Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Widescreen or 4:3

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 9:42:55 PM

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

I am planning to buy a new TV and am debating on which one to buy
between KV32HS510 and KV34HS510. The point of confusion is the aspect
ratio. I watch cable as well as movies on DVD with no particular
preference of one over the other. Salesmen at different stores have
pointed to me the fact that 4:3 screens might get obsolete with the
programmes being aired in 16:9 format in the near future. My question
is:

1) If I decide to go for the widescreen version, can 4:3 signals be
transformed to 16:9 on KV34HS510 without being stretched or cropped ?
If yes, do I need to use any special equipment ?

Puneet

More about : widescreen

Anonymous
June 7, 2004 10:59:57 PM

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

In article <4b22298e.0406071642.4daa64cb@posting.google.com>,
pmurgai@realization.com says...
> 1) If I decide to go for the widescreen version, can 4:3 signals be
> transformed to 16:9 on KV34HS510 without being stretched or cropped ?

What you ask is a physical impossibility. A nearly-square shape
cannot be transformed into a rectangle without stretching or
cropping. Perhaps that wasn't the question you meant to ask?
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 2:00:33 AM

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

Puneet Murgai wrote:
> I am planning to buy a new TV and am debating on which one to buy
> between KV32HS510 and KV34HS510. The point of confusion is the aspect
> ratio. I watch cable as well as movies on DVD with no particular
> preference of one over the other. Salesmen at different stores have
> pointed to me the fact that 4:3 screens might get obsolete with the
> programmes being aired in 16:9 format in the near future. My question
> is:
>
> 1) If I decide to go for the widescreen version, can 4:3 signals be
> transformed to 16:9 on KV34HS510 without being stretched or cropped ?

Yes they can. All HD sets can display NTSC material at the native 4:3
aspect ratio. However, the used screen real estate diminishes with a 4:3
image and you run the risk of burn-in on a CRT set.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both:
- The HD set is likely more expensive
- The HD set offers much better resolution with DVDs (no in-box
letterboxing required) and a much larger picture than what you'll see on
a smaller 4:3 set.
- NTSC might look better on the HD set because the set will deinterlace
the signal and display it using progressive scanning.
- The HD set is.. well.. HD ready

if you watch both DVDs and regular NTSC TV about the same and price is
not a concern, I would go for the HD set.





--
David G.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 11:06:50 AM

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

Puneet Murgai wrote:
>
> I am planning to buy a new TV and am debating on which one to buy
> between KV32HS510 and KV34HS510. The point of confusion is the aspect
> ratio. I watch cable as well as movies on DVD with no particular
> preference of one over the other. Salesmen at different stores have
> pointed to me the fact that 4:3 screens might get obsolete with the
> programmes being aired in 16:9 format in the near future. My question
> is:
>
> 1) If I decide to go for the widescreen version, can 4:3 signals be
> transformed to 16:9 on KV34HS510 without being stretched or cropped ?
> If yes, do I need to use any special equipment ?
>
> Puneet

Puneet:

I've owned the Sony 16:9 KV-34HS510 HD set for 8 months now....

It is a very good HDTV set!! Has good line doublers, lots

of rear input options (6), & both good color & good sound.......

Price should be $1799 or so now as production season is moving to
2005 models.....

Hi Def TV requires 16:9 aspect ratio tube for natural viewing of
HiDef

Programming with no gray nor black bars...

Yes, 4:3 programs will have side bars on 16:9 IF you do not use one

of Sony's fine zoom or stretch options on 4:3....

Sony HD TV tube sets are top of the line....

My only concern is: Should U buy a new Sony August 05 model just

coming out or buy a price reduced 34HS510 price reduction model???

HD TV requires the 16:9 tube for superb viewing....

This set does a very nice job of viewing HiDef or regular 4:3
analog TV..
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 11:39:23 AM

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

"Puneet Murgai" <pmurgai@realization.com> wrote in message
news:4b22298e.0406071642.4daa64cb@posting.google.com...
: I am planning to buy a new TV and am debating on which one to buy
: between KV32HS510 and KV34HS510. The point of confusion is the aspect
: ratio. I watch cable as well as movies on DVD with no particular
: preference of one over the other. Salesmen at different stores have
: pointed to me the fact that 4:3 screens might get obsolete with the
: programmes being aired in 16:9 format in the near future. My question
: is:
:

=====================
4:3 screens are already obsolete.
=====================

: 1) If I decide to go for the widescreen version, can 4:3 signals be
: transformed to 16:9 on KV34HS510 without being stretched or cropped ?
: If yes, do I need to use any special equipment ?
:
=======================
4:3 can be watched on a 16:9 TV with no stretching or cropping.
It will retain the 4:3 ratio and have bars on the sides.
========================
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 1:13:05 PM

