Does anyone know where I can download the manual for ferguson f2250ld, I have tried google.
finding a manual for ferguson f2250ld
Originally Posted by Stig:
“What are you trying to find out? Maybe someone here can answer.”
“What are you trying to find out? Maybe someone here can answer.”
I wanted to look up the technical specs and I have searched google for that too.
Normally you get a list of resolutions that the TV will accept via whatever source it will accept them on ect.
Also what the native resolution of the panel is.
After getting a brand new TV earlier this week, I did a swap of my old TV for a smaller TV with my Uncle. He doesnt have the manual as he has had it for several years.
Obviously it will accept all the regular stuff, but its not new so its certainly not full HD. I can only assume its either 1366x768 or 1280x720.
It doesnt bother me as it wont be my main TV, but if I want to connect it to a computer it would be nice to input the native resolution.
Hi,
A quick Google says the display resolution is 1680 x 1050. It might be worth contacting retailers who sold it eg The Plasma Centre. Someone might know the full specs or still have a manual: http://www.theplasmacentre.com/Fergu...D_qp_8398.html
A quick Google says the display resolution is 1680 x 1050. It might be worth contacting retailers who sold it eg The Plasma Centre. Someone might know the full specs or still have a manual: http://www.theplasmacentre.com/Fergu...D_qp_8398.html
Originally Posted by evil c:
“Hi,
A quick Google says the display resolution is 1680 x 1050. It might be worth contacting retailers who sold it eg The Plasma Centre. Someone might know the full specs or still have a manual: http://www.theplasmacentre.com/Fergu...D_qp_8398.html”
“Hi,
A quick Google says the display resolution is 1680 x 1050. It might be worth contacting retailers who sold it eg The Plasma Centre. Someone might know the full specs or still have a manual: http://www.theplasmacentre.com/Fergu...D_qp_8398.html”
Thanks, thats a strange resolution with a 1.6:1 aspect ratio rather than a 1.78:1(16:9) asect ratio. Either that means that the screen is 1.6:1 or the pixels are not actually square!
I could try contacting them I suppose, they may as you say know something.
I would be very surprised if the native resolution of this TV is actually 1680 x 1050.
This is a budget TV, so why would the manufacturer* to go to the extra expense of sourcing a bespoke resolution panel when there would have been plenty of 1366x768 panels to be had at competitive prices? It's more likely that the TV accepts resolutions up to 1680 x 1050 and then the TV scales the signal to the panel resolution.
The other potential fly in the ointment is scaling. The reason to give a TV its native resolution is to achieve 1:1 pixel mapping of the source signal on to the panel. However, a lot of domestic TVs won't accept a panel resolution signal without scaling it and passing it through the picture processing engine. It was a common problem for purchasers of outboard scalers such as DVDO and Lumagen. There was a lot of time and effort spent researching how to achieve 1:1 pixel mapping and for some models of TV it involved custom porch timing settings. This was when a decent plasma TV was £1000+. For these reasons have a look at the TV menus to see if overscan can be switched off or if there's a Games- or PC Mode. If there aren't then all that is left is to try various 16:9 resolutions and see how the set responds.
* Probably not Ferguson as this is now just a badge I think.
This is a budget TV, so why would the manufacturer* to go to the extra expense of sourcing a bespoke resolution panel when there would have been plenty of 1366x768 panels to be had at competitive prices? It's more likely that the TV accepts resolutions up to 1680 x 1050 and then the TV scales the signal to the panel resolution.
The other potential fly in the ointment is scaling. The reason to give a TV its native resolution is to achieve 1:1 pixel mapping of the source signal on to the panel. However, a lot of domestic TVs won't accept a panel resolution signal without scaling it and passing it through the picture processing engine. It was a common problem for purchasers of outboard scalers such as DVDO and Lumagen. There was a lot of time and effort spent researching how to achieve 1:1 pixel mapping and for some models of TV it involved custom porch timing settings. This was when a decent plasma TV was £1000+. For these reasons have a look at the TV menus to see if overscan can be switched off or if there's a Games- or PC Mode. If there aren't then all that is left is to try various 16:9 resolutions and see how the set responds.
* Probably not Ferguson as this is now just a badge I think.
Originally Posted by lotrjw:
“Thanks, thats a strange resolution with a 1.6:1 aspect ratio rather than a 1.78:1(16:9) asect ratio. Either that means that the screen is 1.6:1 or the pixels are not actually square!
I could try contacting them I suppose, they may as you say know something.”
