should I buy this??

Brian Gaff wrote:
And besides, the analogue tuner will be just the think to get all those
pirate tv channels containing porn and naff videos due to seize the
frequencies when the shut down comes...

Pirate TV and Pirate FM operators might think that they will have a
field day when the legit services totally move off to digital
transmission, but the replacement use of the bandwidth vacated
(Telecoms? More mobile phones?) will probably make their illegal
transmissions more difficult to see/hear unless they "turn the wick up"
and start paying electricity bills....

Did anyone successfuly launch a pirate 405 line TV service back in the
years leading up to 1984 when 405 line transmissions ceased at Crystal
Palace?

--
Adrian C

Adrian C wrote:
tricity bills....

Did anyone successfuly launch a pirate 405 line TV service back in the
years leading up to 1984 when 405 line transmissions ceased at Crystal
Palace?

Even if they did, with the tiny amount of 405 line sets still in use in 1984,
there would have been more people involved in the transmission, than actual
viewers. Rather like 'Five US' I suppose :-)



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

In article . co.uk.invalid,
Alan Pemberton wrote:
Mike Henry wrote:

People didn't avoid buying analogue TVs just in
case the PAL spec changed.

Well, no, they didn't have to. The System I/PAL spec hardly changed at
all in over 40 years, and when it did (VBI test/data signals, different
V/S carrier ratio, addition Nicam carrier etc) there were lengthy tests
done to ensure that existing receivers were not affected.

but there were loads of problems with receivers for Ceefax as the
broadcasters implemented various facilities provided for in the
specification

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Hi All

I wasn't really looking for anyone to convince me to buy it but any
really good reasons why I shouldn't buy one - ie its a POS or will cease
working when something or other changes next year )


Well it has turned up. Straight from the box plugged it in to a Philips
1500 Freeview box, it automatically found the signal and the picture
looks more than acceptable - but not in the same league as a 500 quid
Sony. There are some presets for picture quality and I have as yet to
find out how you can set up your own custom settings for brightness and
contrast. The sound quality is much better than expected and can
probably be improved when I figure out where the sound set up menu.
note to self .... really must read the manual!

At first appearance the auto selection of format appears to work pretty
well and there is a manual screen ratio button - ARC, on the remote
which gives you true 4:3 and 16:9.

I haven't had time to try it as a monitor as yet.

I have no doubt that this doesn't meet with the highest standards that
some here would set but this is costing me £183 - not sure what the true
street price is - £195 - £250 is the range I have seen it advertised at.

As a TV it is certainly head and shoulders above the sub £200 15 inch
crap brand LCD tellies on sale in Tesco, Comet, Curries et al.

How long it lasts has yet to be seen ) Hopefully it will last longer
than the usual warranty period plus a couple of months that the afore
mentioned crap brands seem to last before they start to play up or roll
over and die.



regards


Dudley

Dudley Simons wrote:
Hi All

I wasn't really looking for anyone to convince me to buy it but any
really good reasons why I shouldn't buy one - ie its a POS or will
cease working when something or other changes next year )


Well it has turned up. Straight from the box plugged it in to a
Philips 1500 Freeview box, it automatically found the signal and the
picture looks more than acceptable - but not in the same league as a
500 quid Sony. There are some presets for picture quality and I have
as yet to find out how you can set up your own custom settings for
brightness and contrast. The sound quality is much better than
expected and can probably be improved when I figure out where the
sound set up menu. note to self .... really must read the manual!

At first appearance the auto selection of format appears to work
pretty well and there is a manual screen ratio button - ARC, on the
remote which gives you true 4:3 and 16:9.

I haven't had time to try it as a monitor as yet.

I have no doubt that this doesn't meet with the highest standards that
some here would set but this is costing me £183 - not sure what the
true street price is - £195 - £250 is the range I have seen it
advertised at.
As a TV it is certainly head and shoulders above the sub £200 15 inch
crap brand LCD tellies on sale in Tesco, Comet, Curries et al.

How long it lasts has yet to be seen ) Hopefully it will last
longer than the usual warranty period plus a couple of months that
the afore mentioned crap brands seem to last before they start to
play up or roll over and die.



Hi Dudley,

I've had this monitor for about a year now. Got it from Play.com for £199
then a few quid off via quidco.
I got it for my son, where he has a wii, PS2, freeview box and PC all rigged
up to it.
As for a tv, skin tones are very slightly off (haven't fiddled much though)
and there is a slight bit of backlight bleed, but all in all a perfectly
adequate picture for a bedroom tv and a very good PC monitor.

I'm happy with it, hope you are.

Regards
Des

In article ,
Dudley Simons wrote:
At first appearance the auto selection of format appears to work pretty
well and there is a manual screen ratio button - ARC, on the remote
which gives you true 4:3 and 16:9.

So the 16:9 has black bands top and bottom? ;-)

--
*A backward poet writes inverse.*

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

So the 16:9 has black bands top and bottom? ;-)

An honest question as I've never tried, if you were presented with a TV that
was either 16:9 or 15:9, could you tell which it was? I can certainly tell
when I'm watching a 4:3 picture stretched to 16:9 (or vice versa) but is the
difference between 15:9 and 16:9 enough to be obvious?

Paul DS.

Paul D.Smith wrote:
So the 16:9 has black bands top and bottom? ;-)

An honest question as I've never tried, if you were presented with a
TV that was either 16:9 or 15:9, could you tell which it was? I can
certainly tell when I'm watching a 4:3 picture stretched to 16:9 (or
vice versa) but is the difference between 15:9 and 16:9 enough to be
obvious?
Paul DS.

It's actually 14.4:9 and yes, I can see the difference easliy.
--
^..^ This is Kitty. Copy and paste Kitty into your signature to help
her wipe out Bunny's world domination.

In article . co.uk.invalid,
Alan Pemberton wrote:
charles wrote:

In article . co.uk.invalid,
Alan Pemberton wrote:
Mike Henry wrote:

People didn't avoid buying analogue TVs just in
case the PAL spec changed.

Well, no, they didn't have to. The System I/PAL spec hardly changed
at all in over 40 years, and when it did (VBI test/data signals,
different V/S carrier ratio, addition Nicam carrier etc) there were
lengthy tests done to ensure that existing receivers were not
affected.

but there were loads of problems with receivers for Ceefax as the
broadcasters implemented various facilities provided for in the
specification

Because the receivers were designed by computer geeks rather than proper
setmakers. Same as now.

Those who designed them may have been computer geeks, but they worked for
set makers, and they didn't read the spec.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Dudley Simons wrote:
At first appearance the auto selection of format appears to work pretty
well and there is a manual screen ratio button - ARC, on the remote
which gives you true 4:3 and 16:9.

So the 16:9 has black bands top and bottom? ;-)



and the problem is??

In 4:3 you get an image with black all around it. In widescreen you get
a black band top and bottom but to be honest that doesn't bother me.
However, watching a 4:3 distorted up to widescreen really would bother me.

I know that having the black around the image is a waste of screen space
for which I have paid, but given that the LG is primarily to be used as
a computer monitor and I will only be using it as a tv occassionally,
and previously I would have had to watch a small cheap Goodmans portable
(RIP) up in the bedroom, the LG meets all of my needs. Using the LG as
your main telly in a larger than average modern living room might be a
bit more of a problem though.





regards



Dudley