or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays › please help 34XBR800 vs 36XBR800
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

please help 34XBR800 vs 36XBR800 - Page 2  

post #31 of 149
Chris,
Thanks for bringing us back to reality. Donberg needs to go hang with Hobs by the sound of it. No offense, Donberg, but you are attacking a person's opinion, not using factual information. When you attack a person's opinion on a matter you only cause people to get P.O.'d. It is quite clear that there is no real difference in PQ of 16:9 (or any widescreen material really) material on either the 34, 36, or 40XBR800. The only problems I've ever read about are very intermittent and FIXABLE problems with the 40" due to the sheer size of the tube. If we want to spend our money and be able to watch standard definition television in it's biggest and ugliest glory, that is our deal. If I want to scale the size down to provide a crisper and cleaner appearing picture, I'll go in the bedroom and watch the tube on my girlfriend's 13" TV/VCR combo from her dorm years. With the combination of good quality television feeds (ie lining up the satellite perfectly, using good terminated cables and keeping spans as short as possible) as well as setting the TV to the proper levels and playing with the DRC functions, I am sure to see nothing but the good of my set. Play nice.
post #32 of 149
For what it's worth, I recently compared the 40XBR and 34XBR at CC side by side. Each had a really good picture displaying a 16:9 HD program, though I felt the 34XBR picture was slightly better. At a different venue I saw a Sony 36 incher, an HD set but not the XBR (don't remember which model it was, exactly), with a much lesser quality picture. While watching that set I couldn't decide if the picture was lousy HD or just bad SD, but if I recall correctly the salesman's comments it was lousy HD. (Not that he said it was lousy, of course.)

The 40XBR obviously has the black bars when showing a 16:9 picture, but if you like big and don't mind bars that would be a great choice. I currently watch anamorphic 16:9 DVDs on my Sony Trinitron 27" set and don't notice the black bars at all. (Though I'm planning to go the 34" widescreen route when I find what I want at the right price. The anamorphic picture on the 27" set is just a bit smaller than I like. From what I read here on this forum, and elsewhere, the Philips 9818 is also a great 34" set and excels with NTSC material due to the Pixel Plus feature it has. I haven't been able to find a 9818 on display in this area so haven't been able to make my own comparisons vis a vis that set.)

Fitzie
post #33 of 149
Fitzie,
Not to sound rude, but, what was the point of your story? The obvious picture quality difference of different-sized televisions is irrelevant. I think I made it perfectly clear above that the smaller the set the better the picture appears to be. It's all a matter of how much are you willing to cover up and how much smaller you are willing to go for the buck. The comments about the other 36" Sony seem to be way out of left field. What does THAT have to do with anything?
post #34 of 149
Also, everyone knows that a showroom floor is the last place you want to compare TV's side by side. There is no way to determine how good a tv looks compared to another in the store on the showroom floor. Hell, one could have been fully tweaked out while the other could have been played with by a 5 year old pushing every button it can get it's hands on (which can't be much different than some of the salesguys I've seen in some stores).

The point is, just cause one set looks better than the other right next to it on the floor doesn't mean jack.

Take them both home and have them ISF callibrated then you tell me which is better.

Oh, and you can't have them both on at the same time as they emit ambient light. How will you ever be able to tell which is better then???

Point is... You can't... and nobody can if you want the results to be truely accurate!!!
post #35 of 149
Fitzie, as you can see, these guys can't handle any one who speaks the truth and tries to shatter their fantasy reality of "bigger is better" and "4:3 sets rule" - meanwhile us WIDESCREEN owners will continue to relish our true reality that WIDESCREEN sets are the true future - and the future is now! The sony 34XBR800 is clearly the winner of all the current Sony XBR direct-view sets. Just look at the many other older unbiased comparison threads between the 34XBR800 and the 36XBR800 for reference, the majority ended up with the 34" widescreen set for the many reasons that have been previously stated - which are totally dismissed by the 4:3 advocates here. By the way, Hob was my hero - he knew how to show those FOOLSCREEN loonies!
post #36 of 149
Donberg has basically let us know everything we need to know about him. For all of those who are not aware of who "Hob" is, just do a search for some of his old posts and you'll soon realize what I'm talking about. Donberg, you have yet to comment on any of the FACTUAL points I have made. You keep repeating yourself about how widescreen is the future and also seem to like to put words in our mouths by saying somone said something that they clearly DID NOT. Learn to read, write, and communicate a little better. You obviously missed the entire reasoning of choosing 4:3 over widescreen.
post #37 of 149
fletcher008 - great question!!!
I would like to know the same thing?

