|
|
Looking for 23 inch LCD
Following on from 22 inch thread below, I am looking for a 23 inch
LCD. Options seem to be: Humax Samsung R87 Philips Panasonic viera 23. Must have speakers below, DVB, HDMI, S video, no DVD - not a fan of all in ones as when 1 bit breakshe rest is useless. Samsung review reads wll except audio quality. Philips looks to have better audio but can't find a decent online review. Any thoughts?? TVMIA |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:56:07 -0800 (PST), CS
wrote: Following on from 22 inch thread below, I am looking for a 23 inch LCD. Options seem to be: Humax Samsung R87 Philips Panasonic viera 23. Must have speakers below, DVB, HDMI, S video, no DVD - not a fan of all in ones as when 1 bit breakshe rest is useless. Samsung review reads wll except audio quality. Philips looks to have better audio but can't find a decent online review. Any thoughts?? TVMIA Well, my Humax has very good sound quality for a 'small' LCD. Marky P. |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
The picture on every LCD I have seen in the shops under 42 inches looks
completely crap and is unwatchable unless you are positioned dead centre, and the tiny speakers on them are just as bad. The technology they use is a decade old and not comparable to the more modern technology in the large screen panels. "CS" wrote in message ... Following on from 22 inch thread below, I am looking for a 23 inch LCD. Options seem to be: Humax Samsung R87 Philips Panasonic viera 23. Must have speakers below, DVB, HDMI, S video, no DVD - not a fan of all in ones as when 1 bit breakshe rest is useless. Samsung review reads wll except audio quality. Philips looks to have better audio but can't find a decent online review. Any thoughts?? TVMIA |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"CS" wrote in message ... Following on from 22 inch thread below, I am looking for a 23 inch LCD. Options seem to be: Humax Samsung R87 Philips Panasonic viera 23. Must have speakers below, DVB, HDMI, S video, no DVD - not a fan of all in ones as when 1 bit breakshe rest is useless. Samsung review reads wll except audio quality. Philips looks to have better audio but can't find a decent online review. Any thoughts?? Try Currys. TVMIA |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
On 11 Dec, 21:28, "Agamemnon" wrote:
The picture on every LCD I have seen in the shops under 42 inches looks completely crap and is unwatchable unless you are positioned dead centre, and the tiny speakers on them are just as bad. The technology they use is a decade old and not comparable to the more modern technology in the large screen panels. Those comments belong back in 12th century BC and are just as mythical. |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"CS" wrote in message ... On 11 Dec, 21:28, "Agamemnon" wrote: The picture on every LCD I have seen in the shops under 42 inches looks completely crap and is unwatchable unless you are positioned dead centre, and the tiny speakers on them are just as bad. The technology they use is a decade old and not comparable to the more modern technology in the large screen panels. Those comments belong back in 12th century BC and are just as mythical. You are an idiot. 42 inch panels have viewing angles of 178 degrees whereas you're lucky to get 120 degrees on anything smaller except a very expensive computer display. The same for response times. The technology they use on panels under 42 inches decade out of date. |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
On 12 Dec, 14:13, "Agamemnon" wrote:
"CS" wrote in message ... On 11 Dec, 21:28, "Agamemnon" wrote: The picture on every LCD I have seen in the shops under 42 inches looks completely crap and is unwatchable unless you are positioned dead centre, and the tiny speakers on them are just as bad. The technology they use is a decade old and not comparable to the more modern technology in the large screen panels. Those comments belong back in 12th century BC and are just as mythical. You are an idiot. 42 inch panels have viewing angles of 178 degrees whereas you're lucky to get 120 degrees on anything smaller except a very expensive computer display. The same for response times. The technology they use on panels under 42 inches decade out of date. Philips 23 inch - display angle 160H/160V. Response time 8ms. Samsung 23 - 160H/160V. 8ms. From the manfacturers info, the 23 inch sets now appear to have much the same technolgy as the larger sets, and not "decades" out of date. Who is the idiot??? |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
On 12 Dec, 14:13, "Agamemnon" wrote:
"CS" wrote in message ... On 11 Dec, 21:28, "Agamemnon" wrote: The picture on every LCD I have seen in the shops under 42 inches looks completely crap and is unwatchable unless you are positioned dead centre, and the tiny speakers on them are just as bad. The technology they use is a decade old and not comparable to the more modern technology in the large screen panels. Those comments belong back in 12th century BC and are just as mythical. You are an idiot. 42 inch panels have viewing angles of 178 degrees whereas you're lucky to get 120 degrees on anything smaller except a very expensive computer display. The same for response times. The technology they use on panels under 42 inches decade out of date. Sony 32" 178 degrees Sony 26" 160 Sony 20" 160 Yeah, that's like REALLY narrow. Doc |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
CS wrote:
On 12 Dec, 14:13, "Agamemnon" wrote: "CS" wrote in message ... On 11 Dec, 21:28, "Agamemnon" wrote: The picture on every LCD I have seen in the shops under 42 inches looks completely crap and is unwatchable unless you are positioned dead centre, and the tiny speakers on them are just as bad. The technology they use is a decade old and not comparable to the more modern technology in the large screen panels. Those comments belong back in 12th century BC and are just as mythical. You are an idiot. 42 inch panels have viewing angles of 178 degrees whereas you're lucky to get 120 degrees on anything smaller except a very expensive computer display. The same for response times. The technology they use on panels under 42 inches decade out of date. Philips 23 inch - display angle 160H/160V. Response time 8ms. Samsung 23 - 160H/160V. 8ms. From the manfacturers info, the 23 inch sets now appear to have much the same technolgy as the larger sets, and not "decades" out of date. Who is the idiot??? Everybody knows Agamemnon is an idiot, why do you have to ask? |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"CS" wrote in message ... On 12 Dec, 14:13, "Agamemnon" wrote: "CS" wrote in message ... On 11 Dec, 21:28, "Agamemnon" wrote: The picture on every LCD I have seen in the shops under 42 inches looks completely crap and is unwatchable unless you are positioned dead centre, and the tiny speakers on them are just as bad. The technology they use is a decade old and not comparable to the more modern technology in the large screen panels. Those comments belong back in 12th century BC and are just as mythical. You are an idiot. 42 inch panels have viewing angles of 178 degrees whereas you're lucky to get 120 degrees on anything smaller except a very expensive computer display. The same for response times. The technology they use on panels under 42 inches decade out of date. Philips 23 inch - display angle 160H/160V. Response time 8ms. Samsung 23 - 160H/160V. 8ms. Decade old technology. From the manfacturers info, the 23 inch sets now appear to have much the same technolgy as the larger sets, and not "decades" out of date. It's out of date. Any screen with a response time greater than 2ms and a viewing angle less than 178 degrees is a complete waste of money and will never produce a decent image static or moving. Who is the idiot??? You. |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"Dr Hfuhruhurr" wrote in message ... On 12 Dec, 14:13, "Agamemnon" wrote: "CS" wrote in message ... On 11 Dec, 21:28, "Agamemnon" wrote: The picture on every LCD I have seen in the shops under 42 inches looks completely crap and is unwatchable unless you are positioned dead centre, and the tiny speakers on them are just as bad. The technology they use is a decade old and not comparable to the more modern technology in the large screen panels. Those comments belong back in 12th century BC and are just as mythical. You are an idiot. 42 inch panels have viewing angles of 178 degrees whereas you're lucky to get 120 degrees on anything smaller except a very expensive computer display. The same for response times. The technology they use on panels under 42 inches decade out of date. Sony 32" 178 degrees Adequate static picture from most angles you are likely to have chairs stationed. Sony 26" 160 Sony 20" 160 Unwatchable static picture unless you are positioned DEAD CENTRE. Yeah, that's like REALLY narrow. How about you actually go into a TV shop and take a look for yourself. Doc |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"Jim Mason" wrote in message t... In article , says... Sony 32" 178 degrees Sony 26" 160 Sony 20" 160 Yeah, that's like REALLY narrow. Best ignore and not pander to his trolling? Jim Jim the IDIOT! |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
On 12 Dec, 23:49, "Agamemnon" wrote:
"Dr Hfuhruhurr" wrote in message ... On 12 Dec, 14:13, "Agamemnon" wrote: "CS" wrote in message ... On 11 Dec, 21:28, "Agamemnon" wrote: The picture on every LCD I have seen in the shops under 42 inches looks completely crap and is unwatchable unless you are positioned dead centre, and the tiny speakers on them are just as bad. The technology they use is a decade old and not comparable to the more modern technology in the large screen panels. Those comments belong back in 12th century BC and are just as mythical. You are an idiot. 42 inch panels have viewing angles of 178 degrees whereas you're lucky to get 120 degrees on anything smaller except a very expensive computer display. The same for response times. The technology they use on panels under 42 inches decade out of date. Sony 32" 178 degrees Adequate static picture from most angles you are likely to have chairs stationed. Sony 26" 160 Sony 20" 160 Unwatchable static picture unless you are positioned DEAD CENTRE. A difference of 18 degrees is not that big. plus this is a BIG way from the 120 degrees you mentioned. plus you were WRONG about the 178 degrees only being available on 42" sets. Some clarity and acceptance of your errors would be nice. Yeah, that's like REALLY narrow. How about you actually go into a TV shop and take a look for yourself. Is that a question? Doc |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
