looking for a decent lcd

[Ext User(filmdude23@gmail.com)]

Hi folks,

Was browsing some retailers the other day and saw a toshiba 32wlt66a
ex-demo floor mod for 800. Only catch was it had no remote or box..
the box I can probably live without.. anyone know if these will work
with a universal remote?

Also inside my price range are:

32c3000a toshiba 32"
lcd3703hd sansui 37".. got a crt of this in the bedroom.. does an ok
job.. don't know how their lcds stack up tho.
37wlt66 toshiba 37"
37pf9631d philips 37"

Would be grateful for any feedback on these or other
models in stores in and around Melbourne, preferably in the sub 1.5k
bracket.

TIA

Alex

[Ext User(Terry Wrist)]

new web site www.google.com look it up yourself you lazy shit

<filmdude23@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0fdf9ef-fdbb-4e5d-8e16-5dea293a2d9f@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Was browsing some retailers the other day and saw a toshiba 32wlt66a
> ex-demo floor mod for 800. Only catch was it had no remote or box..
> the box I can probably live without.. anyone know if these will work
> with a universal remote?
>
> Also inside my price range are:
>
> 32c3000a toshiba 32"
> lcd3703hd sansui 37".. got a crt of this in the bedroom.. does an ok
> job.. don't know how their lcds stack up tho.
> 37wlt66 toshiba 37"
> 37pf9631d philips 37"
>
> Would be grateful for any feedback on these or other
> models in stores in and around Melbourne, preferably in the sub 1.5k
> bracket.
>
> TIA
>
> Alex

[Ext User(Wayne Carr)]

<filmdude23@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0fdf9ef-fdbb-4e5d-8e16-5dea293a2d9f@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Was browsing some retailers the other day and saw a toshiba 32wlt66a
> ex-demo floor mod for 800. Only catch was it had no remote or box..
> the box I can probably live without.. anyone know if these will work
> with a universal remote?
>
> Also inside my price range are:
>
> 32c3000a toshiba 32"
> lcd3703hd sansui 37".. got a crt of this in the bedroom.. does an ok
> job.. don't know how their lcds stack up tho.
> 37wlt66 toshiba 37"
> 37pf9631d philips 37"
>
> Would be grateful for any feedback on these or other
> models in stores in and around Melbourne, preferably in the sub 1.5k
> bracket.
>
> TIA
>
> Alex

No such thing as decent LCD.

[Ext User(Alan Rutlidge)]

"Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
news:47846ea9$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> <filmdude23@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a0fdf9ef-fdbb-4e5d-8e16-5dea293a2d9f@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Was browsing some retailers the other day and saw a toshiba 32wlt66a
>> ex-demo floor mod for 800. Only catch was it had no remote or box..
>> the box I can probably live without.. anyone know if these will work
>> with a universal remote?
>>
>> Also inside my price range are:
>>
>> 32c3000a toshiba 32"
>> lcd3703hd sansui 37".. got a crt of this in the bedroom.. does an ok
>> job.. don't know how their lcds stack up tho.
>> 37wlt66 toshiba 37"
>> 37pf9631d philips 37"
>>
>> Would be grateful for any feedback on these or other
>> models in stores in and around Melbourne, preferably in the sub 1.5k
>> bracket.
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Alex
>
> No such thing as decent LCD.

Agreed. LCD is just awesome. Well above "decent".
Own a Sony 52" X series Bravia Full HD LCD TV and fucking loving it. :P

[Ext User(David Z)]

I have to agree with Wayne here. LCD is junk.

"Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4784af32$0$11960$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
> news:47846ea9$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>
>> <filmdude23@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a0fdf9ef-fdbb-4e5d-8e16-5dea293a2d9f@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> Was browsing some retailers the other day and saw a toshiba 32wlt66a
>>> ex-demo floor mod for 800. Only catch was it had no remote or box..
>>> the box I can probably live without.. anyone know if these will work
>>> with a universal remote?
>>>
>>> Also inside my price range are:
>>>
>>> 32c3000a toshiba 32"
>>> lcd3703hd sansui 37".. got a crt of this in the bedroom.. does an ok
>>> job.. don't know how their lcds stack up tho.
>>> 37wlt66 toshiba 37"
>>> 37pf9631d philips 37"
>>>
>>> Would be grateful for any feedback on these or other
>>> models in stores in and around Melbourne, preferably in the sub 1.5k
>>> bracket.
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>>> Alex
>>
>> No such thing as decent LCD.
>
> Agreed. LCD is just awesome. Well above "decent".
> Own a Sony 52" X series Bravia Full HD LCD TV and fucking loving it. :P
>
>
>

[Ext User(ArseClown)]

"Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in
message
news:4784af32$0$11960$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:

>
> "Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
> news:47846ea9$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>
>> <filmdude23@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a0fdf9ef-fdbb-4e5d-8e16-5dea293a2d9f@u10g2000prn.googlegrou
>> ps.com...
>>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> Was browsing some retailers the other day and saw a toshiba
>>> 32wlt66a ex-demo floor mod for 800. Only catch was it had no
>>> remote or box.. the box I can probably live without.. anyone
>>> know if these will work with a universal remote?
>>>
>>> Also inside my price range are:
>>>
>>> 32c3000a toshiba 32"
>>> lcd3703hd sansui 37".. got a crt of this in the bedroom.. does
>>> an ok job.. don't know how their lcds stack up tho.
>>> 37wlt66 toshiba 37"
>>> 37pf9631d philips 37"
>>>
>>> Would be grateful for any feedback on these or other
>>> models in stores in and around Melbourne, preferably in the
>>> sub 1.5k bracket.
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>>> Alex
>>
>> No such thing as decent LCD.
>
> Agreed. LCD is just awesome. Well above "decent".
> Own a Sony 52" X series Bravia Full HD LCD TV and fucking loving
> it. :P
>
>
>
>



I'd have to fucking agree about the fucking Bravia. Sheer fucking
brilliance.




--
http://improve-usenet.org/filters_ex1.html
ArseClown - Someone who is both an arsehole and carries on like a
clown.

[Ext User(ArseClown)]

"David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Gdahj.1217$421.546@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

> I have to agree with Wayne here. LCD is junk.


David, you're top posting suggests you may have a mild case of
retardation. That's ok. That's ok.


> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in
> message
> news:4784af32$0$11960$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au
> ...
>>
>> "Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
>> news:47846ea9$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>
>>> <filmdude23@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:a0fdf9ef-fdbb-4e5d-8e16-5dea293a2d9f@u10g2000prn.googlegro
>>> ups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> Was browsing some retailers the other day and saw a toshiba
>>>> 32wlt66a ex-demo floor mod for 800. Only catch was it had no
>>>> remote or box.. the box I can probably live without.. anyone
>>>> know if these will work with a universal remote?
>>>>
>>>> Also inside my price range are:
>>>>
>>>> 32c3000a toshiba 32"
>>>> lcd3703hd sansui 37".. got a crt of this in the bedroom..
>>>> does an ok job.. don't know how their lcds stack up tho.
>>>> 37wlt66 toshiba 37"
>>>> 37pf9631d philips 37"
>>>>
>>>> Would be grateful for any feedback on these or other
>>>> models in stores in and around Melbourne, preferably in the
>>>> sub 1.5k bracket.
>>>>
>>>> TIA
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>
>>> No such thing as decent LCD.
>>
>> Agreed. LCD is just awesome. Well above "decent".
>> Own a Sony 52" X series Bravia Full HD LCD TV and fucking
>> loving it. :P
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Ext User(Alan Rutlidge)]

"David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Gdahj.1217$421.546@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>I have to agree with Wayne here. LCD is junk.

Says he, who is probably (out of choice) sitting in front of an LCD monitor
as he is typing his comments, with his brain engaged in neutral.

If LCD is "junk", one might assume you favour some alternate technology?
Exactly what did you have in mind, taking into account the NG you are
posting your comments in?

Cheers,
Alan







>
> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:4784af32$0$11960$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
>> news:47846ea9$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>
>>> <filmdude23@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:a0fdf9ef-fdbb-4e5d-8e16-5dea293a2d9f@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> Was browsing some retailers the other day and saw a toshiba 32wlt66a
>>>> ex-demo floor mod for 800. Only catch was it had no remote or box..
>>>> the box I can probably live without.. anyone know if these will work
>>>> with a universal remote?
>>>>
>>>> Also inside my price range are:
>>>>
>>>> 32c3000a toshiba 32"
>>>> lcd3703hd sansui 37".. got a crt of this in the bedroom.. does an ok
>>>> job.. don't know how their lcds stack up tho.
>>>> 37wlt66 toshiba 37"
>>>> 37pf9631d philips 37"
>>>>
>>>> Would be grateful for any feedback on these or other
>>>> models in stores in and around Melbourne, preferably in the sub 1.5k
>>>> bracket.
>>>>
>>>> TIA
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>
>>> No such thing as decent LCD.
>>
>> Agreed. LCD is just awesome. Well above "decent".
>> Own a Sony 52" X series Bravia Full HD LCD TV and fucking loving it. :P
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Ext User(David Z)]

"Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:478594e4$0$11967$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Gdahj.1217$421.546@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>I have to agree with Wayne here. LCD is junk.
>
> Says he, who is probably (out of choice) sitting in front of an LCD
> monitor as he is typing his comments, with his brain engaged in neutral.

