OT - Plasma TV question

[Jay Honeck]

I'm considering installing a big-screen plasma (or LCD) TV in our
meeting room at the inn, for use during presentations, etc.

An alternative (and, to me, more important) use of this equipment would
be as "God's Own Flight Simulator" for visiting pilots and their
families to use. I think it would be way cool to have a wall-sized
flight simulator display available for our guests, and it would be a
great way to hook kids of all ages on aviation in general. (Most of
our guests are not pilots, despite the aviation theme...)

It would also be cool to have "movie nights" at the inn, showing
classic aviation movies. 'Top Gun' on a 60 inch plasma TV would be a
great draw!

Sadly, I haven't kept up with this technology, and I notice there are
several competing systems. Also, I'm starting to see the long-awaited
convergence between computers and TV, with Dell offering flat panel
"displays" that look just like TVs.

Is anyone on the 'group an expert with this stuff? Anyone already
own one? Can anyone recommend (or steer me clear from) any brands?
Are all plasma TVs usable as computer monitors, too?

Thanks!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John T]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com
>
> Is anyone on the 'group an expert with this stuff? Anyone already
> own one? Can anyone recommend (or steer me clear from) any brands?
> Are all plasma TVs usable as computer monitors, too?

I'm not an expert, but I have done a bit of research on this for my own
entertainment system.

I have a Sanyo LCD projector that's served me well and I have a pair of
Toshiba Hi-Def displays that I'd buy again, but I don't know any particular
brands to stay away from.

Most modern displays will accept HDMI, composite, S-video and HD component
(Y, Pb, Pr) inputs along with the traditional F-type antenna connector.
Some even accept VGA input, but don't expect it.

You should be able to find a VGA-to-HDMI adapter (or even a single cable
that does the conversion like the one I found) at your local electronics
store. You'll probably need this to display your PC's output on the
display. I'd stay away from VGA-to-S-video or VGA-to-composite adapters as
the quality of the image will suffer greatly.

Another note: If you're planning to allow customers to use it, you'll want
(or, should I say, your customers will certainly appreciate) a cable long
enough to reach the conference table. You might consider a video input
switch to allow switching between your PC and the cable running to the
table.

Another consideration is to ensure you have DVD playback software on the PC.
I know you talked about movie nights, but using the PC as your DVD player
can cut down the "component clutter" a bit.

Depending on your room's layout and construction, a ceiling-mounted
projector can be very cost competitive.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Montblack]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> I'm considering installing a big-screen plasma (or LCD) TV in our meeting
> room at the inn, for use during presentations, etc.


My folks recently moved into a new (5 story) Senior Condo building - in a
nice part of town, Woodbury.

The lobby has a sitting area with a fireplace. There's also a big
meeting/reception/dining/TV room and a separate game room, complete with
pool table - on the first floor.

The big meeting room/TV lounge has a sun room attached to it. Off the sun
room is a large wrap-around deck. It's all very, very nice.

Someone stole the 52"(?) wall mounted flat screen TV, three nights ago.

So, if you buy one ($$plasma$$) ...secure that sucker with a theft-proof
bracket, like it's a safe with $3,500 dollars in it!!!

Just a thought.


Montblack

[Morgans]

"John T" > wrote

> I'm not an expert, but I have done a bit of research on this for my own
> entertainment system.
>
> I have a Sanyo LCD projector that's served me well and I have a pair of
> Toshiba Hi-Def displays that I'd buy again, but I don't know any
particular
> brands to stay away from.

I would go with a projector, also, but would use a DLP (digital light
processor) driven projector.

You want at least 2000 contrast, and 2500 lumens, I would think.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I would go with a projector, also, but would use a DLP (digital light
>> processor) driven projector.
>>
>> You want at least 2000 contrast, and 2500 lumens, I would think.
>
> Um, okay. What's a "digital light processor"? And who makes these
> projectors?

DLP is basically a bunch of REALLY tiny mirrors that can be electronically
controlled. Good price/performance ratio, but not without drawbacks:
economical DLP projectors use a single DLP chip for all three colors,
switching from red to green to blue to red again (usually using a spinning
color wheel). For some people, this creates a rainbow effect, especially if
your eyes move while watching the screen. At large projections sizes, they
can suffer from the "screen-door effect" (visible lines between the
individual pixels). Also, contrast ratio can be limited, because the
mirrors can only move so much (so you always get a little bit of light
reflected from each one, no matter how "black" the signal).

Of course, contrast ratio is an issue with all display technologies, and
frankly only the technology that has been with us for decades (CRT) has the
least problem with the issue.

You can also choose normal CRT projection (probably still the best quality,
but also still the most expensive), LCoS (liquid crystal on silicon, a
relatively new technology, similar to DLP), LCD, and of course plasma.
Frankly, none are a silver bullet. Each technology involves a compromise,
be it price, performance, convenience, etc.

One big downside to plasma is the issue of burn-in. They are getting
better, but you can still wind up with latent images of an image that stays
on the screen for extended periods of time. This might be a TV channel
logo, a ticker from CNN, computer graphics, or whatever. Another downside
is that the lifetime of the display itself is somewhat limited, as it fades
over time. Plasma displays are also VERY heavy, consume a lot of power, and
generate a lot of heat. They do look VERY nice though. :)

Projectors (whether DLP or LCD...CRT projectors are expensive) can be
economical, but to get the best performance, you still have to spend money.
Otherwise, image brightness is an issue, as is resolution, along with the
issues I mentioned at the beginning of this post.

IMHO, right now a good flat-panel LCD provides a pretty good bang for the
buck. LCDs are much more tolerant of static images, they are nice and
bright, you can get decent resolution, and there's only the one component
(no projector to fuss around with...all projectors require calibration on
setup and sometimes later too, and bulbs to replace now and then). They are
also lighter, and less power-hungry than plasma.

The other thing I don't like about projection systems is that it's hard to
get a perfectly flat projection screen, unless you paint it right onto the
wall or spend a LOT of $$$ on the screen itself (which negates much of the
usual cost savings for a projection system). But I'm very nitpicky...for
many people, the occasional ripple in the image isn't a big deal.

As for cost, what do you want to spend? You can get a decent display of
pretty much any technology, in the 60" ballpark, for between $5000 and
$10000. One "nice" thing about projectors is that you aren't committed to a
particular display size when you buy it; you simply sacrifice brightness as
you get bigger, for a given projector. As much as I personally would go
with a flat-panel over a projector most of the time, it's hard to beat the
cost for a projector, and there are lots of choices out there that don't
suck, even without paying an arm and a leg.

You can even go cheaper than $5000 if you want, especially if the room isn't
too bright. A friend of mine put together a DLP-based system, with a 10'
diagonal screen, and if I recall his total cost was just over $3000 (most of
which was the projector). Brightness is an issue (curtains for the room
help quite a bit), and the DLP artifacts do bother me a little, but it's
hard to argue with the price, and the system does do what it's supposed to.

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> I'm considering installing a big-screen plasma (or LCD) TV in our
> meeting room at the inn, for use during presentations, etc.
>
> An alternative (and, to me, more important) use of this equipment would
> be as "God's Own Flight Simulator" for visiting pilots and their
> families to use. I think it would be way cool to have a wall-sized
> flight simulator display available for our guests, and it would be a
> great way to hook kids of all ages on aviation in general. (Most of
> our guests are not pilots, despite the aviation theme...)
>
> It would also be cool to have "movie nights" at the inn, showing
> classic aviation movies. 'Top Gun' on a 60 inch plasma TV would be a
> great draw!
>
> Sadly, I haven't kept up with this technology, and I notice there are
> several competing systems. Also, I'm starting to see the long-awaited
> convergence between computers and TV, with Dell offering flat panel
> "displays" that look just like TVs.
>
> Is anyone on the 'group an expert with this stuff? Anyone already
> own one? Can anyone recommend (or steer me clear from) any brands?
> Are all plasma TVs usable as computer monitors, too?

I'm not an expert on this stuff, so let me get that out of the way right
upfront. My employer, however, is the world's largest maker of glass
for flat panel displays and we have a plasma, DLP and LCD TV display in
our R&D center. I often look at them as I'm walking by and to my eye,
the LCD TV is consistently the best looking, however all three are very
nice. Each has advantages and disadvantages.

The main drawbacks to plasma are screen burn-in and power consumption
and heat output. The latter aren't that big a deal, but the former is.
We had plasma flat panel displays installed around our facility 4-5
years ago to display company news, etc. and they are all having to be
replaced now due to really bad burn-in. For TV use, this isn't as big a
deal as the picture is constantly changing. However, for certain
applications such as ours where we had a stock ticker across the bottom
which had a color band which didn't change often, the burn-in is very
quick (it was noticeable in less than two years).

The main drawback to LCD is cost, although this is catching up to plasma
quickly, and sometimes problems with fast motion. You get a "shadow"
following the action due to the somewhat slower response of the LCD as
compared to plasma or DLP. Also, they aren't yet available in sizes as
large as plasma.

I'm less familiar with DLP, but I believe it has a problem called
"rainbow" affect due to the use of a color wheel for RGB generation.
Another unknown is how long those little MEMS mirrors will last as they
are wiggled to and fro billions of times.

Personally, I'd lean toward LCD unless I really needed the size offered
by plasma.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:

> "John T" > wrote
>
>
>>I'm not an expert, but I have done a bit of research on this for my own
>>entertainment system.
>>
>>I have a Sanyo LCD projector that's served me well and I have a pair of
>>Toshiba Hi-Def displays that I'd buy again, but I don't know any
>
> particular
>
>>brands to stay away from.
>
>
> I would go with a projector, also, but would use a DLP (digital light
> processor) driven projector.
>
> You want at least 2000 contrast, and 2500 lumens, I would think.

Yes, and many projectors don't do well with normal ambient light levels
during the daytime. And the projectors that do handle this well, tend
to eat those $200 light bulbs are a high rate. Unless this will be in
an area that Jay can keep a little dark, I'd shy away from a projector.
They simply generate the light levels required for daytime use in a
room with unshaded windows.


Matt

[Skywise]

I also vote for the DLP projector.

I have a friend who is an A/V fanatic. He is building a
screening room in his house using one. He just installed
the projection screen...138 inch diagonal. Projection
throw is less than 10 feet.

The projector input is from a computer with DVD software
for watching movies.

I am tempted to bring my PC over to try Flight Sim on it.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I would go with a projector, also, but would use a DLP (digital light
>>processor) driven projector.
>>
>>You want at least 2000 contrast, and 2500 lumens, I would think.
>
>
> Um, okay. What's a "digital light processor"? And who makes these
> projectors?

It is a MEMS device consisting of an array of millions of really small
mirrors that steer light onto or not onto each pixel on the scree. TI
makes the DLP chip, but lots of folks use their chips to make TVs and
projectors.


> Any idea on cost? I hadn't even considered a projector, as they
> always seem too dim.

You'll pay $5000 for a decent one and yes they are relatively dim as
compared to the flat panel TVs, either plasma or LCD.


Matt

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Um, okay. What's a "digital light processor"? And who makes these
> projectors?
>
> Any idea on cost? I hadn't even considered a projector, as they
> always seem too dim.

You will do the best if you google it, for more detail that I could give,
but I'll give you a quickie! <g>

DLP is a chip made by Texas instruments, that has found its way into many
brands of projectors. They are much improved over the dim projectors of a
couple years ago, and much sharper image is possible. Prices range from
around $700, with a $1500 dollar unit most likely in the quality and
brightness range that you will be looking for. You can certainly spend much
more than that, too.

The chip is best described as a surface of thousands of very, very small
individual mirrors, with a hinge on one side. When an area of a picture is
to have light on it, a voltage to that one mirror is applied, and it pivots
up a few degrees, projecting the light towards the optics, and eventually,
the screen.

Powering the light is usually a metal halide (or is it quartz) bulb, which
shines through a spinning color wheel, with all the colors of the rainbow
gradually progressing around the circle. When blue is supposed to be on a
portion of the screen, the DLP waits for the right shade of blue to appear
on the color wheel, then it tilts all of the little mirrors up to capture
that color and send it onto the screen.

DLP does not degrade over time. The bulb is the only thing that will go
bad, then it is replaced. Plasma units are said to have a burn in problem,
and the picture loses quality over time. LED units lose clarity and
brightness over time, also.

Do a Google, and you will be amazed, I think.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes, and many projectors don't do well with normal ambient light levels
> during the daytime. And the projectors that do handle this well, tend
> to eat those $200 light bulbs are a high rate. Unless this will be in
> an area that Jay can keep a little dark, I'd shy away from a projector.
> They simply generate the light levels required for daytime use in a
> room with unshaded windows.

Well, this is inside a windowless meeting room -- so keeping light out
is a simple matter.

Do the projection TVs need a special screen, or can you just project
the picture on a painted white wall?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Personally, I'd lean toward LCD unless I really needed the size offered
>>by plasma.
>
>
> They don't seem to get much bigger than this:
>
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=6998378&type=product&id=1110265591243
>
> A 37-inch by Westinghouse (WESTINGHOUSE? What museum did they drag
> *that* name brand out of?) seems to be as big as Best Buy handles.
>
> I was hoping for at least 42 inch, but the LCD price is sure good,
> though.

They get a lot bigger than that.

http://www.i4u.com/article1082.html
http://www.i4u.com/article2217.html

However, the prices get a lot bigger also!

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Yes, and many projectors don't do well with normal ambient light levels
>>during the daytime. And the projectors that do handle this well, tend
>>to eat those $200 light bulbs are a high rate. Unless this will be in
>>an area that Jay can keep a little dark, I'd shy away from a projector.
>> They simply generate the light levels required for daytime use in a
>>room with unshaded windows.
>
>
> Well, this is inside a windowless meeting room -- so keeping light out
> is a simple matter.

Sounds ideal.


> Do the projection TVs need a special screen, or can you just project
> the picture on a painted white wall?

They don't need a special screen, but everyone I know will strongly
suggest one. The screen really makes the display work well and they
aren't cheap either and come in a variety of colors, gain values, etc.

There are three options with a projector:

1. Use a plain white wall. This is a very poor option.

2. Use a special paint made for projectors. This is a mediocre option.

3. Use a special screen made for projectors. This is by far the best
option, but also by far the most costly. A decent screen will start at
close to a grand.

However, many reviews I've seen say if you are going to scrimp, scrimp
on the projector and not the screen. A good screen will last 20 years.
The projector will be obsolete in 3. And each dollar spent on the
screen will return much more viewing quality than an additional dollar
spent on the projector.


