Chambers wrote:

> 
> http://mandmonlineshopping.com/images/jensen-j56-bwr.jpg
> 

Awww, how cute.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> On 4/24/2009 3:33 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> And brightness. (Although this tends to be more of a problem with small,
>> portable displays. And since it's impossible to make a small, portable
>> CRT display *at all*, I guess we can live with that.)
> 
> http://mandmonlineshopping.com/images/jensen-j56-bwr.jpg

The screen on my mobile phone is less than an inch square. I'm fairly 
sure they don't make CRTs that small.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:10:15 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>>> Movies. Movies have been widescreen forever. People want to watch the
>>>> movie "unaltered" at home. That's why.
>>> Really? I hadn't noticed that one.
>> 
>> It was my understanding that most TVs in the UK these days are
>> widescreen anyways; if that's the case, it's not surprising you
>> wouldn't notice the difference. :-)
> 
> 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, so owning a widescreen TV instantly
> means that everything you watch must either be distorted or have black
> bars down the sides. Um... and this is a "good" thing because...??

HDTV broadcasts (ATSC here in the US and Hi-Definition cable channels) 
are all in widescreen.  I seem to remember when visiting the UK a few 
years ago that the broadcast signals we watched there also tended to be 
in widescreen.  In fact, it seemed more popular than 4:3 broadcasts from 
what I saw.

>>> Is there a reason why movies are filmed this way?
>> 
>> http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml seems to have some
>> relevant information.
> 
> Only really says what aspect ratios were used and how it was done - not
> why these ratios existed in the first place.

Check out the other pages on the site...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:46:29 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Sure, but nobody does this except for films. Normal TV programs are
> still in 4:3 aspect.

Untrue.  I watch QI, Spooks, Spooks:Code 9, and a few other shows out of 
the UK that are recorded by friends in the UK for me.  They're all in 
widescreen.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The screen on my mobile phone is less than an inch square. I'm fairly 
> sure they don't make CRTs that small.

  I remember reading/hearing about a proposed new CRT technology where
the idea was that instead of having just one cathode ray for the entire
screen (ok, three rays, one for each color component), you would have
one ray (well, three rays) per pixel.

  The advantage of this is that the cathode ray emitters can be made very
small and simple (as they don't require the controlling magnets) and they
can be brought very close to the screen. Thus you basically get a very
thin and relatively lightweigth screen with all the advantages of CRT.

  (Of course you also get some of the disadvantages of LCD, eg. the fixed
resolution.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 24/04/2009 15:47, Darren New nous fit lire :
> Warp wrote:
>>   Nature is very horizontal. 
> 
> Even the eyes of horses and goats (and others) have horizontal pupils
> for this reason.
> 
> 
So, should I conclude that, in a world of sheep, 16:9 creen is better than 4:3 ?

A world of sheep, tranquil herbivores... opposed to a fierce world of predators.

Just follow, no initiative!

 Work dumb, Survive, Buy, Consum. No question.


Yes... seems to fit the requirements.

Post a reply to this message

Le 23/04/2009 09:29, Warp nous fit lire :

>   Disadvantages of CRT:
> 

You forget: it's heavy and taking a lot of room (and hard worker to move them!)
From a seller point of view, a CRT space is happily replaced by 4 to 10 LCD in the
stocking room. In the display room, LCD give you back 2 square meter per linear meter
of
exposition. More stock, more room... who cares!

So, do the math... less for storage, less investement for showing... even if the
colours
are ugly, the display is horrible, the market has an offer no-seller could refuse with
LCD. (and who care about the consumer... he will believe the marketing!)

Still waiting for oled... sadly.

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Le 23/04/2009 09:29, Warp nous fit lire :

> >   Disadvantages of CRT:
> > 

> You forget: it's heavy and taking a lot of room (and hard worker to move them!)

  Not really:

> > - Requires bulky and heavy displays due to the nature of the technology.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I remember reading/hearing about a proposed new CRT technology where

I also read of one where you had two guns, one just before the phospher 
screen and one behind it, pointing up, with a mag field that curved the beam 
to hit the sides of the screen.  Apparently a yellow/purple combination can 
give you almost as good color as tri-color beams.  If you wanted a very 
large flat CRT, that's how you could do it.

I don't think the idea ever developed into a commercial product, probably 
*because* LCDs got there first.

-- 
   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

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:56:35 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   I remember reading/hearing about a proposed new CRT technology where
> the idea was that instead of having just one cathode ray for the entire
> screen (ok, three rays, one for each color component), you would have
> one ray (well, three rays) per pixel.

SED?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message