In message
, Dr Hfuhruhurr writes On 12 Dec, 23:49, "Agamemnon" wrote: "Dr Hfuhruhurr" wrote in message ... On 12 Dec, 14:13, "Agamemnon" wrote: "CS" wrote in message ... On 11 Dec, 21:28, "Agamemnon" wrote: The picture on every LCD I have seen in the shops under 42 inches looks completely crap and is unwatchable unless you are positioned dead centre, and the tiny speakers on them are just as bad. The technology they use is a decade old and not comparable to the more modern technology in the large screen panels. Those comments belong back in 12th century BC and are just as mythical. You are an idiot. 42 inch panels have viewing angles of 178 degrees whereas you're lucky to get 120 degrees on anything smaller except a very expensive computer display. The same for response times. The technology they use on panels under 42 inches decade out of date. Sony 32" 178 degrees Adequate static picture from most angles you are likely to have chairs stationed. Sony 26" 160 Sony 20" 160 Unwatchable static picture unless you are positioned DEAD CENTRE. A difference of 18 degrees is not that big. plus this is a BIG way from the 120 degrees you mentioned. plus you were WRONG about the 178 degrees only being available on 42" sets. Some clarity and acceptance of your errors would be nice. Yeah, that's like REALLY narrow. How about you actually go into a TV shop and take a look for yourself. Is that a question? Something I've always wanted to know, but never dared ask... How IS 'viewing angle' actually defined? It seems to me that numbers like 178 degrees are pretty optimistic. Surely it can't mean that you can view the picture from a position 1 degree off the plane of the screen? That's just not realistic. You wouldn't even want to view from a position of 10 degrees (160 degree screens). -- Ian. |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
|
Looking for 23 inch LCD
On 13 Dec, 10:11, "ChrisM" wrote:
In message , Ian Jackson Proclaimed from the tallest tower: Something I've always wanted to know, but never dared ask... How IS 'viewing angle' actually defined? It seems to me that numbers like 178 degrees are pretty optimistic. Surely it can't mean that you can view the picture from a position 1 degree off the plane of the screen? That's just not realistic. You wouldn't even want to view from a position of 10 degrees (160 degree screens). Sorry, I can't answer your question, but I'm glad someone has asked this, as it is something I've been wondering about too... Just have to hope someone can answer it now... to answer you both, see this link. It just goes to prove even more how wrong Aggy is. http://www.projectorpeople.com/flat-...ing-angles.asp Doc |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"Dr Hfuhruhurr" wrote in message ... On 12 Dec, 23:49, "Agamemnon" wrote: "Dr Hfuhruhurr" wrote in message ... On 12 Dec, 14:13, "Agamemnon" wrote: "CS" wrote in message ... On 11 Dec, 21:28, "Agamemnon" wrote: The picture on every LCD I have seen in the shops under 42 inches looks completely crap and is unwatchable unless you are positioned dead centre, and the tiny speakers on them are just as bad. The technology they use is a decade old and not comparable to the more modern technology in the large screen panels. Those comments belong back in 12th century BC and are just as mythical. You are an idiot. 42 inch panels have viewing angles of 178 degrees whereas you're lucky to get 120 degrees on anything smaller except a very expensive computer display. The same for response times. The technology they use on panels under 42 inches decade out of date. Sony 32" 178 degrees Adequate static picture from most angles you are likely to have chairs stationed. Sony 26" 160 Sony 20" 160 Unwatchable static picture unless you are positioned DEAD CENTRE. A difference of 18 degrees is not that big. plus this is a BIG way from the 120 degrees you mentioned. plus you were WRONG about the 178 No it isn't. 120 degrees is quoted for a contrast ratio of 10 to 1 whereas 160 degrees is quoted for a contrast ratio of 5 to 1. In simple terms both figures and the picture quality is exactly the same and total and utter crap. degrees only being available on 42" sets. I said except for expensive computer monitors. Some clarity and acceptance of your errors would be nice. Yeah, that's like REALLY narrow. How about you actually go into