|   16 by 9 or 4 by 3? | thedonga
Aug 15, 2001 9:32 AM | | My question is why would someone want to buy a 16x9 tv?
Bear with me for a second...
these are the reference tvs..
a 43" 4x3 hdtv(toshiba) runs about 1899.00 1200 lines of res.
a 40" 16x9 hdtv (toshiba) runs about 2199.00 1280 lines of res.
(bestbuy.com)
pushing a 16x9 image onto the 43" 4x3 gives me approx. a 39.47" diag.
pushing a 4x3 image onto the 40" 16x9 gives me approx. a 32.69" diag.
thus a 43" 4x3 displays the equivalent diag res(+/- 1") as the 40" in 16x9 mode
while a 40" 16x9 looses 10" (+/- 1") in 4x3 mode.
The only reason I can see is the average # of lines per inch.
on a 40" 16x9 - 65 lines/inch
on a 43" 4x3 - 46.5 lines/inch
based on 1200 res on the 43 and 1280 on the 40.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Trust me on the math, I double checked everything.
Thanks |
| re: 16 by 9 or 4 by 3? | dlh2
Aug 15, 2001 11:21 AM | | I was torn between which aspect ratio to purchase also. Finally found a dealer that had a Panasonic PT51HX41 4/3 side by side to a Panasonic PT47WX51 16/9. Same price,features and specs. When viewing a wide screen picture, both sets had an almost identicle size picture. Admittedly, the 4/3 had the black lines at the top and bottom, but when watching a 4/3 picture on the two sets, the difference was dramatic. Hugh picture on the 4/3, TINY picture on the 16/9 by comparison, and ,in my opinion, the black bars on each side were much more destracting. That, plus the fact that 90% of what we watch is in 4/3 and will continue to be so for several years, the 16/9 made no sence to me. That side by side comparison made the decision easy for me. |
| re: 16 by 9 or 4 by 3? | blammo585
Aug 15, 2001 11:25 AM | | I'm going this afternoon to look at a Toshiba 50" 16X9 TV. I have debated over the topic of 4:3 or 16:9 for a long time. I'm leaning toward the 16:9, but I'm going to wait until I view a few things first. I want to see how well a 4:3 image looks on a widescreen TV before I buy because I understand 85% of what I'll be watching is in 4:3. The thing that gets me though is when I've been in stores and seen TVs on display, the images on the widescreen TVs just look amazing and then I look over at a 4:3 TV displaying the same image letterboxed and it just doesn't look quite as good. I think the 55" Mitsubishi I saw in Sears is the best example. They show images of outdoors scenes on that with boats on a lake or an uplcose picture of a flower. The widescreen image looks a lot better than the 4:3 TV. I once looked at a 46" widescreen Mitsubishi displaying normal satellite, and I played around with the viewing modes. I think I used the 4:3 Zoom and it looked pretty good, and by that I mean things were in proportion. The only time I knew that the image wasn't quite right was at the end of the video where they show the name of the song and producer and all that, the words from like the bottom line was cut off because it was zoomed in a little. To me that looked pretty acceptable, but I don't think I could stand watching TV with bars on the sides of the image. If I don't like what I see this afternoon then I'll probably go with a 4:3 TV, but only one that scans the actual image and not the black letterbox bars...I think Sonys has that feature. |
| re: 16 by 9 or 4 by 3? | gflip
Aug 16, 2001 7:16 AM | | If you watch a lot of DVD movies, you want the 16:9 set. Widescreen movies use substantially more screen real estate on the 16:9 set, and it's more enjoyable. Watching 4:3 images, and there's lots of them, is a problem. I think most people blow them up to fit the screen rather than watch bars on either side of the picture (I do). It's not a big problem. |
| thedonga need food! :) nt | BK
Aug 16, 2001 9:16 AM | | |
| IMPORTANT!!! | MrSound
Aug 16, 2001 12:19 PM | | Please remember, no matter what ratio you choose, black bars will damage your TV. Rear Proj. TVs have 3 guns (red, blue, green) producing your image. This image is sent through lens, mirrors, etc. All lenses will age with time. If you get a 16x9 and watch a lot of normal cable TV with black bars on both sides, you will get severe damage to your lenses. The black bars will cause delayed aging of the lens for that area of the screen. Then when you watch a wide picture, you will see "ghosting" or differences in color and brightness at the area that the black bars usually occupy. Recommended safe viewing of black bars is estimated to be 15% of the time. For this reason, I bought a 4:3. Hope this helps. |
| IMPORTANT!!! Then aren't you worried about the horizontals? | satz
Aug 16, 2001 2:37 PM | | If you think 16:9 owners should worry about the side bars over time, then shouldn't 4:3 owners worry about the black bar 'effect' on the top and bottom?
