Shhhhh Don't Tell Pix....Vizio is coming out with...A PLASMA!!!!

[pixelthis]

I'm not on any bodies side either, and I also don't think anybody here has as much history with pix, good AND bad, as I do, but the truth is, there comes a time when you just have to live and let live. It should be obvious to everyone that he's not going anywhere, and in my opinion trading insults with him makes everybody look bad. I don't think it's so much that he's wrong or right more than his personality and communication style just rubs some people the wrong way. It may seem like he's making sharp attacks at people, but I've decided in my own mind that he's just giving what he gets, no more no less. I don't let it bother me anymore but instead make light of it.

I know pix, you don't need ANYBODY to defend you, but just SHUT UP for a minute okay?



Why is it that I have so few responses in all of my RX-V3800 threads from those who so quickly attack him? Was this the wrong answer? Why didn't his detractors come over and dispute it? It's obvious to me from this that some people like me and some can't be bothered, so why doesn't the same attitude apply to him?

Just MY observation, take it FWIW.

Nobody attacked this statement because its RIGHT
And no I didnt "forget" you rich, its just that I was pointing out some of the silly s***t
that I have heard on this board. BEING A RELATIVE NO-NOTHING
you havent had your head filled with the myths that tend to collect between the ears
of your average audiophile .
ANYWAY, what receiver manufacturers dont tell ya is that all of those AMPS
SQUEEZED into a tiny box all have to compete for the same piece of power pie.
Usually some one lung deal with some caps half the size they need to be.
The surrounds don't need as much juice, and thats what they are counting on.
You will probably never notice except under extreme circumstances.
Ever turn up a amp and it seems to run outta gas?
HALF THE TIME ITS AN INADEQUATE power supply.
Receivers serve most well because they dont know what they are missing, and the usually small size of a living room and the relative low vollumes used most of the time
help also.
for most a receiver is fine, but for sound with AUTHORITY you need real power.
A Chevy P.O.S will get you to the walmart, but to win NASCAR you need to kick it with
some real horsepower

[Rich-n-Texas]

...BEING A RELATIVE NO-NOTHING...

See? I actually thought this remark was funny. "RELATIVE" is the key word here. He knows.

[Groundbeef]

See? I actually thought this remark was funny. "RELATIVE" is the key word here. He knows.

Who knows? Is that some sort of "inside joke" that you share with your relative, Pix? I didn't know you 2 were relatives. Is he your older brother?

No WONDER your sticking up for him. Jeez man. Sorry for railing on your bro. GM you ought to be ashamed. Making fun of Rich's brother.

[GMichael]

Who knows? Is that some sort of "inside joke" that you share with your relative, Pix? I didn't know you 2 were relatives. Is he your older brother?

No WONDER your sticking up for him. Jeez man. Sorry for railing on your bro. GM you ought to be ashamed. Making fun of Rich's brother.

I'm sorry. I'll try to play nice.

Anyone up for some white water rafting?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Who knows? Is that some sort of "inside joke" that you share with your relative, Pix? I didn't know you 2 were relatives. Is he your older brother?

No WONDER your sticking up for him. Jeez man. Sorry for railing on your bro. GM you ought to be ashamed. Making fun of Rich's brother.

No need to get upset Groundbeef. He'll still be an easy target for you and others in-the-know.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You still cannot put together information correctly. It must be the fact that you have been doing far too much dumpster diving, and the scent of the trash has f*cked up your brain.

can tell you from reading thousands of magazines and books and websites on the subject that progressive is better than interlaced.

1080p IS better than 1080i. 720p IS NOT better than 1080i, especially not with movies. 720p has half the pixel count, and therefore less detail than a 1080i image. 720p only advantage over 1080i is during moving images, and that is only in theory. In the field response times, and motion blurring erase any advantage 720p would have over 1080i

One reason is that an interlaced picture loses up to half its resolution when theres movement.

In theory you are correct. However our eyes and brains do not look at images a frame at a time. It blends frames together to create images, and it does it so fast our eyes cannot perceive that any resolution is lost during refreshing. While fixed panels "paint" the image all at once, there is a lag on and off of the pixels(response time) and a smearing of one image over another(motion blur), and that would erase any advantage progressive would have over interlaced signals that do not suffer from this problem.

