16x9 to 4x3 Comparison Question

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

"Rich Mosar" <richmosar@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1640daf7.0406041510.342812c6@posting.google.com...
> What is the formula, or can someone please post a conversion chart for
> determining what 4x3 screen size a 16x9 screen size is comparable to.
>
> For example, what 4x3 screen size would a 30" widescreen TV be
> comparable to? I'm guessing it's something like 25" or 26" inches,
> but knowing the formula would help. I own a 27" 4x3 already and
> wouldn't want to take a "step down" in screen size by buying a 30"
> widescreen when most TV programs are still shown in a 4x3 mode.

Real close to what you stated. For a 16x9 to have the same height
as a 25 inch 4x3 TV, it would need to be 30.6 inches.

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

Rich Mosar wrote:
> What is the formula, or can someone please post a conversion chart for
> determining what 4x3 screen size a 16x9 screen size is comparable to.
>
> For example, what 4x3 screen size would a 30" widescreen TV be
> comparable to? I'm guessing it's something like 25" or 26" inches,
> but knowing the formula would help. I own a 27" 4x3 already and
> wouldn't want to take a "step down" in screen size by buying a 30"
> widescreen when most TV programs are still shown in a 4x3 mode.

A good question because I bet a lot of people buying widescreen TVs
don't think about what the 9x16 diagonal size implies for viewing 4:3
material. You have already have some answers, but this is a good time to
put your grade school geometry skills to use!

If you remember the old 3-4-5 ratio that was often used for triangles
to simplify calculations:

4:3 TV => 3*3 + 4*4 = 5*5 so for a 4:3 TV:
Height = 0.6 * diagonal; Width = 0.8 * diagonal

9:16 TV => 9*9 + 16*16 = square root(337) = 18.358 so for a 16:9
Widescreen: Height = 0.4903 * diagonal; Width = 0.8716 * diagonal.

So to get the same height in a widescreen that you get in a 4:3
Height Ratio = 0.6 / 0.4903 = 1.224 that was already posted.

If you have a 4:3 27", you need a (27 * 1.224) = 33" widescreen to get
the same height for 4:3 material. The 16:9 widescreen however helps out
a lot with 2.35 aspect ratio movies on DVD with a height of 9.2" on the
4:3 27" TV versus 12.2" on the 33" widescreen. I have a 10 year old 27"
CRT and have been running these numbers myself which is why I'm looking
at flat screen or rear projection starting at 37" and up so I am at
least moving up nicely in screen size.

I hope this math stuff was not too boring...

Alan Figgatt

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

When displaying 4:3 content on a 30" 16:9 set it will comparable to a
24" TV. That's if you view in native aspect ratio and allow the set to
put up black bars to the left and right side as fillers when watching
4:3 content.

You should know that HD is broadcast always broadcast in 16:9 (1080i
or 720p) format and if you buy a 4:3 HDTV you will get black bars on
the top and bottom (for all HD content) and you'll black bars on the
left and right as well for upconverted HD content. For example, CBS
tapes Survivor in 4:3, so for the HD broadcast they upconvert the 4:3
signal to 1080i (which is always 16:9) so they have to add the black
bars to the left and right of the image and send the signal out this
way. The 4:3 HDTV recieves the broadcast with the bars as part of the
feed so it has no idea how to remove them and also since the HD is in
High Definition mode it will also add bars to the top and bottom. The
result is a 4:3 program being displayed inside a surrounding black box
on a 4:3 native screen. There are zoom modes on some models that help
with this, but when you zoom you degrade the picture quality. So
you're left with the option of watching the NTSC signal (which looks
horrible) and letting it fill out the full screen.

Point is HDTV is 16:9 (widescreen) by design and by spec. Buying a 4:3
HDTV has very few advantages, most of which are illusions and not true
advantages, the only true advantage of 4:3 is that it allows you to
fill out the entire screen at proper aspect when watching analog
television. Why hold on to the past, why bet against future
technology? Most 16:9 sets come with a zoom/stretch combination that
leaves the enter of the image alone and slowly stretches out the
sides, it takes some getting use to, but it's not too bad. When
watching upconverted content I hadly notice the black bars.

-James





richmosar@aol.com (Rich Mosar) wrote in message news:<1640daf7.0406041510.342812c6@posting.google.com>...
> What is the formula, or can someone please post a conversion chart for
> determining what 4x3 screen size a 16x9 screen size is comparable to.
>
> For example, what 4x3 screen size would a 30" widescreen TV be
> comparable to? I'm guessing it's something like 25" or 26" inches,
> but knowing the formula would help. I own a 27" 4x3 already and
> wouldn't want to take a "step down" in screen size by buying a 30"
> widescreen when most TV programs are still shown in a 4x3 mode.

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

"JamesMason" <jmason@funnydelight.co.uk> wrote in message
news4e30081.0406051047.23a1e1b9@posting.google.com...
> on a 4:3 native screen. There are zoom modes on some models that help
> with this, but when you zoom you degrade the picture quality. So

No, it doesn't--at least not on better sets like the Zenith C32V37. This
model applies its usual upconversion algorithm when zooming. When the
C32V37 zooms a windowboxed picture to remove the windowbox, the result has
all the quality that the broadcaster sent, with upconversion/interpolation
to avoid any pixellation. The quality is typically considerably better than
the corresponding analog channel, though obviously not comparable to a
genuine HD broadcast. The zoomed picture exactly takes up the entire 4:3
screen, without any black or dropped bands.

> technology? Most 16:9 sets come with a zoom/stretch combination that
> leaves the enter of the image alone and slowly stretches out the
> sides, it takes some getting use to, but it's not too bad. When

Artificial stretching is essentially a funhouse-mirror effect.

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

When you use the strech mode using the cablebox configuration for 4:1 the
picture looks great!
Does anyone know when the recordable HD digital box will be coming out for
cablevision HD digital boxes of the bronx? {{RDS}}
"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:9tPwc.20624$eH1.9292492@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> "JamesMason" <jmason@funnydelight.co.uk> wrote in message
> news4e30081.0406051047.23a1e1b9@posting.google.com...
> > on a 4:3 native screen. There are zoom modes on some models that help
> > with this, but when you zoom you degrade the picture quality. So
>
> No, it doesn't--at least not on better sets like the Zenith C32V37. This
> model applies its usual upconversion algorithm when zooming. When the
> C32V37 zooms a windowboxed picture to remove the windowbox, the result has
> all the quality that the broadcaster sent, with upconversion/interpolation
> to avoid any pixellation. The quality is typically considerably better
than
> the corresponding analog channel, though obviously not comparable to a
> genuine HD broadcast. The zoomed picture exactly takes up the entire 4:3
> screen, without any black or dropped bands.
>
> > technology? Most 16:9 sets come with a zoom/stretch combination that
> > leaves the enter of the image alone and slowly stretches out the
> > sides, it takes some getting use to, but it's not too bad. When
>
> Artificial stretching is essentially a funhouse-mirror effect.
>
>