Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New to HDTV and widescreen...some questions

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 10:51:12 PM

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

I just recently purchased my first HDTV, a Sony 30" widescreen. I
originally had a 27" Sony WEGA that unfortunately was stolen. Since I
was being forced to buy a new TV, I figured it would be best to go HD.
I also figured widescreen was the way to go. When I went to purchase
the new TV, I found that I could buy either the 30" Widescreen or the
32" (HD capable) Sony for the same price. I ulitmately chose the
widescreen, but I am beginning to wonder if I made the best choice. I
could still swap for the 32" model, but I wanted to get some feedback.

- I am finding that this set feels smaller than my 27." Is this due to
the smaller height, or do I just need some to time to adjust to the
widescreen?

- I noticed that most of the local HD stations are in 4:3 mode expect
during prime time and certain sports events. I know that on a 4:3 TV
there would be bars on the top and bottom, but would there also be bars
on the sides when the HD stations are 4:3 mode? If this is the case, I
would imagine that looks terrible.

- This TV has a HDMI input. My cable box from Comcast has an HDMI port
(although I am not sure it is supported). Is really worth using this
over the component cables that Comcast supplied?

I will probably end up keeping the 30". I am in the Atlanta area, so I
am optimistic that more HD content will be made available in the near
future.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:06:24 AM

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

Bill730 wrote:
> I just recently purchased my first HDTV, a Sony 30" widescreen. I
> originally had a 27" Sony WEGA that unfortunately was stolen. Since I
> was being forced to buy a new TV, I figured it would be best to go HD.
> I also figured widescreen was the way to go. When I went to purchase
> the new TV, I found that I could buy either the 30" Widescreen or the
> 32" (HD capable) Sony for the same price. I ulitmately chose the
> widescreen, but I am beginning to wonder if I made the best choice. I
> could still swap for the 32" model, but I wanted to get some feedback.
>
> - I am finding that this set feels smaller than my 27." Is this due to
> the smaller height, or do I just need some to time to adjust to the
> widescreen?

The equivalent height for a 27" 4:3 set would be a 33" 16:9
widescreen, so the 30" widescreen is smaller on 4:3 material. To get the
same screen size for a current 4:3 set, get a widescreen that is 1.2
times larger. Do the math:
for 4:3 screens, height = 0.6 * diagonal, width = 0.8 * diagonal
for 16:9 screen: height = 0.49 * diagonal, width = 0.87 * diagonal.

> - I noticed that most of the local HD stations are in 4:3 mode expect
> during prime time and certain sports events. I know that on a 4:3 TV
> there would be bars on the top and bottom, but would there also be bars
> on the sides when the HD stations are 4:3 mode? If this is the case, I
> would imagine that looks terrible.

You can stretch the 4:3 picture on widescreen sets, but that can look
funky. 4:3 HD sets should provide zoom options, but then you have to
switch back and forth. In general, just about all the prime time
scripted shows on the major broadcast networks are now in HD, but few
reality shows are HD and all of the scheduled news shows are SD. More
and more sport events are in HD, but not all. However, not all local
stations, especially in the smaller markets, have spent the money to
broadcast the network HD feed on the digital channel. They are simply
broadcasting SD digital.

> - This TV has a HDMI input. My cable box from Comcast has an HDMI port
> (although I am not sure it is supported). Is really worth using this
> over the component cables that Comcast supplied?

For a 30" HD set, probably not worth messing with HDMI. Chances are
that it is not supported anyway.

if you a have stereo receiver with digital audio input and 5.1
capability, you should hook the set top box digital audio up. The
networks are still upgrading their shows, but many of the HD shows and
sport events are in 5.1 sound.

Alan F
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 10:21:07 AM

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

Bill730 wrote:
> I just recently purchased my first HDTV, a Sony 30" widescreen.
>
> - I am finding that this set feels smaller than my 27." Is this due to
> the smaller height, or do I just need some to time to adjust to the
> widescreen?

