"Sparks" wrote in message
.. .
Fraser.
I have seen it suggested in this NG -uk.diy,that 6 years is a reasonable
time to expect such items to "live" but haven't seen anything to back
this
up.
Stuart

Have a look on www.tradingstandards.gov.uk they have a lot of information
in
their advice leaflet's.

That website has pretty much the same claim. From the FAQ at:
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/c...V0054-1111.txt

--- 8 ---
Q. I bought a fridge/freezer about 18 months ago, and the freezer section
has completely failed. I went back to the shop, but they refused to do
anything as it was outside the original 12 month guarantee. What are my
rights?
A. Firstly, when you buy goods from a shop, you enter into a contract under
the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended). This holds the shop liable for up
to six years after purchase (Limitation Act 1980), providing that you can
show that the problem is down to an unreasonable fault and not normal wear
and tear. Secondly, remember that the guarantee is in addition to these
statutory legal rights. Don't be taken in by the shop's argument here - they
are using the issue of the guarantee as a red herring to try to avoid their
legal obligations toward you. See our leaflet 'Buying Goods' for more
information on your rights.
--- 8 ---


Oh yeah, probably should have mentioned I'm in Scotland, so things may be a
little different (5 years from discovery of fault, as opposed to 6 from
purchase). I put part (but not all) of the purchase on my Visa, which also
may have relevance. The Trading Standards website says "This means that the
credit card company and the supplier have the same obligations and
responsibilities to you for the goods being satisfactory.", however that may
not apply because 100% of the purchase wasn't put on the credit card. I'll
probably keep that as a last resort.

I'll be getting in touch with the store on Monday. Gives me a chance to find
the receipt (which Trading Standards says isn't actually necessary!) and let
the store quieten down a bit after the Christmas sales. It will be easier if
the manager is in a good mood!! ;-) Fingers crossed!!


Fraser.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:02:56 -0000, "Fraser" wrote:


"Jerry G." wrote in message
...
Where we are located, we are under similar law to that of the UK. The
warranty has to comply to the purchase agreement contract. TV's without
an
extended warranty are sold with a one year contract. You can optionally
purchase more time.

If the tube goes one day after the warranty, the manufacture is legally
not
obliged to change it, or service the set.

Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years provided
the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.


Be careful here. The 6 year period is a statute of limitations which
in effect lets the retailer off the hook at the end of that time.
It doesn't mean that they *have* to fix problems with *any* product
for that whole period.

In effect, the manufacturer's warranty period means that problems that
occur during the warranty period should be fixed without your having
to negotiate the issue. Between the end of that and 6 years you
*may* have a case, depending on the product, its position in the
market and what it cost. The issue then comes to whether the
retailer wants to play ball - this may well not be a store manager
decision - and how far you then want to pursue the issue.

Ultimately, you can take it to the court where you may win something.
Before embarking on that course, I would certainly talk to Trading
Standards for an opinion on what you are likely to get. One factor in
this is whether you are prepared to invest the effort required and
wait the amount of time that it will take to get a hearing.

You mentioned that the there had always been a green caste over the
picture. This could well have been a manufacturing defect which was
a precursor to the catastrophic failure that has happened now.
Arguably, you should have reported that at the outset, but it's too
late for that now.

There is new legislation as a result of an EU Directive which puts the
onus on the retailer to prove that there was not a manufacturing
defect. However, IIRC, you only have 6 months after purchase to
report a problem due to that. Also, I believe that the UK has not
yet fully implemented all of the Directive provisions into statute,
and possibly Scotland will be different anyway. It may be that this
won't apply anyway since your purchase probably predates the new
legislation. Again TS will be able to help you.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Fraser wrote:
"half_pint" wrote in message
...

"Bob Brenchley." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

I watch films in the aspect ratio they were made in, period. You
wouldn't take the Mona Lisa and cut some of it out to fit a nice
frame you happen to have available. And as TV generally sucks, most
of my TV watching is movies. So I have a widescreen TV. Must I
apologise for that to you?


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".

Nonsense, learn some film history. Widescreen came about as the movie
industries counter to television, which was affecting it's income.
They were still showing news reels etc at the time, which TV negated
the need for, and in many ways surpassed. Some directors didn't take
to it for a long time, Stanley Kubrik for example. Mind you, most of
his films were also made in mono sound!!

Can I just surprise you there?
If you look at a wall and focus on a point which is far enough away
to be in focus (about 10 inches, but a reasonable distance for discussion
is about say 4 feet?) the image you can see in detail is round effectively
perfectly round. This is because visual sensitivity on the eyes retina is
round. (Consult any text book or google on fovea and macula).
And you can forget any two eyes arguement, both eyes are focused on the
same point, this is how our eyes work.
Yes the field of vison when moving your eyes is wider, due to the bone
structure of the face, but if I look between my legs I have 360 degrees
vision in the horizontal range.


You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.

No, this time learn some DVD history and consumer electronics
marketing. The first lot of people to buy DVD were the enthusiasts.
We wanted digital surround, multiple audio tracks, all that sort of
thing. To be a success, you have to get their buy in, then capture
the public. Laser disk never got popular with the enthusiasts, so it
died. My player cost £750 at the time, but that was with being
chipped etc. Most of us want widescreen, so that's the way it was.
Releases got slated in all the review mags if they were masked down
to 4:3. DVDs were intended to be the "perfect" delivery mechanism for
movies, and cutting parts of the movie out didn't fit into that
picture.

