OK, so I had a look around, and it seems that HD-ready TVs have 
experienced a 10x price reduction since the last time I looked. In other 
words, they no longer cost more than a second-hand car, and it's 
actually feasible for ordinary people to buy them.

My mum's TV is... shagged. Both of the SCART sockets are defective, so 
you don't get any sound. (One of them only produces B/W pictures 
sometimes.) So I figured I might buy my mum a new TV for Christmas.

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.

It seems that LCD TVs go up to absurd sizes, with a price tag to match. 
But depending on where you shop, units of the sort of size I'm looking 
for seem to be much more reasonable in price.

There are, however, a few points I'd like to clarify.

- Some of the units claim a contrast ratio of 500:1. Some say 700:1. 
Others claim 1,000:1. Which is fair enough. But then some claim 
10,000:1. (And yet have similar or identical prices.) Am I *really* to 
believe that you can get 10x more contrast for £20 more? That seems 
*highly* questionable to me. And yet other units claim to have 15,000:1. 
One TV even said 30,000:1. Is that a typo or something??

- I _presume_ (since I haven't found one yet) that it is impossible to 
get a TV with full 1080 resolution that is only 30" across. Is that the 
case? (What, they figure you can't see details that small except on a 
larger device?)

- Trying to figure out which TV is going to give me a decent picture is 
maddeningly difficult. If you shop online, you can't *see* anything at 
all, so you just have the luminance, constrast ratio and response time 
to go at. (And the viewing angle - if that actually means anything.) If 
you go to a physical shop things are not much improved; all the TVs I've 
seen look terrible, most of them being driven by a simple RF signal over 
cheap coax cable. (!!) How the *hell* am I supposed to tell which ones 
are any good?

- What are the best brands to go for? (I have a Samsung computer monitor 
at home that works very well, so I've been tending to look mostly at 
Samsung. But I don't know if they're really the best.)

- Gotta love the way websites tell you a TV has audio connectors, but 
neglects to specify whether these are inputs or outputs! :-P

- What is HDMI? Does anything use it yet? Is there a specific reason why 
the leads are £80 each?

And of course, the million-dollar question:

- 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?)

(So, that'd be, what, a £650,000 question then? ;-) )

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> - Some of the units claim a contrast ratio of 500:1. Some say 700:1. 
> Others claim 1,000:1. Which is fair enough. But then some claim 
> 10,000:1. (And yet have similar or identical prices.) Am I *really* to 
> believe that you can get 10x more contrast for £20 more? That seems 
> *highly* questionable to me. And yet other units claim to have 15,000:1. 
> One TV even said 30,000:1. Is that a typo or something??

The contrast ratio merely tells you how "black" a black screen really is.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

> - Some of the units claim a contrast ratio of 500:1. Some say 700:1. 
> Others claim 1,000:1. Which is fair enough.

Yep, that's the real contrast.

> But then some claim 10,000:1. (And yet have similar or identical prices.) 
> Am I *really* to believe that you can get 10x more contrast for £20 more?

That is "dynamic" contrast.  What it actually means is that when the TV 
detects the image is mostly dark, it turns down the backlight (and turns up 
each pixel a corresponding amount to keep the picture looking the same), in 
order to get darker blacks.  The number is mostly meaningless, because of 
course if the image is just plain black you could turn off the backlight 
altogether and get infinite "dynamic" contrast!

> - I _presume_ (since I haven't found one yet) that it is impossible to get 
> a TV with full 1080 resolution that is only 30" across. Is that the case? 
> (What, they figure you can't see details that small except on a larger 
> device?)

Exactly, I think in a "normal" room, anything below 37" you won't be able to 
tell the difference between 720p and 1080p (unless you sit really close).

> - Trying to figure out which TV is going to give me a decent picture is 
> maddeningly difficult. If you shop online, you can't *see* anything at 
> all, so you just have the luminance, constrast ratio and response time to 
> go at. (And the viewing angle - if that actually means anything.) If you 
> go to a physical shop things are not much improved; all the TVs I've seen 
> look terrible, most of them being driven by a simple RF signal over cheap 
> coax cable. (!!) How the *hell* am I supposed to tell which ones are any 
> good?

What are you going to be watching on it? Normal TV through coax cable? :-) 
TBH there isn't much difference between the manufacturers, most differences 
you see in the shop can be introduced or removed by playing about with the 
picture settings.  If you ever want to connect a PC (without a DVI output) 
up to it, check that it has a VGA input socket and that it will accept the 
full resolution (some 1080p sets only accept 1024x768 WTF!),

> - What are the best brands to go for? (I have a Samsung computer monitor 
> at home that works very well, so I've been tending to look mostly at 
> Samsung. But I don't know if they're really the best.)

Again, I think all are mostly the same, there are only 3 or 4 companies in 
the whole world that actually make the display panel itself, everyone else 
just buys these and puts their own electronics and plastic around it.

> - Gotta love the way websites tell you a TV has audio connectors, but 
> neglects to specify whether these are inputs or outputs! :-P

I usually go to the manufacturers site and download the user manual.

> - What is HDMI? Does anything use it yet? Is there a specific reason why 
> the leads are £80 each?

