Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which Aspect Ratio?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 1:28:29 AM

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

I will be purchasing a new TV soon. Probably high definition. It will be a
tube set, probably 36". Also, probably Sony. But the question is, which
size screen to buy?

I saw the two sets I am trying to decide between, almost side by side. The
16:9 wide screen looks fine, little getting used to the screen size. But
the 4:3 will display the same size picture as the 16:9, just with the black
bars on top and bottom. But the 4:3 will display a much larger picture when
the images are not wide screen like on most of my cable channels. Both are
high definition.

Why would I want to buy a wide screen 16:9 when the 4:3 gives me same
picture size when playing movies?

The best I can get out of a salesperson is that the widescreen in the
upcoming format. What else is there that I should be considering? Am I
missing something here?

I don't like the rear projection stuff, so please don't go there.

My cable company won't be high definition for a few months yet. Will I
suffer with a high definition set until then for some reason I don't know
about? I do have digital cable through a cable box, with some lower analog
channels.

Thanks,
Eric

More about : aspect ratio

Anonymous
July 28, 2004 2:14:17 AM

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

EFK wrote:
>
> I will be purchasing a new TV soon. Probably high definition. It will be a
> tube set, probably 36". Also, probably Sony. But the question is, which
> size screen to buy?
>
> I saw the two sets I am trying to decide between, almost side by side. The
> 16:9 wide screen looks fine, little getting used to the screen size. But
> the 4:3 will display the same size picture as the 16:9, just with the black
> bars on top and bottom. But the 4:3 will display a much larger picture when
> the images are not wide screen like on most of my cable channels. Both are
> high definition.
>
> Why would I want to buy a wide screen 16:9 when the 4:3 gives me same
> picture size when playing movies?
>
> The best I can get out of a salesperson is that the widescreen in the
> upcoming format. What else is there that I should be considering? Am I
> missing something here?
>
> I don't like the rear projection stuff, so please don't go there.
>
> My cable company won't be high definition for a few months yet. Will I
> suffer with a high definition set until then for some reason I don't know
> about? I do have digital cable through a cable box, with some lower analog
> channels.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric


Eric:

You are on the right track... Sony builds superb HD CRT sets..

I'm a 34" Sony HD CRT fan..... Have 34HS510 HD unit.

The 4:3 tubes are cheaper to manufacture than 16:9
while holding the 'necessary' HD tolerances...
A 36" costs less than a 34" as you are aware....

As 16:9 HD Programming is ramping up faster now...
a 4:3 36" set is good for the short term And
16:9 34" is the way to go long term...

Question is... Where do you want the Black bars??

I surely don't want 'em on a beautiful HD Picture !!
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 7:03:54 AM

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

Sounds like you know what you need to know, you just have to pick which one
you like. I went with 16:9 because I want the HD content to fill my screen
the way it is supposed to.

--Dan

"EFK" <erickoehler.nospam@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:41070141$0$2819$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> I will be purchasing a new TV soon. Probably high definition. It will be
a
> tube set, probably 36". Also, probably Sony. But the question is, which
> size screen to buy?
>
> I saw the two sets I am trying to decide between, almost side by side.
The
> 16:9 wide screen looks fine, little getting used to the screen size. But
> the 4:3 will display the same size picture as the 16:9, just with the
black
> bars on top and bottom. But the 4:3 will display a much larger picture
when
> the images are not wide screen like on most of my cable channels. Both
are
> high definition.
>
> Why would I want to buy a wide screen 16:9 when the 4:3 gives me same
> picture size when playing movies?
>
> The best I can get out of a salesperson is that the widescreen in the
> upcoming format. What else is there that I should be considering? Am I
> missing something here?
>
> I don't like the rear projection stuff, so please don't go there.
>
> My cable company won't be high definition for a few months yet. Will I
> suffer with a high definition set until then for some reason I don't know
> about? I do have digital cable through a cable box, with some lower
analog
> channels.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 10:37:58 AM

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

"bobby smith" wrote in message
news:1r8eg0pr1dpi75pmtek56ml4fdggkn8ed3@4ax.com...
>>snip>>
> For small TVs (less than 38") the 16:9 aspect ratio ROBS you of precious
> screen real estate with the black bars above and below.. You can
> usually zoom a HD broadcast to 4:3 and fill the screen, this works
> great.

