Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

OK, a new 16x9 or a new 4x3 HDTV?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 11:58:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Decisions decisions. The max size that will fit in our entertainment
center is a 32" tv. Sony has a 32" 4x3 HDTV and a 30" 16x9 HDTV that
will fit. So the question is, which one? I understand about the
different aspect ratios of DVD's etc so this is not a "how come I still
get black bars on my 16x9 tv question". It's more of a utilitarian
question. We don't have cable or sat but may get a terrestial only
tuner for what little OTA broadcasting there is right now. However,
other than the aspect thing on a 4x3, would it still be a good
investment? There is about a $300 difference between the two which is
about the cost of a decent terrestial tuner. I've watched and listened
to both of them side by side with analog and HD broadcasting and I
can't really tell the difference. Thanks.

--
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.

My address has been anti-spammed.
Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.

More about : 16x9 4x3 hdtv

Anonymous
April 19, 2004 11:58:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Otto Pylot" <otto@bogus.address.invalid> wrote in message
news:190420041755189803%otto@bogus.address.invalid...
: Decisions decisions. The max size that will fit in our entertainment
: center is a 32" tv. Sony has a 32" 4x3 HDTV and a 30" 16x9 HDTV that
: will fit. So the question is, which one? I understand about the
: different aspect ratios of DVD's etc so this is not a "how come I
still
: get black bars on my 16x9 tv question". It's more of a utilitarian
: question. We don't have cable or sat but may get a terrestial only
: tuner for what little OTA broadcasting there is right now. However,
: other than the aspect thing on a 4x3, would it still be a good
: investment? There is about a $300 difference between the two which is
: about the cost of a decent terrestial tuner. I've watched and listened
: to both of them side by side with analog and HD broadcasting and I
: can't really tell the difference. Thanks.
:
=================
The simple, short answer is that buying a 4:3 HDTV is a mistake.
HD is 16:9.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 1:24:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Otto Pylot" <otto@bogus.address.invalid> wrote in message
news:190420041755189803%otto@bogus.address.invalid...
> Decisions decisions. The max size that will fit in our entertainment
> center is a 32" tv. Sony has a 32" 4x3 HDTV and a 30" 16x9 HDTV that
> will fit. So the question is, which one?

IMHO the non-technical answer is, do you believe in the future or the past.
I think the future is 16x9, but it's not quite here yet but coming slowly.
Also, do you watch a lot of dvds (and if not why not?). I watch a lot of
dvd's, especially concert dvd's which are lots of fun on a home theater, and
I couldn't imagine watching them on a 4x3 set. The aficionados here will
likely tell you 16x9. Good luck whatever you choose.

Since technology is changing it's really hard to choose something nowadays
and be completely happy and have no problems. For example I don't have
enough HD content. You need to just try to be content with your decision
whatever it is. Having said that - go with the 16x9.

I understand about the
> different aspect ratios of DVD's etc so this is not a "how come I still
> get black bars on my 16x9 tv question". It's more of a utilitarian
> question. We don't have cable or sat but may get a terrestial only
> tuner for what little OTA broadcasting there is right now. However,
> other than the aspect thing on a 4x3, would it still be a good
> investment? There is about a $300 difference between the two which is
> about the cost of a decent terrestial tuner. I've watched and listened
> to both of them side by side with analog and HD broadcasting and I
> can't really tell the difference. Thanks.
>
> --
> Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.
>
> My address has been anti-spammed.
> Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 5:45:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 19 Apr 2004 19:58:18 -0500, Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.invalid>
wrote:

>Decisions decisions. The max size that will fit in our entertainment
>center is a 32" tv. Sony has a 32" 4x3 HDTV and a 30" 16x9 HDTV that
>will fit. So the question is, which one? I understand about the
>different aspect ratios of DVD's etc so this is not a "how come I still
>get black bars on my 16x9 tv question". It's more of a utilitarian
>question. We don't have cable or sat but may get a terrestial only
>tuner for what little OTA broadcasting there is right now. However,
>other than the aspect thing on a 4x3, would it still be a good
>investment? There is about a $300 difference between the two which is
>about the cost of a decent terrestial tuner. I've watched and listened
>to both of them side by side with analog and HD broadcasting and I
>can't really tell the difference. Thanks.


