 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The existing TV is roughly 50cm x 50cm. (Obviously the *screen* has a
>> 4:3 aspect - but the *casing* doesn't!) After playing with my
>> measuring stick, it appears that a device with a width of 70cm or even
>> 80cm might plausibly fit into the gap. Depending on the aspect ratio
>> and the styling of the casing, that gives me a 20" - 30" screen size.
>
> Not forgetting that a lot of the TV's now have speakers situated below
> or behind the screen and not by the side, that can make a big difference
> in width. Give me the diagonal of the current one and I'll tell you the
> size of a 16:9 to match either current height or width.
It's roughly 21" diagonally across the screen itself, or roughly 50cm
square in terms of actual casing.
>> It seems that LCD TVs go up to absurd sizes,
>
> Nah that's plasma's which can hit wall size
Well I don't know - they seem to go up to 40" and more...
>> How the *hell* am I supposed to tell which ones are any good?
>
> You can't, the HD-feed is reserved for the 42" plus ones with extra
> gubbins.
Hmm... well *that's* helpful! :-P
> On the other hand if all you're going to feed it is an SD
> source then it's actually a reasonable comparision method
Not really. I'm fairly sure that you wouldn't normally have the degree
of ghosting and snow I've observed in shops. (It looks like they just
took an analogue signal and put it into a 200-way splitter and tried to
drive 200 TVs with it!)
> Sony tend to have the quality, Panasonic the black levels, LG more
> extras, and Philips all three ;-)
Mmm, interesting...
>> - What is HDMI?
>
> Essentially the HD equivalent of SCART in that in carries both video and
> audio in one cable
But it's digital too, right?
>> Is there a specific reason why the leads are £80 each?
>
> Some are better then others, some just say they are.
...but if it's digital then, by definition, it *doesn't matter* how good
the lead is. (So long as the S/N ratio isn't *absurdly* low.)
>> - Are there any ways to obtain HD signals yet? (I gather BluRay
>> players are actually on sale now, but still prohibitively expensive.
>> Are there any other possible sources?)
>
> Scott's covered this too. Freesat is the only free main-stream source of
> HD signals, though from my last tally there's only about two set-top
> boxes and built-in televisions available (may well have jumped in the
> last month). SkyHD with its monthly subscription, or FreeView after the
> big switchover in 20xx is set to deallocate two muxes for HD
> broadcasting only - except I doubt any older freeview receivers will be
> able to decode the signals.
My dad did ask me if our BT Vision box has an HDMI connection. I haven't
looked yet, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Similarly, why do I get electric shocks every time I touch
>> our video equipment?)
>
> Stuff's broken? :-)
...oh. O_O
>> A lot of the TV descriptions seem to leave confusion as to whether
>> you're buying a "TV" or a "monitor". Hmm... ;-)
>
> Works for both. Generally a "monitor" won't have a tuner built in.
Indeed. Except most signals aren't RF-modulated any more anyway. ;-)
>> So far, I've observed that the very low-price models have almost no
>> connectors at all, and the expensive ones have lots of them. It's the
>> only real difference I can see. (Other than trying to interpret the
>> brightness / contrast / speed ratings.)
>
> Actually, the larger ones often have 120Hz refresh rates.
None of the ones I've looked at have this. Some of the bigger ones do,
but not the ones I'm looking to buy.
Having seen a few in the shop, there's absolutely no visible difference
at all between a normal 50 Hz TV and a 200 Hz TV right next to it
showing the same signal. (There *was*, however, a 4x price difference.)
>> why would you put gold on a connector? The very first time you use it
>> all the gold will rub off!)
>
> It conducts better. And it never corrodes, so it'll keep conducting
> better. And it doesn't rub off unless you plug it in and out a few
> hundred times.
Better... than what?
The other day I was shocked to discover that copper actually conducts
*better* than gold. (!!) That's *pure* copper, of course. The nice thing
about gold is that it doesn't corrode. Copper certainly does...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 11:54:18 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> did
> spake, saying:
>> - What is HDMI?
>
> Essentially the HD equivalent of SCART in that in carries both video and
> audio in one cable
And the DRM, don't forget that... You can't use HDCP over a different kind
of connection.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:493063a7$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Well I don't know - they seem to go up to 40" and more...
>
You can get plasmas over 100". I haven't seen an LCD over 50"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spscheele/2204073854/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail" <gail (at) sql in the wild (dot) co [dot] za> wrote:
> You can get plasmas over 100". I haven't seen an LCD over 50"
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/spscheele/2204073854/
I saw one of those in a shop. I don't think they were using 1080p. Looked
like more. I stood right next to it and could still see detail, but quite
shortly I started feeling dizzy :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Indeed. Except most signals aren't RF-modulated any more anyway. ;-)
They are over the air or over "raw" cable here. Perhaps things are different
in the UK.
> Having seen a few in the shop, there's absolutely no visible difference
> at all between a normal 50 Hz TV and a 200 Hz TV right next to it
> showing the same signal. (There *was*, however, a 4x price difference.)
Hmm. I could see the difference. Maybe you need an appropriate signal. Or
maybe I was fooling myself. :-)
>> It conducts better. And it never corrodes, so it'll keep conducting
>> better. And it doesn't rub off unless you plug it in and out a few
>> hundred times.
>
> Better... than what?
Better than other kinds of metals, in part because it doesn't corrode. I.e.,
in practice it conducts better than copper or aluminum. In theory, others
might be better, but you need that perfect connection to maintain it. Hence,
copper cables with gold cladding where it's exposed to the air.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> But it's digital too, right?
Yes.
> ...but if it's digital then, by definition, it *doesn't matter* how good
> the lead is. (So long as the S/N ratio isn't *absurdly* low.)
Not really, since it's OK if the signal is lossy. Sure, once you get above a
particular quality, it doesn't help to have higher quality. But you can get
bit errors with sufficiently long or unshielded cables, just like with (for
example) ethernet. You can't run (for example) gigabit ethernet over a cable
only designed to support 10Mbps.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Recipe...book...?
Yeah. I think they had some ROM left over or something. Who would put a 50"
TV in the kitchen, tho?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Can you typically tell the difference between progressive-scan and
>> interlaced? (Obviously I've been watching interlaced all my life, and
>> I don't think I've ever seen progressive-scan - except on computer
>> monitors.)
>
> Yes, on fast-moving scenes. But not a lot.
>
Dunno if it's caused by the projector (it might eg. have crappy
uninterlacing), the player or feature of signaling itself, but there's
continous significant effect, if I enable progressive output from my
DVD-player. I don't think the interlaced picture of that player is
crappy though, since even it is better than with the LG I tried first.
Ie. hardware and it's faults can make the difference bigger.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> But it's digital too, right?
>
> Yes.
>
>> ...but if it's digital then, by definition, it *doesn't matter* how
>> good the lead is. (So long as the S/N ratio isn't *absurdly* low.)
>
> Not really, since it's OK if the signal is lossy. Sure, once you get
> above a particular quality, it doesn't help to have higher quality. But
> you can get bit errors with sufficiently long or unshielded cables, just
> like with (for example) ethernet. You can't run (for example) gigabit
> ethernet over a cable only designed to support 10Mbps.
Yeah, but the "minimum quality" is really, *really* low, except for
absurdly high bitrates.
Oh, wait...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
