Hi All

I am tempted to buy an LG M118WA  monitor which has a tv tuner built in 
(doesn't say if it is Freeview or not) and a scart interface.  I want to 
use it as a computer monitor but it would be really useful to be able to 
hook up a spare freeview box I have to the scart so that I am able to 
use it as a tv as well.

Anyone spot or know any good reason why I shouldn't buy one of these?? 
It will cost me £183 inc vat and inc delivery.

The spec is here


http://uk.insight.com/apps/productpresentation/index.php?alert=categoryresults&product_id=LGMQ228WA#extendedspecs


Whilst I am pretty sure it will do all I want as a monitorI would 
appreciate any guidence on this as I really am clueless on digital tv!

(I do realise that the speakers rated at 3watts are hardly going to 
rupture any internal organs!)




regards




Dudley

Dudley Simons wrote:
> Hi All
> 
> I am tempted to buy an LG M118WA  monitor which has a tv tuner built in 
> (doesn't say if it is Freeview or not) and a scart interface.  I want to 

The link you have given is a LG M228WA

Have a look at

<http://uk.lge.com/products/model/detail/multifunctionmonitor_m228wa.jhtml>

And download the user guide.

I've just done that. It has a SCART socket and an analogue tuner.

-- 
Adrian C

Adrian C wrote:
> Dudley Simons wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> I am tempted to buy an LG M118WA  monitor which has a tv tuner built 
>> in (doesn't say if it is Freeview or not) and a scart interface.  I 
>> want to 
> 
> The link you have given is a LG M228WA
> 
> Have a look at
> 
> <http://uk.lge.com/products/model/detail/multifunctionmonitor_m228wa.jhtml>
> 
> And download the user guide.
> 
> I've just done that. It has a SCART socket and an analogue tuner.
> 


ah - bit of slip up there it should be the M228WA

I take it theres no reason why this monitor wouldn't be compatible with 
future developments in tv or more to the point freeview?


regards


dudley

In article <g6usb4$aur$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
   Dudley Simons  wrote:
> Hi All

> I am tempted to buy an LG M118WA  monitor which has a tv tuner built in 
> (doesn't say if it is Freeview or not) and a scart interface.  I want to 
> use it as a computer monitor but it would be really useful to be able to 
> hook up a spare freeview box I have to the scart so that I am able to 
> use it as a tv as well.

> Anyone spot or know any good reason why I shouldn't buy one of these?? 
> It will cost me £183 inc vat and inc delivery.

> The spec is here


http://uk.insight.com/apps/productpresentation/index.php?alert=categoryresults&product_id=LGMQ228WA#extendedspecs


> Whilst I am pretty sure it will do all I want as a monitorI would 
> appreciate any guidence on this as I really am clueless on digital tv!

I'd say it's very shortsighted buying a TV that doesn't have a FreeView
tuner built in. Other thing is it may well not switch aspect ratios
automatically if hooked up to an external FreeView STB. It may also not be
16:9 - many of these low end widescreen sets aren't. 

> (I do realise that the speakers rated at 3watts are hardly going to 
> rupture any internal organs!)




> regards




> Dudley

-- 
*Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard? *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <g6usb4$aur$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>    Dudley Simons  wrote:
>> Hi All
> 
>> I am tempted to buy an LG M118WA  monitor which has a tv tuner built in 
>> (doesn't say if it is Freeview or not) and a scart interface.  I want to 
>> use it as a computer monitor but it would be really useful to be able to 
>> hook up a spare freeview box I have to the scart so that I am able to 
>> use it as a tv as well.
> 
>> Anyone spot or know any good reason why I shouldn't buy one of these?? 
>> It will cost me £183 inc vat and inc delivery.
> 
>> The spec is here
> 
> 
> http://uk.insight.com/apps/productpresentation/index.php?alert=categoryresults&product_id=LGMQ228WA#extendedspecs
> 
> 
>> Whilst I am pretty sure it will do all I want as a monitorI would 
>> appreciate any guidence on this as I really am clueless on digital tv!
> 
> I'd say it's very shortsighted buying a TV that doesn't have a FreeView
> tuner built in. Other thing is it may well not switch aspect ratios
> automatically if hooked up to an external FreeView STB. It may also not be
> 16:9 - many of these low end widescreen sets aren't. 

