|
|
Posted by Justin on 04/26/06 12:24
Freda wrote on [Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:37:26 +0100]:
> "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1eb8478c52a0cc5798a4a5@news.nabs.net...
>> Freda (fredapain@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
>>>
>>> I'm not on about the pixel count, as that rarely equates to 16:9 on
>>> plasmas,
>>> and isn't really an accurate guide, I'm on about the physical aspect
>>> ratio
>>> of quite a few LCDs that were being manufactured (I'm talking about the
>>> >> European market here).
>>
>> Yes, I know that there were 14:9 sets for Europe. They may have had
>> a 15:9 screen with no actual pixels at the sides, but the viewable area
>> was 14:9.
>>
>>
> No, these LCD sets had both a viewable and physical ratio of 15:9.
>>
>>
>>> The TVs I am on about were on sale about 1 or 2
>>> years
>>> ago, I spent a lot of time calculating the physical aspect ratios of many
>>> LCDs at the time, and discounted several from my shortlist of potential
>>> TVs
>>> due to their 15:9 aspect ratio, which was as much a surprise to me as it
>>> was
>>> to the TV dealers that I informed of this situation. I even did a
>>> physical
>>> check on the screen dimensions of a few of these suspect LCDs, just to
>>> confirm that these supposedly 'widescreen' TVs weren't actually 16:9
>>> ratio.
>>
>> So, you don't remember *anything* about any of these supposed TVs so that
>> you can look them up on Google.
>>
>>
> Why should I, these were the ones that I discounted, not the ones I was
> interested in.
Because if you have no proof then you are lying.
> I don't think they would completely
>> disappear in just two years.
>>
>>
> Probably not, but seeing as I dismissed them immediately as sham widescreen
> TVs, why would I want to remember them?
So you can prove you are not a liar
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|