Wall Mounted Television c/d?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

At first I thought these were glam, cool, practical, space saving. Now however I have changed my mind. It's uncomfortable to look up at your t.v, your God. It should be pretty much eye level for watching lying down.

There are other pros and cons I guess, but what are they?

― Rumps (Rumps), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 12:56 (nineteen years ago)

Have you considered mounting it lower down on your wall?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 13:03 (nineteen years ago)

How about bunk beds?

I think they are a devil to dust when they are wall-mounted.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 13:10 (nineteen years ago)

I think having the telly mounted low down would look ridiculous.

I considered for a moment having one above the fireplace but even if it was right above the mantelpiece it would still be too high up.

And then there's the wires to consider. Some could be recessed into the wall and plastered over, but until they invent wireless Playstations, cable boxes, dvd recorders etc it would be too much hassle.

― Rumps (Rumps), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 13:29 (nineteen years ago)

fine then

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 13:32 (nineteen years ago)

mount another one on the ceiling to watch lying down

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 13:34 (nineteen years ago)

Possible wiring solution:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v417/albaalba/ilx/tv2.jpg

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 13:47 (nineteen years ago)

Classic for sport in pubs. Dud in houses (apart from very busy houses full of tall people).

― Onimo drank ALL the wine! (nu_onimo), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 13:53 (nineteen years ago)

A friend of mine has a massive wall mounted flat screen computer monitor instead of a TV because they only watch DVDs and not real programmes, although I guess it's possible to watch digital telly through that sort of system. (I bought The Bloke a gadget for £50 from Tchibo at Christmas, which plugs into your computer USB port and allows you to receive freeview channels on your computer)

― C J (C J), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:04 (nineteen years ago)

uh rumps regular tvs need to be wired too.

― temporary enrique (temporary enrique), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:07 (nineteen years ago)

Yes but regular TVs usually have TV stands/cabinets to hide all the wires behind. With a wall mounted TV you'd end up with lots of unsightly wires hanging down from the TV and a pile of silver boxes sitting underneath, probably in a TV cabinet.

― Onimo drank ALL the wine! (nu_onimo), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:10 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.hometheatermag.com/images/newsart/092506wiremold.1.jpg

Yeah, looks rly tacky wif all those cables dangling and those boxes on the floor or perhaps in a tv cabinet.

― The RealJTMod (Real JT Mod of Team Courage), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:16 (nineteen years ago)

I like how the flowers end up on the floor because otherwise they would obscure the lovely teevee. And how the depth of the "media center" from the wall completely obliviates any "space-saving" benefits of the flat panel anyway.

Wall mounting is for:

1. Sports bars.

2. Dickweeds who would rather blow their wad on a >42" flatscreen than just get a fucking projector and a clean sheet.

― TOMB07 (trm), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:20 (nineteen years ago)

With wall-mounted tellies, there's only a couple of wires, isn't there? A power cable and whatever futuristic bit of wire connects it to the separate tuner box (into which you can also presumably plug yr DVD/VCR/PVR etc). That's what the massive Panasonic in my office looks like, anyway.

TS: Sports bars vs Dickweeds.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:21 (nineteen years ago)

Fuck replacing a projector bulb.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:21 (nineteen years ago)

Exactly. If you're going to have that you may as well just plonk a (cheaper) telly on the cabinet.

xpost

― Onimo drank ALL the wine! (nu_onimo), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:22 (nineteen years ago)

Or stick the flowers up your arse, goofprick.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:23 (nineteen years ago)

i have an amazing knack for getting flats with terrible problems with damp, so nailing stuff to the wall isn't for me in any case.

― temporary enrique (temporary enrique), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:25 (nineteen years ago)

I hate that one commercial where the people are watching their football on the Philips Ambi-Light thingamabob and the dog steps on the remote, activating the amazing ambi-light technology, and suddenly their passive watching experience becomes MUCH MORE EXCITING, so exciting they can't even notice the little barking puppy at their feet. Fuck those people.

― TOMB07 (trm), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:27 (nineteen years ago)

wall mount flat screen = okay
wall mount flat screen w/ cords run in wall = nice
recessed wall mount flat screen w/ cords run in wall = very nice
projector w/ recessed drop down screen = very very nice
flush mount rear projection = like woah

― Brian Miller (Brian Miller), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:28 (nineteen years ago)

Ambi-light = stupidest technology evah. Most theaters try to minimize the light being reflected from surrounding objects.

