please help 34XBR800 vs 36XBR800 - Page 5 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 04:56 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
brentski,
I was the one that mentioned that you had already chosen a set. Sorry for the confusion to the rest of readers, but, you sent me a PM that you were choosing the 36XBR800 a while ago. Good luck though.

Dan Bennett

Learning something new every minute.
debennett2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 05:06 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
Whatever you decide, enjoy your new TV and don't look back. When it comes right down to it, they're all great sets. Good luck!

Chris
KadMan is offline  
post #123 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 05:55 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 see - debennett2 and Kadman were proved wrong yet again!! Don't believe these guys - brentski has not decided on a 36xBR800. They just said that to get others to believe that was the better choice - how sad. Go for the 34XBR800, Brentski, you won't be sorry. These guys lying about your choice should prove something about who should be trusted here. I'm sure if you chose the 34XBR800 you will be added to their badmouth list. Just look at all their argumentive posts against me - all just because I post the benifits of a 16:9 display. They make up lies about me too, like they did about you brentski, so I know how it feels.
DonBerg is offline  
post #124 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 06:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HuskerHarley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lincoln,Neb
Posts: 1,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
brentski

Apparently were in the same boat heading straight for Niagara Falls....34/36/34/36/34/36/34/36/34/36/34/36/34/36~~~~~~

I don't notice any difference with my Scientific Atlantic HDTV boxes as compared to my normal digital cable boxes we have three at our house 2 HDTV 1 digital.

I still might hold out for the 34XBR910 or wait to see what's up with THIS.

Harley
HuskerHarley is offline  
post #125 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 06:59 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,
Here is a quote from a private message sent to me by Brentsky on 021803 @ around 4pm. This is the first line in the message:

"I just wanted to thank you for input as far as helping me decide on my 36XBR800."

If you want to keep up these games, go ahead, but first, get your facts straight.

Dan Bennett

Learning something new every minute.
debennett2 is offline  
post #126 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 07:18 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
Another lie from Don. Please show me where I said that he had made his decision. Can't, can you. And I'll guess that you'll simply ignore this request, just like the others on the long list of things you ignore when I catch you in a lie. No really, PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THIS! Everyone else, just watch and wait. You'll see what I mean. He just spins out lies and won't back them up. His next reply will just probably just serve to direct attention away from this question that he cannot answer.

As far as adding to a badmouth list, I don't think so. I have appreciated reading the variety of posts from owners of various models. When I did my research before buying the 40XBR, the posts here were a great source of information. The only problem around here is you. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that you are pro 16:9 TVs, so don't try to put words into my mouth.

Chris
KadMan is offline  
post #127 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 08:04 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
Hi guys. I've got just a couple of things mention. I don't have either one of these sets, to take it for what it's worth...

I DO have a Philips 34PW9818. I originally ordered a 32" 4X3, but it was backordered (I ordered a refurb from Harton). I "traded" up to the 34" widescreen, and I'm really happy I did. Mostly because once I saw the LOTR SE, I realized the 2.35:1 area on a 32" 4X3 would've been too small for me (my wife, however, wishes we saved the $600 and went with the 32" :) ). Seeing as how the 16":9 area on the 36" is just about the same as the 34", I wouldn't feel bad about having a 36" 4X3.
I also have to say that before I owned this TV, I always said, "I'll never stretch, I'll always watch OAR" Well, for my SD TV watching, I stretch all the time, and it almost never bothers me, so I wouldn't worry about the stretch modes on the XBRs either.

So, I think it comes down to how long you think you'll be using this TV. Mine replaced a 1987 19" non-cable ready tv ($150 in 1987). Based on my buying pattern, I realize that (hopefully) I'll be using this TV for 10+ years, I'm glad I got the widescreen, as I think in 3-4 years all new content will be widescreen, and only old shows/movies will be 4X3. So in 4 years or so, this TV will fit most of my watching (a 4X3 would really fit my usage better now). Since I hope to use this more than 6-7 years, I think the tradeoff works for me. If I was buying the TV for 5 years, a 36" (or 40") 4X3 would probably work much better for me.

One other note...I had a buddy buy the 40XBR800, hooked it up to his cable, and the SD picture was pretty much unwatchable. He went to RS, bought a $20 inline amp for cable, put it in main feed, and the picture now is really very good. If you have analog cable, this simple fix may help. If your digital cable is over compressed, well...