But sir talky says "not so" for the simple reason that 1080i IS A HIGHER NUMBER THAN 720P!!!

You are a damn liar a$$hole, I never said any such thing. I always knew you were a stupid old man, but I never knew you were a stupid lying old man. 1080i and 1080p are both 2.07 million pixels. The only difference between the two is that one is all the resolution at once, the other in alternating fields. If interlacing is done well (weaving instead of bobbing) you would be hard pressed to tell the difference at typical viewing distances. 720p is not even a million pixels. So it does not make any difference that it all the resolution on the screen all the time, its less information than 1080i. And even if you are(in theory) only seeing half the resolution during moving images, the refresh and scan rate is so quick, and our eyes and brains are so intelligent, that it sews the images together much quicker than our eyes can detect. My problem with your theories is that they do not present the eye/brain side of the equation. You only present HALF the facts, not the whole picture. You are making lab theory field fact, and it does not work that way.

If the actual, real world resolution of that 1080i picture is 650 lines you'd be lucky,
and then theres interlace artifacts.

You are wrong again, and you are generalizing. Not all CRT based display devices are alike. Your experience is with cheap single gun CRT's. You have no experience with high quality RPTV's that easily exceed 650 lines(Mitsibishi, Toshiba, Hitachi, and Sony top of the line 2004 RPTV's could do 900-1000 lines), and CRT based front projection system can do 1100 lines. In the last generation of quality RPTV and front projection systems, DSP processing either internally, or with outboard processor were very sucessful in dealing with interlacing artifacts. Most interlacing artifacts that are viewable are the result of cheap interlacing algorythms(bobbing). Weaving is far superior, and results in FAR less viewable artifacting. The other side of the coin is downscaling from 1080p to 720p also produces viewable artifacts. Most interlacing artifacts come from the fact that you are presenting an image that was recorded in 480i to 1080i. 1080i to 1080i produces alot less artifacting, and 1080p to 1080i produces almost none. The higher the resolution of the interlaced image, the fewer interlacing artifacts you will see, that is because the lines get closer and closer as the resolution get higher.

My electronics treacher in 1975 told me that the real world rsolution of a ntsc picture
(480i) is around 240 lines, Joe Kane, television guru says pretty much the same thing, advocating 720p as a broadcast standard because its better (which ABC thought also, they broadcast in 720p).

Another lie. Joe Kane has NEVER said any such thing. 480i is 480 lines of resolution on a 4:3 screen. When you letterbox that image at 1:85 or 2:35:1 the lines of resolution drop to 380 and 330 lines. So if your electronics teacher told you that information, then I blame your stupid teachers for making you the same way. The resolution of VHS is 240 lines. ABC chose 720p because the network produces alot of sports programming. 720p is better for fast moving motion, and 1080i is better for static images such as movies and television shows. Its not as easy as progressive is better. Joe Kane DOES say that, because I heard him do so at CES back in 2006 during his hi def workshop.

But this ninny says that 1080i is better because 1080 is a higher number than 720,
and I am supposed to genuflect in front of this silly moron and say "I'm sorry, you're right"
???

1080i is 1920x1080, 720 is 1280x720. 1080i is 2.07 million pixels, 720p is 921,600. Since pixel count does determine the amount of resolution you see, you are right, 1080 is a higher number than 720. And yes, you should say I am sorry, he is right. However you are too stupid to do that.

In spite of the fact that hes talking gibberish?
He talks about his "system" which "some guys from work" cobbled up for him like its a real world standard, when from his description it cost at least 200 grand,
uses CRT projection( ONE crt projector when anybody knows that you need two because the light output is too meager)

Cobble means to repair, and my set was not repaired, it was upgraded and redesigned, very different. It did not cost 200 grand, it didn't even cost 20 grand. It was upgraded and redesigned based on a standard RPTV chassis, using top of the line optics found in front projection projectors. All this is based on existing modified parts, not some unreal world standard. The optics in my set are modified Sony G90 CRT's. It is pretty common to color correct those tubes(I bought mine already done). 9" tubes can be found in Mitsubishi 65" and 73" CRT based RPTV's, and Toshiba top of the line 65"(65h84). As far as light output, you are behind the times again. A front projection system with 9" guns has no problem meeting SMPTE standards on a 300" screen. The G90 can output 1300 lumens, so one will do just fine thanks.