what is the best Direct View 16:9 tube on the market today? is it a Loewe?
They claim to have the largest 16:9 tube...is it true?

thanks!
post #38 of 149
brentski

I think the original post was to compare the 34 v. 36xbr800. Here is a thread last fall where Sizam was demoing the 36xbr800 and 34xbr800 in his home. Folks can be happy with either unit but not many of us can claim to have demoed the sets in our own living space so I thought you might find it interesting. When are you getting your new TV?

Rick
post #39 of 149
echosen,
The best direct views on the market ARE the Loewe line. I think they may have a 38" widescreen but do not quote me on that. I actually have seen these locally at a real HT shop. They are very nice cosmetticaly and as far as PQ but you definately are paying for it...

Rick,
As far as demoing both models goes, I have actually demoed both sets at a very nice, small HT shop. The sets were ISF calibrated in-store and the sets next to whatever I wanted to view were always turned off before I had a chance to sit in front of it.
post #40 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by debennett2
echosen,
The best direct views on the market ARE the Loewe line. I think they may have a 38" widescreen but do not quote me on that. I actually have seen these locally at a real HT shop. They are very nice cosmetticaly and as far as PQ but you definately are paying for it...
I have tried to force myself to purchase the 38 inch Loewe but it's hard to justify the cost of a TV that is not a true flat screen, it has the best picture of any TV I've ever seen (several times) but even in a controlled environment the slightest light is picked up by the curvature of the glass which to me is very annoying and for the price not worth it, this is why I'm holding off for the 910, the Sony's 34 inch screen does not seem to reflect as much light, I cannot speak for the 36 inch's performance with reflected light.

Harley
post #41 of 149
Brentski:
Look at the discussion you've resurrected here !!
The 4:3 vs 16:9 may never cease on these pages!!
The 36XBR800 should suit you fine. It is a great set! I did switch to the 34" but I wouldn't have done so without getting the same $400 discount off the $2500 list for the 34". I paid $1900 delivered for the 36" and $2100 for the 34". My major concern was the physical size of the 36" and not as much a personal debate about 4:3 vs 16:9.
Check the quoted price on the 36". It is sold eveywhere here for no more than $2300 list. I found it harder to find a price break on the 34". I had a price figure in mind when I started my search and discounted the 34" as a serious option because it seemed too small an upsize from my 27" and too costly.
Be careful about some of the comments you see here. I was advised to go for the XBR because the DRC adjustments would enhance my VHS PQ. It may work for some signal sources but not for my needs.
I'd take a good look at the 36HS, if cost is a concern. I know I overspent and pampered myself buying this much TV. Sounds like you are more interested (like me?) in content than great PQ. You won't second guess yourself whichever Sony you choose.
Good Luck.
post #42 of 149
Something I don't understand is why some people (specifically donberg) would recommend a 16x9 set to someone watching 99.9% 4x3 programming?

I am totally a 16x9 advocate and agree that it would be the best way to go for people who watch many DVD"s and HD material. However I bought a 4x3... Why you ask? Because:

1) I watch a lot of regular 4x3 programming (nowhere near 99.9% though)

2) I plan on getting a 16x9 RPTV within 5 years anyway.

3) I won't be getting a STB of any kind till the price comes down.

4) The 4x3 gave me everything I needed. Full resolution of anamorphic DVD, full resolution of 16x9 HDTV, full "possible" resolution of non anamorphic DVD (which the 16x9 set can't do). Fullscreen on 4x3 DVD (concerts, TV series, etc...) without cropping or stretching the picture.

5) The 4x3 was cheaper.

6) The 4x3 was the only set that would fit in my entertainment center, the 16x9 wouldn't fit. This was the big clincher as if I didn't have this restriction, I would definitelly have gotten the 34XBR800 as I do watch quite a bit of DVD movies and not as much satellite TV. But I figured it wouldn't be worth it to get new furniture and alter my entire living room when I plan on getting an RP HDTV within 5 years anyway.