― Brian Miller (Brian Miller), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:29 (nineteen years ago)

flushmount/wallmount televisions, exposed brick and visible copper pipes/ducting are the new shag carpet and pea green kitchen appliances

― TOMB07 (trm), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:30 (nineteen years ago)

Wouldn't flush-mounted rear projection involve the kind of scene depicted in my photo upthread?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:31 (nineteen years ago)

What about ceiling mounted television?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:32 (nineteen years ago)

does ambi-light make any sense from an uh 'optical' erm 'point of view'. how is that shit supposed to work? it even sounds quite distracting.

― temporary enrique (temporary enrique), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:32 (nineteen years ago)

Flush rear mount projection would involve something like shown upthread, but hopfully should also not look like a spur of the moment decision undertaken with a chisel and a dream.

Everyone who goes to great effort to wall mount a TV should hopefully be aware that they'll be replacing it within five years.

― Brian Miller (Brian Miller), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:33 (nineteen years ago)

Enrique, light around the back of a screen reduces eye-strain. Try it with your monitor.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:34 (nineteen years ago)

Why has that person got toilet rolls on top of the TV cabinet?

Massive Panasonic, Michael? How the other half live!

Look, brackets:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_/026-3945335-0330023?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=Humax&Go.x=8&Go.y=14

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:35 (nineteen years ago)

We call them parentheses in our place, PJM.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:38 (nineteen years ago)

My friend's got a rear-projection TV (not flush-mounted!) and I don't really like it very much. The viewing angles are awful. Sitting on the floor watching it is a disaster - the picture almost disappears. Even watching it straight on, the picture's nowhere near as good as my other friend's (admittedly much more expensive) plasma screen.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:39 (nineteen years ago)

Everyone who goes to great effort to wall mount a TV should hopefully be aware that they'll be replacing it within five years.

Yeah, the short lifespan of LCD and plasmas puts me off buying one, a bit. Are they getting better. I did notice that the pricier ones in John Lewis came with a 5 year manufacturers guarantee as standard.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:41 (nineteen years ago)

i think i will take alba's advice. this thread was good for something!

― temporary enrique (temporary enrique), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:43 (nineteen years ago)

LCD and plasma lifespans are both getting better, but that also means that the quality/size of what you'll be able to get in another five years will put whatever you get now to shame.

― Brian Miller (Brian Miller), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:44 (nineteen years ago)

the size thing is interesting me more and more. the brain kind of 'normalizes' the relative size of things, apparently -- scale of image is not that big a deal in terms of the viewing experience. or so i feel.

― temporary enrique (temporary enrique), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:47 (nineteen years ago)

Yes. Like, I was saying to someone at work that it's fun watching a bigger than 32" TV and he said why don't you just sit closer to it and I said that I'd tried that and it wasn't the same.

But maybe if I got a huge TV it would stop being any more fun to watch than a normal one, after a while.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:51 (nineteen years ago)

I think that TV-watchiing may be like life in general.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:51 (nineteen years ago)

The advantage to a very large screen is, to me, the ability to watch ultra widescreen (2.35:1) format movies and not have the vertical be ridiculously tiny. And not having to squint/really focus on the screen when viewing.

― Brian Miller (Brian Miller), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:56 (nineteen years ago)

It doesn't even take awhile for nrq's compensation effect to happen, at least for me. As long as I can read subtitles and see what's going on, all sizes of TV just kind of standardize themselves into the same size after about five minutes. Way way more important (for me) is audio quality. Putting a crappy 20-something-inch TV through a fantastic stereo still makes it all seem pretty luxe.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 15:04 (nineteen years ago)

lifespans of everything sucks nowadays. we have an LCD now because Ally's 5-year-old CRT blew out, just poof, no more emitter.

Plasma is a lot of overpriced bunkum at this point, isn't it?

― TOMB07 (trm), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 15:05 (nineteen years ago)

I like big screens for the same reason I like the cinema. I go there and see an advert I've watched a hundred times on TV, and suddenly I notice all these things in it I never have before. Not so much physically small details as just the overall composition and camerawork. But yeah, perhaps this is just my senses being shouted at, and if I were to watch everything on a cinema screen my brain would just go "la la la I'm not listening anymore" after a while.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 15:07 (nineteen years ago)

there's probably an optimum size/distance thing.. i guess if you sit closer you'll have to focus your eyes harder.. but then too big/far you'll have trouble reading?? or is it just the bigger the better?

it's definitely better to play pro evo on the projector screen than on the littler telly.

are LCD screens cheaper to run in terms of electricity too? than one of those normal CRT thingies?

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 15:18 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, about a third of the power consumption. Plasma, meanwhile, will eat you out of house and home.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 15:25 (nineteen years ago)

What is CRT? Normal "olden days" telly?

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 15:30 (nineteen years ago)

http://regmedia.co.uk/2006/08/21/sams_70in_lcd_1.jpg

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 15:39 (nineteen years ago)

Is that poor woman having to hold it up for everyone to watchbecause the wall-mounting didn't work?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

Dickweeds who would rather blow their wad on a >42" flatscreen

we have a 50" flat screen and I can assure you we are not dickweeds.

