please help 34XBR800 vs 36XBR800 - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 149 Old 02-23-2003, 09:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
debennett2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The original poster has decided several days ago, but, thanks for the links. I'd like to point out that reviews from such a mainstream source may not be the best source.

Dan Bennett

Learning something new every minute.
debennett2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 149 Old 02-24-2003, 04:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HuskerHarley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lincoln,Neb
Posts: 1,464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by debennett2
The original poster has decided several days ago
There are still many of us lurking here that have not decided and the information and yes even the pissing contest that seems to be taking place here is beneficial to those of us trying to make a decision.

So please keep the information coming...

Harley
HuskerHarley is offline  
post #93 of 149 Old 02-24-2003, 09:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HuskerHarley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lincoln,Neb
Posts: 1,464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sony Info

Harley
HuskerHarley is offline  
post #94 of 149 Old 02-24-2003, 01:09 PM
 
DonBerg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,021
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Harley, at least I for one have attempted to present all the information I have gathered on this forum and from my own experience with a widescreen HDTV set over the past year. Despite all the attacks against me by those claim my information is false, I will continue to present it so prospective HDTV buyers can examine all the information and make a well informed, intelligent choice. I never make stuff up, the info I post has been around this forum for quite some time and confirmed by many others, only relative newbies to this forum deny it because they haven't spent all the time that I have looking over lots of old threads to confirm the information.
DonBerg is offline  
post #95 of 149 Old 02-24-2003, 01:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
jeff lam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
eneg,
Quote:
I never watch any programs with black bars on the sides. With Sony's "wide mode", there is no reason to. If there was no wide mode, this TV wouldn't be in my house. I would have waited, unless my other TV had broken.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a 16x9 set you get bars on 4x3 and 2.35:1 material.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No I don't!
So I take this to mean you zoom in on 4x3 material? So you prefer to stretch a zoom your programming? Even your 4x3 DVD's?

I understand stretching and zooming unimportant programs like the local news or some sitcom that isn't reference video quality anyway, but I find it very distracting that you would zoom and distort/crop a 4x3 DVD or HD program such as concert DVD's or classics such as Citizen Cane or The Wizard of Oz. If you are a true HT movie watcher you will learn to watch these in their Original Aspect Ratio. I think many people are confused with this term as some call 4x3 foolscreen. The only reason I would call something foolscreen is when it's release as pan and scan from it's "original aspect ratio" which was intended to be viewed by the director of the film.

I also find it disturbing that you would zoom a 2.35:1 movie since you say you don't get black bars with these films either. This leads me to believe you would rather watch a cropped film rather than it's "Original aspect ratio". You should be ashamed of yourself. This would be the equivilent of buying a pan and scan DVD instead of the widescreen version. Cropping the original image is definitelly not part of the Widescreen Advocate ways.

Read about the true Widescreen Advocates here:

http://www.widescreenadvocate.org/welcome.shtml

You must first realize that there is a huge huge difference in regards to widescreen software (DVD's) and widescreen hardware (16x9 TV's).

I am a full on widescreen advocate in that I only watch widescreen if that's the way it is originally shot by the director. This is called "OAR" original aspect ratio. I will only watch OAR with critical material (DVD films).
This does not in any way mean that I must have a 16x9 TV to be a "Widescreen Advocate". Which is why I prefer to call it OAR because not all films are originaly shot in widescreen, some are 4x3.

Sounds to me like you don't know the difference between widescreen software and widescreen hardware. You really shouldn't be posting your opinions and ponts of view here if you are unclear about what us HT enthusiests are shooting for in true OAR.

I still don't understand why this thread is still going on. The original poster was asking what TV to get for 99.9% 4x3 viewing and the answer is clearly 4x3. If it was more like 50% DVD and HD and 50% cable then yes I would totally recommend the 16x9 set. The point is, 16x9 TV's aren't for everyone no matter what you and Don say.

Once you figure out OAR come back and discuss.
jeff lam is offline  
post #96 of 149 Old 02-24-2003, 01:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
jeff lam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
The original poster has decided several days ago, but, thanks for the links. I'd like to point out that reviews from such a mainstream source may not be the best source
Really, which TV did he end up getting?
jeff lam is offline  
post #97 of 149 Old 02-24-2003, 01:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
debennett2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
He decided on the 36XBR800. He would have been happy with the 36HS actually but said he wanted to be able to at least view HD signals sometime down the road.