With the 4x3 I get the best of both worlds until HD programming really takes off and becomes affordable.
post #43 of 149
Jeff,

Your logic above leaves a little to be desired.

Let's see:

You are a "16x9 advocate", yet you bought a 4:3.

You are making plans to buy an RPTV in 5 years.
I doubt there will be RPTVs in 5 years.

You won't be getting an STB until the price comes down.
Me either. I rent one for $3.00 per month.

Most of the "full resolution" statements that you made are not in full screen!

"The 4x3 was cheaper. "
Sometimes, you get what you pay for.
I can get a B&W Radio Shack for $59. Should I buy it?

The best was the last.
The 4:3 fits in your entertainment center.
Now, there's a great reason to stay with an old technology. . .

Eneg
post #44 of 149
eneg,
What does 4:3 over 16:9 have to do with "technology" may I ask? They are, simply put, different television and broadcast formats. The only true difference in picture quality between two sets of different ratio yet the same electronics and craftsmanship is also a mere preference in size of certain material. If you want to see 16:9 material filling the entire screen in it's original intended format, you buy a 16:9. If you'd rather have your 4:3 material using up all that screen, you obviously buy a 4:3 television. What is so hard to comprehend? Each format, 4:3 and 16:9, produces black bars depending on what format one is viewing. Now if a person watches almost all 4:3 material there is no reason for that person to want to buy a 16:9 set if that person can get the SAME TV in a different ratio and size. The 4:3 TV will still display 16:9 material just as well as the 16:9 television could. Vide versa on that. IT'S ALL A QUESTION OF SIZE AND RATIO PREFERENCE NOTHING MORE!!!
post #45 of 149
Quote:
Your logic above leaves a little to be desired.
I doubt there will be RPTVs in 5 years.
Well now, THERE's an interesting juxtaposition of statements.

Between this and the rabid diatribes of Donberg and Hob, and the equally inane rants from some 4:3 advocates, including their favorite lie that a 34" widescreen is essentially a 27" fullscreen (which is dishonest because it pretends the other three out of four display modes, which use up the same surface area as a 32" fullscreen, don't exist), I suspect most of those on either side of this thing are actually plants by the other side to make the infiltrated side look silly and unreasonable.

I do have a stance on this, but I'm avoiding associating myself with either of these groups as they're presented here.
post #46 of 149
debennett2 commented as follows:

'Fitzie,
Not to sound rude, but, what was the point of your story? The obvious picture quality difference of different-sized televisions is irrelevant. I think I made it perfectly clear above that the smaller the set the better the picture appears to be. It's all a matter of how much are you willing to cover up and how much smaller you are willing to go for the buck. The comments about the other 36" Sony seem to be way out of left field. What does THAT have to do with anything?

__________________
Danial E Bennett

My original comment was meant to be a casual recounting of an experience which had some general relevance to the question of what others who had seen HDTV thought about the relative merits of larger 4:3 sets as compared to smaller 16:9 sets, specifically Sony XBR sets. It seems I wasn't sufficiently clear as to my purpose.

1. By stating that the 40XBR and the 34XBR each had a "really good picture" I actually meant to imply that the 16:9 picture displayed on the 40XBR rivaled that on the 34XBR, and that the 40XBR (and by extension the 36XBR) should not be excluded from consideration on the basis of picture quality.

2. I pointed out that for me, the black bars that are seen on a 4:3 set are not bothersome; again, by implication I was saying that the issue of black bars would not *of themselves* preclude me from choosing a 4:3 set.

3. The reference to the other Sony set was simply an affirmation of my belief that the Sony XBR sets are better than Sony non-XBR sets, and was in support for another poster's comment that the XBR systems appeared to be top of the line.

4. Mr reference to "big" was meant to imply that when displayed side by side, the 40" set not only "is" bigger than the 34" set, its surprising how much bigger it actually looks.

