Sony and Panny to collaborate over OLED panels
 

Yes, it almost makes me want to buy a screen for my box, just in case anyone
comes over. The old tvs were heavy and too big.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
I'm not sure whether the world is ready for the roll up tv though..
grin.
Brian

Many don't quite seem ready for flat screen ones, judging by the number
that
put them on little stands on top of items of furniture which are then
placed
across a corner of the room, just like the old TV that needed the corner
to
conceal the depth of the back end of the CRT. For me, the point of a flat
screen TV was to hang it on the wall like a picture and get a huge chunk
of
my living room back.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Sony and Panny to collaborate over OLED panels
 

Nah, you get a nice reclining chair. At least that seems to be the way its
going.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
Roderick Stewart wrote:

Many don't quite seem ready for flat screen ones, judging by the number
that
put them on little stands on top of items of furniture which are then
placed
across a corner of the room, just like the old TV that needed the corner
to
conceal the depth of the back end of the CRT. For me, the point of a flat
screen TV was to hang it on the wall like a picture and get a huge chunk
of
my living room back.

But the layout of many rooms fits the "telly in corner" method, including
the position of mains/aerial points, and how many pictures do you hang on
your walls at sitting-down eye-height? Above the fireplace just gives you
neck ache.

Sony and Panny to collaborate over OLED panels
 

LCDs don't seem that heavy to me. Obviously plasmas are, but who wants one
of them these days, they create lots of rfi, burn in and take maga current.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:51:26 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

Roderick Stewart wrote:

Many don't quite seem ready for flat screen ones, judging by the number
that
put them on little stands on top of items of furniture which are then
placed
across a corner of the room, just like the old TV that needed the corner
to
conceal the depth of the back end of the CRT. For me, the point of a
flat
screen TV was to hang it on the wall like a picture and get a huge chunk
of
my living room back.

But the layout of many rooms fits the "telly in corner" method,
including the position of mains/aerial points, and how many pictures do
you hang on your walls at sitting-down eye-height? Above the fireplace
just gives you neck ache.

and many modern houses don't have strong enough internal walls to
support the weight of a TV.
--

Martin

Sony and Panny to collaborate over OLED panels
 

Have you heard the track Franks 2000 inch TV by Weird al? I have it some
place, but its bound to be on the web somewhere.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Davey wrote:

We can't find enough wall space to hang our pictures on,

Yes, same he

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/201206251290.jpg

Also we have nowhere to put the black dolls' house.

Bill

Sony and Panny to collaborate over OLED panels
 

On 25/06/2012 13:11, Roderick Stewart wrote:
In [email protected] w.co.uk, Andy Burns
wrote:
Many don't quite seem ready for flat screen ones, judging by the number that
put them on little stands on top of items of furniture which are then placed
across a corner of the room, just like the old TV that needed the corner to
conceal the depth of the back end of the CRT. For me, the point of a flat
screen TV was to hang it on the wall like a picture and get a huge chunk of
my living room back.
But the layout of many rooms fits the "telly in corner" method,
including the position of mains/aerial points, and how many pictures do
you hang on your walls at sitting-down eye-height? Above the fireplace
just gives you neck ache.
The best placing depends on the layout of the room of course, but in my case I
don't have a fireplace (What would be the point of one anyway when you have
central heating?), so the TV was opposite my sofa in front of a straight wall,
the corners of the room being either unsuitable or otherwise occuped. Replacing
the huge box with a flat panel on the wall made the room seem a lot larger.

Viewing height can be whatever you like. I experimented by blu-tacking onto the
wall large sheets of paper the same sizes as the screens I was thinking of
buying, and ended up with something that exactly suits me. Anybody can do this,
which is why I'm surprised that so many just seem to use a flat screen as an
exact drop-in replacement for whatever they had before, without taking any
advantage at all of the fact that it's flat. Oh well. Each to their own.

Rod.
The old TV had the advantage of using the corner but the height to view
was never aided or hindered by the deep CRT. So to my mind the only
advantage of the flat panel TV is that it can butt up against the wall
at the same height as our old CRT used to be but without protruding into
the room.

TV is supposed to be relaxing, not a way to get neck ache. Long live
the cabinet mounted TV stand. I have noticed council estates seem to
have the highest mounted TV's.

Sony and Panny to collaborate over OLED panels
 

In message , Mark Carver
writes

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Pr...1206/12-0625E/

Great news.

I bet ITV4 will look fantastic. :¬)
--
Ian

Sony and Panny to collaborate over OLED panels
 

In article , Gary wrote:
So to my mind the only
advantage of the flat panel TV is that it can butt up against the wall
at the same height as our old CRT used to be but without protruding into
the room.

As you wish, but to me the advantage of a flat TV that can be placed
anywhere or hung on the wall at any height was that I didn't need to be
content with the same as before just because it was the same as before, but
could start again from first principles. I can now have the display
wherever I'm most comfortable looking, rather than suffer the restriction
of placing it where it used to be physically easiest to support a great big
heavy box. In other words, the flat screen is a piece of technological
progress that has given me more freedom rather than less, so it seemed
silly not to make use of it.

And the picture is bigger and better.

And it consumes less power.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Sony and Panny to collaborate over OLED panels
 

In article , Ian wrote:
In message , Mark Carver
writes

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201206/12-0625E

Great news.

I bet ITV4 will look fantastic. :¬)

Or possibly not, but your holiday snaps will look tremendous. Even if
you've only used one of the more recent smartphones, they'll be sharper
than HDTV.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Sony and Panny to collaborate over OLED panels
 

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:25:46 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:19:01 +0100, Bob Latham
wrote:

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:

Many don't quite seem ready for flat screen ones, judging by the number
that put them on little stands on top of items of furniture which are
then placed across a corner of the room, just like the old TV that
needed the corner to conceal the depth of the back end of the CRT. For
me, the point of a flat screen TV was to hang it on the wall like a
picture and get a huge chunk of my living room back.

I don't wish to hang a tv on the wall because....

Height. Whenever I've seen TVs on the wall they have been picture height,
which is normally head height standing up. This means that if you're sat
down, you're looking up at the TV. I seriously prefer to look down at TVs
(literally) which is very much more comfortable.

I don't wish to channel the wall out to hide the cables and certainly
don't want then hanging down the wall.

My flat screen is staying on a stand which I much prefer and can get at
the back of it very easily.

Also the best view is from a cone orthogonal to the centre of the
screen and not from a large oblique angle, depending on the set, even
if it does claim a 180 degree viewing angle.

For a good picture with Passive 3D, it's necessary for the viewer to be
nearly level with the centre of the screen and almost normal to it otherwise
there's cross-talk between the images.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

Sony and Panny to collaborate over OLED panels
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:

As you wish, but to me the advantage of a flat TV that can be placed
anywhere or hung on the wall at any height was that I didn't need to be
content with the same as before just because it was the same as before, but
could start again from first principles. I can now have the display
wherever I'm most comfortable looking, rather than suffer the restriction
of placing it where it used to be physically easiest to support a great big
heavy box. In other words, the flat screen is a piece of technological
progress that has given me more freedom rather than less, so it seemed
silly not to make use of it.

How have you dealt with the cables, and auxiliary devices connected to it,
presumably they don't float in mid air, but require some form of housing ?



--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk