Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Should I go 16:9 or 4:3

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 2:32:25 AM

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

I'm thinking of getting a Sony KV30HS420 which is widescreen, but I've
heard that since most of the programs I'll be watching in the near
future are analog, a 4:3 set would be better, and that watching this
format on widescreen might cause uneven phosphor aging on the edges of
the set. Is that a common problem?

More about : question

Anonymous
June 30, 2004 8:58:04 AM

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

Just use stretch or zoom mode on your TV to make the black bars (and
burn-in problem) go away.

You lose a little at the top/bottom in zoom mode or suffer distortion
in stretch mode (fatter people). It's a small cost to save your CRT
from burn-in. Personally I use zoom mode and never notice it unless
there are subtitles.
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 12:18:54 PM

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

"CGott" <curtgottler@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70fae150.0406292132.f452b43@posting.google.com...
: I'm thinking of getting a Sony KV30HS420 which is widescreen, but I've
: heard that since most of the programs I'll be watching in the near
: future are analog, a 4:3 set would be better, and that watching this
: format on widescreen might cause uneven phosphor aging on the edges of
: the set. Is that a common problem?

===========================
Even analog prime time shows will be shifting to 16:9 over the next
several years.

16:9 is the only rational choice.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 3:00:37 PM

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

"TM" <tm22721@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:450a75f0.0406300358.327085d7@posting.google.com...
> Just use stretch or zoom mode on your TV to make the black bars (and
> burn-in problem) go away.
>
> You lose a little at the top/bottom in zoom mode or suffer distortion
> in stretch mode (fatter people). It's a small cost to save your CRT
> from burn-in. Personally I use zoom mode and never notice it unless
> there are subtitles.

How the heck can you call distorting or cropping the aspect ratio of the
image you are watching a "small cost?" I'd rather have gradual burn in then
a distorted image on 100% of my 4:3 viewing. Burn in really isn't much of an
issue with a properly calibrated set anyway.
June 30, 2004 3:56:34 PM

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

"CGott" <curtgottler@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70fae150.0406292132.f452b43@posting.google.com...
> I'm thinking of getting a Sony KV30HS420 which is widescreen, but I've
> heard that since most of the programs I'll be watching in the near
> future are analog, a 4:3 set would be better, and that watching this
> format on widescreen might cause uneven phosphor aging on the edges of
> the set. Is that a common problem?

if you watch 4:3 material alot, and:
you watch with black sidebars

most material I watch; movies is 16:9 or another widescreen ratio

for 4:3:
you can use a stretch or progressive stretch mode to fill entire screen
you can use grey sidebars to give a more even burn of the phosphors(depends
on model)

even watching 4:3 a lot with black sidebars isn't (imho) as bad as some of
the brighter network logos that can burn in nicely on your set.
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 5:45:52 PM

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

Maybe you can go with a larger 4x3 set to ensure getting a decent size 16x9
picture when necessary. Personally, I chose a 4x3 (61 inch) because I refuse
to pay that much for a set that makes you distort the picture (like a
funhouse mirror). There are still many, many years of 4x3 broadcasting.


"CGott" <curtgottler@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70fae150.0406292132.f452b43@posting.google.com...
> I'm thinking of getting a Sony KV30HS420 which is widescreen, but I've
> heard that since most of the programs I'll be watching in the near
> future are analog, a 4:3 set would be better, and that watching this
> format on widescreen might cause uneven phosphor aging on the edges of
> the set. Is that a common problem?
>
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 5:45:53 PM

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

"CLK" <clk@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kuzEc.7558$uK.3450@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> Maybe you can go with a larger 4x3 set to ensure getting a decent size
> 16x9
> picture when necessary. Personally, I chose a 4x3 (61 inch) because I
> refuse
> to pay that much for a set that makes you distort the picture (like a
> funhouse mirror). There are still many, many years of 4x3 broadcasting.

How does a 16:9 set "make" you distort the picture. What do you do for 16:9
material on your 4:3 set? Do you stretch it upwards to fill your 4:3 screen
or do you only believe that side panels are an issue? Burn in is not a real
issue and there is enough variety of aspect ratios available today with HD
and DVD that it's much less of an issue than even one year ago.
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 10:58:14 PM

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

I would (well, in fact I did) go 16:9 in my case I watch mostly DVDs and
Xbox on my TV, all xbox games are 16:9 480p so it's a good setup. The
little cable I do watch actually looks pretty decent on my Hitachi 51S500
set, I watch in 4:3 expanded (stretched to 16:9) and it really doesn't look
bad. The upconversion is quite nice and does a good job of standard cable.

/shrug - ultimately it's up to what you think looks best since you'll be
watching it :) 


"CGott" <curtgottler@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70fae150.0406292132.f452b43@posting.google.com...
> I'm thinking of getting a Sony KV30HS420 which is widescreen, but I've
> heard that since most of the programs I'll be watching in the near
> future are analog, a 4:3 set would be better, and that watching this
> format on widescreen might cause uneven phosphor aging on the edges of
> the set. Is that a common problem?
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 12:38:01 AM

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

"CGott" <curtgottler@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70fae150.0406292132.f452b43@posting.google.com...
> I'm thinking of getting a Sony KV30HS420 which is widescreen, but I've
> heard that since most of the programs I'll be watching in the near
> future are analog, a 4:3 set would be better, and that watching this
> format on widescreen might cause uneven phosphor aging on the edges of
> the set. Is that a common problem?

movies

this is the trump reason for widescreen
you can always stretch/zoom/pan the 4:3 to fill the screen but if you
display a widescreen movie letterbox on a 4:3 you only have a tiny image
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 1:03:07 AM

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

"TheSingingCat" <meowmeowmeowmeow@meowmeowmeow.com> wrote in message
news:40e30bcc$1_2@news....
> I would (well, in fact I did) go 16:9 in my case I watch mostly DVDs and
> Xbox on my TV, all xbox games are 16:9 480p so it's a good setup.

