KillerQ

advantage of 16:9 tv v.s. 4:3 question - preference

Hey all,

I am a die-hard widescreen fan - also the black bars that are so synonymous with widescreen movies never bothered me. Now, that being the case, is there any real advantage of getting a 16:9 tv as opposed to a 4:3.

See, I was thinking about getting a new big screen. They are all 16:9 now. However, i had someone offer me a Hitachi 53SDX20B for a great price (it's a 4:3) that is less than a year old. Now, since they are both newer tv's and they are both HD-TV ready, as long as I am not bothered by the bars when playing a 16:9 on the 4:3 there is no reason i shouldn't get the 4:3 for the better price, right? If anything, I think it would be better since video games, full screen movies, reg. broadcast tv, etc would be TRUE fullscreen - as where the 16:9 screen would either stretch it, or squeeze the sides in, you know....

What do you think? Anyone familiar with the Hitachi 53SDX20B?

You can reach me at [email protected]

Thanks a ton in advance,

Matt

JupiterPrime

HD broadcasts now and more in teh future will be 16:9 - no point in missing out on ANY of that beautiful picture - is the set he's offering you an HD set? - he could be giving you a deal on that one to ease the price cut for him to buy himself a 16:9 HD set - forget FULLSCREEN movies and video games from what I understand work out real nice in 16:9 mode as well if they come with that - I dont have a game system myself but Ive heard and your anamorphic enhanced DVDs will just sparkle

the future of broadcast is 16:9 - and the future of 4:3 DVDs are the graveyard - might as well keep up...if he's offering you that set at saaaayyy $500, thats $500 less for you to get your own NEW one (no telling how much life is left is in his old one either - and you'll have no warantee) and thats $500 easier on him for his decided replacement (which will undoubtedly be 16:9, but hey, who knows) betcha he's not allowed (if he's married) to get the new one till he moves the old one, so he'll take whatever he can get for it and its just gravy for him.

JimRochester

If 75% or more of what you watch is 4:3 then it's a valid argument. I prefer a larger widescreen image and a smaller 4:3. Regular cable is kind of annoying when it gets too big. DVD's can never be too big.

KillerQ

Hello,

Well, the first thing is that I am getting a TV with literally less than 25 hours of viewing time for 85% off of the price that it is still going for new. The friend has 2 other big screens and only wants two. Since both a new 16:9 tv and this 4:3 would have the same digital picture quality, and since I am pleased with the size of widescreen movies on this set, then I might as well get this TV. That's all I am saying... Get it? Once again, it was bought less than a year ago a Circuit City and IS still under warranty.

Matt

Patman

I watch much more on TV than DVDs, so I opted to go with a HDTV-ready 4:3 RPTV 15 months ago. Since I didn't mind the black bars for 16x9 content, having a larger 4:3 display worked for me. Plus, I figure it would be my last 4:3 TV until my next big screen TV purchase, hopefully in 4-5 years from now (and by then, the choice won't be there as I would imagine only 16x9 RPTV would be available for purchase).

Josh Z

If the 4:3 set in question has a 16:9 enhancement mode (if it's HD-ready, it should), the two will have the same picture quality. If it doesn't, you'll get a higher resolution image on the widescreen set when you set your DVD player for 16:9 output.

RandyC

I think you have a very valid point.

I chose 16:9 because it looks cool. But I would be very happy with 4:3 because I don't care about the bars.

KillerQ

Hey all,

I know that on some tv's (most 4:3's) when a widescreen movie is played, every 4th line, or whatever, is removed to accomidate size. Now, i understand that the 16:9 feature simple squishes the lines, not delete them -- so you get all of the picture, and in turn, higher resolution. Is that correct? Now, do all widescreen rear projection tv's have this feature built in? More specifically a hitachi widescreen about a year old (don't have the model number off hand). I just don't know how standard this feature is in newer widescreens... or is it unecessary in widescreen tv's because of the shape of the screen.... i am tired, and may know the answer, but just can't think now..

Thanks a ton,

Matt

chipmac

It's unnecessary on a WS TV. If the DVD player is set to display on a WS TV the signal is sent to it in the correct proportions. If the disc being played is not anamorphicly enhanced you'll needto change the format on the TV so that the image is not stretched to fill the width.

Josh Z

This is why I love front projection. Put up some curtains and some adjustable black velvet panels, and you can mask your screen for any aspect ratio.

There's nothing cooler than watching a 2.35:1 movie on a 2.35:1 screen in your own home.

Sdallnct

Good article on the "debate", but keep in mind, they are mainly talking about front projection. But much of it would also apply to RP,

http://www.projectorcentral.com/formats.htm

chipmac

That was a good article with some valid points but it's hard to carry it over to RPTVs since cost and size often prevents buying a 4:3 RPTV with a width that's large enough for satisfactory 16:9 viewing. I would need a 4:3 RPTV larger than 65" diagonal to give me the same size width I have now with a 16:9 55".

Sdallnct

No doubt it is different (front vs. rear projection), I just thought the article brought up some good points that I had not thought of (not that I'm an expert ).

I'm torn. I know I'm doing front projection and it is mainly for DVD movies. So at 1st I would think I should no a native 16:9 projector. But, in general, they cost more. Plus there will be some tv watching, sports, etc. I move into my house in 2 weeks. Think I will wait till I'm in so I can more carefully measure the wall. As you say, the actual sizes may end up being the deciding factor.