When watching standard SD broadcasts on your new set, the screen IS
effectively smaller than your old 27" set. If it were me, I'd still
prefer the new set over the old.

You might want to consider a larger set. I've been watching a 43" set
for the past 18 months, and I don't think I'd want to go any smaller than
that.

> - I noticed that most of the local HD stations are in 4:3 mode expect
> during prime time and certain sports events. I know that on a 4:3 TV
> there would be bars on the top and bottom, but would there also be bars
> on the sides when the HD stations are 4:3 mode? If this is the case, I
> would imagine that looks terrible.

Yes, that's correct. But you don't always have to watch the HD channels.
The SD channels will be properly displayed on the new set, with bars on
the sides, but not the top and bottom.

> - This TV has a HDMI input. My cable box from Comcast has an HDMI port
> (although I am not sure it is supported). Is really worth using this
> over the component cables that Comcast supplied?

In my experience, probably not.

> I will probably end up keeping the 30". I am in the Atlanta area, so I
> am optimistic that more HD content will be made available in the near
> future.

That's certainly true. HD coverage is gradually expanding, but don't
expect it to be ubiquitous any time soon. There is an enormous catalog
of 4:3 SD material that will remain in use for many, many years. You can
expect more and more new programming to be in HD. You'll also find that
your viewing habits tend to gravitate towards HD content. Your satellite
or cable company may offer an "HD tier" of programming that you may want
to consider purchasing. I find that most of my viewing is on the regular
broadcast networks, but I also find quite a few shows on HDNet or InHD
that are worth watching.

Congratulations on your new set.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 11:33:53 AM

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

Thanks for the feedback. I guess my specific question was if it would
be worth me swapping for the 32" model. I was curious as to how the
digital signals would look on a 4:3 screen. I know there would be bars
on the top and bottom during HD programs, but my question is would
there also be bars on the sides when the digital stations are
broadcasting in 4:3 mode (of course, the standard analog signal would
look normal)? If bars appear on all sides, I imagine the picture would
look pretty small on a 32" I guess there is no easy answer. I
considered looking into a 34" model, but I think that would overload my
TV cabinent from its excessive weight. I am sure a 42" + screen would
be a great size, but since I would be in the LCD/plasma/projection
world that would be beyond the limits of my budget...
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 2:38:43 PM

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

Bill730 wrote:

>I just recently purchased my first HDTV, a Sony 30" widescreen. I
>originally had a 27" Sony WEGA that unfortunately was stolen. Since I
>was being forced to buy a new TV, I figured it would be best to go HD.
>I also figured widescreen was the way to go. When I went to purchase
>the new TV, I found that I could buy either the 30" Widescreen or the
>32" (HD capable) Sony for the same price. I ulitmately chose the
>widescreen, but I am beginning to wonder if I made the best choice. I
>could still swap for the 32" model, but I wanted to get some feedback.
>
>- I am finding that this set feels smaller than my 27." Is this due to
>the smaller height, or do I just need some to time to adjust to the
>widescreen?
>
...

I'm behind you in the process, but in upgrading from 20 inches traditional
4:3 I'm not considering anything smaller than 34 inches and may stretch
the budget to get 42 inches, which is about the max for the combination
of viewing distances I will use. So far as the weight goes for a larger set
(which will depend on the technology, of course), I figure a new
purpose-built stand is an expenditure I can't afford not to make, is a
minor blip in the cost of the overall package, and is a safety issue I
can't ignore. Whether the stand will be built by the manufacturer or
by me is an open question.