Who exactly is doing this brainwashing anyway? :-) Does your tinfoil
hat protect you?


Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.

Which is very true. Look at a blank wall and see how much of it you
can see without moving your eyes. Not much in the up & down
department, but you've got around 120 degrees (a lot) of horizontal
view. The widest common format,
2.35:1, is a lot closer to this than TVs traditional 4:3. For framing
"normal" images, such as landscapes, groups of people, text/signs,
widescreen is more natural. Just look at the unusual ways people
stand in 4:3 media, they usually much closer than normal people are
in day-to-day life. It's unnatural.

Lol you mean like the way a picture of two men carrrying a ladder
is used to advertise WS TV?

If you look at a randon selection of 'art' pictures you will find only
about 10% in a WS format.
Unsurprisingly you will find that on average the ratio is 1:1.
Pick up any newspaper and count the WS images (I just
did) there are hardly any, most are taller than wide.
How do you explaing that? Answer - You can't.

I actually have a copy of the Sun here with an article on
the Beckams (which was filmed in WS), 3 out of the four
pictures printed are in a portrait format (taller than wide).
(I only bought it for a cheap TV guide btw).

However if the visual sensitivity of the eye does evolve
into a WS format I will conceed it is a more natural format.

In the mean time I think you are living in the land of clouds and
cookoo's ( or should I say seagulls, which do actually have a
WS visual sensitivity)


Fraser.

--
---------------
regards half_pint

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:

I have heard some people saying that the dealers make a lot of money on
these warranties.

Here they do. The retailers push them like hell to boost their
margins.

Even to the point of stupidity. Consider a salesman's job. It's to sell
you the product, right? So you build up how good the product is etc. right?

Then, me having decided on the product (in this case a video), out comes
the extended warranty spiel. "No thanks." says I. Salesman's response?
"Well, these devices are very unreliable and prone to breaking down.
The repair costs are astronomical, you really should get the warranty".

The temptation was to say "You're right, they are total crap. I'm not
buying one of those. See ya!" ... and put in a good word to the manager
for his honest salesman

In practice: the item was a Goldstar (LG) PW904i video. I had one, my
uncle had one. Both saw day to day domestic use.

Uncle: First one packed up within warranty (display lights up every
segment, and just keeps cycling, won't power up). Power supply replaced.
Broke again, same fault, about 12 months later.

Mine: Broke just out of warranty (14 months?) Replacement PSU would be 50
pounds. Broke again after about 18 months. Replacement electrolytics for
existing PSU, a couple of pounds. Still going OK.

So the salesman was right, they are unreliable rubbish (for longevity).

Someone has cut the corners on the design of this PSU so that it will last
(guaranteed) 12 months, and anything beyond that is a bonus. A total of 4
manufacturer's original PSUs, all gone phut with duff electrolytics. I'd
call that unreasonable. I wish I'd known about the 6 year limit referenced
above ...

Mike.
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[at]pootle.demon.co.uk | http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:28:40 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:

Fraser wrote:
"half_pint" wrote in message
...

"Bob Brenchley." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

I watch films in the aspect ratio they were made in, period. You
wouldn't take the Mona Lisa and cut some of it out to fit a nice
frame you happen to have available. And as TV generally sucks, most
of my TV watching is movies. So I have a widescreen TV. Must I
apologise for that to you?


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".

Nonsense, learn some film history. Widescreen came about as the movie
industries counter to television, which was affecting it's income.
They were still showing news reels etc at the time, which TV negated
the need for, and in many ways surpassed. Some directors didn't take
to it for a long time, Stanley Kubrik for example. Mind you, most of
his films were also made in mono sound!!

Can I just surprise you there?
If you look at a wall and focus on a point which is far enough away
to be in focus (about 10 inches, but a reasonable distance for discussion
is about say 4 feet?) the image you can see in detail is round effectively
perfectly round.

No it isn't. If your eyes are working correctly you will be seeing a
widescreen view of the wall.

This is because visual sensitivity on the eyes retina is
round. (Consult any text book or google on fovea and macula).

But your view on the world, as you have two eyes, is NOT round - it is
widescreen.


And you can forget any two eyes arguement, both eyes are focused on the
same point, this is how our eyes work.

No i isn't. Learn about vision.

Yes the field of vison when moving your eyes is wider, due to the bone
structure of the face, but if I look between my legs I have 360 degrees
vision in the horizontal range.

You what???


Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.

Which is very true. Look at a blank wall and see how much of it you
can see without moving your eyes. Not much in the up & down
department, but you've got around 120 degrees (a lot) of horizontal
view. The widest common format,
2.35:1, is a lot closer to this than TVs traditional 4:3. For framing
"normal" images, such as landscapes, groups of people, text/signs,
widescreen is more natural. Just look at the unusual ways people
stand in 4:3 media, they usually much closer than normal people are
in day-to-day life. It's unnatural.

Lol you mean like the way a picture of two men carrrying a ladder
is used to advertise WS TV?

If you look at a randon selection of 'art' pictures you will find only
about 10% in a WS format.
Unsurprisingly you will find that on average the ratio is 1:1.

Very rare that you will find a square picture.

Pick up any newspaper and count the WS images (I just
did) there are hardly any, most are taller than wide.
How do you explaing that? Answer - You can't.

Because newspapers and magazines are designed to be read in columns.

