On 14 Oct 2005 at 3:40, keith_w wrote: > This is pertinent, as I'm looking at that very range myself. > On reflectin, it seems to me the problem might be coming from having the CRT > adhere to the display ratio... If the screen dieplay was square, I'll bet all > squiggless would go away. But, that might be just my illusion.
Issues relating to screen width modulation due to changes in video intensity are generally PSU related as Anthony said. Aspect ratio isn't generally problem as these days the beam focus, defection and astigmatism is dynamically controlled across every sweep. The deflection angle which is a function of the tube depth vs screen width poses far more of a technical nightmare for designers than aspect ratio and shallower tubes are being produced every year to increase box aesthetics and to allow more finished units to be packed into a container. > Sets this size are already in a weight class that makes it very difficult for > the owner to haul around, move, and so on. 105 lb. plus. So, if they can pare > weight off the total package, I suspect they do it. Where better than a heavy > power supply transformer? That's one place you can't miniaturize things much, > or > as you've seen, performance becomes iffy. The weight of a modern TV is primarily in the tube. As the tube size increases the glass has to be made thicker to eliminate the chance of implosion. There are no mains frequency power transformers in most modern TVs, they use very light and compact high frequency switch mode PSUs. These don't need to be weighty to have good performance but a high performance supply has a comparably high cost so that's a place that quality is often compromised. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
