please help 34XBR800 vs 36XBR800 - Page 3  

Jeff,

And they call ME "childish!"

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.

No I don't!

Yes you do. You also get the bars on ANYTHING broadcast in widescreen.
In case you haven't been told, in a few years, everything will be in wide screen! Really!!

Here's a new one for you:
I would bet you that if you could pick 100 people (that couldn't care less about aspect ratios or anything else being discussed on this board), that at least 90 of them would like the looks of the 34 over the 32,36,40.
Ah, so you say what does that have to do with anything?
I think quite a bit. Ever buy a car? Before going for a drive or checking out it's specs, before kicking the tires, don't you check out how it looks? Of course, that has nothing to do with how the car will perform, but it's still important. Same with the TV. I admit this doesn't prove anything, but I think that whether you want to admit it or not, it's still important.

Okay, let's see what else you said.

That's ridiculous. This reminds me of a quote from Jim Ignatowski (know him?) When told that there were five hundred thousand people at Woodstock, he said that it was lucky that he went or there would have only been four hundred ninety nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine!

Okay, anything else? Ya know, I am A.D.D. and I like to take on one issue at a time.

I disagree. What else can I say?

Ah, looks like you got me on that one.

Why is it you 4:3 guys (Delvo excluded) are into name calling? Is that the only way to make your point?

All the rest is just rehashing everything again.
Was your entertainment center really five grand?

Please make all future notes smaller.
This is too much for me. . .

Regards,

Eneg

I agree that these 4:3 advocates are truly being childish since they don't have any real arguments to make. Since they haven't ever even used a true 16:9 widescreen set, they are totally unware of the extra scaling modes available in the 16:9 sets, that don't exist on the 4:3 sets.
No KadMan, you have not compared a 4:3 vs a 16:9 set. You assume that the 4:3 set does everything the same as the 16:9 - which is wrong! To be an approved expert, you must do as the guys in other threads have done - actually side-by-side view a 34XBR800 next to a 36XBR800. In all cases where this has been done the 34XBR800 widescreen set was chosen! All you did was not consider the 16:9 sets, buy a 4:3 set look at it only and claim its the winner! Not very objective. I consider the true objective test results from the others to be the actual test, yours is meaningless. I suggest new buyers consider reading the objective reports in other threads - the conclusion: buy the 34XBR800 if a good HD direct-view is desired.

So how is my comparison not valid? I was looking at an image size that was slightly larger than the 34XBR's 4:3 image size and it wasn't large enough for my needs. Who are you to call this invalid? Besides, you are putting all your stock into 1 comparison by 1 person who might have different needs than anyone else. Doesn't sound like a good way to pick a TV. I guess this covers your "all cases". All 1 of them. lol. I also did compare them in the store, but I have't brought it up since I consider that to be a horrible place to compare TVs.

Also, I do not like any of the zoom or stretch modes. Not in a million years would I ever watch TV like that. Horrible. Absolutely horrible. Other than than, I'd be real interested in hearing what the 34 can do that my 40 or the 36 can't.

Your last sentence says it all and is the primary reason why nobody should under any circumstances trust you. You feel that the 34XBR800 is the only conclusion that can be made when someone is looking for a direct-view HD set. I'd be willing to bet that 90%+ of the people here would disagree with you, even most of the hardcore 16:9 fans.

The funniest thing about all this is that you think I'm a 4:3 advocate. I will continue to look at each individual situation and recommend based on the crieteria given, while you continue to blindly stick your fingers in your ears and shout "WIDESCREEN" no matter what the person needs.

Chris

Chris,
Notice how everyone seems to dance around the question of what can the 34XBR800 do that the 36 or 40 can't? Answer that before going any further you crazies.

The 16:9 sets can zoom and you can shift the viewable window up and down to eliminate the discrating "ticker tape" on the bottom of the screen on many channels - you can't do that on the 4:3 sets now can you! The 34XBR800 reportedly has an anti-glare coating that the 36" and 40" models lack. Also there have been several who have compared to the sets and chose the 34XBR800 over the others, some even have done so AFTER buying the 32" or 36" 4:3 set first and then realizing their mistake, took it back and got the 34XBR800! So its not just one report, its several - I haven't heard even one report of anyone buying the 16:9 set and weeks later taking it back to get a 4:3 set however!!

