I will throw in this unstated point that I gleaned from a different thread. Maybe you already realized this, but it was something I kept overlooking.
A 16:9 image takes advantage of all the pixels for a high quality source, but loses pixels when the source is generally lower quality.
A 4:3 image uses all the pixels for NTSC material, but loses pixels when you're supplying higher quality material.
There is a monkey-wrench in this nice, clean rule-of-thumb (to mix a few metaphors):
If you watch mostly "standard" movies, i.e., movies made prior to the spread of television, your source material is 4:3, and the DVD is a pretty high quality 4:3 source. (Not as high quality as an HDTV program, but pretty darn good.) Personally, I don't watch that many old movies. Even so, at 720x480, you can fit every source H pixel into one display H pixel in 3/4 of an XGA horizontal line.
This is what impels me toward a 16:9 display.
Obvious, isn't it, once it was pointed out?
-yogaman
P.S. My preferred way to generate the 16:9 image at the moment is with an anamorphic lens. I don't need to focus exclusively on 16:9 panel projectors that way.
[This message has been edited by yogaman (edited 07-08-2001).]