Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

16:9 vs 4:3

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
November 5, 2004 8:40:11 PM

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

I've got a 36" wide space and I can either get a 32" 4:3 or a 30" 16:9
to fit the space. The screens are about the same width, but the 4:3
is taller. Is there any reason not to get the 4:3? Any reason the
4:3 can't letterbox to 16:9 just fine?
Seems like it could show the same image as the 16:9, but 4:3 formats
would be larger.

I'm thinking about the Sony KV-32HS420 and the KV-30HS420.

More about : question

Anonymous
November 6, 2004 8:43:35 AM

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

Take a look at this page http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi for
comparative formats.

Don't understand why you would let a little thing like the width of your
space dictate the size of your TV, though. That's backwards! TV's need to
be 16:9 and at least 50" diagonal, preferably "60. Knock out a wall.

mack
austin


"Bill" <gg@hank.org> wrote in message
news:43125ccc.0411051740.4eb6ce06@posting.google.com...
> I've got a 36" wide space and I can either get a 32" 4:3 or a 30" 16:9
> to fit the space. The screens are about the same width, but the 4:3
> is taller. Is there any reason not to get the 4:3? Any reason the
> 4:3 can't letterbox to 16:9 just fine?
> Seems like it could show the same image as the 16:9, but 4:3 formats
> would be larger.
>
> I'm thinking about the Sony KV-32HS420 and the KV-30HS420.
November 6, 2004 8:43:36 AM

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

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 05:43:35 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
<MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:

>Take a look at this page http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi for
>comparative formats.
>
>Don't understand why you would let a little thing like the width of your
>space dictate the size of your TV, though. That's backwards! TV's need to
>be 16:9 and at least 50" diagonal, preferably "60. Knock out a wall.
>


Are you nuts ?
Related resources
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 8:43:36 AM

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

I prefer the wide screen. I watch a lot of dvd's and the widescreen
is really nice. I like the smaller screen size for the standard
picture. Tonight, Friday I was flipping channels through all the
off-air network stations. First time I noticed that all were in Hi
Def and wide screen. Some had surround sound. ABC, CBS,
NBC, FOX and PBS. I can't get the networks in Hi Def from the
Dish network. Im to close to a major city for that. I use a outdoor
UHF antenna to receive them.

My set is the Sony Kd-34XBR960. Its a 34" widescreen. The screen
is about 18" tall but works fine at a 8 or 9 foot viewing distance.
Its simpler to just buy a new cabinet, we did.

hdtvfan

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 05:43:35 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
<MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:

>Take a look at this page http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi for
>comparative formats.
>
>Don't understand why you would let a little thing like the width of your
>space dictate the size of your TV, though. That's backwards! TV's need to
>be 16:9 and at least 50" diagonal, preferably "60. Knock out a wall.
>
>mack
>austin
>
>
>"Bill" <gg@hank.org> wrote in message
>news:43125ccc.0411051740.4eb6ce06@posting.google.com...
>> I've got a 36" wide space and I can either get a 32" 4:3 or a 30" 16:9
>> to fit the space. The screens are about the same width, but the 4:3
>> is taller. Is there any reason not to get the 4:3? Any reason the
>> 4:3 can't letterbox to 16:9 just fine?
>> Seems like it could show the same image as the 16:9, but 4:3 formats
>> would be larger.
>>
>> I'm thinking about the Sony KV-32HS420 and the KV-30HS420.
>
November 6, 2004 12:06:50 PM

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

"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote in message news:<bwZid.28646$IE1.12764@fe1.texas.rr.com>...
> Take a look at this page http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi for
> comparative formats.

Which indicates for 16:9 they have the same screen area. For 4:3 the
32" (4:3) tv has a larger image.

That's actually not what I was asking (my fault). I've now read all
the debate about this and it seems to be a matter of opinion and what
I now watch and what I expect to watch (I liked the one comment that
the 16:9 is better because 4:3 shows will have a smaller image and
thus look like a higher resolution image and you won't see as many
lines as you might with a 4:3 tv...)

It's my understanding that the only difference between the two direct
view tvs is that the 4:3 will have a larger image when displaying 4:3
and just about the same size image when displaying 16:9. So if size
matters, then 4:3 seems to make sense. (assuming a mix of viewing of
the two formats.)

