 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2006It's time to ban widescreen.
Due to it's inherent lack of height a widesceen picture is tremendously wasteful in terms of energy usage and bandwidth. Typically half of the image displayed is wasted which means a widescreen TV uses approximately twice as much energy a more sensibly sizeed screen (4:3 for example). Also from a bandwidth point of view about twice as bandwidth is needed to display a given number of channels. The upshot of this is we need to use twice as many channels (muxes) to cover agiven number of channels. If 4:3 was used we would need only 3 muxes, which could probably be transmitted at higher powers requiring less expensive aerials, boosters and high quality cabling. Widescreen is responsible for a huge waste of energy creating millions of tons of greenhouse gases (anyone care to put a figure to it?) and would be outlawed by any competant authority. So is it not high time this foolish format was consigned to it's rightful place ie the dustbin? What a good idea. It would also be save energy if we had monochrome 9 ins screens with 405 lines.and also only had 1 channel which started at say 6pm and finished at 10pm. > What a good idea. > It would also be save energy if we had monochrome 9 ins screens with > 405 lines.and also only had 1 channel which started at say 6pm and > finished at 10pm. Why not just ban TV altogether lets just listen to the radio and go to the cinema occasionally. Then after the film you can get some fish & chips and still have change from a tanner ( thats six old pence if you didn't know ) > What a good idea. > It would also be save energy if we had monochrome 9 ins screens > with Monocrome would perhaps save energy but only at the expense of loss of information (colour so you are wrong). A small screen saves energy but at the expense of screen size so again you are wrong. > 405 lines.and also only had 1 channel which started at say 6pm and > finished at 10pm. 405 saves energy at the expense of resolution so again wrong. Restricted view hours saves energy at the expense to hoours of viewable telivision so again wrong.. So wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong 0/5. Failed. However the price per unit info transfered would be the same. SO your wrong. >> What a good idea. >> It would also be save energy if we had monochrome 9 ins screens [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >However the price per unit info transfered would be the same. >SO your wrong. Hey Mr 'half pint' Why don't you go and buy the other half and you might recover from your humour loss? <snipped all factually incorrect statements> >So is it not high time this foolish format was consigned to it's rightful >place >ie the dustbin? No. Even for you, I think that must be a record. Not one single fact correct in a post of that length.  SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager All computers wait at the same speed. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom > Even for you, I think that must be a record. Not one single fact > correct in a post of that length. Yep. Known troll, search Google groups for "half pint" if you want any further convincing. >> Even for you, I think that must be a record. Not one single fact >> correct in a post of that length. > >Yep. Known troll, search Google groups for "half pint" if you want any >further convincing. He uses a few other nyms too. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager I have a rock garden. 3 of them died last week. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>Yep. Known troll, search Google groups for "half pint" if you want any >>further convincing. > > He uses a few other nyms too. Oh well, it is a laugh anyway. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0546-3, 16/11/2005 Tested on: 17/11/2005 09:04:09 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > <snipped all factually incorrect statements> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Even for you, I think that must be a record. Not one single fact > correct in a post of that length. And crossposted to alt.math, where it doesn't belong, at that. --- Christopher heckman > > <snipped all factually incorrect statements> > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And crossposted to alt.math, where it doesn't belong, at that. Maybe you can ask them the most efficient camera lens shape, and ask them to prove it, you were about to ask that weren't you? > --- Christopher heckman > So is it not high time this foolish format was consigned to > it's rightful place ie the dustbin? How right you are! While you're at it, we don't need all that wide-screen Cinemascope/Vistavision crap in theaters either... If the screens were the RIGHT size, we could build theaters to show twice as many films at one time! And you know we don't really need two eyes, either. You can get by with just one. -MT >> So is it not high time this foolish format was consigned to >> it's rightful place ie the dustbin? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > While you're at it, we don't need all that wide-screen > Cinemascope/Vistavision crap in theaters either... http://www.dvdcreation.com/2001/01_jan/features/widescreen_scam.htm Lordy I snipped your incorrect bullshit. Did you have a point? Thought not. *plonk* > Due to it's inherent lack of height a widesceen picture is tremendously > wasteful in terms of energy usage and bandwidth. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > place > ie the dustbin? I believe the format is being driven by movie buffs who prefer seeing the full-frame image over "pan and scan" crops. You really think "authorities" should ban consumer devices? You'll be happy in the coming cyber police state. >> So is it not high time this foolish format was consigned to it's rightful >> place >> ie the dustbin? > > I believe the format is being driven by movie buffs who prefer seeing > the full-frame image over "pan and scan" crops. Interesting read ... http://www.dvdcreation.com/2001/01_jan/features/widescreen_scam.htm Still getting a WS tv though! Lordy >>> So is it not high time this foolish format was consigned to it's >>> rightful place [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Lordy No it's not, it's a load of sh.t. SignatureThePunisher Latitude: 54.67N Longitude: 5.96W > > Due to it's inherent lack of height a widesceen picture is tremendously > > wasteful in terms of energy usage and bandwidth. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I believe the format is being driven by movie buffs who prefer seeing > the full-frame image over "pan and scan" crops. Such irony, what they are actually seeing is a full frame image panned and scanned with a widescreen lens. They are just to stupid to realise (recognise anyone?). > You really think "authorities" should ban consumer devices? Wot like guns you mean? Or drugs? >You'll be > happy in the coming cyber police state. >> I believe the format is being driven by movie buffs who prefer seeing >> the full-frame image over "pan and scan" crops. > >Such irony, what they are actually seeing is a full frame image panned and >scanned with a widescreen lens. >They are just to stupid to realise (recognise anyone?). Yeah, I see someone operating with less than a full pint. --Lynn > >> I believe the format is being driven by movie buffs who prefer seeing > >> the full-frame image over "pan and scan" crops. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yeah, I see someone operating with less than a full pint. Which makes you an empty glass. > --Lynn hr hr.. I agree. people just don't understand widescreen means you see more. Just buy the right television. filming for tv and movies are different. -JLC >> > Due to it's inherent lack of height a widesceen picture is tremendously >> > wasteful in terms of energy usage and bandwidth. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >>You'll be >> happy in the coming cyber police state. half_pint [me@privacy.net] said . > So is it not high time this foolish format was consigned to it's rightful > place > ie the dustbin? Nope. I like widescreen. > half_pint [me@privacy.net] said > . [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nope. I like widescreen. I bet you like chips, chocolate and crisps too. > Due to it's inherent lack of height a widesceen picture is tremendously > wasteful in terms of energy usage and bandwidth. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > place > ie the dustbin? Don't you like widescreen? when programmes are transmitted in widescreen, I must admit, I think it is nice to see it the way our eyes see things. It does annoy me a bit, when I watch a DVD as the format normally gives black bars on the top and the bottom of the screen. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0546-3, 16/11/2005 Tested on: 17/11/2005 09:03:12 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > > Due to it's inherent lack of height a widesceen picture is tremendously > > wasteful in terms of energy usage and bandwidth. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > widescreen, I must admit, I think it is nice to see it the way our eyes > see things. ? you have a round TV I presume? >It does annoy me a bit, when I watch a DVD as the format > normally gives black bars on the top and the bottom of the screen. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com >>Don't you like widescreen? when programmes are transmitted in >>widescreen, I must admit, I think it is nice to see it the way our eyes >>see things. > > ? you have a round TV I presume? We do not see things that way, we see more out of the sides than up and down. So a wide screen T.V fits with the way we see the world. If you are that worried about the envoiment, then give up T.V, give up driving if you drive, do not buy anything ever again and use candles to light your home instead of electric. It is a waste of time worrying about the envoiment anyway, like I said to some bloke from the council, when he said about recycling and that I should use the kerbside recycling system they have started up, what is the use, in a few million years time, the earth will be swallowed up by the sun anyway. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0546-3, 16/11/2005 Tested on: 17/11/2005 19:10:20 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > >>Don't you like widescreen? when programmes are transmitted in > >>widescreen, I must admit, I think it is nice to see it the way our eyes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > We do not see things that way, we see more out of the sides than up and > down. So a wide screen T.V fits with the way we see the world. Thats total garbage, do you have any evidence to back such obvious nonsense up? > If you are that worried about the envoiment, then give up T.V, give up > driving if you drive, do not buy anything ever again and use candles to > light your home instead of electric. Its a waste. Electrictity is the cheapest for of light. I have to buy food. > It is a waste of time worrying about the envoiment anyway, like I said > to some bloke from the council, when he said about recycling and that I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com >> >>Don't you like widescreen? when programmes are transmitted in >> >>widescreen, I must admit, I think it is nice to see it the way our eyes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Thats total garbage, do you have any evidence to back such obvious nonsense >up? Use your eyes. If you have a circular field of vision, you are not human. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Interchangeable parts won't. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom > >> >>Don't you like widescreen? when programmes are transmitted in > >> >>widescreen, I must admit, I think it is nice to see it the way our eyes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Use your eyes. What the eyes with a round pupil you mean? Those eyes? > If you have a circular field of vision, you are not human. Really? If its widescreen you are a seagull. >> >> >>Don't you like widescreen? when programmes are transmitted in >> >> >>widescreen, I must admit, I think it is nice to see it the way our [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >What the eyes with a round pupil you mean? Those eyes? Yes. The two eyes that between them have an oval field of view. >> If you have a circular field of vision, you are not human. > >Really? If its widescreen you are a seagull. Nope. Humans see naturally at about the ratio of a wide screen TV. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager None of you exist, my Sysop types all this in. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>Thats total garbage, do you have any evidence to back such obvious nonsense >>up? > > Use your eyes. > > If you have a circular field of vision, you are not human. I never thought of that. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0546-3, 16/11/2005 Tested on: 17/11/2005 20:54:35 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com >>We do not see things that way, we see more out of the sides than up and >>down. So a wide screen T.V fits with the way we see the world. > > Thats total garbage, do you have any evidence to back such obvious nonsense > up? None what so ever, apart from the fact that I can read and it is a well known fact. > Its a waste. > > Electrictity is the cheapest for of light. but we have to burn coal to make electric, which cause greenhouse gas. > I have to buy food. Now you don't. I grow a lot of vegetables in my garden, I do buy my meat, but most of that comes from a local farm. I may work in a supermarket, but it do not mean I buy all my food from there. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0546-3, 16/11/2005 Tested on: 17/11/2005 20:53:34 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > >>We do not see things that way, we see more out of the sides than up and > >>down. So a wide screen T.V fits with the way we see the world. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I may work in a supermarket, but it do not mean I buy all my food from > there. No I expect you steal a most of it. > --- > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 0546-3, 16/11/2005 > Tested on: 17/11/2005 20:53:34 > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com >>I may work in a supermarket, but it do not mean I buy all my food from >>there. > > No I expect you steal a most of it. You do know that is slander? Give me proof that I steal most of it, or I will have you in court. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0546-3, 16/11/2005 Tested on: 18/11/2005 07:59:13 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com >>> I may work in a supermarket, but it do not mean I buy all my food >>> from there. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You do know that is slander? Give me proof that I steal most of it, > or I will have you in court. Actually it's libel, since he wrote it down. Shouldn't take long to track him down and get the court proceedings going. Be warned though - it can be a costly business for *both* parties. I still can't decide if he is simply a rather successful troll or if he actually believes all the crap he writes... > Actually it's libel, since he wrote it down. Shouldn't take long to > track him down and get the court proceedings going. Be warned though - > it can be a costly business for *both* parties. No problem there, I have a mate who would cover my cost. I know what ISP he is using, I think a nice Email to his ISP first may do the trick. > I still can't decide if he is simply a rather successful troll or if he > actually believes all the crap he writes... I think he believes it, a very strange person. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0546-4, 18/11/2005 Tested on: 18/11/2005 18:19:29 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > > Actually it's libel, since he wrote it down. Shouldn't take long to > > track him down and get the court proceedings going. Be warned though - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I know what ISP he is using, I think a nice Email to his ISP first may > do the trick. Yea I expect they will cancel my TV package :O) > > I still can't decide if he is simply a rather successful troll or if he > > actually believes all the crap he writes... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com >>I know what ISP he is using, I think a nice Email to his ISP first may >>do the trick. > > Yea I expect they will cancel my TV package :O) No, but they may cancel your internet access or stop you posting to news groups, but then since NTL is a total waste of space, I doubt they will. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0546-4, 18/11/2005 Tested on: 19/11/2005 07:44:26 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > >>I know what ISP he is using, I think a nice Email to his ISP first may > >>do the trick. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, but they may cancel your internet access or stop you posting to news > groups, but then since NTL is a total waste of space, I doubt they will. Yes I doubt your news provider will cancel your account but it's worth a go. > --- > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 0546-4, 18/11/2005 > Tested on: 19/11/2005 07:44:26 > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com >>No, but they may cancel your internet access or stop you posting to news >>groups, but then since NTL is a total waste of space, I doubt they will. > > Yes I doubt your news provider will cancel your account but it's worth a go. It is yours that may be cancelled, not mine, anyway, things are in motion. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0546-4, 18/11/2005 Tested on: 20/11/2005 00:19:51 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > >>I know what ISP he is using, I think a nice Email to his ISP first may > >>do the trick. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, but they may cancel your internet access or stop you posting to news > groups, but then since NTL is a total waste of space, I doubt they will. Hopefully they will contact you ISP get your account removed for your behaviour, or a least inform the police. > --- > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 0546-4, 18/11/2005 > Tested on: 19/11/2005 07:44:26 > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com >>No, but they may cancel your internet access or stop you posting to news >>groups, but then since NTL is a total waste of space, I doubt they will. > > Hopefully they will contact you ISP get your account removed for your > behaviour, > or a least inform the police. You are mad, really mad. Imform the police for what reason? --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0546-4, 18/11/2005 Tested on: 20/11/2005 00:21:47 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > >>I may work in a supermarket, but it do not mean I buy all my food from > >>there. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You do know that is slander? Give me proof that I steal most of it, or I > will have you in court. I don't want to waste anymore of my time on trolls like you thank you. > --- > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 0546-3, 16/11/2005 > Tested on: 18/11/2005 07:59:13 > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com >>You do know that is slander? Give me proof that I steal most of it, or I >>will have you in court. > > I don't want to waste anymore of my time on trolls like you thank you. Hark who's talking. so are you going to apologise for your statement about me stealing or do I have to take it further? --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0546-4, 18/11/2005 Tested on: 19/11/2005 07:42:21 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > >>You do know that is slander? Give me proof that I steal most of it, or I > >>will have you in court. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > so are you going to apologise for your statement about me stealing or do > I have to take it further? Are you threaten me sunshine? > --- > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 0546-4, 18/11/2005 > Tested on: 19/11/2005 07:42:21 > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com >>so are you going to apologise for your statement about me stealing or do >>I have to take it further? > > Are you threaten me sunshine? Not at all, but since you do not want to apologize your your slander, I have taken it further. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0546-4, 18/11/2005 Tested on: 20/11/2005 00:20:53 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com <snip> >> Don't you like widescreen? when programmes are transmitted in >> widescreen, I must admit, I think it is nice to see it the way our eyes >> see things. > >? you have a round TV I presume? Are you ever going to stop spouting this rubbish? Because that is TOTAL rubbish. The normal human field of view, with the eyes held still and pointing straight ahead, is NOT circular. Try LOOKING out of your eyes sometime. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom > Are you ever going to stop spouting this rubbish? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Try LOOKING out of your eyes sometime. If he knows how to. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0546-3, 16/11/2005 Tested on: 17/11/2005 20:54:10 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > Due to it's inherent lack of height a widesceen picture is tremendously > wasteful in terms of energy usage and bandwidth. > Typically half of the image displayed is wasted which means a widescreen > TV uses approximately twice as much energy a more sensibly sizeed screen Rubbish. SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. Widescreen, waste of bandwidth ...... Not true, since picture parameters are "re-settable" within MPEG2. (And it's your choice whether to watch "centre cutout" style on a 4:3 screen). For much more info, just Google "MPEG2" .............! > Widescreen, waste of bandwidth ...... > > Not true, since picture parameters are "re-settable" within MPEG2. However nothing mitigates the fact that a 16:9 image is being transmitted in the first place. > (And it's your choice whether to watch "centre cutout" style on a 4:3 > screen). You are hardly lilkely to do that if you have a widescreen set though, I do it on my 4:3 of course Nice try, but think you will have to conceed I am corect, a opposed to the other posters who are display the level of intelligence of the brain-dead. > For much more info, just Google "MPEG2" .............! >> Widescreen, waste of bandwidth ...... >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Nice try, but think you will have to conceed I am corect, a opposed to the >other posters who are display the level of intelligence of the brain-dead. Nobody with any brains at all would concede that you are correct, since you aren't. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager It is bad luck to be superstitious. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom > >> Widescreen, waste of bandwidth ...... > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Nobody with any brains at all would concede that you are correct, > since you aren't. Alex Heney, Global Idiot. <snip> >> >Nice try, but think you will have to conceed I am corect, a opposed to >the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Alex Heney, Global Idiot. A position so far above you, that you aspire to it with longing. the fact that I refuse to accept the total garbage you post as fact does not make me an idiot. Continuing to respond to you at all probably does :-( SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Support bacteria - it's the only culture some people have! To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom You're an idiot and a troll, but just to humor myself and point out how stupid this is - WIDESCREEN TV IS TRANSMITTED AT THE EXACT SAME RESOLUTION. It's 720x480. The only difference is the shape of the pixels. For 4:3 they're fairly close to square. For 16:9 they're rectangular. > You're an idiot and a troll, but just to humor myself and point out how > stupid this is - WIDESCREEN TV IS TRANSMITTED AT THE EXACT SAME > RESOLUTION. It's 720x480. The only difference is the shape of the > pixels. For 4:3 they're fairly close to square. For 16:9 they're > rectangular. I was wondering how long it would be before someone pointed this out. Is this the same troll who went on a widescreen rant several weeks ago? > > You're an idiot and a troll, but just to humor myself and point out how > > stupid this is - WIDESCREEN TV IS TRANSMITTED AT THE EXACT SAME [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is this the same troll who went on a widescreen rant several weeks ago? "It's amazing how many really thick people there in the world." I see you are another of lifes idiots who thinks he knows what he is talking about but is to dense to realise he is wrong. >> You're an idiot and a troll, but just to humor myself and point out how >> stupid this is - WIDESCREEN TV IS TRANSMITTED AT THE EXACT SAME [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is this the same troll who went on a widescreen rant several weeks ago? Dunno but if he's bitching about power he might want to look at what analog 4:3 and digital 16:9 transmissions actually use. I think the wideband analog is considerably more power demanding, occupying a much wider slice of the spectrum. > >> You're an idiot and a troll, but just to humor myself and point out how > >> stupid this is - WIDESCREEN TV IS TRANSMITTED AT THE EXACT SAME [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > analog is considerably more power demanding, occupying a much wider slice > of the spectrum. 4:3 digital uses far less powwe than an analogue widescreen broadcast. However transmission power is neglible compared to the power comsumption of 100 million TV sets, less than 1% of total power. > Dunno but if he's bitching about power he might want to look at what > analog > 4:3 and digital 16:9 transmissions actually use. I think the wideband > analog is considerably more power demanding, occupying a much wider slice > of the spectrum. He also ignores different screen technologies i.e how LCD and Plasma screens use significantly less power than a 4:3 or 16:9 crt. > > Dunno but if he's bitching about power he might want to look at what > > analog [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > He also ignores different screen technologies i.e how LCD and Plasma screens > use significantly less power than a 4:3 or 16:9 crt. Yes I have purposely ignored irrelevant information. >> > Dunno but if he's bitching about power he might want to look at what >> > analog [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yes I have purposely ignored irrelevant information. Translation: "I have ignored facts that make my argument flawed." Welcome to the killfile. >> > Dunno but if he's bitching about power he might want to look at what >> > analog [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Yes I have purposely ignored irrelevant information. Along with all relevant information. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Lobotomize Hillary - Now there's a health plan. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom > You're an idiot and a troll, but just to humor myself and point out how > stupid this is - WIDESCREEN TV IS TRANSMITTED AT THE EXACT SAME > RESOLUTION. It's 720x480. The only difference is the shape of the > pixels. For 4:3 they're fairly close to square. For 16:9 they're > rectangular. You are a total idiot. The fact that the shape of the pixels is rectangular *is* the problem because it (16:9) is an inherently inefficient shape for viewing through as it is so wasteful as it fits to few of the images viewed. It's amazing how many really thick people there in the world. Are you KIDDING ME? It fits more of the images viewed than a 4:3 screen does - most movies filmed today are shot in Super 35 format which is non-anamorphic 35mm widescreen. This is transferred to an anamorphic 16:9 format for DVD and TV, which is why the widescreen TV was invented. Otherwise you just get black bars at the top and bottom - or worse, cut off half the picture... Either you're looking for attention by making incompetent statements (as I think is the case) - or you truly don't have a clue. Want more channels in your bandwidth? Increase compression and decrease resolution... lower picture quality. Or else, decrease or eliminate FEC (Forward Error Correction) and require a cleaner or perfect received signal. It doesn't matter what the aspect ratio is. Want higher power levels and need less towers? Switch from COFDM modulation to 8VSB modulation (which is what we use in the US due to the rural environment) - but you'll make reception much more difficult in multipath prone environments (as it is here). Want to decrease the quality of cabling that will be needed? Move to the middle of nowhere where interference isn't as much of an issue and get a very high gain directional antenna with preamp. Some of the greatest minds in the world work in broadcast engineering - TV, radio, cell phones, etc. There are many complicated variables that determine necessary bandwidth, Tx levels, minimum Rx level, minimum SNR, maximum multipath levels, transmission resolution, and many other variables. Additionally, the needs of many diverse groups of people must be considered - broadcasters, consumer electronics manufacturers, encoding and multiplexing equipment manufacturers, and more. Bandwidth is not the only concern in broadcast TV - there's relatively little demand to put content out there. Just so you know, the UK uses the DVB-T standard. They COULD switch to an MPEG-4 based standard with 8VSB encoding (which doesn't exist, I'm making up a potential standard) - you'd have more channels in a multiplex and your signal would reach further - BUT reception would be more difficult in all but ideal multipath situations, an tuners would dramatically increase in price. I do know a little something about TV broadcast standards, and I can say with 100% confidence that you do not. Aspect ratio is one of the least relevant things in the entire issue - including it's (non-existant) effect on power consumption and bandwidth usage. Do I expect an intelligent reply to this? No... but hopefully it provides some material for others to ponder. Also, these questions are addressed in more than just TV. Take the phone issue... CDMA vs. GSM (in Europe providers have no choice, GSM is mandated... same in Korea only CDMA is mandated)... CDMA offers better range, increased handoff reliability, and increased network capacity... but GSM is far cheaper on both the handset and base end, it uses less power (= longer handset battery life), and it's more open - there's more choice of equipment and chipset vendors. >You are hardly lilkely to do that if you have a widescreen set though, I >do it on my 4:3 of course >Nice try, but think you will have to conceed I am corect, a opposed to the >other posters who are display the level of intelligence of the brain-dead. Speaking of brain-dead intelligence - nothing screams 'idiot' more loudly than people who stand on soapboxes, rant about *whatever*, and still can't frickin' spell!! LILKELY => LIKELY; "BUT THINK" => "BUT I THINK"; CONCEED => CONCEDE; CORECT => CORRECT; "WHO ARE DISPLAY" => WHO DISPLAY In case you can't count either, that's FIVE spelling and grammar mistakes in 4 lines of text. And you expect people to _not_ just laugh at you?? Not that I'm nit-picking for its own sake, but if you're going to comment on other people's intelligence, it's best to ensure that you have at least a Grade 7 level of English skills backing you up. Unless you