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

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

This statement does not make any sense at all, but this is pretty typical of you. Can you explain the difference between the process is too fast for our eyes and brain to detect, and our brain is too slow to detect. They are just too different ways of saying the same thing. Geeze, you must have been at the top of the 1764 graduating class of hickville high.

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

I am afraid when you are talking about moving images, SOLID is not a very descriptive word. Study after study has proven that a normal viewing distances most folks cannot detect any differences between 1080p and 1080i well done. So your "fact" is in an imaginary space between your ears where your brain is supposed to be. .

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)

Honest mistake?? You have got to be kidding me. An honest mistake would state "I think he said cobbled together", not "cobbled together" in a very definitive fashion. You lied, and you don't want to admit you did so you can maintain some fake illusion that you are never wrong. Well, your a$$ was wrong, so there goes your little illusion.

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

This is mighty impressive for a dumpster diver. Imagine, going broke purchasing low end equipment. I guess this is the best a failed janitor can do. Did you sell your soul to the devil to pay for it?

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

You are right, it probably wasn't cheap to you since you equate performance so closely with price. But let's face the music old one, anything Mitsubishi produced below their 65" RPTV with 9" guns was compromised to meet a price point. The performance difference between their 65" with 9" CRT's and the 60" with 7" CRT's was as wide as the pacific ocean. So IMO, its cheap.

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

So what. That is not a compromise, its a necessity, just like it is in the movie theater. What is a compromise is that inability of fixed panels to reproduce the SMPTE color gamut accurately. What is a compromise is the inability of fixed panel to reproduce shadow detail. What is a compromise is pixels burning out, much like what has happened with your brain.

the whole story (besides the "hole" in your head) is that twin projectors were common in
a lot of installs, not just 300".

Stacked projectors has never been common, so please do overstate your point, or to put it plainly, don't lie liar. The cost of two projectors, and the complexity of lining them up prevents this from being a common installation. The only reason to stack two projectors is because of poor pre-install planning, or the desire to have a much larger screen than the projector can throw light on. If you plan out your installation properly, and pick the proper projector for the installation, there is no need to stack.

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.

A very uniformed comment, especially coming from a person with absolutely no experience with CRT projection systems aside from a cheap RPTV.

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?

I would consider you a burnout, I consider GM a Good Mercedes. Obsolete means unuseful, there is nothing unuseful about high end CRT projection systems, especially since they outperform fixed panels in just about every area. The only fixed panel that can outperform a CRT based system, is the Panasonic 150" plasma that is spec'd at 2160p. You would be hard pressed to find any plasma or LCD that can come close to competing with a Sony G-90, Maquee 9500, or a Barco 1209 or cine 9 projectors(or even my display) with can accurately reproduce 2500x2000 lines or resolution ACCURATELY. No panel except one in the world can do that.

Mitigate but not get rid of entirely.

If you make it invisible to the eye, there is no need to mitigate in entirely is there?

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.

So you are saying the very system we have built our broadcast technology on is flawed? If that is the case, how does a flat panel change the equation. It doesn't, the only thing it does is take up less space, and that is it. It offers no performance advantage that is for sure. Many panels out there cannot even reproduce a 1080p image accurately, and testing by a few mags has proven this.

And the "complex" argument is something a lot hide behind.

Simplicity is an arguement that stupid people like yourself hide behind because they lack the brain compacity to understand the complex.

A LOT OF ELECTRONIC processes are actually quite simple, making them work requires a lot of gear sometimes.

You must like to see your nonsense on this page huh?

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 guess this is the same dead that plasma has suffered huh? Your brain is dead, and that is the only thing that has suffered any death. CRT based projection systems has enough market that folks are rebuilding, refurbishing, and reselling them everyday.

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

This sounds more like a description of yourself rather than technology. What makes this comment so laughable is that there isn't but one panel in the world that can outperform the projectors I mentioned above. Just one. Once again you are equating convience with performace. I would much rather have a giant beast that can do black, can accurately reproduce 2500x2000 lines of information, meet SMTPE standards for color reproduction, and you can adjust the scanning rate to increase its resolution than have something that I can hang on a wall but cannot accurately reproduce that panels spec'd resolution, doesn't do black, and suffers from motion blur and slow reponse times. For me convience never trumps performance. Your standards are much lower than mine, that is for sure.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[GMichael]

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

I do. You won't need the salt or the butter.