NEW TV

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Frank Williams, Jun 8, 2012.

  1. "Geopelia"


    Dump that useless 34" CRT TV you just don't know what you are missing,
    like a very sharp Picture plus no noise or ghosting

    CRT screens are far to dim and resolution very low, with your old eyes
    you need some thing with a sharper screen.


    Please don't forget the size ration when going from a 4:3 CRT TV to a
    19.9 LCD one, here are some tables..

    So if you replacing a 34" CRT TV you will need a 42" LCD one to match
    the height of the screen or larger.


    http://www.screenmath.com/

    http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-4x3-vs-42-inch-16x9
    Frank Williams, Jun 8, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Frank Williams

    Geopelia Guest

    "Frank Williams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > "Geopelia"
    >
    >
    > Dump that useless 34" CRT TV you just don't know what you are missing,
    > like a very sharp Picture plus no noise or ghosting
    >
    > CRT screens are far to dim and resolution very low, with your old eyes
    > you need some thing with a sharper screen.
    >
    >
    > Please don't forget the size ration when going from a 4:3 CRT TV to a
    > 19.9 LCD one, here are some tables..
    >
    > So if you replacing a 34" CRT TV you will need a 42" LCD one to match
    > the height of the screen or larger.
    >
    >
    > http://www.screenmath.com/
    >
    > http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-4x3-vs-42-inch-16x9


    Thank you. I think ours is a 29". You measure the diagonal, don't you? The
    picture is so clear I can see the hairs on the All Blacks' arms when they
    stand in a line!
    There is no noise or ghosting either. It's a Loewe. The best picture we have
    ever had.

    I'll see what the TV man thinks when it is time to change to digital. We
    need a bigger one to read subtitles etc across the room. Our next set will
    probably be our last. Most of the stuff we have got will see us out!
    Geopelia, Jun 9, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Frank Williams

    Enkidu Guest

    On 10/06/12 00:07, Geopelia wrote:
    > "Frank Williams"<> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >>
    >> "Geopelia"
    >>
    >>
    >> Dump that useless 34" CRT TV you just don't know what you are missing,
    >> like a very sharp Picture plus no noise or ghosting
    >>
    >> CRT screens are far to dim and resolution very low, with your old eyes
    >> you need some thing with a sharper screen.
    >>
    >>
    >> Please don't forget the size ration when going from a 4:3 CRT TV to a
    >> 19.9 LCD one, here are some tables..
    >>
    >> So if you replacing a 34" CRT TV you will need a 42" LCD one to match
    >> the height of the screen or larger.
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.screenmath.com/
    >>
    >> http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-4x3-vs-42-inch-16x9

    >
    > Thank you. I think ours is a 29". You measure the diagonal, don't you? The
    > picture is so clear I can see the hairs on the All Blacks' arms when they
    > stand in a line!
    > There is no noise or ghosting either. It's a Loewe. The best picture we have
    > ever had.
    >
    > I'll see what the TV man thinks when it is time to change to digital. We
    > need a bigger one to read subtitles etc across the room. Our next set will
    > probably be our last. Most of the stuff we have got will see us out!
    >

    Well, you seem to have an excellent TV and no need to change it if it is
    still going, but "Frank" is correct when he says that the digital
    screens are sharper and the colour is better.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    Enkidu, Jun 10, 2012
    #3
  4. On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 00:07:04 +1200, "Geopelia" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Frank Williams" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >>
    >> "Geopelia"
    >>
    >>
    >> Dump that useless 34" CRT TV you just don't know what you are missing,
    >> like a very sharp Picture plus no noise or ghosting
    >>
    >> CRT screens are far to dim and resolution very low, with your old eyes
    >> you need some thing with a sharper screen.
    >>
    >>
    >> Please don't forget the size ration when going from a 4:3 CRT TV to a
    >> 19.9 LCD one, here are some tables..
    >>
    >> So if you replacing a 34" CRT TV you will need a 42" LCD one to match
    >> the height of the screen or larger.
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.screenmath.com/
    >>
    >> http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-4x3-vs-42-inch-16x9

    >
    >Thank you. I think ours is a 29". You measure the diagonal, don't you? The
    >picture is so clear I can see the hairs on the All Blacks' arms when they
    >stand in a line!
    >There is no noise or ghosting either. It's a Loewe. The best picture we have
    >ever had.