You just referred back to the zoom and stretch modes that I already said that I knew the 34 had, but they are also something I consider "negative features." They do nothing but distort or eliminate part of the image. Getting rid of the ticker tape? Oh you mean like the sports scores I'm trying to keep up on, or the school closings that I need to watch to see if my kids are going to school the next day, the weather, local headlines, or the stocks where I can see how much my portfolio tanked that day...ok ya got me on that last one, lol! I still don't consider that a feature. If it's important to you, fine. All of the XBR's have a form of anti-glare. I'd have to look at them closely again to be sure, but I didn't recall the 34 looking any different than the 36 or 40. You can look at the TV with it off and easily see that it has an anti-reflective coating.

So far, I've seen one report of someone buying a 32" 4:3 and deciding they wanted the 34" instead. Fine. That's partly why these stores have a return policy. On my recent quests for TV, then DVD player, then HD receiver, I saw a total of 3 open box 34" XBR TVs. It's possible that some of these are due to the exact opposite feeling once they got it home. Regardless, I don't think it proves all that much other than someone bought a TV that didn't work for their needs. It's not something to build a new religion or branch of science off of, as you seem to be doing.

What I gather mostly from your posts is that you find a few people who agree with you, then use that to conclude that you are right. How does this equate to the 34XBR being the only correct directview HDTV available. I do like the 34XBR and gave it serious consideration. The 40XBR was just a better fit for my needs.

Chris

Donberg,
As much as you would like to think your views mean something, they do not. You have yet to mention more than one account (never specifically might I add) where a widescreen owner thought their widescreen version was BETTER than the 4:3 equivalent television. Also, not one true videophile likes any type of stretch mode or mode that somehow cuts the viewing area...in fact, that alone tells me that you truly do not care to watch video in it's intended format, but, instead, like to watch video in whatever format that does not conform to reality. I also considered the 34" XBR, but discounted it due to the mere size of 4:3 content in it's original intended format. Why would I go from my present 32" SD television to a 27+" HD television considering most of our viewing is going to be 4:3 oriented? You wanna know why Don? Because that size was not suitable for our viewing preferences. The image quality is the same on 4:3 TV..yet bigger...maybe not as good of a PQ, but only because it is bigger. The same thing will hold true for a super high-end multi-thousand dollar projecter. The size is bigger so it would obviously result in showing the sources weak points. Viewed at the right distance, however, would be the same as viewing the 34" PQ at a closer distance, also something that you and your very pushy 16:9 Nazis seem to forget...some people have their viewing area setup differently than you do at the trailer park. I'm sure you will respond by stating something, once again, that you cannot back up with facts, but, take into consideration that atleast Chris and I have considered the 34XBR800, but, it wasn't what we wanted. We went with a TV with the EXACT SAME PQ as the 34 but bigger for 4:3 sources.

Good debennett2, you now admit that the larger 4:3 tube will produce a lower quality NTSC picture! I agree you must view it from a farther distance and thats the problem! If you watch a DVD or HD (higher quality) program, you need to move up closer to take advantage of the higher resolution! This is the big advantage of the widescreen set, the smaller 4:3 picture allows you to move closer for both types of programs. Many people hate the ticker tape at the bottom of the screen, so being able to remove it is a feature. Kadman just will discount all the extra features of the 16:9 sets because he personally doesn't like 'em. But I've said repeatedly I don't care about your desires - I am speaking to new open-minded prospective buyers and giving them the benefit of my experience, so they don't make a mistake like many others have reported here and had to return their 4:3 set to get a 16:9 set. This is my goal. On the other hand, I don't see that you are helping prospective buyers.

Your goal seems to be a misinformed troll, and you have succeeded. You own a first generation 34" 16:9 Toshiba ...LAFF ! When you get an XBR34 or 36, 40 in your living room, let us know. Nobody cares what youve heard.

Donberg,
Seriously, stop with your constant argumentative ways. If you have facts to present, present them and then be quiet. If you want to voice your own opinions on a totally OFF THE TOPIC experience that you personally have no experience in, start your own thread. If these persistent annoyances happen I will be forced to notify the forum administrator. There is nothing worse than someone who is out only to ruin another's good mood.

Guess I add my 2 cents worth here.
When I first decided to buy a new TV I had my heart set on the Sony 40" TV. I started coming to this forum to research info and ended up reading about the 4:3 v 16:9 debate.
Well for me it ended up coming down to a couple of factors beyond the shape of the screen . First was viewing distance my sweet spot is 7' from TV and I was concerned about SD cable viewing on the larger 40" screen. The second issue was WAF related I could not find a stand that would hold the 40" tv along with my center speaker(23"w x 11"h). So I ended up buying the 34" widescreen instead of the 40" or 36" 4:3 TV.

Flash forward 4 months to now do I regret buying the widescreen instead of the 4:3? I have to say NO. After 4 months of owning this TV I am one happy camper. My only complaint is I PERSONALLY feel watching SD cable even on a 34" from 7 foot is annoying (but watchable) I feel for me any larger would of been a BIG mistake. Part of this may be that after watching DVD's and widescreen HD TV I am now spoiled and notice it more when PQ is lacking.
I also like to add is my viewing habits have changed alot since owning a widesceen TV. Almost everything I now watch is either DVD's or HDTV. Before buying this TV most of my viewing was mainly SD cable LD and VCR. Now viewing a 4:3 aspect ratio just looks weird to me and I could not see ever buying another 4:3 tv.
After my last comment some of you might be saying whats the differences? He still could still be watching widescreen DVD and HDTV with a 4:3 aspect ratio TV.
Its hard to explain but I personally find a widescreen TV just looks better when watching widescreen programing (I have been watching laser disc in widescreen for over 10 years on a 4:3 32"tv so I do have a reference point) Who knows why I like it better, maybe its the shape of the screen maybe having none of less black bars on top and bottom of pic whatever it is I am very glad I ended up going with a widescreen TV over 4:3.

I totally agree with your observations Ufanco - thank you for confirming my own personal observations after owning a WIDESCREEN 16:9 for a year now. You are just another one of many who have found the truth about 16:9 HDTV. I congratulate your intelligent decision deciding on a 16:9 set despite all the noisy 4:3 talk out there. We must all try to help out new prospective buyers by posting more such 16:9 owner experiences to prove to these skeptics who always attack us when we post our views here. I see now they want to try to remove us from the forum simply because we tell our true 16:9 experiences - what are they afraid of?

A question that's probably been answered but I just have to ask again.

Those of you with a 34 inch Sony please be honest and answer this question:

What is your opinion of the stretch modes when viewing cable TV in 4.3?

Currently there is only one store here that has a 34 inch Sony and the creeps are only feeding it HD so I have not been able to demonstrate to myself what the stretch modes would look like.

I'm seriously considering holding off for the XBR910 but if the stretch modes suck I might start looking really hard at the 36" Sony.

Harley

HuskerHarley, don't worry, the stretch modes are excellent. Don't be put off by the comments of the 4:3 advocates - they will poo-poo the stretch modes because they don't have experience with them - listen to the 16:9 owners who have valid experience. Also ignore those trolls like Scarab33 who always resort to name-calling and attacking the 16:9 owners, instead of posting valuable true information for new HDTV buyers that I attempt to do.

On 16:9 HDTV sets, there is a non-linear stretch that is great for many 4:3 programs that keeps the center area at close to normal proportions while stretching out the sides more. There is also a zoom mode that displays the 16:9 letterboxed area from a 4:3 program - perfect for the many letterboxed programs available like Enterprise, West Wing, Angel, Stargate-SG1, etc. You can also vertically shift the image up or down to get the letterboxed section centered. This zoom mode does not stretch or distort the image at all, it makes the image on the 34" 16:9 set as big (actually slightly larger) than that of the 4:3 36" model set. This zoom mode is also perfect for eliminating the annoying ticker tape at the bottom of the news channels. These sretch and zoom modes give much more flexibility to the 16:9 sets compared to the 4:3 models - you have many more display modes with the widescreen models.

DonBerg

How are they (stretch modes) when watching sports such as Baseball, Football, Basketball and NASCAR?

Harley

Ufanco, your story and comments are a good example of how a particular set worked within your specific requirements. I'm sure that it will give others food for thought during their purchases. Great post! If my only main seating area was 7' away, I might have considered the 34 or 36 instead of the 40.

Don, you need to take a lead from these people who purchased 16:9 sets who know how to present information in a positive manner. Rather than focusing on specifics of a particular need, you choose to focus on creating "camps" or barriers between 4:3 and 16:9 owners. If seriously doubt that your posts on this subject have helped a single person. And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that you are pro widescreen.

Harley, I've seen the stretch & zoom modes of the 34XBR. The feed was coming from a composite video cable (not sure of the ultimate source). For this reason I didn't evaluate if the stretching caused any additional jaggies or graininess. I was simply focusing on geometry. The effect is definitely noticable in that people look a bit heavier and you can tell that something isn't quite right. It's NOT so exagerrated that basketballs look like footballs or anything like that. If you were to just simply glance over at a set, I doub't that you would notice, but you definitely would if you sat down to watch a program. I would recommend viewing without the stretch mode in the store while standing or sitting the same distance that you will be using in your home. If the unaltered 4:3 image size works for your needs, go for it. I wouldn't count on a stretch mode to make or break the deal. Again, try not to focus on the image quality, because you'll be able to do much better at home. Just try to get a feel for the image size. If you do try the stretch mode and it doesn't bother you, then go for it. Ultimately only your opinion on the subject should matter. For the price of these TVs you should be able to get the store to cooperate by getting a 4:3 source to it.

Chris

Harley

I hope you are looking for other opinions too because I have a 34xbr800 (since August 2002) and always watch in OAR from about 7'. I tried the wide zoom to watch TV and classic 4:3 movies and people's heads change shape at the edge of the screen and my wife & I can't stand that. I watched an Outer Limits and the full moon in the upper right hand corner of the screen looked like a football. Speaking of football, the wide zoom makes the football look like a sausage. I have played and attended football games and I know what one should look like live. I can't engage in that much mental deception I guess. In summary, I really can't find a good way to use wide zoom. They could remove it and I wouldn't care. Having said this, there are very many perfectly sane people who don't mind the wide zoom and other "stretch the edges more than the center" type of stretch/zoom.

Full is the mode to get proper dimensions from widescreen anamorphic DVD. Zoom mode will always drop the picture quality but on a DVD and a smaller screen it still looks OK and at least has proper dimensions in spite of lopping off part of the picture. This is one of the reasons I didn't get a plasma because I wasn't sure I could stand to stretch a 4:3 picture and I watch a lot of football (at least 5 games per week) in the fall. With a direct view calibrated by AVIA I don't fret about black bars burn-in one bit.

I am not proud of this apparent defect in the optical-neuro part of my brain but neither my wife & I can stand to use the stretch modes. On the other hand, watching with black bars is no big deal to us as long as people's heads and footballs look normal on the screen. There are lots of opinions on this and I wonder if looking at the different modes at a TV store might help you. Since it seems hard to find a NTSC cable feed at the local TV store, maybe renting a 4:3 DVD like Casablanca or a made for TV movie or a Simpsons or Buffy or South Park DVD, etc. would give you the information you seek.

My opinion is that football is a real stress test for TV viewing. It is usually outdoors with unpredictable weather and stadium shadows or rain or snow. The wide angle shots like at kickoff are predictably grainy looking so look for the typical line of scrimmage shots, which are much better. All this is also complicated by the fact that I use a ReplayTV to record games so I am not going to suffer watching more truck & beer commercials just to get a HD set-top box. Heck, if I use ReplayTV to skip the ads I get to watch another game or two. :p

I really bought my 34xbr800 to watch DVDs (which is awesome!!!) and am just pleased that watching football on the 34xbr800 involves no downgrade in picture quality from my old 27" Wega (about the same 4:3 picture size on each). In spite of the 5 football games per week in the fall (2 or 3 college games Saturday, 2 or 3 pro games Sunday and Monday Night Football), my overall viewing sources are about 50% NTSC and 50% DVD over the course of the year. I also have mostly favorable comments on www.netflix.com.

IMO, purchasing a TV to watch 4:3 & widescreen is a compromise but I am very happy with the 34xbr800. Sorry if we are getting too OT on this thread but I didn't want you to get the impression that EVERYONE loves stretch modes. Different strokes for different folks . . .

Happy viewing. :)

Rick

PS (added at edit) Harley, I saw Chris & I responed at the same time. I got so excited talking about football, I may have shortchanged your answer. On a wide zoom, things look OK in the middle of the screen but at some time during a movie (maybe not with a talking head show like news) there will be something going on near the edges - like someone walking in or out of a room. It looks distorted to me. As football fans know, a good fake can also fake out the camera operator and often (as the instant replay shows) the action is at the edge of the screen. I would suspect football to be the crummiest with wide zoom, news programs to be little affected, and movies somewhere in between. Good luck.

I am a recent purchaser of the KV34XBR800 and my opinion is this:
They are very useful, but must be used judiciously. The choice needs to be made by content. I have found that for a lot of material all the action IS in the middle of the screen (many TV shows). Wide Zoom is great for this. My 6 and 9 year old sons very quickly, and without prompting, made this their favorite mode for Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network. They will quickly return to this mode if a different one is selected. SpongeBob is unharmed. The nightly news is also fine in this mode.
I have found that a lot of movies are horrible in wide zoom, particularly if they have been Pan-and-scanned and you are re-stretching them! Yuck! Action is crammed into the frame as it is, and people are active out by the edges. Hence the fisheye effect and football-headed stars. We have been choosing the Zoom mode for some of this material. Sometimes it scalps the actors, sometimes it's fine.
For movies that I am very familar with, presented in 4:3, I find the stretch modes hard to take, and often watch in normal mode.
Naturally the bad qualities of a poor picture are exagerated. I now have digital cable, which is mostly good, but we still get bad feeds from time to time (often Nickelodeon!). Yuck again!
All letterbox, and widescreen material is great. I just watched my Star Wars Episode 1 The Phantom Menace DVD for the first time on the new set (Full mode, of course...). I was in video nirvana. The blacks are soooo black!
Hope this helps!

Yes I guess I left that thought out of my earlier post.
At first I also was concerned with the stretch modes when viewing cable TV and would say to if I was a sports fan the stretch modes *might* be a issue. To me alot of it has to do with what type and how important each type of viewing is to you.
In my case I get HDTV cable programing and with HDTV most of the prime-time shows are being broadcasted in 16:9 aspect ratio anyways. After watching HDTV I really notice how sub-par SD cable PQ is so I really don't mind that the FEW programs that end up watching in SD cable is in one of the zoom modes.
**I can also honestly say I rarely notice the wide mode zoom distortion in less I am really looking for it and have yet to hear a comment from anyone watching this tv that it bothered them**
(Granted that most of my guest watch dvd or HDTV when visiting boy its hard to get them to leave lol).
It also comes down to what I consider to be my important viewing ie movies. If it something I really am looking foward to seeing I rather rent the movie in widescreen than watch it on SD cable where the movie is being pan and scanned, cut for content or full of commercials YECK. Again that is a personally choice the goes way back (looks over at the cabinet full of laser disc from the last 10 or so years and is so happy that I can now rent widescreen DVD and view widescreen HDTV instead of having to pay $35 and up to own a movie)

A final comment from a non-videophile who had a 36XBR and moved to a 34XBR. This whole discussion 4:3,16:9 must focus on the buyer's use. (No preaching allowed, Don Berg). I changed primarily for size reasons and the fact that the 34 does look more like a TV, without the bulk and black framing of the 36 or 40. I had a cost issue when I started my search and eventually that was eliminated when I got the same discount on each set.
I am more content oriented then PQ oriented. I use wide mode for most everything. Perfect for me at 7'. I haven't seen a distorted football or basketball yet.
Kadman: there is a definite and different anti-glare coating on the 34. It was obvious to me in-store with the sets side by side and off. Reflections all over the place from store lights. Even worse, when I got the 36 home and saw even more glare off the glossy black frame. (32HV has a flat black frame! Why not the others?)
I don't feel I made a mistake in buying a 36. I just feel for my environment the 34 is a better fit. Both are great sets! ...and both are winners!

There seems to be a common theme here . . .

"We do this and that to sometimes use stretch modes to watch 4:3 NTSC and some of us tolerate it better than others for some but not all shows but oh wow, when we put on a DVD (or watch HDTV), all is forgiven". :p

Ufanco has warned us about getting guests to leave after he cranks up a DVD or HDTV. Will have to remember that pearl of wisdom. :D

Have fun and happy viewing. :)

Rick

PS This my 200th post and I am now a senior member? Does that mean stuff from AARP will show up in my mailbox? Doh!!!

PPS after writing this post i found that the search function is working again and the post showing the pictures of what stretch modes look like on a 37" panny widescreen plasma are in this AVS forum thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hlight=stretch

Go to the post by btwyx and click on the link or just click on
http://u1.netgate.net/~barry/images/just/

Then click on jpg file to get an image. There are pictures of the widescreen in the various modes and with the test pattern circles to give a rough idea what the Panny Just (equivalent to the Sony "wide zoom" I think) does and also pictures in normal 4:3, zoom, & full. These are images of a newscaster (and test pattern) so this is about as good as it gets. Football will be worse stretched than a news show because a lot of the best blocks, etc. are on the edge of the screen. Plasma folks are kind of the experts about "stretchyvision" (as Mark/rogo calls it) because they fret so much about burn-in. An image is worth a bunch of words IMO. Thanks to btwyx for the photos. Each to his/her own. Hope this helps.

Good job tomtv - you have proved that Kadman was giving out false information and that my information was correct! The Sony 34XBR800 does indeed have an improved anti-glare coating that the 36" and 40" models do not have. Kadman just can't handle the truth! Also tomtv proves there are many more than just one who have traded in their larger 4:3 Sony for the 34XBR800 widescreen set - Kadman was wrong again! Now maybe these 4:3 advocates will listen to me in the future now that my comments have been proven as the truth! Those newbies have to learn to listen to their elders - like us Senior and Special Members, not badmouth us because we go against their false reality of a 4:3 world.

Since this post has gotton way to serious at times over people choice I would like to add this just for fun observation post about the best feature that widescreens TV have over the 4:3.
There are 4 modes on the widescreen 34" sony other than watching Anamorphic dvds I have not found another use for full mode till today (full mode shows the stretch the most) Here at last is sony real sercet reason for adding full stretch mode.

The biggest dreaded question any man can ever be asked by his wife or girlfreind is do I look fat have I gained weight? Well I found that when asked that question theres no way to answer without somehow ending up in the doghouse. Today my wife on her way to go cloths shopping asked the dreaded question, somehow I was able to avoid answering it.
After she left I knew I was in trouble and my relaxfull sunday was at a end, then a ideal came to me I would change the tv mode from wide zoom to full mode and get out of house for a few hours. Luckly when I got home she was watching tv. Quess what it worked the dreaded question hasn't been reasked. So there you have it folks the best feature that only widescreens TV has.
*This message has been posted in fun and in a joking way and is not intended to be taken anyway other way than that please don't attack me*

Donberg and all other jerks out there,
Let's try to look at this from a persepective that matters..the person who is buying the set! The coating on the screen that people claim the 34" set to have is irrelevant if there is no NEED for it. if you have a livingroom laid out properly, you don't need to worry about the glare factors that seem to haunt old televisions as well as RPTV's. You still cannot tell me that the picture quality is better on the 34" screen verses the 36" or 40" 4:3 screen, that is my only argument with your idiotic attempt to get someone to buy something they won't be happy with. The electronics and quality is EXACTLY the same. The only difference in the sets is the ratio, size, and the (very unimportant to most) supposed coating on the screen. Now if you want to insult my, as well as everyone else's, intelligence in here and keep ranting and raving about how all 4:3 television is garbage that is fine, but, don't think that by having accumulating so many posts, that makes you any more intelligent or well-versed in the topic. Just because some of us might be new to these forums, doesn't mean we are idiots. You still have not answered our question directly...I challenge you to it: What is the difference in picture quality (not relatation to size too jerk) of the 34, 36, and 40XBR800?

A little more levity is what we need here! Thanks Ufanco. The first thing my wife said when she saw the 36" rolling in was "We need a bigger house! Let's shop!" Oh!Oh!
The intent of my last post was not to take sides or to support Donberg. Let's try to present the unbiased facts so that a new buyer can fit HIS needs.
These sets are difficult to judge in-store. Not until my cable signal improved did I feel comfortable making a purchase. Hopefully the added info here will HELP current buyers and not be a battleground yielding winners and losers.
BTW there is an real anti-glare coating embedded in the 34" screen. It is a fact and has influenced buyers of this set in the past as it did me.

Meanwhile let's all enjoy our new toys!

Once again Don, you have proven that you cannot even read without distorting things. If you read my post I stated that all of the XBRs have some form of anti glare coating (they in fact do) and that I didn't RECALL the 34 being different. If they are fine, the lighting conditions in the store didn't show this. Also, this second case of someone returning a 4:3 for a 16:9 is new to me. I hadn't seen it before. My original post stated that I only knew of one, not that there was only one case in existence. Tell me where I lied in these cases.

You continue to focus on argument for the sake of arguing. To me this is a clear sign of someone who doesn't have a leg to stand on. I feel certain that everyone else here is in agreement that specific needs play a very important part in the selection of a particular set. You, and you alone are the only person here that has stated that 16:9 is the ONLY way to go. I find it hilarious that you read posts from other 16:9 set owners and think that they are actually sideing with you. These are simply people who evaluated their needs and ended up with the TV that worked for them. You are right that there are two "camps" around here. However, the camps are "people who use logic and reason to help others", and "Don."

