"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod wrote:
And viewing angles. The laptop screens here are all pretty poor - the
displays are unusable at angles significantly away from 90 degrees -
vertically or horizontally. Trying to watch TV on them would be a bad
joke - lean a bit one way or sit up/slouch and the screen changes
colour/brightness/whatever.

Pretty well the same applies to LCD TVs - or rather the ones I've got or
seen. Could be the very latest/most expensive are better.

The horizontal viewing angle on the Philips I have is wider than a CRT.
The vertical isn't.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rod wrote:
And viewing angles. The laptop screens here are all pretty poor - the
displays are unusable at angles significantly away from 90 degrees -
vertically or horizontally. Trying to watch TV on them would be a bad
joke - lean a bit one way or sit up/slouch and the screen changes
colour/brightness/whatever.

Pretty well the same applies to LCD TVs - or rather the ones I've got or
seen. Could be the very latest/most expensive are better.

Laptop panels are the worst for this (and I suppose the ones it matters
least for). The better desktop monitors are pretty good side to side and
only get a slight brightness variation up and down. TVs have improved a
fair bit in this respect as well.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
If you go for a larger widescreen model, its worth checking if your
graphics card is up to the required resolution. Note that LCDs look
horrible if run at anything other than their native resolution.

So that's why they're no use as TVs?

I don't think there is not enough contrast, sharpness, or colour
resolution in a broadcast TV picture (or even a SD DVD) to really pick
out the aliasing faults that happen with a computer display at the
wrong resolution. With a computer image, an abnormally thin or thick
down stroke on a text character is immediately obvious and ugly, but
there is not enough sharpness in the TV image in the first place to
really make a difference. Note also the TV resolution will be well
under half the native of the display which makes single pixel wide
errors less obvious anyway.

You can see that on HDTV (1920x1080 pixels) on the wrong size panel,
there are a lot of 1366x768 panels miss sold as HDTVs about (I inherited
a Philips one recently, its OK as a monitor though).

Interestingly there are a huge number of sets for sale with 1280x768
displays. Not only can these not do full HD, but their aspect ratio is
wrong as well - being nearer to 16:10

A friend of mine recently bought a Hitachi set like this. Once he worked
out why he could never get a picture with the right aspect ratio, he
took it back to the shop and swapped it. The bods in the shop had never
even noticed!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Pretty well the same applies to LCD TVs - or rather the ones I've got
or seen. Could be the very latest/most expensive are better.

The horizontal viewing angle on the Philips I have is wider than a CRT.
The vertical isn't.

A CRT doesn't change according to viewing angle. Unless it's got some form
of fancy filter across the tube.

--
*42.7% of statistics are made up. Sorry, that should read 47.2% *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Interestingly there are a huge number of sets for sale with 1280x768
displays. Not only can these not do full HD, but their aspect ratio is
wrong as well - being nearer to 16:10

I had a 1280 x 720.
Perfect for 720p.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Pretty well the same applies to LCD TVs - or rather the ones I've got
or seen. Could be the very latest/most expensive are better.

The horizontal viewing angle on the Philips I have is wider than a CRT.
The vertical isn't.

A CRT doesn't change according to viewing angle. Unless it's got some form
of fancy filter across the tube.

They do, some are curved and you can't see the far side.

dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Interestingly there are a huge number of sets for sale with 1280x768
displays. Not only can these not do full HD, but their aspect ratio is
wrong as well - being nearer to 16:10

I had a 1280 x 720.
Perfect for 720p.

Which make model was that? (and do they still do it?)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

mark wrote:
"Unbeliever" wrote in message
...
mark wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
The screen on my PC died recently, FUBERED.

FUBARED do you mean?

mark

Mark,

****ed Up Beyond All Repair [ed]!

Exactly!

****ed up Beyond Economic Repair [ed] e.g the screen can be repaired, but
at too high a cost.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Interestingly there are a huge number of sets for sale with 1280x768
displays. Not only can these not do full HD, but their aspect ratio is
wrong as well - being nearer to 16:10

I had a 1280 x 720.
Perfect for 720p.

Which make model was that? (and do they still do it?)

It was a Medion, I think it was rebadged LG.

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:02:38 +0000, Unbeliever wrote:

****ed Up Beyond All Repair [ed]!

I heard it as "****ed Up Beyond All Recognition", originally a WWII forces
acronym (cue NORWICH, BURMA etc :-))

--
John Stumbles

Procrastinate now!