a TV shop and take a look for yourself. Is that a question? It's a command. Didn't you learn about the vocative case? Doc |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"Dr Hfuhruhurr" wrote in message ... On 13 Dec, 10:11, "ChrisM" wrote: In message , Ian Jackson Proclaimed from the tallest tower: Something I've always wanted to know, but never dared ask... How IS 'viewing angle' actually defined? It seems to me that numbers like 178 degrees are pretty optimistic. Surely it can't mean that you can view the picture from a position 1 degree off the plane of the screen? That's just not realistic. You wouldn't even want to view from a position of 10 degrees (160 degree screens). Sorry, I can't answer your question, but I'm glad someone has asked this, as it is something I've been wondering about too... Just have to hope someone can answer it now... to answer you both, see this link. It just goes to prove even more how wrong Aggy is. http://www.projectorpeople.com/flat-...ing-angles.asp You are talking total and utter crap as usual. Doc |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message ... In message , Dr Hfuhruhurr writes On 12 Dec, 23:49, "Agamemnon" wrote: "Dr Hfuhruhurr" wrote in message ... On 12 Dec, 14:13, "Agamemnon" wrote: "CS" wrote in message ... On 11 Dec, 21:28, "Agamemnon" wrote: The picture on every LCD I have seen in the shops under 42 inches looks completely crap and is unwatchable unless you are positioned dead centre, and the tiny speakers on them are just as bad. The technology they use is a decade old and not comparable to the more modern technology in the large screen panels. Those comments belong back in 12th century BC and are just as mythical. You are an idiot. 42 inch panels have viewing angles of 178 degrees whereas you're lucky to get 120 degrees on anything smaller except a very expensive computer display. The same for response times. The technology they use on panels under 42 inches decade out of date. Sony 32" 178 degrees Adequate static picture from most angles you are likely to have chairs stationed. Sony 26" 160 Sony 20" 160 Unwatchable static picture unless you are positioned DEAD CENTRE. A difference of 18 degrees is not that big. plus this is a BIG way from the 120 degrees you mentioned. plus you were WRONG about the 178 degrees only being available on 42" sets. Some clarity and acceptance of your errors would be nice. Yeah, that's like REALLY narrow. How about you actually go into a TV shop and take a look for yourself. Is that a question? Something I've always wanted to know, but never dared ask... How IS 'viewing angle' actually defined? It's the angle at which the contrast ratio drops to 10 to 1 or 5 to 1. 160 degree viewing angles are usually quoted for 5 to 1 contrast ratios and 120 degree viewing angles are usually quoted for 10 to 1 contrast ratios. It seems to me that numbers like 178 degrees are pretty optimistic. 178 degrees uses modern LCD technology. 120/160 degrees uses technology that was out of date a decade ago and goes back to the early 80's. Don't waste your money on a small LCD screen when a CRT can be had for 1/4 of the price and provides a much better picture which you can actually watch from any angle you want. Surely it can't mean that you can view the picture from a position 1 degree off the plane of the screen? That's just not realistic. You wouldn't even want to view from a position of 10 degrees (160 degree screens). -- Ian. |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"ChrisM" wrote in message ... In message , Dr Hfuhruhurr Proclaimed from the tallest tower: On 13 Dec, 10:11, "ChrisM" wrote: In message , Ian Jackson Proclaimed from the tallest tower: Something I've always wanted to know, but never dared ask... How IS 'viewing angle' actually defined? It seems to me that numbers like 178 degrees are pretty optimistic. Surely it can't mean that you can view the picture from a position 1 degree off the plane of the screen? That's just not realistic. You wouldn't even want to view from a position of 10 degrees (160 degree screens). Sorry, I can't answer your question, but I'm glad someone has asked this, as it is something I've been wondering about too... Just have to hope someone can answer it now... to answer you both, see this link. It just goes to prove even more how wrong Aggy is. http://www.projectorpeople.com/flat-...ing-angles.asp Doc So it means what I thought it did... Surely though, whether the picture is 'viewable' or not from 1 degree off it's plane, it wouldn't be watchable anyway as the picture would be so fore-shortened, everyone would look like stick-men...? I haven't investigated at all, but I would have thought that much more than 60-80 degrees off 'straight-ahead' would be starting to get fairly unwatchable purely due to the fore-shortening effect, even if you had a 180 degree viewing angle...? Long before any of that happens the LCD screen will start to display a negative image or the wrong brightness or colour. This normally occurs 10 degrees off centre for monitors quoted as 120/160 degree viewing angles. In fact the colour/brightness distortion can be seen on the edges of the screen even when you are watching the screen on centre if you are within 3 feet of the monitor. Screens quoted with 178 degree viewing angles do not suffer from this problem since the contrast ratio remains within acceptable limits in your filed of view. -- Regards, Chris. (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me) |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