If the budget won't stretch to what I figure I need, I'll just have to wait.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:21:09 PM

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

On 16 May 2005 18:51:12 -0700, "Bill730" <fsubilly730@hotmail.com> spewed forth
these words of wisdom:

>I just recently purchased my first HDTV, a Sony 30" widescreen. I
>originally had a 27" Sony WEGA that unfortunately was stolen. Since I
>was being forced to buy a new TV, I figured it would be best to go HD.
>I also figured widescreen was the way to go. When I went to purchase
>the new TV, I found that I could buy either the 30" Widescreen or the
>32" (HD capable) Sony for the same price. I ulitmately chose the
>widescreen, but I am beginning to wonder if I made the best choice. I
>could still swap for the 32" model, but I wanted to get some feedback.
>
>- I am finding that this set feels smaller than my 27." Is this due to
>the smaller height, or do I just need some to time to adjust to the
>widescreen?
>

A 30" 16:9 set has a 45% larger viewing area than a 27" 4:3 set on widescreen
material. Compare here: http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

--
"I'm not a cool person in real life, but I play one on the Internet"
Galley
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:21:47 PM

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

This is all great feedback. I might even reconsider getting a 42-47"
projection set. I know the picture quality would not be as good, but
the size of the set would be good for both 16:9 and 4:3 programming. I
was surprised to see that there are some to be found in the $1000 range
and that isn't too much more than what I paid for the 30" Sony CRT. I
had ignored these before thinking that they would be far too large, but
since I set about 7 feet away from the set, it might be a more
reasonable size that I thought. Surprisingly some 42" models way less
than my 30" Sony. I might be able to fit one my current TV stand, but
that may be a stretch...
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 6:05:00 PM

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

"Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote

> You might want to consider a larger set. I've been watching a 43" set for
> the past 18 months, and I don't think I'd want to go any smaller than
> that.

I'll say! Bill's 4:3 SD pictures are going to be tiny on that screen. And
his HD is not large enough to really get much of what HD is all about. We
have a 60" HDTV. I would not want to go smaller than 50" diagonal in a 16:9
HDTV set.

mack
austin
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 6:59:21 PM

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

Thanks for a good explanation. To the original poster and other
potential HDTV buyer, the gereral rule is the following.

If you watch HDTV at the same distance as with the "regular TV" (NTSC at
4:3 ratio), the diagonal size of the HDTV should be at least approximately
twice the size in order to truly enjoy the benefit of HD. The reason
is that the linear resolution of HDTV is more than twice of that
of a regular TV and the eye cannot see the additional information
if the size is the same at the old recommended viewing distance. You can
either move closer (1/2 distance) or buy a larger size (twice).

In article <4289c570$0$3925$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
>Bill730 wrote:
>> I just recently purchased my first HDTV, a Sony 30" widescreen.
>>
>> - I am finding that this set feels smaller than my 27." Is this due to
>> the smaller height, or do I just need some to time to adjust to the
>> widescreen?
>
>When watching standard SD broadcasts on your new set, the screen IS
>effectively smaller than your old 27" set. If it were me, I'd still
>prefer the new set over the old.
>
>You might want to consider a larger set. I've been watching a 43" set
>for the past 18 months, and I don't think I'd want to go any smaller than
>that.
>
>> - I noticed that most of the local HD stations are in 4:3 mode expect
>> during prime time and certain sports events. I know that on a 4:3 TV
>> there would be bars on the top and bottom, but would there also be bars
>> on the sides when the HD stations are 4:3 mode? If this is the case, I
>> would imagine that looks terrible.
>
>Yes, that's correct. But you don't always have to watch the HD channels.
> The SD channels will be properly displayed on the new set, with bars on
>the sides, but not the top and bottom.
>
>> - This TV has a HDMI input. My cable box from Comcast has an HDMI port
>> (although I am not sure it is supported). Is really worth using this
>> over the component cables that Comcast supplied?
>
>In my experience, probably not.
>
>> I will probably end up keeping the 30". I am in the Atlanta area, so I
>> am optimistic that more HD content will be made available in the near
>> future.
>
>That's certainly true. HD coverage is gradually expanding, but don't
>expect it to be ubiquitous any time soon. There is an enormous catalog
>of 4:3 SD material that will remain in use for many, many years. You can
>expect more and more new programming to be in HD. You'll also find that
>your viewing habits tend to gravitate towards HD content. Your satellite
>or cable company may offer an "HD tier" of programming that you may want
>to consider purchasing. I find that most of my viewing is on the regular
>broadcast networks, but I also find quite a few shows on HDNet or InHD
>that are worth watching.
>
>Congratulations on your new set.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 7:57:15 PM