― Ms Misery (MsMisery), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 15:42 (nineteen years ago)

There should definitely be a sports bar called Dickweeds.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 15:43 (nineteen years ago)

Listen if it's wall-mounted then I'm afraid there's no way around the dickweed curse.

― TOMB07 (trm), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 15:45 (nineteen years ago)

Haha Alba has mistaken the Samsung Nexus Six for a real woman

― TOMB07 (trm), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 15:46 (nineteen years ago)

ours is not wall mounted. I can't imagine the benefit of that and also it's hella heavy and I would be afraid.

― Ms Misery (MsMisery), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 15:48 (nineteen years ago)

Afraid of being a dickweed?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 15:51 (nineteen years ago)

i thought the LCD lifespan was good. something about just needing to replace a bulb every now and then. plasma on the other hand just die. people dont even make plasmas anymore do they? sony stopped making them 18 months ago?

― sunny successor (katarina), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:15 (nineteen years ago)

oh, and, ill take the biggest, brightest tv i can get. i love TV! it would never distract me from a puppy though.

― sunny successor (katarina), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:16 (nineteen years ago)

people be hatin'

― Ms Misery (MsMisery), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:16 (nineteen years ago)

Alba:
"Yes, about a third of the power consumption. Plasma, meanwhile, will eat you out of house and home."

see, that's what i thought but then i saw this in the paper:

http://www.plasma-lcd-facts.co.uk/myths/energy-use/

"Myth
Plasma TVs use more power than their LCD rivals.

Fact
The reality is that plasma TVs don’t necessarily use any more power than LCDs – a fact which makes perfect sense if you think about how each technology works."

so there you go. disclaimer, this was a panasonic advert and panasonic want to sell you plasma tvs. i would take this with a skipload of salt.

http://callforhelptv.com/callforhelp/shownotes/0283.shtml?regular

Samsung plasma:
standby: 1 watt, 0.06 amps
black screen: 65 watts, 0.58 amps
white screen: 256 watts, 2.23 amps
red screen: 232 watts, 2.02 amps
blue screen: 231 watts, 2.13 amps
green screen: 208 watts, 1.80 amps
static: 311 watts, 2.71 amps

Samsung LCD
standby: 10 watts, 0.17 amps
black screen: 200 watts, 2.55 amps
white screen: 199, 2.58 amps
red screen: 199 watts, 2.57 amps
blue screen: 198 watts, 2.57 amps
green screen: 198 watts, 2.96 amps
static: 264 watts, 3.23 amps

seems to vary a lot with what is actually displayed. goths are probably better off with a plasma... (crt readings would be interesting)

(is that our sean carruthers btw?)

― koogs (koogs), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:17 (nineteen years ago)

No, that's a Japanese woman with a tv.

― Allyzay heard you got beat up in a club. (Allyzay Eisenschefter), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:24 (nineteen years ago)

If you mount an LCD to the wall, be carful to angle it downwards. LCDs look afwul when viewed off-center vertically -- they get that solarized look. Plasmas do too, to some extent, but it isn't nearly as bad.

Also, don't LCDs have a really, really long lifespan? I'd think the only thing that'd be sure to die is the florescent backlight, and they have like a 60,000 hour life. If you're worried about a TV dying at 60,000 hours, you watch too much. Stray pixels might start to go bad, but that's not such a big deal either.

Plasmas don't have as long a lifespan, but they are a lot cheaper (and look better, in my opinion).

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:36 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, the short lifespan of LCD and plasmas puts me off buying one

lcd lifespans are really good, no?

xpost heh

― false cat (sleep), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:38 (nineteen years ago)

x-post

seriously? LCD tvs are the only tvs that have ever really floored me with how clear and sharp the picture is. plasmas dont look that remarkable to me.

― sunny successor (katarina), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:40 (nineteen years ago)

maybe you were viewing hdtv?

― Ms Misery (MsMisery), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:42 (nineteen years ago)

no. these were on my brothers lcd tvs before they had HD in australia

― sunny successor (katarina), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

- on

― sunny successor (katarina), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

Plasmas and LCDs have pluses and minuses. LCDs usually have higher resolution (most new ones seem to be 1080p, while typical plasmas are more or less 720p) and don't as much of a "screendoor" effect when viewed up close. Plasma doesn't have the annoying ghosting and the blacks are much blacker. LCDs are probably better for video games and bright material, but I like plasmas better for movies. If they cost the same it'd be a toss-up, but LCDs are like 75% more expensive at the same size.

