wrote in message
...
On Nov 21, 10:24 am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Ron" wrote



Wanna argue the point, lets take it to alt.tv.tech.hdtv and see what
they have to say.

Can't argue what you can't see. Come over to my house and look, they
we
can
discuss. Until then you are just blowing hot air.

Make and model number of your TV?

Samsung 32" I'll have to look for the model # later. It is hooked to a
DirecTV DVR as that may also be a factor.

Is it possible that what you're looking at really isn't the old 4:3
aspect ratio, ie that channel is now in HD 16:9 ratio? I haven't seen
a set yet where the picture isn't distorted to make it fill up the
screen. They do have algorithms that stretch some parts more than
others, the sides I think, to try to make it less noticeable. But
there is only so much you can do and every one I've seen makes people
look fat.


One is the Cooking Channel (not broadcast in HD), it fills the screen but
does not have the "fat face" syndrome. On a couple of other channels, it
reverts to the 4:3 ratio. I'm not sure if DirecTV or the content provider
that has any control over that, or even the circuitry of the DVR box.

Does not matter much to me anyway. I've become a bit of an HD snob. The
difference between SD and HD is so significant, I avoid most shows not
available in HD these days. I've been watching Great Migrations tonight
and was wowed by some of the visual quality and detail of the finest stuff,
like blades of grass, animal fur, etc. We've come a long way from the 12"
B &W with Milton Berle.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


[snip]


Does not matter much to me anyway. I've become a bit of an HD snob. The
difference between SD and HD is so significant, I avoid most shows not
available in HD these days. I've been watching Great Migrations tonight
and was wowed by some of the visual quality and detail of the finest
stuff,
like blades of grass, animal fur, etc. We've come a long way from the
12" B &W with Milton Berle.

I like the increaded spatial resolution, but find other things more
inportant. Things like the way the picture is much more stable (not wiggling
around all the time like analog video), and better color. One of the first
things I saw in HD was a football game, where the grass was green instead of
a sick yellow.

BTW, I don't think 3DTV is worthwhile. Maybe if they made it work without
the glasses.

--
31 days until The winter celebration (Saturday December 25, 2010
12:00:00 AM).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"If there's room for doubt -- doubt!"

"Mark Lloyd" wrote
BTW, I don't think 3DTV is worthwhile. Maybe if they made it work without
the glasses.


I was in a Best Buy store and they had a 3D set playing. Without glasses,
it looked like a poor 2D. I did not see any glasses around to try and did
not want to get a salesperson and have to listen to them. It is also
recommended to limit the time watching the 3D to a couple of hours a day as
it can bother the eyes.

I wonder if I'll be able to get prescription 3D glasses in the future.
Right now, it is still a novelty, but in a few years . . . . .

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Mark Lloyd" wrote
BTW, I don't think 3DTV is worthwhile. Maybe if they made it work without
the glasses.


I was in a Best Buy store and they had a 3D set playing. Without glasses,
it looked like a poor 2D. I did not see any glasses around to try and did
not want to get a salesperson and have to listen to them. It is also
recommended to limit the time watching the 3D to a couple of hours a day as
it can bother the eyes.

I wonder if I'll be able to get prescription 3D glasses in the future.
Right now, it is still a novelty, but in a few years . . . . .

I was pretty impressed with 3D in the store. Coolest thing was
"upconverting." With 3D source material, you see things receding into
the screen as well as being projected out in front. However, with *any*
HD source, the system can create a 3D image that recedes only. Still
very realistic.

I'm wondering whether the active vs. passive glasses systems will be
another Beta/VHS showdown, or if both will proliferate. It'd be duck
soup to make prescription passive glasses, I think.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

If you need HDMI cables, go to Amazon and buy the $4 ones. They
works as well as the $30+ cords. When I had my DirecTV setup, the
installer left me a couple of extras also.

Avoid Monster Cable. Get Blue Jean cable. Here's why:

" I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable
typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion. Your client threatens
litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and
what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment
and a licensing agreement. Your client then uses this collection of
licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to
accede to its demands. Let me be clear about this: there are only
two ways for you to get anything out of me. You will either need to
(1) convince me that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final
judgment to that effect from a court of competent jurisdiction. "

Read the whole thing:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/indu...s-strikes-back

A great letter. I've saved a copy for "boiler plating" in the
future. I really, really would like to see the outrageous and
nonsensical claims Monster has been making for year dealt with in
court with expert witnesses who would tear them a new output port.
Sadly, I have friends that believe that paying 10 times what a cable
is worth makes it somehow ten times better. )-:

I'm guessing if Monster is stupid enough to proceed, they might very
well end up having to admit, in court, that they are 98% hype and
nothing more.

It's worse. Monster Cable even threatened to sue one "Vermonster Day Care"
for using the trademarked word in their name!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...03446477.shtml

The problem is that enough lawyer-fearing recipients of these threat letters
enter into settlements rso that companies like Monster actually start
believing they are in the right. That is right until they run into someone
who *won't* settle and Monster makes the mistake of litigating, where the
rubber meets the road. I'll bet Monster folds like a cheap suit when that
happens because they can't afford to lose and set a damaging precedent.

It will be interesting to see where the Blue Jean Cable "threatfest" ends
up. I seen Monster getting chased out by villagers with torches.

--
Bobby G.

On 11/29/2010 3:07 PM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
news
Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
m...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

If you need HDMI cables, go to Amazon and buy the $4 ones. They
works as well as the $30+ cords. When I had my DirecTV setup, the
installer left me a couple of extras also.

