|   Widescreen TV experience | newellcr
Apr 24, 2003 7:06 AM | | I see a lot of posts of folks buying widescreen TVs. I bought an RCA 38 widescreen direct view TV in December and wanted to share a couple of my thoughts on widescreen TV. I love the set, but have at least three lessons learned that you might find useful.
The TV has a HDTV tuner and a HD DirecTV tuner built in which is great. What it doesn't have is a monitor out connection so I can record HD broadcasts. I can however use an outboard tuner and input a signal, but then I have the expense of a HD tuner when I already own one.
The TV has two stretch modes, which before I purchased the TV, I was sure that I would hate. The modes are stretch the width to full screen and a "fill" mode. I do hate the stretch mode, but occasionally enjoy the fill mode with 4:3 broadcasts that are actually in 16:9 like Enterprise and USA's recent program, Helen of Troy. I would have wanted a stretch mode that takes this 16:9 presented in 4:3 and stretches it to an actual 16:9. My fill mode cuts off a little of the picture all the way around.
I am so happy I have the direct view vs a projection TV of any sort. The picture is clear and bright at any time of the day. Also, I realize that I do a lot more off axis TV viewing than I knew. I could have gotten a much larger RPTV, but I know I would have been sorry. 38 inches across is plenty big for me.
Cheers,
Chris |
| Thanks for your observations...question though... | Monstrous Mike
Apr 24, 2003 8:16 AM | | Since your HDTV tuner is built in, how do you get digital sound? |
| Thanks for your observations...question though... | newellcr
Apr 24, 2003 12:37 PM | | Mike,
The tv has an optical out so I get PCM or DD 5.1 output to the receiver.
Cheers,
Chris |
| Thanks, I figured something like that....nt | Monstrous Mike
Apr 26, 2003 8:32 AM | | |
| re: Widescreen TV experience | f0rge
Apr 24, 2003 9:58 AM | | thanks for the observations, i'm looking at a new tv, and i cant decide between 53" widescreen or 51" regular screen. it wasnt until my friend asked me if i watched more tv or movies did i realise that i might be better off with a 4:3 set. i'm still undecided, i'm going to have to go look at some more sets. |
| your friend forgot to ask... | Keith from Canada
Apr 24, 2003 11:47 AM | | Do you plan on getting HDTV in the future? If so, it is broadcast in widescreen format and you'll get bars on the side. Given that a good chunk of primetime programming is already being broadcast in HD and DVD's are meant to be viewed in their original widescreen format, I don't have the foggiest idea why someone would buy a 4:3 TV. |
| Good points . . . | Cougar_Guy
Apr 24, 2003 4:29 PM | | I just purchased a 50 inch Toshiba Widescreen and so far I love it. There are tradeoffs though.
For regular cable, I've noticed that the picture is less accurate than a direct view tv. The Toshiba can go plenty bright (I actually have it turned down quite a bit) but the picture quality itself is a little less than with a direct view . . . I suspect this is because of the resolution of the Toshiba as compared to my old "regular" tv. It is certainly watchable though.
For DVD's, the picture quality when going through a progressive scan player is simply AMAZING. I watched Spiderman the other day and I think I was smiling for well over half of the movie. The colours are so bright and the detail is so sharp, it is like being at the theater . . . it even seemed better.
My thought with a RPTV is that much will depend on the quality of the signal. I do plan on getting a satellite this fall so I can take advantage of the Hi-Def programming and from what I understand, even the regular satellite feed will be better quality than cable as well. If the DVD quality is any indication, Hi-Def should be ASTONISHING.
Given the future of tv programming and the way this tv handles DVD, I am very satisfied with my purchase. |
| your friend forgot to ask... | day_walker
Apr 24, 2003 5:11 PM | | hmmmm, funny but when I view programs at my frinds house on their 16:9 sets the screens look terrible sure its ok for watching DVD's. But, the 'stretch' mode still seems shiity at best. Plus when playing video game consoles on the widescreen, again shitty...
I have a 65 inch 4:3 set that is HDTV ready, which to me I could not see buying a 16:9 set I watch plenty of programs that are not in 16:9 format. Please don't get me wrong I love the widscreen format and watch all my DVD's in that format. My Sony does a excellant job of portraying the 16:9 format. Funny, I have people tell me all the time they prefare my 4:3 set to our other friends 16:9, hmm go figure..And with the "whole" conversion of HDTV programming not being for a few more years I am MORE then confident on my choice of buying a 4:3 set..