I beg your pardon? I am sitting in front of a 17" LG Flatron (CRT) monitor
at present.

> If LCD is "junk", one might assume you favour some alternate technology?
> Exactly what did you have in mind, taking into account the NG you are
> posting your comments in?

All flat panel displays have major flaws, but LCD has the most of all. LCD
has a constant fluro backlight, meaning it cannot reproduce true black, and
colour reproduction is also less than perfect, as it's too bright or washed
out, and rather artificial looking. CRTs (and plasmas) are far superior
when it comes to blacks and rich colour reproduction. However, the biggest
flaw (IMO) is the fact that, like plasma, LCD panels have a fixed
resolution, meaning that images at anything but the native resolution, (such
as standard DVD, FTA, Foxtel, etc.), suffer from major degradation and look
just plain awful, because they have to be scaled up to match the resolution
of the set. The higher the resolution of the set, the more scaling is
involved, degrading the picture even further. This is not an issue with
CRT, which can display images of *any* resolution without any alterations
whatsoever. Next there is the viewing angle issue, where LCDs only look
their best viewing directly from the front. From a technical point of view,
LCD display technology is prone to bright/dead pixels, and is the most
expensive display out there. So to answer your question, I am in favor of
CRT, which is what I use both as a TV and computer monitor. However, if
size is an issue, out of the two display technologies currently available,
plasma is superior. I have seen the new 60" Pioneer 1080p plasma and it
blows away *any* LCD. Plasmas are better value for money. Harvey Norman
sell a 42" Panasonic HD plasma (with built in HD tuner) for $1497. You
cannot get a similarly sized LCD for anywhere near that.

[Ext User(ArseClown)]

"princo coasters" <princo@makesgoodcoasters.com> wrote in message
news:47868880$0$10472$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u:

> then i guess that is why you like Arse.......Clown
>
>
> I agree with everything that David Z said........especially the
> LCD is shit part......for the reasons given.
>
>

ANOTHER top posting fool with no idea.....



>
> "ArseClown" <don't_filter_my_'net_Conray!> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A21600A7D230ejheuyginygebfuzbnzg@211.29.1 33.50...
>> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in
>> message
>> news:4784af32$0$11960$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.a
>> u:
>>
>>>
>>> "Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
>>> news:47846ea9$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>>
>>>> <filmdude23@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:a0fdf9ef-fdbb-4e5d-8e16-5dea293a2d9f@u10g2000prn.googlegr
>>>> ou ps.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Was browsing some retailers the other day and saw a toshiba
>>>>> 32wlt66a ex-demo floor mod for 800. Only catch was it had no
>>>>> remote or box.. the box I can probably live without.. anyone
>>>>> know if these will work with a universal remote?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also inside my price range are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 32c3000a toshiba 32"
>>>>> lcd3703hd sansui 37".. got a crt of this in the bedroom..
>>>>> does an ok job.. don't know how their lcds stack up tho.
>>>>> 37wlt66 toshiba 37"
>>>>> 37pf9631d philips 37"
>>>>>
>>>>> Would be grateful for any feedback on these or other
>>>>> models in stores in and around Melbourne, preferably in the
>>>>> sub 1.5k bracket.
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>> No such thing as decent LCD.
>>>
>>> Agreed. LCD is just awesome. Well above "decent".
>>> Own a Sony 52" X series Bravia Full HD LCD TV and fucking
>>> loving it. :P
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd have to fucking agree about the fucking Bravia. Sheer
>> fucking brilliance.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://improve-usenet.org/filters_ex1.html
>> ArseClown - Someone who is both an arsehole and carries on like
>> a clown.
>
>





--
http://improve-usenet.org/filters_ex1.html
ArseClown - Someone who is both an arsehole and carries on like a
clown.

[Ext User(ArseClown)]

"princo coasters" <princo@makesgoodcoasters.com> wrote in message
news:47868880$0$10472$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> then i guess that is why you like Arse.......Clown



I LOVE arse. Especially your fat arsed mothers...although, getting past her
abnormally large clit is a challenge......but after the pig buys me a few
beers I'm a little less disgusted...top posting fucktard.



>
>
>
> "ArseClown" <don't_filter_my_'net_Conray!> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A21600A7D230ejheuyginygebfuzbnzg@211.29.1 33.50...
>> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in
>> message
>> news:4784af32$0$11960$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>>
>>>
>>> "Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
>>> news:47846ea9$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>>
>>>> <filmdude23@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:a0fdf9ef-fdbb-4e5d-8e16-5dea293a2d9f@u10g2000prn.googlegrou
>>>> ps.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Was browsing some retailers the other day and saw a toshiba
>>>>> 32wlt66a ex-demo floor mod for 800. Only catch was it had no
>>>>> remote or box.. the box I can probably live without.. anyone
>>>>> know if these will work with a universal remote?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also inside my price range are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 32c3000a toshiba 32"
>>>>> lcd3703hd sansui 37".. got a crt of this in the bedroom.. does
>>>>> an ok job.. don't know how their lcds stack up tho.
>>>>> 37wlt66 toshiba 37"
>>>>> 37pf9631d philips 37"
>>>>>
>>>>> Would be grateful for any feedback on these or other
>>>>> models in stores in and around Melbourne, preferably in the
>>>>> sub 1.5k bracket.
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>> No such thing as decent LCD.
>>>
>>> Agreed. LCD is just awesome. Well above "decent".
>>> Own a Sony 52" X series Bravia Full HD LCD TV and fucking loving
>>> it. :P
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd have to fucking agree about the fucking Bravia. Sheer fucking
>> brilliance.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://improve-usenet.org/filters_ex1.html
>> ArseClown - Someone who is both an arsehole and carries on like a
>> clown.
>

[Ext User(princo coasters)]

Abnormally large clit when compared to your pin-dick.

Thought you sounded like an arse man.......is that why you dress like a
clown - to win the kiddies over?

You fucking moron.



"ArseClown" <rttyhcrtjhfyjnvgyhmnvg,@bgxyrbgybfgdbgvbf.org> wrote in message
news:4786ac75$0$13919$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "princo coasters" <princo@makesgoodcoasters.com> wrote in message
> news:47868880$0$10472$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>> then i guess that is why you like Arse.......Clown
>
>
>
> I LOVE arse. Especially your fat arsed mothers...although, getting past
> her abnormally large clit is a challenge......but after the pig buys me a
> few beers I'm a little less disgusted...top posting fucktard.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> "ArseClown" <don't_filter_my_'net_Conray!> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A21600A7D230ejheuyginygebfuzbnzg@211.29.1 33.50...
>>> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:4784af32$0$11960$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:47846ea9$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>>>
>>>>> <filmdude23@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:a0fdf9ef-fdbb-4e5d-8e16-5dea293a2d9f@u10g2000prn.googlegrou
>>>>> ps.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was browsing some retailers the other day and saw a toshiba
>>>>>> 32wlt66a ex-demo floor mod for 800. Only catch was it had no
>>>>>> remote or box.. the box I can probably live without.. anyone
>>>>>> know if these will work with a universal remote?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also inside my price range are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 32c3000a toshiba 32"
>>>>>> lcd3703hd sansui 37".. got a crt of this in the bedroom.. does
>>>>>> an ok job.. don't know how their lcds stack up tho.
>>>>>> 37wlt66 toshiba 37"
>>>>>> 37pf9631d philips 37"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would be grateful for any feedback on these or other
>>>>>> models in stores in and around Melbourne, preferably in the
>>>>>> sub 1.5k bracket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>
>>>>> No such thing as decent LCD.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. LCD is just awesome. Well above "decent".
>>>> Own a Sony 52" X series Bravia Full HD LCD TV and fucking loving
>>>> it. :P
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd have to fucking agree about the fucking Bravia. Sheer fucking
>>> brilliance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://improve-usenet.org/filters_ex1.html
>>> ArseClown - Someone who is both an arsehole and carries on like a
>>> clown.
>>
>

[Ext User(ArseClown)]

"princo coasters" <princo@makesgoodcoasters.com> wrote in message
news:4786aef0$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au :

> Abnormally large clit when compared to your pin-dick.
>
> Thought you sounded like an arse man.......is that why you dress
> like a clown - to win the kiddies over?
>
> You fucking moron.
>
>

No need to get cranky. A massive clit (as in the case of your
mother) is a badge of honor in some cultures. As long as the fat
pig keeps paying for beer I'm happy to fuck her!