“Thanks, thats a strange resolution with a 1.6:1 aspect ratio rather than a 1.78:1(16:9) asect ratio. Either that means that the screen is 1.6:1 or the pixels are not actually square!
I could try contacting them I suppose, they may as you say know something.”
15x9 panels were not unusual in the early days of flat screens, even some expensive Sony WEGA sets were that shape, presumably due do the availability of panels back then. HD was almost non existent, SD pixels aren't square anyway and these sets lost a bit of the image at the sides. Most people at that time were still using analogue and happily watching 4X3 in stretchy-vision. Some sets, including some made by Sharp and Lowe, didn't even have a digital tuner. Some had an analogue component input but not HDMI. We have come a long way in the last 16 years or so.
Any computer inputs were an afterthought to look good on the sets spec and their operation was somewhat hit and miss.
Originally Posted by anthony david:
“15x9 panels were not unusual in the early days of flat screens, even some expensive Sony WEGA sets were that shape, presumably due do the availability of panels back then.”
“15x9 panels were not unusual in the early days of flat screens, even some expensive Sony WEGA sets were that shape, presumably due do the availability of panels back then.”
I think you mean 16:10
Also there were never any Sony 16:10 sets, nor any other reputable manufacturer.
I used a Bush one as a monitor at work for a while, it was really 'strange'
The problem with this thread is that Ferguson packed up MANY years ago, Thomson used the name for a fair while (but Thomson are pretty crap gear anyway), I've no idea what make the set in question might be - but I don't think you need instructions for it, or to know it's specifications - simply connect it up and use it.
Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“I think you mean 16:10
Also there were never any Sony 16:10 sets, nor any other reputable manufacturer.
I used a Bush one as a monitor at work for a while, it was really 'strange'
The problem with this thread is that Ferguson packed up MANY years ago, Thomson used the name for a fair while (but Thomson are pretty crap gear anyway), I've no idea what make the set in question might be - but I don't think you need instructions for it, or to know it's specifications - simply connect it up and use it.”
“I think you mean 16:10
Also there were never any Sony 16:10 sets, nor any other reputable manufacturer.
I used a Bush one as a monitor at work for a while, it was really 'strange'
The problem with this thread is that Ferguson packed up MANY years ago, Thomson used the name for a fair while (but Thomson are pretty crap gear anyway), I've no idea what make the set in question might be - but I don't think you need instructions for it, or to know it's specifications - simply connect it up and use it.”
16:10 yes that makes sense scaling up from 1.6:1! Its an odd ratio for a TV but then a lot of PC monitors were made like that, I have one with a resolution of 1440x900, which is fine for a PC if you arent using it for watching videos.
16:10 or 1.6:1 also just happens to be the difference between miles and kilometres! 1.6 kilometres to 1 mile!
I am just having a play at the moment, currently its just being fed an analogue modulated signal from my freesat box in the lounge, as I would need a very long HDMI cable and HDMI splitter to use HDMI on it. Items I plan to get soon!
I will accept 16x10 Nigel but they made a very expensive and very attractive, over £2000 I seem to remember, early LCD TV that had the screen "floating" in a glass panel. It was their top of the range model and I am sure the screen was not 16X9. Sony were very badly caught out when LCD arrived as they seemed to think that the Trinitron was still the way forward. The panels they used were poor compared with those of Sharp at that that time but their WEGA image processing was considerably better. WEGA was replaced by BRAVIA later on.
I note Googling around, that there are entries for Sony plasma TVs which this may have been.
I note Googling around, that there are entries for Sony plasma TVs which this may have been.
Originally Posted by anthony david:
“I will accept 16x10 Nigel but they made a very expensive and very attractive, over £2000 I seem to remember, early LCD TV that had the screen "floating" in a glass panel. It was their top of the range model and I am sure the screen was not 16X9. Sony were very badly caught out when LCD arrived as they seemed to think that the Trinitron was still the way forward.
”
“I will accept 16x10 Nigel but they made a very expensive and very attractive, over £2000 I seem to remember, early LCD TV that had the screen "floating" in a glass panel. It was their top of the range model and I am sure the screen was not 16X9. Sony were very badly caught out when LCD arrived as they seemed to think that the Trinitron was still the way forward.
”
Not in my experience, Sony were very quick to release flat screen TV's - and also did a considerable number of 4:3 LCD ones, never mind 16:9 ones.
