Connect with us

Replacement picture tube out of warranty?

Discussion in 'Electronic Repair' started by Fraser, Dec 24, 2003.

  1. geoff

    geoff Guest

    Nothing down there either?
    Says it all
     
  2. James Sweet

    James Sweet Guest

    Why all the argument? The reason behind widescreen is irrelevant, the fact
    is that it's the format of the future, virtually every movie in existance
    was filmed in something closer to 16:9 than 4:3. Regardless of the reason,
    this means that the director intended it to be viewed in a widescreen format
    so with a 4:3 screen you miss things on the edges of the screen. If theaters
    were all 4:3 then the shots would be made so as to not place things off the
    edges. That said, I don't own a widescreen set, but I do have one large
    enough that WS movies are of acceptable size. Many DVD's have both formats
    on one disc so there's no compromise, and to me DVD is an amazing format,
    it's the first to really catch on since VHS and side by side there's no
    comparison. The picture and sound quality from DVD is amazing, the whole
    movie fits on one side of one disc, there's random access, no rewinding, and
    the discs themselves are compact and cheap, they don't wear out, it's the
    only format I buy anymore.
     
  3. half_pint

    half_pint Guest

    There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
    in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
    avoid the red herring sites.
    No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
    propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
    ridiculously expensive.
    Eventually people will realise they have been sold a pig in a poke.
    If someone can tell me who is responsible for the introduction of
    widescreen TV perhaps I can sue them.
    I am sure some corrupt practice must have taken place for
    it to happen.
    I can't believe 99% of the population are morons
    On second thoughts.........

    You know I have even seen some programs resorting
    to splitting the WS down the middle and showing two
    propper pictures. Crazy.

    I guess I will just have to suffer along in this insane world.
    You can now pick up a didgtal transistor radio for £100 would you
    believe, then you need add on another £300 for and ariel to
    get half decent reception.

    Ain't milk brilliant eh?

    What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
    TV croaks bye the way?
    I look forward to hearing your answer
    [/QUOTE]
     
  4. geoff

    geoff Guest

    Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it
    I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose
     
  5. half_pint

    half_pint Guest


    The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
    do with art.
    Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
    Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
    quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
    Bit odd that eh?


    You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.
     
  6. geoff

    geoff Guest

    Not an art connoisseur are we?
    Who said it was - golden rectangles are normally used to highlight
    important areas of interest
    Why should I need to lug a TV about?
    I have one in every main room of the house
     
  7. Who would want to lug a large TV about?
     
  8. half_pint

    half_pint Guest

    Someone who has a large portable?

    Forgive me if I am overstating the obvious.
     
  9. You find it quite funny that a portrait is taller than it is wide ?
     
  10. half_pint

    half_pint Guest

    No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
    arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
    horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
    for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
    best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
    human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
    fovea and macular.)
     

  11. Actually 35mm film is 36mmx24mm - 3:2. Most early films were shot on
    that format....
     
  12. geoff

    geoff Guest

    I don't recall making it an argument for widescreen TV, I was just
    making an observation
    Not got a real grip on the world have you ?
     

  13. Ah. So what you are saying is that a squeare scereen would be good
    because you could watch it lying on your side?
     
  14. half_pint

    half_pint Guest

    --
    ---------------
    regards half_pint

    Garbage - If you think there is a GR in Mona face you are deluded, there
    are so many points on a persons face I could make any shape fit into
    it 4:3, 2:1, 5:3, 9:4, 7:2

    All natures creatures, apart form a few specalists such as seagulls
    evolved a circular visual system to do its panning and scanning.
    This is to be expected since given any random selection of images
    you will find a best coverage is achieved with a circular apperture.
    Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot,
    maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot.
    Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable
    in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take
    up too much room, ditto for the bedroom.
    There must be a market for portable TV's (which you appear
    to deny) because they make up about 30-50 percent of the TV
    market .
    Also not everyone wants to spend £280 on a TV when they can
    get one for £69, but I guess you call paying 4 times what you used
    to pay is 'progress', just like digital radio, where you can pay
    10 times the price for a product which will not even work unless
    you pay a futher £400 for an ariel the size of Jodrell Bank.
     
  15. half_pint

    half_pint Guest

    No thats what you said.
     
  16. James Sweet

    James Sweet Guest

    Where are you even getting that from? A portrait display (taller than wide)
    is great for showing just that, a portrait of one person, or a full
    document, but since our eyes are side by side, not one over the other, when
    you look out over a scene you see more width than height. There's little of
    interest on the ground or up in the sky, hence the popularity of panoramic
    photos for showing a scene.

    Just the same, yes if the standard was square and movies were shot assuming
    a square screen it would work just fine and dandy aside from having to try
    harder to keep mic booms, etc out of the picture and needing to be zoomed
    out unnessesarily far to fit many scenes, but the fact of the matter is
    that's not the case, and movies are filmed wider than they are tall. That's
    the way it's been for a long time and it's unlikely for that to change. Are
    you a troll or what? You must have been one of those kids who'd try to jam
    the round peg in the square hole for reasons not apparent to anyone else.
     
  17. half_pint

    half_pint Guest

    16/9 =1.8 GR = 1.618
     
  18. James Sweet

    James Sweet Guest


    Which is almost exactly in the middle between 4:3 and 16:9, my
    interpretation of that is that for older fims it's a tossup, for newer films
    16:9 is the clear winner, looks like a point scored for WS.

    Perhaps my view on this subject is also due to the fact that I can't think
    of anything worth watching on TV aside from movies and a very occasional
    show on the history channel, if 95% of the TV's use is for wide material
    then it would make sense to go with a wide set should I ever get a newer one
    than I have.
     
  19. half_pint

    half_pint Guest

    What is your observation and how is it relevant?
    What makes you think that and what characteristics are displayed
    (in your opinon) by someone with a 'grip on the world'?
     
  20. James Sweet

    James Sweet Guest


    There's a plentiful supply of used 4:3 sets, and that will only get larger
    as 16:9 gains popularity, so if anything you should be happy, supply will be
    high, demand will be low, prices will be cheap. The 4:3 format will likely
    remain popular for quite some time for portable sets, but 4:3 is virtually
    dead for large projection sets even today, with no signs of that slowing
    down. I rather like the trend, if I had my choice I'd go WS but I got my 50"
    standard set for free, I'm sure after a few years I'll come across an even
    nicer one as someone upgrades.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-