With new TVs, size matters

[whosbest54]

"There doesn't seem to be anything that television manufacturers can do
to persuade consumers to buy a new TV."

<http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/26/technology/innovation/tv-
sales/index.html>

whosbest54

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by whosbest54
"There doesn't seem to be anything that television manufacturers can do
to persuade consumers to buy a new TV."
<http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/26/technology/innovation/tv-
sales/index.html>
whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rao.htm
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rmb.html

We bought a new 42" full HD set in 2009 for about $1k - this coincided with
digital switchover in our region of the UK. It does not have 3D or LED
illumination but works fine. Short of failure there is nothing in the
pipeline to persuade me to buy a new one since it is the right size for the
room, runs at the highest resolution available (BD, broadcast, etc.), does
5.1 sound, has enough connectors etc. If I want internet on it I will buy a
Rikomagic IV to plug in the back. (<$100) or carry on with my net-book on a
long HDMI cable.

OTOH there are plenty of places in the world where the TV market is far from
saturated...

[TJ]

Post by whosbest54
"There doesn't seem to be anything that television manufacturers can do
to persuade consumers to buy a new TV."
<http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/26/technology/innovation/tv-
sales/index.html>
whosbest54

I'm happy enough with what I have now.

TJ

[Roger Blake]

Post by whosbest54
"There doesn't seem to be anything that television manufacturers can do
to persuade consumers to buy a new TV."

Pretty much. The 19" Toshiba that I bought about 30 years ago is still
going strong and I have no plans to replace it with a new set. Of course
if it breaks at some point I guess I'll have to decide whether to fix
or replace.

[TJ]

Post by Roger Blake

Post by whosbest54
"There doesn't seem to be anything that television manufacturers can do
to persuade consumers to buy a new TV."

Pretty much. The 19" Toshiba that I bought about 30 years ago is still
going strong and I have no plans to replace it with a new set. Of course
if it breaks at some point I guess I'll have to decide whether to fix
or replace.

I have a couple of sets the same vintage, and I'm as frugal (stingy,
miserly - you pick the term) as they come, but if you ask me (which you
didn't) unless you can fix it yourself a 25-30 year old TV isn't worth
it. Especially when not-too-old flatscreens are showing up in thrift
stores for $20.

TJ

[Bill Gill]

Post by whosbest54
"There doesn't seem to be anything that television manufacturers can do
to persuade consumers to buy a new TV."
<http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/26/technology/innovation/tv-
sales/index.html>
whosbest54

One of these days I will probably have to replace the old
analog set in the kitchen. I use it to watch the news
in the morning. When the local cable company stops providing
analog service for the local channels, or when the TV
dies, I will probably replace it.

Bill

[Albert Sims]

Post by Bill Gill

Post by whosbest54
"There doesn't seem to be anything that television manufacturers can do
to persuade consumers to buy a new TV."
<http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/26/technology/innovation/tv-
sales/index.html>
whosbest54

One of these days I will probably have to replace the old
analog set in the kitchen. I use it to watch the news
in the morning. When the local cable company stops providing
analog service for the local channels, or when the TV
dies, I will probably replace it.
Bill

I only buy new TV's when the ones I'm using finally bite the dust, and
the 46" Sony Bravia I bought in 2007 and the Panasonic 37" in the
bedroom are both still working fine.

[Ant]

Post by Albert Sims

Post by Bill Gill

Post by whosbest54
"There doesn't seem to be anything that television manufacturers can do
to persuade consumers to buy a new TV."
<http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/26/technology/innovation/tv-sales/index.html>
whosbest54

One of these days I will probably have to replace the old
analog set in the kitchen. I use it to watch the news
in the morning. When the local cable company stops providing
analog service for the local channels, or when the TV
dies, I will probably replace it.
Bill

I only buy new TV's when the ones I'm using finally bite the dust, and
the 46" Sony Bravia I bought in 2007 and the Panasonic 37" in the
bedroom are both still working fine.