<snip>

So you know, most but not all XBox games support 480p, but most games do not
support 16:9 ( a quick check looks to be slightly less than half suport it,
and mostly newer games. try here for details
http://www.hdtvarcade.com/xboxlist.htm). The XBox itself will output
whichever mode you set it to, but for non-16:9 supported games, it will
merely be a stretched screen

Matt
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 2:33:59 AM

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

CGott,

What you're hearing about "uneven phosphor wear" is true. CRT-rear
projection sets like the KV30HS420 burn phospher to produce the image you
see. If an image remains on the screen a very long period of time the
phospher burns unevenly and the result is a dimming (ghosting) effect of
whatever content "burned-in". Every image that hits the guns produces burn,
so the trick of solving this problem is two fold. 1. Make sure you have a
properly calibrated set (the primary concern here is contrast, which is by
default set extreemly high on most models), reducing contrast level will
increase the life of the set and will help reduce burn-in. The most
important factor in reducing burn-in is varied programming (ask any
manufactuer, this is what they all tell you in the owners manual). The
general rule is for every 2 hours of static content you need about 8 hours
of dynamic content (if you watch a DVD for 2 hours and subject your set to
black top and bottom bars, you should watch 8 hours of full screen
programming to even out the uneven wear). This is the 20% rule that you
often see in CRT-rear projection owners manuals. Static content encompases
more than just black bars around the edges, it can also be network logos or
video game artifacts (status bars, et al). That gets a bit harder to
control, most networks have transitioned to translucent logos so this is not
as big of an issue. As long as you keep your gaming down to 20% this won't
be an issue either.

Regarding 16:9 vs 4:3, the black bars on the edges are still going to come
your way. When you watch HD content it will always be in 16:9 because 16:9
is the native format for HDTV. If you have a 4:3 HDTV you will get black
bars on the top and bottom to compensate, the same dangers persist for
network logos and video games, so buying a 4:3 set just for the cause of
burn-in is really not all that smart of a thing to do. In fact as I've said
16:9 is the native format for HD content, if you're buying a HDTV in hopes
of more HD content becoming available in the future why would you bet
against this technology and stick with a 4:3 set? The more HD programming
you watch on a CRT-based rear projection set, the higher the risk of burn-in
from the top and bottom bars, also most DVDs are widescreen (many are 1:85:1
native and will fill out a widescreen set almost perfectly, so the 4:3 set
will eventually become more prone to burn-in over the next 10 years as more
HD content becomes available (which is the most you can expect to get out a
CRT rear projection set.

If all of this has your worried, you may consider holding out for a DLP
based rear-projection set (see RCA and Samsung models). DLP technology has
no risk of burn in, however it does cost a lot more.






"CGott" <curtgottler@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70fae150.0406292132.f452b43@posting.google.com...
> I'm thinking of getting a Sony KV30HS420 which is widescreen, but I've
> heard that since most of the programs I'll be watching in the near
> future are analog, a 4:3 set would be better, and that watching this
> format on widescreen might cause uneven phosphor aging on the edges of
> the set. Is that a common problem?
July 1, 2004 12:00:27 PM

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

> http://www.hdtvarcade.com/xboxlist.htm). The XBox itself will output
> whichever mode you set it to, but for non-16:9 supported games, it will
> merely be a stretched screen
>
> Matt
>
>

Great link!! thanks!!
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 7:11:44 PM

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

CGott said he watched a lot 0f 4x3 programming. Either he'd watch it in a
very small picture surrounded by black lines or he'd have to distort/stretch
it. That's why they have "stretch" modes. If you do watch a 4x3 picture
inside 4 black lines you chance getting burn in on the sides which will
appear on every 16x9 HD picture you'll view. When I watch a 16x9 picture on
my 4x3 set if the black lines on the top and bottom burn in who cares. All
my HD viewing will be burn-in free.

Burn-in is quite a big issue for many. If you don't care about it, I don't
care whether you get it either. I prefer not to even chance it. A 4x3 HD set
may not be for everybody but it is best for those who stll enjoy 4x3
programming, which will be around for many, many years. I also choose to
watch my 4x3 viewing within a 61" picture; maybe you like a small one. But
then again, I only get a beautiful 57" 16x9 picture.

What are the sizes of the pictures you get?