snip

I assume that you can switch formats manually which wouldn't be too 
onerous given that this is not going to be a main tv set just for- the 
odd occassion when I actually want to watch something on the box but I 
get can't get near the tv in the lounge because someone else is watching 
I'm A Master Brother On Ice Get Britains Talent Out Of Here

Plus it has to be remembered the LG is only 183 quid which doesn't buy 
much in the way of LCD tellys.

Why would it be shortsighted to buy a tv without a built in freeview? 
Surely if the freeview specification/format changes and the firmware 
can't be updated easily (as with the older freeview boxes that have 
appeared in various threads here recently) you then have a tv that you 
can't use rather than an easily replaced and cheap(ish) freeview box - 
or am I missing something here ?



regards



dudley

Dudley Simons wrote:
> 
> ah - bit of slip up there it should be the M228WA
> 
> I take it theres no reason why this monitor wouldn't be compatible with 
> future developments in tv or more to the point freeview?

You can plug a cheap set-top box and it will become a freeview set at 
standard definition (SD). For high definition, the digital port offered 
is DVI - not HDMI. Athough you can get cables to connect between HDMI 
and DVI+audio, I can't see any support for HDCP mentioned in the manual.

If HDCP not supported (Why not ask LG why not?) then you may have 
problems connecting HD sources like Blueray and Sky/FreeSat HD.

Also, being basically a PC monitor with TV electronics glued on - the 
chance of correct rescaling of SD to suit the high definition screen 
with regard to aspect ratio, image jaggedness, angle of viewing is 
perhaps less than with a purpose designed TV set.

To some extent you can get around that with some freeview set top boxes 
out there (Goodmans in Argos?) that will output a rescaled picture to 
suit the high def screen. Then again, it might not matter. You may be 
pleased what you get for the price of the set!

The better less messing about alternative is a purpose designed TV set 
with a built-in freeview tuner and HDMI port.

-- 
Adrian C

In <g6v758$9kj$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Dudley Simons
 wrote:

>Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> I'd say it's very shortsighted buying a TV that doesn't have a FreeView
>> tuner built in. Other thing is it may well not switch aspect ratios
>> automatically if hooked up to an external FreeView STB. It may also not be
>> 16:9 - many of these low end widescreen sets aren't. 

I agree on both counts. Nearly a decade after the launch of DTT in the UK
the manufacturers are really taking the piss by still selling
analogue-only models, and non-16:9 models misleadingly called
"widescreen".

[...]
>Why would it be shortsighted to buy a tv without a built in freeview? 

Because it's been so long - almost ten years now. And we're now at the
other end of this decade-long switchover process: the analogue-switch-off
end.

>Surely if the freeview specification/format changes 

In what way? Not just the Freeview spec from 2002 which only affects the
Freeview muxes, but the DTT spec for all 6 muxes from ages before the
launch of DTT in 1998. People didn't avoid buying analogue TVs just in
case the PAL spec changed.

When BBC Parliament was relaunched on Freeview with 1/4-resolution video,
after being audio-only previously, Sony IDTVs were caught out because they
couldn't display it. Sony released a firmware update, out of shame - they
have to send me a PCMCIA card in the post as my TV can't update over the
air - but this was never a change to the DTT spec. 1/4-res video had been
in there from the start, but Sony cut corners and released TVs onto the
market which couldn't cope.

They had the choice of either updating firmware or losing Sale of Goods
act actions in the small claims court.

>and the firmware 
>can't be updated easily (as with the older freeview boxes that have 
>appeared in various threads here recently)

But those freeview boxes are faulty, not written to the specs, and legally
speaking unfit for purpose under the terms of the Sale of Goods act.