We still use some of the 4:3 ones as security monitors
Quote:
“
The panels they used were poor compared with those of Sharp at that that time but their WEGA image processing was considerably better. WEGA was replaced by BRAVIA later on.
”
“
The panels they used were poor compared with those of Sharp at that that time but their WEGA image processing was considerably better. WEGA was replaced by BRAVIA later on.
”
Again, not in my experience, the early Sharp sets used very poor panels (I actually had one) - but Sharp had LCD sets out LONG before most (if not all?) other manufacturers, it was Sharp's pioneering work that made LCD's possible as early as it was.
Sharp at Manchester had an LCD portable TV (14 inch?) mounted on a wall years before any LCD sets were commercially available, they were truly world leaders in LCD technology - just a pity they made such a mess of things and no longer trade in the UK
Quote:
“
I note Googling around, that there are entries for Sony plasma TVs which this may have been.”
“
I note Googling around, that there are entries for Sony plasma TVs which this may have been.”
Again, the Sony Plasma sets were all 16:9 - and used 1024x1024 ALiS Hitachi panels.
As I mentioned before, I don't recall any reputable manufacturer selling 16:10 sets, only the cheap crappy ones.
Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“
Again, the Sony Plasma sets were all 16:9 - and used 1024x1024 ALiS Hitachi panels.
As I mentioned before, I don't recall any reputable manufacturer selling 16:10 sets, only the cheap crappy ones.”
“
Again, the Sony Plasma sets were all 16:9 - and used 1024x1024 ALiS Hitachi panels.
As I mentioned before, I don't recall any reputable manufacturer selling 16:10 sets, only the cheap crappy ones.”
Fair enough it is a long time ago, 2004 from the images I have found. There seems to have been a KE-P37XS1 and a KDL-L42MRX1, both of which look similar in the pictures, and were extremely expensive. Not sure which one I saw back then but they looked beautiful in a way that things don't anymore. I remember thinking, If I win the pools..... Three years later I bought an end of line 32 inch V series for nearly £700, a bargain at the time!
Just out of interest some Sony professional monitors are 16x10, the extra vertical pixels at the bottom of the screen are used to display time code and similar data instead of burning it into the picture area.
Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“As I mentioned before, I don't recall any reputable manufacturer selling 16:10 sets, only the cheap crappy ones.”
“As I mentioned before, I don't recall any reputable manufacturer selling 16:10 sets, only the cheap crappy ones.”
I think 16:10s appeared in the early days of LCDs, often on 'own brands' and usually at a couple of sizes - 20" and 22" seem to ring a bell - probably because the panels were designed for use in other (PC monitor) applications but were a cheap source of panels for budget TVs.
I think even the budget sets have gone 16:9 now,
Originally Posted by AlanO:
“I think 16:10s appeared in the early days of LCDs, often on 'own brands' and usually at a couple of sizes - 20" and 22" seem to ring a bell - probably because the panels were designed for use in other (PC monitor) applications but were a cheap source of panels for budget TVs.
I think even the budget sets have gone 16:9 now,”
“I think 16:10s appeared in the early days of LCDs, often on 'own brands' and usually at a couple of sizes - 20" and 22" seem to ring a bell - probably because the panels were designed for use in other (PC monitor) applications but were a cheap source of panels for budget TVs.
I think even the budget sets have gone 16:9 now,”
I think that 16X10 panels were used by the computer and advertising business in 2004 and the panels were therefore readily available. However Nigel assures me that they were not used by Sony.
[quote=anthony david;84169202]Fair enough it is a long time ago, 2004 from the images I have found. There seems to have been a KE-P37XS1 and a KDL-L42MRX1, both of which look similar in the pictures, and were extremely expensive.
{/quote]
Yes they were expensive
But back then everything was.
Quite possible, 16:10 was a monitor size, never a TV size.
{/quote]
Yes they were expensive
But back then everything was.
Quote:
“
Just out of interest some Sony professional monitors are 16x10, the extra vertical pixels at the bottom of the screen are used to display time code and similar data instead of burning it into the picture area.”
“
Just out of interest some Sony professional monitors are 16x10, the extra vertical pixels at the bottom of the screen are used to display time code and similar data instead of burning it into the picture area.”
Quite possible, 16:10 was a monitor size, never a TV size.
Originally Posted by AlanO:
“I think 16:10s appeared in the early days of LCDs, often on 'own brands' and usually at a couple of sizes - 20" and 22" seem to ring a bell - probably because the panels were designed for use in other (PC monitor) applications but were a cheap source of panels for budget TVs.