In message
, Dr Hfuhruhurr writes On 13 Dec, 10:11, "ChrisM" wrote: In message , Ian Jackson Proclaimed from the tallest tower: Something I've always wanted to know, but never dared ask... How IS 'viewing angle' actually defined? It seems to me that numbers like 178 degrees are pretty optimistic. Surely it can't mean that you can view the picture from a position 1 degree off the plane of the screen? That's just not realistic. You wouldn't even want to view from a position of 10 degrees (160 degree screens). Sorry, I can't answer your question, but I'm glad someone has asked this, as it is something I've been wondering about too... Just have to hope someone can answer it now... to answer you both, see this link. It just goes to prove even more how wrong Aggy is. http://www.projectorpeople.com/flat-...ing-angles.asp Thanks for the link. However, no spec is given to indicate how far the brightness or contrast are reduced at the extremes of viewing angle. I would have expected something like '160 degrees at the 3dB points'. On my PC monitor, I can still see that there is a picture at extreme angles, but it gets very dim. Very few people want to watch TV pictures at angles of more than (say) 45 or 50 degrees. Nobody watches them at 89 degrees. Speaking largely in pure ignorance, I feel that, at the design stage, emphasis should be places on ensuring that display produces a picture can be viewed at the same brightness/contrast/colour over as wide an angle as possible (again, say 45 or 50 degrees), then permit a rapid cutoff beyond this angle. But I suspect that the manufacturers know this already. -- Ian |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
In message ,
Agamemnon Proclaimed from the tallest tower: Something I've always wanted to know, but never dared ask... How IS 'viewing angle' actually defined? It seems to me that numbers like 178 degrees are pretty optimistic. Surely it can't mean that you can view the picture from a position 1 degree off the plane of the screen? That's just not realistic. You wouldn't even want to view from a position of 10 degrees (160 degree screens). Sorry, I can't answer your question, but I'm glad someone has asked this, as it is something I've been wondering about too... Just have to hope someone can answer it now... to answer you both, see this link. It just goes to prove even more how wrong Aggy is. http://www.projectorpeople.com/flat-...ing-angles.asp Doc So it means what I thought it did... Surely though, whether the picture is 'viewable' or not from 1 degree off it's plane, it wouldn't be watchable anyway as the picture would be so fore-shortened, everyone would look like stick-men...? I haven't investigated at all, but I would have thought that much more than 60-80 degrees off 'straight-ahead' would be starting to get fairly unwatchable purely due to the fore-shortening effect, even if you had a 180 degree viewing angle...? Long before any of that happens the LCD screen will start to display a negative image or the wrong brightness or colour. This normally occurs 10 degrees off centre for monitors quoted as 120/160 degree viewing angles. In fact the colour/brightness distortion can be seen on the edges of the screen even when you are watching the screen on centre if you are within 3 feet of the monitor. Screens quoted with 178 degree viewing angles do not suffer from this problem since the contrast ratio remains within acceptable limits in your filed of view. A negative image 10 degrees off centre?? Oh come on, I thought your trolling skills were better than that... -- Regards, Chris. (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me) |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
|
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"ChrisM" wrote in message ... In message , Agamemnon Proclaimed from the tallest tower: Something I've always wanted to know, but never dared ask... How IS 'viewing angle' actually defined? It seems to me that numbers like 178 degrees are pretty optimistic. Surely it can't mean that you can view the picture from a position 1 degree off the plane of the screen? That's just not realistic. You wouldn't even want to view from a position of 10 degrees (160 degree screens). Sorry, I can't answer your question, but I'm glad someone has asked this, as it is something I've been wondering about too... Just have to hope someone can answer it now... to answer you both, see this link. It just goes to prove even more how wrong Aggy is. http://www.projectorpeople.com/flat-...ing-angles.asp