The majority (thankfully) are written to spec. HTH

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
> I'd say it's very shortsighted buying a TV that doesn't have a
> FreeView tuner built in. Other thing is it may well not switch aspect
> ratios automatically if hooked up to an external FreeView STB. It may
> also not be 16:9 - many of these low end widescreen sets aren't.

With a native resolution of 1680 x 1050 you are correct, neither 16:9 or 
4:3. Fine as a computer monitor, far from ideal as a television. Too 
expensive for either.
-- 
 >^..^< This is Kitty. Copy and paste Kitty into your signature to help
her wipe out Bunny's world domination.

On 1 Aug., 17:14, Mike Henry <{$mrtickl...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In <g6v758$9k...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Dudley Simons
>
> >Why would it be shortsighted to buy a tv without a built in freeview?
>
> Because it's been so long - almost ten years now. And we're now at the
> other end of this decade-long switchover process: the analogue-switch-off
> end.
>
But the Freview spec is changing to DVB-T2
next year on MUX-B/PSB-3 and then it is
only a matter of time before the next multiplex
will change.  Likely one of the COM multiplexes.
>
Ofcom says 'Not in the foreseeable future" , but how
far do they see into the future.
>
Lars :)

In article <g6v758$9kj$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
   Dudley Simons  wrote:
> > I'd say it's very shortsighted buying a TV that doesn't have a
> > FreeView tuner built in. Other thing is it may well not switch aspect
> > ratios automatically if hooked up to an external FreeView STB. It may
> > also not be 16:9 - many of these low end widescreen sets aren't. 

> snip

> I assume that you can switch formats manually

I wouldn't assume anything. It might just 'fit to screen' all the time.

> which wouldn't be too 
> onerous given that this is not going to be a main tv set just for- the 
> odd occassion when I actually want to watch something on the box but I 
> get can't get near the tv in the lounge because someone else is watching 
> I'm A Master Brother On Ice Get Britains Talent Out Of Here

Well if you want to watch other than rubbish surely a decent picture is
important? ;-) 

> Plus it has to be remembered the LG is only 183 quid which doesn't buy 
> much in the way of LCD tellys.

There could be a reason why it's so cheap. Like the wrong aspect ratio
screen etc.  

> Why would it be shortsighted to buy a tv without a built in freeview? 
> Surely if the freeview specification/format changes and the firmware 
> can't be updated easily (as with the older freeview boxes that have 
> appeared in various threads here recently)

You expect a cheap set to have a long long life? 

> you then have a tv that you 
> can't use rather than an easily replaced and cheap(ish) freeview box - 
> or am I missing something here ?

Nothing to stop you using a FreeView box with a FreeView TV either - if
there are any changes proposed.

It does sound like you just want convincing to buy it, though. Sorry. ;-)

-- 
*60-year-old, one owner - needs parts, make offer

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

And besides, the analogue tuner will be just the think to get all those 
pirate tv channels containing porn and naff videos due to seize the 
frequencies when the shut down comes...

:-)

Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Dudley Simons"  wrote in message 
news:g6v30u$s8h$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> Adrian C wrote:
>> Dudley Simons wrote:
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> I am tempted to buy an LG M118WA  monitor which has a tv tuner built in 
>>> (doesn't say if it is Freeview or not) and a scart interface.  I want to
>>
>> The link you have given is a LG M228WA
>>
>> Have a look at
>>
>> <http://uk.lge.com/products/model/detail/multifunctionmonitor_m228wa.jhtml>
>>
>> And download the user guide.
>>
>> I've just done that. It has a SCART socket and an analogue tuner.
>>
>
>
> ah - bit of slip up there it should be the M228WA
>
> I take it theres no reason why this monitor wouldn't be compatible with 
> future developments in tv or more to the point freeview?
>
>
> regards
>
>
> dudley

Brian Gaff wrote:
> And besides, the analogue tuner will be just the think to get all those 
> pirate tv channels containing porn and naff videos due to seize the 
> frequencies when the shut down comes...