I actually have a copy of the Sun here with an article on
the Beckams (which was filmed in WS), 3 out of the four
pictures printed are in a portrait format (taller than wide).
(I only bought it for a cheap TV guide btw).

However if the visual sensitivity of the eye does evolve
into a WS format I will conceed it is a more natural format.

It already is.

In the mean time I think you are living in the land of clouds and
cookoo's ( or should I say seagulls, which do actually have a
WS visual sensitivity)

They have a wider view than us, but ours is still a widescreen view.


Fraser.

--
Bob.

The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
summed up in one word -- YOU.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:02:56 -0000, "Fraser" wrote:

Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years provided
the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.

Wrong. You get "up to 6 years". It depends very much on the product
and the fault - and it is up to you to prove that the fault was
inherent in the product from the time of purchase.

--
Bob.

The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The
distinction is yours to draw...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:02:56 -0000, "Fraser" wrote:

Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years
provided
the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.


Be careful here. The 6 year period is a statute of limitations which
in effect lets the retailer off the hook at the end of that time.
It doesn't mean that they *have* to fix problems with *any* product
for that whole period.

My bad; over simplification in the post, I understand what the 6 year thing
refers to i.e. raising civil cases. Doesn't mean you'll win!! ;-)


In effect, the manufacturer's warranty period means that problems that
occur during the warranty period should be fixed without your having
to negotiate the issue. Between the end of that and 6 years you
*may* have a case, depending on the product, its position in the
market and what it cost. The issue then comes to whether the
retailer wants to play ball - this may well not be a store manager
decision - and how far you then want to pursue the issue.

Having found the receipt, I now realise that it cost £1050, so that should
help the case. It was a top of the range set, highly rated in What HiFi (or
some other mag), and made by one of the largest TV manufacturers. Should be
a reasonable case that it should last four years (receipt confirms purchase
date as Sept 1999). Hopefully!


Ultimately, you can take it to the court where you may win something.
Before embarking on that course, I would certainly talk to Trading
Standards for an opinion on what you are likely to get. One factor in
this is whether you are prepared to invest the effort required and
wait the amount of time that it will take to get a hearing.

Definitely a good idea, I'll look them up tomorrow & pay them a visit. It
may well be that they provide the tube, and I the labor. It's actually been
in for repair since October, so I don't expect to be charged a lot for the
work given their slowness in even getting it up onto the test bed (about 3-4
weeks ago).


You mentioned that the there had always been a green caste over the
picture. This could well have been a manufacturing defect which was
a precursor to the catastrophic failure that has happened now.
Arguably, you should have reported that at the outset, but it's too
late for that now.

Would that be negative to my cause? If so, I could keep quiet about it as I
haven't spoken to Comet yet about it.

Also, it's not always been there; I'd say around 6-9 months before the
current failure. Before that, there were no issues, other than a little
picture foldback, but there were user-accessable screen position controls
I'd used to minimise that.

All in all, I've had several problems. Could these help my case, or should I
just focus on the current fault?


There is new legislation as a result of an EU Directive which puts the
onus on the retailer to prove that there was not a manufacturing
defect. However, IIRC, you only have 6 months after purchase to
report a problem due to that. Also, I believe that the UK has not
yet fully implemented all of the Directive provisions into statute,
and possibly Scotland will be different anyway. It may be that this
won't apply anyway since your purchase probably predates the new
legislation. Again TS will be able to help you.

When you say manufacturing defect, do you mean a defect unique to my item,
or would it also include a generic design defect? The guy in the repair shop
mentioned it as a known problem with this tube, and in my mind that would be
suitable justification for repair.

Fraser.

"Mike" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Someone has cut the corners on the design of this PSU so that it will last
(guaranteed) 12 months, and anything beyond that is a bonus. A total of 4
manufacturer's original PSUs, all gone phut with duff electrolytics. I'd
call that unreasonable. I wish I'd known about the 6 year limit referenced
above ...

There was a bad batch of capacitors a while back, perhaps related to your
problem. Just about everything they were used on failed due to electrolyte
leakage. If that's the case, going on the advice seen here, it's an inherent
fault and you should be entitled to compensation. I think.

Fraser.

"Bob Brenchley." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:02:56 -0000, "Fraser" wrote:

Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years
provided
the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.

Wrong. You get "up to 6 years". It depends very much on the product
and the fault - and it is up to you to prove that the fault was
inherent in the product from the time of purchase.

Not according to the following at:
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/c...V0054-1111.txt

(in reference to the latter part of your statement that is, I agree on the
"up to 6 years" bit, my post was badly worded)


----------- 8 -----------
Q. I bought a fridge/freezer about 18 months ago, and the freezer section
has completely failed. I went back to the shop, but they refused to do
anything as it was outside the original 12 month guarantee. What are my
rights?
A. Firstly, when you buy goods from a shop, you enter into a contract under
the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended). This holds the shop liable for up
to six years after purchase (Limitation Act 1980), providing that you can
show that the problem is down to an unreasonable fault and not normal wear
and tear. Secondly, remember that the guarantee is in addition to these
statutory legal rights. Don't be taken in by the shop's argument here - they
are using the issue of the guarantee as a red herring to try to avoid their
legal obligations toward you. See our leaflet 'Buying Goods' for more
information on your rights.
----------- 8 -----------

No mention of having the fault present at the time of purchase at all, just
that's it's considered "unreasonable". I'll ask them tomorrow when I am in
Trading Standards and post back results.

