HDTV set up
 

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:09:48 GMT, Fred Dehl wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in
:

Don White wrote:
Finally, the tv was delivered yesterday and the cable guy showed up
at 1500 today to do his thing.
Here we only have 9 real HDTV stations in the high channel range 602
- 610.

Tv is beautiful on those and a bit less so on the remaining channels.
One tricky thing is choosing the correct 'screen mode'.
I set it up so the HDTV fills the screen, but the normal channels
have the black bars on each side. They just don't look right if I go
to full screen or zoom or wide zoom.
I have to get the Sony salesman out to the house to make sure I have
the
set programmed for maxium clarity.


My SONY HDTV has the same sized screen display on regular or HDTV
cablecasts, so I am guessing you have a setting set wrong.

Nope, as usual, YOU are wrong.

HD broadcasts have an aspect ratio of 16:9. Regular broadcasts are in 4:3
AR. If your regular programming fills the screen of an HD display, either
everyone looks fat or you're cutting off significant parts of the top and
bottom of the picture.

That's correct, at least on my TV with Cox, except when an HD program is
being broadcast on an HD channel. Then the 'normal' zoom fills the 16:9
screen.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

HDTV set up
 

JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:40:15 GMT, Don White wrote:


Finally, the tv was delivered yesterday and the cable guy showed up at
1500 today to do his thing.
Here we only have 9 real HDTV stations in the high channel range 602 - 610.

Tv is beautiful on those and a bit less so on the remaining channels.
One tricky thing is choosing the correct 'screen mode'.
I set it up so the HDTV fills the screen, but the normal channels have
the black bars on each side. They just don't look right if I go to full
screen or zoom or wide zoom.
I have to get the Sony salesman out to the house to make sure I have the
set programmed for maxium clarity.
The cable guy gave me a HDMI cable to run between the box and tv and an
optical audio cable for DVR cable box/home theater system.
Now when I get my new DVD player I may use component cables for that.
The TV only has one HDMI input and it would be too much trouble moving
the HDMI cable between the DVR box and the DVD player as the salesman
suggested.


When a signal is broadcast in HD, the normal setting will fill the screen
nicely. When looking at regular broadcast, you'll have to live with the
lines on the sides, a 'stretched' mode, or a zoomed mode. (At least that's
the way mine is.) This is true for all channels, except the HD channels
when the broadcast is in HD. I first thought there was something wrong with
my TV also, but there wasn't. I've learned to live with fat faces, or
having the heads cut off a little and the display reduced on the bottom.

I use the component cables for the cable box and for the dvd player.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Caught the program 'R Steves Europe travels' on PBS HD
http://www.ricksteves.com/tvr/parisrse306_descr.htm
Scenery was breathtaking...really felt like you were there.
That's what I was hoping for in my new TV

World Class Diddling
 

Harry Krause wrote:

Since neither of you rectal fissures has any idea of the capabilities or
settings of my television, I suggest you spend your time diddling each
other.

And while we're on the subject of diddling, what price do you think the
west will ultimately pay for supporting Israel's landgrabs and abuse of
Arabs? Not a small hurt, eh?

I'll write to Hamas and suggest it set up a Derby, Kansas, chapter. You
can be the Grand Pubah.

Yes, go ahead and write Hamas, Krause. Make sure you address the
envelope properly. Believe they prefer street address to P.O. Box
numbers. And, oh yes, a few facts for you, Krause:

1916 - Sykes-Picot Agreement establishes Labanon, Syria, & Palestine
from old Ottoman Empire (French-British mandate).

1923 - Jewish terrorists force Britian into unilaterally splitting
Palestine into Palestine & Trans-Jordan.

1947 - Jewish terrorists force UN into further partitioning of Palestine
into Arab and Jew sections.

1948 - Hagana (IDF) unilaterally establishes state of Israel. US Jews
lobby government (Democrats) to support this takeover. US is first to
recognize new "state" of Israel.

Now, your position has been that there are no "real Palestinians, only
Arabs." You are factually incorrect. Your belief that there are no
Palestinians is, at best, wishful thinking on your part. There have, in
fact, been massive landgrabs and human rights abuses in Palestine. No
way the west can win in the end. Is it really worth the endless deaths?
Time to cut US losses.