Pirate TV and Pirate FM operators might think that they will have a 
field day when the legit services totally move off to digital 
transmission, but the replacement use of the bandwidth vacated 
(Telecoms? More mobile phones?) will probably make their illegal 
transmissions more difficult to see/hear unless they "turn the wick up" 
and start paying electricity bills....

Did anyone successfuly launch a pirate 405 line TV service back in the 
years leading up to 1984 when 405 line transmissions ceased at Crystal 
Palace?

-- 
Adrian C

Adrian C wrote:
tricity bills....
> 
> Did anyone successfuly launch a pirate 405 line TV service back in the 
> years leading up to 1984 when 405 line transmissions ceased at Crystal 
> Palace?

Even if they did, with the tiny amount of 405 line sets still in use in 1984, 
there would have been more people involved in the transmission, than actual 
viewers. Rather like 'Five US' I suppose :-)



-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Mike Henry <{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> People didn't avoid buying analogue TVs just in
> case the PAL spec changed.

Well, no, they didn't have to. The System I/PAL spec hardly changed at
all in over 40 years, and when it did (VBI test/data signals, different
V/S carrier ratio, addition Nicam carrier etc) there were lengthy tests
done to ensure that existing receivers were not affected.

Nowadays any spotty geek can say to a mearketeer "Hey, look, we could do
this and get loadamoney from the punters" and it happens.
 
-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>

In article <1il1j6b.i73g041rxq800N%Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid>,
   Alan Pemberton <Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Mike Henry <{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > People didn't avoid buying analogue TVs just in
> > case the PAL spec changed.

> Well, no, they didn't have to. The System I/PAL spec hardly changed at
> all in over 40 years, and when it did (VBI test/data signals, different
> V/S carrier ratio, addition Nicam carrier etc) there were lengthy tests
> done to ensure that existing receivers were not affected.

but there were loads of problems with receivers for Ceefax as the
broadcasters implemented various facilities provided for in the
specification

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Hi All

I wasn't really looking for anyone to convince me to buy it but any 
really good reasons why I shouldn't buy one - ie its a POS or will cease 
working when something or other changes next year  :o)


Well it has turned up.  Straight from the box plugged it in to a Philips 
1500 Freeview box, it automatically found the signal and the picture 
looks more than acceptable - but not in the same league as a 500 quid 
Sony.  There are some presets for picture quality and I have as yet to 
find out how you can set up your own custom settings for brightness and 
contrast.  The sound quality is much better than expected and can 
probably be improved when I figure out where the sound set up menu. 
<note to self> .... really must read the manual!

At first appearance the auto selection of format appears to work pretty 
well and there is a manual screen ratio button - ARC,  on the remote 
which gives you true 4:3 and 16:9.

I haven't had time to try it as a monitor as yet.

I have no doubt that this doesn't meet with the highest standards that 
some here would set but this is costing me £183 - not sure what the true 
street price is - £195 - £250 is the range I have seen it advertised at.

As a TV it is certainly head and shoulders above the sub £200 15 inch 
crap brand LCD tellies on sale in Tesco, Comet, Curries et al.

How long it lasts has yet to be seen :o)  Hopefully it will last longer 
than the usual warranty period plus a couple of months that the afore 
mentioned crap brands seem to last before they start to play up or roll 
over and die.