Your problem pixelpuss is you have no experience with CRT beyond the cheap single gun 32 incher. Once you go to the high end, you are lost and trying to tie in your experience with cheap stuff with the well engineered stuff not trying to meet a $300 price point. You are mixing small truths with huge lies and misinformation. You are constantly averting the small detail(which really does matter) just to expedite your point, and that often is where you get lost. You think that just because you read a few magazines, that you know a little something. You are right, you know a LITTLE something, at that is all.

In the future when you quote me, get your $hit right or don't quote me.

[pixelthis]

1080p IS the best format out there, no debating that.
What talky said (and later backtracked on) is that 1080 INTERLACED
is better than 720p, which is BS squared.
As for the rest of his rant, anybody got some designer tranks? Sounds like he needs em

[pixelthis]

Who knows? Is that some sort of "inside joke" that you share with your relative, Pix? I didn't know you 2 were relatives. Is he your older brother?

No WONDER your sticking up for him. Jeez man. Sorry for railing on your bro. GM you ought to be ashamed. Making fun of Rich's brother.

We are not relatives, unlike you and your wife, when you started dating.

Rich is a relative "know nothing" as compared to you, who is a relative knows less than nothing, meaning that what you do know is wrong

[pixelthis]

Another thing I must address that sir talky said during his latest meltdown.
Its not that our eyes and brains are so "smart " that they weave two fields into
a single picture, the theory is that our eyes are too slow to catch the chicanery
going on behind the scenes.
But when theres movement it all falls apart, during casual viewing the pictures fine,
but a progressive picture is A lot more soild and artfact free.
And "cobble" is a word talky used about his system, the famous mercurial system that changes to fit the conversation .
And I had a Mitshu 60in rptvstandard def, very nice, but it showed the failings
of CRT when trying to cast a large picture.
Since the brightness drops as the pitch of a CRT increases, a HD crt would be very compromised.
THIS IS why it was common to use two projectors in tandem for enough brightness to see the picture, which still required absolute darkness

[pixelthis]

And I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but talky also says that 480i is 480 lines of resolution.
Its silly statements like this that lead me to beleive that his ass is full of sand.
480I IS 480 SCAN LINES made up of two fields.
I am constantly trying to explain to laymen that scan lines are different from
lines of resolution.
SCAN LINES are the number of lines the picture is composed of, resolution is how fine
the set can resolve detail, this is TV 101.
Put a test pattern on screen and see how far down the scale you can resolve a line of increasingly finer bars.
Why does the "expert" keep missing the basics?
And joe kane did say that progressive is better than interlaced, not once but several times. I read it in a long ago issue of Widescreen review

[Groundbeef]

We are not relatives, unlike you and your wife, when you started dating.

Rich is a relative "know nothing" as compared to you, who is a relative knows less than nothing, meaning that what you do know is wrong

Really? An incest joke? Is that the best you have?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Another thing I must address that sir talky said during his latest meltdown.
Its not that our eyes and brains are so "smart " that they weave two fields into
a single picture, the theory is that our eyes are too slow to catch the chicanery
going on behind the scenes.

The process is too fast, our eyes are too slow. What the hell is the difference stupid?

But when theres movement it all falls apart, during casual viewing the pictures fine,
but a progressive picture is A lot more soild and artfact free.

A progressive picture IN THEORY is more solid. However theory usually fails in the field when actual devices are used. In the field, LCD and Plasmas suffer from motion blur, and slow response times which kills the theory dead. You seem to love to side step this fact.

And "cobble" is a word talky used about his system, the famous mercurial system that changes to fit the conversation

You are lying again pixeliar. I never EVER mentioned the word cobble, EVER. Aside from your obvious stupidity, your lying has further killed your credibility.
.

And I had a Mitshu 60in rptvstandard def, very nice, but it showed the failings
of CRT when trying to cast a large picture.

