Wall Mounted Television c/d?

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

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.

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

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

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.

TS: Sports bars vs Dickweeds.

xpost

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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?)

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).

lcd lifespans are really good, no?

xpost heh

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.

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).

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.

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

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

Two minutes ago it had one rating :)

xpost Oh!

xpost Ah.

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.

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

(200 pounds is $400 now)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Wall Mounted Woman c/d?

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

but you are!

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.

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.

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

I cannot believe people buy monster cables, for anything.

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.

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

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

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

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

I shudder to think what the verb usage might involve.

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

lolol YES