regards


Dudley

Dudley Simons wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I wasn't really looking for anyone to convince me to buy it but any
> really good reasons why I shouldn't buy one - ie its a POS or will
> cease working when something or other changes next year  :o)
>
>
> Well it has turned up.  Straight from the box plugged it in to a
> Philips 1500 Freeview box, it automatically found the signal and the
> picture looks more than acceptable - but not in the same league as a
> 500 quid Sony.  There are some presets for picture quality and I have
> as yet to find out how you can set up your own custom settings for
> brightness and contrast.  The sound quality is much better than
> expected and can probably be improved when I figure out where the
> sound set up menu. <note to self> .... really must read the manual!
>
> At first appearance the auto selection of format appears to work
> pretty well and there is a manual screen ratio button - ARC,  on the
> remote which gives you true 4:3 and 16:9.
>
> I haven't had time to try it as a monitor as yet.
>
> I have no doubt that this doesn't meet with the highest standards that
> some here would set but this is costing me £183 - not sure what the
> true street price is - £195 - £250 is the range I have seen it
> advertised at.
> As a TV it is certainly head and shoulders above the sub £200 15 inch
> crap brand LCD tellies on sale in Tesco, Comet, Curries et al.
>
> How long it lasts has yet to be seen :o)  Hopefully it will last
> longer than the usual warranty period plus a couple of months that
> the afore mentioned crap brands seem to last before they start to
> play up or roll over and die.
>


Hi Dudley,

I've had this monitor for about a year now. Got it from Play.com for £199 
then a few quid off via quidco.
I got it for my son, where he has a wii, PS2, freeview box and PC all rigged 
up to it.
As for a tv, skin tones are very slightly off (haven't fiddled much though) 
and there is a slight bit of backlight bleed, but all in all a perfectly 
adequate picture for a bedroom tv and a very good PC monitor.

I'm happy with it, hope you are.

Regards
Des

In article <g79953$ms5$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
   Dudley Simons  wrote:
> At first appearance the auto selection of format appears to work pretty 
> well and there is a manual screen ratio button - ARC,  on the remote 
> which gives you true 4:3 and 16:9.

So the 16:9 has black bands top and bottom? ;-)

-- 
*A backward poet writes inverse.*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

> So the 16:9 has black bands top and bottom? ;-)

An honest question as I've never tried, if you were presented with a TV that 
was either 16:9 or 15:9, could you tell which it was?  I can certainly tell 
when I'm watching a 4:3 picture stretched to 16:9 (or vice versa) but is the 
difference between 15:9 and 16:9 enough to be obvious?

Paul DS.

Paul D.Smith wrote:
>> So the 16:9 has black bands top and bottom? ;-)
>
> An honest question as I've never tried, if you were presented with a
> TV that was either 16:9 or 15:9, could you tell which it was?  I can
> certainly tell when I'm watching a 4:3 picture stretched to 16:9 (or
> vice versa) but is the difference between 15:9 and 16:9 enough to be
> obvious?
> Paul DS.

It's actually 14.4:9 and yes, I can see the difference easliy.
-- 
 >^..^< This is Kitty. Copy and paste Kitty into your signature to help
her wipe out Bunny's world domination.

charles  wrote:

> In article <1il1j6b.i73g041rxq800N%Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid>,
>    Alan Pemberton <Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> > Mike Henry <{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > > People didn't avoid buying analogue TVs just in
> > > case the PAL spec changed.
> 
> > Well, no, they didn't have to. The System I/PAL spec hardly changed at
> > all in over 40 years, and when it did (VBI test/data signals, different
> > V/S carrier ratio, addition Nicam carrier etc) there were lengthy tests
> > done to ensure that existing receivers were not affected.
> 
> but there were loads of problems with receivers for Ceefax as the
> broadcasters implemented various facilities provided for in the
> specification

Because the receivers were designed by computer geeks rather than proper
setmakers. Same as now.

-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>

In article <1il5ua0.1inkq6qaf0oj4N%Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid>,
   Alan Pemberton <Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> charles  wrote:

> > In article <1il1j6b.i73g041rxq800N%Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid>,
> >    Alan Pemberton <Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> > > Mike Henry <{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > > People didn't avoid buying analogue TVs just in
> > > > case the PAL spec changed.
> > 
> > > Well, no, they didn't have to. The System I/PAL spec hardly changed
> > > at all in over 40 years, and when it did (VBI test/data signals,
> > > different V/S carrier ratio, addition Nicam carrier etc) there were
> > > lengthy tests done to ensure that existing receivers were not
> > > affected.
> > 
> > but there were loads of problems with receivers for Ceefax as the
> > broadcasters implemented various facilities provided for in the
> > specification

> Because the receivers were designed by computer geeks rather than proper
> setmakers. Same as now.