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

Galley wrote:
>
> A 30" 16:9 set has a 45% larger viewing area than a 27" 4:3 set on widescreen
> material. Compare here: http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

On the other hand, a 27" 4:3 set has a 21% larger viewing area than a 30"
16:9 set on 4:3 material. So for a significant amount of his viewing for
the foreseeable future (ie, for all of the 4:3 viewing), the new set will
be _smaller_ than the old one.

Overall, the 30" set is slightly larger than the 27" - there's less than
a 10% difference in actual viewing area. But if he wants to avoid
reducing the image size on his 4:3 viewing, he needs to replace his 4:3
27" set with at least a 33" widescreen set. And if he wants to get the
full benefit of the increased resolution at the same viewing distance, he
needs to go larger still.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 8:10:27 PM

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

I just picked up a Sanyo 4:3 32" HDTV and also had the choice of a 30"
widescreen. I picked the 32" 4:3 went home viewed a PBS HD program and
found the picture to be 29.5" or just a tad smaller then the 30"
widescreen. As 60% of my viewing is SD I feel I made a good choice for
now. In a few years...yes widescreen.

Bill730 wrote:
> I just recently purchased my first HDTV, a Sony 30" widescreen. I
> originally had a 27" Sony WEGA that unfortunately was stolen. Since I
> was being forced to buy a new TV, I figured it would be best to go HD.
> I also figured widescreen was the way to go. When I went to purchase
> the new TV, I found that I could buy either the 30" Widescreen or the
> 32" (HD capable) Sony for the same price. I ulitmately chose the
> widescreen, but I am beginning to wonder if I made the best choice. I
> could still swap for the 32" model, but I wanted to get some feedback.
>
> - I am finding that this set feels smaller than my 27." Is this due to
> the smaller height, or do I just need some to time to adjust to the
> widescreen?
>
> - I noticed that most of the local HD stations are in 4:3 mode expect
> during prime time and certain sports events. I know that on a 4:3 TV
> there would be bars on the top and bottom, but would there also be bars
> on the sides when the HD stations are 4:3 mode? If this is the case, I
> would imagine that looks terrible.
>
> - This TV has a HDMI input. My cable box from Comcast has an HDMI port
> (although I am not sure it is supported). Is really worth using this
> over the component cables that Comcast supplied?
>
> I will probably end up keeping the 30". I am in the Atlanta area, so I
> am optimistic that more HD content will be made available in the near
> future.
>
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 11:53:51 PM

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

I was surprised to see that Sears has a Samsung 47" projection screen
on sale for $999. This isn't too much more than my 30" Sony. Does
anyone know if this is a good product? My options at this point (based
primarily on my budget) are:

- Keep the 30" and learn to live with it.

- Get the 32" and live with a slightly smaller HDTV viewing area, but
gain more for 4:3. I am still wondering for those who own the 4:3
HDTVs when the DT stations air 4:3 programs, which on my screen have
the black bars on either side (which on my TV cannot be eliminated in
1080i/HD mode), do those appear in addition to the bars on the top and
bottom? At first, I thought the obvious answer would be no bars on the
side, but I have noticed that occasionally some my local DT stations
will stick their logo in one of the black bars, suggesting that they
broadcast this way. In the end, I would also end up with a 24"-25"
picture when watching the HD stations.