YOU FUCKING RETARDED TOP POSTING FOOL.





>
> "ArseClown" <rttyhcrtjhfyjnvgyhmnvg,@bgxyrbgybfgdbgvbf.org>
> wrote in message
> news:4786ac75$0$13919$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>
>> "princo coasters" <princo@makesgoodcoasters.com> wrote in
>> message news:47868880$0$10472$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>> then i guess that is why you like Arse.......Clown
>>
>>
>>
>> I LOVE arse. Especially your fat arsed mothers...although,
>> getting past her abnormally large clit is a challenge......but
>> after the pig buys me a few beers I'm a little less
>> disgusted...top posting fucktard.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "ArseClown" <don't_filter_my_'net_Conray!> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9A21600A7D230ejheuyginygebfuzbnzg@211.29.1 33.50...
>>>> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote
>>>> in message
>>>> news:4784af32$0$11960$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net
>>>> .au:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:47846ea9$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <filmdude23@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:a0fdf9ef-fdbb-4e5d-8e16-5dea293a2d9f@u10g2000prn.google
>>>>>> grou ps.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was browsing some retailers the other day and saw a
>>>>>>> toshiba 32wlt66a ex-demo floor mod for 800. Only catch was
>>>>>>> it had no remote or box.. the box I can probably live
>>>>>>> without.. anyone know if these will work with a universal
>>>>>>> remote?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also inside my price range are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 32c3000a toshiba 32"
>>>>>>> lcd3703hd sansui 37".. got a crt of this in the bedroom..
>>>>>>> does an ok job.. don't know how their lcds stack up tho.
>>>>>>> 37wlt66 toshiba 37"
>>>>>>> 37pf9631d philips 37"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would be grateful for any feedback on these or other
>>>>>>> models in stores in and around Melbourne, preferably in
>>>>>>> the sub 1.5k bracket.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No such thing as decent LCD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. LCD is just awesome. Well above "decent".
>>>>> Own a Sony 52" X series Bravia Full HD LCD TV and fucking
>>>>> loving it. :P
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd have to fucking agree about the fucking Bravia. Sheer
>>>> fucking brilliance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://improve-usenet.org/filters_ex1.html
>>>> ArseClown - Someone who is both an arsehole and carries on
>>>> like a clown.
>>>
>>
>
>



No need to get cranky. A massive clit (as in the case of your
mother) is a badge of honor in some cultures. As long as the the
fat pig keeps paying for beer I'm happy to fuck her!

--
http://improve-usenet.org/filters_ex1.html
ArseClown - Someone who is both an arsehole and carries on like a
clown.

[Ext User(Alan Rutlidge)]

"David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ghthj.1598$421.1357@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:478594e4$0$11967$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Gdahj.1217$421.546@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>I have to agree with Wayne here. LCD is junk.
>>
>> Says he, who is probably (out of choice) sitting in front of an LCD
>> monitor as he is typing his comments, with his brain engaged in neutral.
>
> I beg your pardon? I am sitting in front of a 17" LG Flatron (CRT)
> monitor at present.
>
>> If LCD is "junk", one might assume you favour some alternate technology?
>> Exactly what did you have in mind, taking into account the NG you are
>> posting your comments in?
>
> All flat panel displays have major flaws, but LCD has the most of all.
> LCD has a constant fluro backlight, meaning it cannot reproduce true
> black, and colour reproduction is also less than perfect, as it's too
> bright or washed out, and rather artificial looking.

Any set that hasn't been correctly adjusted can look aweful. In my
experience, the "standard" default
display settings on 99% of domestic displays is way too saturated in colour
and too contrasty to
reproduce a realistic picture. It doesn't matter what the technology is.

> CRTs (and plasmas) are far superior when it comes to blacks and rich
> colour reproduction.

Yes, my personal preference in terms of the ability to display a wider
colour gamut and contrast range
is a quality CRT display driven by high bandwidth electronics and errorless
decoding, however I've
yet to see a 52" 16:9 WS CRT TV in the domestic situation. However once
you get to a display panel with a 10 bit
resolution you are clutching at straws in comparing pictutre fidelity in
terms of colour gamut and constrast ratio.

As for the issue of blackness, you can't beat a correctly adjusted CRT. But
just before we get carried
away, when was the last time you watched a film at a cinema? In case you've
forgotten try to recall when there
was a fade to black situation which lasted more than a few seconds. What
did you see on the silver screen?
A complete absence of light or was there some light penetration through the
film emulsion and a slight illumination
of the screen. If we are talking audio-visual / home cinema, most
enthusiasts would be trying to emulate the real
thing in their HTs or living rooms. In my experience a properly set up
quality LCD can acheive more than satisfactory
results. The only downside of LCD is it actually benefits from a bit of
ambient light in the viewing room.
This is where (IMHO) LCD has it all over plasma in the day to day domestic
viewing situation.
Most modern houses are built with lots of windows allowing heaps of daytime
ambient light to flood the viewing area.
Most LCD displays perform significantly better than their plasma
counterparts in this situation, whereas plasma displays are at their best in
a darkened room. I guess it's difficult to have it bothways and please
everyone all the time.

> However, the biggest flaw (IMO) is the fact that, like plasma, LCD panels
> have a fixed resolution, meaning that images at anything but the native
> resolution, (such as standard DVD, FTA, Foxtel, etc.), suffer from major
> degradation and look just plain awful, because they have to be scaled up
> to match the resolution of the set. The higher the resolution of the set,
> the more scaling is involved, degrading the picture even further.

A relatively true statement. The success is mapping a 576 line signal to a
1920 x 1080 pixel display
is entirely dependant on the engine driving it. Some do it better than
others, which in turn begs
the question why didn't they choose resolutions which were even multiples of
each other?
It would have significantly simplified the design of HD display devices to
show SD pictures.
The primary reason is legacy technology standards - 480i, 480p, 576i, 576p
and 720p. None of
which are even multiples of 1080. Hence the often heard layperson comments
of "my region 1 NTSC DVDs
seem to look better than my PAL Region 4 DVDs when I play them on my 42" SD
plasma or LCD TV".
The early SD panels sold in Australia were 480 pixels top to bottom of the
screen - ideal to directly pixel map
a 480i or 480p NTSC signal. Anything above that was just interpolation
"guesswork" on the part of the engine driving the display.

> This is not an issue with CRT, which can display images of *any*
> resolution without any alterations whatsoever.

Me thinks you really need to go back and read up on how CRT technology
works.
CRT display tubes have a shaddow mask that sits just behind the glass face
of the tube.
It has a finite number of red, green and blue phosphor dots or slots which
will limit the maximum resolution
of the screen (not withstanding the limitations of the driving electronics).

> Next there is the viewing angle issue, where LCDs only look their best
> viewing directly from the front.

Agreed, but most of the newer dispalys are getting significantly better at
improving the viewing angle.

> From a technical point of view, LCD display technology is prone to
> bright/dead pixels, and is the most expensive display out there.

Sorry I beg to differ. I've seem just as many plasma displays with the same
issues, and suprisingly so even from the
so called better makers like Pioneer and Panasonic.

> So to answer your question, I am in favor of CRT, which is what I use both
> as a TV and computer monitor. However, if size is an issue, out of the
> two display technologies currently available, plasma is superior. I have
> seen the new 60" Pioneer 1080p plasma and it blows away *any* LCD.

Have you seen the Sony Bravia XBR series 80" LCD? Yes, it isn't cheap but
the picture is impressive and not just
from a size perspective either.

> Plasmas are better value for money. Harvey Norman sell a 42" Panasonic
> HD plasma (with built in HD tuner) for $1497. You cannot get a similarly
> sized LCD for anywhere near that.

A couple of issues here. In May 2007 I was shopping around for a new TV.
Pioneer's 50" plasma full HD was $10,999 and no one was coming down in price
on that one.
I ended up buying a Sony 52" X series Bravia for $7,300 with a 5 year
warranty. At the time Panasonic
didn't have a similar size full HD plasma on the Australian market and I
didn't have a big enough viewing room to
accommodate the 65" Pana full HD and be sitting back far enough to optimise
the viewing distance.

Ask yourself these questions. If plasma technology is so superior why don't
we see it in other display devices other than mains powered domestic
televisions? When was the last time you saw a plasma desktop PC monitor, or
a plasma display in a notebook computer, handheld display device, video
camera or still digital?

Another marketing hype is refresh rate. The plasma camp are trying to crap
all over LCD by claiming LCD displays have a slow refresh rate that causes
blurring of moving images. Most good LCD displays have a refresh rate of
under 10mS with a lot now at the 5mS mark. What is the refresh rate of a
plasma TV? Haven't found a single domestic set that's been game enough to
quote this specification. Could it be that it would turn out to be an
embarrassment for the plasma camp?