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:47 (nineteen years ago)

You really need to look at these TVs with HD material (or DVD at the very least). How they look with standard def TV usually has more to do with the processing of the particular set more than the underlying plasma or LCD technology.

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:49 (nineteen years ago)

Plasmas don't have as long a lifespan, but they are a lot cheaper (and look better, in my opinion).

Plasmas aren't a lot cheaper (at non-gigantic sizes, anyway) are they? It's the other way around, I thought.

I seem to be wrong to lump LCD displays in with plasmas when it comes to lifespans. I was just going by what someone once told me, about CRTs lasting for blimmin ever these days (Tombot's experience notwithstanding).

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:49 (nineteen years ago)

I am probably out of touch when it comes to plasma/LCD price comparisons. Chris sounds like he knows what he's talking about. I'm sure it used to be the other way around, though.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:50 (nineteen years ago)

Plasmas are much cheaper than LCDs at the same size. Of course, they don't make plasmas any smaller than 37", and even that size is pretty unusual. Plasmas can last a pretty long time anyway. At least 5 or 6 years, I think. By that time they'll be giving them away with new checking accounts at the bank.

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:52 (nineteen years ago)

Maybe you're thinking of rear projection LCD or DLP? Those are super cheap, but they can't be hung on a wall.

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:53 (nineteen years ago)

No, no, I 'm not thinking of those. Maybe it was just that you didn't used to get very big LCDs. Anyway.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:56 (nineteen years ago)

My brother in law has a pretty nice setup -- 40+" HD above the fireplace. The fireplace has a heater insert that he swears is well-enough insulated that the tv doesn't get hot, but I'm not convinced. The cool part is that the DVD and DVR are around the corner in a little recessed niche, with a mirror mounted on the side wall to bounce the IR signal. The only thing visible from the couch is the tv monitor itself.

― The PEW Research Center for Panty-Twisting (Rock Hardy), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:57 (nineteen years ago)

Not knowing where Chris is posting from, can this be a country by country difference? Because I don't recall plasmas being markedly cheaper than the LCDs when we had to go to Best Buy to purchase a new television. I didn't research the subject very thoroughly what with it being a quite dire situation, my television dying on a Saturday night and wanting to watch football the very next day and all. But all of the tvs within the size range we were considering seemed to be similarly priced (within $200-300 of one another).

― Allyzay heard you got beat up in a club. (Allyzay Eisenschefter), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:58 (nineteen years ago)

what's this about light around the screen reducing eyestrain?

― kingfish in absentia (kingfish), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:01 (nineteen years ago)

By that time they'll be giving them away with new checking accounts at the bank.

TVs and monitors have always seemed to me to be the one electronics thing that hasn't tumbled in price. I mean, yes, flat screens are much cheaper than they used to be, but they doesn't seem much cheaper than a CRT one used to be (though what counts as large screen has increased, of course). I mean, it's not like the way DVD players are now given away for peanuts. Buying a decent TV is going to cost me hundreds of pounds.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:01 (nineteen years ago)

I'm in the US. if you get a cheap crappy LCD, it could be pretty close in price to a similar-sized plasma, but in general plasma is cheaper. The gap is narrowing though, so that might not be the case in a year or two. LCDs haven't been sold in really really big screen sizes for long, so I think they're still trying to recoup the R&D costs. Plasma is a little more mature technology.

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:03 (nineteen years ago)

I'm particularly interested in this since I need to get a TV. I've never bought one before. I'm not going to get much more than 30" just because of where it's going to go in the room, and I've been astonished at how expensive all the "top deals" and "best picks" are. But just now I've noticed you can get non-HD, non-digital-ready, quality CRTs for like 200 pounds. Since I'm going to get a like 30 pound Freeview box anyway, I don't really care about digital so this seems like the way to go?

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:03 (nineteen years ago)

That makes sense, we were looking for a smaller sized (ie under 40 inches) because of where it had to fit into the room, but high quality display; the huge ones were really ridiculously priced.

CRTs were all like $20 at Best Buy, btw.

― Allyzay heard you got beat up in a club. (Allyzay Eisenschefter), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:04 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, this looks good, for instance. I can't find any reviews of it but it's by Bush so it's got to be good, right?

http://www.unbeatable.co.uk/p_moreinfo/Bush-RF6685VPL-28quot-TV/28026151.html

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:05 (nineteen years ago)

LCD/plasma are such different technologies than CRT that I'll bet the prices will continue to fall, until they're below what CRTs used to cost.

