[EmptyWallet]

I'm having a very very hard time deciding between these two, however something I saw just peaked my interest.....


36" 955 34" 960


4:3=36" 4:3=27"

16:9=33" 16:9=34"



If thats true, and I watch a TON of SD and play alot of games, and I watch just as many movies. Then why in the world would you NOT get the 36XS955 if it only looses 1 inch on WS format, yet displays 4:3 perfectly? It's only a one inch loss!

 

[Breather]

You've answered your own question. If you still watch a lot of SD, then you should get the 36". You're only giving up 1" with 16:9, but you're gaining 9" on 4:3. It's a no-brainer, in my opinion.

 

[CaseCom]

34XS955 = 198 lbs.

36XS955 = 234 lbs.


Yikes!

 

[UMDMatt]

I will be the purchasing the 34XS955 over the 36 for the extra inch of 16:9 screen size and for the more cinematic viewing experience I perceive when watching 1.78:1, 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 material on a widescreen set.


Weight, height, and style are issues for me as well.


Either way I think you're getting a great set.

 

[RandyWalters]

Quote:

Originally posted by CaseCom 34XS955 = 198 lbs. 36XS955 = 234 lbs. Yikes!

I don't see why weight should be an issue when deciding on a screen format. I mean it's not like someone will have the TV sitting in their lap, or moving it once it's in it's final resting place in the home. It still takes two strong men to move either of these TVs or even my 165 lb 32" Panasonic for that matter. It's like choosing a refridgerator based on weight - but they're all heavy so just get the one that suits your needs


Screen format should be the first consideration, then screen size next. If someone is concerned about hefty weight, there's always RPTV or Plasma but they're still too big for one person to move

 

[Ronnie Ferrell]

The reason why I will not be getting the 36XS955 is because of size. It will not fit in my entertainment Armoire. If I had the room, I would consider it. Right now I am deciding between the 34XS955 and the 34XBR960. It all depends on Black Friday prices and how much birthday money I score. My birthday is that weekend!


Ronnie

 

[Ranger]

I thought 4:3 on a 34" tv is around 31". no ?

 

[lahaina]

Quote:

Originally posted by EmptyWallet I'm having a very very hard time deciding between these two, however something I saw just peaked my interest..... 36" 955 34" 960 4:3=36" 4:3=27" 16:9=33" 16:9=34" If thats true, and I watch a TON of SD and play alot of games, and I watch just as many movies. Then why in the world would you NOT get the 36XS955 if it only looses 1 inch on WS format, yet displays 4:3 perfectly? It's only a one inch loss!

Interesting timing on that one. This morning's paper (Portland, Oregonian) carries an article about HDTV deadline possibly being extended to 2009. To me that reinforces my sense that SD has more life left in it than the retailers and pundits would have us believe. I am not a Luddite; however I definitely like the extra time to develop the super large screen flat/minimal depth sets that are currently fraught with technical problems and which struggle to render SD content. I chose the 36" based partly on the math you kindly presented here.

 

[RandyWalters]

Quote:

Originally posted by lahaina Interesting timing on that one. This morning's paper (Portland, Oregonian) carries an article about HDTV deadline possibly being extended to 2009. To me that reinforces my sense that SD has more life left in it than the retailers and pundits would have us believe. I am not a Luddite; however I definitely like the extra time to develop the super large screen flat/minimal depth sets that are currently fraught with technical problems and which struggle to render SD content. I chose the 36" based partly on the math you kindly presented here.

There is no HDTV deadline - from what i understand the deadline is for broadcasters to start transmitting a digital signal but that doesn't mean the programming must all be High Definition. Whether or not that digital signal is widescreen or HD is up to the broadcaster. And i believe the ruling only pertains to OTA broadcasts and doesn't affect cable or satellite.


Even Mark Cuban (owner of HDNet) say the majority of programming will be in 4.3 for at least ten years to come. Regardless, now that we have two formats it appears both will be around for many many years to come.

 

[rupertoooo]

You did not specify if and how much HD you watch. If you do have HD I would without a doubt go with the 34", if you dont you will regret it down the line. Once you watch any program in HD you will be going out of your way to find HD Programming and there is plenty of it. Just my two cents

 

[lahaina]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandyWalters There is no HDTV deadline - from what i understand the deadline is for broadcasters to start transmitting a digital signal but that doesn't mean the programming must all be High Definition. Whether or not that digital signal is widescreen or HD is up to the broadcaster. And i believe the ruling only pertains to OTA broadcasts and doesn't affect cable or satellite. Even Mark Cuban (owner of HDNet) say the majority of programming will be in 4.3 for at least ten years to come. Regardless, now that we have two formats it appears both will be around for many many years to come.