Ditto. My old parents and I still use CRT TVs because they work fine.
Mine is a 19.5" Sharp CRT TV from January 1996. :D We will replace them
when they die or acting weird. Beside, I can watch HD on my Samsung
computer monitor. ;)

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Albert Sims

Post by Bill Gill

Post by whosbest54
"There doesn't seem to be anything that television manufacturers can do
to persuade consumers to buy a new TV."
<http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/26/technology/innovation/tv-sales/index.html>
whosbest54

One of these days I will probably have to replace the old
analog set in the kitchen. I use it to watch the news
in the morning. When the local cable company stops providing
analog service for the local channels, or when the TV
dies, I will probably replace it.
Bill

I only buy new TV's when the ones I'm using finally bite the dust, and
the 46" Sony Bravia I bought in 2007 and the Panasonic 37" in the
bedroom are both still working fine.

Ditto. My old parents and I still use CRT TVs because they work fine. Mine
is a 19.5" Sharp CRT TV from January 1996. :D We will replace them when
they die or acting weird. Beside, I can watch HD on my Samsung computer
monitor. ;)

Some reasons why not: -

1. Analog broadcast picture quality on a CRT is poor even with PAL, with
NTSC it will be worse.

2. Digital SD material delivered with its colour intact will be better (and
probably as good as a flat-screen)
but
3. Unless the TV is 16:9 [unlikely] then either the aspect ratio will be
wrong or you will have a tiny letterbox picture (literally 16" X 9" on a
19.5" diagonal 4:3 CRT)
and
4. You can probably now justify replacement on electricity costs alone
depending on how much you watch.

5. You definitely won't be seeing any HD content.


Still some people like old technology - here in the UK we have a MG Owner's
Club for aficionados of the 1960's "sports" car. This is despite the fact
they would be burnt off by 1970's main-stream saloons (Ford Cortina), had
cart springs at the back and rusted faster than a ship on Bikini Atoll....

[Jim Wilkins]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Some reasons why not: -
1. Analog broadcast picture quality on a CRT is poor even with PAL,
with NTSC it will be worse.
2. Digital SD material delivered with its colour intact will be
better (and probably as good as a flat-screen)
but
3. Unless the TV is 16:9 [unlikely] then either the aspect ratio
will be wrong or you will have a tiny letterbox picture (literally
16" X 9" on a 19.5" diagonal 4:3 CRT)
and
4. You can probably now justify replacement on electricity costs
alone depending on how much you watch.
5. You definitely won't be seeing any HD content.

I watch US HDTV on an analog CRT Sanyo with converter box, an LCD HDTV
and a laptop. Picture quality isn't that much worse on the Sanyo and
the colors are possibly better. The Digitalstream converter box has
the most sensitive tuner and best signal strength indicator so I use
it to aim the antenna.

Multipath on one channel is so bad sometimes that I find the cleanest
reflection for that station with a spectrum analyzer, which displays
both power level as height and signal quality as flatness. The
on-screen signal indicator doesn't distinguish between them. A good
signal is flat across the 6 MHz band. This photo of a bad and good
signal isn't mine, I have no pink test equipment.
Loading Image...
The faint direct-path signal used to appear as a leading ghost.
jsw

[Ant]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Ditto. My old parents and I still use CRT TVs because they work fine. Mine
is a 19.5" Sharp CRT TV from January 1996. :D We will replace them when
they die or acting weird. Beside, I can watch HD on my Samsung computer
monitor. ;)

Some reasons why not: -
1. Analog broadcast picture quality on a CRT is poor even with PAL, with
NTSC it will be worse.

Eh, it doesn't bother me. Only tiny texts do, but big deal.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
2. Digital SD material delivered with its colour intact will be better (and
probably as good as a flat-screen)
but
3. Unless the TV is 16:9 [unlikely] then either the aspect ratio will be
wrong or you will have a tiny letterbox picture (literally 16" X 9" on a
19.5" diagonal 4:3 CRT)

I keep aspect ratios and it's OK with me. I am not looking at details.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
4. You can probably now justify replacement on electricity costs alone
depending on how much you watch.