Cheers, Greg
gkanders is offline  
post #128 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 08:24 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
Thanks for that great post Greg. That confirms my belief that if you take the time to make sure cabling is proper, most of the time, SD doesn;t look bad at all. It's also nice to see someone being subjective once again. That's a rarity in this thread. With any luck, this thread will be closed.

Dan Bennett

Learning something new every minute.
debennett2 is offline  
post #129 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 08:27 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:
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
Thats exacly what I mean. Thre is no way you can view a 2.35:1 aspect ratio film on a 16x9 set in full screen without zooming or croping!

To make my point, you still only get 1 aspect ratio in full screen just like 4x3 TV's without any distortions or alterations to the picture.

Quote:
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!
Again, you seem to alter the original statement. Sure there are 300 million people in the country, but what I said was the majority of people who take their movie watching SERIOUSLY!!! I don't really consider John Doe next door with a Emmerson 13" TV a serious movie watcher. Also if they were really serious about movies they would all have a full surround system and try to best reproduce the movies original video and sound effect. Those that do not care about sound and picture quality and trying to get the full effect of the movie I don't consider "serious moviewatchers", Sure that may like to watch movies but do they really take that extra step to get the best possible picture and sound from the movies they watch? If not, then I can't consider them to be very serious about it. Therefore OAR is the choice among serious movie watchers, especially on these on line home theater sites.

Don,
Again I say how can you possibly recommend a 16x9 TV to someone who watches 99.9% 4x3 material? This just baffles me to no end.
jeff lam is offline  
post #130 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 09:06 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
I recommend a 16:9 TV because the viewing habits will change over the next few years. My own have changed dramatically over the last year that I have had a 16:9 set. I now watch at least 80% widescreen DVD or HDTV shows - that wasn't the case before. So I am relying on my experience to help others who aren't thinking out of the box and for the future! Don't just go by your old habits.
And congratulations to Greg - yet another example of someone who switched from a 4:3 set to a 16:9 set! Add another one to the list Kadman, keep the count accurate! And debennett2 admitted to the mistake about Brentsky having already chose the 36XBR800 a few posts back, and you Kadman have always agreed with him in the past, so I included you in the list. Just as you make statements about me that I have never said.
DonBerg is offline  
post #131 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 09:26 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,
There was no "mistake" on my part! What are you talking about?! Clearly, you have a hard time reading the english language. Brentsky clearly stated in the PM sent to me that he had chose the 36XBR800. If he has become undecided since then, that is a different story. What a goon!!!

Dan Bennett

Learning something new every minute.
debennett2 is offline  
post #132 of 149 Old 02-27-2003, 10:26 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
Just to get this straight;

Quote:
Here is a quote from a private message sent to me by Brentsky on 021803 @ around 4pm. This is the first line in the message:"I just wanted to thank you for input as far as helping me decide on my 36XBR800."
I DID send this to debennett2 as he noted. My mistake. Not his!!
I was planning on buying the "36XBR800" at that time, but was put on hold due to unforeseen circumstances. I still plan on buying that set.

Since then, there have been dozens of posts pertaining to both the the 34 and 36XBR800 sets.

As I said previously, 99% of my TV viewing is watching movie channels via digital cable(soon to be HD cable with a HD set top box provided by Cox, my local cable co.) as soon as I buy my set.

For the few times I do watch a DVD or HDTV broadcast, everything I've seen or read so far points to the 36XBR800 easily being able to provide the wide screen formats to view them.
If I'm wrong, please explain why !!

While I greatly appreciate all the feedback, both pro and con, nothing I've read here since has given me any reasons to believe that the 36-800 wouldn't be MUCH, MUCH more than adequate to meet my needs for those instances.

Again,If I'm mistaken in my assumptions, please explain why !!

Thanks
brentski

Life, Sometimes you wake up in the middle of it !
brentski is offline  
post #133 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 05:09 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 DonBerg
I recommend a 16:9 TV because the viewing habits will change over the next few years. My own have changed dramatically over the last year that I have had a 16:9 set. I now watch at least 80% widescreen DVD or HDTV shows - that wasn't the case before. So I am relying on my experience to help others who aren't thinking out of the box and for the future! Don't just go by your old habits.
And congratulations to Greg - yet another example of someone who switched from a 4:3 set to a 16:9 set! Add another one to the list Kadman, keep the count accurate! And debennett2 admitted to the mistake about Brentsky having already chose the 36XBR800 a few posts back, and you Kadman have always agreed with him in the past, so I included you in the list. Just as you make statements about me that I have never said.
Here it is folks. I told you it would happen. I asked him to back up a statement that he made (an obvious lie), and he simply didn't answer it. You now have 100% proof of what Don is all about. Lies. He is so predictable! Still waiting for the answer if you have it, Don. I'm guessing you'll pass on the second offer as well, considering your claim wasn't true.

