On Nov 19, 5:19*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 11/19/2010 2:19 AM, Robert Green wrote:



*wrote in message
om...
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.

--
Bobby G.

Wouldn't your electrons rather travel in luxury? Contented audio signals
produce superior sound when they don't have to fight their
way down an impure copper pathway and traverse anything but the
most luxurious gold plated connections.

Dang! I should write copy for Monster Cable! 8-)

TDD

Last time I bought HDMI (v1.3 6ft gold-plated) it was a 3 pk for $6.99
and free shipping from Meritline.

On 11/19/2010 5:25 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"The Daring wrote in message
...
On 11/19/2010 2:19 AM, 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.

--
Bobby G.



Wouldn't your electrons rather travel in luxury? Contented audio signals
produce superior sound when they don't have to fight their
way down an impure copper pathway and traverse anything but the
most luxurious gold plated connections.

Dang! I should write copy for Monster Cable! 8-)

TDD

My favorite monsterism is marking the cables to indicate optimum electron
flow.

--
Bobby G.



My brother Uncle Monster has had the name for about 25 years. It was
given to him by 4 year old and I help add to his collection of Uncle
Monster's observations of the world known as "Monsterisms". I wonder
if Monster Cable could sue us? An example:

"Human females are genetically Machiavellian, they need little or no
training" Monsterism by Uncle Monster.

TDD

On Nov 18, 3:41*am, Bob Villa wrote:
On Nov 17, 1:28*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:



Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) *Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g. http://www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? *Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

For 32" Go with Samsung or Panasonic, LCD, 720p, 60Hz. *For 55" Same
with LCD, LED, 1080p, 120Hz.

Thanks to all for helpful comments. I'm leaning toward the Panasonic
model suggested in this post from "Bob Vila". I don't want anything
bigger than 32" for the bedroom. I've bought very few TVs over the
years, and they have all been SONYs, but...all things must end...

In contrast with another comment on this thread about 720, Michael,
the seemingly knowledgeable TV guy at Costco , said that 720 is just
coming in on many channels (other than HBO & that ilk, which I don't
get). He said 1080 as a universal is still few years away.

Per yet another comment on this thread, Michael opined that an
average viewer (I guess that's me!) for non-sports events wouldn't be
able to tell the diff. between 720 and 1080 at the 32" size. I asked
about 1080p and 1080i. He said that 1080i is basically 720; that the
"i" means interlinear; that it doesn't refresh as fast as "real" 1080.

Costco's price, w/instant rebate, is $349 until Dec. 2. Maybe I could
get it a few bux cheaper elsewhere, but Costco is good to deal with on
many counts, including returns.

HB

"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


I like this line:
" If you sue me, the case will go to judgment, and I will hold the court's
attention upon the merits of your claims--or, to speak more precisely, the
absence of merit from your claims--from start to finish. Not only am I
unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it."

On Nov 19, 5:19*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 11/19/2010 2:19 AM, Robert Green wrote:





*wrote in message
om...
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.

--
Bobby G.

Wouldn't your electrons rather travel in luxury? Contented audio signals
produce superior sound when they don't have to fight their
way down an impure copper pathway and traverse anything but the
most luxurious gold plated connections.

Dang! I should write copy for Monster Cable! 8-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You forgot about gold and silver-plating those crummy copper wires so
the electrons can glide down the wires with even lower resistance and
certainly travel in a higher classG.

"Higgs Boson" wrote

Thanks to all for helpful comments. I'm leaning toward the Panasonic
model suggested in this post from "Bob Vila". I don't want anything
bigger than 32" for the bedroom.

Costco's price, w/instant rebate, is $349 until Dec. 2. Maybe I could
get it a few bux cheaper elsewhere, but Costco is good to deal with on
many counts, including returns.

HB

Sounds about the right price for a 32". There are many in that category
that would work for you so I'm sure this one will make you happy. We have a
32" in the bedroom also and it is plenty big there.

On 11/19/2010 10:25 PM, hr(bob) wrote:
On Nov 19, 5:19 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 11/19/2010 2:19 AM, 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.

--
Bobby G.

Wouldn't your electrons rather travel in luxury? Contented audio signals
produce superior sound when they don't have to fight their
way down an impure copper pathway and traverse anything but the
most luxurious gold plated connections.

Dang! I should write copy for Monster Cable! 8-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You forgot about gold and silver-plating those crummy copper wires so
the electrons can glide down the wires with even lower resistance and
certainly travel in a higher classG.

During WWII, copper was in such short supply that silver was used for
magnet wire at Oak Ridge for use in enriching uranium. What a salvage
job that was after the war. 8-)

TDD

In article
,
Higgs Boson wrote:

I asked
about 1080p and 1080i. He said that 1080i is basically 720; that the
"i" means interlinear; that it doesn't refresh as fast as "real" 1080.

Yep, real knowledgeable fellow, that Michael guy. Go with his expertise,
I'd say. Not.