Thanks for all the input everyone, appreciated!!

Fraser.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:02:24 -0000, "Fraser" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:02:56 -0000, "Fraser" wrote:

Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years
provided
the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.


Be careful here. The 6 year period is a statute of limitations which
in effect lets the retailer off the hook at the end of that time.
It doesn't mean that they *have* to fix problems with *any* product
for that whole period.

My bad; over simplification in the post, I understand what the 6 year thing
refers to i.e. raising civil cases. Doesn't mean you'll win!! ;-)


In effect, the manufacturer's warranty period means that problems that
occur during the warranty period should be fixed without your having
to negotiate the issue. Between the end of that and 6 years you
*may* have a case, depending on the product, its position in the
market and what it cost. The issue then comes to whether the
retailer wants to play ball - this may well not be a store manager
decision - and how far you then want to pursue the issue.

Having found the receipt, I now realise that it cost £1050, so that should
help the case. It was a top of the range set, highly rated in What HiFi (or
some other mag), and made by one of the largest TV manufacturers. Should be
a reasonable case that it should last four years (receipt confirms purchase
date as Sept 1999). Hopefully!

Based on that, I would certainly pursue it.


Ultimately, you can take it to the court where you may win something.
Before embarking on that course, I would certainly talk to Trading
Standards for an opinion on what you are likely to get. One factor in
this is whether you are prepared to invest the effort required and
wait the amount of time that it will take to get a hearing.

Definitely a good idea, I'll look them up tomorrow & pay them a visit. It
may well be that they provide the tube, and I the labor. It's actually been
in for repair since October, so I don't expect to be charged a lot for the
work given their slowness in even getting it up onto the test bed (about 3-4
weeks ago).

That's not good service at all.

I think that offering a compromise position won't do any harm either.




You mentioned that the there had always been a green caste over the
picture. This could well have been a manufacturing defect which was
a precursor to the catastrophic failure that has happened now.
Arguably, you should have reported that at the outset, but it's too
late for that now.

Would that be negative to my cause? If so, I could keep quiet about it as I
haven't spoken to Comet yet about it.

I wouldn't mention it unless you get completely stonewalled. If that
happens then I might be tempted to push the point. The problem is
that they can say that you should have reported it earlier. However
since the purchase pre-dates the new legislation, it probably doesn't
matter too much.

I suppose the lesson here is, if you buy something top of the line
then go over it very carefully and if it is not perfect then return
it.



Also, it's not always been there; I'd say around 6-9 months before the
current failure. Before that, there were no issues, other than a little
picture foldback, but there were user-accessable screen position controls
I'd used to minimise that.

All in all, I've had several problems. Could these help my case, or should I
just focus on the current fault?


If you can catalogue them then yes, I suppose you could argue
manufacturing defect or design problems.



There is new legislation as a result of an EU Directive which puts the
onus on the retailer to prove that there was not a manufacturing
defect. However, IIRC, you only have 6 months after purchase to
report a problem due to that. Also, I believe that the UK has not
yet fully implemented all of the Directive provisions into statute,
and possibly Scotland will be different anyway. It may be that this
won't apply anyway since your purchase probably predates the new
legislation. Again TS will be able to help you.

When you say manufacturing defect, do you mean a defect unique to my item,
or would it also include a generic design defect?

AIUI, it can be either, because a design defect could make it unfit
for purpose - assuming it does.

The guy in the repair shop
mentioned it as a known problem with this tube, and in my mind that would be
suitable justification for repair.

Is the repair shop associated with the retailer or a separate
organisation? Either way he's your ally, but if he's a separate
organisation, would he be prepared to state that the tube has a known
design problem? Have you tried searching on the web using the part
number of the tube to see if there is any mention of it? Perhaps
some enquiries at Philips would reveal something.


Another thing to think about before you go too far with this is the
residual value in the product. How long would you expect it to last
before buying a replacement? Let's say 8 years for the sake of
argument. Therefore you have £500 of value left if you assume a
linear write down. So, before committing to a lot of time and
direct and indirect cost if you consider legal action or other
remedies, keep in mind that that is really the value that you are
protecting, not the original purchase price.






Fraser.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Fraser" wrote in message
news
When you say manufacturing defect, do you mean a defect unique to my item,
or would it also include a generic design defect? The guy in the repair
shop
mentioned it as a known problem with this tube, and in my mind that would
be
suitable justification for repair.

Fraser.


Sorry Fraser, only just seen this post.
Had a Toshiba tube go at three year old (not the same model as yours). Wrote
to them, and they requested proof of purchase and an engineer's report
stating the tube had failed.

Never heard a word from them myself, but they contacted the engineer and
offered to pay for the tube. I paid the labour.

The address I wrote to was at Camberley, Surry. GU15 3DT

HTH

Andy Hall wrote:


I suppose the lesson here is, if you buy something top of the line
then go over it very carefully and if it is not perfect then return
it.


I think this is extremely good advice, and, if followed, would actually
improve product quality.

I have a Land Rover Defender that has been back for about half a dozen
warranty repairs, including repsraying bits of it that corroded. As I
understand it, every time a warranty repair is undertaken, teh car
manufacture gets the bits back, sends them back to its supplier, and
they bear the cost of replacement. If this happenes often enough, those
parts don't get replaced with et same parts, but with better parts,
because the manufacturers stop making any profit.

