16x9 or 4x3?
-
Now Available: Tech Talk Podcast with Scott Wilkinson, Episode 19 Click here for details.
- Status
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Here's a link to a discussion of some of the issues:
4:3 vs 16:9
Basically, do you plan on watching musch regular television (NTSC) either OTA, cable or satellite, or will you use your FP mostly for DVDs and/or HDTV?
Regular television (NTSC/PAL) is 4:3. HDTV and many/most DVDs (movies) are 16:9.
4:3 vs 16:9
Basically, do you plan on watching musch regular television (NTSC) either OTA, cable or satellite, or will you use your FP mostly for DVDs and/or HDTV?
Regular television (NTSC/PAL) is 4:3. HDTV and many/most DVDs (movies) are 16:9.
http://www.projectorcentral.com/formats.htm
Here is some info.....if you have any questions just ask them. everyone around here is very helpful
Here is some info.....if you have any questions just ask them. everyone around here is very helpful
Gary,
The link BK refferences is a good one to get the basic understanding. One thing, however, that is just glossed over in the Projector Central article is the loss of resolution in you are projecting 16:9 material on a 4:3 projector. For instance, if you get a 4:3 projector that is 1024x768 (786,432 pixels) and you project a 16:9 image on it, your total pixel count will be 1024x576 (589,824 pixels). You have just lost 192 lines of vertical resolution (25%).
On the other hand, if you have a 16:9 projector that is 1366x768 (1,048,576 pixels) and you show 4:3 material, your pixel count will still be be 1024x768 (786,432 pixels) but you will not lose any vertical resolution at all!
Traveler
The link BK refferences is a good one to get the basic understanding. One thing, however, that is just glossed over in the Projector Central article is the loss of resolution in you are projecting 16:9 material on a 4:3 projector. For instance, if you get a 4:3 projector that is 1024x768 (786,432 pixels) and you project a 16:9 image on it, your total pixel count will be 1024x576 (589,824 pixels). You have just lost 192 lines of vertical resolution (25%).
On the other hand, if you have a 16:9 projector that is 1366x768 (1,048,576 pixels) and you show 4:3 material, your pixel count will still be be 1024x768 (786,432 pixels) but you will not lose any vertical resolution at all!
Traveler
Or, if your 4:3 pj happens to have 1400 x 1050 then a 16:9 panel usage,
with the resulting .25 decrease, allows only 1,103,200 pixels. Of course if you want all the pixels all the time then use an anmorphic lens.
[EDIT]
I don't know how far along you may be in understanding the way different aspect ratios work together = so I'll give it a shot here.
Leaving the PJ out of it for just a sec, let's take a 16:9 screen for this example. In order to display a smaller aspect ratio picture on the screen, it will be "pillar boxed" that is black bars left and right. In order to display a greater aspect ratio picture on the screen, it will be letter boxed, that is black bars top and bottom.
The same thing happens with the utilization of the panel in the projector.
Displaying an aspect ratio greater than that of the projector causes letter boxing and display of an aspect ratio smaller than that of the PJ results in pillar boxing.
Here is a situation I have used quite a bit. A 4:3 pj fed a 16:9 frame which contains my viewing material. So, watching a 4:3 picture, what I see is a 4:3 pillarboxed in my 16:9 frame - which by the way is letterboxed onto my PJ panel. Got That ? Good cause we are about done.
Without using external anamorphic lenses, any aspect ratio displayed with the PJ that is not the native aspect ratio will result in less panel utilization.
One consideration can be so called light spill. This is a region of light outside the projected panel area of the display which manifests as a sort of aura. This can be a PITA for some but is generally easily masked and seems more prominent on some of the earlier gen 4:3 DLPs.
I tend to think more in terms of number of displayed pixels than panel aspect ratio and then of course dollars and quality of the displayed pixels.
with the resulting .25 decrease, allows only 1,103,200 pixels. Of course if you want all the pixels all the time then use an anmorphic lens.
[EDIT]
I don't know how far along you may be in understanding the way different aspect ratios work together = so I'll give it a shot here.
Leaving the PJ out of it for just a sec, let's take a 16:9 screen for this example. In order to display a smaller aspect ratio picture on the screen, it will be "pillar boxed" that is black bars left and right. In order to display a greater aspect ratio picture on the screen, it will be letter boxed, that is black bars top and bottom.
The same thing happens with the utilization of the panel in the projector.