HDMI is useful to connect your PC to the TV if it has a DVI output (DVI and 
HDMI are electrically the same, you just need a cheap converter cable). 
HDMI cables can be had for under a tenner if you look on amazon or ebay.

> - 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?)

For TV you can get a freesat receiver and dish for a one-off fee (like 
freeview but via satellite and has a few HD channels).  Or you can get Sky 
for a load more HD channels, but you will need a monthly subscription to get 
the HD channels.  Expect both of those to continue to add many more HD 
channels over the next few years.

Or buy a PS3 for 300 pounds, but standalone bluray players are down to under 
150 pounds now.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> - Some of the units claim a contrast ratio of 500:1. Some say 700:1. 
>> Others claim 1,000:1. Which is fair enough.
> 
> Yep, that's the real contrast.
> 
>> But then some claim 10,000:1. (And yet have similar or identical 
>> prices.) Am I *really* to believe that you can get 10x more contrast 
>> for £20 more?
> 
> That is "dynamic" contrast.  What it actually means is that when the TV 
> detects the image is mostly dark, it turns down the backlight (and turns 
> up each pixel a corresponding amount to keep the picture looking the 
> same), in order to get darker blacks.  The number is mostly meaningless, 
> because of course if the image is just plain black you could turn off 
> the backlight altogether and get infinite "dynamic" contrast!

Riiight. That's cute...

> Exactly, I think in a "normal" room, anything below 37" you won't be 
> able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p (unless you sit 
> really close).

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.)

>> - Trying to figure out which TV is going to give me a decent picture 
>> is maddeningly difficult.
> 
> What are you going to be watching on it? Normal TV through coax cable? 
> :-)

Actually, normal TV from a digital receiver and then through a SCART cable.

(BTW, do we know why there's so much ghosting on the picture, even from 
a DVD? I thought SCART was supposed to be a good way to transport 
signals. Similarly, why do I get electric shocks every time I touch our 
video equipment?)

> TBH there isn't much difference between the manufacturers, most 
> differences you see in the shop can be introduced or removed by playing 
> about with the picture settings.

Yeah, that's the other thing. Is that TV naff, or does it just need the 
settings tweaking?

> If you ever want to connect a PC 
> (without a DVI output) up to it, check that it has a VGA input socket 
> and that it will accept the full resolution (some 1080p sets only accept 
> 1024x768 WTF!),

A lot of the TV descriptions seem to leave confusion as to whether 
you're buying a "TV" or a "monitor". Hmm... ;-)

>> - What are the best brands to go for?
> 
> Again, I think all are mostly the same, there are only 3 or 4 companies 
> in the whole world that actually make the display panel itself, everyone 
> else just buys these and puts their own electronics and plastic around it.

Heh, figures.

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.)

>> - Gotta love the way websites tell you a TV has audio connectors, but 
>> neglects to specify whether these are inputs or outputs! :-P
> 
> I usually go to the manufacturers site and download the user manual.

Yeah, I think that's probably the best way to get *accurate* data.

>> - What is HDMI? Does anything use it yet? Is there a specific reason 
>> why the leads are £80 each?
> 
> HDMI is useful to connect your PC to the TV if it has a DVI output (DVI 
> and HDMI are electrically the same, you just need a cheap converter 
> cable). HDMI cables can be had for under a tenner if you look on amazon 
> or ebay.

Heh. PC World are selling "gold-plated" ones for £80. (Seriously... why 
would you put gold on a connector? The very first time you use it all 
the gold will rub off!)

> For TV you can get a freesat receiver and dish for a one-off fee (like 
> freeview but via satellite and has a few HD channels).

[I don't know what freeview is either, but apparently some TVs have it 
"built-in".]

> Or you can get 
> Sky for a load more HD channels, but you will need a monthly 
> subscription to get the HD channels.  Expect both of those to continue 
> to add many more HD channels over the next few years.

Yeah. If I was a serious HD nut I might do that. Actually, from what 
I've seen, HD doesn't look any different to SD. (Face it, it's only a 
slightly higher resolution.) Basically I just want a non-broken TV! ;-)

> Or buy a PS3 for 300 pounds, but standalone bluray players are down to 
> under 150 pounds now.

My sister's boyfriend has a TV the size of a small star system and a 
PS3. (And a Wii, actually.) I had a go at playing "CoD4" on it. It 
seemed weird seeing such a vast picture all sharply in focus. Seemed a 
tad blurry during movement though...

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:492fe869$1@news.povray.org...
>
> A lot of the TV descriptions seem to leave confusion as to whether you're 
> buying a "TV" or a "monitor". Hmm... ;-)
>

There's very little difference these days. My LCD TV has a VGA connector 
(along with a tonne of others) and my server uses it as a monitor.

Post a reply to this message

>> A lot of the TV descriptions seem to leave confusion as to whether 
>> you're buying a "TV" or a "monitor". Hmm... ;-)
> 
> There's very little difference these days. My LCD TV has a VGA connector 
> (along with a tonne of others) and my server uses it as a monitor.

Yeah. Originally a "monitor" lacked an RF demodulator and had a vastly 
superior colour grid compared to a "TV". (Because you're going to be 
sitting 3 feet away, not 13 feet away!) On an LCD, I guess there's not 
much difference.