I appreciate your distinction and stand corrected on terminology, but as a practical matter the digital signal transmission is the gating issue, and is what is driving the hardware market to 16:9. It seems to me that a broadcaster upgrading to digital transmission limited to 4:3 would be penny wise and pound foolish, if not a good candidate for the funny farm. I don't recall saying anything about programming content and HDTV.

 

[Breather]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ranger I thought 4:3 on a 34" tv is around 31". no ?

No. 27.8"



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

 

[brokeniris]

Quote:

Originally posted by UMDMatt I...more cinematic viewing experience I perceive when watching 1.78:1, 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 material on a widescreen set....

Sorry for the newb question, but does watching HD widescreen content on a 4:3 tv have less resolution? Does it re-focus the output to a 16:9 ratio or does it simply scale down the picture?

 

[UMDMatt]

Quote:

Originally posted by brokeniris Sorry for the newb question, but does watching HD widescreen content on a 4:3 tv have less resolution? Does it re-focus the output to a 16:9 ratio or does it simply scale down the picture?

It is probably called Vertical Compression or 16:9 mode or some other moniker by the TV manufacturer, but a 4:3 HD CRT only scans lines in the 16:9 area of the screen when watching High Def (and almost always 16:9 480p as well). So available resolution isn't 'wasted' on black bars.

 

[spleck]

Quote:

Originally posted by EmptyWallet 36" 955 34" 960 4:3=36" 4:3=27" 16:9=33" 16:9=34" ...It's only a one inch loss!

That's assuming the picture tubes are exactly 34" and 36". In reality, both the 34" and the 36" sets are 39 1/8" wide. (same for the 34XBR960). I haven't measured the fascia on the sets, but I would assume the visible screen is the same width on both sets.


Assuming they are the same size then, the 36XS955 would have a larger visible area for WS content due to the lack of overscan on the top and bottom (on the 34XS955, the tops and bottom are hidden). So the 36" is actually bigger for both 4:3 AND 16:9. Plus it's MSRP is $300 less.


Quote:

Originally posted by brokeniris Sorry for the newb question, but does watching HD widescreen content on a 4:3 tv have less resolution? Does it re-focus the output to a 16:9 ratio or does it simply scale down the picture?

This is the catch. Unless the 36XS955 has a vertical compression mode to refocus the picture in the center (and has the corresponding resolution mask there) that works in HD mode, then you will see a lower resolution picture.


I haven't seen the specs for the actual screen, but chances are the "pixels" are smaller on the 34XS955, hence it has a higher resolution (lines) for widescreen content. This also means that non-stretched 4:3 content will have a lower horizontal resolution than on the 36XS955. But since most 4:3 content is SD or analog, that hardly matters.


It really comes down to the physical specs for the CRT. Does anyone know the renderable resolution on these two sets?

 

[brokeniris]

Quote:

Originally posted by spleck This is the catch. Unless the 36XS955 has a vertical compression mode to refocus the picture in the center (and has the corresponding resolution mask there) that works in HD mode, then you will see a lower resolution picture. I haven't seen the specs for the actual screen, but chances are the "pixels" are smaller on the 34XS955, hence it has a higher resolution (lines) for widescreen content. This also means that non-stretched 4:3 content will have a lower horizontal resolution than on the 36XS955. But since most 4:3 content is SD or analog, that hardly matters. It really comes down to the physical specs for the CRT. Does anyone know the renderable resolution on these two sets? [/b]

ANyone get any new info on this? I am still quite interested....

 

[Artwood]

Bottom Line: 34-inch Widescreen is just too small. Buy the 36 or watch the 34 at a distance of 5 feet or less!

 

[SSJLaletas]

Bottom line, if you want an hd tv because your most likely connecting to an hd source get a widescreen, if you dont plan on connecting to an hd source (except if you watch a lot of dvds) then just get an analog set and save some money. These types of threads are getting a little old.

 

[brokeniris]

Two bottom lines? It's like we are talking about social security reform


I think we all agree that a 34" CRT TV that weighs 200lbs is not ideal. But threads like this are good for those of us who a.) don't want to spend $3k on an evolving technology and b.) see the drawbacks of current digital television models as too severe.


That being said, does anyone know the answer to the vertical compression question? Does the resolution get lowered on the 36" 4:3 set? That sounds like it would be in FAQ somewhere... I just can't find it.

 

[russwong]

I think I've said this many times too...


The real bottom line is: We need a 36", 38", or 40" 16:9 Direct View from Sony with the Super Fine Dot Pitch screen. We can put a man on the moon, we can nuke the world many times over, but we can't get a damn tube TV that is big enough and be flat like the Wegas!!!!!


Can you hear me Sony???