    LCD will beet a Analog CRT hands down, I moved because I could not stand
    the Black lines at the top/bottom of the picture, do to moving to 19:9
    so you end up with letterbox picture on a 4:3 screen.


    I have been a TV/Computers Engineer and service Tech for some 38 years
    and do know what I am on about.

    >I'll see what the TV man thinks when it is time to change to digital. We
    >need a bigger one to read subtitles etc across the room. Our next set will
    >probably be our last. Most of the stuff we have got will see us out!
    >
    Frank Williams, Jun 10, 2012
    #4
  5. On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:10:00 +1200, Enkidu
    <> wrote:

    >On 10/06/12 00:07, Geopelia wrote:
    >> "Frank Williams"<> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Geopelia"
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Dump that useless 34" CRT TV you just don't know what you are missing,
    >>> like a very sharp Picture plus no noise or ghosting
    >>>
    >>> CRT screens are far to dim and resolution very low, with your old eyes
    >>> you need some thing with a sharper screen.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Please don't forget the size ration when going from a 4:3 CRT TV to a
    >>> 19.9 LCD one, here are some tables..
    >>>
    >>> So if you replacing a 34" CRT TV you will need a 42" LCD one to match
    >>> the height of the screen or larger.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> http://www.screenmath.com/
    >>>
    >>> http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-4x3-vs-42-inch-16x9

    >>
    >> Thank you. I think ours is a 29". You measure the diagonal, don't you? The
    >> picture is so clear I can see the hairs on the All Blacks' arms when they
    >> stand in a line!
    >> There is no noise or ghosting either. It's a Loewe. The best picture we have
    >> ever had.
    >>
    >> I'll see what the TV man thinks when it is time to change to digital. We
    >> need a bigger one to read subtitles etc across the room. Our next set will
    >> probably be our last. Most of the stuff we have got will see us out!
    >>

    >Well, you seem to have an excellent TV and no need to change it if it is
    >still going, but "Frank" is correct when he says that the digital
    >screens are sharper and the colour is better.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >
    >Cliff




    Plus no letter box picture and more channels to watch.
    Frank Williams, Jun 10, 2012
    #5
  6. Frank Williams

    Gordon Guest

    On 2012-06-10, Enkidu <> wrote:
    >>

    > Well, you seem to have an excellent TV and no need to change it if it is
    > still going, but "Frank" is correct when he says that the digital
    > screens are sharper and the colour is better.
    >

    Chalk please. This needs to be marked up. Woger is again correct.
    Gordon, Jun 10, 2012
    #6
  7. On 10 Jun 2012 05:14:21 GMT, Gordon <> wrote:

    >On 2012-06-10, Enkidu <> wrote:
    >>>

    >> Well, you seem to have an excellent TV and no need to change it if it is
    >> still going, but "Frank" is correct when he says that the digital
    >> screens are sharper and the colour is better.
    >>

    >Chalk please. This needs to be marked up. Woger is again correct.




    Thanks I thought I always was, -:) but with my bad English its hard to
    put it across
    Frank Williams, Jun 10, 2012
    #7
  8. Frank Williams

    Geopelia Guest

    "Frank Williams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 00:07:04 +1200, "Geopelia" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Frank Williams" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Geopelia"
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Dump that useless 34" CRT TV you just don't know what you are missing,
    >>> like a very sharp Picture plus no noise or ghosting
    >>>
    >>> CRT screens are far to dim and resolution very low, with your old eyes
    >>> you need some thing with a sharper screen.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Please don't forget the size ration when going from a 4:3 CRT TV to a
    >>> 19.9 LCD one, here are some tables..
    >>>
    >>> So if you replacing a 34" CRT TV you will need a 42" LCD one to match
    >>> the height of the screen or larger.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> http://www.screenmath.com/
    >>>
    >>> http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-4x3-vs-42-inch-16x9

    >>
    >>Thank you. I think ours is a 29". You measure the diagonal, don't you? The
    >>picture is so clear I can see the hairs on the All Blacks' arms when they
    >>stand in a line!
    >>There is no noise or ghosting either. It's a Loewe. The best picture we
    >>have
    >>ever had.

    >
    >
    >
    > LCD will beet a Analog CRT hands down, I moved because I could not stand
    > the Black lines at the top/bottom of the picture, do to moving to 19:9
    > so you end up with letterbox picture on a 4:3 screen.


    You mean where the picture goes more oblong and loses a letter or two each
    side?
    I thought that was to accommodate wide screen films.

    Rubbish programs are still rubbish however good the set is. :)

    > I have been a TV/Computers Engineer and service Tech for some 38 years
    > and do know what I am on about.


    I don't doubt it.

    >
    >>I'll see what the TV man thinks when it is time to change to digital. We
    >>need a bigger one to read subtitles etc across the room. Our next set will
    >>probably be our last. Most of the stuff we have got will see us out!
    >>
    Geopelia, Jun 10, 2012
    #8
  9. Frank Williams

    JohnO Guest

    On Jun 8, 11:53 am, Frank Williams <> wrote:
    > "Geopelia"
    >
    > Dump that useless 34" CRT TV you just don't know what you are missing,
    > like a very sharp Picture plus no noise or ghosting
    >
    > CRT screens are far to dim and resolution very low, with your old eyes
    > you need some thing with a sharper screen.
    >
    > Please don't forget the size ration when going from a 4:3 CRT TV to a
    > 19.9  LCD one, here are some tables..
    >
    > So if you replacing a 34" CRT TV you will need a 42" LCD one to match
    > the height of the screen or larger.
    >
    > http://www.screenmath.com/


    Interesting. They should combine that with a guide on viewing distance
    to screen size. E.g. if the layout of the room leads one to view from
    distance x then select screen size y.

    >
    > http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-4x3-vs-42-inch-16x9
    JohnO, Jun 10, 2012
    #9
  10. On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 14:48:08 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <>
    wrote:

    >On Jun 8, 11:53 am, Frank Williams <> wrote:
    >> "Geopelia"
    >>
    >> Dump that useless 34" CRT TV you just don't know what you are missing,
    >> like a very sharp Picture plus no noise or ghosting
    >>
    >> CRT screens are far to dim and resolution very low, with your old eyes
    >> you need some thing with a sharper screen.
    >>
    >> Please don't forget the size ration when going from a 4:3 CRT TV to a
    >> 19.9  LCD one, here are some tables..
    >>
    >> So if you replacing a 34" CRT TV you will need a 42" LCD one to match
    >> the height of the screen or larger.
    >>
    >> http://www.screenmath.com/

    >
    >Interesting. They should combine that with a guide on viewing distance
    >to screen size. E.g. if the layout of the room leads one to view from
    >distance x then select screen size y.




    That was more important with CRT screens as the lines showed up plus
    interlacing problems, then it all depends on how good your eyes are..


    With HD and Full HD you can sit a lot closer.


    >>
    >> http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-4x3-vs-42-inch-16x9
    Frank Williams, Jun 11, 2012
    #10
  11. Frank Williams

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs JohnO wrote:

    [Schnip!]>> http://www.screenmath.com/
    >
    > Interesting. They should combine that with a guide on viewing distance
    > to screen size. E.g. if the layout of the room leads one to view from
    > distance x then select screen size y.
    >
    >>
    >> http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-4x3-vs-42-inch-16x9


    Do you know of such a viewing-distance guide JohnO? As the only comfortable
    way I can watch TV is to lie proped-up on my bed and I only have a 32" 16x9
    TV I have to have it off to the side of the bed as, at the end (leaqving
    room to get around the bed it's much too far away. As you can imagine,
    having the TV to the side isn't the most comfortable of situations. :-/
    It'd be nice to know what the RVD is for a 32", and what the RSS is for
    whatever the distance is to the foot of the bed +1m.

    If I had the dosh I'd have it ceiling-mounted, on an arm, on an angle.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
    cozy little classification in the DSM."
    David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
    ~misfit~, Jun 11, 2012
    #11
  12. Frank Williams

    JohnO Guest

    On Jun 11, 6:04 pm, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs JohnO wrote:
    >
    > [Schnip!]>>http://www.screenmath.com/
    >
    >
    >
    > > Interesting. They should combine that with a guide on viewing distance
    > > to screen size. E.g. if the layout of the room leads one to view from
    > > distance x then select screen size y.

