The future is 16-9. All HD broadcasts on cable are 16-9, I can see no reason to go 4-3, you need to be HDTV experienced. The major Nets are packing their primetime schedule with 16-9 HD. After you get used to HD you rarely watch SD, really. Think about a 32" widescreen, but think widescreen. What is your location? Cable companies will all upgrade to compete with satellite.
-
Get an exclusive sneak peek into our new project. >>> Click Here
16:9 my best choice?
I'm shopping for the Sony KV-32HS420 or 30HS420 (they're the same price.) I'm leaning towards the 32" 4:3 aspect ratio monitor. However, everytime I go to Best Buy, Sears, etc. the salesperson always tells me to get the 30" 16:9. I ran the size calculator thing from cnet (there was one from another site, but I forgot the link).
Letterbox on 32" 4:3 is 29"
Windowbox on 30" 16:9 is 24"
Are these measurements actually correct? do you REALLY get 29" letterbox on a 4:3 TV?
From those measurements, it seems like it is better to get a 4:3 since the difference is smaller. Right now I am wathcing all non-HD programming, but I am planning to subscribe to some HD channels. All the sales people claim that TV programming will all change to HD in a couple of years; however, I remember hearing that only OTA was supposed to and not cable TV. Is that true? Do you guys think that it is a better choice for me to get a 4:3 instead of a 16:9? Can you guys give some other things to consider?
Letterbox on 32" 4:3 is 29"
Windowbox on 30" 16:9 is 24"
Are these measurements actually correct? do you REALLY get 29" letterbox on a 4:3 TV?
From those measurements, it seems like it is better to get a 4:3 since the difference is smaller. Right now I am wathcing all non-HD programming, but I am planning to subscribe to some HD channels. All the sales people claim that TV programming will all change to HD in a couple of years; however, I remember hearing that only OTA was supposed to and not cable TV. Is that true? Do you guys think that it is a better choice for me to get a 4:3 instead of a 16:9? Can you guys give some other things to consider?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
Quote:
The sales people are wrong - there will be more HD programming than there is now (more prime time shows and more weekend sports) but the vast majority of programming will be 4:3 for many years (daytime TV, virtually all news programming, lesser sports events, syndicated programming, made for cable programming, other non-primetime shows). There is no mandate that everything become HD, only that programming is to start being transmitted in digital instead of analog. This digital transition was supposed to happen in 2006 but it looks like it's going to be moved back to 2009 now. For those of us who watch a lot of 4:3 programming a 16:9 TV is of little use now and for many years to come.
This is why i bought a 4:3 TV even though i originally set out to buy a widescreen. As much as i'd like everything to be in sexy widescreen, 80% of what i watch is 4:3 and will be for many many years to come. The other 20% of what i watch is HD and i don't mind the black bars top and bottom knowing that the TV is optimized for the other 80% of my viewing which is 4:3. It's not worth getting a widescreen TV and watching a stretched distorted image 80% of the time just so the other 20% worth of HD programming fills the screen. When i'm watching HD on my square tube i don't even notice the black bars as my eye are pretty much focused on the image, not the upper and lower borders.
And yes, the 16:9 area of a 32" TV is 29" which is close enough to a 30" widescreen. Both measurements are really too small to get the most out of HD programming anyway so that extra inch you lose is of no consequence.
| Originally posted by Azndude51 I'm shopping for the Sony KV-32HS420 or 30HS420 (they're the same price.) I'm leaning towards the 32" 4:3 aspect ratio monitor. However, everytime I go to Best Buy, Sears, etc. the salesperson always tells me to get the 30" 16:9. Letterbox on 32" 4:3 is 29" Windowbox on 30" 16:9 is 24" Are these measurements actually correct? do you REALLY get 29" letterbox on a 4:3 TV? From those measurements, it seems like it is better to get a 4:3 since the difference is smaller. Right now I am wathcing all non-HD programming, but I am planning to subscribe to some HD channels. All the sales people claim that TV programming will all change to HD in a couple of years..... Do you guys think that it is a better choice for me to get a 4:3 instead of a 16:9? Can you guys give some other things to consider? |
This is why i bought a 4:3 TV even though i originally set out to buy a widescreen. As much as i'd like everything to be in sexy widescreen, 80% of what i watch is 4:3 and will be for many many years to come. The other 20% of what i watch is HD and i don't mind the black bars top and bottom knowing that the TV is optimized for the other 80% of my viewing which is 4:3. It's not worth getting a widescreen TV and watching a stretched distorted image 80% of the time just so the other 20% worth of HD programming fills the screen. When i'm watching HD on my square tube i don't even notice the black bars as my eye are pretty much focused on the image, not the upper and lower borders.