Matt

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:


> One big downside to plasma is the issue of burn-in. They are getting
> better, but you can still wind up with latent images of an image that stays
> on the screen for extended periods of time. This might be a TV channel
> logo, a ticker from CNN, computer graphics, or whatever. Another downside
> is that the lifetime of the display itself is somewhat limited, as it fades
> over time. Plasma displays are also VERY heavy, consume a lot of power, and
> generate a lot of heat. They do look VERY nice though. :)
>


I bought a 42" plasma January 2005. I was concerned about burn in and
how long it would last. The life of the TV is supposed to be 40,000
hours before it gets to half brightness. Well, run the numbers. That's
5000 days at 8 hours a day. I've never kept my primary TV that long.
As for burn in it isn't a problem. We've got lots of hours with Fox
News on the TV with the scroll running on the bottom. Just not a
factor. Plasma is not heavy. Our 42" TV weighs about 75 pounds, less
than any similar sized CRT TV and a lot easier to carry. As for power
my 42" uses 350 watts which is quite a bit, a lot of heat comes of a
plasma. As for picture, no question a plasma is better. I also have an
LCD flat screen HD TV, the plasma makes it look silly. If you consider
a projector make sure you check on the cost of repalcement bulbs. I see
some of them can be over $200, plus not all projectors are capable of
HD. You'll need to spen at least $1000 to get a halfway decent
projector picture plus the disadvantage of having to have a dark room.

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>
>> One big downside to plasma is the issue of burn-in. They are getting
>> better, but you can still wind up with latent images of an image that
>> stays on the screen for extended periods of time. This might be a TV
>> channel logo, a ticker from CNN, computer graphics, or whatever.
>> Another downside is that the lifetime of the display itself is
>> somewhat limited, as it fades over time. Plasma displays are also
>> VERY heavy, consume a lot of power, and generate a lot of heat. They
>> do look VERY nice though. :)
>>
>
>
> I bought a 42" plasma January 2005. I was concerned about burn in and
> how long it would last. The life of the TV is supposed to be 40,000
> hours before it gets to half brightness. Well, run the numbers. That's
> 5000 days at 8 hours a day. I've never kept my primary TV that long. As
> for burn in it isn't a problem. We've got lots of hours with Fox News
> on the TV with the scroll running on the bottom. Just not a factor.
> Plasma is not heavy. Our 42" TV weighs about 75 pounds, less than any
> similar sized CRT TV and a lot easier to carry. As for power my 42"
> uses 350 watts which is quite a bit, a lot of heat comes of a plasma.
> As for picture, no question a plasma is better. I also have an LCD flat
> screen HD TV, the plasma makes it look silly. If you consider a
> projector make sure you check on the cost of repalcement bulbs. I see
> some of them can be over $200, plus not all projectors are capable of
> HD. You'll need to spen at least $1000 to get a halfway decent
> projector picture plus the disadvantage of having to have a dark room.

Burn in takes about two years to set in on the newer sets. I'm not
surprised that you haven't seen anything in only 13 months. By 4-5
years it will be very noticeable if you watch certain channels too much.
For folks that watch a variety of standard TV shows, then it likely
won't be a big problem.

Matt

[Flyingmonk]

Sorry I can't answer the questions for you, but I like your idea a
whole lot. We always attend movie night at our daughters' school even
if we already saw the movies several times. Hooking it up to FS would
be awesome, I suppose. Here's a link to a full size controls for sale
on Ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/helicopter-training-device-learn-to-hover-guaranteed_W0QQitemZ4616667188QQcategoryZ26439QQrd Z1QQcmdZViewItem

or http://makeashorterlink.com/?C25F514BC

It is for a helicopter though.

The Monk

Jay Honeck wrote:
> I'm considering installing a big-screen plasma (or LCD) TV in our
> meeting room at the inn, for use during presentations, etc.
>
> An alternative (and, to me, more important) use of this equipment would
> be as "God's Own Flight Simulator" for visiting pilots and their
> families to use. I think it would be way cool to have a wall-sized
> flight simulator display available for our guests, and it would be a
> great way to hook kids of all ages on aviation in general. (Most of
> our guests are not pilots, despite the aviation theme...)
>
> It would also be cool to have "movie nights" at the inn, showing
> classic aviation movies. 'Top Gun' on a 60 inch plasma TV would be a
> great draw!
>
> Sadly, I haven't kept up with this technology, and I notice there are
> several competing systems. Also, I'm starting to see the long-awaited
> convergence between computers and TV, with Dell offering flat panel
> "displays" that look just like TVs.
>
> Is anyone on the 'group an expert with this stuff? Anyone already
> own one? Can anyone recommend (or steer me clear from) any brands?
> Are all plasma TVs usable as computer monitors, too?
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

You've already got some good info, but one thing that has not been
mentioned is that like VMC, not all HDTV is created equal. HD just
means "better than standard definition" (525 lines). There are several
HD standards, the best have 1080 lines, and are called 1080i (interlaced
30 fps video) or 1080 24p (progressive scan 24 frames per second, used
for films). Some stations broadcast 720i, and some sets only have that
number of dots, which degrades the better signals. And some sets are
called "HD" but really just interpolate standard signals.

Be sure you get a set that can display all formats in their native
resolution - don't waste money on a set that's only capable of 720i.

Also, please =please= don't stretch a 4x3 image to fit the entire
screen. Everyone looks fat and squishy, and it just looks funny.
Display it with vertical bars on the sides, in its natural 4x3 format,
and save the wide screen display for real wide screen material. :)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Blanche]

I picked up an InFocus 4805 at Costco (a bit more than 1 AMU)
and it came with a 6 ft. screen "window shade" type. Mounted it on
the ceiling, works fine.

My friends went with the screen material (there are a number
of suppliers, check google) and created frame to mount the material,
then mounted that on a wall. This definitely eliminated any
ripple or waves. On the other hand, I haven't noticed any on
my window shade version, either.

[John Clear]

In article >,
Blanche > wrote:
>
>Best of all, it's a box the size of a large phone book, lightweight,
>and I can carry it to meetings if I need it. Otherwise I keep it
>mounted in the frame I built on the ceiling.

Jay, if you go this route, make sure you lock it down, even though
it is mounted to the ceiling, and 'out of reach'.

We had two projectors walk off at work, and they were mounted high
enough that even standing on the conference tables, you couldn't
reach them. Since the newer projectors are so small, they are
really easy to hide on the way out.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Roger]

On 25 Feb 2006 14:42:38 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>I'm considering installing a big-screen plasma (or LCD) TV in our
>meeting room at the inn, for use during presentations, etc.
>
>An alternative (and, to me, more important) use of this equipment would
>be as "God's Own Flight Simulator" for visiting pilots and their
>families to use. I think it would be way cool to have a wall-sized
>flight simulator display available for our guests, and it would be a
>great way to hook kids of all ages on aviation in general. (Most of
>our guests are not pilots, despite the aviation theme...)
>
>It would also be cool to have "movie nights" at the inn, showing
>classic aviation movies. 'Top Gun' on a 60 inch plasma TV would be a
>great draw!

Plasma or LCD are getting quite nice.
>
>Sadly, I haven't kept up with this technology, and I notice there are
>several competing systems. Also, I'm starting to see the long-awaited
>convergence between computers and TV, with Dell offering flat panel
>"displays" that look just like TVs.

Starting? This monitor is only a 17" LCD, but being truly rectangular
it's close to the area of a 19" CRT. They are now available much
larger although not as large as the plasma displays. I've been using
it for over 3 years. This computer and the one before it had S-video
out along with advanced sound. It has also had the ability to work
much like TVIO since before TVIO came out. They will also write to
single and dual layer DVDs which are a lot nicer than tapes, but not
re-recordable. The do make disks capable of that but none I've seen
were trustworthy. The only thing it lacks there is the on screen
menu. The video card on the computer in the shop also works with
digital TV and both have tuner capability. (Look up RADEON
all-in-wonder video cards along with tuners)
BTW I've had at least one computer up and running with a tuner, video
capture, and NTSC out for between 4 and 5 years.

OTOH those computers and their setup was probably not something the
average TV viewer would want to tackle. <:-))

Both plasma and LCD have their own advantages. The plasma may be a
tad brighter but they are making great strides with LCDs including
very wide viewing angles. Plasma displays do age, but unless you are
like us and it sets on the weather channel for 12 to 14 hours a day
they should last a very long time. OTOH LCD displays may lose
brilliance, but you only have to replace a little bulb.

However, when the Plasma display gets dirty you get out the Windex
(tm) and have at it. LCD screens are sensitive and can be damaged
easily. Then some plasma displays generate a *lot* of RF noise which
might be noticed in a nearby aviation receiver. If you go with plasma
see if you can find a "try before you buy.". I've seen thin plastic
sheets used to cover LCD displays that don't even show when looking at
the picture when properly applied, but I don't know how large you can
get them.
>
>Is anyone on the 'group an expert with this stuff? Anyone already

I'm no expert on the things but I do follow them a bit.

>own one? Can anyone recommend (or steer me clear from) any brands?
>Are all plasma TVs usable as computer monitors, too?

Here it's one of those "check it out in the store". Many, if not most
have both NTSC and S-video inputs along with digital and some don't.

I'm looking to get about a 27" flat screen LCD for the shop with at
least 1280 X 1024 resolution (preferably 1600 by what ever). In this
case the computer can serve as the TV set. I'm cramped for space and
I'd put the monitor on a swing arm. Currently have one of those hernia
developing, hemroid (sp?) busting, 19" CRTs that is always in the way.
It's big and it's *heavy* and it's always in the way. Did I mention
it's always in the way?
>

Now for the big couch, refrigerator, small stove...<sigh> no running
water out there, but it does have heat in the winter and air
conditioning in the summer.

Good Luck,

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>Thanks!

[Roger]

On 26 Feb 2006 01:25:20 GMT, Blanche > wrote:

>Jay:
>
>Rather than a plasma screen, I went with a high-quality
>projector (at 1/4th the price). Takes just about every input
>(you'll just love MS Sim on a 6 foot wide display!) from the
>computer as well as the DVD/TV/satellite/VCR. Inputs are
>what you'll find on most systems these days...S-video, component or
>the single F plug.
>
>It's an InFocus, model is 2 years old, so I'm sure there are
>newer/better/cheaper/whatever models out.
>
>Best of all, it's a box the size of a large phone book, lightweight,
>and I can carry it to meetings if I need it. Otherwise I keep it
>mounted in the frame I built on the ceiling.

I haven't seen any projector setups I like, or that have the
resolution I want. I want someting I can view in broad daylight.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>On the other hand, the plasma tv has much sharper definition. When I
>zoom out the projector, the pixel density remains the same, but the
>size of the pixels get bigger, so there's less sharpness.
>
>As for a plasma tv -- if you're a Consumer Reports subscriber,
>check the website - they review this stuff all the time.

[[email protected]]

Jay,

I am quite fond of the Philips 37" LCD HDTV that I recently purchased
at Costco for $2000... I have really loved watching the Olympics in HD
on it!

I tend to be biased towards LCDs though due to my experience developing
the LCDs for the 777 EFIS.

Dean

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>> Um, okay. What's a "digital light processor"? And who makes these
>> projectors?
>
> It is a MEMS device [...]

Gotta love it when someone explains a TLA with another TLA. Very helpful.

> [...]
> You'll pay $5000 for a decent one and yes they are relatively dim as
> compared to the flat panel TVs, either plasma or LCD.

$5000 should get a very nice and relatively bright DLP projector. Depending
on one's definition of "decent", the price point for that standard starts a
bit lower.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> 3. Use a special screen made for projectors. This is by far the best
> option, but also by far the most costly. A decent screen will start at
> close to a grand.

Again, I suppose it depends on your definition of "decent", but there are
plenty of usable screens out there for a few hundred bucks. No need to
spend a grand just to get a quality picture.

Pete

[Grumman-581]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> I would go with a projector, also, but would use a DLP (digital light
> processor) driven projector.

Not sure about the DLP projectors, but the normal DLP units are rather
directional in their viewing angle... They look better than LCD or plasma,
but only if you are *directly* in front of them...

[Happy Dog]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Um, okay. What's a "digital light processor"? And who makes these
>>> projectors?
>>
>> It is a MEMS device [...]
>
> Gotta love it when someone explains a TLA with another TLA. Very helpful.
>
>> [...]
>> You'll pay $5000 for a decent one and yes they are relatively dim as
>> compared to the flat panel TVs, either plasma or LCD.
>
> $5000 should get a very nice and relatively bright DLP projector.
> Depending on one's definition of "decent", the price point for that
> standard starts a bit lower.

There's a couple guys selling used Sony VPL-PX31 projectors on eBay. They
produce about 3000 ANSI lumens. They go for around 1000.00 - 1400.00. It's
a fabulous deal. I have about a dozen of them and they perform flawlessly.
They originally cost about 7K. Couple things to watch for:

The lamp life is about 1500 hours on the high brightness setting.
Replacement lamps are about 400.00 for aftermarket units. Take that into
account when bidding.

The projectors on eBay often have a long throw zoom lens. (That was
originally a 3K option.) The zoom lens model is ZM-101. The zoom angle is
3.5X to 5X. That means the projector would have to be 35 to 50 feet away
from the screen to produce a 10' wide image. The standard lens is 1.8X to
2.5X. That's the one you probably want so be sure it has the correct lens
when bidding.

If your looking for plasmas, try www.plasmanext.com. The guy's name is
Darren. I've bout at least a dozen 50" units from him. The world of plasma
resellers is almost completely scam-infested but these guys have been very
good.

You don't need a screen. The best projection surface for a room with enough
ambient light to read and make notes (most common business meeting scenario)
is a wall painted a light shade of gray. That will increase the contrast
remarkably.

These projectors are native 1024 x 768 resolution. They have a built in
scan converter and will accept any current type of signal. They will
convert an HDTV to work within their native resolution. Purists will be
unhappy with this but I doubt any of your guests will care. And, brightness
will trump resolution in any case. Also note that a projected image is much
larger than any plasma and much better suited to business presentations.
With a 7.5' a 10' viewing area, these will be killer bright. We use them
with screen sizes up to 10.5' x 14' and they work just fine with typical
dining ambient light levels.

Be sure to use good quality video cables to connect these. A typical
computer VGA cable is only good for about 10' before the signal quality
degrades. Stay away from expensive consumer cables and just get some good
industrial grade ones. Let me know if you need a source for them. You may
also want a ceiling mount bracket. Original equipment ones are expensive
(200.00). I buy them on eBay for around 50.00 or less. Again, let me know
if you need a source for one.

moo

[Martin Hotze]

On 25 Feb 2006 16:41:00 -0800, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> I would go with a projector, also, but would use a DLP (digital light
>> processor) driven projector.
>>
>> You want at least 2000 contrast, and 2500 lumens, I would think.
>
>Um, okay. What's a "digital light processor"? And who makes these
>projectors?
>
>Any idea on cost? I hadn't even considered a projector, as they
>always seem too dim.

hm, why don't you ask in the proper newsgroup? there are the experts and
they can answer all your questions.

