I have one here which is a 22" widescreen HD. I can easily see it's not 1080 lines, and not even 720 is very sharp. A slightly smaller computer monitor (19") has 1200 lines and it needs them. Less than that is awful.

And the wall mount is indeed a piece of ****. Mind you, I'm using it vertically rather than horizontally, so it needs to take the weight of the TV on the joints, so it keeps drooping.


On Tue, 19 May 2020 07:32:53 +0100, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

I guess you need to ask what the screen size is. It is said that the smaller
sizes of tv, cannot really be of much use on true hd content. On the other
hand some of the compression used looks awful I am told and on the other
hand some of the clever up scaling of sd can look very good.
With regard to DIY, why is it that the devices sold to mount them on a
wall seem to me at least to be rather flimsy?
Brian

Commander Kinsey wrote

I have one here which is a 22" widescreen HD. I can easily see it's not
1080 lines, and not even 720 is very sharp. A slightly smaller computer
monitor (19") has 1200 lines and it needs them. Less than that is awful.

Because its conversion from what it gets lines
wise and what it has lines wise is very poor.

And the wall mount is indeed a piece of ****.

You were the one actually stupid enough to buy or use it.

Mind you, I'm using it vertically rather than horizontally,

Typical.

so it needs to take the weight of the TV on the joints, so it keeps
drooping.

On Tue, 19 May 2020 07:32:53 +0100, Brian Gaff (Sofa)
wrote:

I guess you need to ask what the screen size is. It is said that the
smaller
sizes of tv, cannot really be of much use on true hd content. On the
other
hand some of the compression used looks awful I am told and on the other
hand some of the clever up scaling of sd can look very good.
With regard to DIY, why is it that the devices sold to mount them on a
wall seem to me at least to be rather flimsy?
Brian

On Wed, 20 May 2020 06:42:50 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless blather

--
Typical retarded "conversation" between the Scottish ****** and the senile
Ozzietard:

Birdbrain: "Horse **** doesn't stink."

Senile Rodent: "It does if you roll in it."

Birdbrain: "I've never worked out why, I assumed it was maybe meateaters
that made stinky ****, but then why does vegetarian human **** stink? Is it
just the fact that we're capable of digesting meat?"

Senile Rodent: "Nope, some cow **** stinks too."

Message-ID:

On Tue, 19 May 2020 21:42:50 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

I have one here which is a 22" widescreen HD. I can easily see it's not
1080 lines, and not even 720 is very sharp. A slightly smaller computer
monitor (19") has 1200 lines and it needs them. Less than that is awful.

Because its conversion from what it gets lines
wise and what it has lines wise is very poor.

Why would it need to convert? I've fed it both 1080 lines and 720 lines from the PC and both are out of focus. So clearly the actual panel is neither of those numbers.

And the wall mount is indeed a piece of ****.

You were the one actually stupid enough to buy or use it.

It was free.

Mind you, I'm using it vertically rather than horizontally,

Typical.

He'd lost the table stand.

so it needs to take the weight of the TV on the joints, so it keeps
drooping.

On Tue, 19 May 2020 07:32:53 +0100, Brian Gaff (Sofa)
wrote:

I guess you need to ask what the screen size is. It is said that the
smaller
sizes of tv, cannot really be of much use on true hd content. On the
other
hand some of the compression used looks awful I am told and on the other
hand some of the clever up scaling of sd can look very good.
With regard to DIY, why is it that the devices sold to mount them on a
wall seem to me at least to be rather flimsy?
Brian

Commander Kinsey wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote

I have one here which is a 22" widescreen HD. I can easily see it's not
1080 lines, and not even 720 is very sharp. A slightly smaller computer
monitor (19") has 1200 lines and it needs them. Less than that is
awful.

Because its conversion from what it gets lines
wise and what it has lines wise is very poor.

Why would it need to convert?

Because there is no simple integer conversion between the lines
it has and what its given. If say its given 600 lines in your example,
it just puts each line its given on two of the lines on the screen.

If its given 720 or 1080 lines it cant do that.

I've fed it both 1080 lines and 720 lines from the PC and both are out of
focus.

See above.

So clearly the actual panel is neither of those numbers.

Correct.

And the wall mount is indeed a piece of ****.

You were the one actually stupid enough to buy or use it.

It was free.

