Somehow the other day I found a website, I think it was discussing projectors specifically, that compared 4:3 and widescreen displays. Obviously there's a lot of content on dvd's in 'widescreen' [non-4:3 ratio], but I also have a lot of stuff that's 4:3 [tv shows on dvd, anime, etc.] Also relatively few programs are currently broadcast in widescreen, though that is certainly changing.
Anyway--this site [I can't recall where it was, if anyone knows, please tell me, I'd like to read this article again] had examples of various display sizes in 4:3 and WS displays, and how big a picture you got from each type. They seemed to conclude, that if you got a big enough display/screen so as to make letterboxed widescreen entertaining based on your viewing distance, the 4:3 would be better because with a WS image on a 4:3 screen, you still get 'more image' or a bigger picture, even letterboxed, than a 4:3 image [in OAR] on a widescreen display. They even had a little table to show how much of the screen was taken up by each image.
I know, it's mostly about 'what looks best to you', and I do want OAR in pretty much anything, but this article gave me pause in my decision of a WS HDTV.
Does anyone:
A. know what site/article I'm talking about?
B: have any comments on this topic?

people argue both sides of the issue. personally, i want the biggest picture from the highest quality source. so i'd rather have a 16x9 screen filled entirely with HDTV programming and then cropped on the sides to display lower res 4x3 material.

That's kinda what I was thinking. Plus a lot of the 4:3 material sometimes isn't as reliant on visuals as some of the 16x9 stuff. I'm watching Six Feet Under right now, for instance but it doesn't necessarily benefit from the screen space that, say, The Two Towers would.

Is this the article?

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

That's it...there was also another one, i guess, that had a little calculator to see the 'virtual' image size of a 4:3 on 16:9, and vice versa. I'll have to hunt that one down again, but I'll bookmark the one you found for me to read again.
thanks!

edit: Found the calculator, it's on cnet as part of their TV Buyers Guide:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6463_7-1016109-4.html

I always recommend whatever you watch most of. Iwth the trend towards widescreen material I still think people are better off with a WS TV but that is just opinion. The other thing to consider is the source of the material, for DVD's 4:3 material looks great, but for people who watch a lot of cable, a huge scereen usually looks pretty putrid. I'd rather not count the hairs in Ray Romano's nose.

Here is another site with a similar calculator, but one that gives more explicit comparisons between 4:3 and 16:9 screen sizes.

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

If you plug in a screen size for one format, it will tell you what size television in the other format you would need to achieve the same image size.

yeah, i use that cavecreations site all the time. just the other day i learned that a 106" 16x9 screen has a 33% larger viewing size than a 92" one. one month to go until my first front projector purchase!