"The Devil" wrote in message
news:vbhvn0l3q9ehd39rold1umjeg4hnvdjk50@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:41:48 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

Im glad you agree, too bad you completely misunderstood what I wrote.

It's been a long day. It was already a long day by noon.

At 65" screen size, IMO, good quality rear projection CRTs have the best
overall picture in normal room lighting.

Well, I don't agree with that. I don't believe there *is* such a thing
as 'good quality rear-projection'. If there is, I certainly haven't
seen it--and we looked at a lot of different sets over the week or so
we were on the hunt for something other than S&M gear for the bedroom.

Its hard to compare picture quality at grossly different screen sizes.
Obviously, with comparable resolution the smaller screen will always look
sharper. However, at the larger screen sizes where contrast and brightness
in "normal" room lighting is an issue.. the rear projection CRT still wins
IMO. Front projection has made quantum improvements however the little
Epsons we just added at work for conference room projectors that are bright
enough to work with the lights on have also demonstrated that the 4000 hour
bulbs have a significant percentage that are more like 40 hours.
The Mitsu diamond CRT is very bright, in fact capable of blinding
brightness, its great on DVD and Native hi-def is outstanding. MNF is
actually enjoyable again.


And they have less depth than a 36" tube tv with plenty of cabinet space
for halfway decent speakers (if thats important).

**** all this ********. Talk about earwigs instead.

I have a Sony Wega CRT set at my office and the
picture is more like a moving painting than a TV image.

Wimpy little TVs.

My daughter blagged the 36" Wega I bought first for my office. I
helped her boyfriend carry it out. I was dead for the rest of the
week. The thing must have weighed well in excess of three hundred
pounds. I replaced it with the same model type but a smaller version.
The 36" was just too huge for the space I had available. My earwigs
are much happier with the smaller set.

But British actors are so ugly, putting their mugs up on
a big screen is utterly unbearable so I guess I understand.

Jude Law and Ewan McGregor are ugly? Hell, even I fancy them.

You've never been particularly particular.


We decided to
buy another one for the bedroom. Much cheaper than the alternatives,
and far superior picture.

I think a sack over the wifes head would have been even cheaper.

She has killed men for lesser remarks than that one. Be warned.

So she likes it rough, is that why you married her?

She
does read this group from time to time,

She's read your posts and hasn't left you? Amazing!

and she's in the US
frequently.

Heading off to America for a little extracurriculars eh? Perhaps she's
looking for a bigger set in the bedroom.

ScottW