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:06 (nineteen years ago)

Bush is bad, of course, any anyway, that's a CRT, right?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

(not that there's anything wrong with that, unless you're a dickwad)

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

Sorry, you knew it was a CRT.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:08 (nineteen years ago)

Quick User Rating
**
Rated by 5 users

Two minutes ago it had one rating :)

― onimo (nu_onimo), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:08 (nineteen years ago)

Don't pay 200 pounds for a non-HD CRT. For that much can't you get an HD CRT, at the very least? Do you have craigslist? There are often some great deals on TVs there, if you don't mind second hand.

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:10 (nineteen years ago)

I didn't know Bush was bad! I thought it was a respected British Brand.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:12 (nineteen years ago)

It's a crappy cheapo British band. Like Alba.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:13 (nineteen years ago)

£200 for an HD-TV? You're 'aving a laugh.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:13 (nineteen years ago)

Chris the way I see it, this way it gets delivered to my door. craiglist or similar means some kind of wild minicab adventure that will cost me at least 20 pounds and a couple of hours of irritation.

xpost Oh!

xpost Ah.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:14 (nineteen years ago)

Shame you can't get a nice Sony Trinitron CRT anymore - the (grade one) CRTs at work are bloody marvellous. Watch digibeta on them and wonder why anyone would want HD-anything. ("Because DVD != digibeta, dickweed," sez you).

But, yeah, as small a telly as possible, to minimise the visibility of compression artefacts, I reckon. (Remember when you were sat really closer to the TV at Porkpie/Vicky's one New Year's Eve, Tracer? How bad it looked?) Perfect for Lovejoy reruns.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:14 (nineteen years ago)

I was pleased to have my memory confirmed, recently, that I watched an HD-TV demonstration some 20 years ago. I found a thing on the net mentioning how some of the the Los Angeles Olympics was filmed in HD, which is just what I watched at some computer show back then.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:18 (nineteen years ago)

I guess stuff is more expensive over there. 200 pounds is ~$350, right? You could get a CRT HDTV for that here, I think. If you got it used, definitely.

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:18 (nineteen years ago)

They had a japanese HDTV demonstration at the American History Museum in DC back in the 80s. I remember it was a lot of really cliched pagotas and water lillies and stuff.

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:19 (nineteen years ago)

what about DLP? I've been considering one just from the reviews of the samsung's I've read; admittedly they are thicker than the others so don't save much space, and they have bulbs that will need to be replaced, but the bulbs are only like $100.

the last CRT I bought (five years ago) developed some kind of geometry warp within a year.

(200 pounds is $400 now)

― akm (akmonday), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:21 (nineteen years ago)

Electronics are more expensive specifically, and the pound makes everything more expensive in general. So, yeah.

It is incredibly confusing trying to research this stuff online. I thought this was the big way people were making money on the Internet, by pointing people towards stuff to buy in a helpful way. But I feel like I'm just casting my hook into the sea and coming up with an alphabet soup of model numbers every time.

It's absurd that there are so many TVs, and kinds of TVs. How many different "viewing needs" can people actually have? There should be only two kinds of television made in the world. A big, HD one for rich people and a little, normal one for poor people. Economies of scale would mean that the little one would end up costing like 20 dollars and the big one would be like 300.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:23 (nineteen years ago)

I think DLP looks really good, and the prices are great. The picture on rear projection TVs can be a little dimmer than tube or flat panel TVs, so you probably shouldn't put it in a sunroom or right across from a wall of windows.

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:27 (nineteen years ago)

Tracer that is the most communist shit you've ever said.

HD pisses me the fuck off actually.

1. none of your DVDs are in HD.
2. none of your video games are in HD.
3. odds are hardly any of your television is in HD.

AND! the cost for upgrading three out of three of these things to BE in HD is entirely passed on to you, the consumer.

Fuck 'em.

― TOMB07 (trm), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:27 (nineteen years ago)

I would never buy DLP because that girl and her goddamn baby elephant drive us nuts. IT'S THE MEERS!!!! SHUT UP

― TOMB07 (trm), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:29 (nineteen years ago)

Too bad things are so expensive there. You can totally get an HDTV for $350 -- http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4810688.

Xbox 360 and PS3 are HD, and the original Xbox, the Gamecube, and the Wii look way better in 480p on a HDTV than on an SD set. The PS2 does admittedly look horrible on most HDTVs.

DVDs also look way way better on an HDTV, and if you like primetime network shows, most of that is in HD. Unless it's a gameshow or Extreme Home Makeover.

I just really like HDTV. It's great and seriously doesn't have to be that expensive. Seeing an old movie in HD is especially exciting, because you're not used to seeing that much detail on something so old.

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:33 (nineteen years ago)

How good are those DVD players with HD "upscaling"? Do they look a lot better?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:35 (nineteen years ago)

DVDs also look way way better on an HDTV, and if you like primetime network shows, most of that is in HD.

Yes, but you have to upgrade to an HD receiver to get any of the HD programming (most cable channels at this point have HD sister stations as well). Which is no small feat sometimes, and if you are in an apt situation that could potentially mean you are completely screwed (if the base receiver that spreads out to everyone else is not the right type, no amount of HD home receiver is going to help you, in fact you won't be able to watch television at all).

So, yeah, if you just need a cheap tv for watching movies or the occasional tv show I wouldn't sweat the HD for two seconds.

― Allyzay heard you got beat up in a club. (Allyzay Eisenschefter), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:37 (nineteen years ago)

(watching standard TV/dvds/whatevs on an HDTV doesn't look bad, mind you...it just looks like regular tv so if you imagine you'll want to jump through the upgrade hoops at some point relatively soon then by all means get the HDTV, which is what we did)

― Allyzay heard you got beat up in a club. (Allyzay Eisenschefter), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:38 (nineteen years ago)

HD is the telly manufacturers' attempt to get in on the make-new-stuff-incompatible-so-everyone-buys-new bandwagon. Grr.

(I have a tiny little Sony Widescreen thing, and I quite like it, although I have no aerial so it shows nothing but Zelda.)

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:39 (nineteen years ago)

Apparently, HD-DVD (though not Blu-Ray) has a skinning capability built into its specs that, if utilised by Hollywood, would let you put your own face (or that of a dickweed) on one of the movie's characters. That's surely a reason to buy an HD-ready screen.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:39 (nineteen years ago)

put the tv in the bin and go live a life instead

― ^ (cb303), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

stop posting one-liners on threads you have no true interest in and get a life yourself, dickweed.

― Ms Misery (MsMisery), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:42 (nineteen years ago)

Is that poor woman having to hold it up for everyone to watchbecause the wall-mounting didn't work?

Wall Mounted Woman c/d?

― Comrades, meet Tildo Durd (Scourage), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:43 (nineteen years ago)

DVDs look way better than regular old cable or satellite, on an HDTV. It can depend on the quality of the DVD, but they can look real good.

I have comcast cable and the HD receiver doesn't cost any more than a regular cable box ($5/month). Newer TVs usually have HD tuners built in, so you can get the networks for free.

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:46 (nineteen years ago)

I didn't know Bush was bad! I thought it was a respected British Brand.
-- Euai Kapaui (tracerhan...), January 3rd, 2007. (tracerhand) (later)

It's a crappy cheapo British band. Like Alba.

i've had a bush tv for about 12 or 13 years and it's in perfect working order, even the remote control!

― emsk ( emsk ), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

Bin-mounted Television?

― TOMB07 (trm), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

It doesn't cost any more per month, but if your building isn't already set up correctly for HD, you cannot use an HD receiver, Chris. Also, Tracer Hand lives in London which not only would give the problems of getting cable/sattelite in the city but also has crazy draconian tv laws of which I cannot comprehend, so he probably has to set a man on fire to get the correct receiver for HD.

And you can only get the networks using a tuner for free depending on where you live, again. Not everybody will have that capability.

It's really not a big deal, being as it looks the s ame as a regular tv if you don't have the proper receiver but it's not exactly the walk in the park for all of us that you're claiming. It is actually a really trinormous bitch in a lot of locales to get HDTV.

― Allyzay heard you got beat up in a club. (Allyzay Eisenschefter), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:49 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, I didn't mean that Bush would break. Just that it's crappy.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:49 (nineteen years ago)

I won't argue that DVDs and games generally look better on the HDTV, but not super awesome better. The biggest thing for me with our model is the Pixel Plus processing which makes text and logos and such really super sharp even for regular old teevee broadcasts. This comes in very handy when dealing with CBS' janky-ass treatment of NFL games. Plus it zooms 4:3 signals to 16:9 without making people's faces all weird or stretching shit out too much.

― TOMB07 (trm), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:50 (nineteen years ago)

No it's even worse in the UK now you have to WATCH Man On Fire to get the correct receiver for HDTV

― TOMB07 (trm), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:51 (nineteen years ago)

If you don't pay the license fee in the UK they make you watch TV on one of these:

http://images.ciao.com/iuk/images/products/normal/642/Medion_MD3723_Disney_Princess_TV__6490642.jpg

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:53 (nineteen years ago)

i got a 32" samsung lcd as a xmas present to myself two weeks back, and i couldn't be happier. dvds do look way better, my 360 looks awesome and somehow my cable bill after upgrading to hd went DOWN while also giving me every movie channel free for some reason. my tv cost me right around $1k for an lcd that was widely reviewed as being one of the best available. the technology available and price for it have finely converged to being something that's reasonable, in my mind.

and yeah, plasma has definitely gotten cheaper. those 42" panasonic plasmas -- which everyone raves about -- can now be had for $1200. i could have gotten a larger tv easily for my money, but: i didn't want anything bigger than 32" (altho now i kinda wish i had gotten the 40" samsung 1080p which is v pretty), and there are huge variants of quality in between brands and models. definitely research the shit out of it before you buy.

― Jams Murphy (ystrickler), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:55 (nineteen years ago)

Is this it, Jams?

http://audiovisual.kelkoo.co.uk/b/a/pr_1/14206304/100311823.html

If so, it's $400 more expensive in the UK.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:00 (nineteen years ago)

it looks like it's not available in the uk. here it is on amazon us.

― Jams Murphy (ystrickler), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:03 (nineteen years ago)

If your building's cable doesn't pass HD, I guess you're out of luck. But I think in pretty much every US city, you should be able to pick up the HD locals over the air. Maybe tall buildings could interfere. I live in Arlington, VA and was able to pick up all except whatever UPN calls itself now.

In the UK don't they drive around in trucks trying to detect people illegally watching TV?

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:04 (nineteen years ago)

I love it when you guys talk about our TV licensing laws and make us sound all quaintly draconian.

― ledge (ledge), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:06 (nineteen years ago)

The main problem we have is that I would have to get off my ass and ask our landladies to get a new DirecTV receiver dish installed on top of the house.

― TOMB07 (trm), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:06 (nineteen years ago)

I love it when you guys talk about our TV licensing laws and make us sound all quaintly draconian.

but you are!

― Ms Misery (MsMisery), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:09 (nineteen years ago)

Detector vans combat theft of the common weal!

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:14 (nineteen years ago)

More Tragedie of Commons.

― clevo lk (clevo lk), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:19 (nineteen years ago)

THE COMMONS. TV HAS DESTROYED ME BRAIN

― clevo lk (clevo lk), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:19 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.poppyfields.net/poppy/photos/images/01_misc/09_van.jpg

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:21 (nineteen years ago)

if your building isn't already set up correctly for HD, you cannot use an HD receiver,

by this do you mean, the cable company hasn't come out and run whatever kind of new cable it might need to run? I think that comcast here (in california) will just come and do this if they get an order, and they ren't going to charge you for it either, because they want everyone to switch over eventually anyway.

― akm (akmonday), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:29 (nineteen years ago)

it's all relative to whatever weird non-homeowner situation you happen to be in. if you rent you technically don't have the authority to have people just come install or upgrade the facilities willy-nilly even if there's no fee.

― TOMB07 (trm), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:37 (nineteen years ago)

I think us North Americans will notice a bigger difference when switching to HD, since you Brits have had better broadcast resolution for ages... (PAL v NTSC innit!)

I just bought the Panasonic 42" plasma Jams refers to, and it was about the same price (maybe a little cheaper) than comparable LCDs. I did crazy amounts of research beforehand, and the interesting comparison point was trying to find TVs which could reproduce (as close as possible) something called "D6500K" - supposedly the optimum prescribed color temperature used by the film and broadcast industry. The Pioneer plasmas rate best across the board, but they are also far more expensive. The Panasonics peformed best in the lower price range. LCDs do OK, but the problems with black levels limit them (although this is improving). I think games, etc will look better on a LCD (or any TV in a bright room), but if you primarily want to watch movies, Plasma is the way to go.

HD definitely looks much better than the CRTs I'm used to. And I got the 'upconverting' DVD player, which does seem to be better than running a traditional DVD player to it. Upconverting players are dropping under a hundred bucks anyway. Mind you, cables (especially the ideal HDMI or Component ones) are ridiculously overpriced.

I am going to wallmount it and hide the wires. It's far more practical for me to mount it, since then I don't need a TV stand taking up room underneath the screen, hence more room for my coffee table and space in the living room itself. All the DVD/Cable boxes and thingys will site in a recessed cabinet off to the side.

So... yeah, I'm a dickweed.

― Rob Bolton (Rob Bolton), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:44 (nineteen years ago)

Go to www.monoprice.com for cables. It's a revelation. Also, you can pretty much just use regular RCA cables in the place of "dedicated" component cables. Unless you get them from the dollar store you probably won't notice any difference.

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:52 (nineteen years ago)

holy SHIT! those are some cheap cables... time to return some overpriced Monster ones to Futureshop...

― Rob Bolton (Rob Bolton), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:56 (nineteen years ago)

Plasma doesn't have the annoying ghosting and the blacks are much blacker.

