?

Indeed, were they all so big? What were people living in ordinary sized
homes meant to use?

Sylvia.

 

[D Yuniskis]

Sylvia Else wrote:

After discovering how heavy the Rank Arena screen was, I've been looking
around. Were all CRT widescreens so heavy they required two people to
lift them?

Well, I guess it depends on how strong you are! ;-)
But, yes, widescreens tended to be bigger screens and
glass is heavy! I had a 27" that weighed close to 100
pounds. But, my 22" CRT monitor weighed 75 so this
seemed about right.

Indeed, were they all so big? What were people living in ordinary sized
homes meant to use?

<shrug> I think it sort of comes with the territory.
E.g., imagine a *small* PROJECTION TV (???) Doesn't
really fit the "Projection TV Market".

 

[Sylvia Else]

D Yuniskis wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
After discovering how heavy the Rank Arena screen was, I've been
looking around. Were all CRT widescreens so heavy they required two
people to lift them?

Well, I guess it depends on how strong you are! ;-)

But, yes, widescreens tended to be bigger screens and
glass is heavy! I had a 27" that weighed close to 100
pounds. But, my 22" CRT monitor weighed 75 so this
seemed about right.

Indeed, were they all so big? What were people living in ordinary
sized homes meant to use?

shrug> I think it sort of comes with the territory.
E.g., imagine a *small* PROJECTION TV (???) Doesn't
really fit the "Projection TV Market".

I suppose, though projection is/was a technology to allow big screens.
Making a small one would just be silly.

Whereas wide screens are about image geometry.

Still, you could be right in practice. The early technology adopters
(and in Australia, at least, widescreen CRT TVs they came long before
16:9 TV broadcasts) wouldn't be into buying something small, even if
what they were buying was too big for where they intended to put it.

Shame though, 'cos it means there are no small widescreen TVs being sold
by people who upgrade for no better reason than that they can.

Sylvia.

 

[D Yuniskis]

Sylvia Else wrote:

D Yuniskis wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Indeed, were they all so big? What were people living in ordinary
sized homes meant to use?

shrug> I think it sort of comes with the territory.
E.g., imagine a *small* PROJECTION TV (???) Doesn't
really fit the "Projection TV Market".

I suppose, though projection is/was a technology to allow big screens.
Making a small one would just be silly.

Yes. Though how small is small? :-/

Whereas wide screens are about image geometry.

Still, you could be right in practice. The early technology adopters
(and in Australia, at least, widescreen CRT TVs they came long before
16:9 TV broadcasts) wouldn't be into buying something small, even if
what they were buying was too big for where they intended to put it.

Exactly. Just as folks buying projection TV were looking
to "make a statement" (bigger is better).

I suspect there are also manufacturing economies that come into
play. I.e., it may be cheaper to build a 24" 4:3 screen than
a 24" 16:9 screen!

Shame though, 'cos it means there are no small widescreen TVs being sold
by people who upgrade for no better reason than that they can.

<grin> I see we have similar motivations! ;-)

I think if you are looking for that image shape, you will
end up having to chase down a "small-ish" LCD or plasma
display when folks migrate to larger ones (or OLEDs).

 

[Sylvia Else]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article <00b72dbe$0$6713$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Still, you could be right in practice. The early technology adopters
(and in Australia, at least, widescreen CRT TVs they came long before
16:9 TV broadcasts) wouldn't be into buying something small, even if
what they were buying was too big for where they intended to put it.

Shame though, 'cos it means there are no small widescreen TVs being sold
by people who upgrade for no better reason than that they can.

Well, if you wanted to replace a 4:3 set with a widescreen one before
widescreen became common you'd likely want the same size 4:3 picture on
the widescreen as you had before. Which makes the widescreen one much
larger and heavier.

4:3 is 12:9, so a 16:9 is only 33% wider. However, I suspect that the
tube is a lot more than 33% heavier.

That's assuming you want a 4:3 picture displayed in the correct aspect
ratio. Which many don't seem to care about.

People are strange like that. Some (including my now later father)
tolerated bad pictures from indoor antennae, even when they could easily
have had an outdoor antenna installed.

Presumably a similar effect was responsible for them being happy with
overly large screens with visible scan lines.

Sylvia.

 

[N_Cook]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0079d492$0$13001$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

After discovering how heavy the Rank Arena screen was, I've been looking
around. Were all CRT widescreens so heavy they required two people to
lift them?

Indeed, were they all so big? What were people living in ordinary sized
homes meant to use?

Sylvia.

Its not just about width but flatness as well, vacuum and flatness are
incompatible. If you didn't mind a spherical screen and no chance of
kids/drunks throwing toys etc at the screen then they could be much thinner
glass and so much lighter.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

 

[Sylvia Else]

N_Cook wrote:

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0079d492$0$13001$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
After discovering how heavy the Rank Arena screen was, I've been looking
around. Were all CRT widescreens so heavy they required two people to
lift them?

