Widescreen Television Question
 

To be honest, I never even look in this forum, since I have a 1995 27" Sharp with sound coming from my 60-watt stereo and have no plans to upgrade in the near future. But a question entered my head, and I had to ask. If has already been asked and answered, forgive me.

What do widescreen televisions receive so much hype? I think a normal big screen television of the same width makes more sense. Not only do you get the same picture as the widescreen, but you don't need to worry if a disc is anamorphic or not and you get the added bonus of having a big, full-screen picture for 1.33 video. Am I missing something?

No you are not missing anything...however...some television programing now is in widescreen and the future of television is HDTV which most programming will be in widescreen.

The only difference is on widescreen TVs if your movie is in 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 then you have no black bars.

In order to get the same size picture for film viewing, your 4X3 would have to be <b>much</b> larger. I have a 47" 16X9 that fits in the same space, give and inch or two, that my 36" 4X3 tube did. To reach that picture size in my living room with a 4X3, forget it. Also, what palebluedot said... No bars on 1.85, smaller bars on anything greater, and most HDTV programming is presented 16X9, not 4X3. Also, some of us strange folk (like myself) use their 16X9 for viewing films or HDTV only... I watch very little 4X3 programming of any kind.

And they look cool. ;)

This issue has been brought up before. The consensus seems to be, at least in my opinion; what do you watch the most? If your habits are mostly television, gaming, concerts which tend to be 1.33 material then your logic is correct. If most of your viewing is WS movies, HD programming, etc. then the WS television is the way to go. My 55" WS Mitsubishi is about 9' away. The 1.33 material is about the same as a 46" screen. To have the same width I would need to jump to a 65" which would make that too big for my tastes. Much of it is personal tatste but I don't need to see Ray Romanos' nose hair in order to be entertained.

I don't know the exact math, but a 2.35 movie on a 55" widescreen would need something like a 70" 4:3 to achieve the same image size.

Thanks for the replies. I hadn't considered the how big the 4:3 box would have to be to get the same picture. I'll have to consider getting a WSHDTV when I finish college in 8+ years.

I don't yet have a WS tv, but the advantages I can see that would apply to me are:

4:3 formatted programming accounts for probably 25% or less of all my viewing time on my tv. It makes more sense to me to have get a WS tv that will maximize the screen real-estate for my movie-watching. :)
HDtv will be prevalent soon anyway. :)


Wider is better is all kinds of things... :D For instance:

Wideview binoculars allow you to see more...

Wider planting methods increase crop efficiency...

Wider wheelbase in vehicles provides more stability...

And so on... (okay, that was a bit silly I admit it) :rolleyes: ;)

Cheers,
Gabe

HDTV is a freakin' window. Even if it's just shows like <I>Touched By an Angel</I> right now.

das