I wouldn't really think this would have any effect unless you planned to keep your TV for a very, very long time! And nowadays I don't think anyone does! |
| IMPORTANT!!! Then aren't you worried about the horizontals? | MrSound
Aug 17, 2001 7:03 AM | | You missed the point. If you watch DVD's 85% of the time, then buy a wide-screen. If you watch plain TV 85% of the time (news, sports, tv sit-coms, etc) then buy a 4:3. OH, and it only takes about a few weeks of continuous black bars before you see ghosting (5-6 hrs a day). I have a friend who hooked up playstation to his 60 inch TV. Looked pretty good, but ruined lenses after 2 weeks because of non-moving images (black bars, points, energy meter, etc.). This is only advise, take it or leave it. |
| That has to be wrong... | Josh Studrawa
Aug 17, 2001 7:33 AM | | I'm not saying it is, but those numbers have to be incorrect. 2 weeks at 5 hours is 70 hours til ghosting. Even if you watch 1 DVD a week, it'll ghost less than a year.
Oh, and why do TVs still have burnin when computer monitors don't? Or is it just RPTVs? |
| UH....OK.... | MrSound
Aug 17, 2001 10:08 AM | | OK....2 weeks of pure playstation........NO OTHER SOURCE....no normal TV.......nothing......that's 100% pure non-moving images for 2 weeks. The key is to mix what you watch. Hell, you could watch 1000's of widescreen DVDs on a 4:3 as long as you mix in some normal size television. The key is, You don't want still images for excessively long periods (ie 2weeks straight). Maybe a Toshiba 60inch is a piece of sh#@ that will ghost in only 2 weeks...I don't know, but it was 2 weeks of pure playstation (this was a Christmas gift and he was on vacation). Technically speaking...it IS the picture tubes that age (I said lenses because most people could identify). If this is a lie, then go sue Mitsubishi because this is the company for which I service TVs. |
| Please don't give out misinformation as though it were TRUTH! | woodman
Aug 17, 2001 8:06 AM | | Mr.Sound:
Lenses in an RPTV set do NOT "age" over time as you state, and the "burn-in" problem has been vastly exaggerated by self-appointed experts. When it does occur, it's the CRTs themselves that are damaged, not the lenses.
The way the problem is avoided in the first place is for the set to be adjusted away from the "pedal-to-the-metal" settings that are set at the factory to insure that the set will be able to be seen on a brightly lit showroom floor. When the brightness and contrast (especially the latter) are reduced to sane levels, "burn-in" is not a problem. The warning issued by set-makers to not watch 4:3 images on a 16:9 screen more than 15% of the time is sent out in order to "cover their ass" in the cases where the brightness and contrast are left at the extreme settings that the set will have as it comes out of the box.
woodman |
| But it's so fun making up info to piss people like you off.... | mrsound
Aug 17, 2001 11:10 AM | | Let's see, maybe I should go make up some more info, not that I have anything better to do....I'm sure I could get some sucker to believe it......OK...JUST THOUGHT OF SOMETHING
Have you seen the new Denon 5808...this thing is amazing...DPL III, Super DTS 15.1 surround, 500watts X 15, 0.0000000000001% THD in surround, 15 channel stereo, can pick one up at local store for $250...for an extra $250 you get Def Tech ProCinema 15.1 package that includes a dual 25 inch 5000watt sub(normal retail $7000) and a Pioneer PDP-505HD plasma 50 inch TV (retail $16,999.95) and a Pioneer Progressive Scan DVD model DV38 (retail $1599.99). That's a total of over $25,000 in savings brothers and sisters. HOLY COW. Run out to Big Lots today and pick this up. PS Be sure to ask about the Complete Monster Cable Package give-away with any new HT purchase at Big Lots. |
| It's not very nice to make fun of Big Lots.... | Josh Studrawa
Aug 17, 2001 11:23 AM | | they have some nice stuff. |
| I know, that's where I bought my car :) | mrsound
Aug 17, 2001 12:02 PM | | |
| |
