Originally Posted by
Peterpr:
“You seem very knowledgeable, except when widescreen comes into it. It surprises me that you have such a superior machine but without a widescreen TV.
”
I risk going off-topic here.
I can perhaps justify it on the basis that these issues get into the philosophy of the design and use of these machines.
There are a number of contributory reasons why I don't have widescreen and I am not particularly interested in ever getting it.
Widescreen was a largely artificially driven TV development. Artificial in the sense of there being no real need.
It was largely motivated by the content providers of the film industry, but a cosy cabal developed which included the broadcasting industry and hardware manufacturers.
None of this essentially serves my end user experience as a watcher of TV ... because I am aware that the message is more important than the medium.
Many tend to lose sight of this... The same problem exists in the Audiophile world. [ AKA Audiophools].
Essentially , the biggest justification for widescreen came from attempting to closely match film formats... and this is where I have a personal problem....because, as a generalised statement, I do not watch films.
The reason for that is a cultural one.... because films means Hollywood and Hollywood means America ... and that is a culture which has serious problems and which is spreading around the world like an virus.
The bulk of films made are produced for commercial reasons, not because someone had something interesting to say.
So from that point of view , I am not motivated to go widescreen.
But there are other major factors. The issue has become confused because of display developments in recent years in the form of LCD and Plasma.... and also the gradual change to digital transmission.
Sadly the digital transition is another area that is being corrupted by the same 'Hollywood Values', where, what might be a good system, specifically in regard to DTT [ Freeview], has become so diluted in terms of quality as the broadcasting interests try to get blood out of a stone and cram far too much down the pipe. [ Please forgive the mixed metaphors].
The CRT is such a mature very highly developed product that, the fact remains that a properly set up glass screen [ i.e. CRT] receiving a good quality analogue signal will still always be better than any of the modern screen technologies displaying a digitally transmitted picture.
[ Note to others: This is a fact ... Not a point for debate].
That is not to say that digital does not have advantages. A debate about that is pointless anyway. We are stuck with it.
So - I have not been induced to the other screen technologies simply because I would be paying a lot more for poorer performance. Future development may change that... but it has a long way to go.
At the moment the plasma industry appears to be struggling hard to keep the lid on the 'secret' that there is a serious reliability problem emerging.
There is one coming development which will probably change my point of view and that is High Definition, which in theory at least should provide a quantum leap in terms of quality, albeit I have worries about the way that will be corrupted too by commercial interest.
At the moment the foreseeable route for that is via Murdoch... and as I remain a champion of Public Service Broadcasting and the principles it upholds, I wont touch it with a bargepole.
I hope that adequately explains my 'dont know / don't care' attitude to widescreen.
The views expressed here are necessarily my own.
Last edited by Gavtech : 05-01-2006 at 08:16