[ChadD]

Discussions about the various reasons for choosing a 16:9 or 4:3 set seem to pop up regularly. As far as I can tell everyone seems to be very happy with the choice they originally made and no one has admitted to wishing they had made the other choice.


So, does anyone regret their choice and wished they had picked a different aspect ratio?


If so this might provide input that future purchasers could benefit from. Otherwise they could be confident in knowing that they will probably be very satisfied with whatever their initial choice, and we can quit trying to convert each other.


Personally I have been very pleased with my choice.


[This message has been edited by ChadD (edited 06-12-2001).]

 

[cvye]

Personally, I'd like the ability to change my mind after my purchase. That said, I'm planning on being unhappy 50% of the time, on average. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


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

Christian Vye


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

e-mail is forever

 

[Homer J]

Nope, would not change. I love my 16:9, especially for DVDs. Will love it even more when stations actually start to broadcast 16:9.

 

[Hot]

I like my Mitsubishi WS-55805 16:9 HDTV.


I like to watch wide screen HBO and Showtime. Also NYPD Blue and the CBS HDTV series.




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

Hot

 

[turbobuick86]

>"Would you change the aspect ratio of your HDTV?"


Yes... in about 3 years. Currently enjoying 4x3. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


Terry

 

[DaMutha]

I have a 16:9, watch 75% regular cable and a ton of sports, and don't regret it even a little bit. I like the stretch mode and movies look so fantastic that I couldn't care less about seeing 4:3 material in its original ratio. And I don't have any bars on 1:85 material.

 

[trbarry]

I've had my Tosh 4:3 RPTV for about 15 months now and most of the time I'm still glad it's 4:3. I just wish it was one of the newer models that had the easy squeeze feature.


When I was first considering the purchase I thought about a lot of things but mostly decided based upon a metric of $ / square inch. That may be a silly metric but at that time it made it a no-brainer decision for me. I'd still consider that ratio as something to consider today.


In a few years I expect a higher ratio of 16:9 stuff and I'll probably get a 16:9 set at that time.


- Tom


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

Getting started:
HTPC FAQ , DScaler , Xcel's Links .

 

[HammerJoe]

I have a 36" Tv and I'm very unhappy, especially after found out the wonderful world of DVD's. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


So I'm looking to get a bigger set for Xmas, and at this point a 16x9 will be my choice, because I'm told that it is the way for the future. Although I admit that for the same price, getting a 40" widescreen tv instead of at least a 53" 4:3 set which would give a bigger widescreen picture, is kinda of a hard decision to make.


[This message has been edited by HammerJoe (edited 06-12-2001).]

 

[RScogland]

I'd say to keep an open mind to what you think you will watch most during the next five years when making a choice. I got a 4:3 set because I own 200+ movies on tape, and I watch a lot of sports. I only have about 10 DVD's. I am happy most of the time. When watching 2.35/1 DVD's the screen looks embarrassingly small ... to the point where I rarely watch those movies on DVD. The problem with 16:9 (1.78) sets is that 95% of the TV programming is 4:3 (1.33). The 16:9 sets dont really even eliminate the bars on a lot of widescreen material because you still have to deal with the small bars on 1.85 and larger ones on 2.35 (and in a few rare instances even larger ratio) formats. If all local HDTV channels and HBO-HD were showing 16:9 all the time, I could possibly be swayed to think I made the wrong call. We're being conned into thinking that widescreen movies were done for any better reason than to fit more people in the theater, and now we pay the price because there is no good solution (aside from compromising picture quality) to always using all of your screen regardless of what aspect ratio you pick.


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

Rick W. Scogland

My Email: [email protected]


My Home Theater:
http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000169.html

 

[John Whitney]

I've recently bought a 4:3, and have also been very happy with my choice. However, this topic brought a question to mind.


How are anamorphic DVDs output to the TV? Is it specifically put out as a 16:9 signal, or in the exact aspect ratio of the movie?


If it is in the actual ratio (say, 2.35:1), wouldn't a 4:3 TV be better than a 16:9, assuming that 16:9 sets don't do V-compression?


And offtopic, but semi-related:

I've also seen people talking about "spot size", and why V-compression isn't as good as real 16:9 TV's, saying there will be a lot of overlap in the scan lines when you compress the image. However, it seems to me that HDTVs can already display different spot sizes, since they have to output 480 lines AND 1080 lines on the same screen. Can the TV not bump the spot size down to the 1080 size, and paint the screen as necessary with that smaller size to get the 16:9 ratio, with a minimal of overlap?