Post a reply to this message

> Riiight. That's cute...

I guess it's down to personal preference whether you like that dynamic 
contrast or not.  I think it makes some really dark scenes look better if 
you are watching in a dark room, but I can notice when the backlight is 
changing brightness and it annoys me.

> 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.)

Not really (at least I've never noticed any difference), all TVs will 
display a progressive scan picture, it's the electronics that converts from 
the interlaced picture to a progressive scan one.  Some TVs are capable of 
accepting real 24 Hz video data (for watching films), so that might be a 
good feature to look for.  I guess they are really running at 48 Hz and just 
doubling the data, but it is certainly better than running at 50 or 60 Hz 
and trying to display 24 Hz data.

Also some newer TVs run at 100Hz or even 200Hz, this *does* make a 
difference to fast moving objects.  Even if you have a response time of 0 ms 
you will still get motion blur on LCDs because of the way they work (the 
pixel is always on, not just a burst of light like a CRT).  Doubling the 
refresh to 100Hz or higher by inserting extra black frames or using some 
clever interpolation certainly reduces blurring on fast moving text and 
images.

> Actually, normal TV from a digital receiver and then through a SCART 
> cable.

I think you'll find that most (all?) LCDs have a digital receiver built in, 
just plug the aerial straight into it - no need for an extra box or scart 
cables.

> (BTW, do we know why there's so much ghosting on the picture, even from a 
> DVD?

No, sounds like a dodgy TV to me, or maybe some earth-loop problem?

> Yeah, that's the other thing. Is that TV naff, or does it just need the 
> settings tweaking?

Find somewhere that will let you take it home for a few days and then take 
it back and exchange it for a different one.  I find that smaller 
independent shops seem to be much more up for this than places like Currys.

> 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.)

Makes sense, I imagine the actual display panels cost about the same.  Oh 
and on that front, watch out for bright pixels!  I've not seen this with TVs 
yet, but some cheap manufacturers might be trying to shift cheap panels with 
bright pixels - make sure the place you buy it from will let you return it 
if you find one, once you've found one you will never stop looking at it!

> Heh. PC World are selling "gold-plated" ones for £80.

Yeh well that figures.  I bought a long DVI->HDMI cable to connect my PC to 
the TV for under a tenner.  If you look on amazon there are loads to choose 
from.  HDMI is used to transport digital video and audio information, 
anything you buy that can give digital HD output will have this connector 
(all bluray players, HD satelite/cable boxes, PS3, some new DVD players 
etc).

> (Seriously... why would you put gold on a connector? The very first time 
> you use it all the gold will rub off!)

You put gold on there to stop the copper corroding that is in contact with 
the environment.  Why do you think the gold will rub off the first time you 
use it?  It's usually plated thick enough to last at least a few thousand 
connection cycles!

> [I don't know what freeview is either, but apparently some TVs have it 
> "built-in".]

Freeview is what your digital box receives and converts to analogue for your 
current TV.  New TVs do this internally.

> Yeah. If I was a serious HD nut I might do that. Actually, from what I've 
> seen, HD doesn't look any different to SD.

It won't look much different if you sit 4 metres away from a 20" TV.  But 
sit closer to a 40" TV and there will be a huge difference.

> My sister's boyfriend has a TV the size of a small star system and a PS3. 
> (And a Wii, actually.) I had a go at playing "CoD4" on it. It seemed weird 
> seeing such a vast picture all sharply in focus. Seemed a tad blurry 
> during movement though...

For most TVs the pixel response times are well below the display refresh 
rate now, so the only way to get less blur is to use higher refresh rates 
(eg 100 and 200 Hz) to try and mimic the CRT style of "impulse" drive.  THe 
problem only gets worse with larger TVs because the pixels are bigger and 
you therefore see more blurring.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

>> Actually, normal TV from a digital receiver and then through a SCART 
>> cable.
> 
> I think you'll find that most (all?) LCDs have a digital receiver built 
> in, just plug the aerial straight into it - no need for an extra box or 
> scart cables.

That extra box can also record stuff to its internal harddrive too. ;-)

>> (Seriously... why would you put gold on a connector? The very first 
>> time you use it all the gold will rub off!)
> 
> You put gold on there to stop the copper corroding that is in contact 
> with the environment.  Why do you think the gold will rub off the first 
> time you use it?  It's usually plated thick enough to last at least a 
> few thousand connection cycles!

Because gold is one of the softest metals known to mankind?

>> Yeah. If I was a serious HD nut I might do that. Actually, from what 
>> I've seen, HD doesn't look any different to SD.
> 
> It won't look much different if you sit 4 metres away from a 20" TV.  
> But sit closer to a 40" TV and there will be a huge difference.

They had two TVs in Curries, one showing SD and one showing HD. There 
*was* a visible difference, but it was pretty tiny. (They were both 
something like 30". I didn't press my nose up against them...)

Post a reply to this message

> That extra box can also record stuff to its internal harddrive too. ;-)

Ah I see :-)

> Because gold is one of the softest metals known to mankind?