Those who designed them may have been computer geeks, but they worked for
set makers, and they didn't read the spec.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In , "Paul D.Smith"
 wrote:

>> So the 16:9 has black bands top and bottom? ;-)
>
>An honest question as I've never tried, if you were presented with a TV that 
>was either 16:9 or 15:9, could you tell which it was?  I can certainly tell 
>when I'm watching a 4:3 picture stretched to 16:9 (or vice versa) but is the 
>difference between 15:9 and 16:9 enough to be obvious?

It depends what you're comparing. If you're comparing
1) 4:3-stretched horribly to 16:9
with
2) 4:3-stretched horribly to 15:9

Then in both cases wheels aren't round, both will look wrong but one is
worse than the other. The question "which of them is true 16:9" is not
your biggest problem in that situation!

However! If you're comparing combinations of
1) 16:9 displayed properly as 16:9 on a 16:9-shaped display
with
2) 16:9 displayed squashed into a 15:9-shaped display
with
3) 16:9 displayed cropped into a 15:9-shaped display

Then (imho)
a) 2) will be wrong with squashed wheels. Unwatchable.
b) If you can't tell the difference between 1) and 3) then the
manufacturers will love you, because that's how they've got away with
ripping off people by selling non-16:9 displays described as "widescreen"
for the last few years.
c) If you can't tell the difference between 2) and 1), or between 2) and
3) then you need an eye test
d) If you've got 3) and you're happy with 3) then fair enough, it was
cheap, but you should be fully aware that the picture is being cropped!
e) If the TV defaults to, or is hard to get out of, 2) then it's a dud.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <g79953$ms5$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>    Dudley Simons  wrote:
>> At first appearance the auto selection of format appears to work pretty 
>> well and there is a manual screen ratio button - ARC,  on the remote 
>> which gives you true 4:3 and 16:9.
> 
> So the 16:9 has black bands top and bottom? ;-)
> 


and the problem is??

In 4:3 you get an image with black all around it.  In widescreen you get 
a black band top and bottom but to be honest that doesn't bother me. 
However, watching a 4:3 distorted up to widescreen really would bother me.

I know that having the black around the image is a waste of screen space 
for which I have paid, but given that the LG is primarily to be used as 
a computer monitor and I will only be using it as a tv occassionally, 
and previously I would have had to watch a small cheap Goodmans portable 
(RIP) up in the bedroom, the LG meets all of my needs.  Using the LG as 
your main telly in a larger than average modern living room might be a 
bit more of a problem though.





regards



Dudley

On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:20:37 +0100, Dudley Simons
 wrote:

>Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <g79953$ms5$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>>    Dudley Simons  wrote:
>>> At first appearance the auto selection of format appears to work pretty 
>>> well and there is a manual screen ratio button - ARC,  on the remote 
>>> which gives you true 4:3 and 16:9.
>> 
>> So the 16:9 has black bands top and bottom? ;-)
>> 
>
>
>and the problem is??
>
>In 4:3 you get an image with black all around it.  In widescreen you get 
>a black band top and bottom but to be honest that doesn't bother me. 
>However, watching a 4:3 distorted up to widescreen really would bother me.
>
>I know that having the black around the image is a waste of screen space 
>for which I have paid, but given that the LG is primarily to be used as 
>a computer monitor and I will only be using it as a tv occassionally, 
>and previously I would have had to watch a small cheap Goodmans portable 
>(RIP) up in the bedroom, the LG meets all of my needs.  Using the LG as 
>your main telly in a larger than average modern living room might be a 
>bit more of a problem though.
>
>
>
>
>
>regards
>
>
>
>Dudley
You shouldn't be getting black all around a 4:3 picture, only at the
sides.  Unless of course you are shring a 16:9 picture that already
has black bars top & bottom.

Marky P.