"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:TYednXy3H_4wnX7dRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>
> "CLK" <clk@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:kuzEc.7558$uK.3450@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > Maybe you can go with a larger 4x3 set to ensure getting a decent size
> > 16x9
> > picture when necessary. Personally, I chose a 4x3 (61 inch) because I
> > refuse
> > to pay that much for a set that makes you distort the picture (like a
> > funhouse mirror). There are still many, many years of 4x3 broadcasting.
>
> How does a 16:9 set "make" you distort the picture. What do you do for
16:9
> material on your 4:3 set? Do you stretch it upwards to fill your 4:3
screen
> or do you only believe that side panels are an issue? Burn in is not a
real
> issue and there is enough variety of aspect ratios available today with HD
> and DVD that it's much less of an issue than even one year ago.
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 9:25:55 PM

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

There are two kinds of pictures and there are two kinds of screen
shapes. You need to use blackbars or stretching in either case. So
consider the effect in each case.

On 4:3 TV:
High def and widescreen pictures are shown with top and bottom bars or
squeezed sideway to fit.
4:3 pictures are shown unaltered.

On 16:9 TV:
High def and widescreen pictures are shown at its most glorious form.
4:3 pictures are shown with side bars or stretched to fit.

So take your pick, do you want low def regular TV to be blown up
really big to see all defects and shortcoming of NTSC in details, and
at the same time shrink a HD picture to use only the pixels in the
middle of the TV screen? Or do you want HD to be shown to the best
possible manner and let the low res NTSC pictures rot and stink
whatever way they please?

I myself definitely will pick the former regardless how many hours
each type of pictures are shown each day because you get the best of
each type of pictures. The latter? You get the worst for NTSC and
the worst in HD. The choice is just so obvious to me.

However, 4:3 TV are cheap so it can be a deciding factor too. You
will be able to buy a cheap good 4:3 TV now and throw it away when
16:9 go mainstream. Price would be the only reason to buy 4:3. If
you cannot get a bargain on 4:3, go 16:9 definitely.




curtgottler@yahoo.com (CGott) wrote in message news:<70fae150.0406292132.f452b43@posting.google.com>...
> I'm thinking of getting a Sony KV30HS420 which is widescreen, but I've
> heard that since most of the programs I'll be watching in the near
> future are analog, a 4:3 set would be better, and that watching this
> format on widescreen might cause uneven phosphor aging on the edges of
> the set. Is that a common problem?
July 1, 2004 11:08:13 PM

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

you get used to the distortion to a point. panorama pulls the center back
enough to lessen the wide heads.... Since the majority of my direct viewing
is DVD, I can accept the 4:3 distortion in WS from normal television. I
wouldn't personally watch 4:3 in 4:3 ever again.... so I'm not going to have
any edge burned in.

j


"CGott" <curtgottler@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70fae150.0406292132.f452b43@posting.google.com...
> I'm thinking of getting a Sony KV30HS420 which is widescreen, but I've
> heard that since most of the programs I'll be watching in the near
> future are analog, a 4:3 set would be better, and that watching this
> format on widescreen might cause uneven phosphor aging on the edges of
> the set. Is that a common problem?
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 1:16:04 AM

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

"mr E" <jimmmmmmmm@jim.com> wrote in message news:<fUFEc.4250$IQ4.1683@attbi_s02>...
> "TheSingingCat" <meowmeowmeowmeow@meowmeowmeow.com> wrote in message
> news:40e30bcc$1_2@news....
> > I would (well, in fact I did) go 16:9 in my case I watch mostly DVDs and
> > Xbox on my TV, all xbox games are 16:9 480p so it's a good setup.
>
> <snip>
>
> So you know, most but not all XBox games support 480p, but most games do not
> support 16:9 ( a quick check looks to be slightly less than half suport it,
> and mostly newer games. try here for details
> http://www.hdtvarcade.com/xboxlist.htm). The XBox itself will output
> whichever mode you set it to, but for non-16:9 supported games, it will
> merely be a stretched screen

Why games have to be in 16:9 -- this is totally insane. Graphics card
could render 3D scene framed at any aspect ratio. (I assume there
aren't any boom mics in view sight). Shorty aficionados can enjoy
16:9, while not upsetting normal 4:3 folks.
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 3:22:53 AM

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

"CLK" <clk@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:QQVEc.6442$IX4.823770@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> CGott said he watched a lot 0f 4x3 programming. Either he'd watch it in a
> very small picture surrounded by black lines or he'd have to
> distort/stretch
> it. That's why they have "stretch" modes. If you do watch a 4x3 picture
> inside 4 black lines you chance getting burn in on the sides which will
> appear on every 16x9 HD picture you'll view. When I watch a 16x9 picture
> on
> my 4x3 set if the black lines on the top and bottom burn in who cares. All
> my HD viewing will be burn-in free.
>
> Burn-in is quite a big issue for many.

We've been through this so many times on this newsgroup. There are very few
people who actually have burn in who properly calibrate their sets. I've had
a 57" 16x9 Pioneer 1009W set for 6 or 7 years now and there just aren't any
noticeable effects of burn in. I've had the set ISF calibrated twice in that
time period and during the most recent calibration a couple of years back I
even had the technician compare the side panel area to the center of the
screen with a Phillips Coloromiter attachment and there were no anomolies.

While the effects of burn in are either not noticeable or happen very
gradually over a number of years, the effects of aspect ratio distortion and
cropping are immediately and constantly noticeable every moment you have
your television on in those modes. It kind of reminds me of being in a house
were you have to remove your shoes to walk on the floor or having a plastic
cover on your couch. I say...watch the tv the way it was supposed to be
watched and enjoy it instead of compromising your viewing with distortion or
loss of picture every time you watch a program. I'll also add hypothetically
that I'd rather watch a program in it's proper aspect ratio with burn in
then watch a stretched out picture. The burn in is without a doubt the
lesser of two evils.