Gold is "soft" in the sense that you can stretch it a long way without it 
breaking (the scientific word is ductile).  I don't see how that relates to 
how easily the gold plating is going to "come off" the metal core (which 
it's chemically bonded to).

> They had two TVs in Curries, one showing SD and one showing HD. There 
> *was* a visible difference, but it was pretty tiny.

Ah OK then, well the differnce I mostly notice is that when people are shown 
quite small on the screen (eg during a football match) on the SD you can't 
make out any features on their face, but on the HD you can.  And during the 
news etc when there is one big face on the screen, you can make out way more 
detail on the skin (not always a good thing!).  And of course text is much 
sharper.  But as with lots of things like this, you get used to the HD as 
being "normal" very quickly, until you see SD again!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 
> They had two TVs in Curries, one showing SD and one showing HD. There
> *was* a visible difference, but it was pretty tiny. (They were both
> something like 30". I didn't press my nose up against them...)

Similar TV's with almost similar (=difference exists only in resolution)
 signal given in?

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 11:54:18 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> OK, so I had a look around, and it seems that HD-ready TVs have  
> experienced a 10x price reduction since the last time I looked. In other  
> words, they no longer cost more than a second-hand car, and it's  
> actually feasible for ordinary people to buy them.
>
> My mum's TV is... shagged. Both of the SCART sockets are defective, so  
> you don't get any sound. (One of them only produces B/W pictures  
> sometimes.) So I figured I might buy my mum a new TV for Christmas.
>
> 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 seems that LCD TVs go up to absurd sizes,

Nah that's plasma's which can hit wall size

> - I _presume_ (since I haven't found one yet) that it is impossible to  
> get a TV with full 1080 resolution that is only 30" across. Is that the  
> case? (What, they figure you can't see details that small except on a  
> larger device?)

As mentioned by me elsewhere [cough see signature] you're unlikely to find  
any TVs below 32" at 1080.

> - Trying to figure out which TV is going to give me a decent picture is  
> maddeningly difficult. If you shop online, you can't *see* anything at  
> all, so you just have the luminance, constrast ratio and response time  
> to go at. (And the viewing angle - if that actually means anything.) If  
> you go to a physical shop things are not much improved; all the TVs I've  
> seen look terrible, most of them being driven by a simple RF signal over  
> cheap coax cable. (!!) 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. On the other hand if all you're going to feed it is an SD source  
then it's actually a reasonable comparision method

> - What are the best brands to go for? (I have a Samsung computer monitor  
> at home that works very well, so I've been tending to look mostly at  
> Samsung. But I don't know if they're really the best.)

Sony tend to have the quality, Panasonic the black levels, LG more extras,  
and Philips all three ;-)

> - Gotta love the way websites tell you a TV has audio connectors, but  
> neglects to specify whether these are inputs or outputs! :-P

As Scott said ignore the web-dumbdown and go straight for the manual.

> - What is HDMI?

Essentially the HD equivalent of SCART in that in carries both video and  
audio in one cable

> Does anything use it yet?

Yes pretty much every HD source

> Is there a specific reason why the leads are £80 each?

Some are better then others, some just say they are.

> And of course, the million-dollar question:
>
> - 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?)
>
> (So, that'd be, what, a £650,000 question then? ;-) )

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.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Ah OK then, well the differnce I mostly notice is that when people are 
> shown quite small on the screen (eg during a football match) on the SD 
> you can't make out any features on their face, but on the HD you can.  
> And during the news etc when there is one big face on the screen, you 
> can make out way more detail on the skin (not always a good thing!).  
> And of course text is much sharper.  But as with lots of things like 
> this, you get used to the HD as being "normal" very quickly, until you 
> see SD again!
> 
Minor note on this though. With mine at least (which is a fairly big 
one), I find watching SD over the HD cables makes for a grainier 
picture. Don't ask me why.. Something about how it gets encoded from the 
cable box or how the TV handles it once it has it, but the "coax" 
connector worse "far" better for SD than does any of the high def 
cables. In contrast, of course, the opposite is true when using the true 
HD signals.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> It seems that LCD TVs go up to absurd sizes, with a price tag to match.
 

Having just shopped around for and bought one of these, I can answer some
 of 
these questions...

> - Some of the units claim a contrast ratio of 500:1. Some say 700:1. 
> Others claim 1,000:1. Which is fair enough. But then some claim 
> 10,000:1. (And yet have similar or identical prices.) Am I *really* to 

> believe that you can get 10x more contrast for £20 more?

Part of it is the kind of glass they put in front of the LCD. Some of the
 
Samsungs, for example, go from 10,000:1 to 40,000:1 by putting a shiny 
tinted glass in front instead of a matte glass.  You'll probably get more
 
glare with the higher contrast ratios if it's in a bright room.

> - Gotta love the way websites tell you a TV has audio connectors, but n
eglects to specify whether these are inputs or outputs! :-P 

Probably inputs, with one being outputs. That's so you can connect your V
CR, 
your video game, your DVD player, etc to the TV. Why would you need lots 
of 
outputs?

> - I _presume_ (since I haven't found one yet) that it is impossible to 

> get a TV with full 1080 resolution that is only 30" across. Is that the
 
> case? (What, they figure you can't see details that small except on a 
> larger device?)

