NEW TV

"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

 

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.

 

Plus no letter box picture and more channels to watch.

 

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

 

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 don't doubt it.

 

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.

 

Somewhere on teh intarwebs JohnO wrote:

[Schnip!]>> http://www.screenmath.com/

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)

 

Sounds like a sore neck to me!

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.

 

Sounds like a sore neck to me!

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.

We are about 5 metres from the TV, so our 29" could be a bit small.
But Hubby doesn't want a huge one.

 

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.)

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.)

.... 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)