>If you don't care about it, I don't
> care whether you get it either. I prefer not to even chance it. A 4x3 HD
> set
> may not be for everybody but it is best for those who stll enjoy 4x3
> programming, which will be around for many, many years. I also choose to
> watch my 4x3 viewing within a 61" picture; maybe you like a small one. But
> then again, I only get a beautiful 57" 16x9 picture.
>
> What are the sizes of the pictures you get?

57" in my living room, 32" in my bedroom, 20" in my office, 10" on my laptop
and only and average 6" in my lap.


>
> "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> news:TYednXy3H_4wnX7dRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>>
>> "CLK" <clk@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:kuzEc.7558$uK.3450@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>> > Maybe you can go with a larger 4x3 set to ensure getting a decent size
>> > 16x9
>> > picture when necessary. Personally, I chose a 4x3 (61 inch) because I
>> > refuse
>> > to pay that much for a set that makes you distort the picture (like a
>> > funhouse mirror). There are still many, many years of 4x3 broadcasting.
>>
>> How does a 16:9 set "make" you distort the picture. What do you do for
> 16:9
>> material on your 4:3 set? Do you stretch it upwards to fill your 4:3
> screen
>> or do you only believe that side panels are an issue? Burn in is not a
> real
>> issue and there is enough variety of aspect ratios available today with
>> HD
>> and DVD that it's much less of an issue than even one year ago.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 3:26:26 AM

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

"199.45.49.11" <moo@moo.com> wrote in message
news:xiZEc.23167$x9.15244@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> you get used to the distortion to a point. panorama pulls the center back
> enough to lessen the wide heads.... Since the majority of my direct
> viewing is DVD, I can accept the 4:3 distortion in WS from normal
> television. I wouldn't personally watch 4:3 in 4:3 ever again.... so I'm
> not going to have any edge burned in.

Actually if burn in really happened to a noticeable degree, it would be the
4:3 portion of your picture that would be burned in, not the edges. With
your burn in paranoia, do you also zoom your 2.35:1 DVD's to avoid the
letterboxing bars on the top and bottom? Sound like you watch a variety of
programming in a variety of aspect ratios....relax a little and enjoy your
television, I honestly believe your fears are not as founded as you think.
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 3:30:06 AM

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

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Why
games have to be in 16:9 -- this is totally insane. Graphics card
> could render 3D scene framed at any aspect ratio. (I assume there
> aren't any boom mics in view sight). Shorty aficionados can enjoy
> 16:9, while not upsetting normal 4:3 folks.


4:3 isn't normal, it's the old dying aspect ratio from the last millennium.
4:3 folks are the people who have older televisions and projectors.
July 2, 2004 11:31:20 AM

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

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:jIadnfrf0Y95nXjdRVn-jw@comcast.com...
>
> "Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Why
> games have to be in 16:9 -- this is totally insane. Graphics card
> > could render 3D scene framed at any aspect ratio. (I assume there
> > aren't any boom mics in view sight). Shorty aficionados can enjoy
> > 16:9, while not upsetting normal 4:3 folks.
>
>
> 4:3 isn't normal, it's the old dying aspect ratio from the last
millennium.
> 4:3 folks are the people who have older televisions and projectors.
>
>

I still use 4:3 equipment.
I have a 4:3 projector and a 4:3 100" screeen. With my DVD changer set to
16:9 and my projector set to 16:9 mode I still have a huge picture and can
still watch 4:3 when I hookup my PC for arcade games or other 4:3 stuff.

for front projection I prefer 4:3 because you get the largest screen size
for both formats.

I also have an HD 42" CRT RP
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 11:31:21 AM

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

"j" <sniffinpoprocksReMoVe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb8Fc.7896938$iA2.893393@news.easynews.com...
>
> "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> news:jIadnfrf0Y95nXjdRVn-jw@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Why
>> games have to be in 16:9 -- this is totally insane. Graphics card
>> > could render 3D scene framed at any aspect ratio. (I assume there
>> > aren't any boom mics in view sight). Shorty aficionados can enjoy
>> > 16:9, while not upsetting normal 4:3 folks.
>>
>>
>> 4:3 isn't normal, it's the old dying aspect ratio from the last
> millennium.
>> 4:3 folks are the people who have older televisions and projectors.
>>
>>
>
> I still use 4:3 equipment.
> I have a 4:3 projector and a 4:3 100" screeen. With my DVD changer set to
> 16:9 and my projector set to 16:9 mode I still have a huge picture and can
> still watch 4:3 when I hookup my PC for arcade games or other 4:3 stuff.
>
> for front projection I prefer 4:3 because you get the largest screen size
> for both formats.
>
> I also have an HD 42" CRT RP


Many people still use 4:3 equipment. I'm not condeming that...but given the
choice between a native 4:3 projector and a native 16:9 projector would you
choose the 4:3 and give up chip resolution for widescreen if you were
replacing your existing projector?
>
>
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 1:13:58 PM

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

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:<xcKdncWuVeefsnjd4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
> Many people still use 4:3 equipment. I'm not condeming that...but given the
> choice between a native 4:3 projector and a native 16:9 projector would you
> choose the 4:3 and give up chip resolution for widescreen if you were
> replacing your existing projector?