#m
--
DoD staffer's notes from meetings on 9/11
<http://flickr.com/photos/66726692@N00/sets/72057594065491946/>
<http://www.outragedmoderates.org/>

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 02:02:19 -0500, Roger wrote:

>I haven't seen any projector setups I like, or that have the
>resolution I want. I want someting I can view in broad daylight.

several years ago I've seen something like laser projectors. It was a small
tube with 3 outlets very close to the projecting wall, and the laser
projected the picture clear and bright. Don't know if this sort of
projector died or are already available.

#m
--
DoD staffer's notes from meetings on 9/11
<http://flickr.com/photos/66726692@N00/sets/72057594065491946/>
<http://www.outragedmoderates.org/>

[Peter R.]

Jose > wrote:

> Also, please =please= don't stretch a 4x3 image to fit the entire
> screen. Everyone looks fat and squishy, and it just looks funny.
> Display it with vertical bars on the sides, in its natural 4x3 format,
> and save the wide screen display for real wide screen material. :)

And that leads to the question, what about burn-in on a plasma screen TV?

I suspect that watching a lot of 4x3 source in its native aspect ratio
would be a problem for a plasma TV, no?

--
Peter
Great thread and timely for me, too.

[Jay Honeck]

> Be sure to use good quality video cables to connect these. A typical
> computer VGA cable is only good for about 10' before the signal quality
> degrades. Stay away from expensive consumer cables and just get some good
> industrial grade ones. Let me know if you need a source for them. You
> may also want a ceiling mount bracket. Original equipment ones are
> expensive (200.00). I buy them on eBay for around 50.00 or less. Again,
> let me know if you need a source for one.
>
> moo

Dang, dude, you've purchased two DOZEN big screen TVs/projectors?

That's...amazing! Thanks for you advice.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

Martin Hotze > wrote:

> hm, why don't you ask in the proper newsgroup? there are the experts and
> they can answer all your questions.

He probably would have received, "Read the FAQ," or "Google is your
friend!"

This is probably the number one question in those groups these days.

--
Peter
About time for Larry D. to post the rec.aviation.piloting charter...

[Jay Honeck]

>>Any idea on cost? I hadn't even considered a projector, as they
>>always seem too dim.
>
> hm, why don't you ask in the proper newsgroup? there are the experts and
> they can answer all your questions.

Because I know everyone here, and their opinions carry real weight and
substance with me.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>>Best of all, it's a box the size of a large phone book, lightweight,
>>and I can carry it to meetings if I need it. Otherwise I keep it
>>mounted in the frame I built on the ceiling.
>
> Jay, if you go this route, make sure you lock it down, even though
> it is mounted to the ceiling, and 'out of reach'.

We've got two things going for us in this regard.

1. This is Iowa, and there's very little crime.

2. The meeting room is visible from the front desk, so it would be hard to
walk out without someone seeing.

In 3.5 years we've had just two things stolen:

1. A metal propeller (that was poorly mounted out front with easily cut
safety wire -- my mistake) with a big, red & black spinner on it that looked
just like, well, a big boob. This combination provoked much conversation
around the inn (and, maybe, around town), and apparently proved irresistible
to the college boys. I'm sure it's hanging in a frat house somewhere in
town.

2. Two Hawkeye Flags. These were, in retrospect, really dumb things to
hang up while we were playing our cross-state rivals, the Cyclones. Kinda
like waving a flag in front of a bull. A drunk bull. My bad.

When you consider the many thousands of dollars of aviation artwork and
memorabilia we've got around the hotel -- much of it irreplaceable, and not
particularly secure -- that's a darned good record, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> They get a lot bigger than that.
>
> http://www.i4u.com/article1082.html
> http://www.i4u.com/article2217.html
>
> However, the prices get a lot bigger also!

Dang! You ain't a-kidding.

I could buy FIVE "Mighty Grape" fuel trucks -- or one TV. Hmmm....

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Also, please =please= don't stretch a 4x3 image to fit the entire screen.
> Everyone looks fat and squishy, and it just looks funny. Display it with
> vertical bars on the sides, in its natural 4x3 format, and save the wide
> screen display for real wide screen material. :)

Agree 100%.

It seems that EVERYONE is putting TVs in, now, everywhere. My bank has 'em,
my favorite Mexican restaurant has 'em. I don't understand why everyone
wants to watch TV all the time, although it DOES keep the noise level down
when everyone is just staring up at the wall with their mouths hanging open,
rather than actually conversing.

Most of these places are stretching the picture to fit the big new screens,
and it looks SO dumb.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Both plasma and LCD have their own advantages. The plasma may be a
> tad brighter but they are making great strides with LCDs including
> very wide viewing angles. Plasma displays do age, but unless you are
> like us and it sets on the weather channel for 12 to 14 hours a day
> they should last a very long time. OTOH LCD displays may lose
> brilliance, but you only have to replace a little bulb.

Say again? Dim LCD displays can be repaired by replacing a BULB?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Flyingmonk]

Or you could put a matrix of nine cheap ones on the wall and program
them to show as one TV Jay. You get a BIG TV at a cheaper price, but
you'll have the grid effect from the borders of the TVs.

The Monk

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > They get a lot bigger than that.
> >
> > http://www.i4u.com/article1082.html
> > http://www.i4u.com/article2217.html
> >
> > However, the prices get a lot bigger also!
>
> Dang! You ain't a-kidding.
>
> I could buy FIVE "Mighty Grape" fuel trucks -- or one TV. Hmmm....
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I am quite fond of the Philips 37" LCD HDTV that I recently purchased
> at Costco for $2000... I have really loved watching the Olympics in HD
> on it!

Sounds good -- although I've been spoiled with the 60 inch screen on our
Panasonic rear-projection TV over the years. Size matters, although (of
course) it doesn't approach the clarity of the LCD or plasma displays.

When we bought it in '02, plasma was $20K, and I don't think LCD was on the
market yet, so it was the logical choice at the time. I think I paid less
than $2K for it, and my kids LOVE to play X-Box and Playstation games on it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> It would also be cool to have "movie nights" at the inn, showing
>> classic aviation movies. 'Top Gun' on a 60 inch plasma TV would be a
>> great draw!
>
> Don't forget "Island in the Sky" and "The High and the Mighty"

Hee hee! Funny you should bring that up, as I just got this clip from "The
High and the Mighty" yesterday. I find it amazing that this came from a
supposedly serious movie, because it's slapstick funny:

http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-2-25_TheHighTheMighty.wmv

I think what makes it so funny is that they weren't TRYING to be funny.
Talk about "Cockpit Resource Management"!

If you're interested, you may view gigabytes of our other aviation videos
here:

http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Um, okay. What's a "digital light processor"? And who makes these
>>>projectors?
>>
>>It is a MEMS device [...]
>
>
> Gotta love it when someone explains a TLA with another TLA. Very helpful.

Given that it is so easy to Google either DLP or MEMS, it shouldn't
matter. And I used a FLA, not a TLA.



>>[...]
>>You'll pay $5000 for a decent one and yes they are relatively dim as
>>compared to the flat panel TVs, either plasma or LCD.
>
>
> $5000 should get a very nice and relatively bright DLP projector. Depending
> on one's definition of "decent", the price point for that standard starts a
> bit lower.

We use probably 50 where I work in our conference rooms and, trust me,
the cheap ones just don't cut it unless you are in a cave to view them.

Jay's windowless room is close to a cave so he may be OK. Most of our
conference rooms have lots of windows, but even with blinds the cheap
projectors weren't very viewable. The ones we have now are quite nice,
but I believe that are all in the $5000 range, maybe a little less or
maybe a little more.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[...]
>>3. Use a special screen made for projectors. This is by far the best
>>option, but also by far the most costly. A decent screen will start at
>>close to a grand.
>
>
> Again, I suppose it depends on your definition of "decent", but there are
> plenty of usable screens out there for a few hundred bucks. No need to
> spend a grand just to get a quality picture.

View them side by side and then you'll see my definition of decent.
There is simply no comparison. If you want to see fine detail in
scenery, instruments, etc., you won't be happy on a white painted wall.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>They get a lot bigger than that.
>>
>>http://www.i4u.com/article1082.html
>>http://www.i4u.com/article2217.html
>>
>>However, the prices get a lot bigger also!
>
>
> Dang! You ain't a-kidding.
>
> I could buy FIVE "Mighty Grape" fuel trucks -- or one TV. Hmmm....
>
> :-)

I wasn't suggesting you SHOULD buy one, just that you COULD. :-)

Matt

[john smith]

Go to www.pcmag.com
Scroll to the bottom of the page to FIND BY SUBJECT
Click on tht TV link
Read as desired.

[Flyingmonk]

Let me ask you a question Jay. Is the phrase "Yellow belly" a
derogatory term derived from when the US were fighting the Japanese?

The Monk

Jay Honeck wrote:
> >> It would also be cool to have "movie nights" at the inn, showing
> >> classic aviation movies. 'Top Gun' on a 60 inch plasma TV would be a
> >> great draw!
> >
> > Don't forget "Island in the Sky" and "The High and the Mighty"
>
> Hee hee! Funny you should bring that up, as I just got this clip from "The
> High and the Mighty" yesterday. I find it amazing that this came from a
> supposedly serious movie, because it's slapstick funny:
>
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-2-25_TheHighTheMighty.wmv
>
> I think what makes it so funny is that they weren't TRYING to be funny.
> Talk about "Cockpit Resource Management"!
>
> If you're interested, you may view gigabytes of our other aviation videos
> here:
>
> http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>[...]
>>>3. Use a special screen made for projectors. This is by far the best
>>>option, but also by far the most costly. A decent screen will start at
>>>close to a grand.
>>
>>
>> Again, I suppose it depends on your definition of "decent", but there are
>> plenty of usable screens out there for a few hundred bucks. No need to
>> spend a grand just to get a quality picture.
>
> View them side by side and then you'll see my definition of decent. There
> is simply no comparison. If you want to see fine detail in scenery,
> instruments, etc., you won't be happy on a white painted wall.

Yes, you will. But a light shade of gray is best.

In the old days of sub 1000 ANSI lumen projectors, screens with various
coatings that increased gain while sacrificing viewing angle were popular.
Also, special highly reflective paints were used to increase gain but
contrast suffered. It's simply no longer an issue. A painted surface is
just fine.

moo

[rod]

Jay,

I assume you are talking HDTV. If so, this is a pretty good unbiased
source of information.

Rod

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/store/ces-2005.php

[Happy Dog]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:abiMf.824209$xm3.471164@attbi_s21...
>> Be sure to use good quality video cables to connect these. A typical
>> computer VGA cable is only good for about 10' before the signal quality
>> degrades. Stay away from expensive consumer cables and just get some
>> good industrial grade ones. Let me know if you need a source for them.
>> You may also want a ceiling mount bracket. Original equipment ones are
>> expensive (200.00). I buy them on eBay for around 50.00 or less. Again,
>> let me know if you need a source for one.
>>
>> moo
>
> Dang, dude, you've purchased two DOZEN big screen TVs/projectors?

Of those models. Another dozen much brighter ones. And I still have most
of them. That technology (circa 2001) was the point where big screen
projectors had shrunk to toaster size and weight and brightness of > than 3K
lumens was acheived with a single long life lamp. With these cheap used
ones appearing, I haven't bought any new ones in years. And 60" plasmas
will be under 5K in a year or so. But I'd recommend the projector for your
application. You'll be very pleased with the results.

The guy at www.plasmanext.com is Dalen, not Darren, as I previously said.

m

[Grumman-581]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:1niMf.824222$xm3.59085@attbi_s21...
> Dang! You ain't a-kidding.
>
> I could buy FIVE "Mighty Grape" fuel trucks -- or one TV. Hmmm....

Here's an interesting projector for ya'...
http://www.projector.com/pgs/1914/Projectors/Barco/Barco_XLM_H25_HDTV_DLP_Projector.html

28,000 lumens, 2048x1080 resolution, 400 lbs

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Given that it is so easy to Google either DLP or MEMS, it shouldn't
> matter.

So why bother answering Jay's "what's a 'digital light processor'" question
at all? Google would have given him WAY more information on that than any
of us have.

> [...]
> We use probably 50 where I work in our conference rooms and, trust me, the
> cheap ones just don't cut it unless you are in a cave to view them.

You haven't earned my trust.

Furthermore, I have seen DLP projectors NOT "in a cave", which cost only
around $3000, and which do the job just fine. Your blanket statement is
patently false. Frankly, I don't really care to argue about the price
point, but if you insist on continuing the "you can't spend less than $5000
and get a decent projector", I don't feel I have a choice. That statement
is simply wrong.

If you want to define "decent", and you manage to come up with a definition
that supports your statement, by all means do so. But as long as you
continue to use an ambiguous term like "decent", and yet insist that a
"decent" projector can't be had for less than $5000 (or even within some
small percentage of that price), you are making incorrect and misleading
statements.

So, do you have any idea of what it is you actually mean by "decent"? That
is, some quantifiable number that describes one or more specific performance
parameters of a DLP projector? If so, then post that (or those) parameters,
and we'll see whether or not there are any projectors less than $5000 that
meet that (or those) criteria.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> View them side by side and then you'll see my definition of decent. There
> is simply no comparison. If you want to see fine detail in scenery,
> instruments, etc., you won't be happy on a white painted wall.

I'm not talking about a white painted wall. I'm talking about a nice,
budget-priced screen. In any case, if the best you can come up with for a
definition of "decent" is "the difference between a $1000 screen and a $300
screen", then you haven't proven anything. You've simply chosen to define
"decent" in a way that tautologically "proves" your point.

Pete

[Grumman-581]

"Kobra" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

You need to fix the clock on your PC (or perhaps your news server's
clock)... It's a couple of days fast (i.e. it says the 28th and it's only
the 26th right now)...

[Peter Duniho]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> Not sure about the DLP projectors, but the normal DLP units are rather
> directional in their viewing angle...

Sounds like you're thinking of rear-projection systems. Viewing angle for a
front-projection system (which I think is what most people are talking about
here) is more dependent on the screen than the projector (which is actually
the issue for rear-projection too, except you don't get to pick your screen
for one of those :) ).

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> And that leads to the question, what about burn-in on a plasma screen TV?
>
> I suspect that watching a lot of 4x3 source in its native aspect ratio
> would be a problem for a plasma TV, no?