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

Puneet Murgai wrote:
> I am planning to buy a new TV and am debating on which one to buy
> between KV32HS510 and KV34HS510. The point of confusion is the aspect
> ratio. I watch cable as well as movies on DVD with no particular
> preference of one over the other. Salesmen at different stores have
> pointed to me the fact that 4:3 screens might get obsolete with the
> programmes being aired in 16:9 format in the near future. My question
> is:
>
> 1) If I decide to go for the widescreen version, can 4:3 signals be
> transformed to 16:9 on KV34HS510 without being stretched or cropped ?
> If yes, do I need to use any special equipment ?

I have the KV34HS510, and I love it.

As for displaying a 4:3 on it without cropping or stretching... That
is physically and mathematically impossible.

If you watch 4:3 sources, just use the zoom modes or, as I do, just
keep it on "Normal" and it'll add black bars to the sides of the image
to keep the aspect correct.

For watching widescreen DVDs, this set is fantastic.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 7:44:48 PM

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

"Puneet Murgai" <pmurgai@realization.com> wrote in message
news:4b22298e.0406071642.4daa64cb@posting.google.com...
> I am planning to buy a new TV and am debating on which one to buy
> between KV32HS510 and KV34HS510. The point of confusion is the aspect
> ratio. I watch cable as well as movies on DVD with no particular
> preference of one over the other. Salesmen at different stores have
> pointed to me the fact that 4:3 screens might get obsolete with the
> programmes being aired in 16:9 format in the near future. My question
> is:
>
> 1) If I decide to go for the widescreen version, can 4:3 signals be
> transformed to 16:9 on KV34HS510 without being stretched or cropped ?
> If yes, do I need to use any special equipment ?
>
> Puneet

I have the KV32HS510. A fabulous television. I also have the HD channels
from Dish.
They look incredible on this TV. Although letter boxed, you still get an
image that is 28" tall.

In my small living room it is more than enough. Most of the programming I
watch on Dish is 4:3 and it also looks fantastic on this tube. Besides, it
was the only size that would fit in my entertainment console (wife likes to
close doors on it when not in use). I have absolutely no problem viewing HD
content on this Sony. It is hooked up to Dish's 811 HD stb.

Jim




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 8:23:40 PM

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

I just bought a KV36HS510 and I couldn't be happier. This monster is Sony's
36" 4:3 HD tube set. On a 36" screen, the widecreen area is 33", just 1"
short of the largest widescreen tube available!!! But what the others have
said is true: you need to analyze how much widescreen viewing you will be
doing. I only watch HD or widescreen about 3-5 hours a week, compared to
30-40 hours of SD, so 4:3 was an obvious choice for me (okay, I watch way
too much TV!). Also, when the salesguys say "in the near future", what
does that mean? Later this year or 5 years from now? Again it depends on
your viewing habits. If you go out and buy a Voom dish, or have HD cable,
maybe 16:9 is for you. If you're a cheap-o like me and are just watching
OTA HD and the occasional DVD, it'll probably be SEVERAL years before you
have access to a significant amount of 16:9 programming.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 9:19:58 PM

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

". If you're a cheap-o like me and are just watching
> OTA HD and the occasional DVD, it'll probably be SEVERAL years before you
> have access to a significant amount of 16:9 programming.
>

heh.. buying that Sony hardly makes you a "cheap-o"
Great tube eh?




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 10:50:38 AM

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

>My only concern is: Should U buy a new Sony August 05 model just
>
> coming out or buy a price reduced 34HS510 price reduction model???

AFAIK the 510 isn't being replaced. It's essentially identicle to the XBR model
that Sony produced *prior* to the current KV-34XBR910 and has a very good tube.
So there's no reason to avoid buying one, especially after 05 models have
arrived and 04 variants get a price reduction. I think Philips has got a good
looking set too, and IMO the Philips sets seem to have a better comb filters
than the Sony units - I know that the Crystal Vision VPS-1 uses Philips
hardware. However, I generally like the Sony product better. If you were
looking at the XBR model I'd have some other reccomendations, but they'll be
more expensive than the 510 you're looking at. JVC's 16:9 HD tube seems to be a
great deal but apprently they have a "grain" problem so I dunno.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 10:59:23 AM

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

>But what the others have
>said is true: you need to analyze how much widescreen viewing you will be
>doing. I only watch HD or widescreen about 3-5 hours a week...

What about DVDs? Do you buy them all in fullscreen?

>Also, when the salesguys say "in the near future", what
>does that mean? Later this year or 5 years from now?

The FCC has mandated that all broadcast stations located in the United States
be HD capable and broadcasting a pre-requisite amount of HD content by 2006.
Unless you're planing on replacing your expensive (post-$1,000) HD set in 2
years or less you're probably better off getting a 16:9 unit. By 2006 HDTV
subscriptions should have dropped enough for most people to be able to afford
(even if you cannot currently) and no-cost HD local stations can be had via
terrestrial ATSC antenna and decoder. Plus, you get the benefits of watching
anamorphic DVDs in fullscreen.

>If you're a cheap-o like me and are just watching
>OTA HD and the occasional DVD, it'll probably be SEVERAL years before you
>have access to a significant amount of 16:9 programming.

It really depends. I watch a lot more on DVD than I do via DSS. We have HD
coming into the house via DirecTV but I'm using a standard (non-HD) reciever in
my room. When I replace my analog Wega set with an HDTV this year, I probably
won't buy an HD-capable DirecTV reciever right away. But because I watch so
many DVDs, and because I have a progressive scan DVD player, the set will still
get a ton of use, and I'll be taking advantage of the 16:9 aspect.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 2:26:39 PM

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

Steve Grauman wrote:

>>My only concern is: Should U buy a new Sony August 05 model just
>>
>> coming out or buy a price reduced 34HS510 price reduction model???
>
>
> AFAIK the 510 isn't being replaced. It's essentially identicle to the XBR model
> that Sony produced *prior* to the current KV-34XBR910 and has a very good tube.
> So there's no reason to avoid buying one, especially after 05 models have
> arrived and 04 variants get a price reduction. I think Philips has got a good
> looking set too, and IMO the Philips sets seem to have a better comb filters
> than the Sony units - I know that the Crystal Vision VPS-1 uses Philips
> hardware. However, I generally like the Sony product better. If you were
> looking at the XBR model I'd have some other reccomendations, but they'll be
> more expensive than the 510 you're looking at. JVC's 16:9 HD tube seems to be a
> great deal but apprently they have a "grain" problem so I dunno.

I have the 34" widescreen Sony 34HS510. It is a solid television. It
just feels nice, apart from having a spectacular image. There is a
lot of attention to detail that other companies don't seem to put in a
piece of equipment that you're paying $1700+ for. If I'm paying that
much, I don't want it to feel obviously plastic and cheap. A lot
nicer than any Philips or Samsung, that's for sure.

Just my humble opinion.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 5:17:54 PM

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

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040609025923.09839.00000430@mb-m01.aol.com...
>>
> >Also, when the salesguys say "in the near future", what
> >does that mean? Later this year or 5 years from now?
>
> The FCC has mandated that all broadcast stations located in the United
States
> be HD capable and broadcasting a pre-requisite amount of HD content by
2006.
>

There is NO FCC requirement for ANY HD, only digital.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 10:05:38 PM

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

"Mike Rush" <miker@avenuenospamcable.com> wrote in message
news:0hKxc.295$NU5.9485@eagle.america.net...
: "Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
: news:20040609025923.09839.00000430@mb-m01.aol.com...
: >>
: > >Also, when the salesguys say "in the near future", what
: > >does that mean? Later this year or 5 years from now?
: >
: > The FCC has mandated that all broadcast stations located in the
United
: States
: > be HD capable and broadcasting a pre-requisite amount of HD content
by
: 2006.
: >
:
: There is NO FCC requirement for ANY HD, only digital.
:
=================
But 16:9 seems to be the future even for SD.
================
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 10:54:29 PM

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

oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message news:<20040609025923.09839.00000430@mb-m01.aol.com>...

> >Also, when the salesguys say "in the near future", what
> >does that mean? Later this year or 5 years from now?
>
> The FCC has mandated that all broadcast stations located in the United States
> be HD capable and broadcasting a pre-requisite amount of HD content by 2006.

I thought the FCC's mandate only require digital broadcast. Are you
sure the stations cannot pump out SD in 4:3 digitally?

If you only watch off the air stations at prime time, then HDTV
contents are quite decent. However, if you consider all programs on
the cable channels around the clock, HDTV content is just a tiny
fraction. It is simply not enough.
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 1:58:14 AM

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

>There is NO FCC requirement for ANY HD, only digital.

My mistake, you're correct.
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 11:11:45 AM

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

In article <ee67c74a.0406091754.321a1d48@posting.google.com>,
caloonese@yahoo.com says...
> oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message news:<20040609025923.09839.00000430@mb-m01.aol.com>...
>
> > >Also, when the salesguys say "in the near future", what
> > >does that mean? Later this year or 5 years from now?
> >
> > The FCC has mandated that all broadcast stations located in the United States
> > be HD capable and broadcasting a pre-requisite amount of HD content by 2006.
>
> I thought the FCC's mandate only require digital broadcast. Are you
> sure the stations cannot pump out SD in 4:3 digitally?