Oh yeah, your cheap a$$ has had everything under the sun. Next you will be telling us you invented the internet. Your 60" was probably the cheap model with 7" CRT's.

Since the brightness drops as the pitch of a CRT increases, a HD crt would be very compromised.

My television meets SMPTE standards for light output on a 65" screen with no problem at all even with 1440p test signals. The Sony G90 meets SMPTE standards on a 300" screen with no problem at all with 1080p signals. HD CRT's are used in every mastering house in Hollywood. So where is your proof of compromise?

THIS IS why it was common to use two projectors in tandem for enough brightness to see the picture, which still required absolute darkness

Two stacked projectors are only used for screen sizes larger than 300". Tell the whole story pixelidiot.

You have a real problem with presenting the WHOLE picture. You put out bits and pieces of a point without regards to the other side of the equation. One deminsional points are useless when discussing complex issues. Generalization are also not helpful because you are not addressing the fact that internal or external processing can be used to mitigate artifacts that are inherent to any visual device.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but talky also says that 480i is 480 lines of resolution.
Its silly statements like this that lead me to beleive that his ass is full of sand.
480I IS 480 SCAN LINES made up of two fields.

We do not look at televisions scan lines, the process of scanning is too quick to even make this a point of discussion. NTSC television is based on 525 scan lines of picture information presented in two fields, each field representing half resolution. 486 of those lines are what we use for visual information. Since the temporal effect of our eyes and brains do not represent a half field viewing, you cannot measure resolution based on half field information. You seem to like to do this. Your 240 lines is only half the amount of resolution our eyes see at any given time. So your THEORY is correct, but you cannot measure theory, you have to measure what the eye actually captures.

I am constantly trying to explain to laymen that scan lines are different from
lines of resolution.
SCAN LINES are the number of lines the picture is composed of, resolution is how fine
the set can resolve detail, this is TV 101.

Hence, the more scan lines that compose the picture, the more resolution you can see. That is why there is more information in a 1080i signal than in a 480i signal. You need to put the pieces together.

Put a test pattern on screen and see how far down the scale you can resolve a line of increasingly finer bars.
Why does the "expert" keep missing the basics?
And joe kane did say that progressive is better than interlaced, not once but several times. I read it in a long ago issue of Widescreen review

This is a duh statement. The more lines, the more of the finer bars you can resolve.

Here is the problem with what you present. Its only half the information. We have not talked about scan rate, how far you are setting from the device, how well the internal or external processing deals with motion and artifacts, refresh rates, and visual acuity. You are just looking at a single deminsion of theory without all of the other factors that complete the whole picture.

Can you tell me if CRT is so compromised why all high definition programming from monitoring to mastering done on CRT based devices?

Once again you are taking Joe Kane's comment out of context. I have subscribed to Widescreen review since it started. I have every issue going back to 1996, and I have read everything he has published in that magazine.

Joe Kane has said that progressive is best when we speak of 1080p. He has never said that 720p was better than 1080i EXCEPT when fast motion is taken into consideration. For film based material with a lot of static images, 1080i is better than 720p because their is more information on the screen in 1080i. 1080p is best overall, and I think everyone acknowledges this. He has also said that this whole 1080p versus 1080i arguement fails when you take viewing distance and the 24fps frame rate for film into consideration because of the conversion from 24fps to 60ftps. Tell the whole story.

[Smokey]

I am constantly trying to explain to laymen that scan lines are different from lines of resolution. SCAN LINES are the number of lines the picture is composed of, resolution is how fine the set can resolve detail, this is TV 101.

As Sir TT explained, that statement is completely false.

Scan Lines are part of resolution (vertical resolution). Why do you think we moved from 480 scan lines to 720 and 1080 scan lines for HD? Because 720/1080 means more scan lines AKA more resolution (answered my own question )

If you look at TV resolution specifications in the manual, you will note that both horizontal and vertical resolution are stated as either 640 x 480, 1280×720 or 1920x1080 i/p as both numbers will determine TV’s total resolution. The higher the scan lines, the more resolution a TV will have.

[RoyY51]

This is really getting good...could someone pass the popcorn?