The two XBR sets that I saw side by side obviously were viewed under the same ambient lighting. I don't know if they had been ISF calibrated, but I saw absolutely no picture flaws on either--no geometric distortion, no color bleeding, no fuzz, no moire, no shadows, no ringing. Now, all these comments are pretty favorable to the 4:3 sets, and that's what I wanted to say by implication. The other side of the coin, of course, is that if a 40" or 36" set is a little too bulky, and you really like the widescreen effect, and you appreciate just a little, teensy, weensy bit of extra detail in the HD picture...well, maybe you go for the 34" widescreen.

Regards,
Fitzie
post #47 of 149
Debennett2,

Quote:
What does 4:3 over 16:9 have to do with "technology" may I ask?
You don't think that 4:3 and 16:9 are different technologies?
They are not just different TV sets. A Toshiba and a Sony are different TV sets. Big difference.

Most people buy a television hoping that it will last for more than just a few years.

The 16:9 is just coming into it's own. Each month, more and more stations will be doing the conversion. The 4:3 is on the way out. If you want to invest in old ---------- (insert a word here), it's your money. . .

Eneg
post #48 of 149
Jeff Lam wrote:

"With the 4x3 I get the best of both worlds until HD programming really takes off and becomes affordable"

Your post outlines to a "tee" the decision tree that must be addressed by most of us when deciding between a 4:3 versus 16:9 HDTV. Your logic was impeccable. Had it not already been attacked, I would have said "unassailable."

Regards,
Fitzie
post #49 of 149
Within the context of the Sony XBR series (or other manufacturers similar models) I'm trying to figure out what people are referring to as "old technology" or outdated equipment when compared with the native 16:9 sets. I happen to have a 40XBR that does just as good of a job on 16:9 material (in fact, my 16:9 image is a bit larger) as the 34XBR. I just also happen to be getting a 4:3 set that is a bit larger than the 36XBR in the same box. In my eyes, I effectively bought a 36XBR and a 34XBR in one box. I personally feel that this is one of the best bets you can get during this state of transition that will be going on for quite some time. Childish "black bar phobia" discussions aside, there isn't anything the 34XBR can do that I can't do with my 40XBR. Yes, I paid a bit more for my 40XBR ($2,5000), but as mentioned before I get a 36XBR (+ a bit more screen area) in the same box! Even with the 36XBR you only lose about 5% of the 16:9 image size from the 34XBR while maintaining a more usable 4:3 image size. And yes, the 34XBR IS a 27" for 4:3 material. Not big enough for me. I've asked this before and I'll ask it again, where were all you "27 inches is big enough for ugly 4:3 SD material" guys before the 34" widescreens started hitting the market? At that time it was ALL about the 36" models unless space/size was an issue.

Again, I contend that I'm more of a 16:9 advocate than most. That's why I went for the larger 16:9 display on the 40XBR.
post #50 of 149
Quote:
Within the context of the Sony XBR series (or other manufacturers similar models) I'm trying to figure out what people are referring to as "old technology" or outdated equipment when compared with the native 16:9 sets.
He meant that 4:3 is an "old" standard, he just stated it with some silly hyperbole.

Quote:
I happen to have a 40XBR that does just as good of a job on 16:9 material (in fact, my 16:9 image is a bit larger) as the 34XBR. I just also happen to be getting a 4:3 set that is a bit larger than the 36XBR in the same box... Childish "black bar phobia" discussions aside... as mentioned before I get a 36XBR (+ a bit more screen area) in the same box!
Oh, but boiling everything down size as the one and only consideration of "quality", and calling the opposing side names, isn't childish?

Quote:
And yes, the 34XBR IS a 27" for 4:3 material.
Repeating the lie won't make it true, nor will it win your side any converts.

Quote:
where were all you "27 inches is big enough for ugly 4:3 SD material" guys before the 34" widescreens started hitting the market? At that time it was ALL about the 36" models unless space/size was an issue.
Well, aside from the little detail that the people you describe aren't in this discussion at all and the ones you're really talking to don't fit the description you're painting them with... we/they were settling for the best option that was available at the time and waiting for the widescreen TVs, of course! The only way to get a big, wide picture was to put up with that big ugly box looming over the room and NTSC pictures that were just too tall and bloated out of the shape that TV should be in. But now that that's no longer the case, we'll take our big wide picture without the ugly bloated height and the unnecessary imagery added in to fill it!

