Am I the only person who isn't crazy over WIDE SCREEN?

I'm not going to comment directly on the social issues, but...

1. "NTSC" analog television IS going away. The latest (as of Nov.) date at which analog tranmission is required to shut down is, as I recall, in April 2009. That refers specifically to over-the-air terrestrial broadcast (i.e., the use of the current broadcast TV channels); I suppose cable providers COULD still ship an analog signal, but it's difficult to see why they would do this.
2. The same bill that set the above date also included a pretty sizable chunk of change (over B, as I recall) to subsidize providing convertor boxes for those still stuck with only analog TVs and over-the-air reception. By the end of 2008, that should be the minority of U.S. households. Note that if you have an analog-only TV, but already have digital satellite or completely digital cable (not all "digital cable" services are fully digital), you will not be affected by the shutdown of broadcast analog.

Bob M.

Bob, Thanks for the information. Here is another interesting problem with conversion (besides the social). The big ENVIRONMENTAL one. Where are all the billions of analog TV's going to be disposed of ? You can't dispose of them easily today. They will probably end up along with the tires, air conditioners, refridgerators and other things government has made difficult to dispose of. The government really didn't think this through....... Rural areas have become a disposal facilty for the scum that won't pay to have things disposed of properly. You clean an area up and two years later it is a pig pen again. Pardon my pessimistic attitude ! Take Care.

Except the system will be overwhelmed with a huge influx in a short period of time as opposed to the gradual disposal in effect now.

I have 4 analog sets in the house now. Now they want $10 a pop to dispose of them in the town's recycling center. I predict a lot of them will wind up by the side of the road.....after the serial numbers have been removed,. ;-)

Al

The same place they would be at their end-of-life anyway. The HDTV transition does not automatically consign all existing TVs to the scrap heap - that's what set-top converter boxes are all about, right? It is unlikely that many functioning TVs will be trashed simply because digital TV takes over. The big environmental problem with TVs comes from the CRT, anyway - so it is arguable that over the long term, the best thing in this area is the changeover from CRT technology to LCD and others. This is happening at the same time as the HDTV transition, but isn't directly driven by it.

Bob M.

Why do you think there's going to be a huge influx? You don't think that a good number of these sets wind up getting fed by set-top converters?

We now know the analog shutdown is coming; it is, however, over three years out. If you're buying a purely-analog set right now, and thinking that you're going to trash it when broadcasting goes digital, then I don't see how you've got anyone to blame but yourself. If you're claiming that people simply can't afford anything but a basic analog set right now, so that's what they're buying - again, converter boxes will be subsidized...and external digital tuners are already widely available for about $200. Granted, you're probably not going to buy something like that for that

9" portable that's in the camper - but then, that's not a really huge disposal problem, anyway.

Bob M.

Nah, never........... the government? Come on......... :)

Sorry to go a bit OT but I gotta say it. Hell, anymore, I have to wonder who's more crooked, them or the PA Commonwealth Government. Those bastards in the PA government voted in a huge raise for themselves out of money earmarked otherwise. Ya gotta love it. Now, many are retiring after the public uproar for them to give it back. Well, they better retire - because most in this commonwealth I've heard from on TV, Radio, Computer, in person - are voting out ALL the current PA reps when they come back up for re-election. Even the State Judges seen a taste of that uproar. Enough is enough. We need to do it at the Federal level too. Show these idiots they work for us....... Wouldn't it be nice if "WE" could all raise OUR pay checks anytime we chose? WE can't, and we have to show them - they can't either. Let them go back to lawyering - pounding the beat for a living, instead of having a pay check and thousands of dollars of perks given them.......... WE pay for it.......

clf

Not that THAT ever happens with respect to government activities, of course...

Bob M.

In article , David_nj snipped-for-privacy@mailbolt.com (known to some as David_nj snipped-for-privacy@mailbolt.com) scribed...

I don't mind the widescreen stuff. What I (and my wife) do have a problem with is this maniacal push towards "HDTV."