There's no reason the 4:3 won't display the 16:9 images just as well
(except for the black bars on top and bottom.

What prompted the question was a sales clerk commenting that you
couldn't use a 4:3 as a wide screen tv.

Plus, if I buy the 16:9 tv I'll just be falling into their trap and
have to upgrade again when the 2.76:1 TVs come out.... ;) 

> Don't understand why you would let a little thing like the width of your
> space dictate the size of your TV, though. That's backwards! TV's need to
> be 16:9 and at least 50" diagonal, preferably "60. Knock out a wall.

There's only so much room in the bathroom.

> > I'm thinking about the Sony KV-32HS420 and the KV-30HS420.
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 2:39:25 PM

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

In article <43125ccc.0411051740.4eb6ce06@posting.google.com>, Bill
<gg@hank.org> wrote:

> I've got a 36" wide space and I can either get a 32" 4:3 or a 30" 16:9
> to fit the space. The screens are about the same width, but the 4:3
> is taller. Is there any reason not to get the 4:3? Any reason the
> 4:3 can't letterbox to 16:9 just fine?
> Seems like it could show the same image as the 16:9, but 4:3 formats
> would be larger.
>
> I'm thinking about the Sony KV-32HS420 and the KV-30HS420.

I was in the exact same situation as you. I opted for the Sony
KV-32HS510 (I didn't like the looks and features of the S420). Hard
core HD fans will tell you that if you don't go at least 16:9, you're
nuts. I disagree. If I was building a true home theater that would be a
different matter, but I'm not. It all depends on your viewing habits
and preferences. Wide screen DVD's look glorious on my tv and I don't
mind the letterboxing at all. I'm used to it. As far as HDTV goes, I
don't have cable or sat so I use my rooftop antenna with an LG
LST-4200A tuner and I get everything that is offered in my area as far
as OTA HD. Perfectly clear and beautiful in widescreen format. The
World Series was really nice. MNF and Enterprise just leaves a big grin
on your face.

--
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.

My address has been anti-spammed.
Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 3:16:38 PM

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

Bill wrote:
>
> I've got a 36" wide space and I can either get a 32" 4:3 or a 30" 16:9
> to fit the space. The screens are about the same width, but the 4:3
> is taller. Is there any reason not to get the 4:3? Any reason the
> 4:3 can't letterbox to 16:9 just fine?
> Seems like it could show the same image as the 16:9, but 4:3 formats
> would be larger.
>
> I'm thinking about the Sony KV-32HS420 and the KV-30HS420.


The answer is Pay me now or Pay me later.....

16:9 HD tubes cost more than 4:3 HD tubes....
Save the cabinet carpenter's 16:9 bill for later....
In a few years 16:9 prices are lower & set options greater..
In a few years more 16:9 (local) Programing will be available..

For your Info a 4:3 32" gives a 29.4" Diag for 16:9

For your Info a 16:9 30" gives a 24.5" Diag for 4:3


My final personal answer is a Pure HDTV Program with no
Black bars is Home Entertainment in Action..!!

Putting up with Black bars viewing HD will save you money now
& in the short run...
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 8:30:40 PM

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

"Dennis Mayer" <Polaris1@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:418D1506.BB91EE5B@execpc.com...
> My final personal answer is a Pure HDTV Program with no
> Black bars is Home Entertainment in Action..!!
>

Don't forget that you will still get black bars when watching "real"
widescreen (2.35? : 1), even with 16:9 TVs.
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 9:05:17 PM

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

<_-_> wrote in message news:8vvoo0ttque3ldkuilcc39nju8p9cfv3q8@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 05:43:35 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
> <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:
>
> >Take a look at this page http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi for
> >comparative formats.
> >
> >Don't understand why you would let a little thing like the width of your
> >space dictate the size of your TV, though. That's backwards! TV's need
to
> >be 16:9 and at least 50" diagonal, preferably "60. Knock out a wall.
> >
>
>
> Are you nuts ?

It's called a joke. Look it up.

mack
austin
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 9:27:45 PM

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

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 09:06:50 -0800, Bill wrote:
> There's no reason the 4:3 won't display the 16:9 images just as well
> (except for the black bars on top and bottom.

But, if I understand correctly, you lose resolution when you do this.
Those black bars use up some of the scan lines of your television. Since a
16:9 image on a 4:3 screen only uses about 3/4 of the vertical height,
you'll lose about 25% of your scan lines (25% of your resolution) just
displaying the black areas.
--
Gerry Wheeler
Naples, FL
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 9:27:46 PM

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

In article <pan.2004.11.06.18.27.44.477633@earthlink.net>, Gerry
Wheeler <gxwheeler@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 09:06:50 -0800, Bill wrote:
> > There's no reason the 4:3 won't display the 16:9 images just as well
> > (except for the black bars on top and bottom.
>
> But, if I understand correctly, you lose resolution when you do this.
> Those black bars use up some of the scan lines of your television. Since a
> 16:9 image on a 4:3 screen only uses about 3/4 of the vertical height,
> you'll lose about 25% of your scan lines (25% of your resolution) just
> displaying the black areas.

No they don't. There's no information in the black area for the tv to
scan. I viewed two Sony's side by side. One 4:3 HD-ready and one 16:9
HD ready displaying the same HD source. Resolution and clarity seemed
identical to me.

--
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.

My address has been anti-spammed.
Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 9:27:47 PM

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

Otto Pylot wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.11.06.18.27.44.477633@earthlink.net>, Gerry
> Wheeler <gxwheeler@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 09:06:50 -0800, Bill wrote:
>>
>>>There's no reason the 4:3 won't display the 16:9 images just as well
>>>(except for the black bars on top and bottom.
>>
>>But, if I understand correctly, you lose resolution when you do this.
>>Those black bars use up some of the scan lines of your television. Since a
>>16:9 image on a 4:3 screen only uses about 3/4 of the vertical height,
>>you'll lose about 25% of your scan lines (25% of your resolution) just
>>displaying the black areas.
>
>
> No they don't. There's no information in the black area for the tv to
> scan. I viewed two Sony's side by side. One 4:3 HD-ready and one 16:9
> HD ready displaying the same HD source. Resolution and clarity seemed
> identical to me.
>
I can confirm this - Sony Wegas (and possibly others) re-align the guns
so when in 16:9 mode you effectively have a true 16:9 tv without the
loss of resolution. That's exactly the reason why I got a 4:3 -
basically get the same size 16:9 picture and a 50% larger 4:3 picture
for that same price as a 16:9 native. For a fixed price point it seems
like a no brainer.

Bob
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 12:30:38 AM

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

i don't even understand how people notice the black bars...i don't...i just
see that there's nothing broadcast in the top and bottom of the glass...but
it's black...it's not like there's an image there and you can't stop looking
at it...i don't get the obsession with "black bars"


"GDC" <goggled@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:o gcjd.29143$dj2.2053584@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Dennis Mayer" <Polaris1@execpc.com> wrote in message
> news:418D1506.BB91EE5B@execpc.com...
> > My final personal answer is a Pure HDTV Program with no
> > Black bars is Home Entertainment in Action..!!
> >
>
> Don't forget that you will still get black bars when watching "real"
> widescreen (2.35? : 1), even with 16:9 TVs.
>
>
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 2:00:55 AM

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

Many new sets have something called "16:9 vertical squeeze" that does let
you have the full resolution of widescreen content. I know a guy with a 4:3
Sony that has that feature.

--Dan

"Gerry Wheeler" <gxwheeler@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.11.06.18.27.44.477633@earthlink.net...

> But, if I understand correctly, you lose resolution when you do this.
> Those black bars use up some of the scan lines of your television. Since a
> 16:9 image on a 4:3 screen only uses about 3/4 of the vertical height,
> you'll lose about 25% of your scan lines (25% of your resolution) just
> displaying the black areas.
> --
> Gerry Wheeler
> Naples, FL
>
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 7:39:10 AM

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

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:00:55 +0000, dg wrote:
> Many new sets have something called "16:9 vertical squeeze" that does let
> you have the full resolution of widescreen content. I know a guy with a
> 4:3 Sony that has that feature.

So the set sort of reconfigures itself into a 16:9 set when necessary?
That's pretty cool. Thanks for the info.
--
Gerry Wheeler
Naples, FL
November 7, 2004 12:24:53 PM

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

"oscargrouch" <leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2v5fmiF2gd1hgU4@uni-berlin.de...
>i don't even understand how people notice the black bars...i don't...i just
> see that there's nothing broadcast in the top and bottom of the
> glass...but
> it's black...it's not like there's an image there and you can't stop
> looking
> at it...i don't get the obsession with "black bars"
>

BURN - IN!!!


>
> "GDC" <goggled@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:o gcjd.29143$dj2.2053584@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>
>> "Dennis Mayer" <Polaris1@execpc.com> wrote in message
>> news:418D1506.BB91EE5B@execpc.com...
>> > My final personal answer is a Pure HDTV Program with no
>> > Black bars is Home Entertainment in Action..!!
>> >
>>
>> Don't forget that you will still get black bars when watching "real"
>> widescreen (2.35? : 1), even with 16:9 TVs.
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 12:51:51 PM

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

DC wrote:

> "oscargrouch" <leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2v5fmiF2gd1hgU4@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>i don't even understand how people notice the black bars...i don't...i just
>>see that there's nothing broadcast in the top and bottom of the
>>glass...but
>>it's black...it's not like there's an image there and you can't stop
>>looking
>>at it...i don't get the obsession with "black bars"
>>
>
>
> BURN - IN!!!

My 16:9 RPTV, which is much more suspectable to uneven phosphor wear
than a direct view, has had nearly 8 years of heavy use. There is no
indication of uneven wear caused by different aspect ratios. Get a
calibration disc and use it. That will seriously reduce the chance of
uneven wear.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 4:16:59 PM

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

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv, Bob Robertson <brobertson@aol.com> wrote:

> loss of resolution. That's exactly the reason why I got a 4:3 -
> basically get the same size 16:9 picture and a 50% larger 4:3 picture
> for that same price as a 16:9 native. For a fixed price point it seems
> like a no brainer.

I agree. That's why I got a 4:3. An equivalently priced 16:9 was tiny.
And even if I were to get a 16:9 with the same width screen, and were to
pay a much higher price for it, when watching regular TV, the picture
would have been tiny.

I just don't get why anyone would buy a 16:9 (CRT) at this point in time.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 4:17:00 PM

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

X-No-archive: yes

<EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:cml78b$qr2$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv, Bob Robertson <brobertson@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> loss of resolution. That's exactly the reason why I got a 4:3 -
>> basically get the same size 16:9 picture and a 50% larger 4:3 picture
>> for that same price as a 16:9 native. For a fixed price point it seems
>> like a no brainer.
>
> I agree. That's why I got a 4:3. An equivalently priced 16:9 was tiny.
> And even if I were to get a 16:9 with the same width screen, and were to
> pay a much higher price for it, when watching regular TV, the picture
> would have been tiny.
>
> I just don't get why anyone would buy a 16:9 (CRT) at this point in time.
>
===============================
Because 95% of what I watch is 16:9 or greater.
===============================
November 8, 2004 12:47:23 AM

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

Dennis Mayer <Polaris1@execpc.com> wrote in message news:<418D1506.BB91EE5B@execpc.com>...
> > I'm thinking about the Sony KV-32HS420 and the KV-30HS420.

(BTW -- those Sonys are the same price.)



> The answer is Pay me now or Pay me later.....

I paid a bit more now. ;) 

I bought the Toshiba 34HFX84 -- so ended up with at 34" 16:9 instead
of the 30" 16:9 sony (or the 32" 4:3). Very nice image quality.
Speakers on the bottom allowed for a larger screen in my cabinet.
Execelent sound out of those speakers -- and great low end bass.

http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi said

34" 16:9 in 16:9 format has 494.32 sq in.
32" 4:3 in 16:9 format has 368.64 sq in.

That's a nice difference.

Also turns out watching 4:3 format in "Widescreen Mode" looks just
fine. Nobody in my family noticed Sponebob was a bit wider when
standing at the edge of the screen...