0-2 hours on TV nights (0-few) days per week).

Post by R. Mark Clayton
5. You definitely won't be seeing any HD content.

I know. I have my computer for that for my HTPC. HD stuff can be seen on
my old computer monitor. :)

[R. Mark Clayton]

SNIP

Post by Ant
0-2 hours on TV nights (0-few) days per week).

So about 1kW hour a week then - maybe not enough saving for you, but for a
family?

Post by Ant

Post by R. Mark Clayton
5. You definitely won't be seeing any HD content.

I know. I have my computer for that for my HTPC. HD stuff can be seen on
my old computer monitor. :)

That's in the lounge right?

[Ant]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ant
0-2 hours on TV nights (0-few) days per week).

So about 1kW hour a week then - maybe not enough saving for you, but for a
family?

We rarely use our old TVs. It's only three people.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ant

Post by R. Mark Clayton
5. You definitely won't be seeing any HD content.

I know. I have my computer for that for my HTPC. HD stuff can be seen on
my old computer monitor. :)

That's in the lounge right?

No, in my room. For them, they don't care about HD since most of their
asian OTA shows/series are in SD. :/

[George Kerby]

On 6/30/13 2:08 PM, in article

Post by Ant

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ant
0-2 hours on TV nights (0-few) days per week).

So about 1kW hour a week then - maybe not enough saving for you, but for a
family?

We rarely use our old TVs. It's only three people.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ant

Post by R. Mark Clayton
5. You definitely won't be seeing any HD content.

I know. I have my computer for that for my HTPC. HD stuff can be seen on
my old computer monitor. :)

That's in the lounge right?

No, in my room. For them, they don't care about HD since most of their
asian OTA shows/series are in SD. :/

I seem to remember you and them going around and around about outdoor
antennas for line-of-sight reception and having a run-in with the local HOA
last year. Sounds like television viewing in your family is/was pretty
important, back then, anyway.

[Ant]

Post by George Kerby
I seem to remember you and them going around and around about outdoor
antennas for line-of-sight reception and having a run-in with the local HOA
last year. Sounds like television viewing in your family is/was pretty
important, back then, anyway.

Well, not that important as for me. Heh. FYI, that CM antenna works
great mostly. Sure, they lost a few channels but not horribly.
--
"But, you may argue, our uniqueness is so extreme! More extreme than the
platypus which looks like a collection of leftover parts? More unique
than the societal honeybee with its division of labor? More unique than
the communist ants who keep aphids as farm animals?" --John Logan
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[TJ]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Some reasons why not: -
1. Analog broadcast picture quality on a CRT is poor even with PAL, with
NTSC it will be worse.

Like beauty, acceptable picture quality is in the eyes of the beholder.
When I was a kid, we had two channels available to be watched on a B&W
set that used vacuum tubes. Any picture that was intelligible and
relatively stable was acceptable. By the time I was a teenager, a third
channel appeared, but we still watched on B&W sets. In my early 20's we
acquired a then-old color TV. Cranky, sensitive to reception problems,
with no automatic color correction, it was still acceptable because for
the first time we could watch things in color.

Over the years sets continued to improve, and what was once acceptable
was no longer so - much of the time - but I still found B&W to be
acceptable in a battery portable and a small bedroom TV, and would still
be OK with it need be.

At the moment I have one 18.5 inch 720p digital TV, purchased used a
couple of weeks ago, and several converter box-equipped CRT TVs of
various sizes up to 25 inches that I've watched for years. If I study
it, I see the difference in picture quality between the analog and
digital, but if I just relax and pay attention to the program, I don't
notice it.

I still remember the picture I watched as a child, so I can appreciate
what I have now - even if it isn't as good as I could get if I went all-out.