Dan Bennett

Learning something new every minute.
debennett2 is offline  
post #98 of 149 Old 02-24-2003, 01:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
jeff lam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The HS is capable of HD signals as well. Almost exactly the same set as the XBR except the chassis and several other things. It also may not auto-squeeze like the XBR's do. I am trying to verify this with someone else on another thread from Agoraquest.
jeff lam is offline  
post #99 of 149 Old 02-24-2003, 01:59 PM
Senior Member
 
KadMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alexandria, KY
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by DonBerg
I never make stuff up
Really, I just posted an example just above your most recent response. You have claimed that NTSC is not designed for sizes above 19". I've asked you to point me to an FCC statement or design document that contains this information, but you simply chose to ignore it. Do you want to post a link?

Quote:
Originally posted by DonBerg
the info I post has been around this forum for quite some time and confirmed by many others, only relative newbies to this forum deny it because they haven't spent all the time that I have looking over lots of old threads to confirm the information.
Sounds like a case of one of those people who think that time and number of posts=knowledge. That's just simply not the case. If you were able to present things in a more subjective point of view, you might actually be able to help some people out there. As it stands, your blatant bigotry undermines any credibility that you might have had. Each time that I pose questions or provide information, you simply choose to ignore it and focus on the arguement followed by a few more 16:9 "rah-rah" or 4:3 "foolscreen" comments. I'm sure that most other people here are looking right through this, as I have.

Again, the 34 is a great TV and works for many situations. I've recommended it to friends before (and also my parents). I just don't think it's the answer every time, including the needs that started this thread and my own situation. If you can't see the original poster's needs as an open and shut case for 4:3, then I question your ability to make any fair judgements in this area.

Chris
KadMan is offline  
post #100 of 149 Old 02-24-2003, 06:51 PM
Member
 
eneg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff,
Quote:
So I take this to mean you zoom in on 4x3 material? So you prefer to stretch a zoom your programming? Even your 4x3 DVD's?
Say What? Relax! Slow down! Take a Valium so that you can format your thoughts to be understandable!
Quote:
I understand stretching and zooming unimportant programs like the local news or some sitcom that isn't reference video quality anyway, but I find it very distracting that you would zoom and distort/crop a 4x3 DVD or HD program such as concert DVD's or classics such as Citizen Cane or The Wizard of Oz. If you are a true HT movie watcher you will learn to watch these in their Original Aspect Ratio.
I see! You determine what programs are unimportant and what programs can be zoomed. Should I call you before I hit the "wide mode" button on the remote? What if you are not home? What should I do?
What if I don't like or consider the two movies that you mentioned above as "classics?" Am I allowed to change the channel if one of these movies are on the air?
Well, I'll tell you this: If I considered them as "classics", I'd know how to spell their titles!
BTW - It looks as if you set the rules for being a "true HT movie watcher."
Exactly, who gave this honor to you?
Quote:
You must first realize that there is a huge huge difference in regards to widescreen software (DVD's) and widescreen hardware (16x9 TV's).
Quote:
I am a full on widescreen advocate in that I only watch widescreen if that's the way it is originally shot by the director. This is called "OAR" original aspect ratio. I will only watch OAR with critical material (DVD films).
Quote:
Sounds to me like you don't know the difference between widescreen software and widescreen hardware. You really shouldn't be posting your opinions and ponts of view here if you are unclear about what us HT enthusiests are shooting for in true OAR.
This is actually pretty funny.
You bring up a subject (Hardware/Software.)
You argue it.
You end the subject and tell me that I shouldn't be posting my opinions about it!
If it wasn't so sad, it really would be funny!
Quote:
Once you figure out OAR come back and discuss.
You've got a lot of balls telling me when I can write on the board.
I see you have been criticizing other members for believing that their opinions are the only opinions that count.
Do you have a mirror at home?
Take a look in it. You might learn something!!

Eneg
eneg is offline  
post #101 of 149 Old 02-24-2003, 07:39 PM
Advanced Member
 
debennett2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Californians are typically opinionated about everything (trust me..I lived in San Diego for almost 5 years)...just kidding..well sorta. Anyhow, let's all try to give it a little rest with the bickering and arguing over who killed who. This is suppose to be a happy occasion.

Dan Bennett

Learning something new every minute.
debennett2 is offline  
post #102 of 149 Old 02-24-2003, 07:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
ricbayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
How about if we all declare a cease-fire?

