Re: Why is video inverted for transmission?

You're 2 years behind the times. Most have HDMI inputs and accept vid card DVI out no problem, and now, they are even 1080p NOT 720p, so the are no longer 1366x768 at the native level, and mine is that, and the picture fills the screen. So you must have been pumping the one you saw with a shit video card.

Bullshit. Most 32" HDTV monitors of the past 3 years were that res native, and being pumped by that res FILLED the screen entirely.

Total bullshit on an HDMI display. Hell, my HDMI display also has a VGA input, and it doesn't do it via that connection either.

That, I would go for. I should only have to pay for what I view anyway, and that payment should be small.

Bullshit.

They used to be virtually free (feeds to the cable companies), when those channels were eager for exposure.

Not if they fear losing said exposure... what comes around goes around.

The next gen 120Hz displays are going to be all the rave. LCD backlights... No more 3:2 pull down (5x24=120). The world is getting better every day.

ChairmanOfTheBored hath wroth:

My HP ze2000 laptop would only do 1024x768. When that was displayed on a Sony, Vizio, and Panasonic LCD TV's at local store (about a week ago), it appeared as a big black border on the screen. I tried various tweaks, tunes, modes, and adjustments to make it bigger, and failed. The big suprise was that even though the vertical resolution was advertised as 768 dots, the 1024x768 image only filled half the vertical part of the screen. The rest was black. I would have expected it to fill the vertical, but it didn't. However, you're correct in that we may have been doing something wrong. Next time, I'll try it with a wide screen laptop, but I don't expect that to fix the vertical problem. I'll scribble down the model numbers this time.

Want me to take a photograph? Big black border on 3 LCD monitors when fed with 1024x768. I'll throw in the salesmen scratching their heads for free.

Yep. That's what I expected, but didn't see. However, I will grant that we may have done something wrong. I'm still waiting (2 weeks later) for their support people to figure out what it will take to make it work right.

Sure it would be nice. However, do the math. Assume your CATV provider is not going to lose revenue and their total billing for all customers (gross income) will be unchanged. If you subscribe to fewer channels, then the price of those channels goes up to compensate. My guess is your monthly bill will be about the same for getting fewer channels.

That's why I mentioned it. AT&T isn't really in favor of ala carte programming. However, it does sound good on the news and makes great press. Of course, nothing ever really happens.

Some still are using FTA (free to air) service. Lot of stations want free world wide distribution. Some even pay for it.

I don't recall that any of the cable companies I know ever offered free distribution. When they got stuck with the must carry rule, they rapidly ran out of channels, and used that excuse to jack up the rates for any station that wanted distribution. I vaguely recall (not sure) that the FCC threatened to regulate the must carry rates, which convinced the cable companies to cease trying to circumvent the FCC ruling by making it uneconomical for the smaller broadcasters.

It wouldn't be a problem if the stations operating under the must carry rule had anything useful to broadcast. In most cases, they purchase canned programming and advertising, which are just clones of what you can watch on any of the major networks. Sometimes, they're even transmitted simultaneously with the major networks. If you've ever notice the same junk on multiple stations, that's why. The big draw for these stations is that they can proclaim that they have a huge audience, primarily due to the cable audience. Drop the rule, and their broadcast only audience will be comparatively zilch.

Interesting. That has nothing to do with 4DTV, but I hadn't heard about 120Hz vertical displays. Thanks.