TJ

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by TJ

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Some reasons why not: -
1. Analog broadcast picture quality on a CRT is poor even with PAL, with
NTSC it will be worse.

Like beauty, acceptable picture quality is in the eyes of the beholder.
When I was a kid, we had two channels available to be watched on a B&W set
that used vacuum tubes. Any picture that was intelligible and relatively
stable was acceptable. By the time I was a teenager, a third channel
appeared, but we still watched on B&W sets. In my early 20's we acquired a
then-old color TV. Cranky, sensitive to reception problems, with no
automatic color correction, it was still acceptable because for the first
time we could watch things in color.
Over the years sets continued to improve, and what was once acceptable was
no longer so - much of the time - but I still found B&W to be acceptable
in a battery portable and a small bedroom TV, and would still be OK with
it need be.

Well try watching snooker then: -

B&W - well apart from the black and white balls they all look the same.
PAL - better, but which is the brown ball?
D[2]-MAC or SD digital - yes now we see what is going on.
HD digital - lovely

oops I forgot NTSC - er I thought the baize was green?...

Post by TJ
At the moment I have one 18.5 inch 720p digital TV, purchased used a
couple of weeks ago, and several converter box-equipped CRT TVs of various
sizes up to 25 inches that I've watched for years. If I study it, I see
the difference in picture quality between the analog and digital, but if I
just relax and pay attention to the program, I don't notice it.
I still remember the picture I watched as a child, so I can appreciate
what I have now - even if it isn't as good as I could get if I went all-out.
TJ

[TJ]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by TJ
Over the years sets continued to improve, and what was once acceptable was
no longer so - much of the time - but I still found B&W to be acceptable
in a battery portable and a small bedroom TV, and would still be OK with
it need be.

Well try watching snooker then: -
B&W - well apart from the black and white balls they all look the same.
PAL - better, but which is the brown ball?
D[2]-MAC or SD digital - yes now we see what is going on.
HD digital - lovely
oops I forgot NTSC - er I thought the baize was green?...

Typos, too lazy to proofread properly - my post was meant to say "would
still be OK with it if need be."

I stand by that statement - I don't care to watch snooker, even in HD.
In the main, color is nice, but not absolutely necessary most of the
time. As I said, acceptability depends on the eye of the beholder.

The first colorized B&W film I remember seeing was "Miracle On 34th
Street." (Maureen O'Hara, Edmund Gwen, Natalie Wood, 1947) Seeing it in
color was an interesting novelty, but after seeing both versions several
times over the years I can't say color really adds much to the
experience. I watched "Bonanza" on B&W sets the first time around - as I
see the reruns in color I don't enjoy them any more or less than I did
then. Same thing with "Star Trek." And the reruns of B&W TV shows from
the 50's and early 60's are as enjoyable or non-enjoyable now as they
were then - but the lack of color isn't the deciding factor in that.

TJ

[TeeJay1952]

Post by TJ

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by TJ
Over the years sets continued to improve, and what was once
acceptable was
no longer so - much of the time - but I still found B&W to be acceptable
in a battery portable and a small bedroom TV, and would still be OK with
it need be.

Well try watching snooker then: -
B&W - well apart from the black and white balls they all look the same.
PAL - better, but which is the brown ball?
D[2]-MAC or SD digital - yes now we see what is going on.
HD digital - lovely
oops I forgot NTSC - er I thought the baize was green?...

