Beaver

My Dad is looking into getting an HDTV set. He has a maximum width that he can fit the set into. Given this constraint are there any advantages to getting a 16:9 HDTV vs a 4:3? A DVD in widescreen should show up the same since the width is fixed, right? With a 4:3 HDTV, current TV broadcasts and 1.33:1 movies would be bigger.

Is there anything that makes a 16:9 set better than a 4:3 set given a fixed width?

X

Maybe just that the better ones in terms of quality are in the 16:9 shape.

Beaver

There is definitely a lot more to choose from in 16:9 sets. I 've heard that the 4:3 HDTV Sony's are supposed to be good though. Have you heard otherwise, X?

X

You aren't talking direct-view tube sets here, are you? I don't consider Sony RPTVs in the upper tier of HDTV-capable sets. Just saw their new LCD model and haven't changed my mind.

Uh oh, I better get ready for the flames!

RandyC

Beaver,

what is the width that he is constrained to?

cubanx

I'll second the opinion on Sony RPTV's... the picture is fugly with red push... but we do need to know if your looking @ Direct view or RPTV to make an educated opinion.

etp

You need to go and look for yourself and decide. Make sure all the sets you want are adjusted at the same picture level and have the same source. All higher end HDTV digital's 4x3's will display a 16x9 picture just fine. Get what you want and like and go to sears, cc, and, sound advice and do a price match off the internet.

I was at sears yesterday and the sonys 16x9's looked really good in the bigscreens. I have an hitachi 61sdx01bHDTV/digital. It is perfect in everyway. But some of the Hitachi's are lemons. Be careful. The Hitachi's will have great pictures, but some will only last 10 days. If I was buying today I would get the biggest new Sony that could be ordered(65"???????). Not sure on the size. Size does matter. Trust me on this one! As long as you can sit 7-14 feet from the picture. Put on your DVD and get the picture of a theater in your living room.

OK//once you have done that, it is time for a $1000 rcvr and 6 speakers.

Beaver

He's looking fo a RPTV. The max width constraint is about 50" for the total set. The price range he's looking at was $2000-$4000 (US).

So far, he had been considering:

16:9 - Sony, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Toshiba

4:3 - Sony. I haven't seen any other 4:3 HDTVs.

Any suggestions / recommendations are greatly appreciated!

etp

You need to go to several dealers to see all the models. Some do 4x3 and some don't. Make sure its HDTV&digital&has at least Two sets of componant inputs, 3 sets of VHS inputs.


Are your sure your dad will not consider the size? I hand built a cabinet so we could use the bigger RPTV. The furniture store did not make a cabinet big enough for my unit. So I slide the sides appart and built a center surround out of oak plywood from Homedepot. It looks like it came from the factory.
Also my Hitachi is next to a wall of windows and it still has a bright picture. My wife and I are mad we did not buy one sooner. RPTV's have come a long way.
Enjoy the shopping.

etp

PS// don't worry if the unit you like doesn't have a built in HDTV tuner. The direct TV will change, maybe???? Dish bought them out. However, off air broadcast HDTV will not change and would be a nice feature if you are in a big city.

go here for brand name info=

http://www.hometheaterspot.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php

einTier

Sometimes I can't believe the elitist attitude towards 16:9 televisions.

Before you say anything else, I am a big fan of OAR, and I refuse to watch/buy panned and scanned movies. Yet, I have a 4:3 set.

Why? Several reasons.

1. When I purchased my 4:3, I could buy a 55" HDTV 4:3 cheaper than I could buy a 16:9 50" HDTV. You'll notice that my widescreen picture is actually a bit larger with the 55" 4:3. And no, I couldn't afford a 55" 16:9.

2. No matter what set you choose, you'll be watching a lot of material with bars on the sides. If you choose 4:3, any movie you watch that's not 4:3 will have bars. If you choose 16:9, any movie that's not 1.83 will have black bars -- as well as any television broadcast. Now, I know you can stretch the 4:3 broadcast to fill the screen, but why isn't this just as bad as Joe Sixpack stretching his 16:9 movie to fill his 4:3 screen? It's exactly the same thing. The original aspect ratio is destroyed and it is irritating for me to watch.