type with your elbows, in which case BAAAA-HAAAAA-HAAAAA!!!. Dork. ;) > >You are hardly lilkely to do that if you have a widescreen set though, I > >do it on my 4:3 of course [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Dork. ;) Dork is a very unusual name, are your parents foreingers? > > Due to it's inherent lack of height a widesceen picture is tremendously > > wasteful in terms of energy usage and bandwidth. > > Typically half of the image displayed is wasted which means a widescreen > > TV uses approximately twice as much energy a more sensibly sizeed screen > > Rubbish. You certainly are. half-pint is correct, digital tv uses the same power whatever aspect ratio is "transmitted", and it's many times lower than analogue tv! (Depending on picture size and shape and resolution, and possibly stat-muxing, differing numbers of channels can be "squeezed into" an mpeg2 mux, whether transmitted via sat or terr). So, yes, I suppose that if you maintained the same resolution, but stuck with 4:3, you might be able to fit in an extra channel (or even 2!). Is there a "natural" format? The 1st films were square framed (using George Eastman's roll film), then "academy", then various wider formats (supposedly to compete with tv). One thing's sure, aspect ratios certainly get peoples' hackles up! eg, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_formats . >half-pint is correct, digital tv uses the same power whatever aspect >ratio is "transmitted", and it's many times lower than analogue tv! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >stuck with 4:3, you might be able to fit in an extra channel (or even >2!). They are broadcast in the same resolution; there is no difference. Your widescreen TV expands the signal to fit the AR of the set. This is why people look squashed up when you don't set your box correctly. It's a process called anamorphic compression. Lee. Signaturelee at w2designs dot co dot uk If I have one flaw, it's that I'm a perfectoinist. In uk.legal half_pint <me@privacy.net> wrote: > Due to it's inherent lack of height a widesceen picture is tremendously > wasteful in terms of energy usage and bandwidth. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and > high quality cabling. > Widescreen is responsible for a huge waste of energy creating millions of > tons > of greenhouse gases (anyone care to put a figure to it?) and would be > outlawed > by any competant authority. How many computers do you think are left running 24 hours a day? Far more energy is used by them. Do you have any evidence for widescreen TVs using much more energy than normal TVs? > So is it not high time this foolish format was consigned to it's rightful > place > ie the dustbin? Er, why, if you don't want one, don't buy one... I make do with a small 15" screen quite happily. Axel > In uk.legal half_pint <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > Due to it's inherent lack of height a widesceen picture is tremendously [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > How many computers do you think are left running 24 hours a day? 8 millioni? > Far more energy is used by them. So? Makinig widescreen computers now too. Do you have any evidence for > widescreen TVs using much more energy than normal TVs? Yes. Its in my first post. > > So is it not high time this foolish format was consigned to it's rightful > > place > > ie the dustbin? > > Er, why, if you don't want one, don't buy one... I make do with a small > 15" screen quite happily. I am talkinig about people other than myself. > Axel <snip> >Do you have any evidence for >> widescreen TVs using much more energy than normal TVs? > >Yes. Its in my first post. Liar. You provided no evidence whatsoever, just made a number of statements, none of which have any measurable basis in reality. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager If I can't fix it, it's probably dead. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom > Due to it's inherent lack of height a widesceen picture is tremendously > wasteful in terms of energy usage and bandwidth. > Typically half of the image displayed is wasted which means a widescreen > TV uses approximately twice as much energy a more sensibly sizeed screen > (4:3 for example). Also from a bandwidth point of view about twice as Too cheap to buy a widescreen tv, huh? :-) Even though there isn't an image on part of the screen, the tv is still trying to make one, even though it is completely dark. I doubt that the energy usage is that much different. The bandwidth issue is also irrelevant. The sender doesn't know whether the image is displayed on a one inch square screen or a 50,000 inch widescreen. Best way to save energy is to turn it off. Next best way is to buy an energy efficient tv (small LCD). SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA You've clearly got almost no brain cells. A widescreen TV uses no more energy than a 4:3 TV per square inch of screen space. It's size that counts. In that sense, it would be far more sensible to ban CRT (normal and projection) and Plasma TVs which eat far more electricity than LCD (flat panel and projection) and DLP projection TVs. Regarding bandwidth, it's totally variable. And "muxes" is an idiotic phrase that has nothing to do with bandwidth - it refers to multiplexes, or groups of channels broadcast on a single physical channel. Bandwidth is in MHz... one Mux could be 6Mhz, 8Mhz, or more wide. Capacity of a multiplex is based on many factors - widescreen programming is not one, as widescreen broadcasts are anamorphic which means they have the same number of pixels as a 4:3 broadcast (720x480 or 720x576 in PAL countries like England)... just more rectangular. Regarding Tx power levels, cabling quality, etc... you could get a lot more range out of a lower Tx by switching from COFDM (it sounds like you're in Europe). And better cabling is more important in STRONGER signal areas due to ingress... There's a ton more you're just wrong about, and you understand NOTHING about the many considerations of bandwidth consumption, power levels, anamorphic broadcast, etc... Mark > You've clearly got almost no brain cells. > > A widescreen TV uses no more energy than a 4:3 TV per square inch of > screen space. Widescreen wastes most of the screen. >It's size that counts. In that sense, it would be far > more sensible to ban CRT (normal and