Typos, too lazy to proofread properly - my post was meant to say "would
still be OK with it if need be."
I stand by that statement - I don't care to watch snooker, even in HD.
In the main, color is nice, but not absolutely necessary most of the
time. As I said, acceptability depends on the eye of the beholder.
The first colorized B&W film I remember seeing was "Miracle On 34th
Street." (Maureen O'Hara, Edmund Gwen, Natalie Wood, 1947) Seeing it in
color was an interesting novelty, but after seeing both versions several
times over the years I can't say color really adds much to the
experience. I watched "Bonanza" on B&W sets the first time around - as I
see the reruns in color I don't enjoy them any more or less than I did
then. Same thing with "Star Trek." And the reruns of B&W TV shows from
the 50's and early 60's are as enjoyable or non-enjoyable now as they
were then - but the lack of color isn't the deciding factor in that.
TJ

The absolute best digital filter is between ones ears. Before HD there
was color. Before color there was black and white. Before black and
white there was radio. Before radio was books. Before books was telling
stories around fire. Before telling stories there was daydreaming. It is
both our blessing and our curse.
Tee(the other )Jay

[Sal]

"TJ" <***@noneofyour.business> wrote in message news:kqsm4c$bin$***@dont-email.me...

< snip >

Post by TJ
The first colorized B&W film I remember seeing was "Miracle On 34th
Street." (Maureen O'Hara, Edmund Gwen, Natalie Wood, 1947) Seeing it in
color was an interesting novelty, but after seeing both versions several
times over the years I can't say color really adds much to the experience.
I watched "Bonanza" on B&W sets the first time around - as I see the
reruns in color I don't enjoy them any more or less than I did then. Same
thing with "Star Trek." And the reruns of B&W TV shows from the 50's and
early 60's are as enjoyable or non-enjoyable now as they were then - but
the lack of color isn't the deciding factor in that.

My first color set was a 14-inch "portable." It weighed a lot, but it had a
handle on top of the case. Therefore, portable.

In 1968, I think color TV's had n-o-t-h-i-n-g that was automatic beyond
degaussing but I was able to tune my set for very nice pictures with a
simple routine:
First, rotating the fine-tuning ring into the "worms," the squigly pattern
caused by too much sound carrier ... and then just back out of the worms.
Second, turning the Color control down all the way and adjusting Brightness
and Contrast for a nice B&W picture. (I believe if a set cannot produce a
nice B&W picture, it cannot produce a nice color picture.)
Third, turning the Color control up too much and adjusting the Tint to make
the faces be a hideous orange.
Fourth, turning the Color control back down until faces looked natural.

This routine usually took about fifteen seconds -- not unreasonable.

The first set I bought that had "automatic everything" was a 35-inch Sony in
1995. It had a synthesized tuner, so no Fine Tune. I set the controls for
Brightness, Contrast, Sharpness, Color and Tint for my preferences during
the first two days and never touched them again until the set was quite old
and I tried to improve its fast-fading picture.

"Sal"

[John McWilliams]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Well try watching snooker then: -
B&W - well apart from the black and white balls they all look the same.
PAL - better, but which is the brown ball?
D[2]-MAC or SD digital - yes now we see what is going on.
HD digital - lovely
oops I forgot NTSC - er I thought the baize was green?...

Heh. I recall how jealous I was of my Brit friends with many more lines
of definition! Back when Never Twice the Same Color was the only choice
in the States.

How widespread is HD TV in GB now? (Approx. I'd guess over half the US
has HD now that is in use.)

[Alan]

Post by John McWilliams
Heh. I recall how jealous I was of my Brit friends with many more lines
of definition! Back when Never Twice the Same Color was the only choice
in the States.

Having watched PAL when visiting the UK, I know why they call it
Picture's Always Lousy. And that was ignoring the flicker and low
temporal resolution (both of which were clearly visible).

After stable solid state equipment became available in the early
1970's, the PAL phase error cancellation was no longer an advantage.
All of my equipment was chosen to be good enough to be "set it and
forget it". Then, color variation was a matter of source lighting,
which affects all color systems.

Alan

[John McWilliams]

Post by Alan

Post by John McWilliams
Heh. I recall how jealous I was of my Brit friends with many more lines
of definition! Back when Never Twice the Same Color was the only choice
in the States.

