1
Everything Else / Re: Who knows about HDTVs?
« on: April 20, 2010, 06:43:48 am »
You'd think a TV I spent £500 for would come with an aerial wouldn't you? Lol. Seems really well built though and is nice and heavy.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Everything Else / Re: Who knows about HDTVs?
« on: April 19, 2010, 08:07:47 am »
Appreciate the info guys. I actually got some feedback from a tech forum and was convinced to plug for a different TV.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-KDL32W5500U-Widescreen-Freeview-Motionflow/dp/B001RCU7FI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1271621263&sr=8-1
Am getting this badboy which should be here tomorrow, and Sony are giving free 3 year warranty on all HDTV Bravias over 26". The Samsung no doubt would have been fine, but for an extra £150/200 I get a much better TV.
The stuff about Plasma TVs was interesting to read though - I didn't know any of that until now.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-KDL32W5500U-Widescreen-Freeview-Motionflow/dp/B001RCU7FI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1271621263&sr=8-1
Am getting this badboy which should be here tomorrow, and Sony are giving free 3 year warranty on all HDTV Bravias over 26". The Samsung no doubt would have been fine, but for an extra £150/200 I get a much better TV.
The stuff about Plasma TVs was interesting to read though - I didn't know any of that until now.
3
Everything Else / Who knows about HDTVs?
« on: April 17, 2010, 04:14:59 pm »
Hi all,
Recently purchased a PS3 Slim and want the full experience for my new house. Won't have too much space and am only looking at 32" (I'm a firm believer in some TVs just being too big). Must admit I don't know a huge amount about TVs or technology nowadays. All I know is it should be 1080p, have a slot for an HDMI cable, a nice contrast ratio, and pixel resolution of 1920x1080.
Am not looking to spend a fortune on this but ideally want longevity from it. This TV has jumped out at me as standing out from the rest that I've been searching, and is at a really good price:
http://www.electronicworldtv.co.uk/32_Samsung_LE32B530_Full_HD_1080p_Digital_Freeview_LCD_TV_469_d
If someone who knows about this kind of stuff could give some advice as to whether that will do the job and will give me the quality I'm looking for at a good price, or suggest alternatives then I would really appreciate it.
I really don't want a monster 42"/50" TV, 32" is sufficient and I know Plasma is supposed to be better than LCD, but all the Plasma TVs seem to be huge.
Thanks a lot!
Recently purchased a PS3 Slim and want the full experience for my new house. Won't have too much space and am only looking at 32" (I'm a firm believer in some TVs just being too big). Must admit I don't know a huge amount about TVs or technology nowadays. All I know is it should be 1080p, have a slot for an HDMI cable, a nice contrast ratio, and pixel resolution of 1920x1080.
Am not looking to spend a fortune on this but ideally want longevity from it. This TV has jumped out at me as standing out from the rest that I've been searching, and is at a really good price:
http://www.electronicworldtv.co.uk/32_Samsung_LE32B530_Full_HD_1080p_Digital_Freeview_LCD_TV_469_d
If someone who knows about this kind of stuff could give some advice as to whether that will do the job and will give me the quality I'm looking for at a good price, or suggest alternatives then I would really appreciate it.
I really don't want a monster 42"/50" TV, 32" is sufficient and I know Plasma is supposed to be better than LCD, but all the Plasma TVs seem to be huge.
Thanks a lot!
4
Movies / Re: James Cameron's Avatar
« on: February 06, 2010, 11:14:39 pm »Im fairly certain he acts how they want him to.
If James Cameron didn't want him to be doing that, then It wouldn't have been in the movie.
Then the blame is shared between Cameron and Worthington.
5
Movies / Re: James Cameron's Avatar
« on: February 05, 2010, 06:12:37 am »What was wrong with his acting Janos?
Right. He's fallen in love with the alien race and their culture, and his boss then tells him they are going to nuke their spiritual homes. He just sits in his wheelchair pretty emotionless. That's just one example.
Sam Worthington is pretty. That's about it and probably the only reason he was picked for the role. He probably cost less than a higher profile actor as well.
Now if Cameron had cast the guy from Paranormal Activity that would have been hilarious.
6
Movies / Re: James Cameron's Avatar
« on: February 03, 2010, 10:37:52 am »OMG.. it's Janos. Haven't seen you in forever!! What's he going to do with his money? Make more movies of course, after taxes.
Miss me?
I didn't mind Avatar. I enjoyed it even though Sam Worthington probably wasn't the best choice for lead role - he can't act for ****.
7
Movies / Re: James Cameron's Avatar
« on: January 31, 2010, 12:49:01 pm »That guy was absolutely spot-on. Seriously, has anybody heard about what exactly James Cameron plans to do with all those ridiculous heaps of money?
No, what does he plan to do?
8
Movies / Re: New Battlestar Galactica movie
« on: October 31, 2009, 05:33:24 am »Oh dear... here comes the cash cow.
I want a full CAPRICA series. That pilot was great.
I almost fell asleep watching that.
Not enough guns or pointless explosions for you then?
9
Movies / Re: New Battlestar Galactica movie
« on: October 28, 2009, 05:51:06 pm »
Oh dear... here comes the cash cow.
I want a full CAPRICA series. That pilot was great.
I want a full CAPRICA series. That pilot was great.
10
Movies / Re: District 9
« on: September 13, 2009, 10:07:28 am »well i didnt mean infiltrate in a spy sense, more in a sense that theyd breed them and then drop them in other countries to get on their nerves
Yes, that's exactly what "the Russians" would do...
11
Movies / Re: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
« on: August 31, 2009, 12:02:28 pm »I agree for all but Malfoy, sure he has the sneer down but when he was standing there trying to kill Albus he looked more constipated than confused/desperate.
That scene was so badly botched that I'm trying not to count it! No tension, no emotion. Just dire. On the whole Malfoy was pretty good in comparison to the others.
12
Movies / Re: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
« on: August 31, 2009, 10:45:20 am »
Well I downloaded saw it, and...
While I agree that it was almost entirely focussed on the teenage angst, the most worrying part of the film was the dreadful acting. Even Michael Gambon looked like he was just going through the motions, happy to pick up his wages for the minimum effort.
Credit to Helena Bonham Carter and Maggie Smith, who were model professionals throughout what was a truly dreadful film. Alan Rickman did what was expected but wasn't given nearly enough minutes that his excellent portrayal of Snape deserves.
Now I loved the books. The fifth and the last were perhaps the worst of the lot, but Half Blood Prince was cool for the background you got on Snape. As it turns out, even the horcruxes and the importance of the potions book were sidelined for the erm... "talents" of Emma Watson (a wooden spoon could "act" better than she does) and the insufferable Rupert Grint. I respect Daniel Radcliffe for trying to do alternative projects such as Equus and that WW1 drama, but it's clear that at this stage he's just honouring his contract with the HP films because of the momentous wages he's being paid, as it was a pretty pathetic performance on his part as well.
On a positive note, Tom Felton made a brilliant Malfoy and dare I say it portrayed the character better than Rowling even did in the book (I feel that he lost a lot of face time in the books and kind of fell into a stereotype), but his was the only believable character aside from the three I mentioned earlier.
While I agree that it was almost entirely focussed on the teenage angst, the most worrying part of the film was the dreadful acting. Even Michael Gambon looked like he was just going through the motions, happy to pick up his wages for the minimum effort.
Credit to Helena Bonham Carter and Maggie Smith, who were model professionals throughout what was a truly dreadful film. Alan Rickman did what was expected but wasn't given nearly enough minutes that his excellent portrayal of Snape deserves.
Now I loved the books. The fifth and the last were perhaps the worst of the lot, but Half Blood Prince was cool for the background you got on Snape. As it turns out, even the horcruxes and the importance of the potions book were sidelined for the erm... "talents" of Emma Watson (a wooden spoon could "act" better than she does) and the insufferable Rupert Grint. I respect Daniel Radcliffe for trying to do alternative projects such as Equus and that WW1 drama, but it's clear that at this stage he's just honouring his contract with the HP films because of the momentous wages he's being paid, as it was a pretty pathetic performance on his part as well.
On a positive note, Tom Felton made a brilliant Malfoy and dare I say it portrayed the character better than Rowling even did in the book (I feel that he lost a lot of face time in the books and kind of fell into a stereotype), but his was the only believable character aside from the three I mentioned earlier.
13
Saw this movie yesterday, really enjoyed it. It's very dark and Dakota Fanning was very good in it. The characters are really well caricatured... see Coraline's parents (especially the father) and the crazy circus bloke!
Probably a bit lacking in narrative depth and some characters are pretty pointless (French & Saunders' ones and the random boy) but the main ones are really imposing and drag you right into a crazy, sinister story.
I think that this will be appreciated more by adults than kids... so I'd suggest people go see it because it's rare that I like a modern movie, which is kudos enough in my opinion!
SEE CORALINE!
Probably a bit lacking in narrative depth and some characters are pretty pointless (French & Saunders' ones and the random boy) but the main ones are really imposing and drag you right into a crazy, sinister story.
I think that this will be appreciated more by adults than kids... so I'd suggest people go see it because it's rare that I like a modern movie, which is kudos enough in my opinion!
SEE CORALINE!
14
PC Games / Re: Advice on buying or building a PC or Laptop
« on: April 03, 2009, 01:29:14 pm »Janos... I want that monitor. NOW!!
=) Guess that means it should be good. My reckoning was 19"=good, 1000:1=good, Samsung=generally good.
And Munchkin... that's fair enough. And Vista isn't SO bad that if given to you on a deal or virtually free (like with my laptop), then it's bearable. I still wouldn't choose it, mind.
15
PC Games / Re: Advice on buying or building a PC or Laptop
« on: April 03, 2009, 01:21:34 pm »I'm trying to decide on a monitor. 17" or 19", I don't mind. I'll be keeping it at 1280x1024 so whatever's best for that for under £80. Any ideas? I'm awful with monitors I have no idea whatsoever what would be a good one to run things on 1280x1024.
Cheers.
I've got a 19" widescreen myself and it looks fantastic and displays all of those resolutions just fine. I guess if you an afford it, go bigger.a minor question, what would you expect a desktop with an intel core 2 quadcore processor, 4GB of DDR2 RAM a 500 GB hard Drive and an Nvidia GeForce 120Gt 1GB graphics card and Vista Home Premium to cost (in stirling)?
I can barely find any prices on that model of video card but let's see. It will definitely be more expensive than what we just built for Janos and that was about £520. He also didn't need an OS so that's gonna add another... £65 to the cost. Mt estimate would be somewhere around £650, though it could be higher.
I was going to go for this Samsung: http://www.ebuyer.com/product/151386
And munchkin, I'd seriously just use your old XP OS and wait for Windows 7, or if you don't have a spare XP lying around then just buy XP Professional. You can run things on 1gb less RAM (or think about it this way... you basically unlock another gig of your RAM which you paid good money for). Vista is TERRIBLE in every respect, I hate it.