Discussing whether to choose a widescreen 34" vs. 4:3 36" is pretty exciting and reading about the Sony xbr series is fun but filling up the precious space on our AVS forum with personal flames is not a good use of server space. Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Peace and happy viewing. :)

Rick
ricbayer is offline  
post #103 of 149 Old 02-24-2003, 07:55 PM
Member
 
eneg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hey Rick,

I see that you are a big football fan!
I just want you to know that I am still upset with the way that (MY) Giants lost to the 49r's!

Wait'll next year!!!!

Eneg
eneg is offline  
post #104 of 149 Old 02-24-2003, 08:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
debennett2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Man this sucks! I'm waiting on a friend to come over to help me set my new 36XBR800 onto it's stand! It's been here for 2 hours and I'm running out of patience...must...plug...in.....

Dan Bennett

Learning something new every minute.
debennett2 is offline  
post #105 of 149 Old 02-25-2003, 08:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
debennett2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, aside from figuring out that about half of HD sources are transmitting 4:3 material on their 16:9 aspect ratio (bars on left and right), I am super happy with the 36XBR800. I finally got it going last night. One thing I have noticed, which is totally in agreement with almost every other XBR800 thread I have read to date, is that the red push out of the box was horrendous. I did some initial adjustments even though it is really early in the burn-in period to correct this in the service menu. One thing I DID notice however that was very cool was the basic video adjustments were practically dead-on out of the box. I can speak for color and hue specifically using the Avia color filters. One notch left or right with either of these was an obvious change for the worse. As far as my SD Directv channels go, only a handful of these stations even look that bad. I know that this might not be a typical situation for a lot of SD sources, but, I actually see LESS artificating at 7' away on the 36XBR800 than I did at 6' away with my SDTV (Panny 32SF36A...nicest SD TV line I have ever seen/used by the way).

Dan Bennett

Learning something new every minute.
debennett2 is offline  
post #106 of 149 Old 02-25-2003, 11:32 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeff lam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Eneg,
Quote:
I see! You determine what programs are unimportant and what programs can be zoomed. Should I call you before I hit the "wide mode" button on the remote? What if you are not home? What should I do?
What if I don't like or consider the two movies that you mentioned above as "classics?" Am I allowed to change the channel if one of these movies are on the air?
Well, I'll tell you this: If I considered them as "classics", I'd know how to spell their titles!
BTW - It looks as if you set the rules for being a "true HT movie watcher."
Exactly, who gave this honor to you?
You know damn well what I mean. These are just examples of what important and unimportant (or should I say critical) material is. I figure since regular cable is so screwed up anyway I wouldn't care if it was stretched or cropped, or programs such as the local news which aren't meerly for my enjoyment as much as for my keeping up to date on current events, I won't need a flawless picture to satisfy my viewing of this material. Some other 4x3 films maybe on DVD such as concert DVD's of my favorite artist, or my favorite TV series on DVD would be much more important to get as perfect a picture as I can on my TV to me than the local news. It was just an example. Everyone has their own favorite movies and what not, and what I was really saying was if I had a 16x9 set, these 4x3 DVD's would not be stretched on it or cropped. If you would rather watch (place any 4x3 or 2.35:1 title you want here) this way, I can't stop you. Do watever you want with your TV but to me and most others that take their movie watching seriously, OAR comes first.
jeff lam is offline  
post #107 of 149 Old 02-25-2003, 07:01 PM
Member
 
eneg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Jeff,
Quote:
if I had a 16x9 set, these 4x3 DVD's would not be stretched on it or cropped. If you would rather watch (place any 4x3 or 2.35:1 title you want here) this way, I can't stop you.
Even if I could stop you, I wouldn't! Ya know why? I couldn't care less about how you wanted to watch your TV! I don't care if you watch it standing on your head eating a pizza!
Quote:
Do watever you want with your TV but to me and most others that take their movie watching seriously, OAR comes first.
Once again, you put your views ahead of everybody else and you assume that your views are in the majority.
I'll tell you right now that the majority of people (at this point in time,)that "take their movie watching seriously," have never even heard of aspect ratio.
You are in the minority in almost everything that you say.
And just for the record, I never said that I zoom 2.35 movies.
You said that I do!
Another one of your factual errors. . .