projection) and Plasma TVs which [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Mark WHAT THE HECK are you talking about? A movie is filmed in widescreen - watching it on a widescreen TV uses all or most of the screen, on a standard academy ratio TV then the top and bottom have black bars unless you don't care about art and are willing to watch a version with the sides chopped off. For movies, and an increasing number of TV shows LESS of the screen is wasted on a widescreen TV. > WHAT THE HECK are you talking about? A movie is filmed in widescreen - > watching it on a widescreen TV uses all or most of the screen, on a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > For movies, and an increasing number of TV shows LESS of the screen is > wasted on a widescreen TV. You don't appear to be able to grasp the fact that widescreen movies are a waste of space. > > WHAT THE HECK are you talking about? A movie is filmed in widescreen - > > watching it on a widescreen TV uses all or most of the screen, on a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > For movies, and an increasing number of TV shows LESS of the screen is > > wasted on a widescreen TV. > You don't appear to be able to grasp the fact that widescreen movies are > a waste of space. I presume you also disapprove of fils with colour and sound. Was the step from lantern slides also a regressive move? SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing > > > WHAT THE HECK are you talking about? A movie is filmed in widescreen - > > > watching it on a widescreen TV uses all or most of the screen, on a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I presume you also disapprove of fils with colour and sound. Was the step from > lantern slides also a regressive move? Ah yes and I assume you are a typical mindless consumer who will buy any old tat just because it is prefixed with the word 'new' and has a huge price tag. Mind you I don't know why I am complaining I could make a killing exploiting clueless consumers like you, afterall it's a victimless crime, you are happy with your piece of useless tat and I would be more than happy to take your hard earned cash of you. Might even give some of the profits to a charity for the the mentally handicapped to ease my conscience. Would you be interested in buying a second hand car by any chance, I have a one for sale, low milage of course, nice runner....etc.. > > > > WHAT THE HECK are you talking about? A movie is filmed in widescreen > > > > - watching it on a widescreen TV uses all or most of the screen, on a > > > > standard academy ratio TV then the top and bottom have black bars > > > > unless you don't care about art and are willing to watch a version > > > > with the sides chopped off. > > > > For movies, and an increasing number of TV shows LESS of the screen > > > > is wasted on a widescreen TV. > > > You don't appear to be able to grasp the fact that widescreen movies > > > are a waste of space. > > I presume you also disapprove of films with colour and sound. Was the step > > from lantern slides also a regressive move? > Ah yes and I assume you are a typical mindless consumer who will buy any > old tat just because it is prefixed with the word 'new' and has a huge > price tag. You really don't know how wrong you are! ;-) > Would you be interested in buying a second hand car by any chance, I have a > one for sale, low milage of course, nice runner....etc.. My P reg car serves me well - I purchased it new and with care. I did the same with my 10 year old computer and, unlike yours, my e-mail/news software correctly snips correspondent's sigs. Maybe you were bamboozled by a company who are great at advertising but not so good at producing a decent operating system? ;-) SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing Well, I thought half-point was pointing out that - with digital tv - then "cutting off" the sides of the picture but continuing with the same resolution (since it's obviously acceptable!) would allow more channels per mux. Obviously, it doesn't affect the tx power needed! But, yes, plasmas do consume loadsa power, CRTs a bit less, and LCDsthe least. >Well, I thought half-point was pointing out that - with digital tv - >then "cutting off" the sides of the picture but continuing with the >same resolution (since it's obviously acceptable!) would allow more >channels per mux. There is no cutting off the sides, they are broadcast with the exact same number of pixels! FFS. The TV takes the picture and expands it outwards. >Obviously, it doesn't affect the tx power needed! No, because to all intents and purposes an anamorphic widescreen picture it is *exactly* the same as any other 4:3 signal. Lee. Signaturelee at w2designs dot co dot uk If I have one flaw, it's that I'm a perfectoinist. > >Well, I thought half-point was pointing out that - with digital tv - > >then "cutting off" the sides of the picture but continuing with the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No, because to all intents and purposes an anamorphic widescreen > picture it is *exactly* the same as any other 4:3 signal. It's a lower resolution picture of course, poorer quality. But OK for films I guess. > Lee. >It's a lower resolution picture of course, poorer quality. But OK for >films I guess. Where do you get this crap from? SignatureClive > >It's a lower resolution picture of course, poorer quality. But OK for > >films I guess. > Where do you get this crap from? It's not the same as a 4:3 picture with more picture added at the sides its squashed and stretched. However the fact is that widescreen is a less efficient way to view images in the real world and thus wasteful of bandwidth when transmitting the pictures, and energy when displaying the pictures. A couple of facts I don't think you will not be able to fault. >It's not the same as a 4:3 picture with more picture added at the sides >its squashed and stretched. However the fact is that widescreen is a >less efficient way to view images in the real world and thus wasteful >of bandwidth when transmitting the pictures, and energy when displaying >the pictures. A couple of facts I don't think you will not be able to >fault. Apart from the fact that you're talking utter rubbish. SignatureClive > >It's not the same as a 4:3 picture with more picture added at the sides > >its squashed and stretched. However the fact is