That's why I said use it, stupid.

Mind you, I'm using it vertically rather than horizontally,

Typical.

He'd lost the table stand.

So you should have used a better one.

so it needs to take the weight of the TV on the joints, so it keeps
drooping.

On Tue, 19 May 2020 07:32:53 +0100, Brian Gaff (Sofa)
wrote:

I guess you need to ask what the screen size is. It is said that the
smaller
sizes of tv, cannot really be of much use on true hd content. On the
other
hand some of the compression used looks awful I am told and on the
other
hand some of the clever up scaling of sd can look very good.
With regard to DIY, why is it that the devices sold to mount them on
a
wall seem to me at least to be rather flimsy?
Brian

On Tue, 19 May 2020 23:24:15 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote

I have one here which is a 22" widescreen HD. I can easily see it's not
1080 lines, and not even 720 is very sharp. A slightly smaller computer
monitor (19") has 1200 lines and it needs them. Less than that is
awful.

Because its conversion from what it gets lines
wise and what it has lines wise is very poor.

Why would it need to convert?

Because there is no simple integer conversion between the lines
it has and what its given. If say its given 600 lines in your example,
it just puts each line its given on two of the lines on the screen.

If its given 720 or 1080 lines it cant do that.

I've fed it both 1080 lines and 720 lines from the PC and both are out of
focus.

See above.

So clearly the actual panel is neither of those numbers.

Correct.

Which is stupid seen as it's a TV and not a monitor. The native resolution should match at least one of the standard TV formats.

And the wall mount is indeed a piece of ****.

You were the one actually stupid enough to buy or use it.

It was free.

That's why I said use it, stupid.

What's stupid about using a free TV?

Mind you, I'm using it vertically rather than horizontally,

Typical.

He'd lost the table stand.

So you should have used a better one.

There wasn't one.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0kv45qenwdg98l@glass...
On Tue, 19 May 2020 23:24:15 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote

I have one here which is a 22" widescreen HD. I can easily see it's
not
1080 lines, and not even 720 is very sharp. A slightly smaller
computer
monitor (19") has 1200 lines and it needs them. Less than that is
awful.

Because its conversion from what it gets lines
wise and what it has lines wise is very poor.

Why would it need to convert?

Because there is no simple integer conversion between the lines
it has and what its given. If say its given 600 lines in your example,
it just puts each line its given on two of the lines on the screen.

If its given 720 or 1080 lines it cant do that.

I've fed it both 1080 lines and 720 lines from the PC and both are out
of
focus.

See above.

So clearly the actual panel is neither of those numbers.

Correct.

Which is stupid seen as it's a TV and not a monitor.

Yep. like I said, just another steaming
turd of a design, like your frog cars.

The native resolution should match at least one of the standard TV
formats.

Or have a better conversion system.

And the wall mount is indeed a piece of ****.

You were the one actually stupid enough to buy or use it.

It was free.

That's why I said use it, stupid.

What's stupid about using a free TV?

It cant do 1080 or 720, stupid.

Mind you, I'm using it vertically rather than horizontally,

Typical.

He'd lost the table stand.

So you should have used a better one.

There wasn't one.

Corse there is.

On Wed, 20 May 2020 08:24:15 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless blather

--
Another typical retarded "conversation" between Birdbrain and senile Rodent:

Senile Rodent: " Did you ever dig a hole to bury your own ****?"

Birdbrain: "I do if there's no flush toilet around."

Senile Rodent: "Yeah, I prefer camping like that, off by myself with
no dunnys around and have always buried the ****."

MID:

On Wed, 20 May 2020 12:18:24 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless blather

--
Typical retarded "conversation" between the Scottish ****** and the senile
Ozzietard:

Birdbrain: "Horse **** doesn't stink."

Senile Rodent: "It does if you roll in it."

Birdbrain: "I've never worked out why, I assumed it was maybe meateaters
that made stinky ****, but then why does vegetarian human **** stink? Is it
just the fact that we're capable of digesting meat?"

Senile Rodent: "Nope, some cow **** stinks too."

Message-ID:

On Wed, 20 May 2020 03:18:24 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0kv45qenwdg98l@glass...
On Tue, 19 May 2020 23:24:15 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote

I have one here which is a 22" widescreen HD. I can easily see it's
not
1080 lines, and not even 720 is very sharp. A slightly smaller
computer
monitor (19") has 1200 lines and it needs them. Less than that is
awful.