16:9 is the way to go, look forward not backward. Also I would
seriously think about ditching the entertainment center and get a
bigger tv, that'll really make the 16:9 worth it.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 12:59:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

anyone that buys a 4:3 HDTV is stupid


"Richard C." <post-age @spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:40847e6f$0$4270$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Otto Pylot" <otto@bogus.address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:190420041755189803%otto@bogus.address.invalid...
> : Decisions decisions. The max size that will fit in our entertainment
> : center is a 32" tv. Sony has a 32" 4x3 HDTV and a 30" 16x9 HDTV that
> : will fit. So the question is, which one? I understand about the
> : different aspect ratios of DVD's etc so this is not a "how come I
> still
> : get black bars on my 16x9 tv question". It's more of a utilitarian
> : question. We don't have cable or sat but may get a terrestial only
> : tuner for what little OTA broadcasting there is right now. However,
> : other than the aspect thing on a 4x3, would it still be a good
> : investment? There is about a $300 difference between the two which is
> : about the cost of a decent terrestial tuner. I've watched and listened
> : to both of them side by side with analog and HD broadcasting and I
> : can't really tell the difference. Thanks.
> :
> =================
> The simple, short answer is that buying a 4:3 HDTV is a mistake.
> HD is 16:9.
>
>
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 1:03:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

PROS OF 16:9
-------------------------
- All HD content is 16x9 and will fill out the entire screen

- Many DVD movies are 16x9 (1:85:1), those that are wider still look
much better on a 16:9 set.

- Since HD is 16:9 native, when you buy a 4:3 set you are betting
against HD technology and you have to watch all up converted programs
with a black border around all sides, you'll watch HD programming with
top and bottom black (or grey) bars.

- You can always watch 4:3 content in it's native format with
black/grey bars to the left and right, you also have the option of
filling out your 16:9 screen with a zoom/stretch mode.


PROS OF 4:3
-------------------------
- Over 95% of all your basic cable and sat programming is non-HD and
will be broadcast in 4:3 native. (no one's sure when or how this will
change due to bandwidth limitations)

- Most VHS tapes are 4:3






"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote in message news:<74mdnfcE6fBe5hndRVn-jw@comcast.com>...
> "Otto Pylot" <otto@bogus.address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:190420041755189803%otto@bogus.address.invalid...
> > Decisions decisions. The max size that will fit in our entertainment
> > center is a 32" tv. Sony has a 32" 4x3 HDTV and a 30" 16x9 HDTV that
> > will fit. So the question is, which one?
>
> IMHO the non-technical answer is, do you believe in the future or the past.
> I think the future is 16x9, but it's not quite here yet but coming slowly.
> Also, do you watch a lot of dvds (and if not why not?). I watch a lot of
> dvd's, especially concert dvd's which are lots of fun on a home theater, and
> I couldn't imagine watching them on a 4x3 set. The aficionados here will
> likely tell you 16x9. Good luck whatever you choose.
>
> Since technology is changing it's really hard to choose something nowadays
> and be completely happy and have no problems. For example I don't have
> enough HD content. You need to just try to be content with your decision
> whatever it is. Having said that - go with the 16x9.
>
> I understand about the
> > different aspect ratios of DVD's etc so this is not a "how come I still
> > get black bars on my 16x9 tv question". It's more of a utilitarian
> > question. We don't have cable or sat but may get a terrestial only
> > tuner for what little OTA broadcasting there is right now. However,
> > other than the aspect thing on a 4x3, would it still be a good
> > investment? There is about a $300 difference between the two which is
> > about the cost of a decent terrestial tuner. I've watched and listened
> > to both of them side by side with analog and HD broadcasting and I
> > can't really tell the difference. Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.
> >
> > My address has been anti-spammed.
> > Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 2:09:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

First off, let me say that I am a 16x9 supporter and under most
circumstances would choose that route.

But with your example, I would likely go the 4x3 route.

Here is a site I like to use to compare 4x3 and 16x9 screen sizes.

http://tinyurl.com/2x6k5

A 4x3 image on your choices:

* 32 in 4x3 television would have a 32 inch 4x3 image (or 491.52 sq
in)
* 30 in 16x9 television would have a 19.6 inch 4x3 image (or 288.12
sq in)

The 32 inch 4x3 tv would yield a 70% larger 4x3 image!!!

Now comparing a 16x9 image:

* 32 inch 4x3 television would have a 29.4 diagonal (or 368.64 sq
in)
* 30 inch 16x9 television would have a 30 inch diagonal (or 383.67 sq
in)

The 30 inch 16x9 would have only 4.1% larger 16x9 image.