- Look into affordable projections like the one mentioned above. I
never even remotely considered a screen size in the 40's until I got
everyone's feedback. The downside would be the picture would not be as
crisp as a tube set. Upside would be a much larger screen...
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:34:58 AM

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

Bill730 wrote:
> I was surprised to see that Sears has a Samsung 47" projection screen
> on sale for $999. This isn't too much more than my 30" Sony. Does
> anyone know if this is a good product? My options at this point (based
> primarily on my budget) are:
>
> - Keep the 30" and learn to live with it.
>
> - Get the 32" and live with a slightly smaller HDTV viewing area, but
> gain more for 4:3. I am still wondering for those who own the 4:3
> HDTVs when the DT stations air 4:3 programs, which on my screen have
> the black bars on either side (which on my TV cannot be eliminated in
> 1080i/HD mode), do those appear in addition to the bars on the top and
> bottom? At first, I thought the obvious answer would be no bars on the
> side, but I have noticed that occasionally some my local DT stations
> will stick their logo in one of the black bars, suggesting that they
> broadcast this way. In the end, I would also end up with a 24"-25"
> picture when watching the HD stations.
>
> - Look into affordable projections like the one mentioned above. I
> never even remotely considered a screen size in the 40's until I got
> everyone's feedback. The downside would be the picture would not be as
> crisp as a tube set. Upside would be a much larger screen...

The Samsung RPTV is presumably a CRT RPTV at a closeout sale given the
price. CRT RPTVs can present a fine picture but do have limited viewing
angles and small sweet spots for the best picture quality. They are also
very bulky and heavy if space is a problem.

For true HD signals, DVDs and the better quality digital SD channels,
the picture should be very good on the bigger screen. Yes, poor quality
SD will look lousy on the big screen, but you may be surprised at how
good DVD movies look on a 40 or 50" HD widescreen.

I brought a 42" HD plasma (Panasonic TH-42PHD7UY commercial model) 5
months ago and find that I don't watch the SD channels all that much
anymore, except for a few programs which are not available on the HD
channels. Fortunately I have a decent range of HD channels (13). I had
to buy a plasma again, I would probably go for the 50" because watching
DVDs on the bigger screen with 5.1 sound is better than going to a movie
theater.

Alan F
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 9:47:26 AM

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

My living room isn't really big. I sit about 7 to 8 feet away from the
set and the set wouldn't be at angle from where I sit. As near as I
can tell the 47" RPTV would be about 25-26" deep and 110 pounds in
weight. My current set is 150 pounds, and I think about 22" deep, so
by comparision it wouldn't be much heavier/bulkier. I guess I should
take a look at them this weekend and see what the price would be. If
it would only cost me about $200-300 more for a larger screen, it may
be worth the cost in the long run...
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 6:43:18 PM

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

"Bill730" <fsubilly730@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116384831.491279.302290@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> - Get the 32" and live with a slightly smaller HDTV viewing area, but
> gain more for 4:3. I am still wondering for those who own the 4:3
> HDTVs when the DT stations air 4:3 programs, which on my screen have
> the black bars on either side (which on my TV cannot be eliminated in
> 1080i/HD mode), do those appear in addition to the bars on the top and
> bottom? At first, I thought the obvious answer would be no bars on the
> side, but I have noticed that occasionally some my local DT stations
> will stick their logo in one of the black bars, suggesting that they
> broadcast this way. In the end, I would also end up with a 24"-25"
> picture when watching the HD stations.
>
>
I watch on my 4:3 computer monitor.(1280X1024), SD fills the screen but
doesn't look good at this resolution. HD looks great but has bars at top and
bottom. SD in the HD frame looks better than it does full screen. The
station puts bars on the sides. I've never seen a logo in a black out bar.
Occasionally I get a 16:9 picture in a 4:3 box inside the 16:9 HD box.
Irritating even if it is just a commercial.

I plan to get a widescreen for the living room but can wait for prices to
come down. The more HD you watch the less you'll want to watch SD. If you
set up equipment/viewing distance to make blocky SD look "good" you'll be
hurting the HD, To me HD is the point of upgrading. YMMV
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 1:54:53 AM

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

I bought a Samsung 42" rear-projection set a year ago on sale at $999,
also at Sears. I've been very happy with it. Picture fades a bit if I'm
watching it standing up, but sitting down it's a fine picture even in my
bright family room.

Yes, it's bulkier than flat screens but much much cheaper...