3. I don't watch much TV, I usually watch movies, but my wife is in front of the TV more than I, and she watches broadcast television primarily. The 4:3 gives a much larger 4:3 screen than a comparably priced 16:9 or even a comparably sized 16:9. Only in comparable sized 16:9 do I lose a bit of 16:9 size, but then again, you're going to pay a lot more for that 16:9.

4. If you're willing to look, there are 4:3 televisions that have all the features that the 16:9 televisions have.

In the end, if you're constrained by width, I'd really recommend the 4:3, especially if 50" 4:3 is about as big as your father can go.

RandyC

eintier..I think what you have said makes sense. But, in regards to this one statement....

Most of the movies I watch would be better filled by a 16:9 aspect screen. Most of the TV broadcast I watch would be better filled on a 4:3 screen. In both cases, there are some exceptions, such as 4:3 movies and widescreen broadcasts.

Here is where I differ in my perspective, and this is not a flame, or even a judgement, just how I see it. I don't care about the director's intent on broadcast for most of it. Will "Survivor" be radically changed if I stretch it a bit? For me, no.

For me, movies are more an art form that I care about seeing in their OAR and with the proper sound and impact as far as size. I can watch most TV on small set with mono sound and I don't care as much...

So the screen's main function to me is to show movies correctly. It is far more important to me to have a bigger image for Star Wars or Pearl Harbor...than for the nightly news, 60 minutes, or Friends. I don't mind if those shows are smaller in order to fit the 16:9 screen.

Second point, the ratio of 4:3 material to 16:9 material will continue to shift towards 16:9 as more TV is broadcast that way, specially when HDTV becomes more commonplace. A small point I would think, but a point none the less.

Still, I do agree with your basic point. It's simple math. If the set does vertical compression, I am all in favor of a 4:3 set, specially if it's used a lot for broadcast or fits the room. You can get more set for the $$ with 4:3.

As for me.... the 16:9 will work because of the reasons above, and because the Plasmas come that way.

Ernie6

It does come down to a personal decision based on your TV viewing habits. After doing the research and ending up buying a Toshiba 16 x 9, the 16 x 9 was the way to go for me. I collect DVD's, 400+, and I enjoy watching TV programming in 16 x 9. I plan on buying another Toshiba 16 x 9 in 2002. Good luck.

MichaelBlanton

You're absolutely correct in bucking the trend by thinking these questions. There are pros and cons in both formats. I've been considering a pojector for some time now and have debated the same thing.

Read this article; it's written about projectors and screens but the same applies to televisions: http://www.projectorcentral.com/cons...cfm?ci=formats

If I were buying today, I'd get 4:3. And I LOVE widescreen movies. You'll realize that one choice doesn't preclude the other.

etp

BIGGER IS BETTER!!!! That is why you must get the biggest 4x3HDTV digital you can find with a good picture. 65" Sony may be the biggest?????????? That was my original suggestion and I will stick with it!

Sorry guys this is a quote from the link above! Go check it out! quote===

Sorry guys this is a quote from the link above! Go check it out! quote===

Sorry guys this is a quote from the link above! Go check it out! quote===

Quote=====
Why get a 4:3 projector with a 4:3 screen?

It all depends on what you like to watch, and how you like to watch it. The central issue is psychological and emotional, and has to do with your own personal sense of aesthetics—do you believe that "4:3 should be smaller than 16:9?" Do you like the feeling of watching 4:3 television, then having the image open up wider to view a widescreen movie? A lot of people would quite understandably say "Yes, of course, isn't that what home theater is all about?"

Maybe, maybe not. Time to think out of the box here for a moment. Personally, I prefer a big 4:3 screen. Here's why. I want to watch widescreen movies in their widescreen glory, no doubt about it. So I have a 4:3 screen that is wide enough to give me the 16:9 display I want, which in my theater is 8 feet wide. I put electric masking on it and set the masking normally to its 16:9 position so it looks like a widescreen theater. If I put on a super-widescreen film I can close the masking a little to maintain my solid black frame around the image. And I can do this no matter what the aspect ratio of the movie happens to be.

Now let's say I change my viewing material. I want to watch the terrific 4:3 format IMAX DVD "The Blue Planet." Frankly, there is nothing more irritating to me than having to shrink down a 4:3 format IMAX film just so it fits in the middle of a 16:9 screen. Even worse is viewing an IMAX film so that it fills a 16:9 screen, and letting 1/3 of the image fall off the top and bottom of the screen. But see, I don't have those problems. Instead, I've got a great big 4:3 screen hidden behind the masks. I press a button, open the masks and get the grand 4:3 IMAX presentation in its full drama.