4:3 would give you better price/resolution and price/screen area. Even
if widescreen become (sigh) mainsteam.

Don't forget computer monitors. It's silly for TV be incompatible with
PC today. And, no 16:9 is not going ever to win PC audience. Having
16:9 implemented as 16:10 is silly enough to irritiate anybody
already.

IMO what TV industry should do ASAP is developing 4:3 High Definition
Standard. No ridiculous "i". 1024x768 minimum resolution (PC
classics). No stretching squeezing zooming black bar burned-in
nonsence.
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 3:06:18 PM

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

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8a529bb.0407020813.37c6dc4f@posting.google.com...
> "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> news:<xcKdncWuVeefsnjd4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
>> Many people still use 4:3 equipment. I'm not condeming that...but given
>> the
>> choice between a native 4:3 projector and a native 16:9 projector would
>> you
>> choose the 4:3 and give up chip resolution for widescreen if you were
>> replacing your existing projector?
>
> 4:3 would give you better price/resolution and price/screen area. Even
> if widescreen become (sigh) mainsteam.
>
> Don't forget computer monitors. It's silly for TV be incompatible with
> PC today. And, no 16:9 is not going ever to win PC audience. Having
> 16:9 implemented as 16:10 is silly enough to irritiate anybody
> already.

16:10 on a computer monitor allows you to have a task bar and other controls
visable while still having a full 16:9 display.


> IMO what TV industry should do ASAP is developing 4:3 High Definition
> Standard. No ridiculous "i". 1024x768 minimum resolution (PC
> classics). No stretching squeezing zooming black bar burned-in
> nonsence.
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 3:37:40 PM

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

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:foqdna-cdfySOXjdRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> > Having
> > 16:9 implemented as 16:10 is silly enough to irritiate anybody
> > already.
>
> 16:10 on a computer monitor allows you to have a task bar and other
controls
> visable while still having a full 16:9 display.

PC world is little bit more complicated than that. Toolbars can be floating,
docked, etc. And "Autohide" feature is specifically designed to make task
toolbar invisible when not in use, thus giving more vertical real estate to
the user.

Introducing yet one more aspect ratio just increases possibility of bugs in
the OS/programs where 16:10 window might be stretched to 16:9 (or the
opposite way). This can be OK for average Joe Schmoe user, but is disastrous
for CAD artist.
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 4:37:51 PM

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

16:9, definitely. My (subjective) matrix:

NTSC show HDTV show
----------------------------------------------
4:3 TV 4 6
16:9 TV 3 10

Buying a 4:3 gives you a sum of 10,
Buying a 16:9 gives you a viewing sum of 13

The point is HD on a 16:9 is so great that it is the deciding factor.
Good luck!


--
MitchB
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 5:21:14 PM

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

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri@iahu.com> wrote in message
news:A7iFc.21$H%6.20@news.oracle.com...
> "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> news:foqdna-cdfySOXjdRVn-jg@comcast.com...
>> > Having
>> > 16:9 implemented as 16:10 is silly enough to irritiate anybody
>> > already.
>>
>> 16:10 on a computer monitor allows you to have a task bar and other
> controls
>> visable while still having a full 16:9 display.
>
> PC world is little bit more complicated than that. Toolbars can be
> floating,
> docked, etc. And "Autohide" feature is specifically designed to make task
> toolbar invisible when not in use, thus giving more vertical real estate
> to
> the user.
>
> Introducing yet one more aspect ratio just increases possibility of bugs
> in
> the OS/programs where 16:10 window might be stretched to 16:9 (or the
> opposite way). This can be OK for average Joe Schmoe user, but is
> disastrous
> for CAD artist.

You have a ridiculous argument for everything that doesn't follow your
thought process that the world should be 4:3 because you grew up on it. Wake
up.....the world has a variety of aspect ratios and 4:3 displays and
chipsets don't seem to offer the best compromise.
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 12:28:44 AM

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

Personally I don't care if people watch their sets through a prism. I just
try to let other people know that there are alternatives that may better
match their viewing habits. I don't watch DVD's very often but I do watch a
lot of the CNN/MSNBC/FOX news shows and like them to be as big as my set
will allow. The only difference with me is that I do not proselytize about
4x3 being the best like the 16x9 owners do. They seemingly have to convert
the world. When someone asks about the benefits of 4x3 sets, I give them the
benefit of my experience.

There is room for both and no need to try to convince. Simply lay the FACTS
out, not opinions, and let the viewer decide what's best for him/her.