Doc So it means what I thought it did... Surely though, whether the picture is 'viewable' or not from 1 degree off it's plane, it wouldn't be watchable anyway as the picture would be so fore-shortened, everyone would look like stick-men...? I haven't investigated at all, but I would have thought that much more than 60-80 degrees off 'straight-ahead' would be starting to get fairly unwatchable purely due to the fore-shortening effect, even if you had a 180 degree viewing angle...? Long before any of that happens the LCD screen will start to display a negative image or the wrong brightness or colour. This normally occurs 10 degrees off centre for monitors quoted as 120/160 degree viewing angles. In fact the colour/brightness distortion can be seen on the edges of the screen even when you are watching the screen on centre if you are within 3 feet of the monitor. Screens quoted with 178 degree viewing angles do not suffer from this problem since the contrast ratio remains within acceptable limits in your filed of view. A negative image 10 degrees off centre?? Oh come on, I thought your trolling Yes. Put up an Excel spreadsheet full screen and set the background colour of one of the bottom rows in 5% grey and you will see a negative image even looking at the screen dead centre. The 5% grey at the bottom of the screen will look whiter than pure white. skills were better than that... Fool! -- Regards, Chris. (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me) |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
On 13 Dec, 14:47, "Agamemnon" wrote:
"ChrisM" wrote in message ... In message , Agamemnon Proclaimed from the tallest tower: Something I've always wanted to know, but never dared ask... How IS 'viewing angle' actually defined? It seems to me that numbers like 178 degrees are pretty optimistic. Surely it can't mean that you can view the picture from a position 1 degree off the plane of the screen? That's just not realistic. You wouldn't even want to view from a position of 10 degrees (160 degree screens). Sorry, I can't answer your question, but I'm glad someone has asked this, as it is something I've been wondering about too... Just have to hope someone can answer it now... to answer you both, see this link. It just goes to prove even more how wrong Aggy is. http://www.projectorpeople.com/flat-...ing-angles.asp Doc So it means what I thought it did... Surely though, whether the picture is 'viewable' or not from 1 degree off it's plane, it wouldn't be watchable anyway as the picture would be so fore-shortened, everyone would look like stick-men...? I haven't investigated at all, but I would have thought that much more than 60-80 degrees off 'straight-ahead' would be starting to get fairly unwatchable purely due to the fore-shortening effect, even if you had a 180 degree viewing angle...? Long before any of that happens the LCD screen will start to display a negative image or the wrong brightness or colour. This normally occurs 10 degrees off centre for monitors quoted as 120/160 degree viewing angles. In fact the colour/brightness distortion can be seen on the edges of the screen even when you are watching the screen on centre if you are within 3 feet of the monitor. Screens quoted with 178 degree viewing angles do not suffer from this problem since the contrast ratio remains within acceptable limits in your filed of view. A negative image 10 degrees off centre?? Oh come on, I thought your trolling Yes. Put up an Excel spreadsheet full screen and set the background colour of one of the bottom rows in 5% grey and you will see a negative image even looking at the screen dead centre. The 5% grey at the bottom of the screen will look whiter than pure white. WTF has that got to do with modern LCD TVs? Doc |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
On 13 Dec, 14:47, "Agamemnon" wrote:
"ChrisM" wrote in message ... In message , Agamemnon Proclaimed from the tallest tower: Something I've always wanted to know, but never dared ask... How IS 'viewing angle' actually defined? It seems to me that numbers like 178 degrees are pretty optimistic. Surely it can't mean that you can view the picture from a position 1 degree off the plane of the screen? That's just not realistic. You wouldn't even want to view from a position of 10 degrees (160 degree screens). Sorry, I can't answer your question, but I'm glad someone has asked this, as it is something I've been wondering about too... Just have to hope someone can answer it now... to answer you both, see this link. It just goes to prove even more how wrong Aggy is. http://www.projectorpeople.com/flat-...ing-angles.asp Doc So it means what I thought it did... Surely though, whether the picture is 'viewable' or not from 1 degree off it's plane, it wouldn't be watchable anyway as the picture would be so fore-shortened, everyone would look like stick-men...? I haven't investigated at all, but I would have thought that much more than 60-80 degrees off 'straight-ahead' would be starting to