As far as domestic TVs is concerned, plasma displays (comparative screen
sizes) use more power and their LCD counterparts by at least 20%. Over a 5
year ownership period and average family viewing of 6 - 8 hours per day,
please justify the cost of plasma.

Cheers,
Alan

[Ext User(David Z)]

"Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4786eb69$0$11978$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ghthj.1598$421.1357@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:478594e4$0$11967$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Gdahj.1217$421.546@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>I have to agree with Wayne here. LCD is junk.
>>>
>>> Says he, who is probably (out of choice) sitting in front of an LCD
>>> monitor as he is typing his comments, with his brain engaged in neutral.
>>
>> I beg your pardon? I am sitting in front of a 17" LG Flatron (CRT)
>> monitor at present.
>>
>>> If LCD is "junk", one might assume you favour some alternate technology?
>>> Exactly what did you have in mind, taking into account the NG you are
>>> posting your comments in?
>>
>> All flat panel displays have major flaws, but LCD has the most of all.
>> LCD has a constant fluro backlight, meaning it cannot reproduce true
>> black, and colour reproduction is also less than perfect, as it's too
>> bright or washed out, and rather artificial looking.
>
> Any set that hasn't been correctly adjusted can look aweful. In my
> experience, the "standard" default
> display settings on 99% of domestic displays is way too saturated in
> colour and too contrasty to
> reproduce a realistic picture. It doesn't matter what the technology is.

You're kind of avoiding the argument here. Let's assume all displays are
set up equally and adjusted correctly...

>> CRTs (and plasmas) are far superior when it comes to blacks and rich
>> colour reproduction.
>
> Yes, my personal preference in terms of the ability to display a wider
> colour gamut and contrast range
> is a quality CRT display driven by high bandwidth electronics and
> errorless decoding, however I've
> yet to see a 52" 16:9 WS CRT TV in the domestic situation. However once

Sony released a 102 cm HD CRT for the US market a few years back, which was
the largest CRT ever made. I'm not sure why you'd "need" anything larger
than this. But there is CRT rear projection and front projection to deal
with larger pictures.

> you get to a display panel with a 10 bit
> resolution you are clutching at straws in comparing pictutre fidelity in
> terms of colour gamut and constrast ratio.
>
> As for the issue of blackness, you can't beat a correctly adjusted CRT.
> But just before we get carried
> away, when was the last time you watched a film at a cinema? In case
> you've forgotten try to recall when there
> was a fade to black situation which lasted more than a few seconds. What
> did you see on the silver screen?
> A complete absence of light or was there some light penetration through
> the film emulsion and a slight illumination
> of the screen. If we are talking audio-visual / home cinema, most
> enthusiasts would be trying to emulate the real
> thing in their HTs or living rooms. In my experience a properly set up
> quality LCD can acheive more than satisfactory
> results. The only downside of LCD is it actually benefits from a bit of
> ambient light in the viewing room.
> This is where (IMHO) LCD has it all over plasma in the day to day domestic
> viewing situation.
> Most modern houses are built with lots of windows allowing heaps of
> daytime ambient light to flood the viewing area.
> Most LCD displays perform significantly better than their plasma
> counterparts in this situation, whereas plasma displays are at their best
> in a darkened room. I guess it's difficult to have it bothways and please
> everyone all the time.

Most people do the majority of their TV viewing at night. During the day
they're out doing things, and in winter it gets dark even earlier, leaving
very little time for daylight TV viewing. So this really isn't an issue.

>> However, the biggest flaw (IMO) is the fact that, like plasma, LCD panels
>> have a fixed resolution, meaning that images at anything but the native
>> resolution, (such as standard DVD, FTA, Foxtel, etc.), suffer from major
>> degradation and look just plain awful, because they have to be scaled up
>> to match the resolution of the set. The higher the resolution of the
>> set, the more scaling is involved, degrading the picture even further.
>
> A relatively true statement. The success is mapping a 576 line signal to
> a 1920 x 1080 pixel display
> is entirely dependant on the engine driving it. Some do it better than
> others, which in turn begs
> the question why didn't they choose resolutions which were even multiples
> of each other?

They *are* multiples of each other. 1080x1920 is exactly 5 times the
resolution of standard PAL 576i, and 6 times the resolution of NTSC 480i.

> It would have significantly simplified the design of HD display devices to
> show SD pictures.
> The primary reason is legacy technology standards - 480i, 480p, 576i, 576p
> and 720p. None of
> which are even multiples of 1080. Hence the often heard layperson
> comments of "my region 1 NTSC DVDs
> seem to look better than my PAL Region 4 DVDs when I play them on my 42"
> SD plasma or LCD TV".
> The early SD panels sold in Australia were 480 pixels top to bottom of the
> screen - ideal to directly pixel map
> a 480i or 480p NTSC signal. Anything above that was just interpolation
> "guesswork" on the part of the engine driving the display.
>
>> This is not an issue with CRT, which can display images of *any*
>> resolution without any alterations whatsoever.
>
> Me thinks you really need to go back and read up on how CRT technology
> works.
> CRT display tubes have a shaddow mask that sits just behind the glass face
> of the tube.
> It has a finite number of red, green and blue phosphor dots or slots which
> will limit the maximum resolution
> of the screen (not withstanding the limitations of the driving
> electronics).

I was aware of that. My comment needs rewording. Obviously there is an
upper limit of what resolution a CRT can display, but there is still no
scaling involved.

>> Next there is the viewing angle issue, where LCDs only look their best
>> viewing directly from the front.
>
> Agreed, but most of the newer dispalys are getting significantly better at
> improving the viewing angle.
>
>> From a technical point of view, LCD display technology is prone to
>> bright/dead pixels, and is the most expensive display out there.
>
> Sorry I beg to differ. I've seem just as many plasma displays with the
> same issues, and suprisingly so even from the
> so called better makers like Pioneer and Panasonic.
>
>> So to answer your question, I am in favor of CRT, which is what I use
>> both as a TV and computer monitor. However, if size is an issue, out of
>> the two display technologies currently available, plasma is superior. I
>> have seen the new 60" Pioneer 1080p plasma and it blows away *any* LCD.
>
> Have you seen the Sony Bravia XBR series 80" LCD? Yes, it isn't cheap but
> the picture is impressive and not just
> from a size perspective either.
>
>> Plasmas are better value for money. Harvey Norman sell a 42" Panasonic
>> HD plasma (with built in HD tuner) for $1497. You cannot get a similarly
>> sized LCD for anywhere near that.
>
> A couple of issues here. In May 2007 I was shopping around for a new TV.
> Pioneer's 50" plasma full HD was $10,999 and no one was coming down in
> price on that one.
> I ended up buying a Sony 52" X series Bravia for $7,300 with a 5 year
> warranty. At the time Panasonic
> didn't have a similar size full HD plasma on the Australian market and I
> didn't have a big enough viewing room to
> accommodate the 65" Pana full HD and be sitting back far enough to
> optimise the viewing distance.
>
> Ask yourself these questions. If plasma technology is so superior why
> don't we see it in other display devices other than mains powered domestic
> televisions? When was the last time you saw a plasma desktop PC monitor,
> or a plasma display in a notebook computer, handheld display device, video
> camera or still digital?

Several reasons, which I thought would be obvious. Picture quality is much
less of a concern in portable applications, while power consumption/heat are
the important issues. LCD is better in this respect. As for computer
monitors, LCD had the advantage of being on the market longer, and for most,
computers are tools for work, unlike a TV which is for entertainment only.
Especially in office environments, image quality is of little concern, and
LCD suffices. Again, it has the advantage of lower power/heat.

> Another marketing hype is refresh rate. The plasma camp are trying to
> crap all over LCD by claiming LCD displays have a slow refresh rate that
> causes blurring of moving images. Most good LCD displays have a refresh
> rate of under 10mS with a lot now at the 5mS mark. What is the refresh
> rate of a plasma TV? Haven't found a single domestic set that's been game
> enough to quote this specification. Could it be that it would turn out to
> be an embarrassment for the plasma camp?
>
> As far as domestic TVs is concerned, plasma displays (comparative screen
> sizes) use more power and their LCD counterparts by at least 20%. Over a
> 5 year ownership period and average family viewing of 6 - 8 hours per day,
> please justify the cost of plasma.

I already justified it. The initial purchase price is much lower, as I
pointed out already. This more than makes up for any additional cost from
power usage. How much is a typical 42-inch Japanese-branded LCD panel,
compared to the $1497 Panasonic plasma I mentioned?

[Ext User(princo coasters)]

I'm not cranky, and frankly not even suprised that you like cock as well....