Similar to Democrats who are always trying to convert people to their
liberal way of looking at the world. Let each person decide for themself.
That being said 4x3 HDTV's are superior to 16x9 distorting machines. :-)





"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:o dednaAO4K-vYnndRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>
> "CLK" <clk@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:QQVEc.6442$IX4.823770@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > CGott said he watched a lot 0f 4x3 programming. Either he'd watch it in
a
> > very small picture surrounded by black lines or he'd have to
> > distort/stretch
> > it. That's why they have "stretch" modes. If you do watch a 4x3 picture
> > inside 4 black lines you chance getting burn in on the sides which will
> > appear on every 16x9 HD picture you'll view. When I watch a 16x9 picture
> > on
> > my 4x3 set if the black lines on the top and bottom burn in who cares.
All
> > my HD viewing will be burn-in free.
> >
> > Burn-in is quite a big issue for many.
>
> We've been through this so many times on this newsgroup. There are very
few
> people who actually have burn in who properly calibrate their sets. I've
had
> a 57" 16x9 Pioneer 1009W set for 6 or 7 years now and there just aren't
any
> noticeable effects of burn in. I've had the set ISF calibrated twice in
that
> time period and during the most recent calibration a couple of years back
I
> even had the technician compare the side panel area to the center of the
> screen with a Phillips Coloromiter attachment and there were no anomolies.
>
> While the effects of burn in are either not noticeable or happen very
> gradually over a number of years, the effects of aspect ratio distortion
and
> cropping are immediately and constantly noticeable every moment you have
> your television on in those modes. It kind of reminds me of being in a
house
> were you have to remove your shoes to walk on the floor or having a
plastic
> cover on your couch. I say...watch the tv the way it was supposed to be
> watched and enjoy it instead of compromising your viewing with distortion
or
> loss of picture every time you watch a program. I'll also add
hypothetically
> that I'd rather watch a program in it's proper aspect ratio with burn in
> then watch a stretched out picture. The burn in is without a doubt the
> lesser of two evils.
>
>
> >If you don't care about it, I don't
> > care whether you get it either. I prefer not to even chance it. A 4x3 HD
> > set
> > may not be for everybody but it is best for those who stll enjoy 4x3
> > programming, which will be around for many, many years. I also choose to
> > watch my 4x3 viewing within a 61" picture; maybe you like a small one.
But
> > then again, I only get a beautiful 57" 16x9 picture.
> >
> > What are the sizes of the pictures you get?
>
> 57" in my living room, 32" in my bedroom, 20" in my office, 10" on my
laptop
> and only and average 6" in my lap.
>
>
> >
> > "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> > news:TYednXy3H_4wnX7dRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> >>
> >> "CLK" <clk@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> news:kuzEc.7558$uK.3450@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> > Maybe you can go with a larger 4x3 set to ensure getting a decent
size
> >> > 16x9
> >> > picture when necessary. Personally, I chose a 4x3 (61 inch) because I
> >> > refuse
> >> > to pay that much for a set that makes you distort the picture (like a
> >> > funhouse mirror). There are still many, many years of 4x3
broadcasting.
> >>
> >> How does a 16:9 set "make" you distort the picture. What do you do for
> > 16:9
> >> material on your 4:3 set? Do you stretch it upwards to fill your 4:3
> > screen
> >> or do you only believe that side panels are an issue? Burn in is not a
> > real
> >> issue and there is enough variety of aspect ratios available today with
> >> HD
> >> and DVD that it's much less of an issue than even one year ago.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 3:48:38 AM

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

"CLK" <clk@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0AjFc.10646$uK.8414@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> Personally I don't care if people watch their sets through a prism. I just
> try to let other people know that there are alternatives that may better
> match their viewing habits. I don't watch DVD's very often but I do watch
> a
> lot of the CNN/MSNBC/FOX news shows and like them to be as big as my set
> will allow. The only difference with me is that I do not proselytize about
> 4x3 being the best like the 16x9 owners do. They seemingly have to convert
> the world. When someone asks about the benefits of 4x3 sets, I give them
> the
> benefit of my experience.
>
> There is room for both and no need to try to convince. Simply lay the
> FACTS
> out, not opinions, and let the viewer decide what's best for him/her.
>
> Similar to Democrats who are always trying to convert people to their
> liberal way of looking at the world. Let each person decide for themself.
> That being said 4x3 HDTV's are superior to 16x9 distorting machines. :-)
>

Well I guess if we are going to compare this to politics it's safe to say
we're all going 16x9 come November!
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 4:02:51 AM

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

Charles Tomaras wrote:
> "199.45.49.11" <moo@moo.com> wrote in message
> news:xiZEc.23167$x9.15244@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
>>you get used to the distortion to a point. panorama pulls the center back
>>enough to lessen the wide heads.... Since the majority of my direct
>>viewing is DVD, I can accept the 4:3 distortion in WS from normal
>>television. I wouldn't personally watch 4:3 in 4:3 ever again.... so I'm
>>not going to have any edge burned in.

Ummmm... Not always:-)

After having a 16:9 RPTV for over 7 years, my wife got laid off (one of
Bush's 9 million jobs lost). She started using the music channels on
DirecTV which have black screens. Our display has grey side panels. I
think you can guess the rest. After many weeks the side panels were
slightly more worn than the center. Careful use of many widescreen
movies on DVD later, the effect is essentially reversed.