Because its conversion from what it gets lines
wise and what it has lines wise is very poor.

Why would it need to convert?

Because there is no simple integer conversion between the lines
it has and what its given. If say its given 600 lines in your example,
it just puts each line its given on two of the lines on the screen.

If its given 720 or 1080 lines it cant do that.

I've fed it both 1080 lines and 720 lines from the PC and both are out
of
focus.

See above.

So clearly the actual panel is neither of those numbers.

Correct.

Which is stupid seen as it's a TV and not a monitor.

Yep. like I said, just another steaming
turd of a design, like your frog cars.

The native resolution should match at least one of the standard TV
formats.

Or have a better conversion system.

Wouldn't that require a lot of processing power? You can do an intelligent resize on one image in photoshop, using a PC's CPU. But it takes more than a 50th of a second. And it would be cheaper to use a decent LCD panel than put a CPU that powerful in.

And the wall mount is indeed a piece of ****.

You were the one actually stupid enough to buy or use it.

It was free.

That's why I said use it, stupid.

What's stupid about using a free TV?

It cant do 1080 or 720, stupid.

It can, just not very well.

But my point is it should never have been made, and they shouldn't be allowed to sell anything saying "HD" if it isn't.

Mind you, I'm using it vertically rather than horizontally,

Typical.

He'd lost the table stand.

So you should have used a better one.

There wasn't one.

Corse there is.

Not for free locally.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0kx0l8ezwdg98l@glass...
On Wed, 20 May 2020 03:18:24 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0kv45qenwdg98l@glass...
On Tue, 19 May 2020 23:24:15 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote

I have one here which is a 22" widescreen HD. I can easily see it's
not
1080 lines, and not even 720 is very sharp. A slightly smaller
computer
monitor (19") has 1200 lines and it needs them. Less than that is
awful.

Because its conversion from what it gets lines
wise and what it has lines wise is very poor.

Why would it need to convert?

Because there is no simple integer conversion between the lines
it has and what its given. If say its given 600 lines in your example,
it just puts each line its given on two of the lines on the screen.

If its given 720 or 1080 lines it cant do that.

I've fed it both 1080 lines and 720 lines from the PC and both are out
of
focus.

See above.

So clearly the actual panel is neither of those numbers.

Correct.

Which is stupid seen as it's a TV and not a monitor.

Yep. like I said, just another steaming
turd of a design, like your frog cars.

The native resolution should match at least one of the standard TV
formats.

Or have a better conversion system.

Wouldn't that require a lot of processing power?

Nope it isnt that hard to do.

You can do an intelligent resize on one image in photoshop, using a PC's
CPU. But it takes more than a 50th of a second.

Yes, but that's just one way of doing it.

And it would be cheaper to use a decent LCD panel than put a CPU that
powerful in.

Its not possible to have the lcd panel that can do
it all, particularly show both 4:3 and 16:9 so you
don't get silly skinny people or very fat ones.

The best TVs do that by having the middle of the
screen showing the people properly and the left
and right sides as different aspect ratio. You cant
do that with the lcd screen physical structure.

And the wall mount is indeed a piece of ****.

You were the one actually stupid enough to buy or use it.

It was free.

That's why I said use it, stupid.

What's stupid about using a free TV?

It cant do 1080 or 720, stupid.

It can, just not very well.

But my point is it should never have been made,

It does make sense for a cheap one.

and they shouldn't be allowed to sell anything saying "HD" if it isn't.

They didn't say it was HD.

Mind you, I'm using it vertically rather than horizontally,

Typical.

He'd lost the table stand.

So you should have used a better one.

There wasn't one.

Corse there is.

Not for free locally.

Bull**** if you wait long enough.

On Thu, 21 May 2020 12:09:15 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless troll**** unread

--
Typical retarded "conversation" between the Scottish ****** and the senile
Ozzietard:

Birdbrain: "Horse **** doesn't stink."

Senile Rodent: "It does if you roll in it."

Birdbrain: "I've never worked out why, I assumed it was maybe meateaters
that made stinky ****, but then why does vegetarian human **** stink? Is it
just the fact that we're capable of digesting meat?"

Senile Rodent: "Nope, some cow **** stinks too."

Message-ID: