• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

16:9 or 4:3 TV?

A

astroview

Golden Member
If I'm buying a brand new HDTV, should I pay for a 16:9 TV? This will be for regular TV watching and some DVD playback.


What are all your opinions.
 
Wrong forum, try OT.

Anyhow, 16:9 is a better choice since you can run fill mode for 4:3 signals and you get very little distortion. DVD's look better since the black bars will be smaller, and even non-existant on 1:85:1 titles.
 
16x9 all the way! dvds look awsome and the stretch modes on newer tvs expecially the pioneers are really good , you will hardly notice the stretching.
 
Another vote for 16:9, I love mine and now actually dont like the 4:3 pictures anymore.... When I see them the faces look too long now. But seriously I love watching DVD's on my 38" tube and hopefully can turn that into a projector in the near fufure 😉 I'm already preparing the sound system 🙂
 
lets face it, when all signals are in HDTV, there most likely gonna be 16x9 signals. not to mention the dvd functionality.
but if your one of these people who actually believe wide screen cuts off the top and bottom of movies, then avoid 16x9.
 
Something to think about, with 16:9s, picture will always appear smaller than their 4:3 equivalents(ie 40" 16:9 vs 40" 4:3). 16:9s usually require a upping of one size for it to look right.
 
16:9

Hands down.

Esp. since the prices are dropping like mad. (Panasonic 47" can be had for about $1500 or so now)
 
huh? hdtv IS 16:9 😛 frankly i could care less if the news hour or cartoons don't fit a widescreen right. I only care about the picture when stuff is broadcast in HD, like sports, movies, prime time tv shows like sopranos, most anything on CBS, latenight etc😛 DVDs too😛
 
Ummm I have a 4:3 HDTV. Seems the basic difference is where the bars appear, or if things are stretched. My 32" 4:3 becomes a 32" 16:9 when a hdtv or dvd signal is received, but a 32" 16: 9 becomes something less than 32" for standard broadcasts unless it is stretched. Am I missing something here?
 


<< Ummm I have a 4:3 HDTV. Seems the basic difference is where the bars appear, or if things are stretched. My 32" 4:3 becomes a 32" 16:9 when a hdtv or dvd signal is received, but a 32" 16: 9 becomes something less than 32" for standard broadcasts unless it is stretched. Am I missing something here? >>



Uh...well, your 32" 4:3 would be more like a 24" 16:9, eh? (maybe smaller? Too late for me to do math 😉 )
 
Dont think so, as the picture is the same width, and the perspective is still 16:9 Could be wrong on this though. Brain tired.
 


<< Dont think so, as the picture is the same width, and the perspective is still 16:9 Could be wrong on this though. Brain tired. >>



Well, if you're watching, say, a 1.85:1 film, your 4:3 TV will be letterboxed. However, it will completely fill my 16:9 (1.78:1 ratio with some overscan).
 
when are they switching over to all digital tv, 2006? shouldn't that be the thing to worry about? that's only 4 years from now. i'd hate to pay $1000 for a tv that I couldn't use in 4 years.

i'm probably wrong.

 
Ohhh...that 2006 deadline will definitely slip.

2/3 of the remaining stations are already applying for extensions beyond the May 1, 2002 deadline to be up and running.
 
I would look at it this way...determine the price you are willing to pay, and the type of signal you would mostly be watching. Now, determine what size 16:9 that buys and then determine what size 4:3 you could buy. Make sure the 4:3 has anamorphic squeeze mode, and now compare what the equivalent 16:9 screen size is of the 4:3 television to the 16:9 television. IIRC, typically at the larger screen size quality RPTV's, the same amount of money buys roughly the same 16:9 picture size, except in the 4:3 you get a much larger screen for viewing normal signals. One final consideration is that if you will be mostly watching 4:3 programming, I believe this can lead to burn in problems on the 16:9 sets (i.e. the section of the screen where the 4:3 picture stops leaves some sort of burnin effect). I am not sure if they have fixed this in the newest sets or not, but I would certainly research it. Ultimately, I would most likely recommend a very large 4:3 set, unless you will be watching 16:9 signals almost exclusively.

 
know that if you watch reg. 4:3 Tv w/ bars, there may be burn in, the parts of the screen with the bars will be brighter than the other parts. I just got a 46" widescreen, and its great. There is a mode where the middle of the screen is regular and only the sides are distorted, but it looks like your looking through a bubble. I dont mind the stretch that much.
 


Dont think so, as the picture is the same width, and the perspective is still 16:9 Could be wrong on this though. Brain tired.


hm, well measurements of tvs are of the diagonal, so 32" of wide screen is gonna be wider then 32" 4:3. once you black out the top and botton on a 4:3 tv you end up with way less usable screen for movies and HD stuff. So to get the most screen for your HD/DVD money, widescreen is the way to go.
 


<< know that if you watch reg. 4:3 Tv w/ bars, there may be burn in, the parts of the screen with the bars will be brighter than the other parts. >>

First, this only affects big-screens. Second, the same goes for both watching unstretched 16:9 on 4:3 and watching unstretched 4:3 on 16:9. Third, the BLACK bars are darker, not lighter than the rest of the picture. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top