Chris
KadMan is offline  
post #134 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 05:26 AM
Member
 
eneg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Kadman

Here it is folks. I told you it would happen. I asked him to back up a statement that he made (an obvious lie), and he simply didn't answer it. You now have 100% proof of what Don is all about. Lies. He is so predictable! Still waiting for the answer if you have it, Don. I'm guessing you'll pass on the second offer as well, considering your claim wasn't true.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kadman

Guys, has it really stooped to this pathetic of a level?
Eneg
eneg is offline  
post #135 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 05:32 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
I do see your point Eneg, but if Don is going to post lies like this, I feel that I need to call him on it. Again, he has failed to address it. I just need to make sure that it doesn't go unnoticed.
KadMan is offline  
post #136 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 05:35 AM
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:
Again, you seem to alter the original statement. Sure there are 300 million people in the country, but what I said was the majority of people who take their movie watching SERIOUSLY!!! I don't really consider John Doe next door with a Emmerson 13" TV a serious movie watcher. Also if they were really serious about movies they would all have a full surround system and try to best reproduce the movies original video and sound effect. Those that do not care about sound and picture quality and trying to get the full effect of the movie I don't consider "serious moviewatchers", Sure that may like to watch movies but do they really take that extra step to get the best possible picture and sound from the movies they watch? If not, then I can't consider them to be very serious about it. Therefore OAR is the choice among serious movie watchers, especially on these on line home theater sites.
What a SNOB!

Did you ever think that maybe "John Doe next door" can't afford your setup?
You just live in your own little world and as I've said before, you see what you want to see!

It might be hard for you to believe, but there are people out there that have setups costing tens of thousands of dollars. I wonder if they have the same attitude as you? I wonder if they talk about us the way that you do about other people??

No matter how unsuccessful you are at putting a spin on your point of view, we and everyone else on the forum, are at this point in time, still in a very big minority!

Eneg
eneg is offline  
post #137 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 05:43 AM
Member
 
eneg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Kadman,

"I do see your point Eneg, but if Don is going to post lies like this, I feel that I need to call him on it. Again, he has failed to address it. I just need to make sure that it doesn't go unnoticed."

I feel the same way about Jeff's posts. They are self-centered, egotistical garbage. I can't let them go unchallenged either.
I just didn't appreciate your remarks coming after my posts. . .

Eneg
eneg is offline  
post #138 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 06:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jckessler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 2,746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Brentski,

I can give you a couple more reasons to buy a widescreen TV.
Currently I have a 4:3 TV with an HD Tuner. My next TV will be 16:9 due to my current viewing habits.

Reason #1: Your viewing habits may change substationally after getting HD. Since I got my HD STB a few months ago, I watch substantially more network TV than I did previously and seek out HD material actively. While I realize this may not be the case for everyone, many others have said the same. It is just so much more enjoyable to watch HD than SD.

Reason #2: Upconverted 4:3 material on 4:3 TVs has black bars all the way around. When stations broadcasting an HD signal are sending a 4:3 upconverted signal, on a 4:3 TV you end up with the picture both letterboxed and windowboxed (black bars all the way around). On my STB, I can change the output to 480p, which cannot be done via remote, and use a "crop" function to remove the black bars. I don't think the cable TV boxes allow this reformatting. Either way, it's annoying on a 4:3 TV. This isn't an issue for 16:9 TVs.

I think pretty much everything else has been said at least three times over. If I were to spend a lot on a TV at this point, it would be 16:9. However, I definitely see the case for 4:3 TV if you are watching almost all 4:3 material.
jckessler is offline  
post #139 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 06:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HuskerHarley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lincoln,Neb
Posts: 1,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by HuskerHarley
Apparently were in the same boat heading straight for Niagara Falls....34/36/34/36/34/36/34/36/34/36/34/36/34/36~~~~~~

brentski

I guess I'm all alone now without a paddle or a lifejacket.

I won't pretend to be an expert but based on the facts that you have presented for your viewing needs it looks like Sony has built a set for you and its the 36 inch, if I didn't already have several TVs and was in need of a replacement for my main viewing area the 36 inch would be sitting there now.

I must admit that the majority of my viewing is programming presented in 4.3 and until (I believe many years from now) the majority of programming is in 16.9, there will be a very strong market for TVs with a 4.3 aspect ratio.