On Nov 18, 12:21*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*Bill Gill wrote:

Well, as *said, at the store compare the TVs before you buy. *I'm just
reporting what people have said after careful testing.

Bill

Testing done at 10-12', not exactly the distance from which most
computer monitors are viewed, and certainly not all TVs. I thought my
Sony Wega widescreen had a pretty sharp image until I started watching
football with it pulled up to 6' from the sofa.

You could say most women look about the same from 3 blocks away, too,
but that doesn't make them the same.

As I recall the OP was asking about a 32" TV, not a TV monitor. Or do
you sit as close to a 32" TV as you do your computer monitor?

On Nov 19, 10:59*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Nov 18, 3:41*am, Bob Villa wrote:





On Nov 17, 1:28*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:

Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) *Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g. http://www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? *Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

For 32" Go with Samsung or Panasonic, LCD, 720p, 60Hz. *For 55" Same
with LCD, LED, 1080p, 120Hz.

Thanks to all for helpful comments. *I'm leaning toward the Panasonic
model suggested in this post from "Bob Vila". * I don't want anything
bigger than 32" for the bedroom. *I've bought very few TVs over the
years, and they have all been SONYs, but...all things must end...

In contrast with another comment on this thread about 720, *Michael,
the seemingly knowledgeable TV guy at Costco , said that 720 is just
coming in on many channels (other than HBO & that ilk, which I don't
get). *He said 1080 as a universal is still few years away.

Per yet another comment on this thread, Michael *opined that an
average viewer (I guess that's me!) for non-sports events wouldn't be
able to tell the diff. between 720 and 1080 at the 32" size.

That's in line with what all the side by side actual reviews I've read
have concluded, except for the sports part. The issue with sports is
fast movement, which AFAIK is not related to resolution, but other
display characteristics.

*I asked
about 1080p and 1080i. *He said that 1080i is basically 720; that the
"i" means interlinear; that it doesn't refresh as fast as "real" 1080.

The "i" means interlaced, which has already been discussed many times
in this thread. And interlaced 1080i is not basicly 720 anything.
Now here is a puzzlement that I never thought about before, but this
thread got me thinking about. Interlacing originated with broadcast
TV and was a way to reduce bandwidth. That made sense because with TV
transmission, you only have X bandwith in the airwave spectrum. So,
it's advantageous to reduce bandwith on any given channel so that you
can accomodate more channels in the same freq range. Consequently
they interlaced the display, tracing odd number lines on one pass,
even number lines on the next pass and relying on the persistence of
the phosphor on the CRT to keep the previous pass there long enough
for it to still be visible.

But in the case of LCD or Plasma displays, AFAIK, there is exactly one
pixel element for each point on the screen. So, how could they
actually do interlacing at all? Do they really interlace it, or do
they just all actually display only progressively, taking whatever
input signal and then processing and scaling it to the display? It
would seem to me if you had twice the rows on the LCD display, then
you would just use them all in one pass, because I don't see any
advantage to displaying one row at a time. All it would do is cut
down the bandwith in the display driving circuitry, which certainly
isn't a problem for modern semiconductors. So, I would think
regardless of what the source is, it's always going to be displayed
progressively.

On Nov 20, 7:15*am, wrote:
On Nov 18, 1:14*pm, Ron wrote:



On Nov 18, 1:11*pm, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

*Ron wrote:
On Nov 18, 12:54 pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

Ron wrote:
And I suppose you can hear an audible difference between coat hangers
and Monster Cable, right?

Nope. Monster Cable is snake oil. Picture resolution is, uh, about as
plain as science and math gets. I was just pointing out the obvious:
humans disregard science and math in favor of emotion and snake oil.

No reasonable human being can possibly claim that 720 lines of
resolution are in any way equal to 1080 lines of resolution. It is so
utterly nonsensical that the fact that it's being debated is a tragic
indictment of human intelligence.

Again, it depends on the viewing distance!!!!!! What is so hard to
understand about that?????

Of course it depends on the viewing distance. Why not go back to your
old 27" RCA console from 1962, and just look at it from down the block?

Everything depends on the viewing distance: paint quality on your wall
or car, cleanliness of the frying pan, curd size of the cottage cheese
in Aunt Mabel's panties.

Saying the pictures look the same as long as you're far enough away to
not be able to notice a difference hardly qualifies as a legitimate
argument. What is so hard to understand about that?????

I give up. It's your money.

Here's what CNET, which I've always found to be a credible authority
on these issues, has to say on the subject:

http://reviews.cnet.com/720p-vs-1080p-hdtv/

I posted the same article, but it didn't seem to make any difference
to some people here. Seems like a lot of people are making the
argument for 1080 because they got sucked in and are trying to make
themselves feel better because they wasted their money. If you spend
enough money on a TV you will see whatever you want to see.

I love to have these "experts" do a blind video test.

On Nov 19, 9:59*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Nov 18, 3:41*am, Bob Villa wrote:



On Nov 17, 1:28*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:

Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) *Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g. http://www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? *Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

For 32" Go with Samsung or Panasonic, LCD, 720p, 60Hz. *For 55" Same
with LCD, LED, 1080p, 120Hz.