Displaying an aspect ratio greater than that of the projector causes letter boxing and display of an aspect ratio smaller than that of the PJ results in pillar boxing.
Here is a situation I have used quite a bit. A 4:3 pj fed a 16:9 frame which contains my viewing material. So, watching a 4:3 picture, what I see is a 4:3 pillarboxed in my 16:9 frame - which by the way is letterboxed onto my PJ panel. Got That ? Good cause we are about done.
Without using external anamorphic lenses, any aspect ratio displayed with the PJ that is not the native aspect ratio will result in less panel utilization.
One consideration can be so called light spill. This is a region of light outside the projected panel area of the display which manifests as a sort of aura. This can be a PITA for some but is generally easily masked and seems more prominent on some of the earlier gen 4:3 DLPs.
I tend to think more in terms of number of displayed pixels than panel aspect ratio and then of course dollars and quality of the displayed pixels.
jamin,
I guess the thing that I was trying to point out is that vertical resolution is more precious than horizontal resolution. In other words, showing 4:3 material on a 16:9 projector gives pillar box bars on the side but there is no loss of vertical resolution. You don't lose horizontal resolution because there is no image to show on the edges (hence the pillars). However, showing 16:9 material on a 4:3 projector gives letter box (loss of 25% of your vertical resolution).
Traveler
I guess the thing that I was trying to point out is that vertical resolution is more precious than horizontal resolution. In other words, showing 4:3 material on a 16:9 projector gives pillar box bars on the side but there is no loss of vertical resolution. You don't lose horizontal resolution because there is no image to show on the edges (hence the pillars). However, showing 16:9 material on a 4:3 projector gives letter box (loss of 25% of your vertical resolution).
Traveler
Gary, you'll note that the gentleman at projector central in the end preferred a large 4.3 screen. I totally agree with him. Shrinking the 4.3 in a 16.9 screen looks awefull. For that matter I hate it when HD materiall is not wide screen and boxed in on a the screen also. The talk about the extra pixels is just about moot when you view the top notch picture of the HT1000 XGA.
Here's a comparison. I first had a 4.3 61" tosh HDTV and sold it for a 65" 16.9 tosh. When I re saw my 61" tosh at my neighbors house showing a Baseball game my heart sunk. I wished I had kept it. So for now and in the next several years coming 4.3 is the way to go. jmho
Here's a comparison. I first had a 4.3 61" tosh HDTV and sold it for a 65" 16.9 tosh. When I re saw my 61" tosh at my neighbors house showing a Baseball game my heart sunk. I wished I had kept it. So for now and in the next several years coming 4.3 is the way to go. jmho
Tom,
I would agree with you (somewhat) if you are talking about RPTV. If, on the other hand, you are talking about projection onto a screen where vertical distance is more of a precious commodity than horizontal distance, I would stick to my observations earlier and get a 16:9 projector which will show 4:3 material at full height as well as 16:9 material at full height.
I would agree with you (somewhat) if you are talking about RPTV. If, on the other hand, you are talking about projection onto a screen where vertical distance is more of a precious commodity than horizontal distance, I would stick to my observations earlier and get a 16:9 projector which will show 4:3 material at full height as well as 16:9 material at full height.
What you're saying may have been true, but all things changed when the HT1000 came out. I didn't like the LT150, Seleco HT200 and the Sharp Z9000 as compared to the new NEC.
In the end anyway, the 7200 is out, my friend who also has the NEC said it didn't compare. So that leaves the Marantz, Seleco, Sharp Z10000 & Runco, and that can be expensive. The little old NEC holds up pretty well with all these expensive big boys.
I've seen the Marantz & the Seleco fo far. In all fairness I would trade (even up) the HT1000 for a Marantz/Seleco/ or Sharp.
In the end anyway, the 7200 is out, my friend who also has the NEC said it didn't compare. So that leaves the Marantz, Seleco, Sharp Z10000 & Runco, and that can be expensive. The little old NEC holds up pretty well with all these expensive big boys.
I've seen the Marantz & the Seleco fo far. In all fairness I would trade (even up) the HT1000 for a Marantz/Seleco/ or Sharp.
One other thing to think about is masking. You most likely will want to use a masking system to improve perceived contrast/blacks/saturation. If you have a 4:3 native screen you'll have constant width and will mask vertically; if you have a native 16:9 screen you'll have a constant height setup and will mask sideways. A DIY constant width setup is a bit easier to do, and also has the added benefit of your always having the speakers in the same relationship to the sides of the screen.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
