Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
I currently have a 36 inch 4.3. I am fairly satisfied with the height of the
screen based on my viewing distance. Moving on to a 16.9 ratio, will someone
tell me which 16.9 size screen I will need to purchase to keep the same
height as the 36 inch set. I once new of web site that performed
conversions, but I can't seem to track it down. TIA
"jacoby" <jacobykjh@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iJmdnazAO4nzfCjcRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> I currently have a 36 inch 4.3. I am fairly satisfied with the height of
the
> screen based on my viewing distance. Moving on to a 16.9 ratio, will
someone
> tell me which 16.9 size screen I will need to purchase to keep the same
> height as the 36 inch set. I once new of web site that performed
> conversions, but I can't seem to track it down. TIA
>
>
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
"jacoby" <jacobykjh@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iJmdnazAO4nzfCjcRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>I currently have a 36 inch 4.3. I am fairly satisfied with the height of
>the
> screen based on my viewing distance. Moving on to a 16.9 ratio, will
> someone
> tell me which 16.9 size screen I will need to purchase to keep the same
> height as the 36 inch set.
You can do this yourself with the rule that the square of the diagonal is
equal to the sum of the squares of the height and width. I also have a 36
inch 4:3 and found that a 43 inch 16:9 was a little less high, a 46 slightly
more (4%), and that I needed at least a 50 to get any noticeable improvement
13%).
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
I was also needing to check the height I get from widescreen dvd movies
since it is too small on my 36 inch 4.3. I looking around 60 inches in the
16.9 ratio
..
"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:5dOdnVXGRLgElSvcRVn-hA@magma.ca...
> You can do this yourself with the rule that the square of the diagonal is
> equal to the sum of the squares of the height and width. I also have a 36
> inch 4:3 and found that a 43 inch 16:9 was a little less high, a 46
slightly
> more (4%), and that I needed at least a 50 to get any noticeable
improvement
> 13%).
>
>
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
jacoby wrote:
> Never mind. I found it
> http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi >
> "jacoby" <jacobykjh@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:iJmdnazAO4nzfCjcRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>
>>I currently have a 36 inch 4.3. I am fairly satisfied with the height of
>>the screen based on my viewing distance. Moving on to a 16.9 ratio, will
> someone
>>tell me which 16.9 size screen I will need to purchase to keep the same
>>height as the 36 inch set. I once new of web site that performed
>>conversions, but I can't seem to track it down. TIA
Yes, the site is useful, but this is rather basic geometry math. Maybe
they should make figuring out the height and width ratios to the
diagonal for TVs a standard math question for high school students.
Perhaps a handout at the B&M stores would be a good idea - might boost
sales of the bigger widescreens.
For the record, for a 16:9 set: height = 0.49, width = 0.872 *
diagonal. For a 4:3 set, hgt = 0.6, width = 0.8 * diagonal. So, rounding
off a bit, to replace a 4:3 set with equivalent height widescreen,
multiply the 4:3 set diagonal by 1.2 (1.224 if you want greater precision).
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
> "jacoby" <jacobykjh@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:iJmdnazAO4nzfCjcRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> >I currently have a 36 inch 4.3. I am fairly satisfied with the height of
> >the
> > screen based on my viewing distance. Moving on to a 16.9 ratio, will
> > someone
> > tell me which 16.9 size screen I will need to purchase to keep the same
> > height as the 36 inch set.
First you need to measure the height. For example, I have a 27" TV but the
height is only 16", so if the set is 4:3 the diagonal is really 26.67".
Assuming the height is 21.6", which would be true for a true 36" diagonal,
the 16:9 diagonal has to be 44".
One trick you can use is if you know the height of a 4:3 set, the equivalent
16:9 diagonal will be about 2 times the height. That isn't exact, but it is
close enough for your needs.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Robert B. Peirce wrote:
> Assuming the height is 21.6", which would be true for a true 36"
diagonal,
> the 16:9 diagonal has to be 44".
One gotcha is whether it's "true" 36 inch diagonal. Traditionally,
American advertising rules allowed TV makers to claim a diagonal size
of 36 inches for a screen that was actually more like 34 inches. The
rule dated from the days when tubes were round at the corners and you
couldn't actually measure the diagonal. I believe modern HDTVs are
sold by the true diagonal size -- mine was, at least. But if trying to
match an older TV, you'd better take a ruler to it and not just believe
the label on the box.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Robert B. Peirce wrote:
> Assuming the height is 21.6", which would be true for a true 36"
diagonal,
> the 16:9 diagonal has to be 44".
One gotcha is whether it's "true" 36 inch diagonal. Traditionally,
American advertising rules allowed TV makers to claim a diagonal size
of 36 inches for a screen that was actually more like 34 inches. The
rule dated from the days when tubes were round at the corners and you
couldn't actually measure the diagonal. I believe modern HDTVs are
sold by the true diagonal size -- mine was, at least. But if trying to
match an older TV, you'd better take a ruler to it and not just believe
the label on the box.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.