Indeed, were they all so big? What were people living in ordinary sized
homes meant to use?

Sylvia.


Its not just about width but flatness as well, vacuum and flatness are
incompatible. If you didn't mind a spherical screen and no chance of
kids/drunks throwing toys etc at the screen then they could be much thinner
glass and so much lighter.

I appreciate that the extra width means that they have to be flatter,
other things being equal. Still, making them bigger (higher) as well
just exacerbates that. Smaller widescreens should be possible at
managable weights. Indeed, I subsequently found reference to a 56cm
(22") Hitachi widescreen that weighs just 22kg. So there were some
smaller ones.

Of course, they're depressingly easy to relegate to a child's/guest room
or give to a relative, on upgrade rather than selling on the second-hand
market.

Sylvia.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <00b72dbe$0$6713$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

Still, you could be right in practice. The early technology adopters
(and in Australia, at least, widescreen CRT TVs they came long before
16:9 TV broadcasts) wouldn't be into buying something small, even if
what they were buying was too big for where they intended to put it.

Shame though, 'cos it means there are no small widescreen TVs being sold
by people who upgrade for no better reason than that they can.

Well, if you wanted to replace a 4:3 set with a widescreen one before
widescreen became common you'd likely want the same size 4:3 picture on
the widescreen as you had before. Which makes the widescreen one much
larger and heavier.

That's assuming you want a 4:3 picture displayed in the correct aspect
ratio. Which many don't seem to care about.

--
*If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Adrian C]

Sylvia Else wrote:

After discovering how heavy the Rank Arena screen was, I've been looking
around. Were all CRT widescreens so heavy they required two people to
lift them?

My 32inch Sony KV32FX60 weighs 65kg / 143 pounds

Indeed, were they all so big? What were people living in ordinary sized
homes meant to use?

A television sensibly sized to the dimensions of the room. Weight is not
an issue - people weigh more, and houses generally don't have a problem
with that.

Dividing the distance of the screen from the boot of the viewer by
seven, ye get the minimun required height of the screen. A unit of this
size doesn't look too out of place as an item of furniture.

Meanwhile, some televisions have evolved from an item of domestic
furniture to the equivalent of wallpaper. And programming, likewise.

--
Adrian C

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <007a58f5$0$26790$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

Well, if you wanted to replace a 4:3 set with a widescreen one before
widescreen became common you'd likely want the same size 4:3 picture on
the widescreen as you had before. Which makes the widescreen one much
larger and heavier.

4:3 is 12:9, so a 16:9 is only 33% wider. However, I suspect that the
tube is a lot more than 33% heavier.

As soon as you go away from round the glassware becomes increasingly
heavy.

That's assuming you want a 4:3 picture displayed in the correct aspect
ratio. Which many don't seem to care about.


People are strange like that. Some (including my now later father)
tolerated bad pictures from indoor antennae, even when they could easily
have had an outdoor antenna installed.

In the UK, the signal strength simply isn't high enough for indoor aerials
to work for most.

Presumably a similar effect was responsible for them being happy with
overly large screens with visible scan lines.

Luckily interpolation was 'discovered' at about the same time.

--
*I finally got my head together, now my body is falling apart.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Sylvia Else:

After discovering how heavy the Rank Arena screen was, I've been looking
around. Were all CRT widescreens so heavy they required two people to
lift them?

Dunno about "all", but we've still got a 27" CRT TV in the
kitchen that's going to need professional intervention to remove
it if it ever dies. I think it took three of us to get into the
house, unpacked, and positioned where it's been for the last 15
or so years.
--
PeteCresswell

 

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:59:48 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

After discovering how heavy the Rank Arena screen was, I've been looking
around. Were all CRT widescreens so heavy they required two people to
lift them?

Indeed, were they all so big? What were people living in ordinary sized
homes meant to use?

Sylvia.
As others have pointed out, as you increase the size of a CRT it gets

heavier.

The other factor is optimal viewing distance. Get too close to a
standard definition TV and all you see are scan lines. With a high
definition TV you can sit significantly closer without seeing scan
lines. The other factor is the height of the image. I have a 32" SD
CRT TV. To keep the same height of image requires a 40" HD TV. I
seriously doubt anyone is going to be making a 40" CRT that would
require anything less than 4 people to move.

PlainBill

 

[Bob Larter]

Sylvia Else wrote:

After discovering how heavy the Rank Arena screen was, I've been looking
around. Were all CRT widescreens so heavy they required two people to
lift them?

My Phillips sure as hell is! Most of the weight is in the CRT, so it's
hellishly front-heavy, which makes it a bugger to carry. I'd guess that
it's twice as heavy as my 10 YO, 28" Panasonic.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------