It can be, but usually the plasma will use a tested neutral gray for the
side bars, to try to minimize that problem. As far as I have read, it's not
any worse an issue than the usual burn-in problems with plasmas (and yes,
plasmas are not nearly as bad about burn-in as they used to be...but it
still happens).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:utiMf.581199$084.236677@attbi_s22...
> Say again? Dim LCD displays can be repaired by replacing a BULB?

Yes. The reason an LCD dims is that the bulb output (usually some kind of
cold cathode or fluourescent) gets reduced over time. A new bulb corrects
the problem.

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Given that it is so easy to Google either DLP or MEMS, it shouldn't
>>matter.
>
>
> So why bother answering Jay's "what's a 'digital light processor'" question
> at all? Google would have given him WAY more information on that than any
> of us have.

To heighten his curiousity and give him even more incentive to look up
the acronyms. So why bother commenting on my reponse and using an
acronym in your useless comment?


>>[...]
>>We use probably 50 where I work in our conference rooms and, trust me, the
>>cheap ones just don't cut it unless you are in a cave to view them.
>
>
> You haven't earned my trust.

And for that I'm grateful. I only care if people I respect trust me.


> Furthermore, I have seen DLP projectors NOT "in a cave", which cost only
> around $3000, and which do the job just fine. Your blanket statement is
> patently false. Frankly, I don't really care to argue about the price
> point, but if you insist on continuing the "you can't spend less than $5000
> and get a decent projector", I don't feel I have a choice. That statement
> is simply wrong.

I'm sure Jay is smart enough to compare a few options for himself. If
he's happy with a cheap projector, that is fine with me. I'm just
encouraging him to look at a range of options before jumping at a cheap
solution that he'll be disappointed in later. My impression, though
I've yet to meet him personally, is that he likes to do things right
with his Inn and buying a cheap projector and shining it on a painted
wall simply isn't a quality solution no matter how much you claim it to be.


> If you want to define "decent", and you manage to come up with a definition
> that supports your statement, by all means do so. But as long as you
> continue to use an ambiguous term like "decent", and yet insist that a
> "decent" projector can't be had for less than $5000 (or even within some
> small percentage of that price), you are making incorrect and misleading
> statements.

I'm sorry my standards are much higher than yours.


> So, do you have any idea of what it is you actually mean by "decent"? That
> is, some quantifiable number that describes one or more specific performance
> parameters of a DLP projector? If so, then post that (or those) parameters,
> and we'll see whether or not there are any projectors less than $5000 that
> meet that (or those) criteria.

Unfortunately, there is no set of specifications that completely
characterize how the human eye perceives an image. Camera companies and
others have tried for decades to develop them, but they still fall
short. Certainly brightness and contrast ratio are important, but keep
in mind that most of these specs are provided by the manufacturer and
there is huge variance among them. I'd only trust numbers that were
generated by a competent lab not affiliated with a given manufacturer.

The best way to know what you like is to look at as many options as you
have the patience for and compare them in situations as close as
possible to how you plan to use the device. For me "decent" is
something I'd be willing to buy for myself, and of the projectors I've
seen, I've seen few less than $5K that I'd buy for myself. I will be
buying one in another 3-4 months so I've been looking at them a fair bit
of late.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>View them side by side and then you'll see my definition of decent. There
>>is simply no comparison. If you want to see fine detail in scenery,
>>instruments, etc., you won't be happy on a white painted wall.
>
>
> I'm not talking about a white painted wall. I'm talking about a nice,
> budget-priced screen. In any case, if the best you can come up with for a
> definition of "decent" is "the difference between a $1000 screen and a $300
> screen", then you haven't proven anything. You've simply chosen to define
> "decent" in a way that tautologically "proves" your point.

I didn't even try to define it. I suggested how you could know it when
you see it. If you are happy with a cheap projector on a cheap screen,
then what is your problem with me not being happy with it? My standards
are simply higher than yours. Not a problem for me, and I'm not sure
why it bothers you so much.


Matt

[Peter R.]

Peter Duniho > wrote:

> It can be, but usually the plasma will use a tested neutral gray for the
> side bars, to try to minimize that problem. As far as I have read, it's not
> any worse an issue than the usual burn-in problems with plasmas (and yes,
> plasmas are not nearly as bad about burn-in as they used to be...but it
> still happens).

Thanks, Pete. I will be looking to purchase later this year and started
the research process.

--
Peter

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> To heighten his curiousity and give him even more incentive to look up the
> acronyms.

lol...so you were being annoying on purpose? Well, at least you admit it.

> So why bother commenting on my reponse and using an acronym in your
> useless comment?

To illustrate a point. Duh. I guess you wouldn't know anything about that,
though. Probably over your head.

>> You haven't earned my trust.
>
> And for that I'm grateful.

Really? Being "grateful" means you care.

> I only care if people I respect trust me.

Well, it's nice that you respect me. But you still haven't earned my trust.

> I'm sure Jay is smart enough to compare a few options for himself.

One hopes so, yes.

> If he's happy with a cheap projector, that is fine with me. I'm just
> encouraging him to look at a range of options before jumping at a cheap
> solution that he'll be disappointed in later.

No, you are not "just" doing that. You are making claims that are
unjustified and false.

> My impression, though I've yet to meet him personally, is that he likes to
> do things right with his Inn and buying a cheap projector and shining it
> on a painted wall simply isn't a quality solution no matter how much you
> claim it to be.

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I have not once argued in
favor of a painted wall (though, done right a painted wall is exactly like a
quality screen), nor have I argued in favor of a "cheap projector".

Your need to invent statements and attribute them to me is a very clear
indication of the weakness of your own statements. How about you stick to
the facts, then we'll see just how much sense you make.

> I'm sorry my standards are much higher than yours.

Um...huh? You have no idea whether your standards are higher than mine, nor
is it plausible that you'd actually be sorry if mine were in fact lower.

> Unfortunately, there is no set of specifications that completely
> characterize how the human eye perceives an image.

So what? There ARE specifications that differentiate one projector from
another, and which do a VERY good job of predicting performance.

Your statement is just a cop-out. Not surprising, given your lack of a
point, but a cop-out nonetheless.

> [...] For me "decent" is something I'd be willing to buy for myself, and
> of the projectors I've seen, I've seen few less than $5K that I'd buy for
> myself. I will be buying one in another 3-4 months so I've been looking
> at them a fair bit of late.

I'm guessing you'll wire the whole thing up with Monster Cable products too.
Have fun.

Pete

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> I'm considering installing a big-screen plasma (or LCD) TV in our
> meeting room at the inn, for use during presentations, etc.

After almost a year of shopping and comparing, I got a 50" Panasonic
plasma because it had the sharpest, highest contrast picture of any I
saw. When Consumer Reports top-rated it, that sealed the deal. Hi Def
is awesome.

CR reported that burn-in is no longer a serious problem with plasmas,
given reasonable care. At the rate display technology is advancing, I
don't expect to keep it more than 5 years, anyway.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:
> Peter Duniho > wrote:
>
>
>>It can be, but usually the plasma will use a tested neutral gray for the
>>side bars, to try to minimize that problem. As far as I have read, it's not
>>any worse an issue than the usual burn-in problems with plasmas (and yes,
>>plasmas are not nearly as bad about burn-in as they used to be...but it
>>still happens).
>
>
> Thanks, Pete. I will be looking to purchase later this year and started
> the research process.

Do a lot of research. You won't believe how much misinformation is out
there. For example go to any TV store or a Costco. I noticed that all
the TV's looked equally good when they were all showing the same movie.
Couldn't figure out why anybody would pay an extra $1500-2000 for the
HDTV vs the EDTV. Then I learned that movies on DVD are not HD, they
are ED. I just assumed that DVD's were HD. After further research I
found out the you can not tell the difference between an HDTV and an
EDTV when you are watching an HD signal on a 42 inch plasma, the HDTV
only comes into its own at about 50 inches. I was also told by a
salesman at Best Buy that an HD picture will not even display on an
EDTV. Wrong again. I ended up buying an EDTV from Costco and also
getting the HD package from Directv. Watching the NFL games and the
Olympics in HD was great. Watching Hogans Hero's in HD is also great.
There are no doubt a lot of sites to learn about HD, CNET.com was one
that I liked best.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > I would go with a projector, also, but would use a DLP (digital light
> > processor) driven projector.
> >
> > You want at least 2000 contrast, and 2500 lumens, I would think.
>
> Um, okay. What's a "digital light processor"? And who makes these
> projectors?
>
> Any idea on cost? I hadn't even considered a projector, as they
> always seem too dim.

For presentation use the flat-panel TVs I've seen are too small; the
slides are developed with the idea of showing them on a projector.
Also the developer (yeah, including me) always ends up using smaller
fonts than they really should on at least a few of the slides, where
things weren't fitting otherwise.

How bright "bright enough" is depends on how well the room can be
darkened, remember.

A number of companies make projectors using the "DLP" technology;
they're often labeled on the projector. They tend to be brighter than
other technologies in the price-range, from what I've seen. (It's a
really clever idea, a chip with a bunch of really tiny mirrors that it
can tilt.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Morgans]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> Jay's windowless room is close to a cave so he may be OK. Most of our
> conference rooms have lots of windows, but even with blinds the cheap
> projectors weren't very viewable. The ones we have now are quite nice,
> but I believe that are all in the $5000 range, maybe a little less or
> maybe a little more.

If you are going to convince me, or someone else, to buy or not buy some
type of thing, you need to use specifics.

What are the contrast and lumens numbers on these "quite nice" units? Are
they DLP's, singe or three chip, or are they LED or what?

Any other comparisons are meaningless, without such specifications.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>>I'm considering installing a big-screen plasma (or LCD) TV in our
>>meeting room at the inn, for use during presentations, etc.
>
>
> After almost a year of shopping and comparing, I got a 50" Panasonic
> plasma because it had the sharpest, highest contrast picture of any I
> saw. When Consumer Reports top-rated it, that sealed the deal. Hi Def
> is awesome.
>
> CR reported that burn-in is no longer a serious problem with plasmas,
> given reasonable care. At the rate display technology is advancing, I
> don't expect to keep it more than 5 years, anyway.

I'll take it when you are done with it to save you having to cart it off
to the landfill! :-)

I'm still using a 20 year old CRT as one on of my TVs.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>
>>Jay's windowless room is close to a cave so he may be OK. Most of our
>>conference rooms have lots of windows, but even with blinds the cheap
>>projectors weren't very viewable. The ones we have now are quite nice,
>>but I believe that are all in the $5000 range, maybe a little less or
>>maybe a little more.
>
>
> If you are going to convince me, or someone else, to buy or not buy some
> type of thing, you need to use specifics.

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm offering Jay some food for thought
in response to his OP.


> What are the contrast and lumens numbers on these "quite nice" units? Are
> they DLP's, singe or three chip, or are they LED or what?

The numbers are only a very small part of the equation and vary some
much from maker to maker as to be largely meaningless. Also, few
manufacturers report contrast using the ANSI standard which is much more
realistic than the so-called on/off ratio. Unless you plan to view only
all white or all black images, this is a pretty useless spec. The ANSI
spec requires the projector to show both black and white simultaneously
as can be the case with real images. Many projectors don't switch well
from all black to all white and thus can do really well in on/off tests
and miserably against the ANSI test.

> Any other comparisons are meaningless, without such specifications.

And they are just as meaningless with the specifications as the
specifications are largely meaningless. However, feel free to buy based
on the manufacturers published specs if you like. It won't hurt my
feelings.

Here are some fairly good projectors if you look at the HD high-res ones
at the top of the list. Note that the specs vary widely, yet the
overall ratings aren't all that different in many cases.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/home-theater-projectors.htm

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

>> CR reported that burn-in is no longer a serious problem with plasmas,
>> given reasonable care. At the rate display technology is advancing,
>> I don't expect to keep it more than 5 years, anyway.
>
> I'll take it when you are done with it to save you having to cart it
> off to the landfill! :-)

Nice try.

I'll probably sell it to the same guy who's getting my 36" Toshiba CRT
TV.

> I'm still using a 20 year old CRT as one on of my TVs.

After watching the NFL and the Olympics on plasma HD, I'd hate to go
back to SD.

HD can spoil you quickly. Some people say the improvement is like going
from B&W to color TV. I wouldn't go that far, but I will say it's a
huge improvement, and the nice thing is that you don't need satellite or
cable to get it from the networks in most places.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:

> After watching the NFL and the Olympics on plasma HD, I'd hate to go
> back to SD.
>
> HD can spoil you quickly. Some people say the improvement is like going
> from B&W to color TV. I wouldn't go that far, but I will say it's a
> huge improvement, and the nice thing is that you don't need satellite or
> cable to get it from the networks in most places.

That's for sure. I watched the SB at a friend's house and they had just
bought a new Sony rear projection HDTV with 1080i. I think it is 52" in
size, but I'm not 100% sure on that. What a difference compared to the
old CRT set they had on the other side of the room.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I'm considering installing a big-screen plasma (or LCD) TV in our
> meeting room at the inn, for use during presentations, etc.

Here's one screen review that is fairly thorough and not based on the
marketing specs provided by most manufacturers.

http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/ProjectorScreenReview_01.html


Matt

[Jose]

> HD can spoil you quickly. Some people say the improvement is like going
> from B&W to color TV.

Looking at HD (1080), for the first time I can say as a filmmaker that a
TV transfer captures what I shot.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

>> After watching the NFL and the Olympics on plasma HD, I'd hate to go
>> back to SD.
>>
>> HD can spoil you quickly. Some people say the improvement is like
>> going from B&W to color TV. I wouldn't go that far, but I will say
>> it's a huge improvement, and the nice thing is that you don't need
>> satellite or cable to get it from the networks in most places.
>
> That's for sure. I watched the SB at a friend's house and they had
> just bought a new Sony rear projection HDTV with 1080i. I think it is
> 52" in size, but I'm not 100% sure on that. What a difference
> compared to the old CRT set they had on the other side of the room.

The SB was on ABC, so it was 720p. There's not a *lot* of apparent
difference, but to me the 1080i that CBS, NBC and PBS broadcast looks
superior.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Newps]

Dan Luke wrote:


>
>
> The SB was on ABC, so it was 720p. There's not a *lot* of apparent
> difference, but to me the 1080i that CBS, NBC and PBS broadcast looks
> superior.

Really? Watching the NFL HD games on Directv this year I liked the Fox
broadcasts better. The ESPN games on Sunday nights were better than the
CBS version also.

[Don Tuite]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:59:57 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>
>Looking at HD (1080), for the first time I can say as a filmmaker that a
>TV transfer captures what I shot.