Avoid Monster Cable. Get Blue Jean cable. Here's why:

" I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable
typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion. Your client threatens
litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and
what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment
and a licensing agreement. Your client then uses this collection of
licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to
accede to its demands. Let me be clear about this: there are only
two ways for you to get anything out of me. You will either need to
(1) convince me that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final
judgment to that effect from a court of competent jurisdiction. "

Read the whole thing:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/indu...s-strikes-back

A great letter. I've saved a copy for "boiler plating" in the
future. I really, really would like to see the outrageous and
nonsensical claims Monster has been making for year dealt with in
court with expert witnesses who would tear them a new output port.
Sadly, I have friends that believe that paying 10 times what a cable
is worth makes it somehow ten times better. )-:

I'm guessing if Monster is stupid enough to proceed, they might very
well end up having to admit, in court, that they are 98% hype and
nothing more.

It's worse. Monster Cable even threatened to sue one "Vermonster Day Care"
for using the trademarked word in their name!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...03446477.shtml

The problem is that enough lawyer-fearing recipients of these threat letters
enter into settlements rso that companies like Monster actually start
believing they are in the right. That is right until they run into someone
who *won't* settle and Monster makes the mistake of litigating, where the
rubber meets the road. I'll bet Monster folds like a cheap suit when that
happens because they can't afford to lose and set a damaging precedent.

It will be interesting to see where the Blue Jean Cable "threatfest" ends
up. I seen Monster getting chased out by villagers with torches.

--
Bobby G.



I wonder if they could or would sue my brother for his handle,
"Uncle Monster"? The name was given to him by a four year old
back in 1986 and it stuck.

TDD

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:46:41 -0600, The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 11/29/2010 3:07 PM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
news
Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
m...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

If you need HDMI cables, go to Amazon and buy the $4 ones. They
works as well as the $30+ cords. When I had my DirecTV setup, the
installer left me a couple of extras also.

Avoid Monster Cable. Get Blue Jean cable. Here's why:

" I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable
typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion. Your client threatens
litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and
what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment
and a licensing agreement. Your client then uses this collection of
licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to
accede to its demands. Let me be clear about this: there are only
two ways for you to get anything out of me. You will either need to
(1) convince me that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final
judgment to that effect from a court of competent jurisdiction. "

Read the whole thing:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/indu...jeans-strikes-
back

A great letter. I've saved a copy for "boiler plating" in the
future. I really, really would like to see the outrageous and
nonsensical claims Monster has been making for year dealt with in
court with expert witnesses who would tear them a new output port.
Sadly, I have friends that believe that paying 10 times what a cable
is worth makes it somehow ten times better. )-:

I'm guessing if Monster is stupid enough to proceed, they might very
well end up having to admit, in court, that they are 98% hype and
nothing more.

It's worse. Monster Cable even threatened to sue one "Vermonster Day
Care" for using the trademarked word in their name!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...03446477.shtml

The problem is that enough lawyer-fearing recipients of these threat
letters enter into settlements rso that companies like Monster actually
start believing they are in the right. That is right until they run
into someone who *won't* settle and Monster makes the mistake of
litigating, where the rubber meets the road. I'll bet Monster folds
like a cheap suit when that happens because they can't afford to lose
and set a damaging precedent.

It will be interesting to see where the Blue Jean Cable "threatfest"
ends up. I seen Monster getting chased out by villagers with torches.

--
Bobby G.



I wonder if they could or would sue my brother for his handle, "Uncle
Monster"? The name was given to him by a four year old back in 1986 and
it stuck.

TDD

What about the Monster energy drink?
http://www.monsterenergy.com/





--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse

On 11/29/2010 3:55 PM, Meat Plow wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:46:41 -0600, The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 11/29/2010 3:07 PM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
news Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
m...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

If you need HDMI cables, go to Amazon and buy the $4 ones. They
works as well as the $30+ cords. When I had my DirecTV setup, the
installer left me a couple of extras also.

Avoid Monster Cable. Get Blue Jean cable. Here's why:

" I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable
typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion. Your client threatens
litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and
what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment
and a licensing agreement. Your client then uses this collection of
licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to
accede to its demands. Let me be clear about this: there are only
two ways for you to get anything out of me. You will either need to
(1) convince me that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final
judgment to that effect from a court of competent jurisdiction. "

Read the whole thing:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/indu...jeans-strikes-
back

A great letter. I've saved a copy for "boiler plating" in the
future. I really, really would like to see the outrageous and
nonsensical claims Monster has been making for year dealt with in
court with expert witnesses who would tear them a new output port.
Sadly, I have friends that believe that paying 10 times what a cable
is worth makes it somehow ten times better. )-:

I'm guessing if Monster is stupid enough to proceed, they might very
well end up having to admit, in court, that they are 98% hype and
nothing more.

It's worse. Monster Cable even threatened to sue one "Vermonster Day
Care" for using the trademarked word in their name!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...03446477.shtml

The problem is that enough lawyer-fearing recipients of these threat
letters enter into settlements rso that companies like Monster actually
start believing they are in the right. That is right until they run
into someone who *won't* settle and Monster makes the mistake of
litigating, where the rubber meets the road. I'll bet Monster folds
like a cheap suit when that happens because they can't afford to lose
and set a damaging precedent.

It will be interesting to see where the Blue Jean Cable "threatfest"
ends up. I seen Monster getting chased out by villagers with torches.

--
Bobby G.



I wonder if they could or would sue my brother for his handle, "Uncle
Monster"? The name was given to him by a four year old back in 1986 and
it stuck.

TDD

What about the Monster energy drink?
http://www.monsterenergy.com/


Me and Brother Monster drink those too. FLNF

TDD

"Meat Plow" wrote

What about the Monster energy drink?
http://www.monsterenergy.com/


They pay a royalty for the name, and they also must have the pull tab on
each can facing north so the carbonation bubbles are released in the proper
pattern for full energy.