Having watched PAL when visiting the UK, I know why they call it
Picture's Always Lousy. And that was ignoring the flicker and low
temporal resolution (both of which were clearly visible).
After stable solid state equipment became available in the early
1970's, the PAL phase error cancellation was no longer an advantage.
All of my equipment was chosen to be good enough to be "set it and
forget it". Then, color variation was a matter of source lighting,
which affects all color systems.

All my experience with the two formats from about 10-25 years ago showed
PAL to be a superior format. Many more lines of resolution for one thing.

[the dog from that film you saw]

Post by John McWilliams

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Well try watching snooker then: -
B&W - well apart from the black and white balls they all look the same.
PAL - better, but which is the brown ball?
D[2]-MAC or SD digital - yes now we see what is going on.
HD digital - lovely
oops I forgot NTSC - er I thought the baize was green?...

Heh. I recall how jealous I was of my Brit friends with many more lines
of definition! Back when Never Twice the Same Color was the only choice
in the States.
How widespread is HD TV in GB now? (Approx. I'd guess over half the US
has HD now that is in use.)

there's a lot on pay tv but only 4 channels through an aerial.
hd televisions have been on sale here for years but only in the last
couple have they had hd tuners inside - some were sold as HD ready with
just component inputs - not even HDMI.

[dmaster]

On Monday, July 29, 2013 12:20:18 PM UTC-5, the dog from that film you saw wrote:
...

Post by the dog from that film you saw

Post by John McWilliams
How widespread is HD TV in GB now? (Approx. I'd guess over half the US
has HD now that is in use.)

...

Post by the dog from that film you saw
there's a lot on pay tv but only 4 channels through an aerial.

That totally depends on your location. In the Chicago metropolitan area, I receive about 50 sub-channels. Of those, the 3 networks, 3 PBS, 5 major independents, at least 2 Spanish channels broadcast an HD sub-channel. Although quite bit-starved, one network "technically" broadcasts a second HD sub-channel.

I don't deny cable and satellite have far more HD, but I'd guess that the vast majority of Americans have access to at least 5 HD channels OTA. While the variety is small, HD is pretty much ubiquitous to the USA, and has been for at least 5 years. All but the smallest of stations were broadcasting digitally long before the analog shut-off.

Post by the dog from that film you saw
hd televisions have been on sale here for years but only in the last
couple have they had hd tuners inside - some were sold as HD ready with
just component inputs - not even HDMI.

HD tuners were pretty much standard since I bought my first EDTV almost 10 years ago. At that time, there were still quite a few "TV Monitors" without tuners, but they died out pretty quickly. Even my "ancient" EDTV has 1 HDMI input to go with it's 2 component video input. And by definition, component video *is* HD.

I'd say that it was nearly impossible to buy anything but an HDTV in the last 5 years, except for some small, cheap 15" sort of EDTV sets, but even those have digital (HD capable) tuners.

...

Post by the dog from that film you saw
Gareth.

...

Dan (Woj...)

[Patty Winter]

Post by dmaster
...

Post by the dog from that film you saw

Post by John McWilliams
How widespread is HD TV in GB now? (Approx. I'd guess over half the US
has HD now that is in use.)

...

Post by the dog from that film you saw
there's a lot on pay tv but only 4 channels through an aerial.

That totally depends on your location. In the Chicago metropolitan
area, I receive about 50 sub-channels.

Dog and Gareth were talking about Great Britain (GB), where there
are far fewer television stations overall, much less offering HD.


Patty

[Ant]

Post by Patty Winter
Dog and Gareth were talking about Great Britain (GB), where there
are far fewer television stations overall, much less offering HD.

I wonder why so few and less HD?

[Patty Winter]

Post by Ant

Post by Patty Winter
Dog and Gareth were talking about Great Britain (GB), where there
are far fewer television stations overall, much less offering HD.

I wonder why so few and less HD?

I don't know that the proportion of HD stations is any lower than
in the U.S. I was simply saying that because there are far fewer
stations overall, there aren't going to be nearly as many HD stations.

