16:9 hdtvs - how do you deal/like 4:3 programming?

[spidey07]

so - like it/hate it/can live with it? seems like different TVs do a better job than others of the stretch.

 

[Aves]

I'm still debating whether or not to buy one yet or just go with a 4:3 XBR for the next couple of years, but if I did get a 16:9 I'd watch 4:3 programming with they grey bars on the side. The stretch looks awful.

 

[HombrePequeno]

I don't think the stretching is too bad. When people go to the side of the screen they get pretty fat looking though.

 

[kgraeme]

I don't like stretching, but the bars can burn inon the big screen TVs (or anti-burn as the case may be.) Some sets are smart enough to slightly move the picture back and forth, causing the edges of the bars to blur so that the brightness difference is not as noticeable as if it were a hard edge.

 

[spidey07]

that's what I'm seeing - comparing the Mitsu diamond series with the mitsu platnum and sony XBR.

so far - sony XBR = suck, looks really bad
mitsu platinum = ok, kinda weird
diamon = much better, acceptable

 

[pulse8]

Why on Earth would you stretch it?!?!

 

[HombrePequeno]

Well you stretch it so you don't have bars on the side and burn them into the screen.

 

[pulse8]

Yeah, but it looks like crap!

 

[HombrePequeno]

So do two bars on the side of the screen when you're trying to watch it in 16:9.

 

[pulse8]

So then let me fix my question...


Why would anyone EVER buy one of these TVs?

 

[Aves]

<< So then let me fix my question...


Why would anyone EVER buy one of these TVs? >>



I would imagine that once HDTV is mainstream, I mean really mainstream... most programming will probably be 16:9.

 

[pulse8]

I don't doubt that...but for now...it's pointless unless EVERYTHING you watch is 16:9.


According the opinions in this thread, anyway.

Edit: I've seen HD programming, BTW, and it looks AWESOME on these TVs... I was totally blown away.

 

[HombrePequeno]

It may be pointless for now but if there was no one that used 16:9 then it would never be implemented in the future.

 

[Capn]

why would all programming be 16:9?

I suppose you have more lateral space in the screen in which to film. But afaik the different aspect ratio didn't real have anything to do with an inherent superiority of the aspect ratio, but rather so that the new films couldn't be shown on television with out modification. Meaning you'd want to see them in the theatre. Older movies were in 4:3.

 

[Sugadaddy]

It's not really pointless now, DVDs look so much bigger on a 16x9... And if you're paying the big $$$ for an HDTV, getting a 4x3 is stupid IMO.

 

[pulse8]

<< why would all programming be 16:9?

I suppose you have more lateral space in the screen in which to film. But afaik the different aspect ratio didn't real have anything to do with an inherent superiority of the aspect ratio, but rather so that the new films couldn't be shown on television with out modification. Meaning you'd want to see them in the theatre. Older movies were in 4:3. >>



Because it'll fit on the TV.

Yes, though. The reason they came out with widescreen was because people were watching too much TV and not enough movies. I like it A LOT better though. It allows for more interesting shots.

 

[spidey07]

so the general consesus is "I can live with it"?

being stretched or zoomed really bothers me. even on the diamond mitsubishis. But I NEED wide screen for DVDs and video games.

anybody play PS2 on a wide screen? I know you can configure it for 16:9 aspect.

 

[SUOrangeman]

A sligth aside, are we (USA) still under a Congressional/FCC mandate to move to HDTV (and thus, assuming 16:9) by 2006?

-SUO

 

[Capn]

I've seen hdtv's in 4:3 format. I don't see why you'd assume 16:9.

 

[Xanathar]

Ive got a Sampo 34" Widescreen Tube HDTV. The first week I had it, I would fiddle with it, It didnt look right stretched, but the black bars on the side were annoying, After about 10 days (I bought this almost a year ago) I just permamently put it on stretched. You dont notice the stretching over time honestly.

 

[kgraeme]

<< A sligth aside, are we (USA) still under a Congressional/FCC mandate to move to HDTV (and thus, assuming 16:9) by 2006? >>



The basic answer is yes.

The slightly more complicated answer is, analog broadcasts will be cut off in 2006 OR when 80% of the market is digital whichever is later.

That poses an interesting question. Will 80% of the market be digital by 2006? I dunno. Currently, there are 208 stations in 70 markets (source: 208 Stations in 70 Markets. I can't recall off hand though how many TV stations there are in the U.S.

The even more interesting answer is: no. There is no Congressional/FCC mandate to move to HDTV. Honestly. The mandate is to move to digital broadcasting. DTV does not have to be in HD. It all depends upon how much of the 19.4Mb allocation the stations want to dedicate to one channel. They can alternately choose to broadcast in Standard Definition digital (SD). If they choose to broadcast in SD, then they can fit 3 channels in the 19.4Mb. That means a potential for 3x the advertising revenue.

Heck, many stations would really love to only broadcast in SD and resell the extra bandwidth. The FCC doesn't take kindly to this idea though because they want to be the only ones to profit from the sale of airspace.

Any more questions about DTV?

 

[Joony]

wahts burn?

 

[TripleJ]

Joony, the phosphourous on the screen gets worn out by the electrons hitting them. While it is a slow process, after a while the side bars may appear different because they haven't been worn out at all.

How about get a 4:3 TV as well?

 

[kgraeme]

<< I've seen hdtv's in 4:3 format. I don't see why you'd assume 16:9. >>



Why 16:9 though? Because that's what the ATSC decided. Just like the dimensions, refresh rate and such of current analog TV in the U.S. was defined by the NTSC, the Advanced Television Systems Commitee defined the DTV format for the U.S. and part of that definition is that the new dimensions of TV is 16:9.

That answer politely sidesteps the mess of politics between the TV, movie and computer industries that came to this decision.

HDTV doesn't technically have to be 16:9. At it's most basic, HDTV is anything better than 640x480 resolution. HDTV doesn't have to be digital either. Analog broadcasts can be used to send higher resolution video. In fact, Japan has implemented analog HDTV. It requires using significantly more of the broadcast spectrum for each channel, and is thus very inefficient.

 

[FrysInsider]

get both!!

one for watching your 16x9 DVD

and the other for regular broadcasting