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panels under 42 inches decade out of date.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

"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!

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panels under 42 inches decade out of date.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

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.

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...

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

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

"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

"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

"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.

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...?

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)