Tu_triky wrote::lol: :lol: :lol:
Hilarious!
It's like electronic stem cells: you can create anything from it. :nut: :rofl:
It's like electronic stem cells: you can create anything from it. :nut: :rofl:
Home Theater/HDTV/et al...
Started by arnel98 · 30 Dec 2006 · 1,679 replies
General Discussion
It's like electronic stem cells: you can create anything from it. :nut: :rofl:
bmwracer wrote:
It's like electronic stem cells: you can create anything from it. :nut: :rofl:
In this case the question is...it anything good!?! :hehe:
This is bizarre: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1094930
[image]
The above speaker is more like a speaker / cuckoo clock hybrid. Designed by French artist Stephane Vigny, the bottom speaker extends outward when the bass is loudest and retracts back into the cabinet when the sound softens. The two other speakers also extend and retract with the music all independent of each other.
[image]
![[image]](http://www.hometoys.com/hotstories/images/cuckoo.jpg){kind=link}
The above speaker is more like a speaker / cuckoo clock hybrid. Designed by French artist Stephane Vigny, the bottom speaker extends outward when the bass is loudest and retracts back into the cabinet when the sound softens. The two other speakers also extend and retract with the music all independent of each other.
bmwracer wrote:This is bizarre: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1094930
[image]
The above speaker is more like a speaker / cuckoo clock hybrid. Designed by French artist Stephane Vigny, the bottom speaker extends outward when the bass is loudest and retracts back into the cabinet when the sound softens. The two other speakers also extend and retract with the music all independent of each other.
Weirdness, man. :nut:
Tu_triky wrote:Weirdness, man. :nut:
Very weird.
Any unsuspecting listener would get smacked in the face from a loud bass note. :beaten:
It'd give a new meaning to "bass punch."
bmwracer wrote:
Very weird.
Any unsuspecting listener would get smacked in the face from a loud bass note. :beaten:
It'd give a new meaning to "bass punch."
:hehe:
BASS IN YOUR FACE. Literally.
Tu_triky wrote::hehe:
BASS IN YOUR FACE. Literally.
LOL. :hehe:
Seriously.
The Mysterious Shrinking TV
December 25, 2008, 6:42 am
By Matt Richtel
Pick up a Sunday circular for Best Buy, Circuit City or some other electronics store, turn to the TV section, read the fine print, and discover that the TV youfre considering buying –- or the one you already own –- is smaller than you think.
A considerable number of TVs are smaller by as much as a half inch than what the big print in their ads says.
Take, for instance, a Toshiba listed in a recent Best Buy circular. The TV is advertised in bold, black font as g32 Class.h The fine print reads: 31.5 measured diagonally.
Or the Sharp advertised as g19h Classh. The fine print: 18.9h measured diagonally.
Or the Sony. The big print reads g32h Class,h while the fine print tells you that itfs actually g31.5 measured diagonally.h
What gives?
There has emerged a new class (no pun intended) of advertising aimed at disclosing the actual size of televisions. But just when and why this trend emerged has been difficult for me to pin down.
Over the last three weeks, Ifve repeatedly pinged the retailers and TV manufacturers to try to find out when they started disclosing the actual size of their flat-panel sets. Ifve gotten incomplete answers, and, in some cases, no answers at all.
Sony and Best Buy have been the most forthcoming. Best Buy said that six months ago it changed its advertising in two respects. It started to point out that TV screens are measured diagonally, and:
gWe also started using the word gClassh to describe the size of the television if the screen size was not, in fact, exactly the size at which that television is classified,h a company spokesman, Brian Lucas wrote in an e-mail message.
Mr. Lucas said the company wanted to be transparent with customers.
gIf a 32 television is actually 31.5 we think a customer might want to know that even though it might not seem like a big deal to some people,h he wrote.
I called the spokesman back and asked whether there was any other impetus for the change, or its timing –- something still felt unexplained to me about the decision. He said that Best Buy was following the moves and wishes of TV manufacturers.
When I spoke to Sony, the company said that it started making the change in 2007 to the way it advertises and classifies the TVs to consumers. A company spokesman said there were three sizes of TVs in particular, including the 32-inch, that are generally a few fractions of an inch smaller than the class they belong to. I asked what is the reason behind the fact some TVs are generally smaller and the spokesman said that the reason has to do with manufacturing processes, but could not be more specific.
I got far less satisfying answers from Sharp and Samsung. Despite asking them repeatedly over a few weeks to explain when and why they changed their TV classifications and advertising, neither provided an answer (United States-based public relations representatives said they were having trouble getting information from the companies they represent).
Does any of this matter?
Certainly it does for the sake of truth in advertising, particularly for an industry that heralds the importance of size. Does it actually matter in terms of viewing pleasure? I spoke to several electronics industry analysts who said it probably does not \ that consumers wonft really notice much of a difference between 32-inches and 31.5.
For me, the change in advertising tactics and classification, remains a bit of a mystery. It was suggested to me by people in the TV industry –- with whom I spoke off-the-record –- that there have been lawsuits or threats of lawsuits from consumers, who felt cheated by the previous lack of disclosure and thatfs why things changed.
But none of the companies was forthcoming about when, if, and by whom they have been sued.
So this story remains, itself, a little bit shy of its full size. Ifm still asking the questions, and am about half an inch shy of all the answers.
-----------------------------------
This is like the days of the CRT where a 27" TV was actually 26".... :shakehead:
December 25, 2008, 6:42 am
By Matt Richtel
Pick up a Sunday circular for Best Buy, Circuit City or some other electronics store, turn to the TV section, read the fine print, and discover that the TV youfre considering buying –- or the one you already own –- is smaller than you think.
A considerable number of TVs are smaller by as much as a half inch than what the big print in their ads says.
Take, for instance, a Toshiba listed in a recent Best Buy circular. The TV is advertised in bold, black font as g32 Class.h The fine print reads: 31.5 measured diagonally.
Or the Sharp advertised as g19h Classh. The fine print: 18.9h measured diagonally.
Or the Sony. The big print reads g32h Class,h while the fine print tells you that itfs actually g31.5 measured diagonally.h
What gives?
There has emerged a new class (no pun intended) of advertising aimed at disclosing the actual size of televisions. But just when and why this trend emerged has been difficult for me to pin down.
Over the last three weeks, Ifve repeatedly pinged the retailers and TV manufacturers to try to find out when they started disclosing the actual size of their flat-panel sets. Ifve gotten incomplete answers, and, in some cases, no answers at all.
Sony and Best Buy have been the most forthcoming. Best Buy said that six months ago it changed its advertising in two respects. It started to point out that TV screens are measured diagonally, and:
gWe also started using the word gClassh to describe the size of the television if the screen size was not, in fact, exactly the size at which that television is classified,h a company spokesman, Brian Lucas wrote in an e-mail message.
Mr. Lucas said the company wanted to be transparent with customers.
gIf a 32 television is actually 31.5 we think a customer might want to know that even though it might not seem like a big deal to some people,h he wrote.
I called the spokesman back and asked whether there was any other impetus for the change, or its timing –- something still felt unexplained to me about the decision. He said that Best Buy was following the moves and wishes of TV manufacturers.
When I spoke to Sony, the company said that it started making the change in 2007 to the way it advertises and classifies the TVs to consumers. A company spokesman said there were three sizes of TVs in particular, including the 32-inch, that are generally a few fractions of an inch smaller than the class they belong to. I asked what is the reason behind the fact some TVs are generally smaller and the spokesman said that the reason has to do with manufacturing processes, but could not be more specific.
I got far less satisfying answers from Sharp and Samsung. Despite asking them repeatedly over a few weeks to explain when and why they changed their TV classifications and advertising, neither provided an answer (United States-based public relations representatives said they were having trouble getting information from the companies they represent).
Does any of this matter?
Certainly it does for the sake of truth in advertising, particularly for an industry that heralds the importance of size. Does it actually matter in terms of viewing pleasure? I spoke to several electronics industry analysts who said it probably does not \ that consumers wonft really notice much of a difference between 32-inches and 31.5.
For me, the change in advertising tactics and classification, remains a bit of a mystery. It was suggested to me by people in the TV industry –- with whom I spoke off-the-record –- that there have been lawsuits or threats of lawsuits from consumers, who felt cheated by the previous lack of disclosure and thatfs why things changed.
But none of the companies was forthcoming about when, if, and by whom they have been sued.
So this story remains, itself, a little bit shy of its full size. Ifm still asking the questions, and am about half an inch shy of all the answers.
-----------------------------------
This is like the days of the CRT where a 27" TV was actually 26".... :shakehead:
I read that article and I seem to agree with the comments. I think it's a cm vs. inch measurement issue.
dochira wrote:I read that article and I seem to agree with the comments. I think it's a cm vs. inch measurement issue.
And rounding.
That explains why I see some ads that say "32-inch Class" and whatnot...
it's been that way for years and years... my monitor is labeled 22", but actually 21.9". My living room boob tube is 37", but actually 36.5"..
krim wrote:My living room boob tube is 37"
hmm......ok I see.... :rofl:
krim wrote:it's been that way for years and years...
For CRTs.
One of the selling points of LCDs was that the screen size and viewable size were equal... At least I thought that was the case. :sweat:
WOW.
[image]
Vizio enters 240Hz fray for less
Posted by David Katzmaier
The SV1XVT series offers twice as many Hz as last year.
Vizio is known for breaking price barriers, so it should come as no surprise that the company's 240Hz LCD TVs should be among the least expensive of their breed. We say "should" because at CES most other manufacturers don't announce pricing on their new models, but Vizio does.
The two models represent the 42- and 47-inch sizes in the company's step-up XVT series, models SV421XVT ($1,099 list) and SV471XVT ($1,399 list) respectively. Both will be available in the summer of 2009, and replace the current SV470XVT and SV420XVT at the same price points.
Like LG, Vizio uses a "scanning backlight" technology to achieve its 240Hz processing, unlike the MEMC technology used by Sony and Samsung, for example. The MEMC system inserts three interpolated frames for every true frame in a 60Hz source, while the scanning backlight system turns the backlight on and off very rapidly. We doubt the difference will be visible to most viewers, but we'll reserve judgment until we have a chance to test both systems in the lab.
