When is the TV/Movie Industry Going to Get This Right?

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:24 pm

I replaced my 18 year old (yes 18) 34" Quasar rear-projection TV with a 44" rear projection LCD. Cost was about $1,200 but well worth it.

I went with LCD because it'll last. This is the same technology as in an LCD projector. Only thing that wears out it the bulb and you can replace that.

I refused to spend the money on a plasma because their life span is limited. DLP is way too expensive and no one knows their lifespans yet.

I almost bought a plain old TV rear projector but once I saw the LCD rear projector the image quality blew it away for just $200 more. I was also attected to the fact that it has an SVGA input which I'm using with my Media PC.

We still mostly watch TV in the bedroom and that's a plain old 4:3 20" regular tube TV. I have no problem watching widescreen movies on it. Black borders have never bothered me. Turn off the lights and you don't see the borders.

Pugsley · Post by **Pugsley** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:32 pm

doesent the color fade and bleed after so many years with a LCD projector form all the light passing through the LCD?

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:54 pm

I've got clients with some pretty old LCD projectors that are still holding up well.

Karchiveur · Post by **Karchiveur** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:04 pm

You don't really understand. The widescreen debate isn't about how much more you can see, and the fullscreen isn't cheating the viewer out of potential pixels. Widescreen is better because it's the way the cinematographer intended to view the movie. For example, rule of thirds gets completely obliterated on fullscreen. It's not that you see more on widescreen it's that all the photographic composition is there.

Fullscreen butchers composition, it also has less resolution. When the two sides are chopped off they have to blow up the picture to make it fit so the image gets more pixelated and fuzzy. So you actually get a better picture on that 32" sony watching widescreen rather than fullscren.

It's not about the size or shape of your tv. That has nothing to do with it. Stop being so god damn american.

By the way, have you heard of aspect ratio? There isn't supposed to be a unified widescreen format. You also seem to think that there is one big corprate megastructure controlling all these things, which isn't the case at all.

renovation · Post by **renovation** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:25 pm

bottom line is .give me a tv that fixs my needs and wont kill my pocket book . and for now its a plain jane 4:3 27" regular tube TV.

rndmtask · Post by **rndmtask** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:01 pm

Originally posted by Karchiveur
When the two sides are chopped off they have to blow up the picture to make it fit so the image gets more pixelated and fuzzy. So you actually get a better picture on that 32" sony watching widescreen rather than fullscren.

Your thinking digitally here if they get the fullscreen version from the film itself there is already so much more information in it than your tv could ever hope to display that you won't actually notice it being pixelated. Unless you got a crappy conversion that some company rushed out because they don't care. Everything else though is perfect I completely agree.

Karchiveur · Post by **Karchiveur** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:23 pm

Also, The eye sees more peripherral vision side to side than up and down, therefore it is best to use widescreen.

Pikachu · Post by **Pikachu** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:50 am

Originally posted by Pugsley
doesent the color fade and bleed after so many years with a LCD projector form all the light passing through the LCD?

rememeber the LCD I had for LOTL? Had no issue with that and I used that way more that my CRT monitor. Also, the old TV I had at the parent's house, was a rear LCD. Green (yellow is more accuate off color tests) went out on that because of one stupid mistake, never ever ever leave a rear LCD on pause for more than 5 seconds....