I haven't seen 'em or kept up with this stuff. Is it as big a leap as
the Rank flying-spot telecines of the early '80s over optical film
chains? What about latitude/dynamic range of transparency versus
video?

Don

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Matt Whiting > writes:

> I'm still using a 20 year old CRT as one on of my TVs.

Huh; mine turns 20 this year, some to think of it. And it's the first
and only TV I've ever owned in my life (I'm 51 now).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Grumman-581]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> Huh; mine turns 20 this year, some to think of it. And it's the first
> and only TV I've ever owned in my life (I'm 51 now).

I have a Toshiba IDTV that I bought about 15 years ago... Still has a great
picture... IDTV was the predecessor to HD and I was able to compare it
side-by-side with the other high end TVs at the audio-video store... It does
not use an interlaced picture and as such, the difference is very
noticeable... Not as good as HDTV, but good enough until it finally quits
working or the HDTV units come down in price a bit... I'm tired of paying
the prices to be on the bleeding edge of technology...

If I want to watch an HDTV broadcast, I watch it on my computer... I have an
ATI HDTV tuner card in it...

It sucks to move though since it weighs around 200 lbs and the weight is not
at a point that makes it easy for one person to easily carry... It's more
like pick it up and have someone else move the entertainment center
underneath it...

[Jose]

> I haven't seen 'em or kept up with this stuff. Is it as big a leap as
> the Rank flying-spot telecines of the early '80s over optical film
> chains? What about latitude/dynamic range of transparency versus
> video?

I haven't compared the rank with a standard film chain (at least not an
"equivalent" one), but it is enough of a leap that I would never convert
film to (plain) video, but I would have no problem seeing my film on
1080HD. I mean wow.

Of course it's not the same as film by a long shot, but it's soooo much
further away from video it's not even funny!

Film still has much better dynamic range and better latitude. But for a
video transfer, 1080 is not bad at all.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Flyingmonk" wrote)
> Let me ask you a question Jay. Is the phrase "Yellow belly" a derogatory
> term derived from when the US were fighting the Japanese?


<http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-2-25_TheHighTheMighty.wmv>

No. It means yellow - scarred, yellow streak running down your back -
chicken. Coward. For whatever reason, sometimes the word "liver" or
"liver'd" was thrown into the mix, too. Maybe that was a chicken who was
also a coward? Also, "belly" is an added emphasis to "yellow" - as used in
the clip by The Duke.

Google will have "yellow/coward's" derivation. Civil War, maybe
Revolutionary War ...now (I'm) going to have to look it up. You got me
curious. <g>

(Oh, oh. Here I go...)
But if it were, so what? "Derogatory????"

The Japs earned every bit of scorn(?) that's been heaped on them. They were
as bad, or worse, than the Nazi's.


Montblack ...belly.
http://www.island.net/~blues/huddy.html
Leadbelly
[328k, 17seconds, .WAV]

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> I didn't even try to define it.

Sure you did. From your post: "...then you'll see my DEFINITION of decent"
(emphasis added, since you seem to be having trouble seeing it).

> I suggested how you could know it when you see it.

Hmmm...so we're going with the ever-popular definition also used for
pornography. Glad to see the subject treated so rigorously.

> If you are happy with a cheap projector on a cheap screen, then what is
> your problem with me not being happy with it?

We're not talking about what makes you happy. We're talking about your
incredibly vague and non-useful definition of "decent", and your willingness
to use such a vague definition as a basis for your claim of the minimum
price point for a DLP projector.

> My standards are simply higher than yours.

Again, how do you know? Answer: you don't. You have no idea what my
standards are, or how they relate to yours.

> Not a problem for me, and I'm not sure why it bothers you so much.

What bothers me are your proclamations of certainty, without anything close
to a justification for making them.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

>> Dang, dude, you've purchased two DOZEN big screen TVs/projectors?
>
> Of those models. Another dozen much brighter ones. And I still have most
> of them.

Okay, Moo, I give up. What are you DOING with so many giganto-humongous
TVs???
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Small LCD items have the crystal with reflected ambient light providing
> visibility; on ones that will be viewed in the dark, there has to be
> back-lighting.
>
> The projection LCD displays have a backlight bulb, which shines through
> the
> semi-transparent crystal, giving the light to be reflected off of the
> screen.

Thanks, Jim. I thought LCDs were lit from within each little
chip/pixel/whatever. I didn't realize there was a single light bulb
providing the light.

Appreciate the primer -- thanks again.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Let me ask you a question Jay. Is the phrase "Yellow belly" a
> derogatory term derived from when the US were fighting the Japanese?

Like Montblack sez, "Yellow" meant "coward" in America long before the
Japanese bombed us.

Besides, I don't think anyone ever accused the Japs of being cowards.
Stupid, conniving *******s, perhaps -- but no one is going to argue that
they weren't stupid, conniving BRAVE *******s.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm guessing you'll wire the whole thing up with Monster Cable products
> too. Have fun.

I was truly enjoying that exchange, until the very end. Then you went and
piqued my curiosity yet again.

What's wrong with "Monster Cable" products??
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> Do a lot of research. You won't believe how much misinformation is out
> there. For example go to any TV store or a Costco. I noticed that all
> the TV's looked equally good when they were all showing the same movie.
> Couldn't figure out why anybody would pay an extra $1500-2000 for the HDTV
> vs the EDTV. Then I learned that movies on DVD are not HD, they are ED.

Not only that (which is a good thing to keep in mind), while it's true that
"HD" describes a range of resolutions, and while the best resolution in the
"HD" specification has 1080 lines (interlaced or progressive scan), finding
HD content at that resolution is incredibly difficult right now. The
primary argument for getting a display with that resolution *today* would be
that one expects to use it as a high-resolution computer display as well.
For straight video content, something capable of 720 lines (eg, a 1024x768
resolution PC-compatible display) is going to handle the bulk of the HD
content available, and even that likely to be available in the next year or
so.

Some other thoughts:

For what it's worth, "ED" (aka "enhanced definition") isn't really all that
different from normal NTSC resolution. "ED" is really just a wide-screen
version of the standard-definition NTSC we've been using all these years
(which has the same vertical resolution as ED). The biggest improvement of
ED comes from switching from the interlaced format to a progressive scan
format. ED is 853x480 pixels, while SD is 720x480.

I haven't actually even seen an "ED" DVD. All of my widescreen DVDs are
actually anamorphic widescreen, which means they simply squash the 16:9
picture down to a 4:3 ratio in a standard NTSC stream, and then rely on the
DVD player to expand the width back out to the correct widescreen aspect
ratio.

Also, beware of in-store comparisons. For a variety of reasons, what you
see in the store isn't necessarily what you're going to get. The default
brightness and color settings are optimized for being consumer-friendly, not
for showing the true capabilities of the display, and the ambient lighting
and environment in many stores can cause misleading impressions as well.

> I just assumed that DVD's were HD. After further research I found out the
> you can not tell the difference between an HDTV and an EDTV when you are
> watching an HD signal on a 42 inch plasma,

IMHO, this depends on the source content. As an example, I can easily tell
the difference between 480 lines of resolution and 768 lines of resolution
on a 15" computer display. At 42", the difference would be even easier to
discern.

Video content is different of course, and if you're starting with
low-resolution video content anyway, then the resolution of the display
isn't going to affect things as much. Just beware of blanket statements
that imply there is NO apparent difference. There is...depending on what
you're looking at. At 42", the display is easily large enough for
significant differences in resolution to be apparent, given the right
content.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> It sucks to move though since it weighs around 200 lbs and the weight is
> not
> at a point that makes it easy for one person to easily carry... It's more
> like pick it up and have someone else move the entertainment center
> underneath it...

We have an old (1987) JVC color TV that fits that description. I pick it
up, and everything else gets moved/wired/unplugged/whatever while I stand
their straining, trying not to pop a blood vessel. Danged thing must weigh
200 pounds and surely it's made out of lead -- but it still looks as good
today as it did the day we bought it.

Too bad it's only 27 inches, cuz otherwise it's still great.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:9orMf.791632$x96.334720@attbi_s72...
> I was truly enjoying that exchange, until the very end. Then you went
> and piqued my curiosity yet again.
>
> What's wrong with "Monster Cable" products??

The electrons don't care. You can get perceptually indistinguishable
results from cables that cost a fraction what Monster Cable's stuff costs.

There's nothing wrong with them, but people who pay the premium for them are
fooling themselves. It was perhaps an unfair jab at Matt's insistence that
you have to spend at least $5000 for a "decent" projector, since at least
with projectors you generally WILL get more benefit for your money, even if
less-expensive ones are quite good. But I couldn't resist.

By the way, thank you for spelling "piqued" correctly. Such a rare
occurrence, here on Usenet and elsewhere. :)

Pete

[Jose]

> finding HD content at that resolution
> is incredibly difficult right now. [...]
> 720 lines is going to handle the bulk of the HD content available,
> and even that likely to be available in the next year or so.

I drop $5000 on a TV, I want it for more than "the next year or so".

Most DVDs are standard definition. Home video (the newest stuff) is
high definition - 1080i. Go figure. They're starting to play with HD
DVDs, but they haven't agreed on a format yet. But if you're putting
five grand into a screen, having two HD DVD machines shouldn't be an
issue. The content will come.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> By the way, thank you for spelling "piqued" correctly. Such a rare
> occurrence, here on Usenet and elsewhere. :)

He probably piqued at a dictionary before he posted.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

>> By the way, thank you for spelling "piqued" correctly. Such a rare
>> occurrence, here on Usenet and elsewhere. :)
>
> He probably piqued at a dictionary before he posted.

Ha ! Not.

Until recently, I even had my chell-specker disabled, as I considered it to
be a dishonorable literary crutch. By God, I didn't waste all that time
getting an English degree only to have some damned computer CHECK my
spelling!

Well, then my near-vision started to deteriorate, and I've been having some
problems proof-reading. "o"s now look an awful lot like "a"s to these
47-year-old, non-reading-glass-assisted eyes, and I had to turn the stupid
thing back on, just to catch my typos.

But, despite my advancing years, I picked "piqued" on purpose, sans
assistance, thank you very much...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
> I drop $5000 on a TV, I want it for more than "the next year or so".

Then don't buy a plasma. :p

Seriously, I agree with you and others. I buy a TV, I expect it to hang
around for awhile. But given the tenor of "you'll want to upgrade to the
latest tech in a few years anyway", the relative absence of 1080 content for
the next year or so is a significant issue.

> Most DVDs are standard definition. Home video (the newest stuff) is high
> definition - 1080i.

What home video stuff does 1080i? Last I looked, consumer-grade HD cameras
were only starting to appear, and they only did 720. As an added problem,
the HD data stream from the camera I played with (a JVC) didn't follow any
standard, and there weren't drivers available for capturing the video onto
the PC.

From your post and a previous one, I assume you have a 1080 camera that
captures to a PC just fine. Fill us in! I'm still not convinced that
equipment is available for the budget-conscious consumer, but I'm willing to
listen. :)

> Go figure. They're starting to play with HD DVDs, but they haven't agreed
> on a format yet. But if you're putting five grand into a screen, having
> two HD DVD machines shouldn't be an issue. The content will come.

I'm still trying to get past the fact that the people who produce the bulk
of the video content are doing their damndest to take away every last "fair
use" right that the consumer has under copyright law. On the one hand, I'm
sorely tempted to simply boycott them, and refuse to purchase any
DRM-protected content. On the other hand, not everyone in my family would
likely be as enthusiastic about abandoning mainstream content as I am.

I did find one recent comment interesting: someone got up at a consumer
electronics panel and pointed out that the entire consumer entertainment
content industry (ie "Hollywood") is a fraction of the total revenue of the
consumer electronics and computer industries, and that those industries
ought to stop falling over themselves trying to implement the draconian
copy-protection schemes that Hollywood proposes, and instead just publish
their own DRM-free content. They could distribute the content free, and
still wind up making money as it helps sell the electronics. If anything,
free content would just fuel demand for the playback devices even more.

Sort of like the razor-blade business model in reverse.

Make sense to me. Now to get the consumer electronics people on board. :)

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Is it mechanically tilting the miroors?

Yes, it is (though, I'm not sure how one would physically move something
except "mechanically"...that is, via a mechanism). They are physically
moved, and in doing so adjust how much light is reflected toward the
projection screen.

> If not, how? Interesting. Wonder how long that'll last...

If you mean how long before the component fatigues, that's a good question,
but so far they've been extremely reliable. If you believe TI (who makes
the DLP chips), the materials used are resistant to fatigue, and have only
slight susceptibility to other failure modes. One paper proposes at least a
25 year lifespan before failure. You can read lots more here:
http://www.dlp.com/dlp_technology/dlp_technology_white_papers.asp

Pete

[Roger]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:59:27 GMT, "Grumman-581"
> wrote:

>"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
>
><snip>
>
>You need to fix the clock on your PC (or perhaps your news server's
>clock)... It's a couple of days fast (i.e. it says the 28th and it's only
>the 26th right now)...

Hmmm... Here I've seen it take two to three days for posts to show up
even when the clock was correct, but I've never seen any show up
before I posted them. OTOH I often see answers in threads before the
original question shows up. These things rarely fall in logical order
by date posted.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>

[Flyingmonk]

OK, so just testing, what's the winning number for this Tuesday's
Mega-Million drawing? <keeping fingers crossed> :^)

The Monk

Roger wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:59:27 GMT, "Grumman-581"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Kobra" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >You need to fix the clock on your PC (or perhaps your news server's
> >clock)... It's a couple of days fast (i.e. it says the 28th and it's only
> >the 26th right now)...
>
> Hmmm... Here I've seen it take two to three days for posts to show up
> even when the clock was correct, but I've never seen any show up
> before I posted them. OTOH I often see answers in threads before the
> original question shows up. These things rarely fall in logical order
> by date posted.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> >

[Dan Luke]

"Newps" wrote:
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> The SB was on ABC, so it was 720p. There's not a *lot* of apparent
>> difference, but to me the 1080i that CBS, NBC and PBS broadcast looks
>> superior.
>
> Really? Watching the NFL HD games on Directv this year I liked the
> Fox broadcasts better. The ESPN games on Sunday nights were better
> than the CBS version also.

I'm talking about OTA, mostly, which is better than the heavily
compressed satellite feed.

Still, apples-to-apples via DirecTV, I like CBS the best and ESPN the
least; no contest. The 1080i looks sharper and "deeper" to me.

What kind of set do you have?

[Grumman-581]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:wfrMf.799439$_o.711156@attbi_s71...
> $94K to watch TV. That's, that's, well...stupid.