Huh? Sounds like you are advocating for 16:9 TVs when going smaller than
38" even though I know that's not what you meant? If you have a 16:9 TV
watching HD programs, you get less black bars above and below or none at all
than you do with 4:3 TVs. Maybe what you meant to say was you get robbed of
real estate when watching 4:3 programs on a 16:9 screen because of black
bars on the sides. I also can't understand why someone would take the extra
cinematic effect of a 16:9 image and kill it by zooming to the 4:3 screen.
My recommendation is if you haven't yet purchased an HDTV, buy for the
future! 16:9 will replace 4:3 TV programming as time goes on and fullscreen
DVD movies will fade into history while widescreen DVDs become the norm.

borromini
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 4:58:42 PM

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

Will there be 16:9 fullscreen?
Is the black bar area noticeable in 1.85:1?

>fullscreen
>DVD movies will fade into history while widescreen DVDs become the norm.
>borromini
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 10:21:27 PM

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

I just think that 4:3 TV is best for small tube TVs up to a 38" screen
size. For 38" up to 6+ foot diagonal size TVs/projectors, then 16:9
looks great, too. Some people do prefer 16:9 aspect ratio no matter
what the screen size. It's true that 16:9 is the standard for HDTV,
now and in the future. But with today's rather small TVs (38" or less)
a square screen gives you a bigger picture, not the whole picture but
most of it. I will sacrifice the sides of the image for a larger one
any day on a 32-38" or smaller tube TV.

However, there are many Hollywood movies, such as 2001:A SPACE ODDESSY
that do look much better in 16:9 aspect ratio.

I would not buy a 16:9 aspect ration tube TV less than 38'' in
diameter.

I think next year there will be "thin" and ligher weight TUBE
TVs of this size, making them similar to Plasma TVs at a much lower
cost. That could change things!




On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 06:37:58 GMT, "borromini" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote:

>"bobby smith" wrote in message
>news:1r8eg0pr1dpi75pmtek56ml4fdggkn8ed3@4ax.com...
>>>snip>>
>> For small TVs (less than 38") the 16:9 aspect ratio ROBS you of precious
>> screen real estate with the black bars above and below.. You can
>> usually zoom a HD broadcast to 4:3 and fill the screen, this works
>> great.
>
>Huh? Sounds like you are advocating for 16:9 TVs when going smaller than
>38" even though I know that's not what you meant? If you have a 16:9 TV
>watching HD programs, you get less black bars above and below or none at all
>than you do with 4:3 TVs. Maybe what you meant to say was you get robbed of
>real estate when watching 4:3 programs on a 16:9 screen because of black
>bars on the sides. I also can't understand why someone would take the extra
>cinematic effect of a 16:9 image and kill it by zooming to the 4:3 screen.
>My recommendation is if you haven't yet purchased an HDTV, buy for the
>future! 16:9 will replace 4:3 TV programming as time goes on and fullscreen
>DVD movies will fade into history while widescreen DVDs become the norm.
>
>borromini
>
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 12:29:37 AM

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

I use the 4x3 option on my 921 with my wide screen hd tv and this gives
me the best picture most of the time. IN fact I don't have to change
formats much at all. It fills the screen and says normal on all sd
shows , and on the hd channels it says stretch and fills the screen
automatically. The only time I have to hit the format button is when I
watch my ota cbs station because it is in 4x3 and then will switch to
16x9 on it's own so I have to hit Zoom to fill the screen most of the
time on that channel.


--
MikeD-C05
July 30, 2004 3:59:45 AM

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

"EFK" <erickoehler.nospam@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:41070141$0$2819$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> I will be purchasing a new TV soon. Probably high definition. It will be
a
> tube set, probably 36". Also, probably Sony. But the question is, which
> size screen to buy?
>
> I saw the two sets I am trying to decide between, almost side by side.
The
> 16:9 wide screen looks fine, little getting used to the screen size. But
> the 4:3 will display the same size picture as the 16:9, just with the
black
> bars on top and bottom. But the 4:3 will display a much larger picture
when
> the images are not wide screen like on most of my cable channels. Both
are
> high definition.
>
> Why would I want to buy a wide screen 16:9 when the 4:3 gives me same
> picture size when playing movies?
>
> The best I can get out of a salesperson is that the widescreen in the
> upcoming format. What else is there that I should be considering? Am I
> missing something here?
>
> I don't like the rear projection stuff, so please don't go there.
>
> My cable company won't be high definition for a few months yet. Will I
> suffer with a high definition set until then for some reason I don't know
> about? I do have digital cable through a cable box, with some lower
analog
> channels.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
>

I bought a 16x9 but I wish I bought a 4x3 instead. I did some quick math
assuming a 50" TV in both formats.