I do enjoy and prefer watching movies "WIDESCREEN" and I wish everything was in "WIDESCREEN" but for realities sake, its just not happening fast enough, for some to justify buying a widescreen TV for the Limited "WIDESCREEN" material, and yes there are those who's viewing habits lean more towards the "WIDESCREEN" only/majority of time viewing and for them Sony built a set as well and its the 34 inch in this price range.


This is not an endorsement for the 36 inch or the 34 inch its just some of my thoughts and it's my way of putting it in words and are not so technical.

Harley
HuskerHarley is offline  
post #140 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 12:21 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
brentski

I am a little confused and wanted to make sure you understood something. Analog cable TV is the usual garden variety cable TV (you have Cox - I have AT&T Comcast) that comes out of the wall. Sometimes this gets better with a signal booster or you can decrease multi-path interference with better insulated cables. Usually this runs through a cable box or directly to "digital ready" TV (at least that is what they used to call them - I needed no cable box for my 27" Wega on analog cable).

I got bribed by AT&T into switching from analog to digital cable (actually lower rates on cable TV & cable modem for a year). The cable signal is heavily compressed digital so they can deliver more channels (like the digital music stuff) but then you add a digital converter box (mine is made by Motorola) between the wall and the TV so that the signal is converted from digital to analog. This usually has a composite or coaxial cable to go to the TV set (or digital video recorder or VHS, etc. then to the TV set). With "digital cable", whether the signal improves or not seems to be mixed bag. While multi-path and signal strength are usually non-issues or improved at least, the actual picture quality may or may not be better than analog cable. On rare occasions, I have heard of customers being able to get a converter with an S video out but the standard vanilla Motorola boxes like mine are composite or coax.

Recently, in some communities (like Seattle but not here in Portland), some cable companies (like AT&T) are offering a HDTV digital signal, which requires a new converter set-top box. These boxes must have component out because they are feeding a HDTV signal to your HDTV set. The cables must go into your component in on your TV (or DVI???). This is still pretty rare in the US but hopefully will become more common.

Now here comes the part when I know even less because I don't watch HDTV with my 34xbr800 (I am DVD fanatic, which is why I bought the wide-screen). If you have analog or digital cable, most of the programming is in 4:3. But, if you get HDTV (either through the land cable or over-the-air) isn't most of the programming going to be in wide-screen?

It would seem to me that while the 4:3 TV would be swell for analog or standard digital cable (or the relatively rare 4:3 movies on DVD) wouldn't the HDTV be wide-screen (either by cable or by over-the-air)? When I made my recommendation to you about using a 4:3 TV to watch 99% source of 4:3, I guess I didn't know you were going to watching HDTV cable (which I think is mostly wide-screen - someone help me here).

Anyway, I think all these recommendations are pretty legit and mostly say, "Get the TV that not only will satisfy your needs today but also in the near future". If that near future includes HDTV cable TV (you lucky dog :D), then you might reconsider the 34xbr800. And, at the risk of repeating myself, don't deprive yourself of DVDs. The technology is now pretty cheap (Frys usually has a $50 DVD in the Sunday paper ad) and you can rent from www.netflix.com for a free trial. My average rental cost from netflix is < $2 per DVD rental. Not bad!!! :)

Best of luck. Deciding on what new TV to get in 2003 is a nice problem to have so have fun. Finally, think of buying from a brick & mortar place that delivers and can give you a 30 day no-fault return so you can easily change your mind.

Rick
ricbayer is offline  
post #141 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 12:45 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
My purpose on this forum is to provide my experience and knowledge for new buyers of HDTV sets. I will not waste my time responding to KadMan and play his little games, he is obviously just trying to deflect attention away from the real topic to be discussed here, its not about badmouthing and falsely accusing others. You others have now realized the true nature of his posts are useless - just ignore him.

I completly agree with jckessler's excellent post. When you buy a new HDTV set now - think of the future. There already is a wealth of HDTV 16:9 programs available on all the major networks. All of CBS and ABC's primetime dramas and comedies are all in HDTV and most of NBC's as well. It will only grow. I too used to watch mostly 4:3 cable material until I bought my 34" widescreen HDTV set a year ago - now I mostly watch widescreen programs from HDTV and DVD. So don't just go by your old habits. And yes all HDTV programs are 16:9 aspect ratio. Even upconverted 4:3 material is sent out as a 16:9 image that cannot be stretched to fill the 4:3 screen, it will appear as a small 4:3 area surrounded by black bars on all 4 sides of the 4:3 set. Even debennett2 has complained about this, but the solution is to get the 16:9 set.
DonBerg is offline  
post #142 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 12:59 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,
You always seem to repeat yourself but never back up anything you have said or done. You claim that I lie and then I prove that to be false. You won't reply to that (even apologize as I have never given anyone a reason to think I would lie to them) scenario nor will you answer the original posters latest request to tell him WHY the 34XBR800 is so much better than the 36XBR800. Let's hear that. Let's take the 16:9 and 4:3 aspect out of it. Just discuss the PQ, size of picture for different types of content, known issues, and cosmetics. Leave all your cult beliefs in your mind and only share information that pertains to the situation.

