Connect with us

Replacement picture tube out of warranty?

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

Scroll to continue with content
  1. geoff

    geoff Guest

    Again, I made no mention of the Mona Lisa - it's a portrait over a
    portrait. You have to dig a bit deeper into the art world than that
    Did you miss my comment above?
    Nah - 28" in the bedroom, portable but static in the kitchen (4:3
    I don't recall having said anything of the kind
    Aah - you like sex channels then
    Who needs Joderell Bank ?

    What I'm saying is:

    The 16:9 is becoming the new standard, like it or not. You are in a
    changing world, you can dig your heels in, but you're not going to win
    because it's a massive business whose primary interest is not what you
    happen to find aesthetically pleasing, but what, economically , is going
    to generate best profits.

    Digital TV will eventually take over from analogue and you can sit in
    front of your old TV looking at snow if you want to - the constant, safe
    secure world that you once knew is no more, get used to it
  2. geoff

    geoff Guest

    It was that 16:9 was a golden rectangle, and I claimed no relevance
    Someone who recognises that the world is changing and that standing
    still is, in effect moving backwards.

    Analogue TV will be switched off as soon as is practicable.
    The fact that a total mess has been made of it (the changeover) is
    irrelevant, it will happen.
  3. half_pint

    half_pint Guest

    You mentioned leonardo, the ML is a common example given for the GR.
    No I didn't, you appear to have missed my point however.
    ( which is there are few/no portable WS vacuum tube TV's)
    I don't fancy a paying £280 for a TV in the bedroom which I would
    hardly ever watch, besides it would take up too much room anyway.
    Not explicitly no.
    Not really I can get all my filth on line for free.
    And you are right but wrong.
    I was considering buying a new main TV and two portables but all this
    WS crap has put me off. So where is the profit in that?

    The poll tax was good for business but it died a death.
    16:9 looks ok on a 4:3 but 4:3 on a 16:9 looks shite.
    Most of my viewing is still 4:3, the soaps (which I don't watch)
    are in 16:9 but soap viewers will watch anything.
    (Actually soaps look bad in 16:9 cos its mainly indoors so no
    landscape shots, its mainly portrait type shots).
    My footie is still 4:3 :O)
    Don't under estimate the power of the masses, we may have no cake
    to eat Marie Anttiornette(?).
    It will be a brave polititian who says "Let them watch snow!!"

    I have noticed a lot of heavy pushing of 'new technology' by the BBC though.
    It make me wonder who is controling the situation.
    MAybe we will be required to have a portrait of the Governer General of
    the BBC in every room?

    We haven't gone digital yet and it will take a long time I expect.
  4. half_pint

    half_pint Guest

    I dont think it is, 16:9 is 1:1.8
    A golden ratio is 1:1.62
    (unless I have screwed up big time) (rare)
    I am recognising the world is moving backwards.
    By standing still I am effectively advancing :O)
    Never if it means swithcing to widescreen?

    Digital and WS have been married to produce an ugly bastard,
    (if its possible to produce a bastard under wedlock).
    Its a total cockup.
    We would not be in this mess if I was in charge :O|

    Its a mess cos its bad, is a backwards step.
    Backwards steps in evolution are rare and don;t usualy last long.
  5. geoff

    geoff Guest

    You are (as I am ) totally insignificant in the big picture (so to
    Never watched more than one episode of Coronation street 30 years ago -
    but with an anterior motive
    Football on TV is shite whatever resolution you use
    It will happen
    I agree, but the format is changing, what ever your wishes might be
  6. James Sweet

    James Sweet Guest

    I don't think that will particularly matter, we're in the age of one chip
    does everything, it costs only pennies per unit to provide an analog output
    in whatever video standard is desired from a digital cable box. Digital will
    slowly creep in, but the analog TV will be with us for a while in one form
    or another. The majority of the people I know with digital cable use it with
    a standard TV, the only reason I see for HD is for movies.
  7. half_pint

    half_pint Guest


    Your eyes may be side by side but they produce a single 3D circular image.
    ( Unless you are pissed out of your mind and have double vision)
    Unfortunatly only ~10% of images are panoramic most are portrait, unless you
    are a seagull which require a widescreen view as viewing the horizon seems
    the be all and end all of their exiatance.
    I think u r the troll, the movie of 911 will look great in WS, you will have
    to film it from 20 miles away to get both towers in.