--
Skipper

World Class Diddling
 

Skipper wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

Since neither of you rectal fissures has any idea of the capabilities or
settings of my television, I suggest you spend your time diddling each
other.

And while we're on the subject of diddling, what price do you think the
west will ultimately pay for supporting Israel's landgrabs and abuse of
Arabs? Not a small hurt, eh?

I'll write to Hamas and suggest it set up a Derby, Kansas, chapter. You
can be the Grand Pubah.

Yes, go ahead and write Hamas, Krause. Make sure you address the
envelope properly. Believe they prefer street address to P.O. Box
numbers. And, oh yes, a few facts for you, Krause:

1916 - Sykes-Picot Agreement establishes Labanon, Syria, & Palestine
from old Ottoman Empire (French-British mandate).

1923 - Jewish terrorists force Britian into unilaterally splitting
Palestine into Palestine & Trans-Jordan.

1947 - Jewish terrorists force UN into further partitioning of Palestine
into Arab and Jew sections.

1948 - Hagana (IDF) unilaterally establishes state of Israel. US Jews
lobby government (Democrats) to support this takeover. US is first to
recognize new "state" of Israel.

Now, your position has been that there are no "real Palestinians, only
Arabs." You are factually incorrect. Your belief that there are no
Palestinians is, at best, wishful thinking on your part. There have, in
fact, been massive landgrabs and human rights abuses in Palestine. No
way the west can win in the end. Is it really worth the endless deaths?
Time to cut US losses.

--
Skipper
Skipper,
I thought you wanted to stay away from political arguments and fights,
and keep this a boating NG?

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

World Class Diddling
 

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:52:26 -0600, Skipper wrote:

Now, your position has been that there are no "real Palestinians, only
Arabs." You are factually incorrect. Your belief that there are no
Palestinians is, at best, wishful thinking on your part. There have, in
fact, been massive landgrabs and human rights abuses in Palestine. No
way the west can win in the end. Is it really worth the endless deaths?
Time to cut US losses.

Wrong group, take it offline.

World Class Diddling
 

Reggie Smithers wrote:

1916 - Sykes-Picot Agreement establishes Labanon, Syria, & Palestine
from old Ottoman Empire (French-British mandate).

1923 - Jewish terrorists force Britian into unilaterally splitting
Palestine into Palestine & Trans-Jordan.

1947 - Jewish terrorists force UN into further partitioning of Palestine
into Arab and Jew sections.

1948 - Hagana (IDF) unilaterally establishes state of Israel. US Jews
lobby government (Democrats) to support this takeover. US is first to
recognize new "state" of Israel.

Now, your position has been that there are no "real Palestinians, only
Arabs." You are factually incorrect. Your belief that there are no
Palestinians is, at best, wishful thinking on your part. There have, in
fact, been massive landgrabs and human rights abuses in Palestine. No
way the west can win in the end. Is it really worth the endless deaths?
Time to cut US losses.

Skipper,
I thought you wanted to stay away from political arguments

Nothing argumentative, just facts:

The Sykes-Picot Agreement - 1916:

It is accordingly understood between the french and British governments:
That France and great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an
independent ***Arab*** states or a confederation of ***Arab*** states
(a) and (b) marked on the annexed map, ***under the suzerainty of an
Arab chief***. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) great Britain,
shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area
(a) France, and in area (b) great Britain, shall alone supply advisers
or foreign functionaries at the request of the ***Arab*** state or
confederation of Arab states.

--

And for those of us who saw the movie Lawrence of Arabia, let's not
forget how the west screwed the Arabs by implementing a mandate system
in ***their*** lands.

Is it any wonder the Arabs are upset?

--
Skipper

HDTV set up
 

Fred Dehl wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in
:

Fred Dehl wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in
:

Don White wrote:
Finally, the tv was delivered yesterday and the cable guy showed up
at 1500 today to do his thing.
Here we only have 9 real HDTV stations in the high channel range
602 - 610.

Tv is beautiful on those and a bit less so on the remaining
channels. One tricky thing is choosing the correct 'screen mode'.
I set it up so the HDTV fills the screen, but the normal channels
have the black bars on each side. They just don't look right if I
go to full screen or zoom or wide zoom.
I have to get the Sony salesman out to the house to make sure I
have the
set programmed for maxium clarity.