that widescreen is a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >fault. > Apart from the fact that you're talking utter rubbish. Prove it. Put up or shut up. > Prove it. > Put up or shut up. We prove you're wrong, you ignore it, then repeat same nonsense. Thus you prove that you've got obsessive-compulsive disorder. We've no obligation to help the mentally ill here. > >It's a lower resolution picture of course, poorer quality. But OK for > >films I guess. > Where do you get this crap from? Actually I got it from Lee@DVDDebate so I think you should take the matter up with him, he said "The TV takes the picture and expands it outwards." which is not really correct and I appologise for being mislead by his inaccurate comments, I should have know better than to trust any of his statements. What happens of course is that image at the top and bottom of a propper 4:3 picture is lost and used to hold image which is added to the sides of the picture. The image added at the sides, more often than not carries unimportant information would could quite easilly be discarded. This is the essence of how widescreen wastes bandwidth and power. Once again I apologise for beinig mislead by Lee@DVDDebates inaccurate comments. >Actually I got it from Lee@DVDDebate so I think you should take the >matter up with him, he said "The TV takes the picture and expands it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >wastes bandwidth and power. Once again I apologise for beinig mislead >by Lee@DVDDebates inaccurate comments. More rubbish. SignatureClive > >Actually I got it from Lee@DVDDebate so I think you should take the > >matter up with him, he said "The TV takes the picture and expands it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >by Lee@DVDDebates inaccurate comments. > More rubbish. Prove it. Put up or shut up. > Prove it. > Put up or shut up. We've no obligation to help your mental illness here. >> >Actually I got it from Lee@DVDDebate so I think you should take the >> >matter up with him, he said "The TV takes the picture and expands it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> -- >> Clive There is nothing to prove, all the major interested parties did tests before the war and that's when the 16:9 aspect ratio was first mooted, but it wasn't possible to mass produce sets so a 4:3 was the best compromise, a big improvement over the round C.R.T.s from radar. If you think you know better lets hear it. SignatureClive > >It's a lower resolution picture of course, poorer quality. But OK for > >films I guess. > Where do you get this crap from? Actually if a widescreen image has the same number of vertical lines (which I believe it may have) then it can only give a wider picture, in the same bandwidth, by losing horizontal resolution. So it's either losing picure height or resolution (or a combination of both), take your pick >Actually if a widescreen image has the same number of vertical lines >(which I believe it may have) then it can only give a wider picture, in >the same bandwidth, by losing horizontal resolution. So it's either >losing picure height or resolution (or a combination of both), take >your pick A true statement, however 16:9 uses a greater bandwidth unless you're using digital techniques where the picture is not built up from lines but pixels and compression has a greater say in bandwidth. Pick the bones out of that if you think you can. SignatureClive > >Actually if a widescreen image has the same number of vertical lines > >(which I believe it may have) then it can only give a wider picture, in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but pixels and compression has a greater say in bandwidth. Pick the > bones out of that if you think you can. The widescreen shape is inherently inefficient, compression won't change that, compresion works for every shape but it can't compensate for the stupid slot shape of widescreen, nothing can. >The widescreen shape is inherently inefficient, compression won't >change that, compresion works for every shape but it can't compensate >for the stupid slot shape of widescreen, nothing can. I would answer that with a technical answer, but fools, are just that, and no amount of common sense makes any difference to them. SignatureClive > >The widescreen shape is inherently inefficient, compression won't > >change that, compresion works for every shape but it can't compensate > >for the stupid slot shape of widescreen, nothing can. > I would answer that with a technical answer, but fools, are just that, > and no amount of common sense makes any difference to them. I whole heartedly agree. > it can't compensate for > the stupid slot shape of widescreen, nothing can. Obsessing over something being the WRONG SHAPE is classic brain damage. Get help. >> No, because to all intents and purposes an anamorphic widescreen >> picture it is *exactly* the same as any other 4:3 signal. > >It's a lower resolution picture of course, poorer quality. But OK for >films I guess. I've tried, believe me, but I cannot find any rational explanation that makes sense of what you just said. Lee. Signaturelee at w2designs dot co dot uk If I have one flaw it's that I'm a perfectoinist. > >> No, because to all intents and purposes an anamorphic widescreen > >> picture it is *exactly* the same as any other 4:3 signal. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I've tried, believe me, but I cannot find any rational explanation > that makes sense of what you just said. Well thats is no surprise because it is derived from a statement you made. > Lee. >>> No, because to all intents and purposes an anamorphic widescreen >>> picture it is *exactly* the same as any other 4:3 signal. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >that makes sense of what you just said. >Lee. Half pint is a half wit and you're just as bad for believing this rubbish. SignatureClive > >>> No, because to all intents and purposes an anamorphic widescreen > >>> picture it is *exactly* the same as any other 4:3 signal. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Half pint is a half wit and you're just as bad for believing this > rubbish. I think you have got a bit mixed up there, you need to try harder. > I think you have got a bit mixed up there, you need to try harder. What you should think about is GETTING HELP. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message