Thanks to all for helpful comments. *I'm leaning toward the Panasonic
model suggested in this post from "Bob Vila". * I don't want anything
bigger than 32" for the bedroom. *I've bought very few TVs over the
years, and they have all been SONYs, but...all things must end...

In contrast with another comment on this thread about 720, *Michael,
the seemingly knowledgeable TV guy at Costco , said that 720 is just
coming in on many channels (other than HBO & that ilk, which I don't
get). *He said 1080 as a universal is still few years away.

Per yet another comment on this thread, Michael *opined that an
average viewer (I guess that's me!) for non-sports events wouldn't be
able to tell the diff. between 720 and 1080 at the 32" size. *I asked
about 1080p and 1080i. *He said that 1080i is basically 720; that the
"i" means interlinear; that it doesn't refresh as fast as "real" 1080.

Costco's price, w/instant rebate, is $349 until Dec. 2. *Maybe I could
get it a few bux cheaper elsewhere, but Costco is good to deal with on
many counts, including returns.

HB

Good choice! The "i" is interlaced...it was explained to me once as
interpolated? WT...!

On Nov 19, 10:59*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Nov 18, 3:41*am, Bob Villa wrote:



On Nov 17, 1:28*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:

Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) *Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g. http://www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? *Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

For 32" Go with Samsung or Panasonic, LCD, 720p, 60Hz. *For 55" Same
with LCD, LED, 1080p, 120Hz.

Thanks to all for helpful comments. *I'm leaning toward the Panasonic
model suggested in this post from "Bob Vila". * I don't want anything
bigger than 32" for the bedroom. *I've bought very few TVs over the
years, and they have all been SONYs, but...all things must end...

In contrast with another comment on this thread about 720, *Michael,
the seemingly knowledgeable TV guy at Costco , said that 720 is just
coming in on many channels (other than HBO & that ilk, which I don't
get). *He said 1080 as a universal is still few years away.

Per yet another comment on this thread, Michael *opined that an
average viewer (I guess that's me!) for non-sports events wouldn't be
able to tell the diff. between 720 and 1080 at the 32" size. *I asked
about 1080p and 1080i. *He said that 1080i is basically 720; that the
"i" means interlinear; that it doesn't refresh as fast as "real" 1080.

Costco's price, w/instant rebate, is $349 until Dec. 2. *Maybe I could
get it a few bux cheaper elsewhere, but Costco is good to deal with on
many counts, including returns.

HB

Do you have basic/expanded cable with a box? If so it should be noted
that the TV should be set to 4:3 mode (bars on the sides of the
picture).

If you use one of the "stretch" modes it's going to make people look
short and fat. If you use a zoom mode it's going to crop the picture
and cut off the content at the top and bottom of the screen. IOW, you
might only see a persons eyeballs and part of their forehead instead
of seeing their entire head. It that doesn't bother you then fine, but
if it does you might want to consider a slightly bigger TV.

In article
,
wrote:

On Nov 18, 12:21*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*Bill Gill wrote:

Well, as *said, at the store compare the TVs before you buy. *I'm just
reporting what people have said after careful testing.

Bill

Testing done at 10-12', not exactly the distance from which most
computer monitors are viewed, and certainly not all TVs. I thought my
Sony Wega widescreen had a pretty sharp image until I started watching
football with it pulled up to 6' from the sofa.

You could say most women look about the same from 3 blocks away, too,
but that doesn't make them the same.

As I recall the OP was asking about a 32" TV, not a TV monitor. Or do
you sit as close to a 32" TV as you do your computer monitor?

Indeed, OP asked about a TV. But, one respondent commented about a very
noticeable difference on his computer monitor. That was the response to
which I was referring.

In article
,
Ron wrote:

I posted the same article, but it didn't seem to make any difference
to some people here.

Every shred of credibility that Katzmaier guy may have had, went down
the toilet when he said it "wasn't the extra sharpness, it was the
smaller, more densely packed pixels" that accounted for the 1080 picture
quality. That is a pathetically ignorant comment for someone who's
billed as a "senior editor" at a technical rag.

On Nov 20, 11:09*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*Ron wrote:
I posted the same article, but it didn't seem to make any difference
to some people here.

Every shred of credibility that Katzmaier guy may have had, went down
the toilet when he said it "wasn't the extra sharpness, it was the
smaller, more densely packed pixels" that accounted for the 1080 picture
quality. That is a pathetically ignorant comment for someone who's
billed as a "senior editor" at a technical rag.

Katzmaier, who is cited, didn't write the CNET article. The article
just states that Katzmaier said it and it isn't a direct quote. It's
the writer trying to convey what Katzmaier meant. Regardless, if
you read the rest of the sentences in context around that one
inaccuracy, it's clear what they meant.

I and I'm sure Ron would be happy to see any sources you have that
have done actual side by side testing of 720 vs 1080 displays, that
say they can see a noticeable difference, particularly on screens
around 32", which was size from the original question.