Didn't expect anything more from an arse...clown.

I dont care if I post on the top, bottom or the side........

Who gives a fuck where I post you malignant cunt.

You cant tell me why LCD is good - just trying (unsuccessfully) to justify
your purchase of a KMart Sansui you trailer trash fuck.




"ArseClown" <don't_filter_my_'net_Conray!> wrote in message
news:Xns9A2296AEA5BC7ejheuyginygebfuzbnzg@211.29.1 33.50...
> "princo coasters" <princo@makesgoodcoasters.com> wrote in message
> news:4786aef0$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au :
>
>> Abnormally large clit when compared to your pin-dick.
>>
>> Thought you sounded like an arse man.......is that why you dress
>> like a clown - to win the kiddies over?
>>
>> You fucking moron.
>>
>>
>
> No need to get cranky. A massive clit (as in the case of your
> mother) is a badge of honor in some cultures. As long as the fat
> pig keeps paying for beer I'm happy to fuck her!
>
> YOU FUCKING RETARDED TOP POSTING FOOL.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> "ArseClown" <rttyhcrtjhfyjnvgyhmnvg,@bgxyrbgybfgdbgvbf.org>
>> wrote in message
>> news:4786ac75$0$13919$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>
>>> "princo coasters" <princo@makesgoodcoasters.com> wrote in
>>> message news:47868880$0$10472$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>> then i guess that is why you like Arse.......Clown
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I LOVE arse. Especially your fat arsed mothers...although,
>>> getting past her abnormally large clit is a challenge......but
>>> after the pig buys me a few beers I'm a little less
>>> disgusted...top posting fucktard.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "ArseClown" <don't_filter_my_'net_Conray!> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9A21600A7D230ejheuyginygebfuzbnzg@211.29.1 33.50...
>>>>> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote
>>>>> in message
>>>>> news:4784af32$0$11960$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net
>>>>> .au:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:47846ea9$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <filmdude23@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:a0fdf9ef-fdbb-4e5d-8e16-5dea293a2d9f@u10g2000prn.google
>>>>>>> grou ps.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was browsing some retailers the other day and saw a
>>>>>>>> toshiba 32wlt66a ex-demo floor mod for 800. Only catch was
>>>>>>>> it had no remote or box.. the box I can probably live
>>>>>>>> without.. anyone know if these will work with a universal
>>>>>>>> remote?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also inside my price range are:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 32c3000a toshiba 32"
>>>>>>>> lcd3703hd sansui 37".. got a crt of this in the bedroom..
>>>>>>>> does an ok job.. don't know how their lcds stack up tho.
>>>>>>>> 37wlt66 toshiba 37"
>>>>>>>> 37pf9631d philips 37"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would be grateful for any feedback on these or other
>>>>>>>> models in stores in and around Melbourne, preferably in
>>>>>>>> the sub 1.5k bracket.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No such thing as decent LCD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed. LCD is just awesome. Well above "decent".
>>>>>> Own a Sony 52" X series Bravia Full HD LCD TV and fucking
>>>>>> loving it. :P
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd have to fucking agree about the fucking Bravia. Sheer
>>>>> fucking brilliance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> http://improve-usenet.org/filters_ex1.html
>>>>> ArseClown - Someone who is both an arsehole and carries on
>>>>> like a clown.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> No need to get cranky. A massive clit (as in the case of your
> mother) is a badge of honor in some cultures. As long as the the
> fat pig keeps paying for beer I'm happy to fuck her!
>
> --
> http://improve-usenet.org/filters_ex1.html
> ArseClown - Someone who is both an arsehole and carries on like a
> clown.

[Ext User(ArseClown)]

"princo coasters" <princo@makesgoodcoasters.com> wrote in message
news:47872c50$0$12282$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> I'm not cranky, and frankly not even suprised that you like cock as
> well....
>
> Didn't expect anything more from an arse...clown.
>
> I dont care if I post on the top, bottom or the side........
>
> Who gives a fuck where I post you malignant cunt.
>
> You cant tell me why LCD is good - just trying (unsuccessfully) to justify
> your purchase of a KMart Sansui you trailer trash fuck.
>
>
>
>
> "ArseClown" <don't_filter_my_'net_Conray!> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A2296AEA5BC7ejheuyginygebfuzbnzg@211.29.1 33.50...
>> "princo coasters" <princo@makesgoodcoasters.com> wrote in message
>> news:4786aef0$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au :
>>
>>> Abnormally large clit when compared to your pin-dick.
>>>
>>> Thought you sounded like an arse man.......is that why you dress
>>> like a clown - to win the kiddies over?
>>>
>>> You fucking moron.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No need to get cranky. A massive clit (as in the case of your
>> mother) is a badge of honor in some cultures. As long as the fat
>> pig keeps paying for beer I'm happy to fuck her!
>>
>> YOU FUCKING RETARDED TOP POSTING FOOL.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "ArseClown" <rttyhcrtjhfyjnvgyhmnvg,@bgxyrbgybfgdbgvbf.org>
>>> wrote in message
>>> news:4786ac75$0$13919$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>>
>>>> "princo coasters" <princo@makesgoodcoasters.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:47868880$0$10472$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>>> then i guess that is why you like Arse.......Clown
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I LOVE arse. Especially your fat arsed mothers...although,
>>>> getting past her abnormally large clit is a challenge......but
>>>> after the pig buys me a few beers I'm a little less
>>>> disgusted...top posting fucktard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "ArseClown" <don't_filter_my_'net_Conray!> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9A21600A7D230ejheuyginygebfuzbnzg@211.29.1 33.50...
>>>>>> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote
>>>>>> in message
>>>>>> news:4784af32$0$11960$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net
>>>>>> .au:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Wayne Carr" <wayne@someonewhocares.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:47846ea9$0$22095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <filmdude23@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:a0fdf9ef-fdbb-4e5d-8e16-5dea293a2d9f@u10g2000prn.google
>>>>>>>> grou ps.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Was browsing some retailers the other day and saw a
>>>>>>>>> toshiba 32wlt66a ex-demo floor mod for 800. Only catch was
>>>>>>>>> it had no remote or box.. the box I can probably live
>>>>>>>>> without.. anyone know if these will work with a universal
>>>>>>>>> remote?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also inside my price range are:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 32c3000a toshiba 32"
>>>>>>>>> lcd3703hd sansui 37".. got a crt of this in the bedroom..
>>>>>>>>> does an ok job.. don't know how their lcds stack up tho.
>>>>>>>>> 37wlt66 toshiba 37"
>>>>>>>>> 37pf9631d philips 37"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Would be grateful for any feedback on these or other
>>>>>>>>> models in stores in and around Melbourne, preferably in
>>>>>>>>> the sub 1.5k bracket.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No such thing as decent LCD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed. LCD is just awesome. Well above "decent".
>>>>>>> Own a Sony 52" X series Bravia Full HD LCD TV and fucking
>>>>>>> loving it. :P
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd have to fucking agree about the fucking Bravia. Sheer
>>>>>> fucking brilliance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> http://improve-usenet.org/filters_ex1.html
>>>>>> ArseClown - Someone who is both an arsehole and carries on
>>>>>> like a clown.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No need to get cranky. A massive clit (as in the case of your
>> mother) is a badge of honor in some cultures. As long as the the
>> fat pig keeps paying for beer I'm happy to fuck her!
>>
>> --
>> http://improve-usenet.org/filters_ex1.html
>> ArseClown - Someone who is both an arsehole and carries on like a
>> clown.
>


LOL....you fool. (See how I post at he bottom of the thread?).....You
haven't convinced me on the benefits of a plasma either? LOL. I'll stick
with my Bravia, thank you very much. Also, you still haven't convinced me on
the benefits of a large woman with a massive clit.....Like I said, I'll keep
fucking your mum as long as the fat pig keeps buying me drinks....

If you want to dance, you fuckwit, at least reply with a bit more wit. :-)
Otherwise, fuck off.

[Ext User(Alan Rutlidge)]

"David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VWChj.1821$421.67@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:4786eb69$0$11978$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ghthj.1598$421.1357@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:478594e4$0$11967$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Gdahj.1217$421.546@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>I have to agree with Wayne here. LCD is junk.
>>>>
>>>> Says he, who is probably (out of choice) sitting in front of an LCD
>>>> monitor as he is typing his comments, with his brain engaged in
>>>> neutral.
>>>
>>> I beg your pardon? I am sitting in front of a 17" LG Flatron (CRT)
>>> monitor at present.
>>>
>>>> If LCD is "junk", one might assume you favour some alternate
>>>> technology?
>>>> Exactly what did you have in mind, taking into account the NG you are
>>>> posting your comments in?
>>>
>>> All flat panel displays have major flaws, but LCD has the most of all.
>>> LCD has a constant fluro backlight, meaning it cannot reproduce true
>>> black, and colour reproduction is also less than perfect, as it's too
>>> bright or washed out, and rather artificial looking.
>>
>> Any set that hasn't been correctly adjusted can look aweful. In my
>> experience, the "standard" default
>> display settings on 99% of domestic displays is way too saturated in
>> colour and too contrasty to
>> reproduce a realistic picture. It doesn't matter what the technology is.
>
> You're kind of avoiding the argument here. Let's assume all displays are
> set up equally and adjusted correctly...

