RE: Dome Auction

["Phillip Harris" <phillip.harris1@xxxxxxx>]

Unfortunately due to physics (damn those scientists) and the inverse square
law it isn't necesarily the case that the bigger you go the better it is.
I'm using a 6ft wide screen and I'm getting a beautifully bright image -
calculated out to be between 10 - 12 ft lamberts (a cinema is typically 12
ft lamberts or thereabouts).

I could go for a bigger screen but at 10ft wide the brightness hit is so
great that it just isn't worthwhile.

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Doxey [mailto:ukha.diyha@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 24 February 2001 23:44
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Dome Auction
>
>
> We may have gone metric but I dont recall becoming American......
>
> surely you mean Metres  :-)
>
> anyway a 10 foot screen sounds so much more impressive that a 3 metre
one.
> People KNOW that 10 feet is BIG....many havent got a clue about metric
> measurement. I work in both, when I am thinking how big to make
> something it
> will be 8 feet by 4 feet but when it comes to dividing it into 5 equal
> sections I work in millimetres.
>
> Keith
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Miller [mailto:pmiller@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 24 February 2001 22:47
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Dome Auction
>
>
> hmm have we not gone Metric? mines measured in Meters ;-)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark McCall [mailto:mark@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 24 February 2001 22:41
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Dome Auction
>
>
> Exactly Phil!!!
>
> Real men's screens are measured in feet not inches
>
> :-)
>
> M.
>
>
>
>
>   >-----Original Message-----
>   >From:
>
> >sentto-1109639-7445-983038524-mark=automatedhome.co.uk@xxxxxxx
>   >om
>
> >[mailto:sentto-1109639-7445-983038524-mark=automatedhome.co.uk@xxxxxxx
>   >nelist.com]On Behalf Of Phillip Harris
>   >Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 6:13 PM
>   >To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>   >Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Dome Auction
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >Yeah ... I agree that CRT projection is the way to go.
>   >
>   >However my other half isn't quite so keen on the huge lump in
> the lounge!
>   >
>   >Ah well ... at least she likes watching movies on a 7ft wide
screen...
>   >
>   >Phil
>   >
>   >> -----Original Message-----
>   >> From: Keith Doxey [mailto:ukha.diyha@xxxxxxx]
>   >> Sent: 24 February 2001 15:59
>   >> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>   >> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Dome Auction
>   >>
>   >>
>   >> We looked at the 50" plasma and ruled it out.
>   >>
>   >> The manufacturers claim "True XGA" but that is
not the case
>   >> Panel is 16:9 and is 1280x768 pixels.
>   >> If you run XGA (1024x768) you get black bars at the sides
unless
>   >> you stretch
>   >> to fill which distorts the image. If you run at 1280x1024
then it
>   >> compressed
>   >> the vertical resolution down to 768 again distorting the
image.
>   >>
>   >> What I wanted to find and no-one made was a 50" 4:3
plasma @1024x768.
>   >>
>   >> Widescreen is great for Movies but no good for PC's at the
>   >moment because
>   >> everything is designed for a 4:3 ratio PC monitor.
>   >>
>   >> One further point of worry about plasma is that many DVD's
are
>   >> 18:9 or 21:9
>   >> and show black bars even on a widescreen TV. with plasma
this
>   >> means that the
>   >> area covered by black bars would be worked less than the
centre
>   >> area of the
>   >> screen and after time full screen material would have
brighter
>   >stripes top
>   >> and bottom.
>   >>
>   >> I got called out to a local pub beause their projector had
a
>   >bright green
>   >> band at the top of the picture. I looked at it and thought
>   >that something
>   >> really dire had happened to the CRT projector as it was the
> same on all
>   >> channels with the top 6 inches of the picture looking
bright
>   >and the rest
>   >> being dull and generally "yucky". It was then
that I realised the
>   >> bottom of
>   >> the picture was 6 inches above the bottom of the screen.
>   >>
>   >> The screen was a pull down type and someone had pulled it
down
>   >another 6
>   >> inches. The "normal" viewing area of the screen
was stained
>   >brown from all
>   >> the nicotine but the top 6" was still white where it
had been
>   >rolled up in
>   >> the housing. That is the effect you would get on a plasma
>   >after the centre
>   >> was more heavily used.
>   >>
>   >> We have also just replaced a Barco 808 CRT data projector
after
>   >> 20,000 hours
>   >> with a brand new Barco Cine CRT. That is the beast I would
>   >love but it was
>   >> 13500 + vat !!!
>   >>
>   >> The guns on the old Barco had weakened after all that time
> which is not