On Nov 20, 11:09*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*Ron wrote:
I posted the same article, but it didn't seem to make any difference
to some people here.

Every shred of credibility that Katzmaier guy may have had, went down
the toilet when he said it "wasn't the extra sharpness, it was the
smaller, more densely packed pixels" that accounted for the 1080 picture
quality. That is a pathetically ignorant comment for someone who's
billed as a "senior editor" at a technical rag.

Yeah, and you snipped the part that said it only made a difference if
you where sitting closer to the TV, which took the comment out of
context.

Whatever, there are PLENTY of other sites on the web that say the SAME
thing.

On Nov 20, 12:43*pm, wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:09*am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

*Ron wrote:
I posted the same article, but it didn't seem to make any difference
to some people here.

Every shred of credibility that Katzmaier guy may have had, went down
the toilet when he said it "wasn't the extra sharpness, it was the
smaller, more densely packed pixels" that accounted for the 1080 picture
quality. That is a pathetically ignorant comment for someone who's
billed as a "senior editor" at a technical rag.

Katzmaier, who is cited, didn't write the CNET article. * *The article
just states that Katzmaier said it and it isn't a direct quote. *It's
the writer trying to convey what Katzmaier meant. * *Regardless, if
you read the rest of the sentences in context around that one
inaccuracy, it's clear what they meant.

Exactly! He even snipped the article earlier so it would be taken out
of context to fit his "argument".

I and I'm sure Ron would be happy to see any sources you have that
have done actual side by side testing of 720 vs 1080 displays, that
say they can see a noticeable difference, particularly on screens
around 32", which was size from the original question.

Yep.

On 11/20/2010 09:18 AM, Ron wrote:
On Nov 20, 7:15 am, wrote:
On Nov 18, 1:14 pm, wrote:



On Nov 18, 1:11 pm, Smitty wrote:

In article
,

wrote:
On Nov 18, 12:54 pm, Smitty wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
And I suppose you can hear an audible difference between coat hangers
and Monster Cable, right?

Nope. Monster Cable is snake oil. Picture resolution is, uh, about as
plain as science and math gets. I was just pointing out the obvious:
humans disregard science and math in favor of emotion and snake oil.

No reasonable human being can possibly claim that 720 lines of
resolution are in any way equal to 1080 lines of resolution. It is so
utterly nonsensical that the fact that it's being debated is a tragic
indictment of human intelligence.

Again, it depends on the viewing distance!!!!!! What is so hard to
understand about that?????

Of course it depends on the viewing distance. Why not go back to your
old 27" RCA console from 1962, and just look at it from down the block?

Everything depends on the viewing distance: paint quality on your wall
or car, cleanliness of the frying pan, curd size of the cottage cheese
in Aunt Mabel's panties.

Saying the pictures look the same as long as you're far enough away to
not be able to notice a difference hardly qualifies as a legitimate
argument. What is so hard to understand about that?????

I give up. It's your money.

Here's what CNET, which I've always found to be a credible authority
on these issues, has to say on the subject:

http://reviews.cnet.com/720p-vs-1080p-hdtv/

I posted the same article, but it didn't seem to make any difference
to some people here. Seems like a lot of people are making the
argument for 1080 because they got sucked in and are trying to make
themselves feel better because they wasted their money. If you spend
enough money on a TV you will see whatever you want to see.

I love to have these "experts" do a blind video test.

hey, all I know is what I see. I am not trying to justify any purchase
to myself because I am happy with both of my TV/monitors (one a
Viewsonic 720p and the other a Samsung 1080p) but the difference between
the two is quite noticeable and if I could only keep one and had to
choose one or the other it would take no time at all to pick the Samsung.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Nov 20, 2:33*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 11/20/2010 09:18 AM, Ron wrote:



On Nov 20, 7:15 am, wrote:
On Nov 18, 1:14 pm, *wrote:

On Nov 18, 1:11 pm, Smitty *wrote:

In article
,

* *wrote:
On Nov 18, 12:54 pm, Smitty *wrote:
In article
,

*wrote:
And I suppose you can hear an audible difference between coat hangers
and Monster Cable, right?

Nope. Monster Cable is snake oil. Picture resolution is, uh, about as
plain as science and math gets. I was just pointing out the obvious:
humans disregard science and math in favor of emotion and snake oil.

No reasonable human being can possibly claim that 720 lines of
resolution are in any way equal to 1080 lines of resolution. It is so
utterly nonsensical that the fact that it's being debated is a tragic
indictment of human intelligence.

Again, it depends on the viewing distance!!!!!! What is so hard to
understand about that?????

Of course it depends on the viewing distance. Why not go back to your
old 27" RCA console from 1962, and just look at it from down the block?

Everything depends on the viewing distance: paint quality on your wall
or car, cleanliness of the frying pan, curd size of the cottage cheese
in Aunt Mabel's panties.