Marky P wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:20:37 +0100, Dudley Simons
>  wrote:
> 
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <g79953$ms5$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>>>    Dudley Simons  wrote:
>>>> At first appearance the auto selection of format appears to work pretty 
>>>> well and there is a manual screen ratio button - ARC,  on the remote 
>>>> which gives you true 4:3 and 16:9.
>>> So the 16:9 has black bands top and bottom? ;-)
>>>
>>
>> and the problem is??
>>
>> In 4:3 you get an image with black all around it.  In widescreen you get 
>> a black band top and bottom but to be honest that doesn't bother me. 
>> However, watching a 4:3 distorted up to widescreen really would bother me.
>>
>> I know that having the black around the image is a waste of screen space 
>> for which I have paid, but given that the LG is primarily to be used as 
>> a computer monitor and I will only be using it as a tv occassionally, 
>> and previously I would have had to watch a small cheap Goodmans portable 
>> (RIP) up in the bedroom, the LG meets all of my needs.  Using the LG as 
>> your main telly in a larger than average modern living room might be a 
>> bit more of a problem though.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Dudley
> You shouldn't be getting black all around a 4:3 picture, only at the
> sides.  Unless of course you are shring a 16:9 picture that already
> has black bars top & bottom.
> 
> Marky P.
> 



now you've started me doubting my memory :o(

If I get time to play with it later I'll check and pay more attention :o)


Dudley

On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:34:19 +0100, Dudley Simons
 wrote:

>Marky P wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:20:37 +0100, Dudley Simons
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>> In article <g79953$ms5$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>>>>    Dudley Simons  wrote:
>>>>> At first appearance the auto selection of format appears to work pretty 
>>>>> well and there is a manual screen ratio button - ARC,  on the remote 
>>>>> which gives you true 4:3 and 16:9.
>>>> So the 16:9 has black bands top and bottom? ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> and the problem is??
>>>
>>> In 4:3 you get an image with black all around it.  In widescreen you get 
>>> a black band top and bottom but to be honest that doesn't bother me. 
>>> However, watching a 4:3 distorted up to widescreen really would bother me.
>>>
>>> I know that having the black around the image is a waste of screen space 
>>> for which I have paid, but given that the LG is primarily to be used as 
>>> a computer monitor and I will only be using it as a tv occassionally, 
>>> and previously I would have had to watch a small cheap Goodmans portable 
>>> (RIP) up in the bedroom, the LG meets all of my needs.  Using the LG as 
>>> your main telly in a larger than average modern living room might be a 
>>> bit more of a problem though.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dudley
>> You shouldn't be getting black all around a 4:3 picture, only at the
>> sides.  Unless of course you are shring a 16:9 picture that already
>> has black bars top & bottom.
>> 
>> Marky P.
>> 
>
>
>
>now you've started me doubting my memory :o(
>
>If I get time to play with it later I'll check and pay more attention :o)
>
>
>Dudley

Check the settings on the freeview box.  If the monitor is 16:9 (or
near enough) the box should be set for 16:9 (or wide)

Marky P.

In article ,
   Marky P  wrote:
> You shouldn't be getting black all around a 4:3 picture, only at the
> sides.  Unless of course you are shring a 16:9 picture that already
> has black bars top & bottom.

That's the problem with these cheapies. Only a choice of 4:3 or 'wide'. So
you can't optimise for widescreen shown over 4:3.

-- 
*The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <g7bmsl$hcp$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
   Dudley Simons  wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <g79953$ms5$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> >    Dudley Simons  wrote:
> >> At first appearance the auto selection of format appears to work
> >> pretty well and there is a manual screen ratio button - ARC,  on the
> >> remote which gives you true 4:3 and 16:9.
> > 
> > So the 16:9 has black bands top and bottom? ;-) 

> and the problem is??

> In 4:3 you get an image with black all around it.

Sounds like something is very wrong.

>  In widescreen you get
> a black band top and bottom but to be honest that doesn't bother me.
> However, watching a 4:3 distorted up to widescreen really would bother
> me.

