AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 110 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In anticipation of the HD DirecTV TiVo on its way, I'm looking at HDTV capable monitors. RP is out for our room, so that leaves expensive plasma, too small LCD, or direct view CRT. I'm comparing two Panny Tau units, one is a 34" 16:9 (CT34WX53) and the other is a 36" 4:3 (CT36HL43). Specs seem to be the same, but the 4:3 is 20% cheaper. My calculations show that the horizontal width of the 4:3 is less than an inch less than the 16:9, so wide screen image size would be nearly the same. Of course, the 4:3 image size would be a lot bigger in the 4:3.


Are there any reasons choosing the 16:9 over the cheaper 4:3?


Thanks for your wise advice
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
ThumerBoy, thanks for that point (though I can find no reference to zoom & stretch in either set of specs). Any other features that the 4:3 would lack that makes the 16:9 better for HDTV?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,501 Posts
A couple questions you might want to consider...


Which do you prefer, a small 4:3 picture and common screen height (16:9 TV), or a large 4:3 picture and common screen width to all images (4:3 TV)?


Which do you like better, black bars on the top and bottom (4:3 TV), or black bars on the sides (16:9 TV)?


How much 4:3 viewing will you do, and how much HD?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
Try this link for Screen size comparisions:

http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi


I watch a lot of DVD's and as much HDTV as possible. :) I found that the 16:9 fits my needs. My set (34xbr910) does a good job of displaying SD material using the Wide Zoom mode. Some other viewers won't ever use stretch modes. You have to decide for yourself after viewing some sets, preferably at a higher end Home Theater store.


I went from a 27 inch 4:3 to the 34 inch 16:9 in my bedroom. With 4:3 material, I have the same screen size as the 27 inch (actually a little larger), but with DVD's my screen real estate has increased tremendously on the 16:9 set.


Comparing the 34 inch 16:9 to the 36 inch 4:3, you really don't give up too much up size viewing 16:9 material on the 4:3 set, but you gain quite a bit when you watch 4:3 material on the 4:3 set. You have a tougher decision than I had!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,539 Posts
One thing to remember is you want to optimize the larger size for the higher quality material from HD and DVD sources and that is all widescreen. 4:3 programming is from lower quality lower resolution sources that don't look good blown up large. The widescreen sets optimize the screen area for the high quality sources, while the 4:3 sets optimize the area for low quality sources - I'd say widescreen is the better choice. With a 4:3 set you would have to physicall move closer to the screen to get the most of out of widescreen high quality sources and back away for the lower quality 4:3 sources blown up too large. With a widescreen set you can sit at the same distance for both!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Thanks for all this help. One follow-up. I'm not clear on the whole resolution thing in CRT display; I wonder about the fact that viewing 16:9 on a 4:3 screen does not use all of the available lines. Putting aside the slight size difference, will a 16:9 HD signal look the same on both sets, or will it be better in one or the other?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,539 Posts
On the new Sony 34XBR910 HDTV will look a lot better than the 4:3 sets due to the new Sony super-fine-pitch HD CRT that almost doubles the viewable resolution compared to the standard HD CRTs in all other CRT HDTV sets. So yes, HDTV will look a lot better on the widescreen 34XBR910 compared to the 4:3 HD models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
411 Posts
I despise 4:3, go 16:9 all the way..


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,335 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by DavidS
I wonder about the fact that viewing 16:9 on a 4:3 screen does not use all of the available lines. Putting aside the slight size difference, will a 16:9 HD signal look the same on both sets, or will it be better in one or the other?
All things being equal ... a 4:3 set that supports anamorphic squeeze should have the same PQ as a 16:9 set. Anamorphic squeeze limits the scanning area of the CRT to a 16:9 area, so that (in theory) no resolution should be lost for 16:9 images such as HD or anamorphic DVDs.


A 4:3 set that doesn't support anamorphic squeeze has to waste scan lines on the 'black bars' at the top/bottom of the image ... which does result in a loss of resolution.


As noted, the above is based on 'all other things being equal' between the sets ...


Since you are looking at the Panasonics, you may be interested in the following press release:
http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_el...12&cont_id=587


The above includes announcement of the CT-34WX54 with a May 2004 availability and MSRP of $1399.95.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Thumper, thanks; I've read of your attraction to the XBR - it does look great, but is it better enough to justify the downsize of 4:3 images. (That question is rhetorical).