You have to be ruthless. Laziness is what allows teh manufactures to
believe that they cheapo crap they are bolting in is of acceptable
quality. In teh case of 99% of teh British Car industry, what happened
was that people didn't send the cars back, they simply stopped buying
them and the whole industry vanished.

I have some sympathy with manufactureres: Its not easy to control
component quality. As a designer for productiomn my designs were often
compromised by the buyer attempting to save pence by buying substandard
components. Or productin engineers removing them altogether ("but they
still work: Yes, but not when they get hot/a low spec bunch of
trnsasitors get used/ under exterem power conditions etc etc).


In the OP's case, the fact that the set is worth better than a grand,
and a picture tube fitted is probably far less than that, its worth
pursuing even on a split/parts labour cost. Go direct to the
manufacturers and complain about the quality of the product, and the
quality of service from the retailer. In the car world at least, car
dealers who have a slew of complaints against them lose franchises.

In message , half_pint
writes

"Bob Brenchley." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

****tard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound and
audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the question,
the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended

They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.

Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.


I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?


--
geoff

In message , half_pint
writes
!

Can I just surprise you there?
If you look at a wall and focus on a point which is far enough away
to be in focus (about 10 inches, but a reasonable distance for discussion
is about say 4 feet?) the image you can see in detail is round effectively
perfectly round. This is because visual sensitivity on the eyes retina is
round. (Consult any text book or google on fovea and macula).
And you can forget any two eyes arguement, both eyes are focused on the
same point, this is how our eyes work.
Yes the field of vison when moving your eyes is wider, due to the bone
structure of the face, but if I look between my legs I have 360 degrees
vision in the horizontal range.

Nothing down there either?



I actually have a copy of the Sun here


Says it all

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
news
In message , half_pint
writes

"Bob Brenchley." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

****tard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound
and
audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the
question,
the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended

They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.

Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.


I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?


Why all the argument? The reason behind widescreen is irrelevant, the fact
is that it's the format of the future, virtually every movie in existance
was filmed in something closer to 16:9 than 4:3. Regardless of the reason,
this means that the director intended it to be viewed in a widescreen format
so with a 4:3 screen you miss things on the edges of the screen. If theaters
were all 4:3 then the shots would be made so as to not place things off the
edges. That said, I don't own a widescreen set, but I do have one large
enough that WS movies are of acceptable size. Many DVD's have both formats
on one disc so there's no compromise, and to me DVD is an amazing format,
it's the first to really catch on since VHS and side by side there's no
comparison. The picture and sound quality from DVD is amazing, the whole
movie fits on one side of one disc, there's random access, no rewinding, and
the discs themselves are compact and cheap, they don't wear out, it's the
only format I buy anymore.

"geoff" wrote in message
news
In message , half_pint
writes

"Bob Brenchley." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

****tard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound
and
audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the
question,
the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended

They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.

Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.


I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.
Eventually people will realise they have been sold a pig in a poke.
If someone can tell me who is responsible for the introduction of
widescreen TV perhaps I can sue them.
I am sure some corrupt practice must have taken place for
it to happen.
I can't believe 99% of the population are morons
On second thoughts.........

You know I have even seen some programs resorting
to splitting the WS down the middle and showing two
propper pictures. Crazy.

I guess I will just have to suffer along in this insane world.
You can now pick up a didgtal transistor radio for £100 would you
believe, then you need add on another £300 for and ariel to
get half decent reception.

Ain't milk brilliant eh?

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

--
---------------
regards half_pint

In message , half_pint
writes



I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose
--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , half_pint
writes



I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?





Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose

You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.

--
geoff

In message , half_pint
writes
I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?


Not an art connoisseur are we?
Who said it was - golden rectangles are normally used to highlight
important areas of interest


Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose

You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.

Why should I need to lug a TV about?
I have one in every main room of the house

--
geoff

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:14 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , half_pint
writes



I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.





Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose

You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.

Who would want to lug a large TV about?

--
geoff

--
Bob.

The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
summed up in one word -- YOU.

"Bob Brenchley." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:14 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , half_pint
writes



I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which
developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.

Yes.






Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on
it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose

You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.

Who would want to lug a large TV about?

Someone who has a large portable?

Forgive me if I am overstating the obvious.


--
geoff
--
---------------
regards half_pint

--
Bob.

The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
summed up in one word -- YOU.

"David Hemmings" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:16:33 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:




"Bob Brenchley." wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:14 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , half_pint
writes



I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which
developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.

Yes.

You find it quite funny that a portrait is taller than it is wide ?

No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)

James Sweet wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
news
In message , half_pint
writes

"Bob Brenchley." wrote in message
...

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:


I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

****tard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound

and

audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the

question,

the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended

They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.

Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.


I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?



Why all the argument? The reason behind widescreen is irrelevant, the fact
is that it's the format of the future, virtually every movie in existance
was filmed in something closer to 16:9 than 4:3.


Actually 35mm film is 36mmx24mm - 3:2. Most early films were shot on
that format....


Regardless of the reason,
this means that the director intended it to be viewed in a widescreen format
so with a 4:3 screen you miss things on the edges of the screen. If theaters
were all 4:3 then the shots would be made so as to not place things off the
edges. That said, I don't own a widescreen set, but I do have one large
enough that WS movies are of acceptable size. Many DVD's have both formats
on one disc so there's no compromise, and to me DVD is an amazing format,
it's the first to really catch on since VHS and side by side there's no
comparison. The picture and sound quality from DVD is amazing, the whole
movie fits on one side of one disc, there's random access, no rewinding, and
the discs themselves are compact and cheap, they don't wear out, it's the
only format I buy anymore.

In message , half_pint
writes

The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.

Yes.

You find it quite funny that a portrait is taller than it is wide ?

No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's

I don't recall making it an argument for widescreen TV, I was just
making an observation

when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)

Not got a real grip on the world have you ?

--
geoff

half_pint wrote:

"David Hemmings" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:16:33 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:




"Bob Brenchley." wrote in message
...

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:14 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...

In message , half_pint
writes

I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which

developed

in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.

Yes.


You find it quite funny that a portrait is taller than it is wide ?


No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)



Ah. So what you are saying is that a squeare scereen would be good
because you could watch it lying on your side?

--
---------------
regards half_pint

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , half_pint
writes
I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which
developed
in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?


Not an art connoisseur are we?
Who said it was - golden rectangles are normally used to highlight
important areas of interest.

Garbage - If you think there is a GR in Mona face you are deluded, there
are so many points on a persons face I could make any shape fit into
it 4:3, 2:1, 5:3, 9:4, 7:2

All natures creatures, apart form a few specalists such as seagulls
evolved a circular visual system to do its panning and scanning.
This is to be expected since given any random selection of images
you will find a best coverage is achieved with a circular apperture.



Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on
it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose

You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.

Why should I need to lug a TV about?
I have one in every main room of the house

Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot,
maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot.
Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable
in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take
up too much room, ditto for the bedroom.
There must be a market for portable TV's (which you appear
to deny) because they make up about 30-50 percent of the TV
market .
Also not everyone wants to spend £280 on a TV when they can
get one for £69, but I guess you call paying 4 times what you used
to pay is 'progress', just like digital radio, where you can pay
10 times the price for a product which will not even work unless
you pay a futher £400 for an ariel the size of Jodrell Bank.

--
geoff

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
half_pint wrote:

"David Hemmings" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:16:33 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:




"Bob Brenchley." wrote in message
...

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:14 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...

In message , half_pint
writes

I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which

developed

in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful to
avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.

Yes.


You find it quite funny that a portrait is taller than it is wide ?


No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)



Ah. So what you are saying is that a squeare scereen would be good
because you could watch it lying on your side?


No thats what you said.

--
---------------
regards half_pint

No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)




Where are you even getting that from? A portrait display (taller than wide)
is great for showing just that, a portrait of one person, or a full
document, but since our eyes are side by side, not one over the other, when
you look out over a scene you see more width than height. There's little of
interest on the ground or up in the sky, hence the popularity of panoramic
photos for showing a scene.

Just the same, yes if the standard was square and movies were shot assuming
a square screen it would work just fine and dandy aside from having to try
harder to keep mic booms, etc out of the picture and needing to be zoomed
out unnessesarily far to fit many scenes, but the fact of the matter is
that's not the case, and movies are filmed wider than they are tall. That's
the way it's been for a long time and it's unlikely for that to change. Are
you a troll or what? You must have been one of those kids who'd try to jam
the round peg in the square hole for reasons not apparent to anyone else.

"geoff" wrote in message
news
In message , half_pint
writes

"Bob Brenchley." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

****tard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound
and
audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the
question,
the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended

They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.

Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.


I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

16/9 =1.8 GR = 1.618


Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?


--
geoff

Why all the argument? The reason behind widescreen is irrelevant, the
fact
is that it's the format of the future, virtually every movie in
existance
was filmed in something closer to 16:9 than 4:3.


Actually 35mm film is 36mmx24mm - 3:2. Most early films were shot on
that format....




Which is almost exactly in the middle between 4:3 and 16:9, my
interpretation of that is that for older fims it's a tossup, for newer films
16:9 is the clear winner, looks like a point scored for WS.

Perhaps my view on this subject is also due to the fact that I can't think
of anything worth watching on TV aside from movies and a very occasional
show on the history channel, if 95% of the TV's use is for wide material
then it would make sense to go with a wide set should I ever get a newer one
than I have.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , half_pint
writes

The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing
to
do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.

Yes.

You find it quite funny that a portrait is taller than it is wide ?

No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's

I don't recall making it an argument for widescreen TV, I was just
making an observation

What is your observation and how is it relevant?

when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)

Not got a real grip on the world have you ?

What makes you think that and what characteristics are displayed
(in your opinon) by someone with a 'grip on the world'?

--
geoff

Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot,
maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot.
Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable
in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take
up too much room, ditto for the bedroom.
There must be a market for portable TV's (which you appear
to deny) because they make up about 30-50 percent of the TV
market .
Also not everyone wants to spend £280 on a TV when they can
get one for £69, but I guess you call paying 4 times what you used
to pay is 'progress', just like digital radio, where you can pay
10 times the price for a product which will not even work unless
you pay a futher £400 for an ariel the size of Jodrell Bank.

--
geoff


There's a plentiful supply of used 4:3 sets, and that will only get larger
as 16:9 gains popularity, so if anything you should be happy, supply will be
high, demand will be low, prices will be cheap. The 4:3 format will likely
remain popular for quite some time for portable sets, but 4:3 is virtually
dead for large projection sets even today, with no signs of that slowing
down. I rather like the trend, if I had my choice I'd go WS but I got my 50"
standard set for free, I'm sure after a few years I'll come across an even
nicer one as someone upgrades.