Ufanco, thanks for the laugh. I hadn't looked at technology to assist in that fashion. Good work to make use of the tools available to solve a "real world" problem. hehe!

Tom, I think we all know that you weren't trying to stand in Don's corner. It's just that anytime someone decides that a 16:9 set works best for them, Don takes is as "you made the right choice" and uses it as "proof" that he is right and anyone who chose a 4:3 TV is wrong. So far I haven't seen anyone who would associate themselves with this type of person.

Also, this afternoon I sat back on my sofa (12 feet away from the TV) and watched my Kentucky Wilcats win an exiting game against a very tough and talented Mississippi State team. During halftime when they were highlighting the other games, I switched over to 16:9 mode. In this mode, 4:3 material is nearly identical (although a tad bigger) than the 4:3 image size created by the 34XBR. There is NO WAY for my needs/tastes that this would work in my house. It's just plain too small. It's not a question of visual accuity as I have 20/15 vision and no astigmatism. If my only viewing distance was more like 6 or 7 feet as some others with the 34 have noted, it might not be a big deal. Don still cannot give me a good explaination as to how the 27.8" 4:3 image size is still right in this scenario. And yes, it is a 27.8" 4:3 TV and after posting a link to the calculator I haven't heard a work about it from the person who insisted that this was a lie. I'm not slamming the 34 for this, it's just something that needs to be considered when you look at viewing distances within your room.

Enjoy all!

Chris

The 34" widescreen set is perfect for me, though I mostly use the excellent non-linear stretch mode for any 4:3 programs, the normal 4:3 windowboxed 28" diagonal is fine for me at my 6-7 feet viewing distance. Kadman I have never said those big 4:3 Sony sets are not for anyone, only for longer viewing distances like even you state you use - 12 feet! I and the others have stated that at 6feet the blown up 40" size for poor quality cable NTSC video is terrible. However you do need to move closer than 12feet to fully appreciate the higher resolution of DVD or HDTV video. Thats the issue I and the other 16:9 owners truly realize. Also the anti-glare coating unique to the 34XBR800 is truly real and confirmed by many others. Isn't it odd how the 4:3 owners totaly discount out as not a concern, yet many of the 34XBR800 owners were concerned about it? Sounds like sour grapes to me!

Who discounted out anti-glare? I simply wasn't aware that they were different between the two models. If they are, then fine. Not to mention that nobody else has even questioned it at all. Don't make stuff up! As far as your claim that you never said that 4:3 wasn't good for anyone, how many examples do you want? Phrases such as "widescreen is the only way to go", and "the conclusion: buy the 34XBR800 if a good HD direct-view is desired", and many others like it. Now it seems you can't even remember your old posts.

Also, I don't have to sit quite as close to my 40XBR as you do to your 34XBR because if you recall, the 16:9 image size I get is about 16% bigger than what you get. I can see all the detail just fine from my range of seating areas between 7'and 12'. Moving closer doesn't get me any additional detail. I'm not sure if this is just a factor of my larger WIDESCREEN display, a function of my good vision, or a combination of both. Since you always claim that opinions from people who don't have a 34 in their living rooms aren't valid, why do you continue to preach that the 40 isn't acceptable at closer distances? One of my common viewing distances is at 7' and it looks just fine (although yes there are some highly compressed channels that don't look good at any distance). How are you the expert on this?

At least this latest message from you shows progress. You now seem open to using larger 4:3 modes at longer distances. This is progress from your previous recommendations, some including lies such as "NTSC is not designed for TVs over 19 inches" and so on. It's good to see you opening up options. Seriously, glad to see it.

Enjoy your 34" set. It's a very nice TV.

Chris

Donberg,
I for one appreciate that you have toned it down a little. Just don't discount everyone else's situation. The 34XBR800 was a serious consideration by myself as well but in the end was just not big enough for my tastes.

I am also going add some links to cnet reviews on both these TV models. Maybe seeing some more people's thoughts and experiences on these 2 tv may be helpfull to the original poster.
Sony 36XBR800 review
http://electronics.cnet.com/electron...0.html?tag=dir
Sony 34XBR800 review
http://electronics.cnet.com/electron...?tag=pdtl-list