As for "why so few" television stations, you might want to look at
a map of the UK and a map of the U.S., to scale. :-)


Patty

[Wes Newell]

Post by Ant

Post by Patty Winter
Dog and Gareth were talking about Great Britain (GB), where there
are far fewer television stations overall, much less offering HD.

I wonder why so few and less HD?

Look at a map and compare the size of GB to the US.

[Ant]

Post by Wes Newell

Post by Ant

Post by Patty Winter
Dog and Gareth were talking about Great Britain (GB), where there
are far fewer television stations overall, much less offering HD.

I wonder why so few and less HD?

Look at a map and compare the size of GB to the US.

I meant in the small area. Look at the major cities. Lots of stations.
--
"If I want to be a robber, I rob the king's treasury. If I want to be a
hunter, I hunt the rhino. What is the use of robbing beggars and hunting
ants? So if you want to love, love God." --Swami Vivekananda
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[Patty Winter]

Post by Ant

Post by Wes Newell

Post by Ant
I wonder why so few and less HD?

Look at a map and compare the size of GB to the US.

I meant in the small area. Look at the major cities. Lots of stations.

I found an article on the BBC website from 2011 saying that Cardiff
might get its own local station within two years. Cardiff is the
capital of Wales, yet it apparently only has the few national stations
at the moment. So no, even the major cities in the UK don't have anywhere
near the number of TV stations that cities in the States do.


Patty

[whosbest54]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Some reasons why not: -
1. Analog broadcast picture quality on a CRT is poor even with PAL, with
NTSC it will be worse.

My experience with a NTSC CRT with a converter box is the picture quality is
acceptable - yes, not HD, but certainly an improvement over analog. For much
of the content I watch, it really doesn't matter. I have HD sets for the
programming that matters.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
2. Digital SD material delivered with its colour intact will be better (and
probably as good as a flat-screen)
but
3. Unless the TV is 16:9 [unlikely] then either the aspect ratio will be
wrong or you will have a tiny letterbox picture (literally 16" X 9" on a
19.5" diagonal 4:3 CRT)

Yes, my 4x3 TVs have a letterboxed picture for 16x9 content. I can accept
that for most of what I watch on those sets. All converters should be able
to allow the aspect ratio to be changed; the best have a 'zoom' button to
allow aspect ratio changes on the fly. So, if the program is 4x3 pillarbox
inside 16x9 letterbox, one can zoom in and fill the screen.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
and
4. You can probably now justify replacement on electricity costs alone
depending on how much you watch.

This is a really interesting question and may not always be the case. One
has to really figure out what the power consumption of the CRT is and compare
it to the consumption of a set that would be expected to replace it. Some
flat panels use more power than others, e.g., plasma vs. LCD vs. LCD. Then
one would look at the payback period if the new flat panel has a lower
consumption, based on the average hours of use. Some can't afford to pay the
upfront cost all at once, even if there is a payback. And one should
consider the 'cost' of getting rid of a perfectly good CRT. Will it be
properly recycled or simply dumped? I bet a lot of them end up in basements
or garages and will have to be dealt with years down the road.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
5. You definitely won't be seeing any HD content.

Like I said, I have my HD sets for that ;-).

whosbest54

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

[snip...]

Post by whosbest54

Post by R. Mark Clayton
3. Unless the TV is 16:9 [unlikely] then either the aspect ratio will be
wrong or you will have a tiny letterbox picture (literally 16" X 9" on a
19.5" diagonal 4:3 CRT)

Yes, my 4x3 TVs have a letterboxed picture for 16x9 content. I can accept
that for most of what I watch on those sets. All converters should be able
to allow the aspect ratio to be changed; the best have a 'zoom' button to
allow aspect ratio changes on the fly. So, if the program is 4x3 pillarbox
inside 16x9 letterbox, one can zoom in and fill the screen.