You can get a monitor like that, but it won't have a tuner built in. And 

yes, on my 46" HDTV (1080p), it's hard to see all the pixels standing a f
oot 
away. Seriously, compare your current computer display's pixels-per-cm to
 
the 30" 720p display and see.

> - Trying to figure out which TV is going to give me a decent picture is
 
> maddeningly difficult. If you shop online, you can't *see* anything at 

> all, so you just have the luminance, constrast ratio and response time 

> to go at. (And the viewing angle - if that actually means anything.) If
 
> you go to a physical shop things are not much improved; all the TVs I'v
e 
> seen look terrible, most of them being driven by a simple RF signal ove
r 
> cheap coax cable. (!!) How the *hell* am I supposed to tell which ones 

> are any good?

Go to amazon.com and read the reviews by people who actually already boug
ht 
it. Or go to a better store where they're actually interested in selling 

them. If you're spending $2000 on one, drive to London and look or someth
ing.

> - What are the best brands to go for? (I have a Samsung computer monito
r 
> at home that works very well, so I've been tending to look mostly at 
> Samsung. But I don't know if they're really the best.)

Dunno. Mine is nice. Many of the differences is stuff you're not likely t
o 
use - does it have a USB port where you can plug in a camera and look at 
the 
images? Does it have an ethernet port that will pick up local weather 
reports and put them on screen? Does it have a connector that plugs into 
the 
bracket that holds the thing to the wall so you can turn it left and righ
t 
with the remote control? Does it have (WTF) a recipe book built in?

> - What is HDMI? Does anything use it yet? Is there a specific reason wh
y 
> the leads are £80 each?

HDMI is basically DVI (digital video) plus sound on the same cable. It's 
$80 
because they can. Radio Shack (the fast food store of electronics around 

here) has cables for $20; you can get the same length "monster" cables fo
r 
$150.  Shop around. It's marketing.

> And of course, the million-dollar question:
> 
> - 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?)

Computers. Video games. Cable TV here carries some HD channels. Satellite
 
dishes.

-- 
   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

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 monito
rs.)

Yes, on fast-moving scenes. But not a lot.

> signals. Similarly, why do I get electric shocks every time I touch our
 
> video equipment?)

Stuff's broken? :-)

> 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.

> 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, with some wild 

software inside that figures out what's moving and interpolates it into 
actual new frames. Which is cool. And mind-boggling to someone who was 
programming when JPEG decoding took special hardware, let along real-time
 
MPEG-style motion detection. That *does* make a visible difference, at le
ast 
for some things.

> Heh. PC World are selling "gold-plated" ones for £80. (Seriously... w
hy 
> 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 bette
r. 
And it doesn't rub off unless you plug it in and out a few hundred times.


> Yeah. If I was a serious HD nut I might do that. Actually, from what 
> I've seen, HD doesn't look any different to SD. 

I thought that too, until I compared a SD channel with the same thing on 
HD. 
It's actually really quite a startling difference.

> seemed weird seeing such a vast picture all sharply in focus.

Well, that's the difference between SD and HD.

> Seemed a tad blurry during movement though...

That's the other problem. :-)

-- 
   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:

> Dunno. Mine is nice. Many of the differences is stuff you're not likely 
> to use - does it have a USB port where you can plug in a camera and look 
> at the images? Does it have an ethernet port that will pick up local 
> weather reports and put them on screen? Does it have a connector that 
> plugs into the bracket that holds the thing to the wall so you can turn 
> it left and right with the remote control? Does it have (WTF) a recipe 
> book built in?

OK, wait... back up a sec... RIGHT THERE!!


Recipe...book...?

WHAT

THE

HELL?!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.)

>> Heh. PC World are selling "gold-plated" ones for £80. (Seriously... 
>> 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] devnull> 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

>> 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. :-)

Never underestimate the power of the human mind to fool itself! ;-)

"That one costs 4x as much? Oh yes, it *does* look better..."

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> The contrast ratio merely tells you how "black" a black screen really is.

No it does not. It only tells the ratio of brightest white and blackest
black. It doesn't tell if you really have a very good balck or very
bright white. Only the ratio of the two. LCD screens traditionally have
worse (brighter) black than CRTs and that is something the consumer has
to read from test reviews.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Yeah, but the "minimum quality" is really, *really* low, except for 
> absurdly high bitrates.

Error rates also go up very quickly with longer cables, so a 10-meter cable 
is going to need to be much higher quality than a 1-meter cable.

-- 
   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:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Yeah, but the "minimum quality" is really, *really* low, except for 
>> absurdly high bitrates.
> 
> Error rates also go up very quickly with longer cables, so a 10-meter 
> cable is going to need to be much higher quality than a 1-meter cable.