Try looking at it this way: it's possible to get computer monitors that are more than 2 feet in measurement, or even to use a projector to put your computer work all over one wall, but you probably don't, right? That's because you're not looking for the "biggest" thing you can light up the city with, but the "right size"... and the "right shape" at that size.

That's all that the widescreen buyers are doing. Because the human brain doesn't handle horizontal and vertical aspects of an image quite the same, most people want a wider picture, not a taller one, which is why movies are made that way and why the TV market is trending that way. And if bigger (overall) automaticly equalled better as you claim to believe, you wouldn't be messing with direct-view CRTs anyway.

Quote:
Again, I contend that I'm more of a 16:9 advocate than most.
Then the reason you recite the 4:3 mantra of attacks on the widescreen viewpoint would be.....? (Like I said, many people appear to be plants...)
post #51 of 149
Just to clear up any misconceptions about this idiotic debate...movie screens are what they are for one reason and one reason only: It makes it viewable by more people. If you like that aspect ratio, which most of us do when blown up to the scale of a movie theater, then it makes sense to get a widescreen. But if you fall into the category of watching a lot of 4:3 telelvision, then get a 4:3 telelvision. THEY BOTH display the same picture, just different sizes. I, personally,think it is a joke to go widescreen at some a small scale as 34". The whole idea of the widescreen movement is to replicate the movie theater experience. I'll wait until my career gets going and I can afford a good projector and have the room for it. Until then, I'll watch the best of both worlds on MY CHOICE of a 4:3 television. Thanks.
post #52 of 149
Kadman,

Quote:
Childish "black bar phobia" discussions aside
I had purchased Sony's best 32" 4:3 back in December.
I hated the black bars.
I returned the set after a month and got the 34".
Not liking the looks of big black bars around my TV screen is not childish,
nor is it a phobia.
We'll see if you feel the same way in a couple of years!

Okay, now I have to get out the dictionary to look up some of Delvo's
words!
Let's see: h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e...

Eneg
post #53 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by Delvo
Oh, but boiling everything down size as the one and only consideration of "quality", and calling the opposing side names, isn't childish?
Size is not the only consideration for quality. It was important in my decision and is also important in many other people's situations. In fact, if you've read much of what I post, you'll see that I typically suggest that there are many different needs and that they need to be evaluated on an individual basis. Unlike some others around here (not saying you fall into this group) that openly suggest that buying a 4:3 set is wrong no matter what.

Quote:
Originally posted by Delvo
Repeating the lie won't make it true, nor will it win your side any converts.
How is this not true? I surely hope you aren't counting any stretch or zoom modes that distort or cut off part of the image. You can do the calculations yourself here ==> http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi
Actually you're right, it's a 27.8" TV. My mistake.

Quote:
Originally posted by Delvo
Well, aside from the little detail that the people you describe aren't in this discussion at all and the ones you're really talking to don't fit the description you're painting them with... we/they were settling for the best option that was available at the time and waiting for the widescreen TVs, of course! The only way to get a big, wide picture was to put up with that big ugly box looming over the room and NTSC pictures that were just too tall and bloated out of the shape that TV should be in. But now that that's no longer the case, we'll take our big wide picture without the ugly bloated height and the unnecessary imagery added in to fill it!

Try looking at it this way: it's possible to get computer monitors that are more than 2 feet in measurement, or even to use a projector to put your computer work all over one wall, but you probably don't, right? That's because you're not looking for the "biggest" thing you can light up the city with, but the "right size"... and the "right shape" at that size.

That's all that the widescreen buyers are doing. Because the human brain doesn't handle horizontal and vertical aspects of an image quite the same, most people want a wider picture, not a taller one, which is why movies are made that way and why the TV market is trending that way. And if bigger (overall) automaticly equalled better as you claim to believe, you wouldn't be messing with direct-view CRTs anyway.
Fair enough. Again, each situation has it's own set of criteria that could help you select the best display for your needs. I am in no way suggesting that bigger is always better. I want to clarify that because I may get wrapped up in some of the specific instances that have been mentioned. With main seating areas at 7' and another between 7'-12', size was an important part of the equation at my house. At the same time, the large amount of lighting, and somewhat reasonable budget eliminated some other technologies. If I had a sofa that was 5' in front of the TV, a 34" widescreen/27.8" 4:3 TV might have worked for me. Conversely, does bigger (within reason) always mean worse? Should I sit at the end of my sofa that is 12' away and watch sporting events in a 27.8" window? Are the 30" widescreens even better than the 34" models because they are even smaller?