And yes, the 16:9 area of a 32" TV is 29" which is close enough to a 30" widescreen. Both measurements are really too small to get the most out of HD programming anyway so that extra inch you lose is of no consequence.
I just went out and got that 32xxx420. My thought process was the same as Randy. I couldn't imagine watching sports stretched out or on a 24" Windowbox. I spend about 60% using my tv for 4:3 viewing and the rest for letterbox dvd viewing.
I'll go 16:9 when I get a house and don't mind putting a 46" in the living room.
I'll go 16:9 when I get a house and don't mind putting a 46" in the living room.
This is a repeat of what I posted on another thread, where I mentioned why I decided to get a 36XS955 (4:3) rather than the widescreen 34:
While the 34 is admittedly more "cool" because it's a Widescreen (and considerably lighter than the 36), I ended up going for the 36. I felt that the 36 gave greater value-for-money beyond the fact that it's $300 cheaper than the 34.
Most of my TV watching is still on old-fashioned 4:3 aspect ratio. On a widescreen TV, I would have to stretch the picture making the people look fat, or else put up with bars on the side. While I'd still have to put up with bars along the top and bottom of the 36 when viewing 16:9 programming, at least I'm not paying an extra $300 for it.
Although more programming is coming out on Widescreen, for the most part networks are broadcasting such programs on standard def channels using the letterbox format. On a widescreen TV that will cause the "postage stamp" or "picture frame" effect with black bars all around the picture. While the Sony allows you to zoom the picture out to the edges, it won't be as sharp as the original.
Plus, a letterboxed picture on the 36 appeared to be just slightly smaller than the same non-letterboxed picture on the 34. There is a tool, whose URL is posted on another thread, that tells you what your actual picture size for a given aspect ratio would be depending on your TV size. The tool shows a 16:9 letterbox picture viewed on a 36 inch 4:3 TV to have an actual picture size of 33 inches diagonal. So on 80% of my viewing, I'll get a 36 inch TV, and for the remaining 20% I'll get a 33 inch TV.
That same tool, if my memory serves me right, says a 34 inch widescreen only outputs a 27 or 28 inch 4:3 picture w/o stretching.
To which I'd like to add:
Randy Walters is correct, while more and more programming is coming out in widescreen, 4:3 programming isn't going the way of the black and white TV anytime soon. There is simply too much 4:3 program material out there, and many cable/sat channels like History and Discovery actually air programming that's SEVERAL years old, and will often incorporate footage from such programming into new programs.
I started looking for High Definition TV's as long as two years ago; the salesmen THEN were saying the majority of TV programming will be widescreen by 2005. Of course it's now 2005 and guess what? The overwhelming majority of programming in the US is still 4:3.
If the 34XS955 was the same price as the 36, then it would have been a much more difficult decision. But I realized that even now, the overwhelming majority of my TV viewing is on 4:3, and will be for the foreseeable future, and made my purchase decision accordingly.
While the 34 is admittedly more "cool" because it's a Widescreen (and considerably lighter than the 36), I ended up going for the 36. I felt that the 36 gave greater value-for-money beyond the fact that it's $300 cheaper than the 34.
Most of my TV watching is still on old-fashioned 4:3 aspect ratio. On a widescreen TV, I would have to stretch the picture making the people look fat, or else put up with bars on the side. While I'd still have to put up with bars along the top and bottom of the 36 when viewing 16:9 programming, at least I'm not paying an extra $300 for it.
Although more programming is coming out on Widescreen, for the most part networks are broadcasting such programs on standard def channels using the letterbox format. On a widescreen TV that will cause the "postage stamp" or "picture frame" effect with black bars all around the picture. While the Sony allows you to zoom the picture out to the edges, it won't be as sharp as the original.
Plus, a letterboxed picture on the 36 appeared to be just slightly smaller than the same non-letterboxed picture on the 34. There is a tool, whose URL is posted on another thread, that tells you what your actual picture size for a given aspect ratio would be depending on your TV size. The tool shows a 16:9 letterbox picture viewed on a 36 inch 4:3 TV to have an actual picture size of 33 inches diagonal. So on 80% of my viewing, I'll get a 36 inch TV, and for the remaining 20% I'll get a 33 inch TV.
That same tool, if my memory serves me right, says a 34 inch widescreen only outputs a 27 or 28 inch 4:3 picture w/o stretching.
To which I'd like to add:
Randy Walters is correct, while more and more programming is coming out in widescreen, 4:3 programming isn't going the way of the black and white TV anytime soon. There is simply too much 4:3 program material out there, and many cable/sat channels like History and Discovery actually air programming that's SEVERAL years old, and will often incorporate footage from such programming into new programs.
I started looking for High Definition TV's as long as two years ago; the salesmen THEN were saying the majority of TV programming will be widescreen by 2005. Of course it's now 2005 and guess what? The overwhelming majority of programming in the US is still 4:3.
If the 34XS955 was the same price as the 36, then it would have been a much more difficult decision. But I realized that even now, the overwhelming majority of my TV viewing is on 4:3, and will be for the foreseeable future, and made my purchase decision accordingly.
I shopped for six months before making a decision (and found a great deal) on Sony KV36HS510.
I went 4:3 for all the above reasons. Besides, you can zoom to fill the 4x3 screen with HD content. Think of it as a pan and scan movie. You lose a little PQ, but still better than analog or stetched images.
I went 4:3 for all the above reasons. Besides, you can zoom to fill the 4x3 screen with HD content. Think of it as a pan and scan movie. You lose a little PQ, but still better than analog or stetched images.
Quote:
EXactly same here. I bought the KV32hs420 for those exact reasons as you!
| Originally posted by sc03979 I just went out and got that 32xxx420. My thought process was the same as Randy. I couldn't imagine watching sports stretched out or on a 24" Windowbox. I spend about 60% using my tv for 4:3 viewing and the rest for letterbox dvd viewing. I'll go 16:9 when I get a house and don't mind putting a 46" in the living room. |
The argument for 4:3 today as Randy and Ron have posted is pretty strong.
The 4:3 HD sets bring up some interesting questions as to how they handle 480i 4:3 versus 1080i 16:9. In the first case you are painting 480i lines to the full screen(has been and is pretty straightforward) and in the second 1080i lines into a 16:9 window in that full screen. I question how they actually accomplish this unless the phosphor triad density skyrockets in that 16:9 window area.
ss
The 4:3 HD sets bring up some interesting questions as to how they handle 480i 4:3 versus 1080i 16:9. In the first case you are painting 480i lines to the full screen(has been and is pretty straightforward) and in the second 1080i lines into a 16:9 window in that full screen. I question how they actually accomplish this unless the phosphor triad density skyrockets in that 16:9 window area.
ss
I think it is an interesting choice, and I'm glad to see that it is out there in the marketplace to let us decide. It was a tough one for me, but I think in the end, it came down to more of an emotional decision than a logical one. (Tough for a tech to admit.)
I'm spending a good amount of money to get myself where I can watch the latest and greatest. If I'm going to spend ~$2k on a TV (normally I spend $400), I want to get the most out of it and have something to really show off. Having a wide screen tube in my living room, I don't have to apologize for HDTV signals not being awesome (because they will be), and I won't have to apologize for SDTV signals not being awesome (because they're not awesome to begin with, people will expect that in a 16:9 TV, I understand the trade-off, and if I really need to feel better, I can go through the various zoom modes, just like the 4:3 tv owners do with widescreen).
There is one possible technical point that comes to mind, and that is, with a 4:3 aspect ratio, I don't think you're going to get the full vertical resolution of your HDTV signal in 1024i. I am a little curious what the % loss is. Offhand guess is 20%, but it is sub-1024i. Unless you zoom. Then you'll get full 1024i, but you'll sacrifice some of your horizontal resolution instead (by cropping or stretching).
UPDATE: Brain-fart. That should be 1080i, not 1024i. I mixed computer and HDTV resolutions in my mind.
I'm spending a good amount of money to get myself where I can watch the latest and greatest. If I'm going to spend ~$2k on a TV (normally I spend $400), I want to get the most out of it and have something to really show off. Having a wide screen tube in my living room, I don't have to apologize for HDTV signals not being awesome (because they will be), and I won't have to apologize for SDTV signals not being awesome (because they're not awesome to begin with, people will expect that in a 16:9 TV, I understand the trade-off, and if I really need to feel better, I can go through the various zoom modes, just like the 4:3 tv owners do with widescreen).
There is one possible technical point that comes to mind, and that is, with a 4:3 aspect ratio, I don't think you're going to get the full vertical resolution of your HDTV signal in 1024i. I am a little curious what the % loss is. Offhand guess is 20%, but it is sub-1024i. Unless you zoom. Then you'll get full 1024i, but you'll sacrifice some of your horizontal resolution instead (by cropping or stretching).
UPDATE: Brain-fart. That should be 1080i, not 1024i. I mixed computer and HDTV resolutions in my mind.
You really watch that much SD?
I'm surprised to see so much support for 4:3. To me that'd be like buying a set that doesn't have HDMI. Sets last for years. My last one lasted for about 15 years.