Saying the pictures look the same as long as you're far enough away to
not be able to notice a difference hardly qualifies as a legitimate
argument. What is so hard to understand about that?????

I give up. It's your money.

Here's what CNET, which I've always found to be a credible authority
on these issues, has to say on the subject:

http://reviews.cnet.com/720p-vs-1080p-hdtv/

I posted the same article, but it didn't seem to make any difference
to some people here. Seems like a lot of people are making the
argument for 1080 because they got sucked in and are trying to make
themselves feel better because they wasted their money. If you spend
enough money on a TV you will see whatever you want to see.

I love to have these "experts" do a blind video test.

hey, all I know is what I see. *I am not trying to justify any purchase
to myself because I am happy with both of my TV/monitors (one a
Viewsonic 720p and the other a Samsung 1080p) but the difference between
the two is quite noticeable and if I could only keep one and had to
choose one or the other it would take no time at all to pick the Samsung.

So would I. Samsung makes arguably the best LCD on the market.

Also, I would say the difference that you are noticing is the fact
that the Samsung has a better overall picture, and it's not
necessarily the difference in resolution that you are seeing unless
you are sitting right on top of them.

Go to a Walmart and look at a Sanyo 1080p and compare it to any other
TV in the store regardless of whether not it's a 720 or 1080.

Sanyo's have a washed out picture and are horrible looking.

The same could be said about Westinghouse. Horrible picture.

On Nov 20, 6:30*am, Bob Villa wrote:
On Nov 19, 9:59*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:



On Nov 18, 3:41*am, Bob Villa wrote:

On Nov 17, 1:28*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:

Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) *Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g. http://www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? *Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

For 32" Go with Samsung or Panasonic, LCD, 720p, 60Hz. *For 55" Same
with LCD, LED, 1080p, 120Hz.

Thanks to all for helpful comments. *I'm leaning toward the Panasonic
model suggested in this post from "Bob Vila". * I don't want anything
bigger than 32" for the bedroom. *I've bought very few TVs over the
years, and they have all been SONYs, but...all things must end...

In contrast with another comment on this thread about 720, *Michael,
the seemingly knowledgeable TV guy at Costco , said that 720 is just
coming in on many channels (other than HBO & that ilk, which I don't
get). *He said 1080 as a universal is still few years away.

Per yet another comment on this thread, Michael *opined that an
average viewer (I guess that's me!) for non-sports events wouldn't be
able to tell the diff. between 720 and 1080 at the 32" size. *I asked
about 1080p and 1080i. *He said that 1080i is basically 720; that the
"i" means interlinear; that it doesn't refresh as fast as "real" 1080.

Costco's price, w/instant rebate, is $349 until Dec. 2. *Maybe I could
get it a few bux cheaper elsewhere, but Costco is good to deal with on
many counts, including returns.

HB

Good choice! *The "i" is interlaced...it was explained to me once as
interpolated? WT...!

That is what "Michael" at Costco actually SAID. In my earlier post, I
misquoted him with words about "refresh", etc. My bad,
and I still think he was giving me the straight dope, borne out by
many posts on the subject of 1080i vs 1080p.

On Nov 20, 6:45*am, Ron wrote:
On Nov 19, 10:59*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:



On Nov 18, 3:41*am, Bob Villa wrote:

On Nov 17, 1:28*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:

Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) *Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g. http://www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.
Can images be transmitted either way? *Or is it a function of the
receiver? (Showing my ignorance g)

Your thoughts on 1080 vs 720 greatly appreciated.

HB

For 32" Go with Samsung or Panasonic, LCD, 720p, 60Hz. *For 55" Same
with LCD, LED, 1080p, 120Hz.

Thanks to all for helpful comments. *I'm leaning toward the Panasonic
model suggested in this post from "Bob Vila". * I don't want anything
bigger than 32" for the bedroom. *I've bought very few TVs over the
years, and they have all been SONYs, but...all things must end...

In contrast with another comment on this thread about 720, *Michael,
the seemingly knowledgeable TV guy at Costco , said that 720 is just
coming in on many channels (other than HBO & that ilk, which I don't
get). *He said 1080 as a universal is still few years away.

Per yet another comment on this thread, Michael *opined that an
average viewer (I guess that's me!) for non-sports events wouldn't be
able to tell the diff. between 720 and 1080 at the 32" size. *I asked
about 1080p and 1080i. *He said that 1080i is basically 720; that the
"i" means interlinear; that it doesn't refresh as fast as "real" 1080.

Costco's price, w/instant rebate, is $349 until Dec. 2. *Maybe I could
get it a few bux cheaper elsewhere, but Costco is good to deal with on
many counts, including returns.

HB

Do you have basic/expanded cable with a box? If so it should be noted
that the TV should be set to 4:3 mode (bars on the sides of the
picture).

If you use one of the "stretch" modes it's going to make people look
short and fat. If you use a zoom mode it's going to crop the picture
and cut off the content at the top and bottom of the screen. IOW, you
might only see a persons eyeballs and part of their forehead instead
of seeing their entire head. It that doesn't bother you then fine, but
if it does you might want to consider a slightly bigger TV.

I have FIOS from Verizon (tfui!). I'm pretty sure their box is HD,
which is supposed to be why my non-HD TV cuts off 1/5 of the picture
on each side. I went through the whole hierarchy up to the CEO's
office, but the final verdict was that box and TV don't agree. I
asked for an older box, but they said they had no more.

Somewhat alarmed about your grisly paragraph about using "stretch"
mode -- presumably on new HD TV? Costco associate said there was a
setting for making picture fit. I HOPE it doesn't do THAT!!! Any
experience out there? TIA

HB

On Nov 20, 4:16*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Nov 20, 6:45*am, Ron wrote:



On Nov 19, 10:59*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:

On Nov 18, 3:41*am, Bob Villa wrote:

On Nov 17, 1:28*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:

Oh, ye who are much smarter than *&&^%$) *Verizon (if one can ever
reach a "human'):

1. *I may have to break down and buy a new 32"TV -- which I hate to
do, given the small number of channels I watch out of the gazillion
available.

Am in throes of trying to understand the pros & cons of LCD vs LED.
The little research I have done on-line, e.g. http://www.ledvslcdtv.com/ as well as others, has left me more confused than
ever.

I don't want to spend "x" today if the technology is going to take a
quantum leap tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Led vs Lcd welcome.

2. *A supposedly knowledgeable friend told me that paying more for a
1080 pixels TV is justified only if images are transmitted in 1080.

On 11/19/2010 3:25 AM Robert Green spake thus:

My favorite monsterism is marking the cables to indicate optimum electron
flow.

NOOOOOO. Tell me they don't do that. Please.


(Reminds me of a bit of nonsense we used to joke about at the computer
company I used to work for: we claimed our products used "maximum byte
separation".)


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

Higgs Boson wrote:
Somewhat alarmed about your grisly paragraph about using "stretch"
mode -- presumably on new HD TV? Costco associate said there was a
setting for making picture fit. I HOPE it doesn't do THAT!!! Any
experience out there? TIA

I have a 720p Samsung Plaasma with HD from Charter cable. Up until a few
weeks ago we were using component video cables (it's what the cable company
supplied). With those cables non-HD content was stretched to fill the
entire screen.

I recently swithched to an HDMI cable and now the non-HD content is
displayed as 4:3 with bars on the side.

This particular TV does not have a setup choice for non-HD display while an
LCD we have in the other room does let us choose between several modes.

I actually prefer the stretched display. Also, non-HD content looked better
through the analog component cables than it does through HDMI.

Another thing to consider if a good portion of what you watch will be non-HD
is that some sets give a better picture for non-HD than others do. In other
words you could have two sets that are pretty similar in picture quality
when displaying HD yet one could do a much better job with non-HD than the
other. Might be a good idea to sample/compare both when deciding.

On Nov 20, 7:08*pm, Rick Brandt wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
Somewhat alarmed about your grisly paragraph about using "stretch"
mode -- presumably on new HD TV? *Costco associate said there was a
setting for making picture fit. *I HOPE it doesn't do THAT!!! * *Any
experience out there? *TIA

I have a 720p Samsung Plaasma with HD from Charter cable. *Up until a few
weeks ago we were using component video cables (it's what the cable company
supplied). *With those cables non-HD content was stretched to fill the
entire screen. *

I recently swithched to an HDMI cable and now the non-HD content is
displayed as 4:3 with bars on the side.

That doesn't make any sense. Sounds to me like a setting on the box
was wrong. I'm using component cables and 4:3 broadcasts are in 4:3.
And the same if I use an HDMI cable.

This particular TV does not have a setup choice for non-HD display while an
LCD we have in the other room does let us choose between several modes.

I have no idea what that means. Are you talking about stretch/zoom
modes? If so, I've never seen an HDTV that didn't have those modes.

I actually prefer the stretched display.

So you like watching a distorted picture where everything looks short
and wide?

"Higgs Boson" wrote
Somewhat alarmed about your grisly paragraph about using "stretch"
mode -- presumably on new HD TV? Costco associate said there was a
setting for making picture fit. I HOPE it doesn't do THAT!!! Any
experience out there? TIA

HB

Not to worry. You'll have a setting that will make it look good. Some have
auto features that will change the picture to 4;3. Others change it somehow
that it still looks good, fills the screen, and does not have that ugly
stretch. It may crop the top and bottom, but barely noticeable.

I hardly watch anything that is not in HD any more. I changed to cable to
DirecTv because my crappy cable company did not offer HD in five of my
favorite channels.

On Nov 20, 11:15*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Higgs Boson" wrote

Somewhat alarmed about your grisly paragraph about using "stretch"
mode -- presumably on new HD TV? *Costco associate said there was a
setting for making picture fit. *I HOPE it doesn't do THAT!!! * *Any
experience out there? *TIA

HB

Not to worry. *You'll have a setting that will make it look good. *Some have
auto features that will change the picture to 4;3. Others change it somehow
that it still looks good, fills the screen, and does not have that ugly
stretch. *It may crop the top and bottom, but barely noticeable.