Quote:
Originally posted by Delvo
Then the reason you recite the 4:3 mantra of attacks on the widescreen viewpoint would be.....? (Like I said, many people appear to be plants...)
You aren't getting it. I'm not reciting any mantra, nor am I attacking "the widescreen viewpoint." I don't think the 4:3 sets are always the way to go. As mentioned before in many posts, there are many options, and all of them should be reviewed. The 34XBR and others like it are great. I just have a serious problem when someone is making a recommendation and simply tosses the 4:3 sets out of the running simply based on the arguement that "if you watch any widescreen, the TV must also be widescreen." Do me a favor and read the original post that started this thread. Now tell me, would you still recommend a widescreen to this person? Others did (notably Don). This is what I have a problem with.
post #54 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by eneg
Kadman,



I had purchased Sony's best 32" 4:3 back in December.
I hated the black bars.
I returned the set after a month and got the 34".
Not liking the looks of big black bars around my TV screen is not childish,
nor is it a phobia.
We'll see if you feel the same way in a couple of years!

Okay, now I have to get out the dictionary to look up some of Delvo's
words!
Let's see: h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e...

Eneg
Eneg,

I'm not sure of your specific viewing habits, so you man not end up seeing too many black bars with your new configuration. What I'm responding to is a more generalized arguement that has surfaced here many times in that black bars are "evil" and some have suggested that they were getting a 16:9 set to avoid looking at them, despite the fact that they stated a certain percentage of SD and movie viewing, both scenarios where you will be looking at black bars anyway. Again, specific situations call for different solutions. I've been a fan of OAR movies since the early 90's and have watched home movies (when available on LD, and later DVD) whenever possible. Maybe this is why I just don't even notice them anymore.

I apologize for referring to the black bar issue as childish. It's simply an opinion that I don't share and I should leave it at that. My strong feelings on the subject probably stem from old wife/family arguements from the 90's where they defend pan & scan movies, stating that I'm "wasting" part of my TV by watching widescreen movies.

Enjoy your set!
post #55 of 149
Kadman,

Quote:
Enjoy your set!
You too!!

I think when we make a major purchase such as one of these sets, we justify our decision. I'm as guilty of this as anyone.
I have to tell you though that after I had the 32" 4:3 for just a few days, I had doubts that I had made the right decision.
For me, giving it back for the 34 has left me with no regrets.

Good "talking" with you!!!

Eneg
post #56 of 149
This thread has turned into a conflagration but something Kadman said deserves an answer.

Quote:
where were all you "27 inches is big enough for ugly 4:3 SD material" guys before the 34" widescreens started hitting the market? At that time it was ALL about the 36" models unless space/size was an issue.
Actually I was content watching about 10 or 20 football games a year on our Sony 4:3 but it was 19". Then in 1998 or so, I thought I would splurge and get a 27" Wega with picture-in-picture which was much better. The big TVs at my friends' house (esp. RPTV) looked grainy with cable TV. Then in September 2000, I got a ReplayTV and all of sudden in addition to watching more football, I started watching regular TV again ("discovered" Simpson, X-files, etc.).

The most radical transforming event was buying a cheap DVD player in 2000 and joining netflix. Wow those DVDs look great and made NTSC look really awful. At that time, I was enjoying football on the 27" but the picture quality was still not very good. I now have gone through 3 different brands of cables (Monster, AR, & Bettercables), a switch from analog to digital cable, a different set top box, and multiple visits from the cable folks (TCI, then ATT, now Comcast) to try to get a better NTSC picture on the 27". Finally, most of the time it is OK but the wide angle views of football games still are dreadful (I sometimes shut my eyes or fast forward to where the kickoff return man catches the ball and the camera angle changes). If I watch a NTSC letterbox movie (like from Sci-Fi channel) and zoom it, it is pretty grainy so I gave up on that.

After watching DVDs for a year and a half on the 27", I thought, "Hey, why can't I make the great DVD picture quality bigger and keep the marginal NTSC the same size?". In March 2002, I discovered AVS forum and started reading about the 34xbr800 widescreen and in August 2002, I bought one. It has been great. With the 34xbr800 TV, I get "two TVs". I have not lost anything over my 27" Wega 4:3 when watching football and in fact the picture quality with NTSC on 34xbr800 seems a little better. But now I get to watch widescreen DVDS (good picture quality) on a bigger TV. I was really nervous about making NTSC unwatchable when my final choice came down to the 34xbr800 or moving up to a 42" plasma so I went with the 34".

If I sat further back or I didn't watch at least 5 football games per week in the fall now, I would have probably felt compelled to go with the bigger plasma. If I was fabulously wealthy with a bigger house, I might have both a widescreen AND a 4:3 but using one TV is a compromise. As this discussion shows, the choice of TV depends on subjective matters and what do you mostly watch. I think widescreen is for DVD & HDTV watchers and the 4:3 exists for those who still watch a lot of 4:3. Some of us average half & half depending on the time of year and just have to compromise. Whatever floats your boat is fine. My most subjective part is that I am in front of a computer monitor for many hours per day and demand the crisp letters and background while others prefer things big even if it is a little fuzzy or grainy. And, I am a football fan who loves his ReplayTV. Each to his/her own. We really don't need to exhibit religious dogmatic fundamentalism here on AVS forum. There is enough of that elsewhere. Hope this answers your question.

Rick
post #57 of 149
As you 4:3 advocates can now see, I am not alone in my observations. There are many who started with a 4:3 HD set (like eneg) who realized their severe limitations and realized in the nick of time that a 34" widescreen set was the best choice, and will be even better in the future. Its amazing how those who claim that poor quality 4:3 NTSC video is still good quality viewed up close while blown up to 36" or 40" are those who have never used a 34" widescreen set in their home to compare against. Just read the old threads where someone actually did just that - had both a Sony 36XBR800 and 34XBR800 side-by-side in their living room for a few weeks - very quickly found that he was watching only the 34" widescreen set and returned the 4:3 set to the store! What does that tell you? New prospective open-minded buyers (who we are talking too, not the existing closed-minded 4:3 advocates who offer no facts here - only name-calling others "childish" or so-on) should consider the experience of those who have compared the 36" 4:3 vs 34" 16:9 sets in a truly objective manner!
post #58 of 149
Quote:
I had purchased Sony's best 32" 4:3 back in December.
I hated the black bars.
I returned the set after a month and got the 34".
Not liking the looks of big black bars around my TV screen is not childish,
nor is it a phobia.
We'll see if you feel the same way in a couple of years!

Okay, now I have to get out the dictionary to look up some of Delvo's
words!
Let's see: h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e...

Eneg
So I take it then that you have 3 TV's, one with an aspect of 2.35:1, one with an aspect of 1.77:1, and one with an aspect of 4x3???

Since you dispise the black bars so much then why even settle for 1 aspect ratio? Just don't watch anything because black bars are a part of life in 4x3 or 16x9, If you can't accept it like the rest of us then you need to find a new hobby.

I see, you would rather have black bars on the sides instead of the top and bottom. That makes sense and validates your concern for the black bars.

Lets see. As we stand now, Black bars are on the screen with two of the three ratios in any case.

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

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

2 out of three in both cases, what's the difference? For the initial poster of this thread, I would recommend he not have black bars 99.9% of the time (4x3), while you would suggest he have black bars on the set 99.9% of the time(16x9)?

Seems like your logic above leaves a little to be desired. Not mine...
For someone that returned a set due to black bars, you sure are in a spot recommending a set that will produce black bars 99.9% of the time.


Quote:
The 16:9 is just coming into it's own. Each month, more and more stations will be doing the conversion. The 4:3 is on the way out. If you want to invest in old ---------- (insert a word here), it's your money. . .
So what stations converted to 16x9 HD this month? Which ones did last month? Which ones in Dec? Which ones in Nov? If you have a list, please share with us...