Indeed. But who on earth is going to need a 10-meter HDMI lead? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:15:39 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Yeah, but the "minimum quality" is really, *really* low, except for 
>>> absurdly high bitrates.
>> 
>> Error rates also go up very quickly with longer cables, so a 10-meter 
>> cable is going to need to be much higher quality than a 1-meter cable.
>
>Indeed. But who on earth is going to need a 10-meter HDMI lead? ;-)

There are more things in heaven and earth, Andrew,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. But come;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> Minor note on this though. With mine at least (which is a fairly big one), 
> I find watching SD over the HD cables makes for a grainier picture. Don't 
> ask me why.. Something about how it gets encoded from the cable box or how 
> the TV handles it once it has it, but the "coax" connector worse "far" 
> better for SD than does any of the high def cables. In contrast, of 
> course, the opposite is true when using the true HD signals.

As you say, I think it depends on how your TV up-scales the SD signal, some 
certainly do a better job than others.  I suspect for a "good" result, the 
TV needs to blur/hide the low-resolution of the SD signal, rather than 
trying to display it as sharp as possible (while that will give the most 
accurate results, it also most accurately shows you how bad the original 
signal is!).

Post a reply to this message

>> 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. :-)

No, I saw the difference too.  IIRC the demo was some scrolling credits 
(like at the end of a film) but scrolling pretty quickly.  The screen was 
actually split, the left half was standard 50Hz and the right 200Hz.  The 
difference was the left side was a blur, the right side sharp as a CRT :-)

Post a reply to this message

> You can get plasmas over 100". I haven't seen an LCD over 50"

http://www.techdigest.tv/2008/10/sharps_108inch.html

I think it costs like $100k and only available in Japan...

You can also get a 65" one for a more moderate price (I think around 3000 
pounds) - we have one in our UK office in the conference room it's HUGE!

What you have to remember with LCD, is the actual glass the electronic 
circuits are made on, is 0.7mm thick.  You try transporting or working on a 
sheet of glass that thin and 108" diagonal!

Post a reply to this message

> Part of it is the kind of glass they put in front of the LCD. Some of the 
> Samsungs, for example, go from 10,000:1 to 40,000:1 by putting a shiny 
> tinted glass in front instead of a matte glass.  You'll probably get more 
> glare with the higher contrast ratios if it's in a bright room.

What you describe is the type of anti-reflection (AR) and anti-glare (AG) 
coating that is applied to the front polariser.  AFAIK no LCD has an extra 
sheet of glass infront of the LCD, all have the front polariser exposed to 
touch if you want to.

In the past, all LCDs were designed with AR and AG coatings to stop specular 
reflections that bugged CRTs so badly.  But a few years ago some marketing 
guru realised that if you took off the AR coating some people actually 
thought it looked "better" because it looked shinier.  It didn't matter that 
you would end up seeing a direct reflection of your window or lights in the 
TV at home, it looked shinier in the shop so it sold more units.

AR and AG coatings don't affect the contrast ratio that you see quoted in 
the specs (these must all be measured in a totally black room with no 
ambient light), but in real life situations it will be different. 
Basically, if you are going to be watching in a dark room with no direct 
light sources it won't make any difference.  But if you are going to be 
watching in a bright room with a window and several lights, get the AGAR 
coating (the non-shiny one), it will look much better than a CRT under 
bright lights.

FWIW I took my LCD to my mum's house once and put it next to her CRT.  When 
there was direct sunlight shining on both of them the CRT was all but 
unreadable, but with the LCD you could hardly notice which part was in sun 
and which part wasn't, the "real life" contrast was definitely way better on 
the LCD, even if the specs disagreed.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:33:31 -0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>  
did spake, saying:

>>> 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.

For the 21" to get the same height you'd need a 26", to get the same width  
you're looking at a 19" in widescreen. As I said though watch the casing,  
if the speakers are thinner you can obviously go up a size.

>>> 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...

LCD's seem to peak at the 42" mark then you switch to Plasma.

>>> 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

Indeed hence my questioning of the staff.

>> 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!)

There's a good reason for that :-(

>> Sony tend to have the quality, Panasonic the black levels, LG more  
>> extras, and Philips all three ;-)
>
> Mmm, interesting...

So far the Panasonic 32LZD85 is my top buy at this size. But if you're not  
bothered by 100MHz PC World (I know) are doing a special on the LG5700 for  
£500 and that's an HD Ready 1080p for 32".

>>> - 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?

Depends, in theory there's nothing stopping you from feeding an analogue  
source via HDMI.

>>> 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...

A very quick search indicates that the answer may surprise you.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>>>> - 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?
>
> Depends, in theory there's nothing stopping you from feeding an analogue 
> source via HDMI.

But just to clarify, what travels along the actual HDMI cable must be 
digital, it is exactly the same as the digital part of a normal PC DVI 
cable*, just with the option of digital audio data too.  Of course as Phil 
said there is nothing to stop you converting some crappy analogue signal to 
digital and pumping it along the HDMI cable.


* OK I know most DVI cables actually have analogue and digital pins+wires, 
but HDMI cables don't

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message 
news:4933aa84$1@news.povray.org...
>> You can get plasmas over 100". I haven't seen an LCD over 50"
>
> http://www.techdigest.tv/2008/10/sharps_108inch.html
>
> I think it costs like $100k and only available in Japan...
>

I've seen a 108" on sale on an australian site, but no where else.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:28:04 +0200, "Gail" <gail (at) sql in the wild (dot) co
[dot] za> wrote:

>
>"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message 
>news:4933aa84$1@news.povray.org...
>>> You can get plasmas over 100". I haven't seen an LCD over 50"
>>
>> http://www.techdigest.tv/2008/10/sharps_108inch.html
>>
>> I think it costs like $100k and only available in Japan...
>>
>
>I've seen a 108" on sale on an australian site, but no where else. 