With a true 16:9 set you should get all the picture with no black bands.
But then you gets what you pay for...

> I know that having the black around the image is a waste of screen space 
> for which I have paid, but given that the LG is primarily to be used as 
> a computer monitor and I will only be using it as a tv occassionally, 
> and previously I would have had to watch a small cheap Goodmans portable 
> (RIP) up in the bedroom, the LG meets all of my needs.  Using the LG as 
> your main telly in a larger than average modern living room might be a 
> bit more of a problem though.

How is the linearity as a computer monitor?

-- 
*Letting a cat out of the bag is easier than putting it back in *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <g7bmsl$hcp$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>    Dudley Simons  wrote:
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <g79953$ms5$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>>>    Dudley Simons  wrote:
>>>> At first appearance the auto selection of format appears to work
>>>> pretty well and there is a manual screen ratio button - ARC,  on the
>>>> remote which gives you true 4:3 and 16:9.
>>> So the 16:9 has black bands top and bottom? ;-) 
> 
>> and the problem is??
> 
>> In 4:3 you get an image with black all around it.
> 
> Sounds like something is very wrong.
> 
>>  In widescreen you get
>> a black band top and bottom but to be honest that doesn't bother me.
>> However, watching a 4:3 distorted up to widescreen really would bother
>> me.
> 
> With a true 16:9 set you should get all the picture with no black bands.
> But then you gets what you pay for...
> 
>> I know that having the black around the image is a waste of screen space 
>> for which I have paid, but given that the LG is primarily to be used as 
>> a computer monitor and I will only be using it as a tv occassionally, 
>> and previously I would have had to watch a small cheap Goodmans portable 
>> (RIP) up in the bedroom, the LG meets all of my needs.  Using the LG as 
>> your main telly in a larger than average modern living room might be a 
>> bit more of a problem though.
> 
> How is the linearity as a computer monitor?
> 


if you can point me towards a link for suitable/approved test grids I'll 
download  some and take a look as soon as I get the desk cleared of CRTs 
and hooked up to the PC.

I assume that linearity in a monitor is how accurate it is in 
geometrical terms - looking for geometrical aberrations within images 
known to be correct?


regards


Dudley

Dudley Simons  wrote:

> if you can point me towards a link for suitable/approved test grids I'll
> download  some and take a look as soon as I get the desk cleared of CRTs
> and hooked up to the PC.

There's a 1050 x 576 square pixel version of Text Card W and a 788 x 576
version of Text Card J somewhere on the BBC website. I've lost the
original URL but they were in the 'Commissioning' section and include
markings to indicate correct framing of graphics and action.

-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:27:58 +0100, Dudley Simons
 sharpened a new quill and scratched:

>Adrian C wrote:
>> Dudley Simons wrote:
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> I am tempted to buy an LG M118WA  monitor which has a tv tuner built 
>>> in (doesn't say if it is Freeview or not) and a scart interface.  I 
>>> want to 
>> 
>> The link you have given is a LG M228WA
>> 
>> Have a look at
>> 
>> <http://uk.lge.com/products/model/detail/multifunctionmonitor_m228wa.jhtml>
>> 
>> And download the user guide.
>> 
>> I've just done that. It has a SCART socket and an analogue tuner.
>> 
>
>
>ah - bit of slip up there it should be the M228WA
>
>I take it theres no reason why this monitor wouldn't be compatible with 
>future developments in tv or more to the point freeview?

Why not buy the M228WD which has built in Freeview tuner, 2 scart
sockets, HDMI socket and two AVs? I have one on the computer in my
'study', works fine, can have a break, watch TV, or a DVD. I've had no
problem with DTV, a little contrasty maybe, but it is basically a
computer monitor and gives a great service as such.

Kay

It needs civilization, it needs second thoughts,
to realise that Napoleon and Ceasar and Alexander
are not really the highest types of humanity,
that war making is not a glory but a crime