ChairmanOfTheBored said:
You're 2 years behind the times. Most have HDMI inputs and accept vid
card DVI out no problem, and now, they are even 1080p NOT 720p, so the
are no longer 1366x768 at the native level, and mine is that, and the
picture fills the screen. So you must have been pumping the one you saw
with a shit video card.
My HP ze2000 laptop would only do 1024x768. When that was displayed
on a Sony, Vizio, and Panasonic LCD TV's at local store (about a week
ago), it appeared as a big black border on the screen. I tried
various tweaks, tunes, modes, and adjustments to make it bigger, and
failed. The big suprise was that even though the vertical resolution
was advertised as 768 dots, the 1024x768 image only filled half the
vertical part of the screen. The rest was black. I would have
expected it to fill the vertical, but it didn't. However, you're
correct in that we may have been doing something wrong. Next time,
I'll try it with a wide screen laptop, but I don't expect that to fix
the vertical problem. I'll scribble down the model numbers this time.
Bullshit. Most 32" HDTV monitors of the past 3 years were that res
native, and being pumped by that res FILLED the screen entirely.
Want me to take a photograph? Big black border on 3 LCD monitors when
fed with 1024x768. I'll throw in the salesmen scratching their heads
for free.
Total bullshit on an HDMI display. Hell, my HDMI display also has a
VGA input, and it doesn't do it via that connection either.
Yep. That's what I expected, but didn't see. However, I will grant
that we may have done something wrong. I'm still waiting (2 weeks
later) for their support people to figure out what it will take to
make it work right.
That, I would go for. I should only have to pay for what I view anyway,
and that payment should be small.
Sure it would be nice. However, do the math. Assume your CATV
provider is not going to lose revenue and their total billing for all
customers (gross income) will be unchanged. If you subscribe to fewer
channels, then the price of those channels goes up to compensate. My
guess is your monthly bill will be about the same for getting fewer
channels.
That's why I mentioned it. AT&T isn't really in favor of ala carte
programming. However, it does sound good on the news and makes great
press. Of course, nothing ever really happens.
They used to be virtually free (feeds to the cable companies), when
those channels were eager for exposure.
Some still are using FTA (free to air) service. Lot of stations want
free world wide distribution. Some even pay for it.
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-air>
I don't recall that any of the cable companies I know ever offered
free distribution. When they got stuck with the must carry rule, they
rapidly ran out of channels, and used that excuse to jack up the rates
for any station that wanted distribution. I vaguely recall (not sure)
that the FCC threatened to regulate the must carry rates, which
convinced the cable companies to cease trying to circumvent the FCC
ruling by making it uneconomical for the smaller broadcasters.
Not if they fear losing said exposure... what comes around goes
around.
It wouldn't be a problem if the stations operating under the must
carry rule had anything useful to broadcast. In most cases, they
purchase canned programming and advertising, which are just clones of
what you can watch on any of the major networks. Sometimes, they're
even transmitted simultaneously with the major networks. If you've
ever notice the same junk on multiple stations, that's why. The big
draw for these stations is that they can proclaim that they have a
huge audience, primarily due to the cable audience. Drop the rule,
and their broadcast only audience will be comparatively zilch.
The next gen 120Hz displays are going to be all the rave. LCD
backlights... No more 3:2 pull down (5x24=120). The world is getting
better every day.
Interesting. That has nothing to do with 4DTV, but I hadn't heard
about 120Hz vertical displays. Thanks.