>   >> surprising. The area of the tubes used to show the picture
was
>   >> grey compared
>   >> to the unused area of phospor. You still cant beat a CRT in
> my opinion.
>   >>
>   >> As you said initial impact is something you have to
> overcome. LCD looks
>   >> brilliant when you see it briefly but you soon spot all the
>   >> faults with the
>   >> picture and the running costs are horrendous. That Barco
may seem
>   >> expensive
>   >> but 16K to watch at least 10000 movies its under £1 per
hour.
>   >Other CRT's
>   >> start at aroung 3 grand and are even better value for money
but I was
>   >> talking about the Rolls Royce of projectors :-)
>   >>
>   >> Also LCD projectors are noisy because of high speed fans to
>   >get rid of all
>   >> the heat.
>   >>
>   >> Keith
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >> -----Original Message-----
>   >> From: Phillip Harris [mailto:phillip.harris1@xxxxxxx]
>   >> Sent: 24 February 2001 14:42
>   >> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>   >> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Dome Auction
>   >>
>   >>
>   >> Cheers Keith.
>   >>
>   >> I've actually been *VERY* disappointed with plasma screens
to
>   >> date ... they
>   >> really do seem to be the perfect solution to the old
problem
>   >of big screen
>   >> TV in a typical UK sized house.
>   >>
>   >> However, I looked into the plasma screen market fairly
>   >carefully about 18
>   >> months ago when my employer was looking for something to
give
>   >a bit of wow
>   >> factor to the boardroom and the only one that was in any
way
>   >suitable for
>   >> what we needed (video plus graphics) was the 50"
Pioneer.
> When I looked
>   >> about 6 - 8 months ago for myself I started at the 50"
Pioneer
>   >> (then £10.5k)
>   >> but even that wasn't up to what I considered to be a good
>   >enough standard.
>   >> The contrast wasn't great, it leaked charge between pixels
giving
>   >> a glowing
>   >> edge to film credits and - well, there was a whole list at
the
>   >time which
>   >> I've forgotten by now.
>   >>
>   >> It's like anything that you see ... you have to get past
the
> immediate
>   >> impressiveness of a 50" screen in a package that you
can hang
>   >on the wall
>   >> and actually look at the resultant performance.
>   >>
>   >> I would say that we're still a few years away from the
ideal
>   >> plasma screen.
>   >>
>   >> Oh yeah ... one other thing about the plasmas that I
> disliked. THE FAN
>   >> NOISE! If anyone has left the 40" plasma running in
the boardroom
>   >> then I can
>   >> hear it as I pass the boardroom door.
>   >>
>   >> Phil
>   >>
>   >> > -----Original Message-----
>   >> > From: Keith Doxey [mailto:ukha.diyha@xxxxxxx]
>   >> > Sent: 24 February 2001 13:13
>   >> > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>   >> > Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Dome Auction
>   >> >
>   >> >
>   >> > Thanks for the confirmation Phil.
>   >> >
>   >> > One other thing I forgot to mention.... the screens we
were
>   >> > offered had been
>   >> > fitted with high contrast anti glare screens to
improve the
>   >visibility
>   >> > (smoked glass screen) and if you have ever tried an
anti
>   >glare screen on
>   >> > your PC monitor you will realise just how much light
gets
>   >> absorbed by the
>   >> > anti-glare screen meaning you have to drive the
monitor/plasma
>   >> even harder
>   >> > :-(
>   >> >
>   >> > Keith
>   >> >
>   >> > -----Original Message-----
>   >> > From: Phillip Harris [mailto:phillip.harris1@xxxxxxx]
>   >> > Sent: 24 February 2001 12:00
>   >> > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>   >> > Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Dome Auction
>   >> >
>   >> >
>   >> >
>   >> > Just to confirm what Keith's saying...
>   >> >
>   >> > At the moment we have a Pioneer 40" 4:3 plasma at
work and
>   >> we've probably
>   >> > had it no more than 18 months. It doesn't show the
same things
>   >> > all day, it's
>   >> > not even showing things all day but it does usually
get left on
>   >> > all day (9 -
>   >> > 6) - even though people are told to power it down
after use. It is
>   >> > *definitely* getting greyer as time goes on ... it's
certainly
>   >> > not as bright
>   >> > or contrasty as it used to be.
>   >> >
>   >> > I'd be very wary of buying a plasma at the moment -
especially a
>   >> > second hand
>   >> > one. I've been and looked at several that were current
six
> months ago
>   >> > (including the Pioneer 50" XGA) and I really
didn't think that
>   >> > they were at
>   >> > a point where they were suitable for long term
domestic use.
>   >> >
>   >> > Phil
>   >> >
>   >> >
>   >> >
>   >> >
>   >> >
>   >> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   >> >
>   >> >
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   >>
>   >>
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   >
>   >
>   >
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>