A 16x9 TV with 16x9 content displays 1068 square inches of image
(43.579"x24.513")
A 16x9 TV with 4x3 non-stretched content displays 801 square inches of image
(32.684"x24.513")

A 4x3 TV with 4x3 content displays 1200 square inches of image (40"x30")
A 4x3 TV with 16x9 non-stretched content displays 900 square inches of image
(40"x22.5")

So...
For watching 16x9 content, a 16x9 TV has 18.7% more image.
For watching 4x3 content, a 4x3 TV has 49.8% more image.

Given how much 4x3 stuff I still watch, a 4x3 TV would have been a better
choice in retrospect.
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 7:12:47 AM

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

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:59:45 GMT, "QV" <qv@qvnospam.com> wrote:

>
>"EFK" <erickoehler.nospam@rcn.com> wrote in message
>news:41070141$0$2819$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
>> I will be purchasing a new TV soon. Probably high definition. It will be
>a
>> tube set, probably 36". Also, probably Sony. But the question is, which
>> size screen to buy?
>>
>> I saw the two sets I am trying to decide between, almost side by side.
>The
>> 16:9 wide screen looks fine, little getting used to the screen size. But
>> the 4:3 will display the same size picture as the 16:9, just with the
>black
>> bars on top and bottom. But the 4:3 will display a much larger picture
>when
>> the images are not wide screen like on most of my cable channels. Both
>are
>> high definition.
>>
>> Why would I want to buy a wide screen 16:9 when the 4:3 gives me same
>> picture size when playing movies?
>>
>> The best I can get out of a salesperson is that the widescreen in the
>> upcoming format. What else is there that I should be considering? Am I
>> missing something here?
>>
>> I don't like the rear projection stuff, so please don't go there.
>>
>> My cable company won't be high definition for a few months yet. Will I
>> suffer with a high definition set until then for some reason I don't know
>> about? I do have digital cable through a cable box, with some lower
>analog
>> channels.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eric
>>
>>
>
>I bought a 16x9 but I wish I bought a 4x3 instead. I did some quick math
>assuming a 50" TV in both formats.
>
>A 16x9 TV with 16x9 content displays 1068 square inches of image
>(43.579"x24.513")
>A 16x9 TV with 4x3 non-stretched content displays 801 square inches of image
>(32.684"x24.513")
>
>A 4x3 TV with 4x3 content displays 1200 square inches of image (40"x30")
>A 4x3 TV with 16x9 non-stretched content displays 900 square inches of image
>(40"x22.5")
>
>So...
>For watching 16x9 content, a 16x9 TV has 18.7% more image.
>For watching 4x3 content, a 4x3 TV has 49.8% more image.
>
>Given how much 4x3 stuff I still watch, a 4x3 TV would have been a better
>choice in retrospect.
>

With HD coming more popular I think in a couple years we will be
seeing lots of 16:9 wide screen HD pictures. Especially with the movie
channels. We watch lots of DVD's and the wide screen really looks
good.

hdtvfan
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 11:19:10 AM

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

>I also can't understand why someone would take the extra
>cinematic effect of a 16:9 image and kill it by zooming to the 4:3 screen.

People are dumb, that's why. I'm a manager at a video sales store out here in
California. I get an alarming amount of requests from people for fullscreen
(P&S) copies of the movies they want, and it usually takes a 30-minute seminar
in order to make them understand what they're missing. 43% (!) of the picture
OR MORE gets chopped off during P&S conversions, often forcing 1 or more people
out of the shot. This usually forces the studio to do horrid things like
stick-in artificial pans in order to keep whoever is speaking on screen.
Here are some examples of what P&S does to good movies:

Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers -
http://widescreen.org/exampleslord_rings_towers/index.s...

Indiana Jones and the Last Cursade -
http://widescreen.org/examples/last_crusade/index.shtml

James Bond: Tommorow Never Dies -
http://widescreen.org/examples/tomorrow/index.shtml

Please visit the widescreen advocates website for more info:
http://widescreen.org/index.shtml
July 30, 2004 11:19:18 AM

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

I think the advice of small TVs (<36") get 4:3, big TVs get 16:9 is
good.