get fairly unwatchable purely due to the fore-shortening effect, even if you had a 180 degree viewing angle...? Long before any of that happens the LCD screen will start to display a negative image or the wrong brightness or colour. This normally occurs 10 degrees off centre for monitors quoted as 120/160 degree viewing angles. In fact the colour/brightness distortion can be seen on the edges of the screen even when you are watching the screen on centre if you are within 3 feet of the monitor. Screens quoted with 178 degree viewing angles do not suffer from this problem since the contrast ratio remains within acceptable limits in your filed of view. A negative image 10 degrees off centre?? Oh come on, I thought your trolling Yes. Put up an Excel spreadsheet full screen and set the background colour of one of the bottom rows in 5% grey and you will see a negative image even looking at the screen dead centre. The 5% grey at the bottom of the screen will look whiter than pure white. Just to pander to your whims I just tried it. You need a new monitor Aggy. My HP1740 shows reduced contrast but NEVER any negative image. Doc |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
In article , ChrisM wrote:
Hmmm, there doesn't seem to be a definitive ...erm... definition of what* viewing angle actually MEANS. It is commonly described as the arc within* which the view of the screen is deemed to be 'acceptable' however I can't* find anywhere that says what 'acceptable' actually means, or how it is* defined, I guess that is up to each manufacturer... which reduces the point* of comparing values between different makes. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this. Look at a lot of TV displays in a showroom and it will quickly become obvious that their behaviour when viewed off-axis varies enormously. Some change brightness, and some change colour as well, nearly always at angles a great deal less than the ones quoted in the sales bumf. Maybe some people consider the picture quality of a flat TV display at about 80deg off-axis to be "acceptable", but I certainly don't. I guess it depends on whether you're buying, selling, or being paid for reviewing. I guess the only thng to do is* go to a shop and have a look, and decide for yourself whether the viewing* angle will suit your own personal circumstances... Until somebody invents an objective way of specifying and measuring this, and all manufacturers adopt it, seeing for yourself will be the only way. The hi- fi industry has taken about half a century to fail completely to adopt any universal standard for basic things like amplifier output power or tuner sensitivity, so it doesn't seem likely it will ever happen. Rod. |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
Thanks for all your comments.
I am after a 23 inch because I do not need a 42 inch - I have a projector and 8 ft wide screen which knocks any poxy plasma or LCD TV screen into a cocked hat. The 23 inch LCD is to replace a 22 inch Solara colour CRT TV bought in 1986, which is still miles better than any modern TV - 65w consumption, PC style slots to add satellite tuners etc etc, but too deep for a space on a small vessel. Such a good TV company that it was bought by Nokia who eventually closed the factory via a number of moves!! As for the viewing angles - have not seen any comments on them in the independent reviews. I also think that it is unlikley that I will view a LCD TV at an off axis angle that is any worse than current viewing set up with CRT - so is probably irrelevant. Response times do get mentioned, as does sound quality. |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"CS" wrote in message ... Thanks for all your comments. I am after a 23 inch because I do not need a 42 inch - I have a projector and 8 ft wide screen which knocks any poxy plasma or LCD TV screen into a cocked hat. The 23 inch LCD is to replace a 22 inch Solara colour CRT TV bought in 1986, which is still miles better than any modern TV - 65w consumption, PC style slots to add satellite tuners etc etc, but too deep for a space on a small vessel. Such a good TV company that it was bought by Nokia who eventually closed the factory via a number of moves!! As for the viewing angles - have not seen any comments on them in the independent reviews. I also think that it is unlikley that I will view a LCD TV at an off axis angle that is any worse than current viewing set up with CRT - so is probably irrelevant. Response times do get mentioned, as does sound quality. I have 19 inch 4:3 monitor probably has more screen area than a 23in WS. I watch TV on it sometimes using a dongle, I mainly use it when I want to record TV as I think the digital TV hard drive recorders are poor value, I use a 250 gig drive to record to, which cost less than £60. At the time a 250 gig PVR would have cost me more than my PC!! Indeed a Topfied 250 gig recorder now costs only £30 less than my PC. Indeed I could buy a mighty PC and dongle for less than the Topfield so I would be getting a recorder and a PC for less than just the recorder!! So basically I am paying £180 for a twin tuner set-top box + remote control. Real value about £50 or less. So a saving of £130. A complete rip-off. |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
