Widescreen or 4:3

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
25 answers Last reply
More about widescreen
  1. 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?
  2. 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.
  3. 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..
  4. 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.
    ========================
  5. 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.
  6. 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! =-----
  7. 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.
  8. 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! =-----
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
    ================
  14. 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.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

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

    My mistake, you're correct.
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

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

    Amen.
  25. 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................
Ask a new question

Read More

HDTV TV Home Theatre