No I'm not, I'm qualifying may response and placing it into context.
If I hadn't it would give you the opportunity to drag out this discussion to
the point where the original
points would be lost in the rhetoric. :-(

>
>>> CRTs (and plasmas) are far superior when it comes to blacks and rich
>>> colour reproduction.
>>
>> Yes, my personal preference in terms of the ability to display a wider
>> colour gamut and contrast range
>> is a quality CRT display driven by high bandwidth electronics and
>> errorless decoding, however I've
>> yet to see a 52" 16:9 WS CRT TV in the domestic situation. However once
>
> Sony released a 102 cm HD CRT for the US market a few years back, which
> was the largest CRT ever made. I'm not sure why you'd "need" anything
> larger than this. But there is CRT rear projection and front projection
> to deal with larger pictures.

I can just see this monster in my living room. Pass. :-)

>
>> you get to a display panel with a 10 bit
>> resolution you are clutching at straws in comparing pictutre fidelity in
>> terms of colour gamut and constrast ratio.
>>
>> As for the issue of blackness, you can't beat a correctly adjusted CRT.
>> But just before we get carried
>> away, when was the last time you watched a film at a cinema? In case
>> you've forgotten try to recall when there
>> was a fade to black situation which lasted more than a few seconds. What
>> did you see on the silver screen?
>> A complete absence of light or was there some light penetration through
>> the film emulsion and a slight illumination
>> of the screen. If we are talking audio-visual / home cinema, most
>> enthusiasts would be trying to emulate the real
>> thing in their HTs or living rooms. In my experience a properly set up
>> quality LCD can acheive more than satisfactory
>> results. The only downside of LCD is it actually benefits from a bit of
>> ambient light in the viewing room.
>> This is where (IMHO) LCD has it all over plasma in the day to day
>> domestic viewing situation.
>> Most modern houses are built with lots of windows allowing heaps of
>> daytime ambient light to flood the viewing area.
>> Most LCD displays perform significantly better than their plasma
>> counterparts in this situation, whereas plasma displays are at their best
>> in a darkened room. I guess it's difficult to have it bothways and
>> please everyone all the time.
>
> Most people do the majority of their TV viewing at night. During the day
> they're out doing things, and in winter it gets dark even earlier, leaving
> very little time for daylight TV viewing. So this really isn't an issue.

I beg to differ here. You are looking only at your own personal situation.
There are lots of daytime viewers out there. Possibly as many as night
time.
Also with daylight saving it's still quite light until 8:30pm. Families are
home
watching the kids shows from 4:00PM and the soapies and news until 8:30.
All while it's still quite light with the drapes and blinds open.

>
>>> However, the biggest flaw (IMO) is the fact that, like plasma, LCD
>>> panels have a fixed resolution, meaning that images at anything but the
>>> native resolution, (such as standard DVD, FTA, Foxtel, etc.), suffer
>>> from major degradation and look just plain awful, because they have to
>>> be scaled up to match the resolution of the set. The higher the
>>> resolution of the set, the more scaling is involved, degrading the
>>> picture even further.
>>
>> A relatively true statement. The success is mapping a 576 line signal to
>> a 1920 x 1080 pixel display
>> is entirely dependant on the engine driving it. Some do it better than
>> others, which in turn begs
>> the question why didn't they choose resolutions which were even multiples
>> of each other?
>
> They *are* multiples of each other. 1080x1920 is exactly 5 times the
> resolution of standard PAL 576i, and 6 times the resolution of NTSC 480i.

David, 576 is not an even multiple of 1080, nor is 480 or 720.
Basic primary school math.
The total pixel ratio when it comes to pixel mapping is irrellevant.
Some of the ealier Pioneer plasma panels were 1024 x 768 pixels which isn't
a 16:9 ratio
but they made and sold them never the less as HD sets. To compensate the
engine maps
the real number of pixels (say 1920 x 1080 for true full HD 16:9) to the
available pixels on
the panel.

The standard for PAL SD is 576i = 576 horizontal lines.
For a 16:9 screen with symmetrical pixels this is 1024 x 576 native
resolution for a 1:1 resolution.
The same pixel relationship a SD WS video camera would have in the CCD.
Mapped on a 1:1 pixel for pixel ratio would result in the best possible
resolution on a 1024 x 576 pixel display.
Now take the same source and put it into a full HD panel (1920 x 1080
pixels). They don't work out evenly.
Just consider the horizontal pixel mapping alone. You have 1080 rows of
pixels top of screen to bottom of screen.
In that to cover the entire screen top to bottom you are sending a signal
that only has the equivalent of only 576 pixels
to cover 1080 pixels. This means the engine has to map 576 into 1080 - not
an even number.
The ratio is 1.875:1 not 2:1 or 3:1 or 4:1. If it was, SD would look good
on a full HD display and upscaling would be easy.
For SD on a full HD display the ideal and most practical step would be to
have gone to 1152 lines of pixels top to bottom.
Exactly 2:1 ratio but a 4:1 improvement if the signal was 1152 HD instead of
the 1080 we have.
So if full HD was 2048 x 1152 for a 16:9 WS display a 576i SD picture would
map into it just nicely.

Comparing resolutions -

16:9 WS (assuming symmetrical aspect pixels)
480 854 x 480 = 409,920 pixels
576 1024 x 576 = 589,824 pixels
720 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels
1080 1920 x 1080 = 2, 073,600 pixels

I see no evenly divisible realtionship between these figures. Can you?


>
>> It would have significantly simplified the design of HD display devices
>> to show SD pictures.
>> The primary reason is legacy technology standards - 480i, 480p, 576i,
>> 576p and 720p. None of
>> which are even multiples of 1080. Hence the often heard layperson
>> comments of "my region 1 NTSC DVDs
>> seem to look better than my PAL Region 4 DVDs when I play them on my 42"
>> SD plasma or LCD TV".
>> The early SD panels sold in Australia were 480 pixels top to bottom of
>> the screen - ideal to directly pixel map
>> a 480i or 480p NTSC signal. Anything above that was just interpolation
>> "guesswork" on the part of the engine driving the display.
>>
>>> This is not an issue with CRT, which can display images of *any*
>>> resolution without any alterations whatsoever.
>>
>> Me thinks you really need to go back and read up on how CRT technology
>> works.
>> CRT display tubes have a shaddow mask that sits just behind the glass
>> face of the tube.
>> It has a finite number of red, green and blue phosphor dots or slots
>> which will limit the maximum resolution
>> of the screen (not withstanding the limitations of the driving
>> electronics).
>
> I was aware of that. My comment needs rewording. Obviously there is an
> upper limit of what resolution a CRT can display, but there is still no
> scaling involved.
>
>>> Next there is the viewing angle issue, where LCDs only look their best
>>> viewing directly from the front.
>>
>> Agreed, but most of the newer dispalys are getting significantly better
>> at improving the viewing angle.
>>
>>> From a technical point of view, LCD display technology is prone to
>>> bright/dead pixels, and is the most expensive display out there.
>>
>> Sorry I beg to differ. I've seem just as many plasma displays with the
>> same issues, and suprisingly so even from the
>> so called better makers like Pioneer and Panasonic.
>>
>>> So to answer your question, I am in favor of CRT, which is what I use
>>> both as a TV and computer monitor. However, if size is an issue, out of
>>> the two display technologies currently available, plasma is superior. I
>>> have seen the new 60" Pioneer 1080p plasma and it blows away *any* LCD.
>>
>> Have you seen the Sony Bravia XBR series 80" LCD? Yes, it isn't cheap but
>> the picture is impressive and not just
>> from a size perspective either.
>>
>>> Plasmas are better value for money. Harvey Norman sell a 42"
>>> Panasonic HD plasma (with built in HD tuner) for $1497. You cannot get
>>> a similarly sized LCD for anywhere near that.
>>
>> A couple of issues here. In May 2007 I was shopping around for a new TV.
>> Pioneer's 50" plasma full HD was $10,999 and no one was coming down in
>> price on that one.
>> I ended up buying a Sony 52" X series Bravia for $7,300 with a 5 year
>> warranty. At the time Panasonic
>> didn't have a similar size full HD plasma on the Australian market and I
>> didn't have a big enough viewing room to
>> accommodate the 65" Pana full HD and be sitting back far enough to
>> optimise the viewing distance.
>>
>> Ask yourself these questions. If plasma technology is so superior why
>> don't we see it in other display devices other than mains powered
>> domestic televisions? When was the last time you saw a plasma desktop PC
>> monitor, or a plasma display in a notebook computer, handheld display
>> device, video camera or still digital?
>
> Several reasons, which I thought would be obvious. Picture quality is
> much less of a concern in portable applications, while power
> consumption/heat are the important issues. LCD is better in this respect.
> As for computer monitors, LCD had the advantage of being on the market
> longer, and for most, computers are tools for work, unlike a TV which is
> for entertainment only. Especially in office environments, image quality
> is of little concern, and LCD suffices. Again, it has the advantage of
> lower power/heat.