In article
, CS wrote: Following on from 22 inch thread below, I am looking for a 23 inch LCD. Options seem to be: Humax Samsung R87 Philips Panasonic viera 23. Must have speakers below, DVB, HDMI, S video, no DVD - not a fan of all in ones as when 1 bit breakshe rest is useless. Samsung review reads wll except audio quality. Philips looks to have better audio but can't find a decent online review. I bought the Humax a few weeks ago. To replace a 21" 4:3 in the kitchen. Pretty pleased on the whole - for an LCD. At least it takes up less room. Dunno about the speaker quality - I have it fed into an external sound system - surprisingly you have to use the headphone jack for this, but that works fine. As has been said the off axis results are appalling. But I have it on a swivel so it can face either the kitchen or 'breakfast' end. Not sure what inputs it has - I'm just using the RGB SCART and the composite (games) input. -- * I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
I have 19 inch 4:3 monitor probably has more screen area than a 23in WS. I watch TV on it sometimes using a dongle, I mainly use it when I want to record TV as I think the digital TV hard drive recorders are poor value, Including your Sagem? ;-) -- Dave Farrance |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:56:00 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , CS wrote: Following on from 22 inch thread below, I am looking for a 23 inch LCD. Options seem to be: Humax Samsung R87 Philips Panasonic viera 23. Must have speakers below, DVB, HDMI, S video, no DVD - not a fan of all in ones as when 1 bit breakshe rest is useless. Samsung review reads wll except audio quality. Philips looks to have better audio but can't find a decent online review. I bought the Humax a few weeks ago. To replace a 21" 4:3 in the kitchen. Pretty pleased on the whole - for an LCD. At least it takes up less room. Dunno about the speaker quality - I have it fed into an external sound system - surprisingly you have to use the headphone jack for this, but that works fine. As has been said the off axis results are appalling. But I have it on a swivel so it can face either the kitchen or 'breakfast' end. Not sure what inputs it has - I'm just using the RGB SCART and the composite (games) input. The Humax does have a very narrow acceptance angle. Mines on a swivel bracket, but it's a bugger to get it just right. As for the sound, I thought it was pretty good. Certainly better than the portable TV it replaced in my bedroom. Marky P. |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"Dave Farrance" wrote in message ... "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: I have 19 inch 4:3 monitor probably has more screen area than a 23in WS. I watch TV on it sometimes using a dongle, I mainly use it when I want to record TV as I think the digital TV hard drive recorders are poor value, Including your Sagem? ;-) I don't have a Sagem recorder, I do have a Sagem set top box though. The 160 gig Sagem recorder at £99 is more reasonable priced. As for the 250 gig Topfield at £230, that is a joke, it has the same functionality at the Sagem yes costs £130 more (130%). The only difference is the hardrive which would cost no more than £10 more. I would consider buying the Sagem hard drive now, make it £90 and its a deal!! -- Dave Farrance |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
Morrisson's doing a Sony Bravia 26" LCD for £449 today.
-- Woody harrogate three at ntlworld dot com |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
In article ,
Woody wrote: Morrisson's doing a Sony Bravia 26" LCD for £449 today. That's a lot bigger than a 23". -- *Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"The Night Tripper" wrote in message ... Agamemnon wrote: Something I've always wanted to know, but never dared ask... How IS 'viewing angle' actually defined? It's the angle at which the contrast ratio drops to 10 to 1 or 5 to 1. 160 degree viewing angles are usually quoted for 5 to 1 contrast ratios and 120 degree viewing angles are usually quoted for 10 to 1 contrast ratios. So what contrast ratio quoted for 178 degree viewing angle please? Unless stated otherwise by the manufacturer assume 5 to 1. J^n |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Woody wrote: Morrisson's doing a Sony Bravia 26" LCD for £449 today. That's a lot bigger than a 23". Just sit a foot further away. -- *Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
That's a lot bigger than a 23". Just sit a foot further away. Outside the window?? |
Looking for 23 inch LCD
"widgitt" wrote in message ... That's a lot bigger than a 23". Just sit a foot further away. Outside the window?? Put the TV outside the window. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com