Vizio says it has improved the dejudder processing on these models compared with the SV470XVT we reviewed last year. The company is also touting the XVT sets' antiglare screens and improved viewing angles, along with a variable backlight system that is said to cut power consumption by 15 percent. Both 240Hz XVT sets include four HDMI inputs.
The sets also include a USB input that can play back MPEG-2, H.264 and WMV9 video, along with JPEG photos and MP3 music files, and the company throws in a USB thumb drive with some preloaded 1080p video.
Vizio SV1XVT models
* Vizio SV471XVT ($1,399 list)
* Vizio SV421XVT ($1,099 list)
[image]
![[image]](http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20090107/SV470_1_winter2_270x270.jpg){kind=link}
Vizio enters 240Hz fray for less
Posted by David Katzmaier
The SV1XVT series offers twice as many Hz as last year.
Vizio is known for breaking price barriers, so it should come as no surprise that the company's 240Hz LCD TVs should be among the least expensive of their breed. We say "should" because at CES most other manufacturers don't announce pricing on their new models, but Vizio does.
The two models represent the 42- and 47-inch sizes in the company's step-up XVT series, models SV421XVT ($1,099 list) and SV471XVT ($1,399 list) respectively. Both will be available in the summer of 2009, and replace the current SV470XVT and SV420XVT at the same price points.
Like LG, Vizio uses a "scanning backlight" technology to achieve its 240Hz processing, unlike the MEMC technology used by Sony and Samsung, for example. The MEMC system inserts three interpolated frames for every true frame in a 60Hz source, while the scanning backlight system turns the backlight on and off very rapidly. We doubt the difference will be visible to most viewers, but we'll reserve judgment until we have a chance to test both systems in the lab.
Vizio says it has improved the dejudder processing on these models compared with the SV470XVT we reviewed last year. The company is also touting the XVT sets' antiglare screens and improved viewing angles, along with a variable backlight system that is said to cut power consumption by 15 percent. Both 240Hz XVT sets include four HDMI inputs.
The sets also include a USB input that can play back MPEG-2, H.264 and WMV9 video, along with JPEG photos and MP3 music files, and the company throws in a USB thumb drive with some preloaded 1080p video.
Vizio SV1XVT models
* Vizio SV471XVT ($1,399 list)
* Vizio SV421XVT ($1,099 list)
Hmph, some people over at the videohelp forum are under the delusion that VHS video is better than DVD... :shakehead:
bmwracer wrote:Hmph, some people over at the videohelp forum are under the delusion that VHS video is better than DVD... :shakehead:
A closer comparison would be Betamax vs. DVD.
dochira wrote:A closer comparison would be Betamax vs. DVD.
Even then, the differences should be pretty clear... So to speak. :beaten:
bmwracer wrote:Hmph, some people over at the videohelp forum are under the delusion that VHS video is better than DVD... :shakehead:
Although I do agree with you assessment here, some people do actually prefer interlaced video over progressive. One of my friends prefer interlaced because to him it is more comfortable to his eyes; progressive OTOH look too much like digitized film, and watching them at 30fps can make one dizzy if he's not used to it. I actually prefer interlaced myself, but I do believe that my eyes will adapt to progressive video soon. The problem with me is that my bedroom TV is still the old-fashioned SDTV, so it'll require me to replace it with a wide-screen model before I start liking progressive video.
--- groink
groink wrote:Although I do agree with you assessment here, some people do actually prefer interlaced video over progressive. One of my friends prefer interlaced because to him it is more comfortable to his eyes; progressive OTOH look too much like digitized film, and watching them at 30fps can make one dizzy if he's not used to it. I actually prefer interlaced myself, but I do believe that my eyes will adapt to progressive video soon. The problem with me is that my bedroom TV is still the old-fashioned SDTV, so it'll require me to replace it with a wide-screen model before I start liking progressive video.
--- groink
But don't you (and maybe your friend) use PCs?
More than likely the monitor image is non-interlaced/progressive... :)
[image]
Sony 27-inch OLED TV
Sony said it had a 27-inch OLED on hand during its press conference, and it wasnft lying. This prototype is less than 10 millimeters thin and has a contrast ratio greater than 1,000,000:1.
The Full HD display also has color reproduction over 100 percent vs. NTSC. A Sony spokesman says this OLED is nowhere close to hitting the market. And if it does, the spokesman says it will probably look different than how it was displayed at CES 2009.
![[image]](http://www.cepro.com/images/slideshow/27_inch_sony_oled.jpg){kind=link}
Sony 27-inch OLED TV
Sony said it had a 27-inch OLED on hand during its press conference, and it wasnft lying. This prototype is less than 10 millimeters thin and has a contrast ratio greater than 1,000,000:1.
The Full HD display also has color reproduction over 100 percent vs. NTSC. A Sony spokesman says this OLED is nowhere close to hitting the market. And if it does, the spokesman says it will probably look different than how it was displayed at CES 2009.
Replying needs an account. Registration opens soon.