T. Pratchett had the right idea. All Australian politicians, when taking office,
go straight to goal. It saves the bother later. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> But just to clarify, what travels along the actual HDMI cable must be 
> digital,

More precisely, it's an analog signal that gets interpreted as a digital 
signal at the other end. Hence, the cable needs to preserve enough of the 
analog signal that the digital signal gets there reliably. Which is where 
the quality comes in to it.

-- 
   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

scott wrote:
> 
> In the past, all LCDs were designed with AR and AG coatings to stop
> specular reflections that bugged CRTs so badly.  But a few years ago
> some marketing guru realised that if you took off the AR coating some
> people actually thought it looked "better" because it looked shinier. 
> It didn't matter that you would end up seeing a direct reflection of
> your window or lights in the TV at home, it looked shinier in the shop
> so it sold more units.
> 

Is this why most laptops today have a goddamn mirror-display?

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 a écrit :
> Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Yeah, but the "minimum quality" is really, *really* low, except for 
>>> absurdly high bitrates.
>>
>> Error rates also go up very quickly with longer cables, so a 10-meter 
>> cable is going to need to be much higher quality than a 1-meter cable.
> 
> Indeed. But who on earth is going to need a 10-meter HDMI lead? ;-)
> 

A pub owner who doesnt want to have 1 receiver for each of his 20 screens.

An airport manager who want to feed the same aircraft arrivals/departure 
signal (and advertisement, of course!) to all the screens in the airport.

Basically, lots of people who do not necesarily have the same needs as 
Joe Q. Public.

Post a reply to this message

>> Indeed. But who on earth is going to need a 10-meter HDMI lead? ;-)
> 
> A pub owner who doesnt want to have 1 receiver for each of his 20 screens.
> 
> An airport manager who want to feed the same aircraft arrivals/departure 
> signal (and advertisement, of course!) to all the screens in the airport.
> 
> Basically, lots of people who do not necesarily have the same needs as 
> Joe Q. Public.

And which of these people are going to care if a cable costs them £80? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote in message 
news:49345d7e$1@news.povray.org...

>
> A pub owner who doesnt want to have 1 receiver for each of his 20 screens.
>
> An airport manager who want to feed the same aircraft arrivals/departure 
> signal (and advertisement, of course!) to all the screens in the airport.
>

An office block where there are TVs in the exco lounge and several reception 
rooms, all fed from the same source

Conference halls where the person speaking on stage is recorded and that 
recording fed to several screens

Even a normal person who has their TV on one wall and the receiver/DVD 
player on the other side of the room.

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:49345e79$1@news.povray.org...

> And which of these people are going to care if a cable costs them £80? ;-)
>

None probably. But that wasn't the question. You asked who would need a 10m 
HDMI cable.

Post a reply to this message

>> In the past, all LCDs were designed with AR and AG coatings to stop
>> specular reflections that bugged CRTs so badly.  But a few years ago
>> some marketing guru realised that if you took off the AR coating some
>> people actually thought it looked "better" because it looked shinier.
>> It didn't matter that you would end up seeing a direct reflection of
>> your window or lights in the TV at home, it looked shinier in the shop
>> so it sold more units.
>
> Is this why most laptops today have a goddamn mirror-display?

Yep, it must sell more units and appeal to enough people, because it's 
definitely getting more popular.  See, Engineers come up with a good 
solution, then the marketing people destroy all the hard work by saying 
"actually we think people like the old shiny reflective screens better, 
can't you make them like that". :-)  Shiny things sell!

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Shiny things sell!

Indeed, I keep thinking about buying myself a laptop. Which is clearly 
absurd, given that I never go outside. Why the hell would I need a 
portable PC if I never go anywhere?! And yet, I keep wanting to buy one.

Hell, I keep thinking about buying an Apple! This is not sensible in any 
way; I have invested thousands of pounds in PC software, all of which 
would be wasted if I decided to use an Apple. I don't know of a single 
piece of software the Apple has that would be useful to me. (I'm sure 
there *are* such items, but I don't know of any of them yet.) And they 
cost roughly 2x what a PC would cost.

But they're so *shiny* and *cute*!! >_<

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:11:50 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

> scott wrote:
>
>> Shiny things sell!
>
> Indeed, I keep thinking about buying myself a laptop. Which is clearly  
> absurd, given that I never go outside. Why the hell would I need a  
> portable PC if I never go anywhere?! And yet, I keep wanting to buy one.

Space saving. Instead of going to the computer because that's where it's  
hooked up to the router, printer, scanner etc. you just use it where you  
want and put it away afterwards. If you do need to use one of those  
items... well the router is wireless, printers can be wireless too or plug  
into the router and if push comes to shove you just take the laptop to  
them and plug them in how many times do you use the peripherals anyway?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>>> Shiny things sell!
>>
>> Indeed, I keep thinking about buying myself a laptop. Which is clearly 
>> absurd, given that I never go outside. Why the hell would I need a 
>> portable PC if I never go anywhere?! And yet, I keep wanting to buy one.
> 
> Space saving. Instead of going to the computer because that's where it's 
> hooked up to the router, printer, scanner etc. you just use it where you 
> want and put it away afterwards. If you do need to use one of those 
> items... well the router is wireless, printers can be wireless too or 
> plug into the router and if push comes to shove you just take the laptop 
> to them and plug them in how many times do you use the peripherals anyway?

The problem is, after 4 months the battery in a laptop stops working, so 
it must be permanently connected to the mains anyway. It is virtually 
impossible to use a computer without a mouse, so you must have a mouse 
connected too. If you want Internet access... well, personally, I would 
never, ever use a wireless system. I don't trust them. Too easy to steal 
my data and my connection. (Plus the problems of it not working half the 
time.) Then there's my gaming microphone, my stereo system, my keyboards 
(plural)... I don't need those connected *all* the time, but it's a faf 
to plug stuff in each time I need it...

In short, a laptop makes no sense for me at all. And yet, I keep wanting 
to buy one.

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:13:16 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

>>>> Shiny things sell!
>>>
>>> Indeed, I keep thinking about buying myself a laptop. Which is clearly  
>>> absurd, given that I never go outside. Why the hell would I need a  
>>> portable PC if I never go anywhere?! And yet, I keep wanting to buy  
>>> one.
>>  Space saving. Instead of going to the computer because that's where  
>> it's hooked up to the router, printer, scanner etc. you just use it  
>> where you want and put it away afterwards. If you do need to use one of  
>> those items... well the router is wireless, printers can be wireless  
>> too or plug into the router and if push comes to shove you just take  
>> the laptop to them and plug them in how many times do you use the  
>> peripherals anyway?
>
> The problem is, after 4 months the battery in a laptop stops working, so  
> it must be permanently connected to the mains anyway.

Wow that's a long-life battery mine's only got a couple of hours charge in  
it. Being serious where did you get those figures from? I know plenty of  
people with year-old+ laptops.

> It is virtually impossible to use a computer without a mouse, so you  
> must have a mouse connected too.

The magic of Bluetooth, even has its own little pouch. Still got the  
touchpad for little things if I don't want to dig it out.

> If you want Internet access... well, personally, I would never, ever use  
> a wireless system. I don't trust them. Too easy to steal my data and my  
> connection.

Calculated risk. Yes it's easier to access then a wired system, but with  
WPA and a non-broadcasting SSID you have to weigh up the potential that  
someone will want to sit outside your house and try and hack it vs. the  
ease-of-use you gain.

> (Plus the problems of it not working half the time.)

Other then the initial setup (damn Vista) I've this very laptop connecting  
to both the office and my home without any trouble.

> Then there's my gaming microphone, my stereo system, my keyboards  
> (plural)... I don't need those connected *all* the time, but it's a faf  
> to plug stuff in each time I need it...

Again though, it's a weighing up of how often you use or need them and  
whether you can acquire a dock.

> In short, a laptop makes no sense for me at all. And yet, I keep wanting  
> to buy one.

Sucuumb to the urge.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> The problem is, after 4 months the battery in a laptop stops working, 
>> so it must be permanently connected to the mains anyway.
> 
> Wow that's a long-life battery mine's only got a couple of hours charge 
> in it. Being serious where did you get those figures from? I know plenty 
> of people with year-old+ laptops.

Well, every laptop *I* have seen, the battery loses the ability to 
recharge after a few months, maybe a year. When you first get the laptop 
it works fine. After a few months, the battery seems to go flat much 
faster than it should. After a little longer, it gets to the point where 
no matter how long you charge the battery for, as soon as you remove the 
power cable, the laptop instantly shuts off. I've got, like, 4 laptops 
on my office floor here that all behave this way.

>> It is virtually impossible to use a computer without a mouse, so you 
>> must have a mouse connected too.
> 
> The magic of Bluetooth, even has its own little pouch. Still got the 
> touchpad for little things if I don't want to dig it out.

How big is this mouse?

>> If you want Internet access... well, personally, I would never, ever 
>> use a wireless system. I don't trust them. Too easy to steal my data 
>> and my connection.
> 
> Calculated risk.

Yeah, well, given all the problems above, there isn't much to be gained 
here.

>> (Plus the problems of it not working half the time.)
> 
> Other then the initial setup (damn Vista) I've this very laptop 
> connecting to both the office and my home without any trouble.

My dad has problems to this day with computers randomly dropping their 
network connections or just plain not seeing the WiFi router at all. To 
the point that he's lifting floorboards to run cables round the building 
to make his gear actually ****ing work properly.

Plus, AFAIK, WiFi is currently much slower than Ethernet.

>> In short, a laptop makes no sense for me at all. And yet, I keep 
>> wanting to buy one.
> 
> Sucuumb to the urge.

Luke... Luuuuke... *give in* to the _Dark Side_... it is pointless to 
resist, my son...


Or, my personal favourit:

Luke... Luuuke... I know what you're getting for Christmas, Luke.

How do you know, father?




I have felt your presents.

:-D

Post a reply to this message