And I see no reason to play video games in a stretch mode...Just looks stupid to me....
not looking for a fight on this issue, just giving my .02 |
| your friend forgot to ask... | Keith from Canada
Apr 28, 2003 9:53 AM | | Just a few issues:
"And with the "whole" conversion of HDTV programming not being for a few more years I am MORE then confident on my choice of buying a 4:3 set.."
Given that the bulk of prime-time programming is in HDTV already, I think that the conversion has already sufficiently taken place. I watch about 80% of all my TV watching in HD.
"funny but when I view programs at my frinds house on their 16:9 sets the screens look terrible sure its ok for watching DVD's. But, the 'stretch' mode still seems shiity at best."
I'd recommend finding a widescreen with a better mode for viewing 4:3 in 16:9. Any 'stretch' mode will look horrible...that's why most manufacturers are avoiding modes that simply stretch the image. My Panasonic has a mode that fill the screen by both stretching and cropping the image. The end result is a good picture that most people don't even notice was a 4:3 conversion.
"Plus when playing video game consoles on the widescreen, again shitty..."
If someone is interested in ANY RPTV with the idea of playing video games, I would tell them to buy a tube set instead. Why risk burn-in. Of course, I would note again that playing games in 'stretch mode' is awful. That's why I'd use one of the modes that doesn't simply stretch the image. |
| your friend forgot to ask... | day_walker
May 1, 2003 7:42 AM | | just a few issue's
"Given that the bulk of prime-time programming is in HDTV already, I think that the conversion has already sufficiently taken place. I watch about 80% of all my TV watching in HD.
yippie good for you...I do not watch Prime-time TV...
"I'd recommend finding a widescreen with a better mode for viewing 4:3 in 16:9. Any 'stretch' mode will look horrible...that's why most manufacturers are avoiding modes that simply stretch the image. My Panasonic has a mode that fill the screen by both stretching and cropping the image. The end result is a good picture that most people don't even notice was a 4:3 conversion."
Did I ask you for a "Recommendation", NO....Any way as I stated my 65 inch HDTV 4:3 does an outstanding job of displaying the 16:9 format...And the screen is a HELL of alot bigger then your little 16:9...hahahaha...Did you buy the 16:9 just to join the trend...
"If someone is interested in ANY RPTV with the idea of playing video games, I would tell them to buy a tube set instead. Why risk burn-in. Of course, I would note again that playing games in 'stretch mode' is awful. That's why I'd use one of the modes that doesn't simply stretch the image."
Hmmm, lets see your an idiot..Plain and simple....There is no risk of burn-in....But. if it helps you to think there is a risk, then whatever |
| Getting a little testy aren't we... | Keith from Canada
May 1, 2003 10:44 AM | | Sorry, didn't mean to upset you.
"yippie good for you...I do not watch Prime-time TV... "
-- My apologies...I was simply stating that the majority of the population who work during the day are covered for the times that they watch TV.
"Did I ask you for a "Recommendation"
-- No, the original poster was asking for advice and recommendations and you probably shouldn't take offence to people providing them...that's what this board is all about.
"And the screen is a HELL of alot bigger then your little 16:9...hahahaha...Did you buy the 16:9 just to join the trend..."
-- No, I got a 16:9 so I could watch the film that way that it's supposed to look. Even though your set adds big black bars, it still doesn't give the same impact to film that widescreen does. Someday, you'll understand why the bulk of the world is going widescreen.
"Hmmm, lets see your an idiot..Plain and simple....There is no risk of burn-in..."
-- Yeah, that's why all RPTV manuals now come with a warning not to play video games or display static images on the screen. You might want to do some research into this issue before your RPTV becomes permanently damaged. To me, being an idiot is a sign of ingnorance...which is something that you've just proved in spades. |
| re: Widescreen vs 4:3 | newellcr
Apr 24, 2003 12:50 PM | | F0rge,
The widescreen format is great for sports and movies, and many networks are already broadcasting in 16:9. Most channels in Detroit broadcast two identical channels in 16:9 and 4:3. Mostly the 16:9 channel just adds black bars to the sides of the program, but many shows are true widescreen. DirecTV's signal for HD HBO and HDNet does come in 16:9 format.
I bought when I did because I could buy a TV, tuner, HD sat tuner, delivered, tax, and warranty for less than $2000. That was the price I had set the previous Christmas when I updated the audio. It is a shame that the tuners are so expensive that folks have to buy the tv and wait for the tuner.
Good luck,
Chris |
| |