Halle Berry on an LCD tv:

http://www.celebopedia.com/berry/images/halle_berry.jpg

Halle Berry on a plasma TV:

http://www.student.city.ac.uk/~ra831/group8/images/Whoopi.jpg

― Jesus Dan (dan perry), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 19:02 (nineteen years ago)

(sorry)

― Jesus Dan (dan perry), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 19:02 (nineteen years ago)

monster cables are the biggest rip off. i paid $50 for a cable that was probably as good as an $8 generic brand cable. fuck those guys.

― sunny successor (katarina), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 19:15 (nineteen years ago)

It seems like most cables are hugley marked up at retail stores, but Monster's prices are nearly criminal.

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 19:17 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/11/25

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 19:17 (nineteen years ago)

radio shack provides excellent component cables. red = red. blue = black. green = red with sharpie marker ring drawn on it at each end.

I cannot believe people buy monster cables, for anything.

― TOMB07 (trm), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 19:21 (nineteen years ago)

mine came as part of a package, so i didn't have a hard-on for Monster cables per se, they just saved me on all the other stuff. luckily, i can still return the cables ;)

― Rob Bolton (Rob Bolton), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 19:24 (nineteen years ago)

for those in the uk who are tight like me i'd def look getting a crt especially if you don 't want to sign up for hd for 10 years with sky.

I picked up a 28 inch cheap crt for peanuts, only problem was getting it down my narrow basement stairs, but i shold have realised that before.

― secondhandnews (secondhandnews), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 21:13 (nineteen years ago)

What was peanuts, exactly?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 21:36 (nineteen years ago)

good grief

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 21:46 (nineteen years ago)

stop posting one-liners on threads you have no true interest in and get a life yourself, dickweed.

fair point, i apologise. big tvs make me feel kind of irrationally annoyed

― ^ (cb303), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 22:10 (nineteen years ago)

big tellys, I agree

especially big "HD" tellys and big "LCD" tellys and all that so on and on

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 22:35 (nineteen years ago)

sometimes i dont mind little televisions, where you can't see that well. I wouldn't go as far as saying it was endearing or comforting, but it seems right for televisions to know their place and not try to be cinemas of the house. they look like teenagers that should have left home, those big ones

― ^ (cb303), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 23:03 (nineteen years ago)

we got one of those freeview things where you get extra hollyoaks and gillian mckeith and channel 5, and you can see a bit clearer, but luckily it didnt work. i dont know why they have to have the tv on the whole time, especially when they leave the room. ive never seen people turn the tv on and then immediately leave the room so much. and then look bemused to come back in one hour later and it not be on anymore

― ^ (cb303), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 23:10 (nineteen years ago)

Ahaha. One of my roommates leaves the TV on and the other and I take turns shutting it off as soon as he leaves the room. So far, no tempers have flared but it might be a countdown.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 23:13 (nineteen years ago)

actually they were watching tv last night and i came in and was making some food, and there was this show where some poor people had to come on and justify why they should get given some money by these rich people. and they had to kind of prostate themselves in front of the rich people who then passed judgement on their lives before deciding who they would give their cash to. and i wondered how long it is before there is a show where 2 members of the public go on and one wins a bunch of money and the other has to have a family pet put down

and then there was csi miami where apparently ordinary cops fly to brazil on a whim carrying out personal vendettas to catch drug dealing terrorists.

i cant imagine what this stuff is actually like if you can see it properly.

one of them has now taken to going downstairs on a saturday afternoon, turning the tv on, and immediately going to sleep on the sofa. she even says, do you mind if i put the tv on to sleep

― ^ (cb303), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 23:16 (nineteen years ago)

i think i managed to spray moth repellent in my eyes. this is worse than looking at Ulster Unionist profiles on myspace

― ^ (cb303), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 23:20 (nineteen years ago)

I dunno, there IS something about lying on the sofa after a late night, drifting off to a cooking show or decorating schtick or something that is equally silly but that doesn't necessarily make you doubt the future of the human race.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 23:22 (nineteen years ago)

My father used to walk into the living room where I was reading, see how quiet it was, turn on the television, and then walk back out of the room.

He wasn't naturally sadistic. He honestly thought(thinks) that a room without some background noise is too weird.

― PPlains (PPlains), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 23:31 (nineteen years ago)

and they had to kind of prostate themselves in front of the rich people

I shudder to think what the verb usage might involve.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Thursday, 4 January 2007 00:34 (nineteen years ago)

I have friends with really bad tinnitus who must have a tv or radio on to sleep.

― Ms Misery (MsMisery), Thursday, 4 January 2007 01:19 (nineteen years ago)

I would never buy DLP because that girl and her goddamn baby elephant drive us nuts. IT'S THE MEERS!!!! SHUT UP

-- TOMB07 (tombo...) (webmail), January 3rd, 2007 5:29 PM. (trm)

lolol YES

― aidsy (aidsy), Thursday, 4 January 2007 02:02 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.