For me, music videos are the same way—almost all of them are 4:3, and as far as I am concerned, the bigger, the better. Big music demands big video. On a 120" 4:3 diagonal screen I feel like I'm in the front row at the Eagles "Hell Freezes Over" concert. Conversely, when this 4:3 image is squeezed into the middle of a 16:9 screen, the Eagles look like they are on television.

Football is also fun to watch on the jumbo 4:3 screen. And classic films like Fantasia, Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, are all 4:3 films that look spectacular in large format.

Consider this for a moment. Most people will install the widest screen they can fit into the space available, regardless of its format. So screen width is almost always the limiting factor. In my theater I can install a 16:9 screen that is 8 feet wide, or a 4:3 screen that is 8 feet wide. If I install a 16:9 screen it will be 8 feet wide and 4.5 feet high. If I install a 4:3 screen, it will be 8 feet wide and 6 feet high.

Now between these two options, how big is my 4:3 image? On the 4:3 screen it is 8 x 6 = 48 square feet. On the 16:9 screen, it is 6 x 4.5 = 27 square feet. Almost half the size! That's the difference between being at the Eagles concert and seeing it on television.

Meanwhile—and here is a key point—my 16:9 image size is the same either way— 8 x 4.5 = 36 square feet. So the only variable is how I want to display 4:3. Do you want to maximize the use of your wall space? The 4:3 screen gives you more viewing area since it uses more vertical space on the wall.

I would never give up the excitement of seeing IMAX films, or Fantasia, or music videos, or football in the largest format I can manage. Especially if it was for something as nonsensical (to me) as making sure that all of my 4:3 material was displayed in a "smaller" format than a widescreen movie. So the bottom line is this: I personally don't believe that a 4:3 image should be smaller than a 16:9—I'm a Big Picture guy and I want them both as big as I can fit on the wall.

Now. You you may feel like I'm full of hooey. And if you do, then go with your gut. We are talking about YOUR entertainment here. Think about what you want to see and how you want to see it. Then set it up the way you want it. There is no "right" solution. There is only the right solution for you.Sorry guys this is a quote from the link above!

Sorry guys this is a quote from the link above! Go check it out! quote===

Go check it out! quote===

gross@iastate

http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

einTier

Simpsonearl, nice to see I'm not the only one that feels this way about 4:3 sets. There's no "perfect" ratio for your tv, because there's no one ratio to watch movies/television in. 16:9 happens to be trendy and new and says "I watch movies" -- but that doesn't make it better. Maybe in the future, when 16:9 broadcasts become much more common, I'll feel a little differently, as 4:3 will be a format rarely used. Some times I wonder, the people who prefer a 16:9 set, would you prefer a 2.35:1 set even better, so that the true widescreen films completely fill your screen? In my opinion, I'm comfortable with black bars on the top and bottoms of my movies, less so with black bars on the tops and bottoms of some movies, and grey bars on the sides of my 4:3 material. But, that's just me.

And, this is a personal opinion. If you watch a ton of 1.85 content, and almost no 4:3, then a 16x9 might be a better choice -- but it's also more expensive. If for some reason, you're contrained height-wise, it's a great choice. I'd also chose a 16:9 television if it had some "must have" feature that wasn't available on a comparable 4:3 set.


See, to me, a 4:3 presentation of "Gone With the Wind" is fundamentally changed when it's stretched to fill a 16:9 screen. As is Friends or the Saturday/Sunday football games or Speedvision. Could I get "used" to it? Sure. I still think it's fundamentally changed and does take away from my enjoyment of the program being watched -- just as it does when I watch a P&S movie or a movie that is stretched to fill a 4:3 television. I mean, I could use the anamorphic presentation to fill my 4:3 television, but I think most would ridicule me for doing so, "just to fill my screen". I do not understand why television broadcast is less of an art form -- unless we're talking about something with very little artistic content, like say, the news or CNN.
All things being equal, I'd agree with you -- and I'd buy a 16:9 television. However, at current price points, my 4:3 set buys me the same size or bigger 16:9 picture as a comparably priced 16:9 set. If we both had $3000 to spend on a big screen, and you bought a 16:9 and I bought a 4:3, my 16:9 picture would be no smaller than yours -- but my 4:3 would be much, much bigger. At current prices, I can't make a compelling argument for 16:9. When a 65" 16:9 costs the same as a 65" 4:3, ask me again.