    >
    > >>http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-4x3-vs-42-inch-16x9

    >
    > Do you know of such a viewing-distance guide JohnO? As the only comfortable
    > way I can watch TV is to lie proped-up on my bed and I only have a 32" 16x9
    > TV I have to have it off to the side of the bed as, at the end (leaqving
    > room to get around the bed it's much too far away. As you can imagine,
    > having the TV to the side isn't the most comfortable of situations. :-/


    Sounds like a sore neck to me!

    > It'd be nice to know what the RVD is for a 32", and what the RSS is for
    > whatever the distance is to the foot of the bed +1m.


    Wiki has a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

    So by the RCA guide 32" is ideal at the end of the bed. Sounds
    reasonable.

    In our kitchen I can see the TV about 6m away but it is a little and
    indeed the RCA guide suggests 52" or more.

    The Toshiba guide seems a bit nutty but may be intended for cinematic
    experience.


    >
    > If I had the dosh I'd have it ceiling-mounted, on an arm, on an angle.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > --
    > Shaun.
    >
    > "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
    > cozy little classification in the DSM."
    > David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
    JohnO, Jun 11, 2012
    #12
  13. Frank Williams

    Geopelia Guest

    "JohnO" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Jun 11, 6:04 pm, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs JohnO wrote:
    >
    > [Schnip!]>>http://www.screenmath.com/
    >
    >
    >
    > > Interesting. They should combine that with a guide on viewing distance
    > > to screen size. E.g. if the layout of the room leads one to view from
    > > distance x then select screen size y.

    >
    > >>http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-4x3-vs-42-inch-16x9

    >
    > Do you know of such a viewing-distance guide JohnO? As the only
    > comfortable
    > way I can watch TV is to lie proped-up on my bed and I only have a 32"
    > 16x9
    > TV I have to have it off to the side of the bed as, at the end (leaqving
    > room to get around the bed it's much too far away. As you can imagine,
    > having the TV to the side isn't the most comfortable of situations. :-/


    Sounds like a sore neck to me!

    > It'd be nice to know what the RVD is for a 32", and what the RSS is for
    > whatever the distance is to the foot of the bed +1m.


    Wiki has a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

    So by the RCA guide 32" is ideal at the end of the bed. Sounds
    reasonable.

    In our kitchen I can see the TV about 6m away but it is a little and
    indeed the RCA guide suggests 52" or more.

    The Toshiba guide seems a bit nutty but may be intended for cinematic
    experience.


    >
    > If I had the dosh I'd have it ceiling-mounted, on an arm, on an angle.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > --
    > Shaun.


    We are about 5 metres from the TV, so our 29" could be a bit small.
    But Hubby doesn't want a huge one.
    Geopelia, Jun 11, 2012
    #13
  14. Frank Williams

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs JohnO wrote:
    > On Jun 11, 6:04 pm, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs JohnO wrote:
    >>
    >> [Schnip!]>>http://www.screenmath.com/
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Interesting. They should combine that with a guide on viewing
    >>> distance to screen size. E.g. if the layout of the room leads one
    >>> to view from distance x then select screen size y.

    >>
    >>>> http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-4x3-vs-42-inch-16x9

    >>
    >> Do you know of such a viewing-distance guide JohnO? As the only
    >> comfortable way I can watch TV is to lie proped-up on my bed and I
    >> only have a 32" 16x9 TV I have to have it off to the side of the bed
    >> as, at the end (leaqving room to get around the bed it's much too
    >> far away. As you can imagine, having the TV to the side isn't the
    >> most comfortable of situations. :-/

    >
    > Sounds like a sore neck to me!


    Yeah, very much so. Also getting proped up at the right angle is an issue.
    When I bought a 'new' bed ~2 years ago on 'doctors orders'; I'd been told to
    get a better bed for ages but didn't have the money - I saw a couple [in HN]
    trying out a bed that had a wired remote and bent in the middle, lifting the
    head end. I looked at the price-tag and went back to haggling for the
    end-of-line ex-demo / shop-floor model I'd previously been looking at. I got
    an excellent price on it and also got no interest terms for four years. It
    was a big spend but I'd been hassled by specilaists for ages to get a firmer
    bed and I was undergoing a bit of a 'push' trying to improve my chances of
    getting off the Invalid's Benefit - or at the least supplementing it.