My SONY HDTV has the same sized screen display on regular or HDTV
cablecasts, so I am guessing you have a setting set wrong.

Nope, as usual, YOU are wrong.

HD broadcasts have an aspect ratio of 16:9. Regular broadcasts are
in 4:3 AR. If your regular programming fills the screen of an HD
display, either everyone looks fat or you're cutting off significant
parts of the top and bottom of the picture.


Fred:

There's nothing, I repeat, nothing you post here that I believe or
care about.

Good.

And you're wrong.

You don't even know what a ****ing aspect ratio IS, dickwash.

But I'm not going to expend any effort to "prove"
it.

Because you CAN'T, pussy.

The above inflammatory blather does absolutely nothing for your
credibility.

HDTV set up
 

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:17:35 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:09:48 GMT, Fred Dehl wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in
:

Don White wrote:
Finally, the tv was delivered yesterday and the cable guy showed up
at 1500 today to do his thing.
Here we only have 9 real HDTV stations in the high channel range 602
- 610.

Tv is beautiful on those and a bit less so on the remaining channels.
One tricky thing is choosing the correct 'screen mode'.
I set it up so the HDTV fills the screen, but the normal channels
have the black bars on each side. They just don't look right if I go
to full screen or zoom or wide zoom.
I have to get the Sony salesman out to the house to make sure I have
the
set programmed for maxium clarity.

My SONY HDTV has the same sized screen display on regular or HDTV
cablecasts, so I am guessing you have a setting set wrong.
Nope, as usual, YOU are wrong.

HD broadcasts have an aspect ratio of 16:9. Regular broadcasts are in 4:3
AR. If your regular programming fills the screen of an HD display, either
everyone looks fat or you're cutting off significant parts of the top and
bottom of the picture.

That's correct, at least on my TV with Cox, except when an HD program is
being broadcast on an HD channel. Then the 'normal' zoom fills the 16:9
screen.
--
'Til next time,

John H


I suggest you read that thick manual closely, and experiment with some
of hte settings.

If you'll read my response to Don, you'll see I've been there and done
that.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

World Class Diddling
 

--
Skipper

World Class Diddling
 

Skipper wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:

1916 - Sykes-Picot Agreement establishes Labanon, Syria, & Palestine
from old Ottoman Empire (French-British mandate).

1923 - Jewish terrorists force Britian into unilaterally splitting
Palestine into Palestine & Trans-Jordan.

1947 - Jewish terrorists force UN into further partitioning of Palestine
into Arab and Jew sections.

1948 - Hagana (IDF) unilaterally establishes state of Israel. US Jews
lobby government (Democrats) to support this takeover. US is first to
recognize new "state" of Israel.

Now, your position has been that there are no "real Palestinians, only
Arabs." You are factually incorrect. Your belief that there are no
Palestinians is, at best, wishful thinking on your part. There have, in
fact, been massive landgrabs and human rights abuses in Palestine. No
way the west can win in the end. Is it really worth the endless deaths?
Time to cut US losses.

Skipper,
I thought you wanted to stay away from political arguments

Nothing argumentative, just facts:

The Sykes-Picot Agreement - 1916:

It is accordingly understood between the french and British governments:
That France and great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an
independent ***Arab*** states or a confederation of ***Arab*** states
(a) and (b) marked on the annexed map, ***under the suzerainty of an
Arab chief***. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) great Britain,
shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area
(a) France, and in area (b) great Britain, shall alone supply advisers
or foreign functionaries at the request of the ***Arab*** state or
confederation of Arab states.

--

And for those of us who saw the movie Lawrence of Arabia, let's not
forget how the west screwed the Arabs by implementing a mandate system
in ***their*** lands.

Is it any wonder the Arabs are upset?

--
Skipper
Skipper,
It appears your motivation for posting is to troll for fights, this is
not conducive to your stated desire for a boating NG, but also
diminishes the value of any of your boating related posts for any new
members to rec.boats. You are proving Harry correct, when he said you
had no desire for a boating NG.



--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************