You might consider 'test driving' each of your choices!


--
KyDave
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KyDave's Profile: 1272
View this thread: 12346
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 7:06:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"KyDave" <KyDave.150lyy@news.satelliteguys.us> wrote in message
news:KyDave.150lyy@news.satelliteguys.us...
> http://tinyurl.com/2x6k5
....
> The 32 inch 4x3 tv would yield a 70% larger 4x3 image!!!
....
> The 30 inch 16x9 would have only 4.1% larger 16x9 image.

Excellent reference site, clearly (to my mind) illustrating the superiority
of a 32" 4:3 HDTV over a 30" 16:9 HDTV!

From the same site, a 36" 4:3 HDTV has a similar advantage over a 34" 16:9
HDTV.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 12:47:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Otto Pylot" <otto@bogus.address.invalid> wrote in message
news:190420041755189803%otto@bogus.address.invalid...
> Decisions decisions. The max size that will fit in our entertainment
> center is a 32" tv. Sony has a 32" 4x3 HDTV and a 30" 16x9 HDTV that
> will fit. So the question is, which one? I understand about the
> different aspect ratios of DVD's etc so this is not a "how come I still
> get black bars on my 16x9 tv question". It's more of a utilitarian
> question. We don't have cable or sat but may get a terrestial only
> tuner for what little OTA broadcasting there is right now. However,
> other than the aspect thing on a 4x3, would it still be a good
> investment? There is about a $300 difference between the two which is
> about the cost of a decent terrestial tuner. I've watched and listened
> to both of them side by side with analog and HD broadcasting and I
> can't really tell the difference. Thanks.
>
> --
> Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.
>
> My address has been anti-spammed.
> Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.

Another issue raised here is the "entertainment unit" question. I don't
mean to be misogynistic but many women like the look of these, but I thing
they represent a real problem to the home theater enthusiast. They limit
screen size and create wiring headaches. The answer is a TV stand only -
which your wife may not like. Also lots of visible wiring, which your wife
will hate, but show the complexity and hard work you've put into your home
theater. My theater is in my basement so I just have a stand and lots of
visible wires, but I can turn up U2's Elevation concert to huge decibels
before I get complaints. You can feel the bass deep inside your body. My
wife wouldn't accept this in my family room.

Are you single? Can you bribe your wife with a diamond bracelet? Can you
sell the entertainment center on EBAY? Good luck.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 2:35:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aef5985766b9cb98b3a7@news.nabs.net...
> Right, your whole point was to ignore the issue of picture quality.

*No*, the picture quality is *exactly* the same. *Both* are high-definition
sets, displaying the same source with the exact same pixel resolution. My
32" 4:3 HDTV, when displaying 16:9 source material, is *exactly* equivalent
to a 29.4" 16:9 HDTV. The original poster was asking about 16:9 HDTVs vs.
4:3 HDTVs.

> So, I suspect that your "great" NTSC on your 32" isn't all that great
after
> all. Meanwhile, if you sit more than about 5 feet away, you will lose the
> advantage of HD's great resolution, because you won't be able to see the
> details on a screen that small.

Look at my post again. I am actually referring to ATSC-SD, not NTSC. All
major channels in the Chicago area offer at least ATSC-SD, with HD in prime
time. My ATSC-SD *does* look good even within a few feet of the screen; and
of course, the HD is downright breathtaking.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 3:43:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <2sednYz0nbYKWRjdRVn-iQ@comcast.com>, larrylook
<noemail@email.com> wrote:

> "Otto Pylot" <otto@bogus.address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:190420041755189803%otto@bogus.address.invalid...
>
<snip>

> Another issue raised here is the "entertainment unit" question. I don't
> mean to be misogynistic but many women like the look of these,

<snip>

I guess that classifies me as a woman because the way we have our
family room situated, the entertainment center really brings it all
together, which I designed. Part of the problem I see is that we don't
live for our television. It's just entertainment, not our life. So
having the biggest and baddest is not that important to. The old tv is
on it's last legs so a new one is in order and HD seemed the way to go.

> Are you single? Can you bribe your wife with a diamond bracelet? Can you
> sell the entertainment center on EBAY? Good luck.

No, I am not single but she is getting diamonds next month <grin>.
>
>

--
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.