    Alas, W&I under National have cut my benefit by ~$30/week and now, half-way
    through paying it off, I'm struggling to meet commitments. (As I used a Q
    Card they wouldn't consider it as an HP [which they'd help with], instead
    they class it as credit-card debt - tough shit 'client'.)

    Anyway, I've been hoping to be able to buy a bean bag to use on the bed for
    TV watching as, if I lie too flat my thighs go cold and numb (have to sleep
    on my side). However, a bean-bag is out of my price-range, even when they
    were on special at TeWarewhare last week. (~$100 with filling.)

    >> It'd be nice to know what the RVD is for a 32", and what the RSS is
    >> for whatever the distance is to the foot of the bed +1m.

    >
    > Wiki has a page:
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance
    >
    > So by the RCA guide 32" is ideal at the end of the bed. Sounds
    > reasonable.
    >
    > In our kitchen I can see the TV about 6m away but it is a little and
    > indeed the RCA guide suggests 52" or more.
    >
    > The Toshiba guide seems a bit nutty but may be intended for cinematic
    > experience.


    Thanks for that. I was being a bit lazy and could have used my Google-Fu I
    guess but I figured that, as you'd mentioned it you might have a bookmark or
    two. Wiki pretty much covers it though.

    As well as my back I have another issue that needs to be taken into
    consideration. about 5 years ago I used to get really bad 'nocturnal cramp',
    (badly named as it was always on awakening) and always in my calf muscles.
    It was so bad some mornings that it would tear the muscle, leaving me
    limping for over a week and with lumps in the calf where the muscle was
    healing.

    My GP at the time prescribed me high-dose quinine for it. Now I've been on
    some weird and wonderful(ly crappy) drugs in my time, which I always
    researched. However - quinine, tonic water, malaria treatment, harmless
    right? Within 3 months my eyesight got a bit blurry when I was outside and,
    by the time I got around to thinking that it might be a side-effect of the
    quinine a couple months later the damage was done.

    It never did fix the cramps I was getting but it *did* fix the lenses in my
    eyes at around 1 metre focal-length - the distance to my monitor as it was
    over winter that I took it and that's what I was doing the most. Turns out
    high doses of quinine cause hardening of the lenses. Now I need glasses for
    driving and seeing anything in clear focus that's further than 1.5m away (or
    closer than 0.3m). The GP claimed it was aging but the optomotrist
    disagreed. It happened too fast for it to have been a natural age-related
    eyesight degradation and, when I got some tinted specs on special this last
    summer (!) my eyes hadn't changed. Apparently that's a sure sign that it
    wasn't natural - to come on in less than a year and then not progress in the
    next five years.

    Anyway, the upshot is if I want to see the TV clearly it needs to be close.
    I dislike having to wear specs to watch TV (and only do for Formula 1 where
    I want to see the distances etc. that run along the bottom of the screen in
    small font). Therefore other than the sore neck system I use the only real
    improvement would be the system I mentioned below I guess - and then if I
    wanted to watch some thing with a friend I'd have to get to know them
    *really* well. (As it is now and then a friend will sit on a chair on the
    opposite side of the bed to the TV when we watch a movie together.)

    >> If I had the dosh I'd have it ceiling-mounted, on an arm, on an
    >> angle...


    .... above the bed.

    Cheers, and thanks for the link.
    --
    Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
    cozy little classification in the DSM."
    David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
    ~misfit~, Jun 12, 2012
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?RGFu?=

    New computer, New OS, New Wireless Problem :-\

    =?Utf-8?B?RGFu?=, Jul 28, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    574
    Malke
    Jul 31, 2005
  2. paul j
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,312
    paul j
    Apr 7, 2005
  3. Alick Lv
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,853
  4. Moderator
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    630
    loyola
    Feb 2, 2006
  5. Moderator
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    597
    Moderator
    Jan 23, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page