[andwhite1]

I know this has been answered before but I can't seem to locate it anywhere.


What is the viewable image size of 4:3 and 16:9 on each television.


If the 16:9 viewable image size on the 40XBR800 is close to the 16:9 viewable image size on the 34XBR800, (black bars aside, which don't bother me) why wouldn't you opt for the TV with a larger 4:3 picture? Why would I want to go for a little bit bigger 16:9 pic and smaller 4:3 pic on the 34XBR800. Maybe I am missing something ...?


Assume I watch 50% dvd and 50% regular TV, black bars don't bother me, I have no space constraints, and moving around a 300 lbs TV doesn't bother me


Thanks!

 

[buttonmasher]

I did the math just now, using proportions and the good ol' Pythagorean Theorem.


16:9 image on a 40" TV is 36.72"

4:3 image on a 34" TV is 27.79"

 

[andwhite1]

Huh...Not knowing any math that was the vague thought I was having. So basically the 16:9 is bigger on the 40XBR800 than on the 34XBR800. Very interesting. Definately leaning towards the 40XBR800 then.


Why not get a 40" 4:3 and 36" 16:9


as opposed to 27" 4:3 and 34" 16:9


I just don't see the logic in picking the 34XBR800?


Thanks for the info

 

[jeff lam]

Plug in the numbers here:

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


You will see that the 40" 4x3 has quite a bit larger viewable area on 16x9 material and more than double the image size of 4x3 material.


EDIT:

If size is that important to you why not save a little bit of money and get an RPTV and an ISF calibration to go with it?


It will look better than any normal DV without an ISF calibration.

 

[KadMan]

There are many reasons to go with either option. I would suggest browsing through this forum and you'll find lot's of threads on this very subject. Overall 16:9 image size was important to me as well and one of the reasons I ended up with the 40XBR. I don't think you can go wrong with any of the XBR sets.


Oh, and nice try Don! The VeryBadBoy account isn't fooling anyone. Your posting style here and the description of your antenna configuration in another section of these forums were a dead giveaway.

 

[Squidman]

That's WrongBerg??? tch tch

 

[andwhite1]

jeff lam, thanks for the reply. The link was exactly what I was looking for. With all the static noise flying around about 16:9 vs. 4:3 I wanted to see some hard numbers.


It seems from what I have seen if you want the best of both worlds and can afford another 1k then the 40XBR800. Hook that baby up to the new Samsung DVI DVD player and I will hopefully be in heaven (at least until 16:9 becomes more of a standard - 5 years would be my guess)


I have gone full circle starting with DV, then going to RPTV and FP, then to DLP (don't like LCD, and Plasma too pricey for what I want - Pioneer ), and now back to DV. It just seems to make the most sense at this point in TV history. Of course its hard for me to stomack 3K for the 40XBR800 but if I can somwhow find a decent price around 1800-2000 with stand I might go for it.


Thanks for the help...

 

[KadMan]

andwhite,


It sounds like some of your motivations for looking at the 40XBR are some of the same that I had when I bought mine back in December. See my comments in this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=252651


After 4 months of living with this TV I can honestly say that it still impresses me every time I sit down to watch it. The 16:9 image is stunning and DVDs look incredible. Standard 4:3 materiall certainly isn't anything like HD, but it looks better at a given distance than our 4 year old Sony 35" analog. The elimination of scan lines alone is worth going digital.


The price certainly isn't the easiest thing to swallow. I know it ends soon, but the inclusion of a $500 stand does help considerably when comparing it to other digital options. Just decide whats most important to you.

 

[paulbehnke]

I'll just echo Kadman...For $3OOO (Tax, stand & delivery incl) I am a happy camper for the last 5 months...the world events alone for the past two were all in 4:3 and the Superbowl and other sporting events in Hi Def which brings up the only problem area when you feed any of the Sony 40 or 36 XBR a hi def (720p or 1080i) program containing a 4:3 picture, you get black bands on all 4 side and your 40" is now only a 31 incher! No problem just get out of the HDTV mode! Superbowl ads were a mixture of 16:9 and 4:3 adds. People with a Sony 34" probably did not notice it as much since the top abd bottom black bars were the edge of the tv and only saw the black bars on either side of that 27" picture. I feel I made the right choice given how much 4:3 material is still Availble.

 

[Delvo]

Quote:

Originally posted by andwhite1 the 16:9 is bigger on the 40XBR800 than on the 34XBR800. Very interesting. Definately leaning towards the 40XBR800 then. Why not get a 40" 4:3 and 36" 16:9 as opposed to 28" 4:3 and 34" 16:9 I just don't see the logic in picking the 34XBR800

The 40" is the one I can't see any logic in, given your motivation to large size. Its extra thousand dollars in the price tag takes you into the range of being able to buy bigger screens in front or rear projection (and maybe plasma, I don't know).


And neverminding that, I chose the 34" simply because I find it a huge mistake to equate bigger numbers with better entertainment value. For one thing, the almost-square box is an ugly monster I don't want looming in my living room and trying to swallow it. Also, while I understand that some people don't have THAT reaction, I believe this to be universal: you will get used to whatever size you have, so that the "smaller" mode on that same TV will look dwarfed and wimpy. In other words, the 40" 4:3 screen and the 4:3 material you watch on it will make your widescreen material seem smaller than it would seem on the 34" screen. I'd rather have my movies and HDTV be the stuff that gets shown in its full glory and ordinary TV be reduced somehow, than blow up inferior 4:3 images until they're visibly dirty and ruin my movies and HD by having THEM be the presentations that feel lessened.


Also, it is a 4:3 advocates' misdirection to claim that a 34" widescreen set has a 4:3 image the size of a 28" (or 27", as they like to claim, even though the actual fraction is farther away from there) 4:3 screen. In fact, the 34" XBR has four modes for handling 4:3 material, and they're talking about one of them. The other three fill the screen, which is the same visible viewing surface area as a 32" 4:3 TV screen. Different modes are appropriate for different sources, so the viewer can choose which one is best. 4:3 TV sets, however, do not have this degree of flexibility in handling widescreen sources.

 

[KadMan]

Delvo, I can appreciate your opinions about having the 16:9 be the main focus. I actually share that same feeling. It's actually one of the points that drove me TO the 40XBR. The 34XBR 16:9 image size was just a bit too small. I'd like to have an even larger 16:9 image size, but I really wanted a direct view set. The plasmas and front or rear projections didn't interest me for many different reasons. The 40XBR is a beast, no doubt. It's just one of the factors that must be considered. I have mine in my den. It's a 15x15 room and I built the 40XBR into one wall with some bookcases, so it really doesn't look out of place at all. I agree that bigger isn't always better, but smaller isn't always better either. The room size plays a big part in this.


I've heard the arguement from a few people that the 4:3 size on the 34XBR isn't a 27" or 28" TV (it's acutally 27.8"), but it is true. I think it's a misdirection to claim that it's anything larger by including any stretch or zoom modes that don't show the image in it's native, unaltered state. That would be like claiming the 40XBR has almost as big of a 16:9 image size as a 42" plasma by using crop mode via S-video to zoom in and cut off the material at the sides. It's just not a fair comparison. What you refer to as flexibility, I refer to as image distortion. Its all just a matter of opinions (like most of this stuff, if you really think about it). I honestly wouldn't want any modes that stretched peoples heads to fill the top of the screen or cut off the sides of the picture to fill the top without stretching.


If I had a sofa that was close to the TV in this room, I probably would have a 34XBR right now. It would make more sense at close distances. I just needed something bigger in this room.


I have included a link to a photo of the room for illustration purposes. It took me a couple days of work, but the wife was bugging me for bookcases for almost two years. Once I decided to buy a new TV, I somehow found my motivation. ;^)


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...944&fullpage=1

 

[DWhite]

looks like Donberg aka Verybadboy got his account wiped. No sign that it even existed now. Isnt it funny how they can track ya by IP's

 

[andwhite1]

Wow, Kadman...nice setup. I won't be showing my wife that pic. Did you build all that yourself? Very Nice!


Thank you all for the info. I just wanted to say that I am not trolling. I ran across the long thread where someone posed the same question as I but about a 36XBR800 instead of 40XBR800. I got a lot of info from that thread (btween the flame war posts). I am not trying to start that again.


I think KadMan and I are in very similar situations. I have basically narrowed down my choices to the 43"/50" Samsung DLP or the 40" XBR DV. There are lot of pluses and minuses to both and I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.