Barely noticeable?????

Yeah, cutting off the top of someone's head is "barely noticeable". If
you are watching ESPN and there is NO crawler at the bottom of the
screen, it's "barely noticeable".

AFA, stretch mode, I don't care what kind of TV you have, it is
stretching and distorting the picture, period

I guess a "good look" to you is short and narrow. I'd rather watch a
show in it's original format, but hey, that's just me, and a few
thousand other people that are purest.

On Nov 20, 11:44*pm, Ron wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:15*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Higgs Boson" wrote

Somewhat alarmed about your grisly paragraph about using "stretch"
mode -- presumably on new HD TV? *Costco associate said there was a
setting for making picture fit. *I HOPE it doesn't do THAT!!! * *Any
experience out there? *TIA

HB

Not to worry. *You'll have a setting that will make it look good. *Some have
auto features that will change the picture to 4;3. Others change it somehow
that it still looks good, fills the screen, and does not have that ugly
stretch. *It may crop the top and bottom, but barely noticeable.

Barely noticeable?????

Yeah, cutting off the top of someone's head is "barely noticeable". If
you are watching ESPN and there is NO crawler at the bottom of the
screen, it's "barely noticeable".

AFA, stretch mode, I don't care what kind of TV you have, it is
stretching and distorting the picture, period

I guess a "good look" to you is *short and narrow. I'd rather watch a
show in it's original format, but hey, that's just me, and a few
thousand other people that are purest.

*Short and wide.

"Ron" wrote

Not to worry. You'll have a setting that will make it look good. Some
have
auto features that will change the picture to 4;3. Others change it
somehow
that it still looks good, fills the screen, and does not have that ugly
stretch. It may crop the top and bottom, but barely noticeable.

Barely noticeable?????

Yeah, cutting off the top of someone's head is "barely noticeable". If
you are watching ESPN and there is NO crawler at the bottom of the
screen, it's "barely noticeable".

AFA, stretch mode, I don't care what kind of TV you have, it is
stretching and distorting the picture, period

I guess a "good look" to you is short and narrow. I'd rather watch a
show in it's original format, but hey, that's just me, and a few
thousand other people that are purest.

I'd guess that you have a crappy setup. My old set was not very good, but
my new ones are no problem at all. I don't see that big stretch in auto
mode.

On Nov 21, 1:01*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Ron" wrote





Not to worry. *You'll have a setting that will make it look good. *Some
have
auto features that will change the picture to 4;3. Others change it
somehow
that it still looks good, fills the screen, and does not have that ugly
stretch. *It may crop the top and bottom, but barely noticeable.

Barely noticeable?????

Yeah, cutting off the top of someone's head is "barely noticeable". If
you are watching ESPN and there is NO crawler at the bottom of the
screen, it's "barely noticeable".

AFA, stretch mode, I don't care what kind of TV you have, it is
stretching and distorting the picture, period

I guess a "good look" to you is short and narrow. I'd rather watch a
show in it's original format, but hey, that's just me, and a few
thousand other people that are purest.

I'd guess that you have a crappy setup. *My old set was not very good, but
my new ones are no problem at all. *I don't see that big stretch in auto
mode.

Yeah, a Panasonic VIERA Plasma that is only 9 months old is a "crappy
setup".....lol

You obviously don't care about a distorted picture, and it looks fine
to you. The "stretch modes" haven't changed that much over the past
few yrs. Stretched, is stretched, and not natural, period.

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

"Ron" wrote
Barely noticeable?????

Yeah, cutting off the top of someone's head is "barely noticeable". If
you are watching ESPN and there is NO crawler at the bottom of the
screen, it's "barely noticeable".

AFA, stretch mode, I don't care what kind of TV you have, it is
stretching and distorting the picture, period

I guess a "good look" to you is short and narrow. I'd rather watch a
show in it's original format, but hey, that's just me, and a few
thousand other people that are purest.

I'd guess that you have a crappy setup. My old set was not very good,
but
my new ones are no problem at all. I don't see that big stretch in auto
mode.

Yeah, a Panasonic VIERA Plasma that is only 9 months old is a "crappy
setup".....lol

You obviously don't care about a distorted picture, and it looks fine
to you. The "stretch modes" haven't changed that much over the past
few yrs. Stretched, is stretched, and not natural, period.

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.

On Nov 21, 1:27*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Ron" wrote



Barely noticeable?????

Yeah, cutting off the top of someone's head is "barely noticeable". If
you are watching ESPN and there is NO crawler at the bottom of the
screen, it's "barely noticeable".

AFA, stretch mode, I don't care what kind of TV you have, it is
stretching and distorting the picture, period

I guess a "good look" to you is short and narrow. I'd rather watch a
show in it's original format, but hey, that's just me, and a few
thousand other people that are purest.