I'm also surprised so many people watch so much 4:3 material. About the only 4:3 material I watch is the national news (my local news is 16:9), and sporting events which are not 16:9. For next year I expect that to mainly be some college football games. Just about everything that is new is 16:9, and DVDs are typically either close to 16:9 (1.85:1 or so) or 2.35:1.
I'm also surprised so many people watch so much 4:3 material. About the only 4:3 material I watch is the national news (my local news is 16:9), and sporting events which are not 16:9. For next year I expect that to mainly be some college football games. Just about everything that is new is 16:9, and DVDs are typically either close to 16:9 (1.85:1 or so) or 2.35:1.
Quote:
I agree there are some divergent goals in a 4:3 set trying to do higher resolutions in a 16:9 window, but what is 1024i?
ss
| Originally posted by jmccorm There is one possible technical point that comes to mind, and that is, with a 4:3 aspect ratio, I don't think you're going to get the full vertical resolution of your HDTV signal in 1024i. I am a little curious what the % loss is. Offhand guess is 20%, but it is sub-1024i. Unless you zoom. Then you'll get full 1024i, but you'll sacrifice some of your horizontal resolution instead (by cropping or stretching). |
ss
Quote:
It is my mind mixing together computer resolutions and HDTV resolutions.
1080i. Sorry.
| Originally posted by subysouth I agree there are some divergent goals in a 4:3 set trying to do higher resolutions in a 16:9 window, but what is 1024i? |
1080i. Sorry.
Quote:
Basically because my viewing tastes go beyond what current HD programming can provide.
As great as Discovery HD is, not all of their programming is to my taste. The documentaries are great, but more and more of their programming is being taken up by prime-time "fluff."
Take "Trading Spaces" for example. Why anybody would let their neighbors mess up the interiors of their homes, sight completely unseen, is beyond me. Why would I want to watch that in 1080i?
I also have HDNet but I too have been disappointed by their programming. I don't subscribe to HBO or Cinemax or Showtime as I find them to be largely a waste of money. I find renting videos at Blockbuster or getting them via On Demand video to be more cost effective.
While I can get HD versions of ABC, NBC, and FOX on my cable provider's network, the only one I find worth watching is NBC. I watch a lot of FOX programming but it's all upconverted 480i.
| Originally posted by rickmccamy You really watch that much SD? |
As great as Discovery HD is, not all of their programming is to my taste. The documentaries are great, but more and more of their programming is being taken up by prime-time "fluff."
Take "Trading Spaces" for example. Why anybody would let their neighbors mess up the interiors of their homes, sight completely unseen, is beyond me. Why would I want to watch that in 1080i?
I also have HDNet but I too have been disappointed by their programming. I don't subscribe to HBO or Cinemax or Showtime as I find them to be largely a waste of money. I find renting videos at Blockbuster or getting them via On Demand video to be more cost effective.
While I can get HD versions of ABC, NBC, and FOX on my cable provider's network, the only one I find worth watching is NBC. I watch a lot of FOX programming but it's all upconverted 480i.
jmccorm,
As to Sonys, I think you are wrong on your loss question showing 16:9 material on a 4:3 screen. It is on other posts that if you go Sony, they compress down to 16:9 without any loss. Also, I understand the 16:9 visual impact to friends but since I end up watching it with my wife 95% of the time, the impress friends factor is nil for me.
I go for best of both worlds with a 4:3 and ignore the black bars on top/bottom when watching DVDs or HD programming. I only went back and forth for a couple of weeks before coming down on 4:3 as the best of both worlds for all the reasons stated. Bought the beast, Sony 40XBR800 last July when it was on clearance. A couple of weeks ago, came down the same way comparing the 32FS420 to the 30" widescreen version for my parents. Very happy camper here, no regrets.
Jeff in NYC
________________________
Sony 40XBR800 with Teleview
Sony DAV-FC8
DirecTV HR10-250
Hughes 40SD-DVR
Sony RDR-GX7
As to Sonys, I think you are wrong on your loss question showing 16:9 material on a 4:3 screen. It is on other posts that if you go Sony, they compress down to 16:9 without any loss. Also, I understand the 16:9 visual impact to friends but since I end up watching it with my wife 95% of the time, the impress friends factor is nil for me.
I go for best of both worlds with a 4:3 and ignore the black bars on top/bottom when watching DVDs or HD programming. I only went back and forth for a couple of weeks before coming down on 4:3 as the best of both worlds for all the reasons stated. Bought the beast, Sony 40XBR800 last July when it was on clearance. A couple of weeks ago, came down the same way comparing the 32FS420 to the 30" widescreen version for my parents. Very happy camper here, no regrets.
Jeff in NYC
________________________
Sony 40XBR800 with Teleview
Sony DAV-FC8
DirecTV HR10-250
Hughes 40SD-DVR
Sony RDR-GX7
It seems like there is an overwhelming preference for 4:3 monitors, so I wasn't wrong when I leaned more towards 4:3. I definitely will watch more SD than HD even after I get some HD channels.
The funny thing is I'll watch better looking TV than my dad who has a Sony KDF-50WE655 50" LCD projection since he has NO HDTV programming and watches ALL SD and he won't even buy a new DVD player to get progressive scan. My dad can be stupid at times, he just bought a huge TV to show his friends that he has a huge TV, but if watch it, the SD programming looks horrible especially since it looks so big.
The funny thing is I'll watch better looking TV than my dad who has a Sony KDF-50WE655 50" LCD projection since he has NO HDTV programming and watches ALL SD and he won't even buy a new DVD player to get progressive scan. My dad can be stupid at times, he just bought a huge TV to show his friends that he has a huge TV, but if watch it, the SD programming looks horrible especially since it looks so big.
Quote:
Well, I'm going to take back what I said originally. This preference for 4:3 devices isn't too surprising since you're posting in a forum that would be primarily 4:3 devices. Post in one of the other forums and I'll bet you'd get a different answer (although it might be hard to post because there probably aren't that many 4:3 RP or flat screen products still being made).
I wouldn't assume what you watch now is what you'll watch after you get an HD source. SD sucks once you're used to HD.
| Originally posted by Azndude51 It seems like there is an overwhelming preference for 4:3 monitors, so I wasn't wrong when I leaned more towards 4:3. I definitely will watch more SD than HD even after I get some HD channels. |
I wouldn't assume what you watch now is what you'll watch after you get an HD source. SD sucks once you're used to HD.
Quote:
There are plent of people here who have 16:9 tube screens and I know a lot of other people have probably gone through the same choice I have to make, so I posted here. Plus like you said, there probably aren't that many 4:3 RP or flat screen products still being made, in fact I havent seen a single one in any of the stores in my town.
| Originally posted by Karyk Well, I'm going to take back what I said originally. This preference for 4:3 devices isn't too surprising since you're posting in a forum that would be primarily 4:3 devices. Post in one of the other forums and I'll bet you'd get a different answer (although it might be hard to post because there probably aren't that many 4:3 RP or flat screen products still being made). I wouldn't assume what you watch now is what you'll watch after you get an HD source. SD sucks once you're used to HD. |
Quote:
I was in the market for a 16:9 tube screen, so I know they make them. And assuming your space limitations require tube, I'd suggest finding out which 16:9 tube set has a good stretch mode so that you can watch 4:3 material on a 16:9 set.
I ended up with a 42" RP CRT based Toshiba, in part because they have really good stretch modes for 4:3 material, and in part because the tube sets were too large (deep) and heavy.
| Originally posted by Azndude51 There are plent of people here who have 16:9 tube screens and I know a lot of other people have probably gone through the same choice I have to make, so I posted here. Plus like you said, there probably aren't that many 4:3 RP or flat screen products still being made, in fact I havent seen a single one in any of the stores in my town. |
I ended up with a 42" RP CRT based Toshiba, in part because they have really good stretch modes for 4:3 material, and in part because the tube sets were too large (deep) and heavy.
Azndude51,
Karyk is absolutely right about less SD viewing after getting taste of HD content. I went cold turkey for a few weeks as the SD stuff looked like crap compared to the HD stuff. After the honeymoon period, went back to viewing SD content. Nevertheless, I habitually look for something to view on HD first. Plus, I have a HD Tivo. So, again, hats off to Karyk, your viewing habits will change.
P.S. Ah, perhaps someone you know needs to go for their annual eyetest? That being said, my pops cannot tell the difference between, SD, DVD and HD. Oh well.
Karyk is absolutely right about less SD viewing after getting taste of HD content. I went cold turkey for a few weeks as the SD stuff looked like crap compared to the HD stuff. After the honeymoon period, went back to viewing SD content. Nevertheless, I habitually look for something to view on HD first. Plus, I have a HD Tivo. So, again, hats off to Karyk, your viewing habits will change.
P.S. Ah, perhaps someone you know needs to go for their annual eyetest?
That being said, my pops cannot tell the difference between, SD, DVD and HD. Oh well.1 - 20 of 67 Posts
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
AVS Forum
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
WilliamR
1009 Replies
BASSAHOLIC
532 Replies
bass addict
416 Replies
Recommended Communities