Bill

"Bill730" <fsubilly730@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116384831.491279.302290@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I was surprised to see that Sears has a Samsung 47" projection screen
on sale for $999. This isn't too much more than my 30" Sony. Does
anyone know if this is a good product? My options at this point (based
primarily on my budget) are:

- Keep the 30" and learn to live with it.

- Get the 32" and live with a slightly smaller HDTV viewing area, but
gain more for 4:3. I am still wondering for those who own the 4:3
HDTVs when the DT stations air 4:3 programs, which on my screen have
the black bars on either side (which on my TV cannot be eliminated in
1080i/HD mode), do those appear in addition to the bars on the top and
bottom? At first, I thought the obvious answer would be no bars on the
side, but I have noticed that occasionally some my local DT stations
will stick their logo in one of the black bars, suggesting that they
broadcast this way. In the end, I would also end up with a 24"-25"
picture when watching the HD stations.

- Look into affordable projections like the one mentioned above. I
never even remotely considered a screen size in the 40's until I got
everyone's feedback. The downside would be the picture would not be as
crisp as a tube set. Upside would be a much larger screen...
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 5:15:33 PM

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

"Bill Sharpe" <billsharpe@nsadelphia.net> wrote in
news:Z4adnecdULu4gRHfRVn-sQ@adelphia.com:

> I bought a Samsung 42" rear-projection set a year ago on sale at $999,
> also at Sears. I've been very happy with it. Picture fades a bit if
> I'm watching it standing up, but sitting down it's a fine picture even
> in my bright family room.
>
> Yes, it's bulkier than flat screens but much much cheaper...
>
> Bill
>
> "Bill730" <fsubilly730@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1116384831.491279.302290@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I was surprised to see that Sears has a Samsung 47" projection screen
> on sale for $999. This isn't too much more than my 30" Sony. Does
> anyone know if this is a good product? My options at this point
> (based primarily on my budget) are:
>
> - Keep the 30" and learn to live with it.
>
> - Get the 32" and live with a slightly smaller HDTV viewing area, but
> gain more for 4:3. I am still wondering for those who own the 4:3
> HDTVs when the DT stations air 4:3 programs, which on my screen have
> the black bars on either side (which on my TV cannot be eliminated in
> 1080i/HD mode), do those appear in addition to the bars on the top and
> bottom? At first, I thought the obvious answer would be no bars on
> the

Yes, when watching a 1080i feed off my satellite box, anything in 4:3
that is sent down it is centered in a black screen or has grey bars dawn
the side depending on the broadcaster. If I want to see the full screen
4:3 feed, I have to switch to the broadcaster's SD channel to see it.

My TV is a direct-view Samsung 27-inch flat screen with 4:3 aspect
ratio, so it's not that high-end. But, since I sit only 6 feet away
from it in a small apartment, anything bigger could be considered
overkill.



--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:41:42 AM

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

I am starting to lean against swapping for a 32". However, the store
where I bought the Sony (BrandsMart) is advertising 48" JVC and 47"
Toshiba rear projection sets for $999. I'll proabably swing by there
is weekend and take a look at them. Despite the size, the Sony is
growing on me. The picture is excellent. I just wish it was a bit
larger...
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:21:46 AM

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

"Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:4289c570$0$3925$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Bill730 wrote:
> > I just recently purchased my first HDTV, a Sony 30" widescreen.
> >
> > - I am finding that this set feels smaller than my 27." Is this
> > due to the smaller height, or do I just need some to time to adjust
> > to the widescreen?
>
> When watching standard SD broadcasts on your new set, the screen IS
> effectively smaller than your old 27" set. If it were me, I'd still
> prefer the new set over the old.
>
> You might want to consider a larger set. I've been watching a 43"
> set for the past 18 months, and I don't think I'd want to go any
> smaller than that.
>

So true. I went from a 32 inch 4:3 set to the 57" Hitachi 57F510. I watch
the 32" inch for trivial things such as network television, but never again
for DVDs.
!