I'll post another message about a problem with that set, though.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 12:58:52 AM

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

"Bill" <whmoseley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 7c7766c.0411072147.69eb48fa@posting.google.com...
> Also turns out watching 4:3 format in "Widescreen Mode" looks just
> fine. Nobody in my family noticed Sponebob was a bit wider when
> standing at the edge of the screen...

You and your family may be able to find help at the following site:

http://www.visionconnection.org
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 6:16:39 AM

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

--
This site exposes them all!

www.unclet.netfirms.com

Damn toms!
<EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:cml78b$qr2$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv, Bob Robertson <brobertson@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > loss of resolution. That's exactly the reason why I got a 4:3 -
> > basically get the same size 16:9 picture and a 50% larger 4:3 picture
> > for that same price as a 16:9 native. For a fixed price point it seems
> > like a no brainer.
>
> I agree. That's why I got a 4:3. An equivalently priced 16:9 was tiny.
> And even if I were to get a 16:9 with the same width screen, and were to
> pay a much higher price for it, when watching regular TV, the picture
> would have been tiny.
>
> I just don't get why anyone would buy a 16:9 (CRT) at this point in time.

It's the best picture that you can get. Bigger is not always better...
Please, no jokes.

>
> --
> In the councils of government, we must guard against the
> acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
> by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
> disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
> -- Dwight David Eisenhower
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 6:16:40 AM

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

At least on the Sony Wega, the 4:3 picture quality should be the same
when viewing 16:9 movies as a true 16:9. I stand by my original statement.

"Guest" wrote:

-- This site exposes them all! www.unclet.netfirms.com Damn toms!
<EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:cml78b$qr2$1@reader1.panix.com...

>> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv, Bob Robertson <brobertson@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>> > loss of resolution. That's exactly the reason why I got a 4:3 -
>>> > basically get the same size 16:9 picture and a 50% larger 4:3 picture
>>> > for that same price as a 16:9 native. For a fixed price point it
seems
>>> > like a no brainer.
>
>>
>> I agree. That's why I got a 4:3. An equivalently priced 16:9 was tiny.
>> And even if I were to get a 16:9 with the same width screen, and were to
>> pay a much higher price for it, when watching regular TV, the picture
>> would have been tiny.
>>
>> I just don't get why anyone would buy a 16:9 (CRT) at this point in
time.


It's the best picture that you can get. Bigger is not always better...
Please, no jokes.


>>
>> --
>> In the councils of government, we must guard against the
>> acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
>> by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
>> disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
>> -- Dwight David Eisenhower
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 6:55:43 AM

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

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv, Richard C. <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > I just don't get why anyone would buy a 16:9 (CRT) at this point in time.
> >
> ===============================
> Because 95% of what I watch is 16:9 or greater.
> ===============================


In that case, you made the right choice.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 11:40:06 AM

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

on a tube? i think i'd have to leave it on with it tuned to an hd channel
for like a year straight for that to happen


"DC" <dc_295@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Icqjd.35426$Om6.21894@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "oscargrouch" <leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2v5fmiF2gd1hgU4@uni-berlin.de...
> >i don't even understand how people notice the black bars...i don't...i
just
> > see that there's nothing broadcast in the top and bottom of the
> > glass...but
> > it's black...it's not like there's an image there and you can't stop
> > looking
> > at it...i don't get the obsession with "black bars"
> >
>
> BURN - IN!!!
>
>
> >
> > "GDC" <goggled@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:o gcjd.29143$dj2.2053584@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >>
> >> "Dennis Mayer" <Polaris1@execpc.com> wrote in message
> >> news:418D1506.BB91EE5B@execpc.com...
> >> > My final personal answer is a Pure HDTV Program with no
> >> > Black bars is Home Entertainment in Action..!!
> >> >
> >>
> >> Don't forget that you will still get black bars when watching "real"
> >> widescreen (2.35? : 1), even with 16:9 TVs.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 6:32:40 AM

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

Bill wrote:
> Also turns out watching 4:3 format in "Widescreen Mode" looks just
> fine. Nobody in my family noticed Sponebob was a bit wider when
> standing at the edge of the screen...

Watching TV on a circus mirror is just plain silly.
!