>  For some reason 99.999% of people have a pathological obsession that
> the image MUST fill the entire screen, no matter what. At least 
> horizontally.
> I have yet to meet the person who doesn't complain loudly if the TV image
> does not fill the widescreen display horizontally.

Lots of people here are like that.  One of the main causes is that for some 
STUPID reason almost no LCD TV accepts analog PC RGB signals (through the 
standard 15-pin SVGA plug) in the native resolution of the TV.  Thus people 
just output 1024x768 (or whatever their laptop decides to use) and then it 
is stretched to 1920x1080.  This then looks totally rubbish.  In one case I 
saw someone using an even lower resolution like 800x600 and they didn't even 
notice this.

Given that almost no new laptops seem to be coming with DVI sockets 
(compared to desktop PCs which have had them for ages), I don't see this 
matter changing in the near future.

Post a reply to this message

>>   Depends on the LCD too.
>
> Yeah, it does seem to vary. I see LCDs with multiple dead pixels, and I 
> see others with absolutely none. Like, each time I walk into our lab 
> office, I see 12 monitors, all LCD, all with zero dead pixels. Yet the one 
> at my desk has 4 dead pixels.

It totally depends on what the "customer" (ie the company buying the LCD 
from the LCD manufacturer) asks for.  A certain number of LCDs are always 
made with pixel defects, it's just the way it is, so obviously if you demand 
zero pixel defects, it is going to be more expensive because the "bad" ones 
have to be scrapped or sold for a very cheap price.

Quite often customers will ask for 2 quotes, one for zero defects, and one 
with up to 3 defects (but no 2 closer than a certain distance, it gets 
complicated!).

Post a reply to this message

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display
>
>  Yes.
>
>  Perhaps a bit surprisingly they consume less energy than LCD screens.

Not really, LCDs have to be one of the most inefficient designs ever. 
Firstly huge amounts of white light is generated with LEDs that are around 
10% efficient.  Then at most 50% of that white light is absorbed by 
polarisers.  Then at absolute maximum 20% of the polarised light is passed 
through the colour filters (the red filter has to block all green and blue 
light, ditto for the other two).

In the end you have a device that is usually less than 1% efficient in 
total.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/27/2009 12:22 AM, scott wrote:
> Quite often customers will ask for 2 quotes, one for zero defects, and
> one with up to 3 defects (but no 2 closer than a certain distance, it
> gets complicated!).

I think most warranties only kick in after a certain number of dead 
pixels (3?) as well.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

> Most *new* TVs are widescreen. (Indeed, it is apparently impossible to buy 
> one that isn't.) Which is most perplexing, because there are no TV signals 
> broadcast in widescreen,

Huh? I went to radiotimes.co.uk and clicked on about 20 shows today on 
BBC1,2 and ITV, and *ALL* were widescreen.  I couldn't be bothered to look 
longer for non-widescreen shows.  What are you watching?

Post a reply to this message

>> Quite often customers will ask for 2 quotes, one for zero defects, and
>> one with up to 3 defects (but no 2 closer than a certain distance, it
>> gets complicated!).
>
> I think most warranties only kick in after a certain number of dead pixels 
> (3?) as well.

Yeh makes sense, then they can go back to the LCD manufacturer and ask for a 
replacement.

The worst I've seen is on planes, they must buy the cheapest possible LCDs, 
because on almost every seat and overhead LCD I've seen there were pixel 
defects, and the viewing angle was like some 1980s laptop with horrendous 
colour shift.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display
> >
> >  Yes.
> >
> >  Perhaps a bit surprisingly they consume less energy than LCD screens.

> Not really

  Then there's an error in that wikipedia article because it states
"they also use much less power than an LCD system of the same size".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display
>>>  Yes.
>>>
>>>  Perhaps a bit surprisingly they consume less energy than LCD screens.
> 
>> Not really
> 
>   Then there's an error in that wikipedia article because it states
> "they also use much less power than an LCD system of the same size".

I think he means it was not really surprising, because LCDs are very 
inefficient so it's easy to make a nano-CRT more efficient? :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I think he means it was not really surprising, because LCDs are very 
> inefficient so it's easy to make a nano-CRT more efficient? :-)

  Oh, I misread what he wrote and understood it completely in reverse.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> 
>>   Disadvantages of CRT:
>> 
>> - Energy consumption and heat production.
> 
> I work in a local store, and when walking past the large screen
> televisions, which are all LCD or plasma displays, I can feel the heat
> rolling off of these things.  Even the smaller ones suck down a great
> deal of power.

With respect to heat, I think the difference is LCDs are thinner. If they
heat the same, it will be more concentrated on a few cms of depth. CRT
screens have a larger area to spread their heat on :)

Post a reply to this message