AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I just don't understand this. I have been told that a few of the 4x3 34" & 36" HDTV's do the squeeze very well for 16x9 sources. So why would anyone buy a 16x9 tube for $1000 more? and give up 7" or so of viewable area on 4x3 sources?




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

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
·
139 Posts
There are many arguments that are used either way. The one I believe in the most is that your natural field of vision is closer to 16:9 than 4:3. So unless you have one eye the experience will be more like seeing real life. Plus if we believe that digital telivision is here to stay, 16:9 is the standard all TV's will be based on someday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I don't understand that argument as a 4x3 television, when it does "squeeze"the picture, makes the field of view 16x9...



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

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
·
1,372 Posts
Please don't get this extremely flammable discussion going again. Do a search on 16:9 or 4:3 on this forum and you will get enough material to read to keep you busy for a week. Suffice it to say that if one or the other makes more sense to you for whatever reason, that's probably reason enough to go with it.



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

Dave B.

ODAT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael James:
I just don't understand this. I have been told that a few of the 4x3 34" & 36" HDTV's do the squeeze very well for 16x9 sources. So why would anyone buy a 16x9 tube for $1000 more? and give up 7" or so of viewable area on 4x3 sources?



It is true that many of the 4x3 digital TV's can perform a 16x9 squeeze and present a very good HD picture.

I too have a 4x3 RCA MM36110. The HD picture looks great.

However, these TV's fall short of the the resolution that can be obtained by 16x9 hdtv's.

Just this past weekend, I was at a local Sears store and compared the two formats with the same HD signal.

I was surprised at how much more detail the 16x9 provides.



Another advantage is if you look at a lot of DVD movies.

Most are in widesreen format. This tends too lend a more theatrical feel with 16x9 TV's.


If HD or DVD is your thing. Then I would say You are better off with 16x9.

But if you are more into cable or satellite. Then you may want to consider the 4x3. For most of the programs are still in this format.


Keep in mind though, that most 16x9 TV's aloow you to stretch 4x3 programs in order to feel out the screen.


I know that I am going to upgrade to 16x9 TV this fall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
756 Posts
There is absolutely no question the 16:9's are a better picture. 16:9's are made specifically for viewing HD material while the 4:3's simply added circuitry for a progressive scan and 1080i.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,340 Posts
Each person has their own reasons to want to go one way or another. They can tell you their reasons, but they can't decide for you. It's up to you to decide which factors (picture quality, picture size, price, type of material usually viewed, etc. etc.) are most important to you, and take your decision from there...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,999 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael James:
I just don't understand this. I have been told that a few of the 4x3 34" & 36" HDTV's do the squeeze very well for 16x9 sources. So why would anyone buy a 16x9 tube for $1000 more? and give up 7" or so of viewable area on 4x3 sources?

This has been discussed ad nauseam and there is no right answer. Each viewer will chose what is best for him/her. I hope this thread ends very quickly before another war breaks out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,697 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael James:
I just don't understand this. I have been told that a few of the 4x3 34" & 36" HDTV's do the squeeze very well for 16x9 sources. So why would anyone buy a 16x9 tube for $1000 more? and give up 7" or so of viewable area on 4x3 sources?

I don't think Michael's question is that same old controversial one of "Which is better 4x3 or 16x9?" where everyone jumps in and flames each other in order to justify, in their own minds, why they bought what they bought.


He's asking a new controversial question http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif "Why would we want to pay an extra $1,000 (on a relatively small digital TV)in order to lose an other 7" of viewable area?"


When put that way I think he has a point, and based on my own personal preferences, I agree with him.


Nevertheless, as others have pointed out, it still gets down to personal viewing preferences and what type of programming you will be viewing most of the time.


An other key factor is how many HDTVs do you have and what can your budget accommodate? If you've already got a moderately large HDTV to view widescreen programming, and you are in the market for an other TV, then to me it makes sense to save the $1,000 and purchase a 4:3 HDTV for mostly viewing 4:3 material.


On the other hand, if your budget will only accommodate a single entry-level HDTV, then purchasing a 34" 16:9 HDTV may be the way to go.


Happy viewing no matter which aspect ratio you choose!


Larry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Let me also say that the TV would be in a location that is 4 feet from the end of my bed and I watch HD (local and from DSS) as well as a lot of regular DSS broadcasts (4x3).

I prefer watching the HD material. No DVD in the bedroom.


Any suggestions here? Is 34" 16x9 too small or is there a 36" or 38" (that's not more than 40" wide). I have another big screen Runco 5800 downstairs but I am a QUALITY guy and size guy second (but do I really have to compromise size for quality?)


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

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
·
1,372 Posts
Michael,


I really don't want to get into this flame war again, but I will answer your question about the Sony 4:3's.


All of the current and future Sony HiScan 4:3 TV's do a 16:9 squeeze mode that is virtually the same as a 16:9 set. All of the lines of resolution are in the height of the picture. A couple of the responses to your question have given incorrect information about this.


Once again I will say that if you see some advantage to either format, be it size, black bars or lack of (top or sides), cost, etc..., then that is reason enough to choose it.


Please, go to the search function of this forum and do a search on 4:3 and 16:9 to see all of the previous posts on this topic. Anything that can be said has already been said many times over in this forum.


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

Dave B.

ODAT


[This message has been edited by dmbatch (edited 06-08-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
"All of the lines of resolution are in the height of the picture."


But what about the width of the 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
·
1,372 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael James:
"All of the lines of resolution are in the height of the picture."


But what about the width of the picture?

Michael,


Since both formats display 16:9 full width, the is no loss of resolution from either. On 4:3 material, the 16:9 set will either display bars at the sides, or you can use one of the many stretch modes that come with the sets to display full screen.





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

Dave B.

ODAT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,697 Posts
Michael:


Since you'll be normally viewing your set from a distance of about 11 feet none of our previous reasoning is going to make a bit of difference. Unless your visual acuity is much better than the average person you'll be so far away from the relatively small screen that the HD resolution will be wasted.


The Critical Viewing Distance is the distance at which the resolution of your display equals the resolution of your eyes. This distance decreases as the resolution of the display increases and increases as the size of the display increases. If you sit (or lie in bed http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif ) farther than the critical viewing distance you waste the resolution of your display.


Here's the science behind the Optimum Viewing Distance


When you do the math for a 34" 16:9 HDTV at 1080I (assuming the set is really delivering a true 1080 number of lines) the Critical Viewing distance is 4.4 feet. If you switch to a standard set with about 480 lines of resolution the Critical Viewing Distance becomes 11.9 feet or about where you will be doing most of your viewing.


In other words, in theory, if you are in bed watching TV you may not be able to see the difference between a standard or HD TV at a viewing distance of about 11 feet. In real life you probably will be able to see a difference due to a combination of factors, color accuracy, better reception, etc., the point is you won't be seeing the full 1080 resolution that you paid for.


Larry



[This message has been edited by LarryChanin (edited 06-08-2001).]


[This message has been edited by LarryChanin (edited 06-08-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Michael,


I went through is same issue about 18 months ago. At that time I figured that most material would be 4:3 so I bought a 32" Proscan (HD-ready) and RCA DTC-100. What I found was that although the HD picture was far superior (and even Fox's 480P widescreen) I would debate whether to switch to widescreen mode because the picture was so much smaller - the height was the same as 27" 4:3. Rather the things within the picture were smaller.


A few months ago I got the RCA F38310 38" widescreen HDTV and I've been very much more satisfied. Now the picture doesn't get "smaller", just wider or narrower as appropriate. (Just noticed in another thread that the RCA is too wide for your cabinet.)


So for me it wasn't so much a matter of resolution - at 10' I could see the better resolution of the squeezed HD picture vs the full sized NTSC 4:3. I just really didn't like that image was smaller (shorter) when I switched from 4:3 to 16:9.


Frank


PS: When I bought the 32" 4:3, I considered the 34" 16:9, but its 27" height equivalent was too small for me at a 10' viewing distance (also too expensive at the time). BTW, I have used a 27" 4:3 4' from the bottom of my bed and I just find the image too small.



[This message has been edited by fludolph (edited 06-08-2001).]
 

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

When does the XBR450 get released?
It's already out in some places. I've seen one in the Sony Store here in Vancouver Canada.


Quote:
fludolph wrote

Now the picture doesn't get "smaller", just wider or narrower as appropriate.
What a great observation - the first new angle on the format debate I've seen in a while! Although I've been drifting toward the "why pay more to have a screen that's not as high" camp, this is an interesting comment that I'm going to have to think about.


Most scenes with people (which, in most material, means "most scenes") are framed to a head shot or a head-and-shoulders or 3/4 view etc. It's this view that changes sizes in 16:9 mode on a 4:3 set. So I can see that you'd get "used" to the 4:3 height of people and then could feel cheated when you see the reduced 16:9 height...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael James:
I just don't understand this. I have been told that a few of the 4x3 34" & 36" HDTV's do the squeeze very well for 16x9 sources. So why would anyone buy a 16x9 tube for $1000 more? and give up 7" or so of viewable area on 4x3 sources?
There's no question that 4:3 screens are optimal for 4:3 material. The 16:9 advantage is for everything else on DVD and HDTV transmissions. Remember that when you "squeeze" you stop using portions of the screen for image display and end up with a smaller image than results on the same image sent to a 16:9 set of the same diagonal measure. For 1.78 material, your 4:3 screen's height will be 25% black bars and the 16:9 set will have none...meaning a larger image. On =really= wide material (like Ben Hur at 2.70), the 4:3 would be 51% black bars and the 16:9 would be 34%.


The win/win solution to preventing a smaller 4:3 image is, of course, to get an even bigger 16:9. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif


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

.\\\\ike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
But what about the Sony XBR450 and their new 40" (and some of he Hi-Scan models) that's coming out. Sony is quoting that they are now doing the squeeze differently and doing the conversion totally in the digital domain as to not lose lines of resolution.. (please correct me if I am wrong)


"With their 16:9 enhanced mode feature, the new Hi-Scan sets are capable of displaying full vertical resolution in widescreen format."


Thoughts?


When does the XBR450 get released?

Are there any 36 or 38" 16x9 HDTV's I should be looking at that are less than 40"wide (to fit my cabinet)


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

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
·
581 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
So, based on the critical viewing distance, is the recommendation to get an HDTV as large as I can that does not do the squeeze such as a 36 or 38"er???


Any suggestions on one that is exceptional? I am having trouble finding a Sony XBR450 to demo and can't find the Princeton's either that look good on paper...


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

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
·
164 Posts
16x9 is HDTV, that's the way it was intended, next topic please!..no wars on this AGAIN!..please


------------------
Graphics

STOP DVI/HDCP AND DFAST boycott JVC
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top