Dan Bennett

Learning something new every minute.
debennett2 is offline  
post #143 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 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
debennett2, your claim that the original poster had made his choice was wrong - that was proven true. I therefore did not lie.

Jokessler just pointed out the same points I have already made regarding why the 34XBR800 is the best choice, I don't need to keep repeat them. In addition its been pointed out before that the 34XBR800 has a superior anti-glare coating that the 36" and 40" models lack. Even you have complained about the small 4:3 image surround on all 4 sides by black bars for 4:3 upconverted HD programs. This is because its designed for a 16:9 display - which HDTV viewers should get. The biggest advantage of the 34XBR800 is the size of the normal 4:3 image is perfect for the same viewing distance perfect for watching higher quality 16:9 DVD and HD programs. This has also been confirmed by many other 16:9 owners.
DonBerg is offline  
post #144 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 01:19 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
My purpose on this forum is to provide my experience and knowledge for new buyers of HDTV sets. I will not waste my time responding to KadMan and play his little games, he is obviously just trying to deflect attention away from the real topic to be discussed here, its not about badmouthing and falsely accusing others. You others have now realized the true nature of his posts are useless - just ignore him.


Don, what you are stating here is NOT what you have done in the past. Instead, you insist on posting lies and then not backing them up, just moving on to the next lie as proven time and again. If you truly want to stick to the subject then these side conversations will never happen. If you are a man of your word, any message from here on out will stick to the subject at hand. If you do this, I can promise me that you will never hear another complaint from me about one of your posts. Let's see how it pans out.

Chris
KadMan is offline  
post #145 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 02:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,030
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by brentski
[b]99% of my TV viewing is watching movie channels via digital cable(soon to be HD cable with a HD set top box provided by Cox, my local cable co.) as soon as I buy my set.

For the few times I do watch a DVD or HDTV broadcast, everything I've seen or read so far points to the 36XBR800 easily being able to provide the wide screen formats to view them.
If I'm wrong, please explain why !!
Since I was under the impression your decision was already made, I haven't spoken up for a while to avoid looking like or being associated with Donberg by arguing widescreen's superiority to someone who's already asked for advice, considered it, and made a decision that just doesn't happen to be the one I like. But I do believe you will be happier with the 34. And not because you're "wrong". It's a fact that the 36 does indeed have the ability to show the widescreen stuff, almost as large as the 34.

BUT... As you describe it, 99% of your viewing would fit the wide screen better. It's generally best to have the screen that is the best fit for the material you plan to use it for. If you watch in letterbox mode, the presentation will feel squished and the rest of the screen wasted; if you watch zoomed in (or P&S), you'll be losing material and you'll be able to tell. And I'm not sure that's really an option anyway, whereas the 34 offers four different modes for you to choose from for the best possible presentation of 4:3 on that set. Also, if you were to watch a mix of 4:3 and 16:9 on the same set, whichever one fills the screen in its original format will be overwhelming compared to the one that requires alteration or shrinking. Whichever you watch more of, you'll get used to as the standard presentation; the other will feel like either too little or too much. Would you rather make low-res standard 4:3 stuff overwhelming and make HD and movies feel somehow lessened and wimpified, or vice versa?

Also, even if you ignore or disagree with my point on human viewing psychology and just figure bigger is better, there's a simple matter of mathematics in the size differences. The 34 is only wider by a bit over five sixths of an inch for widescreen pictures, while the 36 is about 4.9 inches taller for NTSC. But with the 34, you'll get that almost-an-inch 99% of the time, while you'd get the 36's 4.9 inches 1% of the time.
0.833568 x 0.99 = 0.82523232
4.931118 x 0.01 = 0.04931118
This shows that, for your viewing, the 34 is bigger than the 36. (The breakeven point would be about 94.4% widescreen viewing, 5.6% 4:3 viewing.)