And, I'd love to have a plasma set

MichaelBlanton

Uh, let's note that Simpsonearl himself just quoted part of the article I referenced above, written by Evan Powell at projectorcentral...although like me, he apparently agrees with it!

etp

Nice links guys! And sorry, that was a quote in the previous post!

I totally agree that if I could get the same square inches for the same price, I would get a widescreen. And it will come to that one year.(not day)

Be advised Beaver has a limited viewing area/maybe. So a 50"????? widescreen is really small to me. But maybe he can stretch that a little and get at least a 61" that is only 53 " wide on the case. Or a 65" that is 55" wide on the case.
I am ready for a 80". But the RPTV's have a nice bright picture. And I'm not sure the overhead projectors are bright enough for less than $10,000. I hope this will change soon!
Hopefully the flat TV's will become more reliable and cheaper soon.

etp

Hey! MichaelBlanton
Are you or your relatives from KY?
Earl

MichaelBlanton

Nope, we're all South Carolinians.

I keep an eye out at avsforum.com and projectorcentral.com. Last summer I borrowed an associate's projector (Infocus LP-340, 800x600 DLP) and was astounded at how well it threw a dvd player's image (s-video connection, at that!) on a 9' wide white window blind. DLP projectors virtually eliminate the screendoor effect (and new electronics on LCD projectors--Sanyo's MLA, for example--does the same for LCDs). Turns out that projector has an unusually good scaler, among other things. And one of these can be had easily for $2k. Step up XGA's (which I'd get when my time comes) are getting down to the $4k range. You'd be surprised how bright these things are. And these things can do HDTV (720p and 1080i) with no problem. And just like pc prices, they seem to drop in price by about 20% each year while doubling the performance. Note that HDTV sets aren't doing that yet. That's why I figure my next jump will be into a full mini-theater sized projector-based setup. The biggest set at Best Buy isn't even in the same ball park with what a good projector will do.

Anyway, enough of this off-topic stuff...

etp

Michael,
I'm ready when the prices drop. It would have to have componant inputs/SVS maybe even svga???? Keep me posted if you see something interesting.

Yeah! I went to High School with the Blanton brothers! Good boys!
They didn't pick fights, but they always won them.

facmanboss

I wanted to thank everyone for the good discussions on 16:9 versus 4:3 (especially since they were flame free and just good observations and experiences). It will be of immense benefit to me in about a year when I go for an HDTV.

Thanks again,
Ross

Frank S

The original poster said that they have a 50" width (not Diagonal)so they could go up to 55" 16x9 (the width is less then the diagonal measurments).

Also keep in mind that unless the TV is only going to be kept for a couple of years you really should be going the 16x9 route! Within a few years the majority of TV content will be in the 16x9 and higher aspect ratio. To have to put up a letterboxed image when watching High Def to me is rediculous! That is where the future is and you are buying a TV for it's highest ability first and foremost so buying it in the aspect ratio of HD is important! Yes, you get Black Bar's on 4x3 aspect ratio content but it is low res/ and not as visually important as it is with High Def!

Also don't forget about the Pioneer HDTV's! The SD line comes in 53" and 64" models and the line doubler is a little better then the one in the 2001 Elite line so it is second only ot the 2002 Elite models! The Elites are of course better but they are prohibited in price (But you do get an HDTV that's second to none)!

RandyC

Just a couple more comments.

Part of the equation is the value of cost, but that depends a lot on the buyer. Sure a 16:9 costs more, but if that means going without dinner, than the choice is obvious, go 4:3. But for some, the price is not the main issue.

I would also like to go on record as saying size can be overdone. It's not always bigger is better. I have seen to many oversize projection sets where I am staring at scanlines. Yuk. This comes down to how far you sit, the scale of the room.

And for some of us, there are aesthetic issues to consider. I would not put a large monolithic set in my room. I am willing to build in a set or hang a plasma on the wall. For that reason, I have also considered a screen.