If you have a small 16:9 TV and display a 4:3 image the image is very
small.

If you have a large 4:3 TV the high quality 16:9 image is shown with
less screen area than the low quality 4:3 image.
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 11:20:44 AM

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

>Will there be 16:9 fullscreen?
>Is the black bar area noticeable in 1.85:1?

Displaying 1.85:1 information on a 16:9 display *generally* means no black
bars. However, the actual aspect ratio of 16:9 TVs is not exactly 1.85:1, and
there should be black bars there. You just don't see them because of
"overscan".
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 8:56:05 PM

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

Other than just the sizes, have you compared the quality of the
picture? You got a smaller HD picture yet you get a bigger Low Def
picture. A bigger HD picture is more stunning. A bigger Low def
picture is just coarser. A shrunk down low def picture actually look
better because it appear sharper.

No sure about you, I'd rather have sharper pictures than bigger
pictures.
I bought a 16x9 with no regret.

"QV" <qv@qvnospam.com> wrote in message news:<RbgOc.137725$ek5.120413@pd7tw2no>...
> I bought a 16x9 but I wish I bought a 4x3 instead. I did some quick math
> assuming a 50" TV in both formats.
>
> A 16x9 TV with 16x9 content displays 1068 square inches of image
> (43.579"x24.513")
> A 16x9 TV with 4x3 non-stretched content displays 801 square inches of image
> (32.684"x24.513")
>
> A 4x3 TV with 4x3 content displays 1200 square inches of image (40"x30")
> A 4x3 TV with 16x9 non-stretched content displays 900 square inches of image
> (40"x22.5")
>
> So...
> For watching 16x9 content, a 16x9 TV has 18.7% more image.
> For watching 4x3 content, a 4x3 TV has 49.8% more image.
>
> Given how much 4x3 stuff I still watch, a 4x3 TV would have been a better
> choice in retrospect.
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 9:31:32 PM

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

You are right. Still can't understand why people pay big bucks and the have
to hit "funhouse mirror" to stretch the 4x3 picture. Of course some people
are masochists.



"QV" <qv@qvnospam.com> wrote in message
news:RbgOc.137725$ek5.120413@pd7tw2no...
>
> "EFK" <erickoehler.nospam@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:41070141$0$2819$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> > I will be purchasing a new TV soon. Probably high definition. It will
be
> a
> > tube set, probably 36". Also, probably Sony. But the question is,
which
> > size screen to buy?
> >
> > I saw the two sets I am trying to decide between, almost side by side.
> The
> > 16:9 wide screen looks fine, little getting used to the screen size.
But
> > the 4:3 will display the same size picture as the 16:9, just with the
> black
> > bars on top and bottom. But the 4:3 will display a much larger picture
> when
> > the images are not wide screen like on most of my cable channels. Both
> are
> > high definition.
> >
> > Why would I want to buy a wide screen 16:9 when the 4:3 gives me same
> > picture size when playing movies?
> >
> > The best I can get out of a salesperson is that the widescreen in the
> > upcoming format. What else is there that I should be considering? Am I
> > missing something here?
> >
> > I don't like the rear projection stuff, so please don't go there.
> >
> > My cable company won't be high definition for a few months yet. Will I
> > suffer with a high definition set until then for some reason I don't
know
> > about? I do have digital cable through a cable box, with some lower
> analog
> > channels.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eric
> >
> >
>
> I bought a 16x9 but I wish I bought a 4x3 instead. I did some quick math
> assuming a 50" TV in both formats.
>
> A 16x9 TV with 16x9 content displays 1068 square inches of image
> (43.579"x24.513")
> A 16x9 TV with 4x3 non-stretched content displays 801 square inches of
image
> (32.684"x24.513")
>
> A 4x3 TV with 4x3 content displays 1200 square inches of image (40"x30")
> A 4x3 TV with 16x9 non-stretched content displays 900 square inches of
image
> (40"x22.5")
>
> So...
> For watching 16x9 content, a 16x9 TV has 18.7% more image.
> For watching 4x3 content, a 4x3 TV has 49.8% more image.
>
> Given how much 4x3 stuff I still watch, a 4x3 TV would have been a better
> choice in retrospect.
>
>
!