[jrhymeammo]

You just gotta chill out a bit, old man.
I think 99% of us here can learn a thing or two from your audio knowledge. But you gotta learn to take in others' advice, before spitting off your knowledge.

well, GEE, thanks for your "help" but I need to explain something, I have been doing this for 40 odd years now.
I built a three stage solid state amp when I WAS 17, (using F.E.T. transistors)
Probably couldnt do it today without a kit, but I DID do it.
Put it on top of an old tube fisher fm tuner, sounded quite good.
And did this before you were a wet spot on your mamas undies.
Why do I REFUSE TO ADMIT that I am wrong? Because most of the time
I'M not.
And I am not going to lie and say that something I learned in electronics class is "wrong"
just to win the favor of a bunch on this site that really are a lot more clueless than they think?
NOPE, because I am a GROWNUP.

And an astute observer of human nature, thanks to a career in law enforcement,

I SMELL BACON!!!!

started when dyslexia made it increasingly more complicated to compete in electronics.
For instance why do you think GM is always there with the smartass remark?
And always turns a thread away from the subject, to something silly as hell?
Because his knowledge of most subjects is rather , ah, "slim" to put it politely?
Why is sir talky so immature? Because hes a young man impersonating either someone he made up or a real person, maybe a relative, but if he is out of college
yet it would surprize me, if he werent out of high school it would'nt.
I get "into trouble" trying to challenge some people on this board, my bad , they dont have any gray matter to challenge, especially "groundgeek" who has a picture of his
brains as an avatar.
But I must admit that the viciousness of some attacks is rather off putting sometimes,
but again I am a grownup and rather abrasive myself sometimes, a little heat is something I AM TOO USED TO.
Did you know that a plasma burns LESS energy than a LCD? YEP!
At least that is what the clueless wooch says. AND HES' the ONLY one who says it,
its common knowledge that a plasma tv is an energy hog, sometimes burning as much as
thirty times as much energy as an LCD in a year.
But I am "stubborn" because I refuse to admit hes "right" when what he says contradicts
EVERY source you can find on the subject.
And WHEN I say plasma is "dead", well, thats silly.
But there was a photo in the paper today of Sonys new toy, an 11" OLED television,
prices are expected to drop and size to rise, it wont take three years for this form factor to become dominant.
And that should make the snobs on this board happy, they keep citing "black level"
as one of the "great" things about plasma, when the difference between LCD and plasma is slight at best, and glare from plasma negates a lot of that.
Well, they should love OLED, the black level is PERFECT.
And plasma sales are already dropping, considering how long it took a LCD panel to go from 2,000 for 15" TO 550$ for a 32" , and considering that OLED is easier to make,
not only is plasma "DEAD", LCD wont be far behind.
I can tell you from reading thousands of magazines and books and websites on the subject that progressive is better than interlaced.
One reason is that an interlaced picture loses up to half its resolution when theres movement.
But sir talky says "not so" for the simple reason that 1080i IS A HIGHER NUMBER THAN 720P!!!
If the actual, real world resolution of that 1080i picture is 650 lines you'd be lucky,
and then theres interlace artifacts.
My electronics treacher in 1975 told me that the real world rsolution of a ntsc picture
(480i) is around 240 lines, Joe Kane, television guru says pretty much the same thing, advocating 720p as a broadcast standard because its better (which ABC thought also, they broadcast in 720p).
But this ninny says that 1080i is better because 1080 is a higher number than 720,
and I am supposed to genuflect in front of this silly moron and say "I'm sorry, you're right"
???
In spite of the fact that hes talking gibberish?
He talks about his "system" which "some guys from work" cobbled up for him like its a real world standard, when from his description it cost at least 200 grand,
uses CRT projection( ONE crt projector when anybody knows that you need two because the light output is too meager)
Well, he doesnt know, apparently.
And I predicted that HDDVD was "dead" too, not a hard one to make if you know whats going on, but nothing but ridicule from THAT, especially from HD owners who were too clueless to know they were investing in a dino from day one.
And so on.
In other words, if you are waiting for me to "admit" I am wrong when the world agrees with
ME, sorry, I won rather you will admit it or not.
And I WILL KEEP ON WITH THE THANKLESS TASK OF
trying to drill some knowhow into a rather hard set of skulls.