BTW,
My 4x3 set CAN display everything your 16x9 set can display with the same resolution, PERIOD! If this weren't true, I would not have even considered the set I purchased.

Quote:
Jeff,

Your logic above leaves a little to be desired.

Let's see:

You are a "16x9 advocate", yet you bought a 4:3.

You are making plans to buy an RPTV in 5 years.
I doubt there will be RPTVs in 5 years.

You won't be getting an STB until the price comes down.
Me either. I rent one for $3.00 per month.

Most of the "full resolution" statements that you made are not in full screen!

"The 4x3 was cheaper. "
Sometimes, you get what you pay for.
I can get a B&W Radio Shack for $59. Should I buy it?

The best was the last.
The 4:3 fits in your entertainment center.
Now, there's a great reason to stay with an old technology. . .

Eneg
RPTV's will be arround in 5 years, I guarentee it. If plasma or LCD is the better buy in 5 years so be it. That wasn't the point of my statement. The point is I will have a 16x9 set when I need it and right now I don't need it. So don't tell me to plan for the future as I already have. Much more efficiently I might add.

Also, no HDTV cable in my area. A STB will run me over $600 minimum! No renting of STB's in my area at all and not for several years at least so your comment means nothing there.

True, most of the full resolution satements aren't in full screen, but how many full resolution aspects are in full screen on a 16x9 set? The same as 4x3... a big fat 1!!!(see aspect ratio comments above)

And your B&W RS comment was just plain dumb, now you're being silly.

I saved $600 by buying the 32HV instead of the 34XBR and I lose out on 4" of width but gain much more in 4x3 aspect ratio.

And for the entertainment center comment, maybe it is. Depending on how much your EC costs. Would it make sence to get rid of a $5000 EC to make room for a $2000 TV and buy another EC for that one? Maybe, maybe not.

Also, how would a 4x3 HD set be olt technology. Your comment about the B&W set would be old technology. My TV has all the same guts and glory yours does with a few differences including size and shape. Same DRC, same electronics, nearly the same everything. Would that mean your set is old technology. Older format and aspect... yes, old technology... no.

Again, I wouldn't consier anything that can display full resolution DVD and HD old techniology, doesn't matter what aspect ratio it is. Just because a TV has black bars on 16x9 programming doesn't make it old technology. Would you consider a 2.35:1 set old technology beacuse it has black bars on 16x9 material. I don't think so. It's no different than 4x3 in this regard.
post #59 of 149
Thanks Rick, that was a great explaination from someone who described his needs and found a set that met his requirements. Great post!

Chris
post #60 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by DonBerg
As you 4:3 advocates can now see, I am not alone in my observations. There are many who started with a 4:3 HD set (like eneg) who realized their severe limitations and realized in the nick of time that a 34" widescreen set was the best choice, and will be even better in the future. Its amazing how those who claim that poor quality 4:3 NTSC video is still good quality viewed up close while blown up to 36" or 40" are those who have never used a 34" widescreen set in their home to compare against. Just read the old threads where someone actually did just that - had both a Sony 36XBR800 and 34XBR800 side-by-side in their living room for a few weeks - very quickly found that he was watching only the 34" widescreen set and returned the 4:3 set to the store! What does that tell you? New prospective open-minded buyers (who we are talking too, not the existing closed-minded 4:3 advocates who offer no facts here - only name-calling others "childish" or so-on) should consider the experience of those who have compared the 36" 4:3 vs 34" 16:9 sets in a truly objective manner!
Lets see Don, I continue to state that there are many different options and that the needs of a particular situation should always be considered. You have clearly stated in previous posts that choosing a widescreen is always right and a 4:3 should NEVER be recommended. Who is more close minded?

Also I have compared both in my own home...in a way. When I'm in HD mode (16:9 enhanced) and run across an HD station that is running 4:3 material, I end up with what amounts to an image that is boxed in on all 4 sides. The resulting image is nearly identical (just a touch larger) than what you get with a 4:3 display on the 34XBR. I find that this image is too small for the room that I'm in. I happened to be surfing around and stopped to watch something that looked interesting in this format, but it was just too small to watch on a regular basis. Everyone has different needs, you seem to be the only one that doesn't realize that.

Chris
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays › please help 34XBR800 vs 36XBR800