Replacement picture tube out of warranty?

[geoff]

In message <bsn40h$dc8m2$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
<esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes

!

Can I just surprise you there?
If you look at a wall and focus on a point which is far enough away
to be in focus (about 10 inches, but a reasonable distance for discussion
is about say 4 feet?) the image you can see in detail is round effectively
perfectly round. This is because visual sensitivity on the eyes retina is
round. (Consult any text book or google on fovea and macula).
And you can forget any two eyes arguement, both eyes are focused on the
same point, this is how our eyes work.
Yes the field of vison when moving your eyes is wider, due to the bone
structure of the face, but if I look between my legs I have 360 degrees
vision in the horizontal range.

Nothing down there either?

I actually have a copy of the Sun here

Says it all

--
geoff

 

[James Sweet]

"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
newsL$C3PlXed8$Ew1V@ntlworld.com...

In message <bsk84p$d1jnb$2@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes

"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:ttnquvcldnp5tarh6h4cs3th3berejitbv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

fucktard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound
and
audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the
question,
the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended

They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.

Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.


I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

Why all the argument? The reason behind widescreen is irrelevant, the fact
is that it's the format of the future, virtually every movie in existance
was filmed in something closer to 16:9 than 4:3. Regardless of the reason,
this means that the director intended it to be viewed in a widescreen format
so with a 4:3 screen you miss things on the edges of the screen. If theaters
were all 4:3 then the shots would be made so as to not place things off the
edges. That said, I don't own a widescreen set, but I do have one large
enough that WS movies are of acceptable size. Many DVD's have both formats
on one disc so there's no compromise, and to me DVD is an amazing format,
it's the first to really catch on since VHS and side by side there's no
comparison. The picture and sound quality from DVD is amazing, the whole
movie fits on one side of one disc, there's random access, no rewinding, and
the discs themselves are compact and cheap, they don't wear out, it's the
only format I buy anymore.

 

[half_pint]

"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
newsL$C3PlXed8$Ew1V@ntlworld.com...

In message <bsk84p$d1jnb$2@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes

"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:ttnquvcldnp5tarh6h4cs3th3berejitbv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

fucktard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound
and
audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the
question,
the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended

They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.

Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.


I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of

propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.
Eventually people will realise they have been sold a pig in a poke.
If someone can tell me who is responsible for the introduction of
widescreen TV perhaps I can sue them.
I am sure some corrupt practice must have taken place for
it to happen.
I can't believe 99% of the population are morons
On second thoughts.........

You know I have even seen some programs resorting
to splitting the WS down the middle and showing two
propper pictures. Crazy.

I guess I will just have to suffer along in this insane world.
You can now pick up a didgtal transistor radio for Ł100 would you
believe, then you need add on another Ł300 for and ariel to
get half decent reception.

Ain't milk brilliant eh?

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

--
---------------
regards half_pint

>

 

[geoff]

In message <bssmil$117v1$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
<esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes

I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose

--
geoff

 

[half_pint]

"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:5cU8Cx16re8$EwiS@ntlworld.com...

In message <bssmil$117v1$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes



I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it

The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose

You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.

--
geoff

 

[geoff]

In message <bsss1g$14r78$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
<esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes

I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

Not an art connoisseur are we?
Who said it was - golden rectangles are normally used to highlight
important areas of interest

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose

You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.

Why should I need to lug a TV about?

I have one in every main room of the house

--
geoff

 

[Bob Brenchley.]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:14 -0000, "half_pint"
<esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:5cU8Cx16re8$EwiS@ntlworld.com...
In message <bssmil$117v1$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes



I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose

You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.

Who would want to lug a large TV about?

--
geoff

--

Bob.

The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
summed up in one word -- YOU.

 

[half_pint]

"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:6c04vvsj012tder7e1pmmks7nfr91gkgag@4ax.com...

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:14 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:


"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:5cU8Cx16re8$EwiS@ntlworld.com...
In message <bssmil$117v1$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes



I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which
developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.

Yes.

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on
it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose

You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.

Who would want to lug a large TV about?

Someone who has a large portable?

Forgive me if I am overstating the obvious.

--
geoff
--
---------------

regards half_pint

--
Bob.