Also retarded.
Seriously, if you dont chill out we are going to have you kicked off of this site. I do agree with some of your comments above, but your remarks about other members is about as original as "I SMELL BACON".

Seriously, calm down.

JRA

[jrhymeammo]

Why is it that I have so few responses in all of my RX-V3800 threads from those who so quickly attack him? Was this the wrong answer? Why didn't his detractors come over and dispute it? It's obvious to me from this that some people like me and some can't be bothered, so why doesn't the same attitude apply to him?

Just MY observation, take it FWIW.

Statement above, was that directed for my attention? If so, please explain, Do I need to read up on your RX-3800 thread? I'm not quite following you here.

JRA

[bobsticks]

Oh my.

[Woochifer]

Why do I REFUSE TO ADMIT that I am wrong? Because most of the time
I'M not.

And I am not going to lie and say that something I learned in electronics class is "wrong"
just to win the favor of a bunch on this site that really are a lot more clueless than they think?

No, you're going to lie, just because that's the only way that you can maintain this delusion that you're never wrong! C'mon, the truth ain't so bad. Besides, with everyone wising up to your charade, it's not like you got anyone left on this board that you can fool anyway!

NOPE, because I am a GROWNUP.

Actually, you're just old.

And an astute observer of human nature, thanks to a career in law enforcement,

......self-aggrandizing nonsense snipped ......



Why is sir talky so immature? Because hes a young man impersonating either someone he made up or a real person, maybe a relative, but if he is out of college
yet it would surprize me, if he werent out of high school it would'nt.

And given that I personally know Sir T, I can safely say that your "astute" observations about him are just as off-base as your grasp on most home theater topics! Of course, your "astute" observation about "human nature" (and everything else for that matter) is that we're all DOOMED, DOOMED I TELL YOU DOOMED! DID I MENTION DOOMED?

I get "into trouble" trying to challenge some people on this board, my bad , they dont have any gray matter to challenge, especially "groundgeek" who has a picture of his
brains as an avatar.
But I must admit that the viciousness of some attacks is rather off putting sometimes,
but again I am a grownup and rather abrasive myself sometimes, a little heat is something I AM TOO USED TO.

All you're getting is a taste of what you dish out. Don't like the flavor? Learn how to cook better!

Did you know that a plasma burns LESS energy than a LCD? YEP!
At least that is what the clueless wooch says. AND HES' the ONLY one who says it,

Couldn't win this argument the first two times, so here you go repeating the same idiocy yet again! I've stated before, and I'll state it again, plasma CAN consume less energy than LCD, and energy consumption tests prove this.

Once again, here's the quote from the January 2006 issue of Home Theater magazine, which relies on actual power consumption measurements, rather than factually and grammatically challenged rantings ...

Out of the box, the plasma is slightly better than the LCD, at 194 watts. Drop the contrast to 80 percent of its maximum (where you'd expect a calibrated set to be, more or less), and now you're down to 162 watts. That's a savings of $0.40 each month (calculated based on two hours per day of use) over the full-lamp LCD!

In that case, using out of the box settings running identical test signals, the plasma set was already using 38% less power than an equivalent LCD set. So, I'm obviously not the ONLY one saying this. And this ain't the first time I've knocked down this pathetic generalization, and it sadly won't be the last, given your demonstrated incapacity to let it go! I've already beaten you down on this point twice, I guess you're now gunning for three! This is like watching a recorded sporting event -- repeating the same scene over and over doesn't change the outcome, but I guess you'll keep trying!

its common knowledge that a plasma tv is an energy hog, sometimes burning as much as
thirty times as much energy as an LCD in a year.

Common knowledge or another one of your common lies?

30X, where's your source on that? I'd sure like to see it! Maybe if that LCD is on standby, you might have a case, but otherwise, we'll just have to add it to the long list of unsupportable nonsense that you've posted.

Couldn't win this argument on two other threads, so you keep repeating it yet again!

But I am "stubborn" because I refuse to admit hes "right" when what he says contradicts
EVERY source you can find on the subject.

Either your reading comprehension is worse than even I suspected, or you're flat out lying yet again. I already cited a reputable source that measured real world conditions under which plasma uses less energy than LCD, and you continue to deny deny deny -- how sad to live in such a state!