Matthew

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 4:02:52 AM

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

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 00:02:51 +0000, Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>> "199.45.49.11" <moo@moo.com> wrote in message
>> news:xiZEc.23167$x9.15244@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>
>>>you get used to the distortion to a point. panorama pulls the center back
>>>enough to lessen the wide heads.... Since the majority of my direct
>>>viewing is DVD, I can accept the 4:3 distortion in WS from normal
>>>television. I wouldn't personally watch 4:3 in 4:3 ever again.... so I'm
>>>not going to have any edge burned in.
>
> Ummmm... Not always:-)
>
> After having a 16:9 RPTV for over 7 years, my wife got laid off (one of
> Bush's 9 million jobs lost). She started using the music channels on
> DirecTV which have black screens. Our display has grey side panels. I
> think you can guess the rest. After many weeks the side panels were
> slightly more worn than the center. Careful use of many widescreen
> movies on DVD later, the effect is essentially reversed.
>
> Matthew

Burn in doesn't happen with DLP or LCD projectors, it's a big problem with
plasma.
July 5, 2004 2:15:54 PM

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

>
> Many people still use 4:3 equipment. I'm not condeming that...but given
the
> choice between a native 4:3 projector and a native 16:9 projector would
you
> choose the 4:3 and give up chip resolution for widescreen if you were
> replacing your existing projector?

yes to 4:3 but I wouldn't 'give up' resolution. I would get a 1600x1200
projector which still beats any 16:9 native projectors at widescreen
resolutions.
or, if money was no object I would get a Barco cine 9 which uses 9" CRTs for
front projection and supports all formats and resolutions. And crt still
beats DLP and LCD for picture quality.
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 11:58:27 AM

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

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8a529bb.0407012016.33f2500a@posting.google.com...
: "mr E" <jimmmmmmmm@jim.com> wrote in message
news:<fUFEc.4250$IQ4.1683@attbi_s02>...
: > "TheSingingCat" <meowmeowmeowmeow@meowmeowmeow.com> wrote in message
: > news:40e30bcc$1_2@news....
: > > I would (well, in fact I did) go 16:9 in my case I watch mostly
DVDs and
: > > Xbox on my TV, all xbox games are 16:9 480p so it's a good setup.
: >
: > <snip>
: >
: > So you know, most but not all XBox games support 480p, but most
games do not
: > support 16:9 ( a quick check looks to be slightly less than half
suport it,
: > and mostly newer games. try here for details
: > http://www.hdtvarcade.com/xboxlist.htm). The XBox itself will
output
: > whichever mode you set it to, but for non-16:9 supported games, it
will
: > merely be a stretched screen
:
: Why games have to be in 16:9 -- this is totally insane. Graphics card
: could render 3D scene framed at any aspect ratio. (I assume there
: aren't any boom mics in view sight). Shorty aficionados can enjoy
: 16:9, while not upsetting normal 4:3 folks.

==========================
4:3 is no longer the standard.
16:9 is now "normal".
======================
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 12:00:11 PM

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

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8a529bb.0407020813.37c6dc4f@posting.google.com...
: "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:<xcKdncWuVeefsnjd4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
: > Many people still use 4:3 equipment. I'm not condeming that...but
given the
: > choice between a native 4:3 projector and a native 16:9 projector
would you
: > choose the 4:3 and give up chip resolution for widescreen if you
were
: > replacing your existing projector?
:
: 4:3 would give you better price/resolution and price/screen area. Even
: if widescreen become (sigh) mainsteam.

=====================
This is a common falacy. It is just plain not true.
======================
:
: Don't forget computer monitors. It's silly for TV be incompatible with
: PC today. And, no 16:9 is not going ever to win PC audience. Having
: 16:9 implemented as 16:10 is silly enough to irritiate anybody
: already.

==========================
16:9 monitors are becomming more available.
They will eventually become the norm for computers too.
==========================
:
: IMO what TV industry should do ASAP is developing 4:3 High Definition
: Standard. No ridiculous "i". 1024x768 minimum resolution (PC
: classics). No stretching squeezing zooming black bar burned-in
: nonsence.

=======================
You are fighting a losing battle!
==========================
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 4:53:27 AM

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

"Richard C." <post-age @spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:40ec0b6a$0$26064$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> 4:3 is no longer the standard.
> 16:9 is now "normal".

Mostly only for HD (or EDTV) material, which comprises probably no more than
about 5% of what's on TV overall (including all cable/satellite channels).
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 7:36:41 AM

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

>>
>> 4:3 is no longer the standard.
>> 16:9 is now "normal".
>
>Mostly only for HD (or EDTV) material, which comprises probably no more than
>about 5% of what's on TV overall (including all cable/satellite channels).
>

Huh?? Many if not most prime time shows are broadcast as HD.
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 2:06:11 PM

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

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 03:36:41 +0000, nixjunk wrote:

>>>
>>> 4:3 is no longer the standard.
>>> 16:9 is now "normal".
>>
>>Mostly only for HD (or EDTV) material, which comprises probably no more than
>>about 5% of what's on TV overall (including all cable/satellite channels).
>>
>
> Huh?? Many if not most prime time shows are broadcast as HD.