You are correct. The digital transition is just that, a transition
from analog modulation to digital modulation. There is no
requirement whatsoever that a station which has converted to digital
modulation transmit anything more than a single 480i image, now or in
the future.

/Chris, AA6SQ
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 6:25:47 PM

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

I love it. I've never been a Sony consumer-product fan (although their pro
gear is great), but there's such a limited selection of large HD 4:3 tubes
and I couldn't find the Panasonic I wanted. Thank goodness, because this
bad boy blows me away. $1291 at Best Buy. Not too shabby. Add $100 for an
HD set-top box from E-bay, and $25 for a UHF Yagi, and I'm in HD heaven.
Anonymous
June 11, 2004 3:03:58 PM

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

I have a 54" 4:3 HD set and I'm happy with it. For me, there is way too much
4:3 on tv to support the idea that everyone should buy a 16:9 set. The set
still displays a widescreen picture just fine.
Anonymous
June 11, 2004 9:30:27 PM

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

At this moment, it is arguable whether the glass is half empty or half
full because the HD programming is insufficient. But the TV
programming is filled with more and more HD shows, then your glass
will appear more and more empty.

Given that the 4:3 HDTV are cheaper, it is a very attractive
alternative.

"John D" <johndNOSPAM393@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<10cjlod8q7s1s59@corp.supernews.com>...
> I have a 54" 4:3 HD set and I'm happy with it. For me, there is way too much
> 4:3 on tv to support the idea that everyone should buy a 16:9 set. The set
> still displays a widescreen picture just fine.
June 12, 2004 5:13:27 AM

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

"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee67c74a.0406111630.b975b5d@posting.google.com...
> At this moment, it is arguable whether the glass is half empty or half
> full because the HD programming is insufficient. But the TV
> programming is filled with more and more HD shows, then your glass
> will appear more and more empty.
>
> Given that the 4:3 HDTV are cheaper, it is a very attractive
> alternative.

There is some (small) sacrifice in hdtv quality when a 4:3 does HDTV,
though.


Tom
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 1:40:58 AM

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

Richard C. wrote:

> =================
> But 16:9 seems to be the future even for SD.
> ================

Indeed, the UK has had widescreen on SD for several years now. I think
you would be mad to buy a 4:3 tv these days. DVD alone makes it worth
having 16:9 and HD even more so.
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 2:42:18 AM

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

"Thomas" <tom@nowhere.ca> wrote in message
news:XMsyc.3$NvZ.2@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> There is some (small) sacrifice in hdtv quality when a 4:3 does HDTV,
> though.

None that I know of, as long as the 4:3 HDTV knows how to squeeze all 1080
scan lines into the 16:9 letterbox. I think most recent models know how to
do this.
June 14, 2004 7:34:49 AM

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

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:eL4zc.23993$eH1.10849256@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> "Thomas" <tom@nowhere.ca> wrote in message
> news:XMsyc.3$NvZ.2@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > There is some (small) sacrifice in hdtv quality when a 4:3 does HDTV,
> > though.
>
> None that I know of, as long as the 4:3 HDTV knows how to squeeze all 1080
> scan lines into the 16:9 letterbox. I think most recent models know how
to
> do this.

It's the compressing (squeezing) of the scan lines that *cause* the
problems.

Scan lines cannot be optimized for 4:3 and 16:9 so the widescreen will
suffer from overlap and a fuzzier picture.

Tom
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 7:51:07 AM

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

>DVD alone makes it worth
>having 16:9 and HD even more so.

Amen.
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 1:41:03 PM

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

"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee67c74a.0406091754.321a1d48@posting.google.com...
: oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message
news:<20040609025923.09839.00000430@mb-m01.aol.com>...
:
: > >Also, when the salesguys say "in the near future", what
: > >does that mean? Later this year or 5 years from now?
: >
: > The FCC has mandated that all broadcast stations located in the
United States
: > be HD capable and broadcasting a pre-requisite amount of HD content
by 2006.
:
: I thought the FCC's mandate only require digital broadcast. Are you
: sure the stations cannot pump out SD in 4:3 digitally?

==================
Of course they can.
It is done daily.
====================
:
: If you only watch off the air stations at prime time, then HDTV
: contents are quite decent. However, if you consider all programs on
: the cable channels around the clock, HDTV content is just a tiny
: fraction. It is simply not enough.

=================
Things change................
!