Well here's a kick in the rubber parts. TI, HP and Mitsubishi all tried
plasma displays in portable PC's
They were a resounding flop, and not just the power consumption factor
either.
In the case of your desktop monitor power consumption and battery life
aren't an issue, but manufacturers have
actively steered away plasma technology. Why? If LCD is crap and plasma is
so picture faithful, surely with all the
digital image editing and desktop publishing going on there would be a
market for the "superior" plasma display?

>
>> Another marketing hype is refresh rate. The plasma camp are trying to
>> crap all over LCD by claiming LCD displays have a slow refresh rate that
>> causes blurring of moving images. Most good LCD displays have a refresh
>> rate of under 10mS with a lot now at the 5mS mark. What is the refresh
>> rate of a plasma TV? Haven't found a single domestic set that's been
>> game enough to quote this specification. Could it be that it would turn
>> out to be an embarrassment for the plasma camp?
>>
>> As far as domestic TVs is concerned, plasma displays (comparative screen
>> sizes) use more power and their LCD counterparts by at least 20%. Over a
>> 5 year ownership period and average family viewing of 6 - 8 hours per
>> day, please justify the cost of plasma.
>
> I already justified it. The initial purchase price is much lower, as I
> pointed out already. This more than makes up for any additional cost from
> power usage. How much is a typical 42-inch Japanese-branded LCD panel,
> compared to the $1497 Panasonic plasma I mentioned?
>

So prey tell what did you end up buying?
Make and model please so I can get a handle of where you are coming from in
your discussion.

Cheers,
Alan

[Ext User(David Z)]

"Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:478764b1$0$5933$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:VWChj.1821$421.67@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:4786eb69$0$11978$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ghthj.1598$421.1357@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:478594e4$0$11967$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Gdahj.1217$421.546@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>I have to agree with Wayne here. LCD is junk.
>>>>>
>>>>> Says he, who is probably (out of choice) sitting in front of an LCD
>>>>> monitor as he is typing his comments, with his brain engaged in
>>>>> neutral.
>>>>
>>>> I beg your pardon? I am sitting in front of a 17" LG Flatron (CRT)
>>>> monitor at present.
>>>>
>>>>> If LCD is "junk", one might assume you favour some alternate
>>>>> technology?
>>>>> Exactly what did you have in mind, taking into account the NG you are
>>>>> posting your comments in?
>>>>
>>>> All flat panel displays have major flaws, but LCD has the most of all.
>>>> LCD has a constant fluro backlight, meaning it cannot reproduce true
>>>> black, and colour reproduction is also less than perfect, as it's too
>>>> bright or washed out, and rather artificial looking.
>>>
>>> Any set that hasn't been correctly adjusted can look aweful. In my
>>> experience, the "standard" default
>>> display settings on 99% of domestic displays is way too saturated in
>>> colour and too contrasty to
>>> reproduce a realistic picture. It doesn't matter what the technology
>>> is.
>>
>> You're kind of avoiding the argument here. Let's assume all displays are
>> set up equally and adjusted correctly...
>
> No I'm not, I'm qualifying may response and placing it into context.
> If I hadn't it would give you the opportunity to drag out this discussion
> to the point where the original
> points would be lost in the rhetoric. :-(
>
>>
>>>> CRTs (and plasmas) are far superior when it comes to blacks and rich
>>>> colour reproduction.
>>>
>>> Yes, my personal preference in terms of the ability to display a wider
>>> colour gamut and contrast range
>>> is a quality CRT display driven by high bandwidth electronics and
>>> errorless decoding, however I've
>>> yet to see a 52" 16:9 WS CRT TV in the domestic situation. However
>>> once
>>
>> Sony released a 102 cm HD CRT for the US market a few years back, which
>> was the largest CRT ever made. I'm not sure why you'd "need" anything
>> larger than this. But there is CRT rear projection and front projection
>> to deal with larger pictures.
>
> I can just see this monster in my living room. Pass. :-)
>
>>
>>> you get to a display panel with a 10 bit
>>> resolution you are clutching at straws in comparing pictutre fidelity in
>>> terms of colour gamut and constrast ratio.
>>>
>>> As for the issue of blackness, you can't beat a correctly adjusted CRT.
>>> But just before we get carried
>>> away, when was the last time you watched a film at a cinema? In case
>>> you've forgotten try to recall when there
>>> was a fade to black situation which lasted more than a few seconds.
>>> What did you see on the silver screen?
>>> A complete absence of light or was there some light penetration through
>>> the film emulsion and a slight illumination
>>> of the screen. If we are talking audio-visual / home cinema, most
>>> enthusiasts would be trying to emulate the real
>>> thing in their HTs or living rooms. In my experience a properly set up
>>> quality LCD can acheive more than satisfactory
>>> results. The only downside of LCD is it actually benefits from a bit of
>>> ambient light in the viewing room.
>>> This is where (IMHO) LCD has it all over plasma in the day to day
>>> domestic viewing situation.
>>> Most modern houses are built with lots of windows allowing heaps of
>>> daytime ambient light to flood the viewing area.
>>> Most LCD displays perform significantly better than their plasma
>>> counterparts in this situation, whereas plasma displays are at their
>>> best in a darkened room. I guess it's difficult to have it bothways and
>>> please everyone all the time.
>>
>> Most people do the majority of their TV viewing at night. During the day
>> they're out doing things, and in winter it gets dark even earlier,
>> leaving very little time for daylight TV viewing. So this really isn't
>> an issue.
>
> I beg to differ here. You are looking only at your own personal
> situation.
> There are lots of daytime viewers out there. Possibly as many as night
> time.
> Also with daylight saving it's still quite light until 8:30pm. Families
> are home
> watching the kids shows from 4:00PM and the soapies and news until 8:30.
> All while it's still quite light with the drapes and blinds open.

If there are so many daytime viewers out there, then why do the TV networks
put their highest rating shows on during the evening? Viewing figures show
and *prove* that the highest number of people, by far, watch TV in the
evenings, during primetime hours.

>>
>>>> However, the biggest flaw (IMO) is the fact that, like plasma, LCD
>>>> panels have a fixed resolution, meaning that images at anything but the
>>>> native resolution, (such as standard DVD, FTA, Foxtel, etc.), suffer
>>>> from major degradation and look just plain awful, because they have to
>>>> be scaled up to match the resolution of the set. The higher the
>>>> resolution of the set, the more scaling is involved, degrading the
>>>> picture even further.
>>>
>>> A relatively true statement. The success is mapping a 576 line signal
>>> to a 1920 x 1080 pixel display
>>> is entirely dependant on the engine driving it. Some do it better than
>>> others, which in turn begs
>>> the question why didn't they choose resolutions which were even
>>> multiples of each other?
>>
>> They *are* multiples of each other. 1080x1920 is exactly 5 times the
>> resolution of standard PAL 576i, and 6 times the resolution of NTSC 480i.
>
> David, 576 is not an even multiple of 1080, nor is 480 or 720.
> Basic primary school math.
> The total pixel ratio when it comes to pixel mapping is irrellevant.
> Some of the ealier Pioneer plasma panels were 1024 x 768 pixels which
> isn't a 16:9 ratio
> but they made and sold them never the less as HD sets. To compensate the
> engine maps
> the real number of pixels (say 1920 x 1080 for true full HD 16:9) to the
> available pixels on
> the panel.
>
> The standard for PAL SD is 576i = 576 horizontal lines.
> For a 16:9 screen with symmetrical pixels this is 1024 x 576 native
> resolution for a 1:1 resolution.
> The same pixel relationship a SD WS video camera would have in the CCD.
> Mapped on a 1:1 pixel for pixel ratio would result in the best possible
> resolution on a 1024 x 576 pixel display.
> Now take the same source and put it into a full HD panel (1920 x 1080
> pixels). They don't work out evenly.
> Just consider the horizontal pixel mapping alone. You have 1080 rows of
> pixels top of screen to bottom of screen.
> In that to cover the entire screen top to bottom you are sending a signal
> that only has the equivalent of only 576 pixels
> to cover 1080 pixels. This means the engine has to map 576 into 1080 -
> not an even number.
> The ratio is 1.875:1 not 2:1 or 3:1 or 4:1. If it was, SD would look good
> on a full HD display and upscaling would be easy.
> For SD on a full HD display the ideal and most practical step would be to
> have gone to 1152 lines of pixels top to bottom.
> Exactly 2:1 ratio but a 4:1 improvement if the signal was 1152 HD instead
> of the 1080 we have.
> So if full HD was 2048 x 1152 for a 16:9 WS display a 576i SD picture
> would map into it just nicely.
>
> Comparing resolutions -
>
> 16:9 WS (assuming symmetrical aspect pixels)
> 480 854 x 480 = 409,920 pixels
> 576 1024 x 576 = 589,824 pixels
> 720 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels
> 1080 1920 x 1080 = 2, 073,600 pixels
>
> I see no evenly divisible realtionship between these figures. Can you?
>
>>
>>> It would have significantly simplified the design of HD display devices
>>> to show SD pictures.
>>> The primary reason is legacy technology standards - 480i, 480p, 576i,
>>> 576p and 720p. None of
>>> which are even multiples of 1080. Hence the often heard layperson
>>> comments of "my region 1 NTSC DVDs
>>> seem to look better than my PAL Region 4 DVDs when I play them on my 42"
>>> SD plasma or LCD TV".
>>> The early SD panels sold in Australia were 480 pixels top to bottom of
>>> the screen - ideal to directly pixel map
>>> a 480i or 480p NTSC signal. Anything above that was just interpolation
>>> "guesswork" on the part of the engine driving the display.

Yes, you're right, I just realized that after I made the post. The
resolution would have to be 4x or 9x (or any number with a square root) the
original resolution to form perfectly square shaped 'pixels'. However,
expecting the powers that be to form standards based around the limitations
of current display technology is ridiculous. Plus you'd have to then have
two different HD resolutions, one for NTSC countries and another for PAL.
Nevermind trying to watch a region 1 DVD in Australia (and there are plenty
which aren't yet available and likely never will be in R4). This would also
make panels ridiculously and unnecessarily expensive. Consumers would be
forced to buy 2048x1152 panels, keeping them well out of the reach of the
average person. Look at the prices of such panels today compared to one of
lesser resolution..

>>>
>>>> This is not an issue with CRT, which can display images of *any*
>>>> resolution without any alterations whatsoever.
>>>
>>> Me thinks you really need to go back and read up on how CRT technology
>>> works.
>>> CRT display tubes have a shaddow mask that sits just behind the glass
>>> face of the tube.
>>> It has a finite number of red, green and blue phosphor dots or slots
>>> which will limit the maximum resolution
>>> of the screen (not withstanding the limitations of the driving
>>> electronics).
>>
>> I was aware of that. My comment needs rewording. Obviously there is an
>> upper limit of what resolution a CRT can display, but there is still no
>> scaling involved.
>>
>>>> Next there is the viewing angle issue, where LCDs only look their best
>>>> viewing directly from the front.
>>>
>>> Agreed, but most of the newer dispalys are getting significantly better
>>> at improving the viewing angle.
>>>
>>>> From a technical point of view, LCD display technology is prone to
>>>> bright/dead pixels, and is the most expensive display out there.
>>>
>>> Sorry I beg to differ. I've seem just as many plasma displays with the
>>> same issues, and suprisingly so even from the
>>> so called better makers like Pioneer and Panasonic.
>>>
>>>> So to answer your question, I am in favor of CRT, which is what I use
>>>> both as a TV and computer monitor. However, if size is an issue, out
>>>> of the two display technologies currently available, plasma is
>>>> superior. I have seen the new 60" Pioneer 1080p plasma and it blows
>>>> away *any* LCD.
>>>
>>> Have you seen the Sony Bravia XBR series 80" LCD? Yes, it isn't cheap
>>> but the picture is impressive and not just
>>> from a size perspective either.
>>>
>>>> Plasmas are better value for money. Harvey Norman sell a 42"
>>>> Panasonic HD plasma (with built in HD tuner) for $1497. You cannot get
>>>> a similarly sized LCD for anywhere near that.
>>>
>>> A couple of issues here. In May 2007 I was shopping around for a new
>>> TV.
>>> Pioneer's 50" plasma full HD was $10,999 and no one was coming down in
>>> price on that one.
>>> I ended up buying a Sony 52" X series Bravia for $7,300 with a 5 year
>>> warranty. At the time Panasonic
>>> didn't have a similar size full HD plasma on the Australian market and I
>>> didn't have a big enough viewing room to
>>> accommodate the 65" Pana full HD and be sitting back far enough to
>>> optimise the viewing distance.
>>>
>>> Ask yourself these questions. If plasma technology is so superior why
>>> don't we see it in other display devices other than mains powered
>>> domestic televisions? When was the last time you saw a plasma desktop
>>> PC monitor, or a plasma display in a notebook computer, handheld display
>>> device, video camera or still digital?
>>
>> Several reasons, which I thought would be obvious. Picture quality is
>> much less of a concern in portable applications, while power
>> consumption/heat are the important issues. LCD is better in this
>> respect. As for computer monitors, LCD had the advantage of being on the
>> market longer, and for most, computers are tools for work, unlike a TV
>> which is for entertainment only. Especially in office environments, image
>> quality is of little concern, and LCD suffices. Again, it has the
>> advantage of lower power/heat.
>
> Well here's a kick in the rubber parts. TI, HP and Mitsubishi all tried
> plasma displays in portable PC's
> They were a resounding flop, and not just the power consumption factor
> either.
> In the case of your desktop monitor power consumption and battery life
> aren't an issue, but manufacturers have
> actively steered away plasma technology. Why? If LCD is crap and plasma
> is so picture faithful, surely with all the
> digital image editing and desktop publishing going on there would be a
> market for the "superior" plasma display?
>
>>
>>> Another marketing hype is refresh rate. The plasma camp are trying to
>>> crap all over LCD by claiming LCD displays have a slow refresh rate that
>>> causes blurring of moving images. Most good LCD displays have a refresh
>>> rate of under 10mS with a lot now at the 5mS mark. What is the refresh
>>> rate of a plasma TV? Haven't found a single domestic set that's been
>>> game enough to quote this specification. Could it be that it would turn
>>> out to be an embarrassment for the plasma camp?
>>>
>>> As far as domestic TVs is concerned, plasma displays (comparative screen
>>> sizes) use more power and their LCD counterparts by at least 20%. Over
>>> a 5 year ownership period and average family viewing of 6 - 8 hours per
>>> day, please justify the cost of plasma.
>>
>> I already justified it. The initial purchase price is much lower, as I
>> pointed out already. This more than makes up for any additional cost
>> from power usage. How much is a typical 42-inch Japanese-branded LCD
>> panel, compared to the $1497 Panasonic plasma I mentioned?
>>
>
> So prey tell what did you end up buying?
> Make and model please so I can get a handle of where you are coming from
> in your discussion.

Who said I was buying anything?? I am keeping my CRT for the time being.
However, I did 'pick out' the above mentioned Panasonic plasma for someone
who was looking for a set recently. Went to the store, made comparisons...
although the resolution is 'only' 1024x768, the picture is very good.
Standard TV viewing looks better than LCD, while the HD picture quality
comes close to rivalling my Sony HD CRT.

[Ext User(David Z)]

> Yes, you're right, I just realized that after I made the post. The
> resolution would have to be 4x or 9x (or any number with a square root)
> the original resolution to form perfectly square shaped 'pixels'.
> However, expecting the powers that be to form standards based around the
> limitations of current display technology is ridiculous. Plus you'd have
> to then have two different HD resolutions, one for NTSC countries and
> another for PAL. Nevermind trying to watch a region 1 DVD in Australia
> (and there are plenty which aren't yet available and likely never will be
> in R4). This would also make panels ridiculously and unnecessarily
> expensive. Consumers would be forced to buy 2048x1152 panels, keeping
> them well out of the reach of the average person. Look at the prices of
> such panels today compared to one of lesser resolution..

Actually, I must correct myself yet again. There is a feasible solution to
the problem *without* changing any current HD standards. All that would be
required would be to introduce a 2048x1152 panel, which would allow all 3
formats: 480i, 576i, and 1080i, to be displayed properly. 480i and 1080i
would simply require a black border around the sides to fill the space left
by the unused pixels. However, there would be much wasted space on screen.
With 1080i, 12% of the screen would be wasted, while 480i would be even
worse with 30% wasted space. Panels would need to be made larger to
compensate (somewhat) for this loss. I cannot see this happening though,
because not only would the black borders on all 4 sides be distracting, but
the fact that you'd have 3 different size images depending on what you're
watching. Not only that, but 720p could not feasibly be displayed either
(with 60% of the screen being wasted!).