I guess that's another determination--how much usage is planned. I watch maybe
a movie or two per month, so total runtime is less than 5 hours, and the 300
odd watts (for the TV) is worth it for me.
I think a lot of people missed the fact that the recommended CRT tv was HD.
It's pretty much the only 16:9 HD monitor that's tube based. I feed it HD
signals from blu-ray discs or Netflix. It might only be 34" but the image is
astounding.
Getting back to Mike: look at the Samsung F5300 which should tick all the
boxes. The Vizio E something series is also worth looking at.
Siddiq
> On Aug 7, 2014, at 7:40 PM, C.H.Ling <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The HD TV programes here are very good, with 12Mb bit rate the details are
> way better than conventional TV. Compression artifacts are not very visible
> unless you intentionally look for it.
>
> The problem with CRT is not only low resolution and heavy, the high power
> consumption is unacceptable. I believe the bigger one (30" up) will run over
> 200W while our 50" Panasonic is only 50W in normal mode.
>
> If you think conventional TV has better resolution, try to see if you get
> anything come close to these still captures:
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/HDTVCap/HDTVCap.html
>
> The stills are having some JPEG artifacts but they are not obvious in video
> mode.
>
> Can I see the quality difference at "normal viewing distance"? Sure! very
> obvious, analogue TV quality is no longer acceptable to us, same as DVDs.
> May be we have difference standards for "normal viewing distance", here the
> broadcast company recommend 3-5x vertical height of your TV screen.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>>> I finally got rid of my 100 pounder CRT 2 years ago. I had to call my
>>> brother-in-law and his son for help in getting it out the door to his
>>> truck
>>> to take to the junk yard. No matter how good the picture I don't think
>>> it
>>> could be any better than my 42" Panasonic HDTV. It has 4 HDMI ports
>>> including an audio return channel so the TV can feed audio back to the
>>> receiver. It's no flyweight but I can at least move it by myself. A 200
>>> pounder would be out of the question for me.
>>
>> I'm not too proud to say that we are the proud owners of one of those
>> expensive 100 pounder CRTs that somebody replaced with a $2000 HDTV.
>> Works perfectly for us and it didn't cost us a dime. However, we did
>> spend $10 for the stand from somebody else. Oh, and a chiropractor
>> adjustment.
>>
>> The reality is that by the time you get back into a normal viewing
>> distance, you can't really tell the difference in resolution and
>> sharpness anyway.
>>
>> What most people don't understand is that the hyper clean image
>> quality that we see with HDTV images from cable tv or satellite is
>> actually a result of having the video compression cranked up so high
>> that all the detail is erased.
>>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|