With the 40" DV I was simply looking for the largest 16:9 image I could get in a DV TV and the 40" XBR provides that. The large 4:3 image is just an added plus. I have an entertainment nook built into my family room so size is not an issue for me. Once it's in it is not moving and it will not stick out into the room at all. Lucky me I guess.


I do have one other concern gleaned from the other thread. I will be sitting 12' back from this television. Like all HD televisions SD suffers greatly. I have seen numerous posts pointing this out about the Samsung AND 40XBR800. How bad is the SD on the XBR. Will I be able to notice from 12' back. And also someone indicated from that far back I might lose all benefits of the HD image (thus would be better off with an analog set). Is this true? I didn't know I had to sit CLOSER to the TV to benefit from HD? Maybe I am confused?


Thanks!

 

[XFactor]

Quote:

Originally posted by DWhite looks like Donberg aka Verybadboy got his account wiped. No sign that it even existed now. Isnt it funny how they can track ya by IP's

I'm lost. DonBerg was posting here as of a few days ago. What happened to him?

 

[paulbehnke]

PQ of SD depends upon your source. Time Warner Cable here in San Antonio is pretty good...all fiber optics and with the line doubling provided by the Sony XBR800 a very good picture on most of the stations. The 2 HDTV (CBS & ABC) have great PQ but the programs..arrghh!

Just waitng for PBS!

 

[KadMan]

andwhite,


Thanks for the comment. Yes I did the work myself (with an assist from my father-in-law). It really wasn't that tough of a job if you are hand at all with a few common tools.


As far as SD is concerned, it's not anywhere near the quality of HD for sure. But it doesn't have to be as bad as some talk around here either. As mentioned before it depends on the source and other factors. I have analog cable from Insight and DirecTV and both sources look pretty good. My Hughes E86 HD receiver is a touch behind my old Hughes E11 in terms of focus, but it's not all that noticable. As I've said before, my 40XBR in 4:3 looks better at any given distance than my 4 year old 35" Sony. It absolutely blows it away. I have one viewing spot in my den where I look at the 40 from 7 feet away. I wouldn't want to get any closer, but it's still not bad at all. Good luck in whatever you choose!

 

[DNINE]

KadMan Nice setup!

 

[cajieboy]

Kadman, absolutely pro, really great setup! I see you have your video gear arranged quite similar to mine, and we both purchased our 40XBR's around the same time. Do you ever have a heat issue w/the 40XBR being enclosed?


Some of these widescreen guys sound almost like it's a religous experience w/them and chop on 4:3 tubes w/a fanaticism and fervor I only hear on some of those oddball cable channels. i wish they would get over the fact that alot of people LIKE Digital/HDTV 4:3 tubes. It's really not a "us against them" or "good vs. bad", and I rarely hear HDTV 4:3 owners spouting off like a Mullah from Iran. For myself, and I think for most HDTV 4:3 owners we ALSO like 16:9 Widescreen TV's, but our needs, criteria and viewing habits more or less made the decision for us. Heck, I'm anxious to checkout the upcoming 34XBR910 Super Fine Pitch as a possible 2nd TV for the bedroom as in my case, this may fit that particular criteria perfectly.


andwhite1, the largest 16:9 Direct View Tube I know of is the Lowe Aconda w/38" diagonal and curved tube. Owners of this tube swear by them, and they should as the price tag is around $4500. The next in line is the Sony 40XBR w/a 37" diagonal screen in 16:9 widescreen, and 40" diagonal in 4:3 full screen. PQ is excellent on ALL Sony XBR's, but if you have crappy cable, the 40XBR will definitely let you know. Fortunately for me, TWC in my area is quite good.


The 34XBR800 is an excellent tube and is at the top of anyone's list who's searching for a 34" 16:9 Direct View TV. According to Sony, there's a substantial upgrade for this TV (34XBR910) due out in July 2003. If a 34" widescreen is your choice, then I'd advise you to wait until you could checkout the 910's.

 

[KadMan]

Thanks for the comments guys!


Cajie,


No heat issues. I ran a duct to the back of the TV to pull any hot air out.

 

[cajieboy]

Okie Dokie Kadman, no heat...cool as a cucumber, heh, heh. Special duct work too? Geez, now you really have admiration!