AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know a lot of you have jumped around this subject somewhat..


I am looking for an HDTV for my bedroom not to exceed 40" wide (eliminates the 38" RCA) so it can go into a custom cabinet. No other real depth or height limitations. Wanting to spend $2-3k street price.


In the 34", saw the Sampo BME 34WHD5, Toshiba CW34x92 and Panasonic CT34WX50. If I can't get the 36 or 38", which of these are best? Heard the Sampo if you are a tweaker, but how about the Tosh? ****or should I consider a 4x3 that does the squeeze and how does that work with HD signals? How much resolution/lines do i lose? (My thought on the 4x3 is I get the full screen for all my normal DSS (non-HD) channels). Anything new coming out soon?


I have a Dish 5000 with HD module..


Also, on a 16x9, do you run the risk of screen burn-in on a 4x3 picture?


------------------

Michael James

Cincinnati, Ohio


Runco 5800 RPTV 65"

Lexicon MC-1

3 Sunfire Amplifiers

B&W 803's, Center Rears

Pioneer DV-05

Faroudja 2200 Scaler

Pioneer CLD-99

2 Grey Power Stations

PS Audio 300

Pronto Remotes

Automated Blinds, Lighting, Retractable Mirror
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,340 Posts
Hey Michael, welcome to the forum!


I can't answer your questions about the better of the 16:9 sets 'cause I haven't any experience with them. But I can tell you that screen burn-in on a direct-view set isn't really a big issue the way it is on a rear-projection unit, especially if you avoid high contrast settings.


As for the choice between 16:9 and squeezable 4:3, in my opinion the advantages of a 16:9 set are "cool" and "future-proof", while the advantages of a 4:3 set are "cheaper" and "more 4:3 material currently being shown" (although the latter won't mean much if you don't watch 4:3 material).


There are endless debates about this subject, but don't let anyone fool you into thinking that a 16:9 set has significantly more resolution than a "squeezable" 4:3 set of equivalent width. If you're considering same-width sets, then a squeezable 4:3 set will give you pretty much the same 16:9 picture as a 16:9 set, and a bigger 4:3 picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
So if a 4x3 HDTV ready set with good squeeze function gives you the best of both worlds, why would anyone buy a 16x9 set and go from 34" to 27" viewable on 4x3 source material?


Also, which are the best 4x3 HDTV sets that do the squeeze?

I have a dish 5000 w/HDTV modulator.


------------------

Michael James

Cincinnati, Ohio


Runco 5800 RPTV 65"

Lexicon MC-1

3 Sunfire Amplifiers

B&W 803's, Center Rears

Pioneer DV-05

Faroudja 2200 Scaler

Pioneer CLD-99

2 Grey Power Stations

PS Audio 300

Pronto Remotes

Automated Blinds, Lighting, Retractable Mirror
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
I beg to differ that any 4x3 TV look as good as 16x9 TV.

I beleive people beleive this for three reasons.


1. When people initially see a HD signal sqeezed on a 4x3 TV the signal looks great. But keep in mind that many are actually making the comparisons with a analog signal or another 4x3 digital TV.


2. All too often, most stores are not feeding a true HD signal. rather a 480p signal upconverted to 1080i. Most Best Buys do this.


3. Many times the 4x3 TV's and 16x9 tv's are not in the same roll. So when tying to make comaprison in the store. Many people are going back and forth to each section. As a result you are actually comparing the images that you have comitted to memory.


I recommend you go to a store that has both TV formats displaying the same true HD signal and the sets are almost side by side. This way you can make a fair comaparison.


I seen them side by side. The 16x9 Tv's show detail that 4x3 TV's simply can not resolve.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
I just recently completed my bedroom setup which consists of two htpcs, one driving a Sampo 34" 16:9 set at the foot of my bed, and the other driving a 21" Sony GDM-F500 at my desk.


First off, if you watch more DVDs and HD than regular cable and standard def programming, get 16:9. I bought the Sampo for high quality viewing (I have a 4x3 RPTV in the living room to watch low quality cable and satellite), which means it's either an anamorphic dvd or HD broadcast, which is much better in 16:9 (minimizing black bars from my field of view greatly contributes to the 3D-looking in a glass effect). Yes, 4x3s can do the squeeze, but you get the black bars which detract from the "window" experience when watching HD.


Watching HD broadcast and DVDs @ 1920x1080i on the Sampo while lounging on my bed is awesome! Perfect viewing distance from my headboard. Playing computer games and watching broadband streaming video is also a lotta phun.


But, like I've mentioned before, if your are not going the HTPC route and will just use a regular progressive DVD player, get a Panny Tau. But if you want the best of the best, get an HTPC with a Radeon along with the Sampo.


MMAfia
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,340 Posts
Quote:
Michael James Wrote:

So if a 4x3 HDTV ready set with good squeeze function gives you the best of both worlds, why would anyone buy a 16x9 set and go from 34" to 27" viewable on 4x3 source material?
If you watch little or no 4:3 material, then how it's presented isn't all that important. Sooner or later most of material you watch will probably be in 16:9 format, it's just a question of when. The answer to that question will be different for different people.


Also, most 4:3 material comes from a low-quality NTSC signal, and some people's position is that if you blow that kind of signal up into too large a picture it just looks lousy - better to view it smaller within the confines of a 16:9 set.


Quote:
Michael James Wrote:

which are the best 4x3 HDTV sets that do the squeeze?
I don't own one, but have been looking at them - the Sony 36XBR400 sets (this years model, just coming out, is the 36XBR450) are quite popular. But some people complain of poor picture NTSC quality if the signal isn't from a good source.


Quote:
wanthdtv Wrote:

The 16x9 Tv's show detail that 4x3 TV's simply can not resolve.
Some RPTV manufacturers have "sibling" 4:3 and 16:9 sets which are identical in all respects except for the screen height and the stretch options for displaying material in the "other aspect ratio" (i.e., 4:3 material on a 16:9 set, and vice versa). While I haven't compared them myself, I find it hard to believe that both sets couldn't show essentially identical 16:9 pictures, assuming they were both properly adjusted.


Similarly, there's no technical reason why a direct-view 4:3 set couldn't be engineered to show just as good a 16:9 picture as a 16:9 set of the same width. However there are no "sibling" direct-view 4:3 and 16:9 sets that I know of, and so it really boils down to the engineering differences between the sets. Of course you're quite right to suggest that the best way to decide is to go out and look for yourself, preferably by comparing two sets being fed the same signal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
The Toshiba is a great set. I use mine with an RCA HDTV receiver for HDTV which with the right transfers is truly breathtaking. DVD's look pretty good via a progressive scan DVD player. DVD's look really good via a HTPC at 940x540p and 1920x540p. Ultimately I wanted to play DVD's at 1920x1080i but my Nvidia card just does not do that resolution very well, but it does do 1920x1080p amazingly enough. I suppose the Sampo is better choice for a HTPC since it can do 720p. The Sampo does use a Toshiba Tube, but a higher quality one than that of CW34X92, or so I've read. Sony has their new 34" HDTV direct view coming out this fall, so maybe you should wait.


All in all, I'm happy with the Toshiba.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top