Eneg
eneg is offline  
post #108 of 149 Old 02-25-2003, 08:31 PM
Senior Member
 
KadMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alexandria, KY
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by eneg
Jeff,

Even if I could stop you, I wouldn't! Ya know why? I couldn't care less about how you wanted to watch your TV! I don't care if you watch it standing on your head eating a pizza!
/homer_speak
MMMMMM.......Pizzaaaaaa!!!!!
/normal_speak

Quote:
Originally posted by eneg

I'll tell you right now that the majority of people (at this point in time,)that "take their movie watching seriously," have never even heard of aspect ratio.
Watching whatever movies/shows in zoom or crop modes that you want is your own business, but honestly, I think you might be wrong on that last statement even as it pertains to serious movie buffs at large. I can also promise you that OAR is important to the vast majority around this forum. Take a look on some of the HD threads and you'll see where HBO-HD takes a beating on a regular basis for doing bizzarre cropping/zooming tricks. It's just one of those criteria that typically defines a videophile. Again, I'm not saying that this has to apply to you.

Chris
KadMan is offline  
post #109 of 149 Old 02-25-2003, 08:44 PM
Member
 
eneg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi Kadman/Homer,
Quote:
I can also promise you that OAR is important to the vast majority around this forum.
Of that, there is no doubt!
The people on this forum (Change that to MOST of the people on this forum) are way ahead of the masses re HD, Aspect Ratio, and all of this good "stuff."
But, as of now, the people that participate in this forum are a very big minority of the masses of which I was referring to.

Do you like Anchovies??

Eneg
eneg is offline  
post #110 of 149 Old 02-25-2003, 09:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
debennett2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm definately an OAR advocate. We rented Road to Perdition this evening and all they had left by the time we got to the rental store were fullscreen versions. Talk about a letdown...watched it anyhow but it really looked like crap.

Dan Bennett

Learning something new every minute.
debennett2 is offline  
post #111 of 149 Old 02-26-2003, 11:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeff lam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Eneg,
Quote:
Once again, you put your views ahead of everybody else and you assume that your views are in the majority.
I'll tell you right now that the majority of people (at this point in time,)that "take their movie watching seriously," have never even heard of aspect ratio.
You are in the minority in almost everything that you say.
That's funny... I dare you to tell that to the over 100,000 members troughout the big 3 forums at AVS, HTF and HTS.
Quote:
And just for the record, I never said that I zoom 2.35 movies.
You said that I do!
Another one of your factual errors. . .
Quote:
I never watch any programs with black bars on the sides. With Sony's "wide mode", there is no reason to. If there was no wide mode, this TV wouldn't be in my house. I would have waited, unless my other TV had broken.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a 16x9 set you get bars on 4x3 and 2.35:1 material.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No I don't!

Sorry If I took this statement to mean you zoom 2.35:1 material but if you don't get black bars on this 2.35:1 material like you say you don't, then you must have a 2.35:1 TV.
jeff lam is offline  
post #112 of 149 Old 02-26-2003, 07:06 PM
Member
 
eneg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Jeff,

Isn't Santa Clara the town where all of those "Pods" were sighted back in the 50's?
Did you go to sleep?

Okay, here we go again:
First:
ATTENTION "100,000 members troughout the big 3 forums at AVS, HTF and HTS"
At last count, there were close to three hundred million people in the U.S. alone. My math tells me that one hundred thousand would not equal a majority of people. And that is only counting our country!

Second:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never watch any programs with black bars on the sides. With Sony's "wide mode", there is no reason to. If there was no wide mode, this TV wouldn't be in my house. I would have waited, unless my other TV had broken.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a 16x9 set you get bars on 4x3 and 2.35:1 material.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No I don't!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I stand 100% behind what I said. Maybe you should have someone else interpret it for you.
Try to see the truth and not only what you want to see!!!!!!!!!

Eneg
eneg is offline  
post #113 of 149 Old 02-26-2003, 08:31 PM
Senior Member
 
gkanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lafayette, CO
Posts: 371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Eneg,

I think what Jeff is saying is that a 16:9 television is 1.78:1. If you are watching a 2.35:1 movie, either:
1) You have bars at the top and bottom - or -
2) You have zoomed/stretched the movie so you are actually seeing 1.78:1.

Greg
gkanders is offline  
post #114 of 149 Old 02-26-2003, 09:09 PM
Member
 
eneg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi gkanders,

What you are saying and what Jeff is saying are two different things.
What you say is true.
"If you are watching a 2.35:1 movie, either:
1) You have bars at the top and bottom - or -
2) You have zoomed/stretched the movie so you are actually seeing 1.78:1."