The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
summed up in one word -- YOU.

 

[David Hemmings]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:16:33 -0000, "half_pint"
<esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:6c04vvsj012tder7e1pmmks7nfr91gkgag@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:14 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:


"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:5cU8Cx16re8$EwiS@ntlworld.com...
In message <bssmil$117v1$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes



I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which
developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.

Yes.

You find it quite funny that a portrait is taller than it is wide ?

 

[half_pint]

"David Hemmings" <davids.spamtrap@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:lm24vvomc21c42tfbc76bkhs4eliu439pe@4ax.com...

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:16:33 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:




"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:6c04vvsj012tder7e1pmmks7nfr91gkgag@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:14 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:


"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:5cU8Cx16re8$EwiS@ntlworld.com...
In message <bssmil$117v1$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes



I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which
developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.

Yes.

You find it quite funny that a portrait is taller than it is wide ?

No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)
>

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

James Sweet wrote:

"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
newsL$C3PlXed8$Ew1V@ntlworld.com...

In message <bsk84p$d1jnb$2@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes

"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:ttnquvcldnp5tarh6h4cs3th3berejitbv@4ax.com...

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:


I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

fucktard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound

and

audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the

question,

the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended

They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.

Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.


I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?



Why all the argument? The reason behind widescreen is irrelevant, the fact
is that it's the format of the future, virtually every movie in existance
was filmed in something closer to 16:9 than 4:3.

Actually 35mm film is 36mmx24mm - 3:2. Most early films were shot on
that format....

Regardless of the reason,
this means that the director intended it to be viewed in a widescreen format
so with a 4:3 screen you miss things on the edges of the screen. If theaters
were all 4:3 then the shots would be made so as to not place things off the
edges. That said, I don't own a widescreen set, but I do have one large
enough that WS movies are of acceptable size. Many DVD's have both formats
on one disc so there's no compromise, and to me DVD is an amazing format,
it's the first to really catch on since VHS and side by side there's no
comparison. The picture and sound quality from DVD is amazing, the whole
movie fits on one side of one disc, there's random access, no rewinding, and
the discs themselves are compact and cheap, they don't wear out, it's the
only format I buy anymore.

 

[geoff]

In message <bst2qm$16312$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
<esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes

The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.

Yes.

You find it quite funny that a portrait is taller than it is wide ?

No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's

I don't recall making it an argument for widescreen TV, I was just
making an observation

when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)

Not got a real grip on the world have you ?

--
geoff

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

half_pint wrote:

"David Hemmings" <davids.spamtrap@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:lm24vvomc21c42tfbc76bkhs4eliu439pe@4ax.com...

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:16:33 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:




"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:6c04vvsj012tder7e1pmmks7nfr91gkgag@4ax.com...

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:14 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:


"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:5cU8Cx16re8$EwiS@ntlworld.com...

In message <bssmil$117v1$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes

I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which

developed

in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.

Yes.


You find it quite funny that a portrait is taller than it is wide ?


No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)

Ah. So what you are saying is that a squeare scereen would be good
because you could watch it lying on your side?

 

[half_pint]

--
---------------
regards half_pint

"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:zQ0+BhA61f8$EwyP@ntlworld.com...

In message <bsss1g$14r78$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes
I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which
developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?


Not an art connoisseur are we?
Who said it was - golden rectangles are normally used to highlight
important areas of interest.

Garbage - If you think there is a GR in Mona face you are deluded, there
are so many points on a persons face I could make any shape fit into
it 4:3, 2:1, 5:3, 9:4, 7:2

All natures creatures, apart form a few specalists such as seagulls
evolved a circular visual system to do its panning and scanning.
This is to be expected since given any random selection of images
you will find a best coverage is achieved with a circular apperture.

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on
it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose

You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.

Why should I need to lug a TV about?
I have one in every main room of the house

Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot,
maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot.
Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable
in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take
up too much room, ditto for the bedroom.
There must be a market for portable TV's (which you appear
to deny) because they make up about 30-50 percent of the TV
market .
Also not everyone wants to spend Ł280 on a TV when they can
get one for Ł69, but I guess you call paying 4 times what you used
to pay is 'progress', just like digital radio, where you can pay
10 times the price for a product which will not even work unless
you pay a futher Ł400 for an ariel the size of Jodrell Bank.

--
geoff

 

[half_pint]

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:3FF217D2.1070407@b.c...

half_pint wrote:

"David Hemmings" <davids.spamtrap@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:lm24vvomc21c42tfbc76bkhs4eliu439pe@4ax.com...

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:16:33 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:




"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:6c04vvsj012tder7e1pmmks7nfr91gkgag@4ax.com...

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:14 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:


"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:5cU8Cx16re8$EwiS@ntlworld.com...

In message <bssmil$117v1$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes

I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which

developed

in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.

Yes.


You find it quite funny that a portrait is taller than it is wide ?


No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)



Ah. So what you are saying is that a squeare scereen would be good
because you could watch it lying on your side?

No thats what you said.

--
---------------
regards half_pint

 

[James Sweet]

No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)

Where are you even getting that from? A portrait display (taller than wide)
is great for showing just that, a portrait of one person, or a full
document, but since our eyes are side by side, not one over the other, when
you look out over a scene you see more width than height. There's little of
interest on the ground or up in the sky, hence the popularity of panoramic
photos for showing a scene.

Just the same, yes if the standard was square and movies were shot assuming
a square screen it would work just fine and dandy aside from having to try
harder to keep mic booms, etc out of the picture and needing to be zoomed
out unnessesarily far to fit many scenes, but the fact of the matter is
that's not the case, and movies are filmed wider than they are tall. That's
the way it's been for a long time and it's unlikely for that to change. Are
you a troll or what? You must have been one of those kids who'd try to jam
the round peg in the square hole for reasons not apparent to anyone else.

 

[half_pint]

"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
newsL$C3PlXed8$Ew1V@ntlworld.com...

In message <bsk84p$d1jnb$2@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes

"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:ttnquvcldnp5tarh6h4cs3th3berejitbv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

fucktard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound
and
audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the
question,
the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended

They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.

Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.


I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

16/9 =1.8 GR = 1.618

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?


--
geoff

 

[James Sweet]

Why all the argument? The reason behind widescreen is irrelevant, the
fact
is that it's the format of the future, virtually every movie in
existance
was filmed in something closer to 16:9 than 4:3.


Actually 35mm film is 36mmx24mm - 3:2. Most early films were shot on
that format....

Which is almost exactly in the middle between 4:3 and 16:9, my
interpretation of that is that for older fims it's a tossup, for newer films
16:9 is the clear winner, looks like a point scored for WS.

Perhaps my view on this subject is also due to the fact that I can't think
of anything worth watching on TV aside from movies and a very occasional
show on the history channel, if 95% of the TV's use is for wide material
then it would make sense to go with a wide set should I ever get a newer one
than I have.

 

[half_pint]

"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:I8IwKmJLfh8$EwWS@ntlworld.com...

In message <bst2qm$16312$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes

The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing
to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.

Yes.

You find it quite funny that a portrait is taller than it is wide ?

No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's

I don't recall making it an argument for widescreen TV, I was just
making an observation

What is your observation and how is it relevant?

when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)

Not got a real grip on the world have you ?

What makes you think that and what characteristics are displayed
(in your opinon) by someone with a 'grip on the world'?

--
geoff

 

[James Sweet]

Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot,
maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot.
Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable
in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take
up too much room, ditto for the bedroom.
There must be a market for portable TV's (which you appear
to deny) because they make up about 30-50 percent of the TV
market .
Also not everyone wants to spend Ł280 on a TV when they can
get one for Ł69, but I guess you call paying 4 times what you used
to pay is 'progress', just like digital radio, where you can pay
10 times the price for a product which will not even work unless
you pay a futher Ł400 for an ariel the size of Jodrell Bank.

--
geoff

There's a plentiful supply of used 4:3 sets, and that will only get larger
as 16:9 gains popularity, so if anything you should be happy, supply will be
high, demand will be low, prices will be cheap. The 4:3 format will likely
remain popular for quite some time for portable sets, but 4:3 is virtually
dead for large projection sets even today, with no signs of that slowing
down. I rather like the trend, if I had my choice I'd go WS but I got my 50"
standard set for free, I'm sure after a few years I'll come across an even
nicer one as someone upgrades.