I've looked closely at HDTV vs. a well-made analog big-screen, and I think the HD screen actually looks worse. You can clearly see digital artifacts, at least in the form of overly sharp edges on objects.

As for my wife, she has vision impairments that actually make an HD screen painful for her to look at.

So.... Can't speak to wide-screen, but we're not touching HDTV with a 3.048 meter pole (or a four-foot Italian).

Keep the peace(es).

--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm
"Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:46:47 -0600, Don Taylor sprachen:

Yup. Price-wise, AFAICT, for the same money you'd be as well buying a

4:3 set and sticking black tape over the top and bottom. You get the same viewable area. 16:9 is a STUPID idea, and I've no idea whose pockets have been greased for it to make it's way into all the future TV standards. A cheap set-top box converts an old TV into a digital one, but to avoid annoying black bars, we'll all have to shell out for brand new TVs. And while we're at it, may as well spend the bit extra and get the 5.1 or bigger screen or a plasma or whatever.

It's [probably] OBVIOUSLY just a scam to make everyone buy a new TV, to benefit, erm, the CHINESE, who make most of everything nowadays.

They've got enough money, and a corrupt and evil government (the Chinese again, not the USA. Altho also the USA). I wouldn't be surprised.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

if love is a drug, then, ideally, it's a healing, healthful drug... it's kind of like prozac is supposed to work (without the sexual side effects and long-term damage to the brain and psyche)

Leaving aside the question of just what aspect ratio it SHOULD be for a moment, widescreen in general is obviously a GOOD idea for entertainment TV for the same reason it was for movies - it is a more immersive experience, one which better matches the "horizontal" layout of our visual system. From a more practical standpoint, it's also a good thing since it lets you get more information on the screen without having the same impact on horizontal and pixel rates as would be the case with the same number of pixels in a narrower format.

16:9 specifically may be sort of an odd choice, since it doesn't match ANY movie standards - but then again, there was no single standard in film that could be matched (1.85:1 was probably the closest), and all of the film "standards" are actually even wider. At the time the HD standards were first being developed, going wider was a bad idea, as it would be difficult to make a CRT display with the performance required to properly resolve HD if the tube were too wide. I did see one semi-justification for 16:9 as the format to move TO from a 4:3 world - since the two ARE related, you can do some things a bit more nicely than would otherwise be the case. (Note that a 16:9 screen is able to display a full-height 4:3 image, set to one side or the other, and still have room for three 4:3 images stacked up in the remaining space - all at the proper AR!)

Nonsense. The Chinese weren't even in anyone's wildest dreams as TV/display makers when the HD formats were first proposed.

Bob M.

If you like the old 4:3 sets, you will be in a big disappointment. Very few models in the 4:3 type format were manufactured to work in HDTV. Most of the older 4:3 sets cannot do the 16:9 format.

In the near future, everything in TV will be going over to 16:9. The non compatible sets will have picture that look like they are stretched vertically. The 16:9 sets that are compatible using the 4:3 display, will automatically collapse the vertical deflection to be able to reproduce the picture to the proper aspect ratio.

The next step will be using digital transmission of regular type resolution, and then high resolution. The TV sets will have to be compatible in order to be able to be used.

I was reading that there will be some models of conversion boxes available to convert the signals for the older 4:3 sets. The same is for the digital and HD transmission sources. This way, you may be able to get a few more years out of your older TV set.

--

JANA
_____


 wrote in message 
news:1138556415.825183.185970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I don't know if it's a psychological thing or what, but although I do
like a Big Screen TV... I would prefer the older SQUARE design to the
newer WIDE SCREEN types.

Maybe it has something to do with watching the SQUARE TUBE for all of
my life or the fact that sometimes, when I'm watching a foorball game
over a friends house the players don't look proportioned correctly on
the wide screen,

Am I the only one out here that feels that IT"S HIP TO BE SQUARE and
would rather pass on the WIDE SCREEN types?

Thanks guys

DAVID

So... in years to come, are you saying I won't be able to have more of a SQUARE type tude? No more 4 to 3 ratio tubes like the older ones?

Thanks

David