My address has been anti-spammed.
Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 7:37:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aefa48478816fc598b3a9@news.nabs.net...
> ...when view 16:9 HD material, yes. But, when viewing 4:3 SD material,
> it is *larger* than the HD, thus exaggerating the difference in quality.
> You want to watch HD even more because SD is that much worse.

SD (e.g., our WCIU) looks OK on a 32" screen from a few feet away. I have
absolutely no desire to deliberately make it smaller! But I do prefer the
alternative that most of our other channels take--upconversion to 1080i. I
can then decide for myself whether to zoom the resulting 4-banded picture in
order to fill the screen.

> In addition, you lose most of the advantage of HD because the smaller
> picture doesn't show as much detail.

The point here is that a 32" 4:3 HDTV acts as a 29.4" 16:9 HDTV. The
difference between 29.4" and 30" is rather minor.

> This is just avoiding the point. There are no "cable" channels currently
> available that even come close to 4-5Mbps, which is about the minimum I

People like me have no need of cable at all, and never have. Chicago has a
large set of cost-free broadcast channels; I have no desire to pay $40/mo
for the *lower* picture quality of cable TV. My 21-year-old outside antenna
is perfectly capable of picking up all the channels broadcast from downtown
Chicago, 35 miles away.

> >
All
> > major channels in the Chicago area offer at least ATSC-SD, with HD in
prime
> > time.
> So, your "ATSC-SD" is actually upconvert to 1080i in most cases.

Exactly. When I said "at least," I meant 480i *or better*. When I said "HD
in prime time," I meant that the most important channels (essentially, the
old VHF channels) often broadcast true HD programs in prime time rather than
upconversions. Here are the screen resolutions each station broadcasts:

480i - WLS-2, WTTW-2, WYCC, WCIU, WCPX, WSNS, WYIN, WXFT, WJYS, WGBO
480p - WFLD
720p - WLS-1
1080i - WBBM, WMAQ, WGN, WTTW-1, WPWR

So the HD (or at least upconverted) channels are mostly those that were
traditionally VHF: WBBM/CBS (old 2), WMAQ/NBC (old 5), WLS/ABC (old 7),
WGN/WB (old 9), WTTW/PBS (old 11), and WPWR/UPN (old 50).

> > My ATSC-SD *does* look good even within a few feet of the screen;
and
> > of course, the HD is downright breathtaking.
>
> If you were actually watching 480i SD, you'd see it was only slightly
> better than a really good OTA analog (and *not* as good as 480i DVD).

The many 480i stations I mention above look good enough. As I mentioned
earlier, I would not want my TV set to be any smaller!
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 7:13:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aefa48478816fc598b3a9@news.nabs.net...
>
> If you were actually watching 480i SD, you'd see it was only slightly
> better than a really good OTA analog (and *not* as good as 480i DVD).

Just curious: why do you say that ATSC 480i would not look as good as DVD?
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 7:23:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Otto Pylot" <otto@bogus.address.invalid> wrote in message
news:190420041755189803%otto@bogus.address.invalid...
> Decisions decisions. The max size that will fit in our entertainment
> center is a 32" tv. Sony has a 32" 4x3 HDTV and a 30" 16x9 HDTV that
> will fit. So the question is, which one? I understand about the
> different aspect ratios of DVD's etc so this is not a "how come I still
> get black bars on my 16x9 tv question". It's more of a utilitarian
> question. We don't have cable or sat but may get a terrestial only
> tuner for what little OTA broadcasting there is right now. However,
> other than the aspect thing on a 4x3, would it still be a good
> investment? There is about a $300 difference between the two which is
> about the cost of a decent terrestial tuner. I've watched and listened
> to both of them side by side with analog and HD broadcasting and I
> can't really tell the difference. Thanks.

You're right in the range where the choice isn't so clear. Anything under
30" and I'd say get 4:3. Anying significantly above 30", and I'd say get
16:9. It's hard to say which you'd be happiest with in the 30-32" range. Of
course, in 5 years or more 16:9 will be preferable, but it may not be just
yet, and it's difficult to say how long it will take before a lot of cable
programming goes widescreen.

It kind of depends on what you watch - those who watch mostly primetime
network programming, DVDs, or HD movie channels like HBO or Showtime
probably find they have a great deal of widescreen programming to watch
right now. Those who tend to watch news, sports, educational programming,
and generally a lot of cable/satellite channels may not see most of them in
widescreen for several more years, at least.