But there was a photo in the paper today of Sonys new toy, an 11" OLED television,
prices are expected to drop and size to rise, it wont take three years for this form factor to become dominant.

Hmmm, and given that Samsung is projecting at least two more years before anything close to 40" will even come onto the market, you're saying that OLED will come to market and achieve market dominance in only one year? Where's your evidence that this kind of rapid adoption is even possible, since it has never happened before and you don't know squat about any production issues or line capacity limitations that might crop up within that time?

And that should make the snobs on this board happy, they keep citing "black level"
as one of the "great" things about plasma, when the difference between LCD and plasma is slight at best, and glare from plasma negates a lot of that.

And as I've stated before, if OLED is all that it's cracked up to be, then I'll be glad to see LCD and plasma gone, given that both technologies have significant drawbacks.

Of course, you ignore that point, and ignore the sizable advantage that plasma has over LCD in the area of motion resolution. 1080p plasmas can generally display 800 to 900 lines of resolution with moving images, while even 120 Hz LCDs have a motion resolution of less than 600. Oh, and BTW, Home Theater's lowest motion resolution measurement in their November 2007 roundup was with a 1080p Vizio LCD, which had a motion resolution of 380 -- this means that with moving images, the resolution on that LCD set dropped BELOW DVD resolution! Tell me again how these differences are "slight at best"?

And plasma sales are already dropping, considering how long it took a LCD panel to go from 2,000 for 15" TO 550$ for a 32" , and considering that OLED is easier to make,
not only is plasma "DEAD", LCD wont be far behind.

Well, that's all well and good, but given that the only set on the market RIGHT NOW measures 11" and costs $2,500, OLED doesn't mean a thing for anyone who's in the market for a TV RIGHT NOW.

In other words, if you are waiting for me to "admit" I am wrong when the world agrees with
ME, sorry, I won rather you will admit it or not.
And I WILL KEEP ON WITH THE THANKLESS TASK OF
trying to drill some knowhow into a rather hard set of skulls.

Actually, your thankless task is trying to make half-truths and debunked nonsense sound coherent! And on that count, you're slacking off, your ramblings are still as incomprehensible as ever ... c'mon get to it!

[Woochifer]

Really? An incest joke? Is that the best you have?

Considering that his other choices were more tired crack ho references or more of his wishful fantasies about people's wives and mothers, the answer's obvious!

Then again, I'm surprised he didn't try bringing your kids into his stupid joke. Strangely, he was quite proud of himself when he brought my daughter into one of his personal attacks -- as sure a sign as any that he's run out of material, not that he had much to begin with!

[pixelthis]

Really? An incest joke? Is that the best you have?

I meant "relative" as in theory of relativity or a buffalo butt is relatively beautiful compared to your face.
Never said anything about incest, beem swiming in the shallow end of the gene pool again?

[pixelthis]

The process is too fast, our eyes are too slow. What the hell is the difference stupid?

Everything, you said our super eyes and brains "weave everything together,
actually the opposite is true.
Our eyes have nothing to do with it, actually, its our brains that cant catch up.
The difference is that you are saying our brains put things together, I say our brains are getting too much info to process and therefore 24 (or 60) frames blur together into a moving picture

A progressive picture IN THEORY is more solid. However theory usually fails in the field when actual devices are used. In the field, LCD and Plasmas suffer from motion blur, and slow response times which kills the theory dead. You seem to love to side step this fact.

YOU'RE the one confusing "fact" with theory, a progressive picture is more solid than an interlaced, thats a FACT, wheather or not it looks better than interlaced is an OPINION

You are lying again pixeliar. I never EVER mentioned the word cobble, EVER. Aside from your obvious stupidity, your lying has further killed your credibility.

.


If I am wrong on this I apologise but I bet I am not.
One of the things that bothers me about you is calling a "lie" what is an honest mistake (if indeed it is)

Oh yeah, your cheap a$$ has had everything under the sun. Next you will be telling us you invented the internet. Your 60" was probably the cheap model with 7" CRT's.

Yeah my cheap "ass" had a lot of gear, and if I had it to do over I would have held onto my stuff longer, almost went broke changing things all the time
RECEIVERS
Realistic (1) Denon (2) pioneer (1) sony (1) yamaha (2) integra (1)

Integrated amps
Pioneer (1)

SPEAKERS (SETS)
OPTIMUS (2) Genesis (1) bose (1) advent (new not old) (1) B&W (2) klipsch (1)

SUBS
jbl (1) klipsch (1) yamaha (2) B&W (2)

MONITORS
SONY (5) SAMSUNG (2) vizio (1) mitshibushi (1) magnavox (1) zenith (1) toshiba (1)
panasonic (1) rca (1)

CD PLAYERS (sorry, no supercomputer available)

TURNTABLES
pioneer (1) realistic (1) technics (2)

VCRS
THREE SVHS, a zillion VHS, including a 500$ sony pro vcr bought in 94

DVD players
panasonic (2) one a six hundred dvdaudio toshiba (1) samsung (1) sony (2) (incld a recorder)


STANDS
they invented MDF to save a rainfiorest from my ass

REMOTES
PRONTO (1) 500 bucks MARANTZ rc2000 mkII (1) 230 bucks SONY touchpad 200bucks

This is a SAMPLE at least


Considering 9" CRT's cost ten grand yeah you're right, but there is NOTHING
ABOUT MITSHUBISHI that is cheap
They made some bad turns, which is why they are rarely mentioned on this board
(no plasma or LCD) but they make great sets

My television meets SMPTE standards for light output on a 65" screen with no problem at all even with 1440p test signals. The Sony G90 meets SMPTE standards on a 300" screen with no problem at all with 1080p signals. HD CRT's are used in every mastering house in Hollywood. So where is your proof of compromise?

No "compromise", you just need a dark room to watch one in

Two stacked projectors are only used for screen sizes larger than 300". Tell the whole story pixelidiot.

the whole story (besides the "hole" in your head) is that twin projectors were common in
a lot of installs, not just 300".
But thats ancient history now, now most just use a DLP or LCD, a DLP projector
from circuit city can easily match one of the older "crt" dinosaurs.
even an old burnout like GM knows this, why are you having so much trouble with it?
Spent a tad too much on stuff that got obsolete a bit too fast?

You have a real problem with presenting the WHOLE picture. You put out bits and pieces of a point without regards to the other side of the equation. One deminsional points are useless when discussing complex issues. Generalization are also not helpful because you are not addressing the fact that internal or external processing can be used to mitigate artifacts that are inherent to any visual device.

Mitigate but not get rid of entirely.
You can engineer the hell outta screen doors on a submarine but the basic idea
you are starting out with is flawed.
You start out in the wrong direction you will always wind up in the wrong place.
And the "complex" argument is something a lot hide behind.
A LOT OF ELECTRONIC processes are actually quite simple, making them work requires a lot of gear sometimes.
CRT is a dead technology, the way business works they will be used until they are so totally gone they arent worth keeping, doesnt mean they are optimum.
I have lived with these beasts and they have served me well, but there is just a better
way of showing pictures now, and like the gramophone and teh eight track they are history
there are just better ways of showing a video than solid glass vaccume "hernia inducers"
that are dangerous, expensive and realitivly short lived

[Rich-n-Texas]

Statement above, was that directed for my attention? If so, please explain, Do I need to read up on your RX-3800 thread? I'm not quite following you here.

JRA

Didn't somebody already tell you to get over yourself JRA? If I had a specific comment or concern with you I'd have PM'ed you.

[GMichael]

Wow. The heat is really picking up around here.
LJ? Got anymore of that popcorn?
Nevermind. I'll just throw some kernels on my computer.

[Groundbeef]

I meant "relative" as in theory of relativity or a buffalo butt is relatively beautiful compared to your face.
Never said anything about incest, beem swiming in the shallow end of the gene pool again?

Umm, no I re-read your original post. You said that you and Rich were not "relatives", "Like YOU and YOUR WIFE were when you started dating.".

Like I said. An Incest Joke? Apparently you don't even realize when you are making jokes now.

So who's on first?

And GM, pass the popcorn. But wash your hands first. I don't know where they have been.