As I said, very true. I do get the bars on top and bottom.

What Jeff says, is not true:
"With a 16x9 set you get bars on 4x3 and 2.35:1 material. "

I again stand with my response. . .

Regards,

Eneg
eneg is offline  
post #115 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 05:56 AM
Senior Member
 
KadMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alexandria, KY
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by eneg
Hi gkanders,

What you are saying and what Jeff is saying are two different things.
What you say is true.
"If you are watching a 2.35:1 movie, either:
1) You have bars at the top and bottom - or -
2) You have zoomed/stretched the movie so you are actually seeing 1.78:1."

As I said, very true. I do get the bars on top and bottom.

What Jeff says, is not true:
"With a 16x9 set you get bars on 4x3 and 2.35:1 material. "

I again stand with my response. . .

Regards,

Eneg
Guys, has it really stooped to this pathetic of a level?
KadMan is offline  
post #116 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 09:15 AM
Advanced Member
 
debennett2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Can I make a suggestion please? How about we just start fresh from this entry on. Let's quit the arguing.

Dan Bennett

Learning something new every minute.
debennett2 is offline  
post #117 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 01:04 PM
 
DonBerg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,021
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You 4:3 guys started all the arguing, badmouthing the 16:9 owners. Karma has now come into play! If you apologize, perhaps that will help!
DonBerg is offline  
post #118 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 01:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
debennett2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Donberg,
I think I might be one of those "4:3 guys" you are refering to. I can speak for myself and, I believe, the majority of us "4:3 guys" when I say this: we have never "badmouthed" 16:9 television. The fact of the matter is this: (These are facts as they pertain to me) My 36XBR800 shows a wonderful picture at 7' away while viewing the majority of SD television via satellite AND analog cable. I do notice artificats, less than when I used a 32" SD TV though, on the sources if I look for them or on very rare occasions when I am not. The primary function of this TV is to watch standard def 4:3 television which it does a stupendous job compared to any SD TV. On occasion, I watch DVD and High-def broadcasts. Assuming that the source is real HD material and is 16:9 material, I get just the same picture as one would on a 34XBR800 minus a very little size. I also can watch my 4:3 big, which like I said, looks perfectly fine. Sometimes one needs to learn to not be so over-critical. Let's give it a rest with the bashing.

Dan Bennett

Learning something new every minute.
debennett2 is offline  
post #119 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 03:55 PM
Senior Member
 
KadMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alexandria, KY
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Don, you continue to be the only one who has consistently slammed any format (4:3). It seems almost everyone else is open to either format. If you look around, there are plenty of threads that have normal, intelligent discussions until you jump in with some "16:9 is great, 4:3 is wrong" junk. You, and you alone have instigated 90% of the garbage going on around here. If you were to stop with the evangelistic posting, I can assure you this place would be much better for it.

Chris
KadMan is offline  
post #120 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 05:16 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
brentski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I read with some amusement that the Original Poster had already decided.

Well, I'm the original poster and thanks to the mountain of information, I still haven't decided.!!!

The volume of information provided here, along with personal opinions of those who own the various sets, has provided me with more than I could have ever imagined, and I thank everyone for that.

( this has also kept me in the "Twilight Zone" as far as making my decision).

I have been back to the stores numerous times to the point where the sales people know me by name.
They also know that I've got more questions about the sets, wanting them to show me the 'streach' or 'zoom' modes or some other option mentioned, so that I can see for myself what people here are talking about.
I've tried to find a shop that has a cable hook-up so that I can see what that will look like but have yet to find one that does.

(one thing that is mentioned a lot here are those who have standard cable and the picture quality they get. My cable Co.(Cox) provides digital cable(is there a tremendous difference?) They provide a HDTV box for $7 a mo. once I get my HDTV .
From what I've been told, even shows that aren't 'HD' will appear much more detailed and sharper with the HD box. Is this true?)

I've reached the point that I'm just going to have to go ahead and have one delivered and set up in my house.

It seems that many here have done just that, only to find that they have decided they had made the wrong choice and returned one set in favor of the other.(I wonder how many of those folks have wished they could have the first set back again)

Until then, color me thankful :) and still confused:confused:
brentski

Life, Sometimes you wake up in the middle of it !
brentski is offline  
Closed Thread Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off