It also depends on how long you expect to keep your TV. If the TV is
expensive enough that you can't see replacing it in less than 10 years or
so, then getting 16:9 now may be a better investment. But if you expect that
you could replace it within 5 years, it may make more sense to look at 4:3
for now (again, depending on what you tend to watch).
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 2:03:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Lawrence G. Mayka (lgmayka000@ameritech.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Exactly. When I said "at least," I meant 480i *or better*.

Again, ATSC at 1080i isn't SD, yet you were trying to make people think
that "SD" looked good on your set, when you generally don't watch it at all.

> > If you were actually watching 480i SD, you'd see it was only slightly
> > better than a really good OTA analog (and *not* as good as 480i DVD).
>
> The many 480i stations I mention above look good enough.

Unfortunately, you are one in about 200 million who don't care about anything
but ATSC. NTSC in various forms is still important (and will be for quite
a while), and minimizing the ugliness is one of the advantages of a 16:9 HDTV.

--
Jeff Rife | "What are you looking at? You're laborers; you
SPAM bait: | should be laboring. That's what you get for
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | not having an education."
uce@ftc.gov | -- Professor Hathaway, "Real Genius"
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 2:10:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew Vaughan (matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > If you were actually watching 480i SD, you'd see it was only slightly
> > better than a really good OTA analog (and *not* as good as 480i DVD).
>
> Just curious: why do you say that ATSC 480i would not look as good as DVD?

5 Mbps is the top end for ATSC 480i in practice (and only in a very few
cases...my local PAX runs about 2.5Mbps for each of its 6 sub-channels),
while it is near the bottom end in DVD.

DVD gets multi-pass compression and tricky scenes can be given special
encoding parameters. ATSC gets one-pass compression.

DVD from film generally has only 24 frames per second encoded with repeat
flags...this increases the usable bits per frame. ATSC almost *never*
gets this treatment.

DVD usually has a pristine master. OTA 480i ATSC can get sourced from
who knows what connection inside the studio.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Personal/Jeff/Movies/OwnedMovies.ht...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 7:28:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1af0f38efc1f404998b3af@news.nabs.net...
> Matthew Vaughan (matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com) wrote in
alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > > If you were actually watching 480i SD, you'd see it was only slightly
> > > better than a really good OTA analog (and *not* as good as 480i DVD).
> >
> > Just curious: why do you say that ATSC 480i would not look as good as
DVD?
>
> 5 Mbps is the top end for ATSC 480i in practice (and only in a very few
> cases...my local PAX runs about 2.5Mbps for each of its 6 sub-channels),
> while it is near the bottom end in DVD.
>
> DVD gets multi-pass compression and tricky scenes can be given special
> encoding parameters. ATSC gets one-pass compression.
>
> DVD from film generally has only 24 frames per second encoded with repeat
> flags...this increases the usable bits per frame. ATSC almost *never*
> gets this treatment.
>
> DVD usually has a pristine master. OTA 480i ATSC can get sourced from
> who knows what connection inside the studio.

Thanks, that all makes sense.
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 9:07:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I ditched my entertainment center, bought a 42" plasma and mounted it on the
wall, and have never looked back Sure cleared out my living room! Having
watched my plasma for about three months now, I would never consider buying
another 4:3 TV again. When I decide to replace my other two TV sets, I will
probably go with smaller 16:9 LCD sets (or whatever newer panel technology
is available). 16:9 is the way to go.

"Spunky Jones" <spunkyjones@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:700980h71f1lqqtr9va6m2jrjhcuu5a5ai@4ax.com...
> On 19 Apr 2004 19:58:18 -0500, Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Decisions decisions. The max size that will fit in our entertainment
> >center is a 32" tv. Sony has a 32" 4x3 HDTV and a 30" 16x9 HDTV that
> >will fit. So the question is, which one? I understand about the
> >different aspect ratios of DVD's etc so this is not a "how come I still
> >get black bars on my 16x9 tv question". It's more of a utilitarian
> >question. We don't have cable or sat but may get a terrestial only
> >tuner for what little OTA broadcasting there is right now. However,
> >other than the aspect thing on a 4x3, would it still be a good
> >investment? There is about a $300 difference between the two which is
> >about the cost of a decent terrestial tuner. I've watched and listened
> >to both of them side by side with analog and HD broadcasting and I
> >can't really tell the difference. Thanks.
>
>
> 16:9 is the way to go, look forward not backward. Also I would
> seriously think about ditching the entertainment center and get a
> bigger tv, that'll really make the 16:9 worth it.
>
!