In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Adrian C
wrote:


The "correct" answer is to get a proper television set with a full
box of glass and air behind it, decent contrast and dynamics, and no
fancy video processing nonsense ;-)

In time - I hope - the alternative proper answer will be that the
makers of pixel-based screens actually give them the same number and
arrangement of pixels as the images, and can update pixels without so
much faffing about 'processing'. But as yet, I'd not hold my breath.
Too many 'HD ready' (i.e. not actually HD) screens to shift out of
the warehouse before that...


That would be a lot easier if all images had the same number and
arrangement of pixels, but the chance of that happening any time soon
is minimal.

You presume also that the entire display area, and every pixel, *must* be
used at all times. :-)

However, I draw your attention again to my use of the phrase, "in time...".
And agree that the determination of set makers and broadcasters to keep
mixing up varying numbers of pixels with pixel-based images is a PITA. As
is the poorly-thought-out ways the 'faffing' seems to be done in some
cases.

Even with a "proper" television set with glass (but no air, the CRT
contains a vacuum) a lot of "faffing about" is needed to cope with
different aspect ratios etc.

....but with an analogue CRT none of the 'faffing about' causes any addition
delays for the displayed image. One of those cases where a simple analogue
method works quite neatly. In such cases the image data isn't 'processed',
so no 'faffing' about of it is required. In principle, all that happens
with CRT is some analogue scan waveforms are altered, essentially just in
amplitude.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html