In message , half_pint
writes


Not an art connoisseur are we?
Who said it was - golden rectangles are normally used to highlight
important areas of interest.

Garbage - If you think there is a GR in Mona face you are deluded, there
are so many points on a persons face I could make any shape fit into
it 4:3, 2:1, 5:3, 9:4, 7:2

Again, I made no mention of the Mona Lisa - it's a portrait over a
portrait. You have to dig a bit deeper into the art world than that


All natures creatures, apart form a few specalists such as seagulls
evolved a circular visual system to do its panning and scanning.
This is to be expected since given any random selection of images
you will find a best coverage is achieved with a circular apperture.



Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on
it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose

You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.

Why should I need to lug a TV about?
I have one in every main room of the house

Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot,
maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot.

Did you miss my comment above?

Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable
in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take
up too much room, ditto for the bedroom.

Nah - 28" in the bedroom, portable but static in the kitchen (4:3
portable)

There must be a market for portable TV's (which you appear
to deny) because they make up about 30-50 percent of the TV
market .

I don't recall having said anything of the kind

Also not everyone wants to spend £280 on a TV when they can
get one for £69,

Aah - you like sex channels then

but I guess you call paying 4 times what you used
to pay is 'progress', just like digital radio, where you can pay
10 times the price for a product which will not even work unless
you pay a futher £400 for an ariel the size of Jodrell Bank.

Who needs Joderell Bank ?

What I'm saying is:

The 16:9 is becoming the new standard, like it or not. You are in a
changing world, you can dig your heels in, but you're not going to win
because it's a massive business whose primary interest is not what you
happen to find aesthetically pleasing, but what, economically , is going
to generate best profits.

Digital TV will eventually take over from analogue and you can sit in
front of your old TV looking at snow if you want to - the constant, safe
secure world that you once knew is no more, get used to it


--
geoff



--
geoff

In message , half_pint
writes

What is your observation and how is it relevant?

It was that 16:9 was a golden rectangle, and I claimed no relevance


when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)

Not got a real grip on the world have you ?

What makes you think that and what characteristics are displayed
(in your opinon) by someone with a 'grip on the world'?

Someone who recognises that the world is changing and that standing
still is, in effect moving backwards.

Analogue TV will be switched off as soon as is practicable.
The fact that a total mess has been made of it (the changeover) is
irrelevant, it will happen.
--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , half_pint
writes


Not an art connoisseur are we?
Who said it was - golden rectangles are normally used to highlight
important areas of interest.

Garbage - If you think there is a GR in Mona face you are deluded, there
are so many points on a persons face I could make any shape fit into
it 4:3, 2:1, 5:3, 9:4, 7:2

Again, I made no mention of the Mona Lisa - it's a portrait over a
portrait. You have to dig a bit deeper into the art world than that

You mentioned leonardo, the ML is a common example given for the GR.


All natures creatures, apart form a few specalists such as seagulls
evolved a circular visual system to do its panning and scanning.
This is to be expected since given any random selection of images
you will find a best coverage is achieved with a circular apperture.



Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on
it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3
finally
croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose

You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.

Why should I need to lug a TV about?
I have one in every main room of the house

Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot,
maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot.

Did you miss my comment above?

No I didn't, you appear to have missed my point however.
( which is there are few/no portable WS vacuum tube TV's)


Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable
in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take
up too much room, ditto for the bedroom.

Nah - 28" in the bedroom, portable but static in the kitchen (4:3
portable)

I don't fancy a paying £280 for a TV in the bedroom which I would
hardly ever watch, besides it would take up too much room anyway.

There must be a market for portable TV's (which you appear
to deny) because they make up about 30-50 percent of the TV
market .

I don't recall having said anything of the kind

Not explicitly no.

Also not everyone wants to spend £280 on a TV when they can
get one for £69,

Aah - you like sex channels then

Not really I can get all my filth on line for free.


but I guess you call paying 4 times what you used
to pay is 'progress', just like digital radio, where you can pay
10 times the price for a product which will not even work unless
you pay a futher £400 for an ariel the size of Jodrell Bank.

Who needs Joderell Bank ?

What I'm saying is:

The 16:9 is becoming the new standard, like it or not. You are in a
changing world, you can dig your heels in, but you're not going to win
because it's a massive business whose primary interest is not what you
happen to find aesthetically pleasing, but what, economically , is going
to generate best profits.

And you are right but wrong.
I was considering buying a new main TV and two portables but all this
WS crap has put me off. So where is the profit in that?

The poll tax was good for business but it died a death.
16:9 looks ok on a 4:3 but 4:3 on a 16:9 looks ****e.
Most of my viewing is still 4:3, the soaps (which I don't watch)
are in 16:9 but soap viewers will watch anything.
(Actually soaps look bad in 16:9 cos its mainly indoors so no
landscape shots, its mainly portrait type shots).
My footie is still 4:3 :O)

Digital TV will eventually take over from analogue and you can sit in
front of your old TV looking at snow if you want to - the constant, safe
secure world that you once knew is no more, get used to it

Don't under estimate the power of the masses, we may have no cake
to eat Marie Anttiornette(?).
It will be a brave polititian who says "Let them watch snow!!"

I have noticed a lot of heavy pushing of 'new technology' by the BBC though.
It make me wonder who is controling the situation.
MAybe we will be required to have a portrait of the Governer General of
the BBC in every room?

