How difficult is it?

wrote in message
ups.com...
I prefer 4:3 televisions too - shortscreen is silly. A waste of
space.


But its not shortscreen. A widescreen tele shows absolutely everything that
a 4:3 tele does but with additional bits on the sides. F1 is much better in
widescreen, especially the in car stuff where you can see the track outside
of the front wheels.

Regards

Paul

On 29 Sep, 17:47, "Geoff Pearson" wrote:
"Alan Holmes" wrote in message

...



To find a 20 inch TV, not widescreen, that will receive freeview, and
will
display subtitles, and is a sensible price, i.e. cheap!

why don't you want widescreen? I can hardly watch a 4:3 picture these
days - I feel something is missing, and it is!

In , "Geoff Pearson"
wrote:


"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

To find a 20 inch TV, not widescreen, that will receive freeview, and
will
display subtitles, and is a sensible price, i.e. cheap!



why don't you want widescreen?

Because in order to get a reasonable height, I would have to have a TV which
would be about 45 inches wide and I don't have room for something that big.

Alan Holmes wrote:
Geoff Pearson wrote:
why don't you want widescreen?

Because in order to get a reasonable height, I would have to have a
TV which would be about 45 inches wide and I don't have room for
something that big.

I don't see how that computes. The screen of a 4:3 20" tv is 16" wide
and 12" high. The width of a 12" high 16:9 screen is 21.3", just over
5" wider. I find it hard to imagine a 20" 4:3 tv which is nearly 40"
wide.

André Coutanche

In article ,
Alan Holmes wrote:

In , "Geoff Pearson"
wrote:


"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

To find a 20 inch TV, not widescreen, that will receive freeview, and
will
display subtitles, and is a sensible price, i.e. cheap!



why don't you want widescreen?

Because in order to get a reasonable height, I would have to have a TV
which would be about 45 inches wide and I don't have room for something
that big.


I think you've got your geometry wrong. A 20" set in 4:3 would have a
screen 12" high. A widescreen 16:9 with the same height would only be 21"
wide and would be classed as a 24" set.

Perhaps you meant 20" high rather than diagonal, which is the normal way of
measuring a screen size. If that was the case then the width would be 35"
- not 45". One 45" wide would be 25" high and would be called a 51" set -
agreed, most of us wouldn't have room.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"André Coutanche" wrote in message
...
Alan Holmes wrote:
Geoff Pearson wrote:
why don't you want widescreen?

Because in order to get a reasonable height, I would have to have a
TV which would be about 45 inches wide and I don't have room for
something that big.

I don't see how that computes. The screen of a 4:3 20" tv is 16" wide and
12" high. The width of a 12" high 16:9 screen is 21.3", just over 5"
wider. I find it hard to imagine a 20" 4:3 tv which is nearly 40" wide.

I only had a wild guess at the width, but even 21.3" is still too wide.

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

Because in order to get a reasonable height, I would have to have a TV
which would be about 45 inches wide and I don't have room for something
that big.

Could you put the widescreen set on its side and watch it laid down, with
your head sideways?

Bill

In article ,
WCZ wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
I prefer 4:3 televisions too - shortscreen is silly. A waste of
space.


But its not shortscreen. A widescreen tele shows absolutely everything that
a 4:3 tele does but with additional bits on the sides. F1 is much better in
widescreen, especially the in car stuff where you can see the track outside
of the front wheels.
[SNIP]

If widescreen shows everything that a 4:3 tele does then how come that so
many captions and sometimes even subtitles are half off the bottom of the
screen?

Peter

--
Peter Gillett :
Totnes : South Devon

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:42:38 +0100, Peter Gillett
wrote:

In article ,
WCZ wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
I prefer 4:3 televisions too - shortscreen is silly. A waste of
space.


But its not shortscreen. A widescreen tele shows absolutely everything that
a 4:3 tele does but with additional bits on the sides. F1 is much better in
widescreen, especially the in car stuff where you can see the track outside
of the front wheels.
[SNIP]

If widescreen shows everything that a 4:3 tele does then how come that so
many captions and sometimes even subtitles are half off the bottom of the
screen?

Peter

Telly set up wrong. Most analogue broadcasts are 14:9. If shown on a
widescreen telly and zoomed to fill the screen, a bit of the top &
bottom will be chopped off. 16:9 is only available with digital
broadcasts.

Marky P.

In article ,
Marky P wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:42:38 +0100, Peter Gillett
wrote:

In article ,
WCZ wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
I prefer 4:3 televisions too - shortscreen is silly. A waste of
space.


But its not shortscreen. A widescreen tele shows absolutely everything that
a 4:3 tele does but with additional bits on the sides. F1 is much better in
widescreen, especially the in car stuff where you can see the track outside
of the front wheels.
[SNIP]

If widescreen shows everything that a 4:3 tele does then how come that so
many captions and sometimes even subtitles are half off the bottom of the
screen?

Peter

Telly set up wrong. Most analogue broadcasts are 14:9. If shown on a
widescreen telly and zoomed to fill the screen, a bit of the top &
bottom will be chopped off. 16:9 is only available with digital
broadcasts.

Marky P.

I think the tele is set up ok as Analogue 4:3 broadcasts are fine, what I
am talking about are 16:9 wide screen Digital broadcasts ie BBc1 etc via
the freeview box. This also seems to be ok on 4:3 broadcasts displayed as
4:3.
The tele is set to auto for aspect setting and the box (a sagem) is set to
a 16:9 tele.

Peter

--
Peter Gillett :
Totnes : South Devon

In article ,
Alan Holmes wrote:
Because in order to get a reasonable height, I would have to have a TV
which would be about 45 inches wide and I don't have room for something
that big.

I've got a 45" widescreen and I don't think I've ever seen a 4:3 set that
gives the same size image as it does in 4:3. And if it were a CRT you'd
need the floor reinforced. ;-)

--
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.