Yeah, but if you left it on the same image for long enough, you would have
to worry about *wall* burn instead of phosphor burn... <snicker>

[[email protected]]

Hello & Welcome,

We sell Flat Panel LCD TV's direct from the manufacturer at affordable
prices. Read our FREE LCD TV guide and feel free to browse our Flat
Panel TV's. We have the
#1 LCD TV guarantee online or at the retail store. You're are welcome
to
visit us at www.pmbbay.com or

http://www.pmbbay.com

Our direct email address is if you need further
assistance.

Good Luck!
Peter
PMBBAY

[Grumman-581]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> Hmmm... Here I've seen it take two to three days for posts to show up
> even when the clock was correct, but I've never seen any show up
> before I posted them. OTOH I often see answers in threads before the
> original question shows up. These things rarely fall in logical order
> by date posted.

So, I guess the question is: Did you post the message that I quoted, or is
it something that you will post in the future? Somehow, I suspect the
former and as such, *someone* has the date set wrong on their computer...
Interestingly, the date on this post of your's is correct...

[Grumman-581]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
<snip>

Ooops... Thought you were the poster with the date challenged machine...

[Grumman-581]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
<snip>

And opportunistic spammer... Do you own an aircraft? Do you fly? If not,
get the **** off our newsgroup... We're more than capable of trashing it
ourselves without your help...

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>>After watching the NFL and the Olympics on plasma HD, I'd hate to go
>>>back to SD.
>>>
>>>HD can spoil you quickly. Some people say the improvement is like
>>>going from B&W to color TV. I wouldn't go that far, but I will say
>>>it's a huge improvement, and the nice thing is that you don't need
>>>satellite or cable to get it from the networks in most places.
>>
>>That's for sure. I watched the SB at a friend's house and they had
>>just bought a new Sony rear projection HDTV with 1080i. I think it is
>>52" in size, but I'm not 100% sure on that. What a difference
>>compared to the old CRT set they had on the other side of the room.
>
>
> The SB was on ABC, so it was 720p. There's not a *lot* of apparent
> difference, but to me the 1080i that CBS, NBC and PBS broadcast looks
> superior.
>

It was a lot better than conventional TV. It'll be really nice when
1080p is fully deployed.


Matt

[Happy Dog]

"Peter Duniho" >
> Not only that (which is a good thing to keep in mind), while it's true
> that "HD" describes a range of resolutions, and while the best resolution
> in the "HD" specification has 1080 lines (interlaced or progressive scan),
> finding HD content at that resolution is incredibly difficult right now.
> The primary argument for getting a display with that resolution *today*
> would be that one expects to use it as a high-resolution computer display
> as well. For straight video content, something capable of 720 lines (eg, a
> 1024x768 resolution PC-compatible display) is going to handle the bulk of
> the HD content available, and even that likely to be available in the next
> year or so.

HD signals (720i) are 720 x 1280. Without scan converting the image to fit
the width of an XGA screen or projector, the horizontal edges will be
slightly truncated. Purists object to scan conversion (with some
justification) because it can introduce artifacts into the image or
otherwise have some innaccuracies.
>

m

[Matt Whiting]

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Matt Whiting > writes:
>
>
>>I'm still using a 20 year old CRT as one on of my TVs.
>
>
> Huh; mine turns 20 this year, some to think of it. And it's the first
> and only TV I've ever owned in my life (I'm 51 now).

I have a 32" that I bought ~4 years ago, but I still have one of the two
that my wife and I bought during our first couple of years of marriage
so I know it is at least 20 years old. The first one we bought 23 years
ago died a few years back. Amazing how long those old CRT sets lasted.
Hopefully, the new flat panels will be similar.

I'll have a large screen HDTV before year-end, but I'm still
contemplating the options. I like the idea of a projection system, but
they still don't have the brightness and clarity of some of the
projection and flat panel TVs. Decisions, decisions...


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I'm guessing you'll wire the whole thing up with Monster Cable products
>>too. Have fun.
>
>
> I was truly enjoying that exchange, until the very end. Then you went and
> piqued my curiosity yet again.
>
> What's wrong with "Monster Cable" products??

There is nothing wrong with them other than often being unnecessary and
always being unnecessarily expensive. Unless you have a very long
analog signal run, you really don't need to spend the bucks for these
cables. And if you have digital, then it matters even less ... much less.


Matt

[Happy Dog]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:9orMf.791632$x96.334720@attbi_s72...
>> I'm guessing you'll wire the whole thing up with Monster Cable products
>> too. Have fun.
>
> I was truly enjoying that exchange, until the very end. Then you went
> and piqued my curiosity yet again.
>
> What's wrong with "Monster Cable" products??

Insanely overpriced cables for which the manufacturers make unsupportable
claims and spout crank physics to back them. They qualify for the JREF
Million Dollar Challenge. Anyone who can tell the difference between them
and cables of similar gauge by listening to the results in a controlled
setting wins. No takers so far. And I'd guess ditto for video products.

moo

[Grumman-581]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Amazing how long those old CRT sets lasted.

Yeah, I still have an old 15" TV (mechanical tuner type) that I bought
around 1983 and it probably still has as good of a picture as it did when
new... Then again, since it doesn't get used hardly at all, that might be
why it lasts so long... I used to leave it in my hangar so that I could have
some background noise for when I was working on my plane...

[Happy Dog]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> om...
>> I drop $5000 on a TV, I want it for more than "the next year or so".
>
> Then don't buy a plasma. :p
>
> Seriously, I agree with you and others. I buy a TV, I expect it to hang
> around for awhile. But given the tenor of "you'll want to upgrade to the
> latest tech in a few years anyway", the relative absence of 1080 content
> for the next year or so is a significant issue.

What display device has a native resolution of 1080 vertical?

m

[Matt Whiting]

Flyingmonk wrote:

> DDB wrote:
>
>>(It's a
>>really clever idea, a chip with a bunch of really tiny mirrors that it
>>can tilt.)
>
>
> Is it mechanically tilting the miroors? If not, how? Interesting.
> Wonder how long that'll last...

It has been a while since I studied up on DLP, but I believe
electrostatics is the actuation mechanism. However, the mirrors
themselves are essential mechanical.

Matt

[Happy Dog]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:utiMf.581199$084.236677@attbi_s22...
>> Say again? Dim LCD displays can be repaired by replacing a BULB?
>
> Yes. The reason an LCD dims is that the bulb output (usually some kind of
> cold cathode or fluourescent) gets reduced over time. A new bulb corrects
> the problem.

I believe they're talking about LCD technology projection systems. They use
a metal halide discharge lamp.

m

[Grumman-581]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Unless you have a very long analog signal run, you
> really don't need to spend the bucks for these cables.

Exactly what do you define as "very long"? 20, 40, 60 ft?

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Unless you have a very long analog signal run, you
>>really don't need to spend the bucks for these cables.
>
>
> Exactly what do you define as "very long"? 20, 40, 60 ft?

I'd say 20' or more would be long for TV signals which, if memory
serves, are something on the order of 0.5V P-P. However, my memory on
TV signals is 20 years old so don't hang your hat on that.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>
>>I'm not trying to convince you. I'm offering Jay some food for thought
>>in response to his OP.
>
>
> Sounds like convincing, to me. If you say consider A over B, thin it is
> convincing. If you don't like that word, substitute another.
>
>
>>The numbers are only a very small part of the equation and vary some
>>much from maker to maker as to be largely meaningless.
>
>
> BULL BULL BULL !!!
>
> They are a DAMN good place to start comparing, at the VERY minimum.

Believe what you want. I've been an EE for 20 years and I know that
more specifications are set by marketing departments than by the RD&E
department.



>>And they are just as meaningless with the specifications as the
>>specifications are largely meaningless.
>
>
> More Bull****
>
> Don't insult everyone here's intelligence, with saying specs are
> meaningless. This is a fairly scientific bunch, and we ALL know better.

Anyone here with intelligence about electronics won't be insulted as
they already know this. Others may be insulted, but I can't help that.

Since you are so intelligent in this area, please tell us why most set
makers report full on/off contrast ratios rather than ANSI contrast ratios?

Matt

[Happy Dog]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:0drMf.791621$x96.672155@attbi_s72...
>>> Dang, dude, you've purchased two DOZEN big screen TVs/projectors?
>>
>> Of those models. Another dozen much brighter ones. And I still have
>> most of them.
>
> Okay, Moo, I give up. What are you DOING with so many giganto-humongous
> TVs???

www.libertygrand.com

400 events last year. Almost all of them use video in some way.

Buy a low time (<1200 hour) used industrial projector (like I said, the
Sonys are excellent) for about 1200.00 and paint the wall a light shade of
gray. For your application, you'll be good for at least a few years.
Likely longer. Or at least until your competition buys one of those Barco
units for a hundred grand...

moo

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I'm guessing you'll wire the whole thing up with Monster Cable products
>>too. Have fun.
>
>
> I was truly enjoying that exchange, until the very end. Then you went and
> piqued my curiosity yet again.
>
> What's wrong with "Monster Cable" products??

Do you know somebody who will only put a certain brand of oil in their
car? Or drive 10 miles out of their way to buy a certain brand of gas?
All because they think they are getting better quality? Those people
buy Monster Cable.

[Kobra]

> You need to fix the clock on your PC (or perhaps your news server's
> clock)... It's a couple of days fast (i.e. it says the 28th and it's only
> the 26th right now)...

Sorry, I was posting that as I was flying and didn't take in account the
effect of my ground speed on the space-time continuum. It was a heck of a
tailwind.

No...actually I had advanced my clock doing office work that had to posted
on the 28th. Sorry about that.

Kobra

[Dan Luke]

"Happy Dog" wrote:

>>
>> What's wrong with "Monster Cable" products??
>
> Insanely overpriced cables for which the manufacturers make
> unsupportable claims and spout crank physics to back them.

Not that they aren't good cables--they are. But one can find good
cables for much less.

http://www.monoprice.com/products/department.asp?c_id=102

Nevertheless, one can also buy cheap cables that will degrade A/V
performance, so beware. I usually go to one of the A/V groups for
advice when I need such gear.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Peter Duniho]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> HD signals (720i) are 720 x 1280. Without scan converting the image to
> fit the width of an XGA screen or projector, the horizontal edges will be
> slightly truncated.

Yes, you're right...I was only speaking of vertical resolution (which is
what most people use to differentiate different HD formats). 768 lines is
sufficient for a 720 line signal. Most people, rather than getting a 4:3
PC-type display, will opt for the widescreen version which would be 1280x720
(as you said) or larger.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> I believe they're talking about LCD technology projection systems. They
> use a metal halide discharge lamp.

Doesn't matter what they are talking about. The statement is true for any
LCD display device, projection or flat panel.

Frankly, I don't think many people worry about projectors getting dim,
because they get REALLY dim all at once (ie, the bulb burns out). The bulb
doesn't usually decrease in brightness dramatically much during its lifetime
(which can be short, especially for the very bright projectors).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hello & Welcome,

Well, I know where I *won't* be buying any sort of anything, flat panel TV
or otherwise.

Stupid spammers.

[Morgans]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> I'm not trying to convince you. I'm offering Jay some food for thought
> in response to his OP.

Sounds like convincing, to me. If you say consider A over B, thin it is
convincing. If you don't like that word, substitute another.

>
> The numbers are only a very small part of the equation and vary some
> much from maker to maker as to be largely meaningless.

BULL BULL BULL !!!

They are a DAMN good place to start comparing, at the VERY minimum.

> And they are just as meaningless with the specifications as the
> specifications are largely meaningless.

More Bull****

Don't insult everyone here's intelligence, with saying specs are
meaningless. This is a fairly scientific bunch, and we ALL know better.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

> 28,000 lumens, 2048x1080 resolution, 400 lbs
>
> JesusMary&Joseph...
>
> $94K to watch TV. That's, that's, well...stupid.

Better watch out about buying that one, Jay. After all, specs are
meaningless.

Oh, was I typing out loud, again? Ooops. sorry. <;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote
>
> What home video stuff does 1080i? Last I looked, consumer-grade HD
cameras
> were only starting to appear, and they only did 720. As an added problem,
> the HD data stream from the camera I played with (a JVC) didn't follow any
> standard, and there weren't drivers available for capturing the video onto
> the PC.

They are out there, but they don't come cheap. My son does this kind of
stuff, although I don't know what he knows! <g>

I know that to capture and render a video is a big time processing job. He
runs a high end computer for hours, rendering one DVD, at 100%. He is
currently working on designing a liquid emersed PC, so that he can over
clock it, at two or three times normal speeds.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> We have an old (1987) JVC color TV that fits that description. I pick it
> up, and everything else gets moved/wired/unplugged/whatever while I stand
> their straining, trying not to pop a blood vessel. Danged thing must
weigh
> 200 pounds and surely it's made out of lead -- but it still looks as good
> today as it did the day we bought it.
>
> Too bad it's only 27 inches, cuz otherwise it's still great.

I had a 1980 Zenith, until recently (a year or two) and am watching a 1988
Zenith, as I type this. (watching and recording Roger Long's Titanic
special)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote

> D*mn, spamming technology is getting more and more sophisticated. They
> now even know what we are chatting about and spamming in real time.

At least they are spamming on topic, for the off topic (and marked) post.

Strangely, I did not mind it at all.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> At least they are spamming on topic, for the off topic (and marked) post.
>
> Strangely, I did not mind it at all.

Did you LOOK at that site? They sell "premium hair wigs" -- and flat-panel
TVs?

I'm *sure* I'll be sending them my Visa card number someday soon...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> Okay, Moo, I give up. What are you DOING with so many giganto-humongous
>> TVs???
>
> www.libertygrand.com
>
> 400 events last year. Almost all of them use video in some way.

Wow -- that looks like a palace! What was it originally built as/for?
What an awesome venue!

> Buy a low time (<1200 hour) used industrial projector (like I said, the
> Sonys are excellent) for about 1200.00 and paint the wall a light shade of
> gray. For your application, you'll be good for at least a few years.
> Likely longer. Or at least until your competition buys one of those Barco
> units for a hundred grand...

I think you recommended a model, earlier in the thread -- but can you repeat
it/them for me?

I also think you said you used Ebay? True?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> Since you are so intelligent in this area, please tell us why most set
> makers report full on/off contrast ratios rather than ANSI contrast
ratios?

If "most" makers (in comparable sets) are using one standard, they still are
telling the same story.

I'm done with this, with you, before I say something that I might regret. I
don't have a dog in this fight, and I can see that your mind is made up, no
matter what other people say. It must be nice to be completely sure of
one's self.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Did you LOOK at that site? They sell "premium hair wigs" -- and
flat-panel
> TVs?
>
> I'm *sure* I'll be sending them my Visa card number someday soon...

<chuckle> No, I didn't, but I can see that YOU did! Interesting pair of
products, at any rate!
--
Jim in NC

[jwilljr]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Happy Dog" wrote:
>
>
>>>What's wrong with "Monster Cable" products??
>>
>>Insanely overpriced cables for which the manufacturers make
>>unsupportable claims and spout crank physics to back them.
>
>
> Not that they aren't good cables--they are. But one can find good
> cables for much less.
>
> http://www.monoprice.com/products/department.asp?c_id=102
>
> Nevertheless, one can also buy cheap cables that will degrade A/V
> performance, so beware. I usually go to one of the A/V groups for
> advice when I need such gear.
>

I second MonoPrice Cables... excellent quality cables for a decent
price... I recently bought a 35 foot DVI to HDMI cable for about $45.00
shipped. If I bought that Monster overpriced crap it would have cost me
over $150.00 or more.

One nice thing about digital is that it either works or it doesn't...
there is no in between.

Anybody who buys Monster cable is one of three things:

1. Ignorant

2. Gullible

3. Has more money than brains. (this can also go with number one or two)

The only thing Monster is good at is marketing.

Below is a thread on Monster:

http://tinyurl.com/j9c2m

Below is a good thread on MonoPrice Cables:

http://tinyurl.com/r2gf4

Jerry

[jwilljr]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>> I'm guessing you'll wire the whole thing up with Monster Cable
>>> products too. Have fun.
>>
>>
>>
>> I was truly enjoying that exchange, until the very end. Then you
>> went and piqued my curiosity yet again.
>>
>> What's wrong with "Monster Cable" products??
>
>
> Do you know somebody who will only put a certain brand of oil in their
> car? Or drive 10 miles out of their way to buy a certain brand of gas?
> All because they think they are getting better quality? Those people
> buy Monster Cable.

Yep... ignorant, gullible people... the same people who buy Bose products.

Jerry

[Flyingmonk]

Hey...

The Monk

jwilljr wrote:
> Newps wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> >>> I'm guessing you'll wire the whole thing up with Monster Cable
> >>> products too. Have fun.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I was truly enjoying that exchange, until the very end. Then you
> >> went and piqued my curiosity yet again.
> >>
> >> What's wrong with "Monster Cable" products??
> >
> >
> > Do you know somebody who will only put a certain brand of oil in their
> > car? Or drive 10 miles out of their way to buy a certain brand of gas?
> > All because they think they are getting better quality? Those people
> > buy Monster Cable.
>
> Yep... ignorant, gullible people... the same people who buy Bose products.
>
> Jerry

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>
>>Since you are so intelligent in this area, please tell us why most set
>>makers report full on/off contrast ratios rather than ANSI contrast
>
> ratios?
>
> If "most" makers (in comparable sets) are using one standard, they still are
> telling the same story.

But it is a story that isn't relevant. Care to explain why?


> I'm done with this, with you, before I say something that I might regret. I
> don't have a dog in this fight, and I can see that your mind is made up, no
> matter what other people say. It must be nice to be completely sure of
> one's self.

Yes, when one doesn't have the facts, it is better to run and hide.

Matt

[Dan Luke]

"jwilljr" <> wrote:

>> Do you know somebody who will only put a certain brand of oil in
>> their car? Or drive 10 miles out of their way to buy a certain brand
>> of gas? All because they think they are getting better quality?
>> Those people buy Monster Cable.
>
> Yep... ignorant, gullible people... the same people who buy Bose
> products.


********.

[Happy Dog]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What display device has a native resolution of 1080 vertical?
>
> I don't understand the question. Are you asking for an example of a
> display device that has exactly 1080 pixels vertically? Or for an example
> of a display that is sufficient for displaying 1080 vertical pixels? Or
> something else?

At least 1080 vertical pixels.

m

[Happy Dog]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:E2vMf.799706$_o.382692@attbi_s71...
>>> Okay, Moo, I give up. What are you DOING with so many giganto-humongous
>>> TVs???
>>
>> www.libertygrand.com
>>
>> 400 events last year. Almost all of them use video in some way.
>
> Wow -- that looks like a palace! What was it originally built as/for?

It was a government pavillion built in 1929 on the Canadian National
Exhibition grounds. When we got it it was an empty concrete shell.
> What an awesome venue!
>
>> Buy a low time (<1200 hour) used industrial projector (like I said, the
>> Sonys are excellent) for about 1200.00 and paint the wall a light shade
>> of gray. For your application, you'll be good for at least a few years.
>> Likely longer. Or at least until your competition buys one of those
>> Barco units for a hundred grand...
>
> I think you recommended a model, earlier in the thread -- but can you
> repeat it/them for me?

Sony VPL-PX31 with the standard lens. Not the "101" lens. Look for them on
eBay. Someone must have pulled a few dozen from boardroom installations.

m

[JohnH]

> Yep... ignorant, gullible people... the same people who buy Bose
> products.

Yep. And the way they target old, naive people is disgusting.

[jwilljr]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "jwilljr" <> wrote:
>
>
>>>Do you know somebody who will only put a certain brand of oil in
>>>their car? Or drive 10 miles out of their way to buy a certain brand
>>>of gas? All because they think they are getting better quality?
>>>Those people buy Monster Cable.
>>
>>Yep... ignorant, gullible people... the same people who buy Bose
>>products.
>
>
>
> ********.
>
>

Here i some reading for you:

http://tinyurl.com/ktchz

http://tinyurl.com/z2cbl

http://tinyurl.com/mntou

http://tinyurl.com/rcwvq

http://tinyurl.com/ohq9k

http://tinyurl.com/rn6jl

http://tinyurl.com/ohn7p

The only thing Bose is good for is the WAF.

Jerry

[Dan Luke]

"jwilljr" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dan Luke wrote:
>> "jwilljr" <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Do you know somebody who will only put a certain brand of oil in
>>>>their car? Or drive 10 miles out of their way to buy a certain
>>>>brand of gas? All because they think they are getting better
>>>>quality? Those people buy Monster Cable.
>>>
>>>Yep... ignorant, gullible people... the same people who buy Bose
>>>products.
>>
>>
>>
>> ********.
>
> Here i some reading for you:

I've used ANR aviation headsets for seven years. In that time I've
bought top-of-the-line Telex and Lightspeed sets. They are good, but
each has its drawbacks. Finally, after a demo at OSH, I bought a Bose
X. It is so superior in every respect to the others that I never want
to use anything else.

But that's just ol' ignorant, gullible me.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Peter Duniho]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> At least 1080 vertical pixels.

I am using a laptop that has 1200 vertical pixels. The monitor on my
desktop PC has an LCD monitor that also has 1200 vertical pixels. They are
both 4:3, so they only have 1600 pixels horizontally.

However, there are now several wide-screen LCD monitors that have 1080
vertical pixels (1920x1080), and even more if you are willing to pay (the
Dell 3007WFP 30" monitor, for example, has a native resolution of
2560x1600). As an example, Westinghouse has both a 37" and a 42" LCD
display at 1920x1080.

If you're looking for an integrated tuner, Sharp has a couple of models at
45", with 1920x1080. But here, rather than me going on and on, check this
out:

http://www.google.com/search?q=lcd+tv+1920x1080

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> [...] Most projector lamps get 1000 - 2000 hours of useful life now.

Hmmm...didn't realize lamp life had gotten that long. Used to be, by the
time the bulb dimmed enough to be an issue, you were going to have to
replace it anyway.

Still, the point is: for all displays except plasma, fixing a dim display is
easy.

Pete

[John T]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> What home video stuff does 1080i? Last I looked, consumer-grade HD
> cameras were only starting to appear, and they only did 720. As an
> added problem, the HD data stream from the camera I played with (a
> JVC) didn't follow any standard, and there weren't drivers available
> for capturing the video onto the PC.

Your information is a bit out of date. :)

Sony has a couple models (although only one would be considered "consumer"
and even then more "pro-sumer"): HDR-HC1 and HDR-FX1. The HC1 can be found
for about $1500 or so while the FX1 goes for more than twice that. Both
units do 1080i and output on standard FireWire connections.

There are other HD camcorders, but the pickings are still slim.

As for high-def DVDs, I'm wondering if it's even worth waiting for. For the
price of a player for either HD-DVD or BluRay format, you can buy a quality
HTPC (Home Theater PC) that can play HD content from the hard drive,
satellite, OTA (over the air), or files stored on CD/DVD. It also comes
with a disc drive that can be upgraded to whatever format eventually wins
(or the format of your choice if they both survive).

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Peter Duniho]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> Your information is a bit out of date. :)

Maybe. It's been two years since I bought a video camera, and probably
about a year since I've done any serious shopping for one. However, you
haven't written anything to suggest to me that my information is all that
out of date.

> Sony has a couple models (although only one would be considered "consumer"
> and even then more "pro-sumer"): HDR-HC1 and HDR-FX1. The HC1 can be
> found for about $1500 or so while the FX1 goes for more than twice that.
> Both units do 1080i and output on standard FireWire connections.

Jose wrote "home video". Even $1500 is just barely "home video" for most
people, and of course twice that isn't at all.

> There are other HD camcorders, but the pickings are still slim.

In addition, to me saying "home video" implies that the entire market has
shifted that way. One 1080i camera just barely breaking into the consumer
price range hardly constitutes a market shift.

Perhaps I misunderstood Jose's intent. But it doesn't seem to me that the
home video market has generally gotten to any high-definition, never mind
1080i. When I look at the cameras available in the store for the purpose of
home video, they are all still standard-def, generally either MiniDV or
DVD-R. This includes the "newest stuff".

Yes, high-def is available, but as near as I can tell most people are still
recording their home video in the same standard-def format they've been
doing for years (albeit with slightly better quality, due to the advent of
digital formats).

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "jwilljr" <> wrote:
>
>
>>>Do you know somebody who will only put a certain brand of oil in
>>>their car? Or drive 10 miles out of their way to buy a certain brand
>>>of gas? All because they think they are getting better quality?
>>>Those people buy Monster Cable.
>>
>>Yep... ignorant, gullible people... the same people who buy Bose
>>products.
>
>
>
> ********.

Yes, I agree. There are many areas where you do get what you pay for
and Bose equipment is one of them. Even Monster cables are really good
cables, they just aren't needed in many cases.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

jwilljr wrote:

> Dan Luke wrote:
>
>> "jwilljr" <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Do you know somebody who will only put a certain brand of oil in
>>>> their car? Or drive 10 miles out of their way to buy a certain
>>>> brand of gas? All because they think they are getting better
>>>> quality? Those people buy Monster Cable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep... ignorant, gullible people... the same people who buy Bose
>>> products.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ********.
>>
>
> Here i some reading for you:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ktchz
>
> http://tinyurl.com/z2cbl
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mntou
>
> http://tinyurl.com/rcwvq
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ohq9k
>
> http://tinyurl.com/rn6jl
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ohn7p
>
> The only thing Bose is good for is the WAF.
>
> Jerry

Yep, I'd definitely consider a discussion group as the ultimate source
of knowledge.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "jwilljr" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>>>"jwilljr" <> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Do you know somebody who will only put a certain brand of oil in
>>>>>their car? Or drive 10 miles out of their way to buy a certain
>>>>>brand of gas? All because they think they are getting better
>>>>>quality? Those people buy Monster Cable.
>>>>
>>>>Yep... ignorant, gullible people... the same people who buy Bose
>>>>products.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>********.
>>
>>Here i some reading for you:
>
>
> I've used ANR aviation headsets for seven years. In that time I've
> bought top-of-the-line Telex and Lightspeed sets. They are good, but
> each has its drawbacks. Finally, after a demo at OSH, I bought a Bose
> X. It is so superior in every respect to the others that I never want
> to use anything else.
>
> But that's just ol' ignorant, gullible me.

You must feel really bad, now, right? :-)

Matt

[Peter R.]

Dan Luke > wrote:

> I've used ANR aviation headsets for seven years. In that time I've
> bought top-of-the-line Telex and Lightspeed sets. They are good, but
> each has its drawbacks. Finally, after a demo at OSH, I bought a Bose
> X. It is so superior in every respect to the others that I never want
> to use anything else.
>
> But that's just ol' ignorant, gullible me.

I am with you on this one, Dan.

I, too, have flown with Lightspeeds, Telex, and DCs. My Bose Aviation X,
the only headset now use, has about 550 hours on them. ANR quality, mic
sound quality, and comfort are all excellent, headset construction is
solid, and they have been problem-free to date.

My personal experiences with all of these headsets trumps any newsgroup
post to the contrary.

--
Peter
Neither ignorant nor gullible, at least when discussing headsets.

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:

>
> My personal experiences with all of these headsets trumps any newsgroup
> post to the contrary.

Me too. I now have a set of the Bose. Head and shoulders above the
rest. I have tried all of the ones you mentioned except the Telex. The
DC are the scourge of the earth as far as I am concerned. The
Lightspeeds are good, just not as good as the Bose.

[jwilljr]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> jwilljr wrote:
>
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>>> "jwilljr" <> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Do you know somebody who will only put a certain brand of oil in
>>>>> their car? Or drive 10 miles out of their way to buy a certain
>>>>> brand of gas? All because they think they are getting better
>>>>> quality? Those people buy Monster Cable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep... ignorant, gullible people... the same people who buy Bose
>>>> products.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ********.
>>>
>>
>> Here i some reading for you:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ktchz
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/z2cbl
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/mntou
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/rcwvq
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ohq9k
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/rn6jl
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ohn7p
>>
>> The only thing Bose is good for is the WAF.
>>
>> Jerry
>
>
> Yep, I'd definitely consider a discussion group as the ultimate source
> of knowledge.
>
>
> Matt

Like this one? Sorry I am not going to spend a grand on headsets that
may be worth 300 at the most.

Jerry

[JohnH]

> and Bose equipment is one of them. Even Monster cables are really
> good cables, they just aren't needed in many cases.

Can you name an instance where a "Monster cable" IS needed?

[Peter R.]

Happy Dog > wrote:

> The guy at www.plasmanext.com is Dalen, not Darren, as I previously said.

Holy Mackerel! Did you see that Pioneer 51" on his home page towards the
bottom? US $41 million for it!

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> Do a lot of research. You won't believe how much misinformation is out
> there. For example go to any TV store or a Costco.

I found that out when I queried a salesman at a high end, boutique A/V shop
about the availability of the 1020p HD sources. He stumbled his way
through an answer that demonstrated he knew nothing.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> Peter R. wrote:
>
>>
>> My personal experiences with all of these headsets trumps any newsgroup
>> post to the contrary.
>
> Me too. I now have a set of the Bose. Head and shoulders above the
> rest. I have tried all of the ones you mentioned except the Telex. The
> DC are the scourge of the earth as far as I am concerned. The
> Lightspeeds are good, just not as good as the Bose.

We are our own /Aviation Consumer/. :)

--
Peter

[Matt Whiting]

jwilljr wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> jwilljr wrote:
>>
>>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>
>>>> "jwilljr" <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know somebody who will only put a certain brand of oil in
>>>>>> their car? Or drive 10 miles out of their way to buy a certain
>>>>>> brand of gas? All because they think they are getting better
>>>>>> quality? Those people buy Monster Cable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep... ignorant, gullible people... the same people who buy Bose
>>>>> products.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ********.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here i some reading for you:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/ktchz
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/z2cbl
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/mntou
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/rcwvq
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/ohq9k
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/rn6jl
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/ohn7p
>>>
>>> The only thing Bose is good for is the WAF.
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>
>>
>>
>> Yep, I'd definitely consider a discussion group as the ultimate source
>> of knowledge.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> Like this one? Sorry I am not going to spend a grand on headsets that
> may be worth 300 at the most.

That is your prerogative. That is one thing I like about capitalism.
Those of us who like quality can buy it and those who don't, don't have
to. I don't buy tools at Wally World, but many people do. I can't for
the life of me figure that out, but it seems to work for many folks.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

JohnH wrote:

>>and Bose equipment is one of them. Even Monster cables are really
>>good cables, they just aren't needed in many cases.
>
>
> Can you name an instance where a "Monster cable" IS needed?

As I said earlier, for longer runs low attenuation is more important and
Monster cables are fairly good in this regard, at least they were last
time I checked a few years ago.

The same is true with coax cable. You can use RG-59, RG-6 or RG-11, but
if you are running 400' and use RG-59 rather than -11, you'll likely be
an unhappy camper.


Matt

[Peter R.]

Dan Luke > wrote:

> After watching the NFL and the Olympics on plasma HD, I'd hate to go
> back to SD.
>
> HD can spoil you quickly. Some people say the improvement is like going
> from B&W to color TV. I wouldn't go that far, but I will say it's a
> huge improvement, and the nice thing is that you don't need satellite or
> cable to get it from the networks in most places.

Stop it. I am salivating all over my keyboard. :)

Olympics, football, NASCAR (my kids got me into this), and a few prime-time
dramas are just a few of the HD programs to which I look forward sometime
later this year.

--
Peter

[Dan Luke]

"Peter R."wrote:

> Dan Luke > wrote:
>
>> After watching the NFL and the Olympics on plasma HD, I'd hate to go
>> back to SD.
>>
>> HD can spoil you quickly. Some people say the improvement is like
>> going
>> from B&W to color TV. I wouldn't go that far, but I will say it's a
>> huge improvement, and the nice thing is that you don't need satellite
>> or
>> cable to get it from the networks in most places.
>
> Stop it. I am salivating all over my keyboard. :)
>
> Olympics, football, NASCAR (my kids got me into this), and a few
> prime-time
> dramas are just a few of the HD programs to which I look forward
> sometime
> later this year.

I swore I wouldn't, but I've been guilty of watching programs *just
because* the look so great in HD.

NASCAR is a perfect example of this. I used to find it about as
exciting as watching an IV drip, but it looks so terrific in hi def on a
big 16:9 screen that I'm starting to get hooked.

--
Dan

"The future has actually been here for a while, it's just not readily
available to everyone."
- some guy at MIT

[Jose]

> Jose wrote "home video". Even $1500 is just barely "home video" for most
> people, and of course twice that isn't at all.

Yeah, it was a bit of a stretch. But $1500 for high definition is
pretty awesome, considering the crummy stuff that was touted not ten
years ago for twice the price. I suppose I should have said "prosumer"
- the kind of gear that somebody would film a school play with and sell
you copies for fifteen dollars. That's a home movie of sorts, even if
you didn't shoot it yourself.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> The DC are the scourge of the earth as far as I am concerned.

Passive can't be beat. I have a pair of DC ANRs and forgot to turn them
on. I flew three hours before I noticed. Then when I turned the ANR
on, there was another big difference (so it's not that the ANR is so
poor I couldn't tell the difference)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> From your post and a previous one, I assume you have a 1080 camera that
> captures to a PC just fine. Fill us in! I'm still not convinced that
> equipment is available for the budget-conscious consumer, but I'm willing to
> listen. :)

Not for the budget conscious consumer, but for the "gotta have it"
person they are there. They are in the almost $2K range, perhaps better
called "prosumer". Just give it time, and not even too much time.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John T]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> Maybe. It's been two years since I bought a video camera, and
> probably about a year since I've done any serious shopping for one.
> However, you haven't written anything to suggest to me that my
> information is all that out of date.

Then your information is out of date. :)

To play the "Duniho Game", I could point out that you said:
<quote>
What home video stuff does 1080i? Last I looked, consumer-grade HD cameras
were only starting to appear, and they only did 720.
</quote>

I admit that $2000 is still stretching the bounds of "consumer-grade", but
not by much, and 720 is certainly not the limit.

No, one camera in this range does not indicate a market shift (not indicated
by simply saying "home video"), but if somebody were reading this thread and
interested in such a camera now, they may know of options not indicated by
your statement. :)


> But it doesn't seem to me
> that the home video market has generally gotten to any
> high-definition, never mind 1080i.

I didn't say it had, but there are cameras with 1080i resolution and editing
software (for ~$70-80) that will allow home video enthusiasts to capture,
edit and distribute HD content. It is most definitely available to the
"home video market".

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[JohnH]

>> Can you name an instance where a "Monster cable" IS needed?
>
> As I said earlier, for longer runs low attenuation is more important
> and Monster cables are fairly good in this regard, at least they
> were last time I checked a few years ago.

It's just wire. There are many MUCH lower cost alternatives.

> The same is true with coax cable. You can use RG-59, RG-6 or RG-11,
> but if you are running 400' and use RG-59 rather than -11, you'll
> likely be an unhappy camper.

Different issue altogether.

[Matt Whiting]

JohnH wrote:
>>>Can you name an instance where a "Monster cable" IS needed?
>>
>>As I said earlier, for longer runs low attenuation is more important
>> and Monster cables are fairly good in this regard, at least they
>>were last time I checked a few years ago.
>
>
> It's just wire. There are many MUCH lower cost alternatives.
>
>
>>The same is true with coax cable. You can use RG-59, RG-6 or RG-11,
>>but if you are running 400' and use RG-59 rather than -11, you'll
>>likely be an unhappy camper.
>
>
> Different issue altogether.

How so? Signal attenuation is signal attenuation. It doesn't matter if
the media is one wire, twisted pair, coax or optical fiber.


Matt

[Morgans]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Happy Dog > wrote:
>
> > The guy at www.plasmanext.com is Dalen, not Darren, as I previously
said.
>
> Holy Mackerel! Did you see that Pioneer 51" on his home page towards the
> bottom? US $41 million for it!
That's a BIG typo! <g>

I found it elsewhere, for $3419. Just a $40,996,581 mistake. No bigie!
--
Jim in NC

[JohnH]

> How so? Signal attenuation is signal attenuation. It doesn't matter
> if the media is one wire, twisted pair, coax or optical fiber.

The difference being "monster cable" is just regular wire in a fancy
package; but RF through the improper impedance or sized coax will certainly
cause a loss, regardless of manufacturer.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
> Yeah, it was a bit of a stretch. But $1500 for high definition is pretty
> awesome, considering the crummy stuff that was touted not ten years ago
> for twice the price.

No doubt. Too bad it's Sony. You know how some people won't touch
Microsoft software with a 10' pole? I'm like that about Sony products.

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> JohnH wrote:
>>>>Can you name an instance where a "Monster cable" IS needed?
>>>
>>>As I said earlier, for longer runs low attenuation is more important
>>> and Monster cables are fairly good in this regard, at least they
>>>were last time I checked a few years ago.
>>
>>
>> It's just wire. There are many MUCH lower cost alternatives.
>>
>>
>>>The same is true with coax cable. You can use RG-59, RG-6 or RG-11,
>>>but if you are running 400' and use RG-59 rather than -11, you'll
>>>likely be an unhappy camper.
>>
>>
>> Different issue altogether.
>
> How so? Signal attenuation is signal attenuation. It doesn't matter if
> the media is one wire, twisted pair, coax or optical fiber.

Composite video on RG58 is fine to well over 100'. 3 and 5 wire RGB formats
have a variety of issues that are unrelated to attenuation.

moo

[Grumman-581]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> Composite video on RG58 is fine to well over 100'.

Ahhh... ThinNet Ethernet... I remember it well... After working with the
issues of tapping the ThickNet (i.e. 10Base5) with the vampire taps, the
ThinNet stuff with the screw on BNC connectors was a dream... Always wished
that they had chosen the BNC connectors for A/V equipment instead of the RCA
plugs... At one time, I had my stereo system completely wired with RG-58
with BNC connectors and the BNC to RCA converters... Each cable was exactly
the size that was needed... A very clean looking installation...

[Happy Dog]

"Grumman-581" <grumman581

>> Composite video on RG58 is fine to well over 100'.
>
> Ahhh... ThinNet Ethernet... I remember it well... After working with the
> issues of tapping the ThickNet (i.e. 10Base5) with the vampire taps, the
> ThinNet stuff with the screw on BNC connectors was a dream... Always
> wished
> that they had chosen the BNC connectors for A/V equipment instead of the
> RCA
> plugs... At one time, I had my stereo system completely wired with RG-58
> with BNC connectors and the BNC to RCA converters... Each cable was
> exactly
> the size that was needed... A very clean looking installation...

Huh?

m

[Grumman-581]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> Huh?

I guess I'm just showing my age... You probably don't remember anything
before 100BaseT, right?

[Matt Whiting]

JohnH wrote:

>>How so? Signal attenuation is signal attenuation. It doesn't matter
>>if the media is one wire, twisted pair, coax or optical fiber.
>
>
> The difference being "monster cable" is just regular wire in a fancy
> package; but RF through the improper impedance or sized coax will certainly
> cause a loss, regardless of manufacturer.

I've never personally cut one open so you may be right, but I thought
I'd read that the gauge was a fair bit larger in the monster cables than
in many others. I agree that if the wire size is the same, then it
isn't likely to be better, but I'm not sure the wire size is really the
same.

Do you know of any references to where someone has dissected a monster
cable?

Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"jwilljr" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yep, I'd definitely consider a discussion group as the ultimate source of
>> knowledge.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
> Like this one? Sorry I am not going to spend a grand on headsets that may
> be worth 300 at the most.
>
> Jerry

Last person I heard say something like that wound up buying a Ford Pinto.

[JohnH]

> Last person I heard say something like that wound up buying a Ford
> Pinto.

And?

[Newps]

Jose wrote:
>> The DC are the scourge of the earth as far as I am concerned.
>
>
> Passive can't be beat.

Passive gets throttled every time I turn on my ANR.


I have a pair of DC ANRs and forgot to turn them
> on.

Never happened to me.

[Dan Luke]

"Jose" wrote:
>> The DC are the scourge of the earth as far as I am concerned.
>
> Passive can't be beat. I have a pair of DC ANRs and forgot to turn
> them on. I flew three hours before I noticed. Then when I turned the
> ANR on, there was another big difference (so it's not that the ANR is
> so poor I couldn't tell the difference)

Either your hearing or your ANR must be really bad.

[Dave Stadt]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jose" wrote:
>>> The DC are the scourge of the earth as far as I am concerned.
>>
>> Passive can't be beat. I have a pair of DC ANRs and forgot to turn them
>> on. I flew three hours before I noticed. Then when I turned the ANR on,
>> there was another big difference (so it's not that the ANR is so poor I
>> couldn't tell the difference)
>
> Either your hearing or your ANR must be really bad.

All of you that hate your DCs e-mail me and I will give you my address so
you can send me the dastardly things so I can dispose of them properly.
I'll even pay for shipping.

[Newps]

Dave Stadt wrote:

>
> All of you that hate your DCs e-mail me and I will give you my address so
> you can send me the dastardly things so I can dispose of them properly.
> I'll even pay for shipping.

Hell no, there's always some putz out there that will buy them from my
ebay auction.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>>
>> All of you that hate your DCs e-mail me and I will give you my address so
>> you can send me the dastardly things so I can dispose of them properly.
>> I'll even pay for shipping.
>
> Hell no, there's always some putz out there that will buy them from my
> ebay auction.

Some putz whose skull is shaped sorta like a figure-8. :~)

[Kobra]

> It would also be cool to have "movie nights" at the inn, showing
> classic aviation movies. 'Top Gun' on a 60 inch plasma TV would be a
> great draw!

Don't forget "Island in the Sky" and "The High and the Mighty"

Kobra

[Happy Dog]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Huh?
>
> I guess I'm just showing my age... You probably don't remember anything
> before 100BaseT, right?

I meant how does this relate to analogue video signals?

m


>
>

[Grumman-581]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> I meant how does this relate to analogue video signals?

Not much... Just reminiscing about running cables for networks back in the
"good ole days"... <grin> I've used the RG-58 with BNC connectors for audio
and video also... Probably a bit of overkill since most were just between
the various units and as such, a couple of feet at most, but they sure did
result in a professional looking installation...

[Don Tuite]

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 06:46:59 GMT, "Grumman-581"
> wrote:

>"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
>> I meant how does this relate to analogue video signals?
>
>Not much... Just reminiscing about running cables for networks back in the
>"good ole days"... <grin> I've used the RG-58 with BNC connectors for audio
>and video also... Probably a bit of overkill since most were just between
>the various units and as such, a couple of feet at most, but they sure did
>result in a professional looking installation...
>
OT for R.A.P., but this should entertain you:
http://www.intersil.com/data/fn/fn7325.pdf

Here's the operational description from that data sheet:

The EL4543 is designed to differentially drive composite
RGB video signals onto twisted pair lines, while
simultaneously encoding horizontal and vertical sync signals
as common mode output. The entire video signal plus sync
can therefore be transmitted on 3 twisted pairs of wire. When
utilizing CAT-5 cable, the 4th available twisted pair can be
used for transmission of audio, data or control information.
The distribution of composite video over standard CAT-5
cable enables enormous cost and labor savings compared
with traditional coaxial cable, when considering both the
relative low price and ease of pulling CAT-5 cable.

It goes with this part: http://www.intersil.com/data/fn/fn7305.pdf

It compensates for differences in prop delay down different pairs in
the CAT5 cable.

Don

[[email protected]]

Hello & Welcome,
You may view our Free
Guide to Flat Panel TV's as well as browse our direct from the
manufacturer models.
Go to
http://www.pmbbay.com
or www.pmbbay.com

Feel free to email us if you need assistance.
Good Luck!
PMBBAY