The majority of network HD broadcasts are in 4:3 not 16:9. PBS is in 16:9
but it's not the same content as the regular PBS stations. WGBH-HD seems
to be broadcasting the same two shows over and over again, a Nature show
and a documentary on war ships.
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 10:15:21 PM

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

"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bW0Hc.1152$54.12897@typhoon.sonic.net...
: "Richard C." <post-age @spamcop.net> wrote in message
: news:40ec0b6a$0$26064$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
: >
: > 4:3 is no longer the standard.
: > 16:9 is now "normal".
:
: Mostly only for HD (or EDTV) material, which comprises probably no
more than
: about 5% of what's on TV overall (including all cable/satellite
channels).
:
==========================
It comprises over 70% of prime-time network television.
It will keep increasing.
===========================
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 10:16:34 PM

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

"General Schvantzkoph" <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.07.08.14.06.10.167411@yahoo.com...
: On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 03:36:41 +0000, nixjunk wrote:
:
: >>>
: >>> 4:3 is no longer the standard.
: >>> 16:9 is now "normal".
: >>
: >>Mostly only for HD (or EDTV) material, which comprises probably no
more than
: >>about 5% of what's on TV overall (including all cable/satellite
channels).
: >>
: >
: > Huh?? Many if not most prime time shows are broadcast as HD.
:
: The majority of network HD broadcasts are in 4:3 not 16:9. PBS is in
16:9
: but it's not the same content as the regular PBS stations. WGBH-HD
seems
: to be broadcasting the same two shows over and over again, a Nature
show
: and a documentary on war ships.
:
=================================
Over 70% of prime time network broadcasting is 16:9 HD.
There is NO HD in 4:3. Only upconverted SD.
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 8:37:10 AM

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

"nixjunk" <torrex6@cs.comnixjunk> wrote in message
news:20040707233641.19394.00001295@mb-m04.news.cs.com...
> >>
> >> 4:3 is no longer the standard.
> >> 16:9 is now "normal".
> >
> >Mostly only for HD (or EDTV) material, which comprises probably no more
than
> >about 5% of what's on TV overall (including all cable/satellite
channels).

Prime time is only a small percentage of broadcast TV, and broadcast TV is
only a small percentage of all the channels found on a typical cable or
satellite system. 5% was a GENEROUS figure.
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 8:37:11 AM

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

"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WhpHc.1364$54.15290@typhoon.sonic.net...
> "nixjunk" <torrex6@cs.comnixjunk> wrote in message
> news:20040707233641.19394.00001295@mb-m04.news.cs.com...
>> >>
>> >> 4:3 is no longer the standard.
>> >> 16:9 is now "normal".
>> >
>> >Mostly only for HD (or EDTV) material, which comprises probably no more
> than
>> >about 5% of what's on TV overall (including all cable/satellite
> channels).
>
> Prime time is only a small percentage of broadcast TV, and broadcast TV is
> only a small percentage of all the channels found on a typical cable or
> satellite system. 5% was a GENEROUS figure.

200 channels and nothing to watch. I'd bet that broadcast television from
the major networks makes up about 90% of most people's television viewing.
Personally I watch probably 10 or 12 channels most of the time and most of
those are now offering HD programming.
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 8:39:37 AM

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

"Richard C." <post-age @spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:40edf008$0$28175$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> "Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bW0Hc.1152$54.12897@typhoon.sonic.net...
> : "Richard C." <post-age @spamcop.net> wrote in message
> : news:40ec0b6a$0$26064$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> : >
> : > 4:3 is no longer the standard.
> : > 16:9 is now "normal".
> :
> : Mostly only for HD (or EDTV) material, which comprises probably no
> more than
> : about 5% of what's on TV overall (including all cable/satellite
> channels).
> :
> ==========================
> It comprises over 70% of prime-time network television.
> It will keep increasing.

Again, prime-time network television comprises probably no more than 20% of
all broadcast TV, and broadcast stations comprise probably no more than
about 5-10% of all channels available on the typical cable or satellite
system (though those offer a half dozen or so HD channels of their own).
So... 10% of 20% of 70% comes out to... 1.4%. So 5% was a GENEROUS figure.
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 8:45:14 AM

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

"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee67c74a.0407071632.3120449b@posting.google.com...
>
> Sounds like your burn in was really unnecessary. It pays when you
> educate your spouse about burn in.

Anyone that sells a $5,000 (if not $10,000) product that, used entirely
normally with the factory default settings, is almost guaranteed to be
damaged within months or at most a year or two of purchase is what most
people would consider a rip-off. I'm surprised there haven't been any
well-publicized lawsuits over this particular issue. I know of people that I
told about this problem in advance, who still bought a plasma set, then
within a month or two, had burn in. And they are just meekly living with it.

I know people in the know, such as most who post here, try to warn others
about the issue, but this is an issue the manufacturers themselves should be
MUCH more proactive about.
Anonymous
July 10, 2004 6:42:33 PM

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

If you are reffering to Ch 802 on comcast,that is really the PBS HD demo
channel (2-2).
Comcast dosen't yet carry the 2-1 feed.


--
A widescreen edition of a movie presents the film frame as it was seen in
the movie theater. This is the version that best preserves the filmmaker's
original intent.

End of story!
"General Schvantzkoph" <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.07.08.14.06.10.167411@yahoo.com...
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 03:36:41 +0000, nixjunk wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>> 4:3 is no longer the standard.
> >>> 16:9 is now "normal".
> >>
> >>Mostly only for HD (or EDTV) material, which comprises probably no more
than
> >>about 5% of what's on TV overall (including all cable/satellite
channels).
> >>
> >
> > Huh?? Many if not most prime time shows are broadcast as HD.
>
> The majority of network HD broadcasts are in 4:3 not 16:9. PBS is in 16:9
> but it's not the same content as the regular PBS stations. WGBH-HD seems
> to be broadcasting the same two shows over and over again, a Nature show
> and a documentary on war ships.
>
!