Just curious,

John Whitney


[This message has been edited by John Whitney (edited 06-13-2001).]

 

[dmbatch]

OK, I'll answer the question.


No, I would not change. I am very happy with the set I bought.


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

Dave B.

ODAT

 

[R8der]

Quote:

Originally posted by John Whitney: How are anamorphic DVDs output to the TV? Is it specifically put out as a 16:9 signal, or in the exact aspect ratio of the movie?

They end up in the exact aspect ratio of the movie.


On the basic question, I've had my 16:9 56" set for almost a year and a half now, and I've never ever regretted my decision. I have really cut back on my network TV viewing habits, almost exclusively watching those shows that are in HD. For the few shows I do watch (ER/Practice/Survivor) that have an OAR of 1.33 (4:3), I use the sets stretch mode. Sure, it looks like crap, but its NTSC 4:3 content in the first place...which is inherently crappy...so what do I care?


Chris

 

[Mike Tripp]

Quote:

Originally posted by John Whitney: How are anamorphic DVDs output to the TV? Is it specifically put out as a 16:9 signal, or in the exact aspect ratio of the movie?

Anamorphic DVD input is scaled and padded with black bars as necessary to fit 4:3 or 16:9, according to the player's user settings, before output. That's why you want to lie to the player and say you have a 16:9 display when you really have a 4:3 set w/"squeeze".

Quote:

If it is in the actual ratio (say, 2.35:1), wouldn't a 4:3 TV be better than a 16:9, assuming that 16:9 sets don't do V-compression?

Obviously not, since the output is not in the movie's aspect(unless it just happens to be 1.33 or 1.78). "Squeeze" is an alternative to the player's normal 4:3 mode method of downscaling 480 lines of image data to a smaller number and then padding with the letterbox lines to get back to 480 to get the right aspect. With the player in 16:9 mode, it really has no idea whether its output is hitting a real 16:9 set or a squeezed 4:3...so the output mix of image and black bar lines are identical in each case to hit the 1.78 target aspect.


What the myriad of displays do with it after that, and which of the alternatives are "better" than others is the subject of thousands of other threads at this site. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif


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

.\\\\ike

 

[gnosys]

Yes.

In fact, I change the aspect ratio of my HDTV set frequently, changing from 4:3 to 16:9 and back. That's why I bought a select-squeeze 4:3!!!!!!!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif

John in VA

 

[ggolamco]

I just switched from 4:3 to 16:9 and I'm very happy. It's much better for DVDs, and I've found that I have gotten used to the somewhat "stretched" look of 4:3 material viewed full screen on 16:9. There's another thread somewhere that discusses this - kind of a trick of the mind I think. After a couple of days, it looked perfectly normal to me http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


Of course, there's always the argument that when (if?) we finally get to the point where 16:9 HDTV is standard broadcast programming, it'd be good to have the 16:9. Of course, by then, we'll be watching 3D holographic images http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif


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

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

 

[MonkeyMafia]

YEs, the mind does adjust to the stretch. I remember vehemently arguing that months ago, and it was a friggin' long thread.


MMAfia

 

[Benji]

I'm very happy with my Mits 16x9 since I only view HD programs, DVD movies and news/sports programs. Prior to getting the 16x9, I basically had the same viewing habits minus the DTV premium movies (except for Starz 520 because of the DD 5.1). I watched mostly DVDs then, and they definately look better in 16x9. I guess, the only right answer here is determined by what you do or don't watch. Someone that watches almost entirely NTSC program material would obviously be happy with a 4x3 monitor.


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

 

[HammerJoe]

If someone is looking to get a new set, should also be looking into the future so basically in a couple years down the road the set will still make him happy... So I guess it resumes to a 16X9 set.... Question is will there be widescreen set with aspect 2:35 in the future.

 

[JPF]

I'm happy with my 16X9. When I watch sports, the various

aspect ratios work for me, and when I watch network tv,

which is rare, the bars in 4X3 mode are fine. The

biggest return for me is DVD movies; these just blow away everything. I'm looking at STB's now, ramping up for

HDTV football this fall. No regrets with my choice.

 

[Rgb]

re: "Question is will there be widescreen set with aspect 2:35 in the future."


Why, yes! It's called a digital front projector with a Panamorph 2 or ISCO 2.35 lens! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif