Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Wide Screen not wide enough?

Reply
Thread Tools

Wide Screen not wide enough?

 
 
Freda
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
"Jeff Rife" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Freda ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
>>
>> I'm not on about the pixel count, as that rarely equates to 16:9 on
>> plasmas,
>> and isn't really an accurate guide, I'm on about the physical aspect
>> ratio
>> of quite a few LCDs that were being manufactured (I'm talking about the
>> >> European market here).

>
> Yes, I know that there were 14:9 sets for Europe. They may have had
> a 15:9 screen with no actual pixels at the sides, but the viewable area
> was 14:9.
>
>

No, these LCD sets had both a viewable and physical ratio of 15:9.
>
>
>> The TVs I am on about were on sale about 1 or 2
>> years
>> ago, I spent a lot of time calculating the physical aspect ratios of many
>> LCDs at the time, and discounted several from my shortlist of potential
>> TVs
>> due to their 15:9 aspect ratio, which was as much a surprise to me as it
>> was
>> to the TV dealers that I informed of this situation. I even did a
>> physical
>> check on the screen dimensions of a few of these suspect LCDs, just to
>> confirm that these supposedly 'widescreen' TVs weren't actually 16:9
>> ratio.

>
> So, you don't remember *anything* about any of these supposed TVs so that
> you can look them up on Google.
>
>

Why should I, these were the ones that I discounted, not the ones I was
interested in.
>
>

I don't think they would completely
> disappear in just two years.
>
>

Probably not, but seeing as I dismissed them immediately as sham widescreen
TVs, why would I want to remember them?
>
>
> Yeah, I'm pretty sceptical.
>
>

Ce la vie!


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Freda
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
"Freda" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:444f20a4$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> . . . . . these LCD sets had both a viewable and physical ratio of 15:9.
>
>

Forgot to mention they also displayed 16:9 broadcasts with a very narrow
black band above and below the picture.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Justin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
Freda wrote on [Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:37:26 +0100]:
> "Jeff Rife" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Freda ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
>>>
>>> I'm not on about the pixel count, as that rarely equates to 16:9 on
>>> plasmas,
>>> and isn't really an accurate guide, I'm on about the physical aspect
>>> ratio
>>> of quite a few LCDs that were being manufactured (I'm talking about the
>>> >> European market here).

>>
>> Yes, I know that there were 14:9 sets for Europe. They may have had
>> a 15:9 screen with no actual pixels at the sides, but the viewable area
>> was 14:9.
>>
>>

> No, these LCD sets had both a viewable and physical ratio of 15:9.
>>
>>
>>> The TVs I am on about were on sale about 1 or 2
>>> years
>>> ago, I spent a lot of time calculating the physical aspect ratios of many
>>> LCDs at the time, and discounted several from my shortlist of potential
>>> TVs
>>> due to their 15:9 aspect ratio, which was as much a surprise to me as it
>>> was
>>> to the TV dealers that I informed of this situation. I even did a
>>> physical
>>> check on the screen dimensions of a few of these suspect LCDs, just to
>>> confirm that these supposedly 'widescreen' TVs weren't actually 16:9
>>> ratio.

>>
>> So, you don't remember *anything* about any of these supposed TVs so that
>> you can look them up on Google.
>>
>>

> Why should I, these were the ones that I discounted, not the ones I was
> interested in.


Because if you have no proof then you are lying.

> I don't think they would completely
>> disappear in just two years.
>>
>>

> Probably not, but seeing as I dismissed them immediately as sham widescreen
> TVs, why would I want to remember them?


So you can prove you are not a liar

 
Reply With Quote
 
Freda
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
"Justin" <(E-Mail Removed)> butted in with message
news:(E-Mail Removed)2go.com...
>
> Because if you have no proof then you are lying.
>
>

Of course, that's the obvious conclusion isn't it, NOT.

It's a good job you're not a lawyer, idiot!