SmithMK, I was looking more for reasons why someone like you might despise 4:3, though I appreciate your opinion. ;)


dt-dc, very useful. Thanks, especially the release about the new models at much lower prices. That will coincide nicely with the release of the DirecTv HD TiVo.


Thanks to all. Cheers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,889 Posts
DavidS,

Ignoring technical features, something not obvious to me was the wife/children (only girls) acceptance factor that came into play here.


Wife wanted a bigger TV (>old 25"), so I added funds to get a HDTV. She chose 4:3 because the 4:3 picture on the 32" was bigger than the 30" 16:9 (a harbinger I did not catch) and she watches a lot of 4:3 shows. Plus I could get the 4:3 TV on sale (yes, all I could afford was one of the "small *cheapy* TVs" to quote Bionic Manaus) .


After a month, the Pioneer Voyager HD box stopped automatically letter-boxing the 16:9 picture (now you have to find the TV remote and set the aspect ratio to WIDE). No idea why the STB changed, but the DVD player must also be switched. So it ends up being the same for both inputs - they must consciously switch to the 16:9 mode on the TV.


Now, all three of them would rather watch the 4:3 channel instead of the 16:9 channel because it's 'bigger'. So I don't get to watch any joint TV-shows in HDTV without a chorus of complaints.


Just an unexpected snag that has nothing to do with the technical pros/cons.


I think I would still get the 4:3 for me alone right now (in the absence of the jeering about the 16:9 picture size), but some nights I wish I'd gotten the 30" wide-screen where those perceptions would hopefully work in my (HD) favor.


v/r

C-F
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,528 Posts
Try to figure out your viewing habits. In my area, well over 90% of the broadcasting is still 4:3, and will continue along this line for quite some time. I have HD, and love watching the higher resolution, especially for sports. But would I want to stretch/zoom 4:3 boadcasts for the majority of the time on a 16:9 Widescreen TV? NO. With the new 4:3 HDTV's, you have the auto anamorphic squeeze on all 16:9 video, which would give you the best of both aspect ratio worlds during this transition period.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,539 Posts
In my area, 90+% of the programs worth watching are available in 16:9 HDTV plus all the widescreen DVD movies. A widescreen set is the best choice. The few 4:3 programs I watch are not critical so a stretch mode is fine for those. I recommend a true WIDSCREEN HDTV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,330 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by ThumperBoy
In my area, 90+% of the programs worth watching are available in 16:9 HDTV
I need to move, friggin CT is in the "stone age". According to FCC, all of two stations are licensed today to show HD. PBS and ABC. This sux on ice.


But, we still got a 16:9 set and the 4:3 SD sat signal looks pretty good most of the time and like crap the other. Then there is HD (thru E*) and I have never watched soooo many shows about bugs before in my life.:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
rmcgirr83,


Your best option would Directv or Dish...at a price of course. I'm quite happy how Directv has expanded their HD offerings. Along with the HD Tivo coming in April (hopefully) it's just getting better!





Thumper...I'm with ya brother!:D Even though I'm in the NYC area losing everything on 9-11, our locals are almost all restored for some in the area...and the antenna combiner project at the Empire State will allow millions more to receive the networks in the next few months. :)


16x9 is the logical choice for many. YMMV!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,330 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by SteveWinNJ
rmcgirr83,


Your best option would Directv or Dish...at a price of course. I'm quite happy how Directv has expanded their HD offerings. Along with the HD Tivo coming in April (hopefully) it's just getting better!
Yup, got Dish and the 6000u receiver, seriously considering Bev. Can handle the $$ but the install makes me nervous as hell.


Then I would have the nationals in HD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by cajieboy
But would I want to stretch/zoom 4:3 boadcasts for the majority of the time on a 16:9 Widescreen TV? NO.
I just got the Toshiba 34HF83, and since we have not gotten HD yet, we are watching alot of 4:3 material in stretch mode. The 34HF83 Theater Mode 1 does a phenomenal stretch, so much so that my wife only notices if there is ticker text streaming across the bottom. 16:9 is just a more natural ratio for human vision, and I won't buy another 4:3 set again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,528 Posts
To each his/her own. Doesn't make sense to me why you would want a stretched/zoom 4:3 broadcast in its original film or tape format, but it's cetainly your choice. That's better than most of the Widescreamers on this thread will give you, because if it were up to them there would be NO CHOICE for people to enjoy. BTW, I watch 16:9 too, and enjoy a beautiful HD/DVD pic on a 37" diagonal screen.
 
1 - 20 of 110 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top