Also the 16:9 TV's have letterboxing. Not just movies. Not commercials.
Among other things, ESPN sports coverages are letterboxed. Keep the CRT if
it works, letterboxing is letterboxing.

As for converters--lok for a Zoom or Full aspect option.

[Roger Blake]

Post by whosbest54
Yes, my 4x3 TVs have a letterboxed picture for 16x9 content. I can accept
that for most of what I watch on those sets. All converters should be able
to allow the aspect ratio to be changed; the best have a 'zoom' button to
allow aspect ratio changes on the fly.

My Digital Stream converters have this feature on the remote. Normally I
have the zoom set to fill the screen, but on some programs that doesn't
seem to work. When I press the "zoom" button on those it just says
"Orthoponic" or some such thing on the screen and the letterbox black
bars remain.

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

Post by Roger Blake

Post by whosbest54
Yes, my 4x3 TVs have a letterboxed picture for 16x9 content. I can accept
that for most of what I watch on those sets. All converters should be able
to allow the aspect ratio to be changed; the best have a 'zoom' button to
allow aspect ratio changes on the fly.

My Digital Stream converters have this feature on the remote. Normally I
have the zoom set to fill the screen, but on some programs that doesn't
seem to work. When I press the "zoom" button on those it just says
"Orthoponic" or some such thing on the screen and the letterbox black
bars remain.

Anamorphic?

[TJ]

Post by Roger Blake

Post by whosbest54
Yes, my 4x3 TVs have a letterboxed picture for 16x9 content. I can accept
that for most of what I watch on those sets. All converters should be able
to allow the aspect ratio to be changed; the best have a 'zoom' button to
allow aspect ratio changes on the fly.

My Digital Stream converters have this feature on the remote. Normally I
have the zoom set to fill the screen, but on some programs that doesn't
seem to work. When I press the "zoom" button on those it just says
"Orthoponic" or some such thing on the screen and the letterbox black
bars remain.

Neither my Insignia or my Digital Stream converter boxes will allow me
to change the aspect ratio on SD sub-channels. On those channels,
usually broadcasting a 4:3 signal, letterboxing is done by the station,
not by your converter.

TJ

[whosbest54]

Post by TJ

Post by Roger Blake

Post by whosbest54
Yes, my 4x3 TVs have a letterboxed picture for 16x9 content. I can accept
that for most of what I watch on those sets. All converters should be able
to allow the aspect ratio to be changed; the best have a 'zoom' button to
allow aspect ratio changes on the fly.

My Digital Stream converters have this feature on the remote. Normally I
have the zoom set to fill the screen, but on some programs that doesn't
seem to work. When I press the "zoom" button on those it just says
"Orthoponic" or some such thing on the screen and the letterbox black
bars remain.

Neither my Insignia or my Digital Stream converter boxes will allow me
to change the aspect ratio on SD sub-channels. On those channels,
usually broadcasting a 4:3 signal, letterboxing is done by the station,
not by your converter.

Good point. I should have said that I have yet to see a converter that will
change the aspect ratio of a 4x3 SD subchannel. The aspect ratio setting or on
the fly zoom button only works for the 16x9 HD channels. And, unfortunately,
some broadcasters have already or are looking at stretching a 16x9 picture onto
a 4x3 SD subchannel so the picture fills a 16x9 set viewing area at the proper
aspect ratio. All fine and good for a 16x9 set, but it screws everyone with
converters and 4x3 sets.

whosbestf54

[Sal]

Post by Roger Blake
My Digital Stream converters have this feature on the remote. Normally I
have the zoom set to fill the screen, but on some programs that doesn't
seem to work. When I press the "zoom" button on those it just says
"Orthoponic" or some such thing on the screen and the letterbox black
bars remain.

I miss my Digital Stream box. In the fall of 2011, I loaned it to the son
of some people I know down the street. I haven't seen it or the kid since.
His parents claim they haven't seen him either. *sigh*

Old slogan: "Neither a borrower nor a lender be."