I'd guess that you have a crappy setup. *My old set was not very good,
but
my new ones are no problem at all. *I don't see that big stretch in auto
mode.

Yeah, a Panasonic VIERA Plasma that is only 9 months old is a "crappy
setup".....lol

You obviously don't care about a distorted picture, and it looks fine
to you. The "stretch modes" haven't changed that much over the past
few yrs. Stretched, is stretched, and not natural, period.

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?

Ron wrote:
On Nov 20, 7:08 pm, Rick Brandt wrote:
I recently swithched to an HDMI cable and now the non-HD content is
displayed as 4:3 with bars on the side.

That doesn't make any sense. Sounds to me like a setting on the box
was wrong. I'm using component cables and 4:3 broadcasts are in 4:3.
And the same if I use an HDMI cable.

I assume it is just that the D-A conversion that happens within the cable
box differs from the DA conversion for the component input of the set.

This particular TV does not have a setup choice for non-HD display while
an LCD we have in the other room does let us choose between several
modes.

I have no idea what that means. Are you talking about stretch/zoom
modes? If so, I've never seen an HDTV that didn't have those modes.

Yes, that is what I am talking about and this set does not have them. It
has a single setting for choosing 4:3 versus 16:10 and from what I can tell
that setting does not affect signals coming in on the HDMI port.

I actually prefer the stretched display.

So you like watching a distorted picture where everything looks short
and wide?

It's not that noticeable after a moment or two. The human brain compensates
for stuff like that. Also the percentage of stretch is not that much and
many newer sets use processing where a higher stretch is used on the left
and right thirds with less stretching in the middle third where the viewer's
attention is normally focused.

Lastly, my plasma has anti-burn-in technology that appears to work as it is
five years old and I see no signs of burn-in yet. Despite that the owners
manual still recommends limiting letterbox viewing to less than 25% to avoid
bars on the sides and/or top/bottom from burning in.

"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.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:45:57 -0600, Rick Brandt
wrote:

Ron wrote:
On Nov 20, 7:08 pm, Rick Brandt wrote:
I recently swithched to an HDMI cable and now the non-HD content is
displayed as 4:3 with bars on the side.

That doesn't make any sense. Sounds to me like a setting on the box
was wrong. I'm using component cables and 4:3 broadcasts are in 4:3.
And the same if I use an HDMI cable.

I assume it is just that the D-A conversion that happens within the cable
box differs from the DA conversion for the component input of the set.

This particular TV does not have a setup choice for non-HD display while
an LCD we have in the other room does let us choose between several
modes.

I have no idea what that means. Are you talking about stretch/zoom
modes? If so, I've never seen an HDTV that didn't have those modes.

Yes, that is what I am talking about and this set does not have them. It
has a single setting for choosing 4:3 versus 16:10 and from what I can tell
that setting does not affect signals coming in on the HDMI port.

I actually prefer the stretched display.

So you like watching a distorted picture where everything looks short
and wide?

It's not that noticeable after a moment or two. The human brain compensates
for stuff like that. Also the percentage of stretch is not that much and
many newer sets use processing where a higher stretch is used on the left
and right thirds with less stretching in the middle third where the viewer's
attention is normally focused.

That must make panning of landscape scenes pretty ugly, not to mention making
a mess of any diagonal lines. No thanks.

Lastly, my plasma has anti-burn-in technology that appears to work as it is
five years old and I see no signs of burn-in yet. Despite that the owners
manual still recommends limiting letterbox viewing to less than 25% to avoid
bars on the sides and/or top/bottom from burning in.

Like NiCd "memory, Plasma "burn-in" is a thing of the distant past.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 14:08:25 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 11/19/2010 3:25 AM Robert Green spake thus:

My favorite monsterism is marking the cables to indicate optimum
electron
flow.

NOOOOOO. Tell me they don't do that. Please.


Yes, they make musical instrument cables with directional arrows
printed on them!

You don't want the music coming out backwards, do ya?

--
Bobby G.

On Nov 22, 9:00*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 14:08:25 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 11/19/2010 3:25 AM Robert Green spake thus:

My favorite monsterism is marking the cables to indicate optimum
electron
flow.

NOOOOOO. Tell me they don't do that. Please.

Yes, they make musical instrument cables with directional arrows
printed on them!

You don't want the music coming out backwards, do ya?

--
Bobby G.

Yes...I'm listening to the Beetles!

"Bob Villa" wrote in message
...
On Nov 22, 9:00 pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 14:08:25 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 11/19/2010 3:25 AM Robert Green spake thus:

My favorite monsterism is marking the cables to indicate optimum
electron
flow.

NOOOOOO. Tell me they don't do that. Please.

Yes, they make musical instrument cables with directional arrows
printed on them!

You don't want the music coming out backwards, do ya?

--
Bobby G.

Yes...I'm listening to the Beetles!

Raise your hand if you've ever run a turntable backwards to listen for
hidden messages like "Turn Me On Dead Man" and "I Buried Paul."

--
Bobby G.

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.