Also, consider that the numbers above assume that programming remains constant, which it won't; they'd shift even more in favor of wide screens if we could calculate the time factor. Things are changing over from 4:3 to 16:9 anyway, so, over the TV's life, you'll end up watching nothing but widescreen shows and leaving 4:3 material behind completely. This is, of course, assuming that you plan to keep it for several years... but if you don't, then you're better off not investing the big bucks in ANY kind of HD-capable TV anyway, but sticking with an analog 4:3 until replacement time.

Some would point out that some widescreen programming is actually filmed in 4:3 and then has black bars added at the sides, so it's really a 4:3 picture adjusted for widescreen TVs. But making sure your 4:3 TV and/or STB allows you to watch this at full size on a 4:3 TV is, at the moment, a hassle and posisbly an extra expense if it's possible at all, and you wouldn't be increasing resolution while you increase the size... while it's already a guarantee that, with a widescreen TV, you can watch it as intended. (The size would be similar to the same picture's size with black bars on all four sides on the 36, but think "watchability" rather than size, and I'm sure you'd conclude it's more annoying to have 4 black bars than 2, especially if the 4 bars happen to come in two different shades of black.)

One more thing to consider... when you think of the aspect ratios of the movies you're watching, there are actually THREE basic ratios to deal with: 1.33 (4:3), 1.8 (16:9 and some insignificantly wider movies), and 2.35. If you get a wide screen, you're in the middle of the three, and thus fairly close to the other two. If you were to get a screen with a native shape of 1.33 or 2.35, you'd still be fairly close for showing 1.8 material, but either of these ratios is AWFUL for showing programs in the other ratio; you'd have to lose roughly HALF of the picture or else show it all but at HALF the size with not just black bars, but HUGE black bars.
Delvo is offline  
post #146 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 03:45 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
Another great post - Delvo. Very useful information for all those comparing 4:3 vs 16:9 sets. I totally agree with your conclusions. This is an example of the useful type of posts that should be emulated - not the type where all they do is badmouth others! I for one in the future am not going to take the bait of those who want responses from me just to further badmouth - I will only post technical infformation and my experiences from now on.

For those who deny the comments made by several that the original 4:3 NTSC analog video was only designed for 19" TVs, here is a link to a forum thread where an expert declares this fact:
http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/...&lp=1046367100
DonBerg is offline  
post #147 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 05:40 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
Delvo, you and I picked up on the same thing but my response got lost in the flames a few posts up. Wouldn't that be a drag if a person was watching nearly ALL cable NTSC at 4:3 and then made a switch to nearly all HDTV at 16:9 having just bought a 4:3 TV? Yikes. It just shows to go ya, it depends on what you watch AND what you will watch if you want to "future-proof" your investment.

Brentski, again I want to emphasize that buying locally at a place that delivers and has a 30 day no-fault money back guarantee can't hurt and might make your life less stressful. There is some value to peace of mind.:) Most of the places in my area that carry the Sony XBR series carry both the 34 & 36. These sets are big and you need at least two healthy big persons to lug them around - even with those nifty handles. Good luck.

Rick
ricbayer is offline  
post #148 of 149 Old 02-28-2003, 06:32 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 bought my set from an online retailer in New York (Shopsunshine.com) I placed the order via the webform on a Sunday evening (very late) and the set arrived 8 days later on a Monday evening (Not to mention that NY had a basic shutdown the Monday after I had ordered the TV due to the heavy snow). Not a scratch or anything even on the carton. I'm sure that everyone's experience will vary with anything but I saved quite a few buck and the set wasn't really that heavy for a friend and I to just pick and and gently place on the tv stand. I paid 1875.99 with shipping for the 36XBR800. Not a bad price at all I must say. They have the other XBR800's as well with very similar savings if you want to check them out. You might feel more comfortable dealing locally, but, from experience I have found that you sure as heck won't save the cash unless someone slips up somewhere.

Dan Bennett

Learning something new every minute.
debennett2 is offline  
post #149 of 149 Old 03-02-2003, 10:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cajieboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Space Coast, Florida
Posts: 4,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 51
DonBerg,

Another Report for you...perhaps the anti-glare coating on your TV is a big plus, but I own a 40XBR and have experienced no glare problems at all. My TV sits in a room w/lots of glass and sliding doors high up in a condo on the water in an area called the Sunshine State. In fact, it's sun shining right now as it does on most days, and there is no glare problems at all. Please file this report for for future use. Thank you.
cajieboy is offline  
Closed Thread Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays

User Tag List

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