>> I don't think they would completely
>>> disappear in just two years.
>>>
>>>

>> Probably not, but seeing as I dismissed them immediately as sham
>> widescreen
>> TVs, why would I want to remember them?

>
> So you can prove you are not a liar
>
>

I was going to see if I could dig out those old magazines just to shut you
lot up, but I'm blowed if I'm going to bother wasting any time now!

I've got much better things to do with my life than waste my time making up
stories just to annoy prats like you on here.

FFS, I try and make a genuine contribution to a thread and get accused of
being an out and out liar. I had thought the standard of conversation was a
little bit higher on here, but obviously NOT

<plonk>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Justin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
Freda wrote on [Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:10:13 +0100]:
> "Justin" <(E-Mail Removed)> butted in with message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)2go.com...
>>
>> Because if you have no proof then you are lying.
>>
>>

> Of course, that's the obvious conclusion isn't it, NOT.
>
> It's a good job you're not a lawyer, idiot!


Obviously you're a moron.

I was OBVIOUSLY restating the reason for the request from the person
asking in a turn of phrase you would understand. Not stating my own
opinion.


> I was going to see if I could dig out those old magazines just to shut you
> lot up, but I'm blowed if I'm going to bother wasting any time now!
>
> I've got much better things to do with my life than waste my time making up
> stories just to annoy prats like you on here.
>
> FFS, I try and make a genuine contribution to a thread and get accused of
> being an out and out liar. I had thought the standard of conversation was a
> little bit higher on here, but obviously NOT


Ah yes, let's overreact to the max. Idiot.
 
Reply With Quote
 
operzngr@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2006
to the person saying there is "no problem" your not missing anything
when there are black bars.....bull. I have a 42 inch widescreen tv
that plays as though it were now a 35 inch screen TV. It's as anoying
as hell. Thank you.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2006
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> to the person saying there is "no problem" your not missing anything
> when there are black bars.....bull. I have a 42 inch widescreen tv
> that plays as though it were now a 35 inch screen TV. It's as anoying
> as hell. Thank you.

You should go back to a 19 inch TV and VHS.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Justin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2006
(E-Mail Removed) wrote on [27 Apr 2006 00:43:10 -0700]:
> to the person saying there is "no problem" your not missing anything
> when there are black bars.....bull. I have a 42 inch widescreen tv
> that plays as though it were now a 35 inch screen TV. It's as anoying
> as hell. Thank you.


So what? When your movie is cropped for Pan and Scan you miss actual
movie, that's what you're watching right? You don't watch TV, you watch
what's ON the tv.
 
Reply With Quote
 
AZ Nomad
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2006
On 27 Apr 2006 00:43:10 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>to the person saying there is "no problem" your not missing anything
>when there are black bars.....bull. I have a 42 inch widescreen tv
>that plays as though it were now a 35 inch screen TV. It's as anoying
>as hell. Thank you.


Stupid ****. Not all moves have the same aspect ratio.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2006
X-No-archive: yes

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> to the person saying there is "no problem" your not missing anything
> when there are black bars.....bull. I have a 42 inch widescreen tv
> that plays as though it were now a 35 inch screen TV. It's as anoying
> as hell. Thank you.
>

=============================
So what part of the picture are you missing?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: DSLR lenses not good wide open at wide angle? Dauphin de Viennois Digital Photography 2 07-16-2008 12:29 PM
Wide screen vs. standard screen monitor eganders Computer Information 2 11-16-2006 07:53 PM
Not many "wide-angle" compacts but, heck, many are wide-angle anyway! JeffOYB@hotmail.com Digital Photography 10 01-09-2006 08:30 AM
How can I replace a DVD's wide screen movie with a full screen movie from another DVD? blackhole@aol.com DVD Video 15 10-19-2005 02:53 PM
char 8bit wide or 7bit wide in c++? Web Developer C++ 2 07-31-2003 08:09 AM



Advertisments