 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> SED?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display
Yes.
Perhaps a bit surprisingly they consume less energy than LCD screens.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Is there a reason why movies are filmed this way?
>
> Artistic image composition is easier on a widescreen image than on a
> narrow image.
>
There's also the 'historical' reason: When TV transmission in the 1950s began
affecting movie theater attendance (and thus movie industry profits), the big
film studios started scambling to find ways to keep the theaters full. Thus
widescreen was born (or re-born, actually.) Along came CinemaScope,
VistaVision, MGM's Camera-65, Cinerama, Panavision, etc., as ways to give
audiences a more thrilling experience. And that legacy--a good one, IMO--has
been with us ever since.
With such a multitude of different widescreen formats--*including* different
aspect ratio versions of some of these--it's no wonder that *some* kind of
single standard had to be adopted for modern, digital TV transmission and
viewing. The resulting 16:9 ratio is a kind of trade-off.
I wonder how the 're-mastered' version of the Cinemama 3-strip film "HOW THE
WEST WAS WON" will show up on a modern widescreen montior or TV? (The film was
digitally altered to combine the 3-strips into a seamless ultra-widescreen
version--a new technique.)
KW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