I think even the budget sets have gone 16:9 now,”
“I think 16:10s appeared in the early days of LCDs, often on 'own brands' and usually at a couple of sizes - 20" and 22" seem to ring a bell - probably because the panels were designed for use in other (PC monitor) applications but were a cheap source of panels for budget TVs.
I think even the budget sets have gone 16:9 now,”
The latter of the 2 sizes you mention is what this small TV I have is and its a fair few years old now, could be 6+ years old not sure, so it would make sense that its one of the 16:10 budget models. Im not that bothered as its not my main TV.
Originally Posted by anthony david:
“I think that 16X10 panels were used by the computer and advertising business in 2004 and the panels were therefore readily available. However Nigel assures me that they were not used by Sony.”
“I think that 16X10 panels were used by the computer and advertising business in 2004 and the panels were therefore readily available. However Nigel assures me that they were not used by Sony.”
They weren't, only the cheap crap makes used them.
AlanO mentioned 20 or 22, the one I used as a monitor was 32 inch.
But they were only used for a short time, and a long time ago now - there haven't been any for years.
It could very well be 1680x1050
There is evidence...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MB-FOR-F22...p2047675.l2557
http://www.panelook.com/LTM220M1-L01...view_8127.html
...that the screen is 1680x1050. If it is then it's probably a monitor/TV and was sold for a premium price.
---------
The best way to check is to feed a 1680x1050 signal into it's VGA connector and see if the image is pin sharp with no blurring or missing lines.
It appears to be a 2008 model. On that main board there is a date.
There is evidence...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MB-FOR-F22...p2047675.l2557
http://www.panelook.com/LTM220M1-L01...view_8127.html
...that the screen is 1680x1050. If it is then it's probably a monitor/TV and was sold for a premium price.
---------
The best way to check is to feed a 1680x1050 signal into it's VGA connector and see if the image is pin sharp with no blurring or missing lines.
It appears to be a 2008 model. On that main board there is a date.
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“It could very well be 1680x1050
There is evidence...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MB-FOR-F22...p2047675.l2557
http://www.panelook.com/LTM220M1-L01...view_8127.html
...that the screen is 1680x1050. If it is then it's probably a monitor/TV and was sold for a premium price.
---------
The best way to check is to feed a 1680x1050 signal into it's VGA connector and see if the image is pin sharp with no blurring or missing lines.
It appears to be a 2008 model. On that main board there is a date.”
“It could very well be 1680x1050
There is evidence...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MB-FOR-F22...p2047675.l2557
http://www.panelook.com/LTM220M1-L01...view_8127.html
...that the screen is 1680x1050. If it is then it's probably a monitor/TV and was sold for a premium price.
---------
The best way to check is to feed a 1680x1050 signal into it's VGA connector and see if the image is pin sharp with no blurring or missing lines.
It appears to be a 2008 model. On that main board there is a date.”
Thanks that would make sense, I will have to just try inputting a 1680x1050 source in the VGA input and see what happens.
Update I have finally found a spare 5 min in which to play with this TV (*cough* monitor with TV extras!) It only displays properly if using VGA!
Through VGA it can display 1680x1050 as suspected its the native resolution, but the information that comes up on the screen says its receiving 1400x1050!
I can only assume that it cant even display its native resolution properly and will scale it down to 1400x1050 (which is 4:3) and then back up to 1680x1050 with the stretch to full screen mode.
Strangely it offered me the option to change to 4:3 aspect while doing this, but if I actually fed it with 1400x1050 it didnt!
In HDMI mode it was hopeless, it wouldnt display any resolution properly that way even 1920x1080 which would have some bits hiddent in overscan which I couldnt turn off even though you would expect to with HD resolutions over HDMI!
So all in all its awful, but it was free and usable for a TV sort of.
Through VGA it can display 1680x1050 as suspected its the native resolution, but the information that comes up on the screen says its receiving 1400x1050!
I can only assume that it cant even display its native resolution properly and will scale it down to 1400x1050 (which is 4:3) and then back up to 1680x1050 with the stretch to full screen mode.
Strangely it offered me the option to change to 4:3 aspect while doing this, but if I actually fed it with 1400x1050 it didnt!
In HDMI mode it was hopeless, it wouldnt display any resolution properly that way even 1920x1080 which would have some bits hiddent in overscan which I couldnt turn off even though you would expect to with HD resolutions over HDMI!
So all in all its awful, but it was free and usable for a TV sort of.