    Images on average are of a random shape so round, like our eyes vision is
  8. geoff

    geoff Guest

    Sorry, it's going to happen
    You're losing it here
  9. half_pint

    half_pint Guest

    Nature chose a circular image for human visual perception, do you think
    your cinema proprietor knows better.
    I think he is more influenced by the the economics of audiance seating, a
    seating area allows him more 'bums' (pun intended) per unit volume, hence
    greater profits. With a taller screen you cannot seat people in vertical
    required to show the film.
    Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious phrase)
  10. half_pint

    half_pint Guest

    So you prefer WS TV but have not experienced it yet? bit odd?
    Films can be 'doctored' to look OK in WS ( stick a lampost/hatstand in the
    wasted space) but you cannot do that to real life broadcasts (sport, news
    In real life people have tops on their heads.( no wonder hats went out of
  11. half_pint

    half_pint Guest

    its a thin picture to be correct.
    It used to have some great humour in it at one time, but still not really
    my cup of tea.
    It is if your watching Nottm Forest these days sadly :O(

    Well personally I think most films are shite, but then horses for courses.
    I have to have a real interest in the result/players to watch most footballs
    otherwise is basically a bag of air being kicked arouond.
    hopefully not in my lifetime and I have plenty of years left (I hope).
  12. half_pint

    half_pint Guest

    I don't lose often, you should seee my yahoo pool rating (when sober).
  13. James Sweet

    James Sweet Guest

    Again where are you getting this information? I don't *own* a widescreen set
    but I *would* prefer one, it just so happens that I'm satisfied enough with
    what I have until something better comes along. It's not like I've never
    watched one before, but I still would find it nice if the screen fit the
    image rather than wasting a couple inches of the screen.

    I don't even know why I'm continuing to discuss this, some day perhaps
    you'll realize that you're in the minority, WS sets sell, and they fetch a
    premium price, you may not like them but that doesn't change the fact that
    they're gradually becoming a standard. Why is this such an issue for you?
    It's not like 4:3 will disapear in your lifetime, if you choose to cling to
    it nobody will stop you, most anyone will agree it *is* cheaper so if it
    suits your needs stick with it and stop arguing against the majority.
  14. Andy Hall

    Andy Hall Guest

    It's normally "ulterior". "Anterior" in connection with Corrie St?

    There would be an interesting tale there.......:)


    To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  15. Andy Hall

    Andy Hall Guest

    Do you score well at pocket pool as well?


    To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  16. Well, better than you anyway - at least he knows that humans have a
    wide angle view on the world which widescreen comes closer to than 4:3
    Why not?
  17. No it isn't.
    There are several 16/17" sets (which have the same vertical screen
    height as a 14" standard.
    Then get a smaller/cheaper set.
    The profit is the extra sales generated by people like you.
    The Community Charge system was the fairest tax ever used.
    One reason so few programmes are made in 4:3.
    No it isn't. All football is now recorded and most is transmitted in
    It is already on its way. In a few years time you will not be able to
    watch analogue broadcasts.
    But we are going digital. The majority of people now have digital TV
    and the size of that majority grows every day.

    If my 78 year old Mother can see the advantage of digital then so will
    everyone else - except idiots like you.
  18. half_pint wrote:

    Ah, but that is where you are completely wrong.

    depending on teh species, there are huge variations in visual
    perecp[ion. Cats for example have vertical irises,which allow extermely
    shapr vision in teh horizontal plane, less so in teh vertical, at night.

    Horses have near 360 degree vison horizontally, but only 180 vertically.
    And precious little binocular.

    We as tree and plains dwellers, have good binocular, and about 120
    degree horizontally and about 90 degree vertically peripheral vision.

    Er, you can. Old formay 35mm screens worked juts fine on seating, but
    more and more they only got the film projected in teh middle bit. So the
    newer cinemas are a bit lower. Wide screen - e.g. cinerama - has been
    around a while. The main driver has always been te ability to show more
    sideways. Its so happens that teh majority of pictures do not featire a
    single talking head, and things like car chases benefit from gerater
    horizontal stuff.

    Both, but not your ecomomic argument. Most films are really mde for
    DVD/video these days. Only teh really big blockbusters make cinema money.

    Its an artistic and practical thing. And the equipment makers follow fashions

    to help obosolete old kit.
  19. You have been told no - by lots of people.
    But "large" and "portable" do not equate. If you want a portable then
    you have a portable - a 16/17" Widescreen is only a couple of pounds
    heavier than a normal 14".
    I will forgive you, this time, for being stupid.Still can't work out how to use a newsreader I see.
  20. No they don't. The produce a wide angle view, which modern widescreen
    TVs still can't achieve but at least they come closer to a natural
    view than the old 4:3 sets.
    We naturally have a panoramic view on ther world - regardless of what
    we are looking at.
    But your vision is NOT round - that is the part you keep getting
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