Posted by Freda on 04/26/06 07:37

"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.
>
>
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?
>
>
> Yeah, I'm pretty sceptical.
>
>
Ce la vie!

[Back to original message]