We haven't gone digital yet and it will take a long time I expect.


--
geoff



--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , half_pint
writes

What is your observation and how is it relevant?

It was that 16:9 was a golden rectangle, and I claimed no relevance

I dont think it is, 16:9 is 1:1.8
A golden ratio is 1:1.62
(unless I have screwed up big time) (rare)


when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)

Not got a real grip on the world have you ?

What makes you think that and what characteristics are displayed
(in your opinon) by someone with a 'grip on the world'?

Someone who recognises that the world is changing and that standing
still is, in effect moving backwards.

I am recognising the world is moving backwards.
By standing still I am effectively advancing :O)

Analogue TV will be switched off as soon as is practicable.

Never if it means swithcing to widescreen?

Digital and WS have been married to produce an ugly *******,
(if its possible to produce a ******* under wedlock).
Its a total cockup.
We would not be in this mess if I was in charge :O|


The fact that a total mess has been made of it (the changeover) is
irrelevant, it will happen.

Its a mess cos its bad, is a backwards step.
Backwards steps in evolution are rare and don;t usualy last long.

--
geoff

In message , half_pint
writes


The 16:9 is becoming the new standard, like it or not. You are in a
changing world, you can dig your heels in, but you're not going to win
because it's a massive business whose primary interest is not what you
happen to find aesthetically pleasing, but what, economically , is going
to generate best profits.

And you are right but wrong.
I was considering buying a new main TV and two portables but all this
WS crap has put me off. So where is the profit in that?

You are (as I am ) totally insignificant in the big picture (so to
speak)


The poll tax was good for business but it died a death.
16:9 looks ok on a 4:3 but 4:3 on a 16:9 looks ****e.
Most of my viewing is still 4:3, the soaps (which I don't watch)
are in 16:9 but soap viewers will watch anything.

Never watched more than one episode of Coronation street 30 years ago -
but with an anterior motive

(Actually soaps look bad in 16:9 cos its mainly indoors so no
landscape shots, its mainly portrait type shots).
My footie is still 4:3 :O)

Football on TV is ****e whatever resolution you use


Digital TV will eventually take over from analogue and you can sit in
front of your old TV looking at snow if you want to - the constant, safe
secure world that you once knew is no more, get used to it

Don't under estimate the power of the masses, we may have no cake
to eat Marie Anttiornette(?).
It will be a brave polititian who says "Let them watch snow!!"

It will happen


I have noticed a lot of heavy pushing of 'new technology' by the BBC though.
It make me wonder who is controling the situation.
MAybe we will be required to have a portrait of the Governer General of
the BBC in every room?

We haven't gone digital yet and it will take a long time I expect.


I agree, but the format is changing, what ever your wishes might be

--
geoff

Analogue TV will be switched off as soon as is practicable.
The fact that a total mess has been made of it (the changeover) is
irrelevant, it will happen.
--
geoff

I don't think that will particularly matter, we're in the age of one chip
does everything, it costs only pennies per unit to provide an analog output
in whatever video standard is desired from a digital cable box. Digital will
slowly creep in, but the analog TV will be with us for a while in one form
or another. The majority of the people I know with digital cable use it with
a standard TV, the only reason I see for HD is for movies.

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:I2pIb.79969$VB2.162248@attbi_s51...


No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)




Where are you even getting that from? A portrait display (taller than
wide)
is great for showing just that, a portrait of one person, or a full
document, but since our eyes are side by side, not one over the other,
when


Your eyes may be side by side but they produce a single 3D circular image.
( Unless you are ****ed out of your mind and have double vision)

you look out over a scene you see more width than height. There's little
of
interest on the ground or up in the sky, hence the popularity of panoramic
photos for showing a scene.

Unfortunatly only ~10% of images are panoramic most are portrait, unless you
are a seagull which require a widescreen view as viewing the horizon seems
to
the be all and end all of their exiatance.

Just the same, yes if the standard was square and movies were shot
assuming
a square screen it would work just fine and dandy aside from having to try
harder to keep mic booms, etc out of the picture and needing to be zoomed
out unnessesarily far to fit many scenes, but the fact of the matter is
that's not the case, and movies are filmed wider than they are tall.
That's
the way it's been for a long time and it's unlikely for that to change.
Are
you a troll or what? You must have been one of those kids who'd try to jam
the round peg in the square hole for reasons not apparent to anyone else.

I think u r the troll, the movie of 911 will look great in WS, you will have
to film it from 20 miles away to get both towers in.

Images on average are of a random shape so round, like our eyes vision is
best.

In message , half_pint
writes

What makes you think that and what characteristics are displayed
(in your opinon) by someone with a 'grip on the world'?

Someone who recognises that the world is changing and that standing
still is, in effect moving backwards.

I am recognising the world is moving backwards.
By standing still I am effectively advancing :O)

Analogue TV will be switched off as soon as is practicable.

Never if it means swithcing to widescreen?

Sorry, it's going to happen


Digital and WS have been married to produce an ugly *******,
(if its possible to produce a ******* under wedlock).
Its a total cockup.
We would not be in this mess if I was in charge :O|


The fact that a total mess has been made of it (the changeover) is
irrelevant, it will happen.

Its a mess cos its bad, is a backwards step.
Backwards steps in evolution are rare and don;t usualy last long.

You're losing it here



--
geoff



--
geoff