• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

4:3 microled TVs in 2021?

chane

Member
Apr 18, 2010
57
5
71
Is there finally a chance for us vintage movie and TV show fans to enjoy 1.33:1 content the way it was meant to be seen.

https://www.techradar.com/news/lgs-163-inch-microled-could-be-an-oled-beater-in-the-making

Really??? Does this mean that I can have a TV with OLED's kickass contrast ratio and black level range but where the screen panels can be physically configured for viewing my large collection of 1.33:1 aspect ratio content in full screen with no vertical black bars?

IF yes, you can bet that lots of cinephiles will dedicated a room for using a 4:3 microled TV, while they enjoy 1.85:1 and similar content on their 16:9 TV in another room. Will this finally happen in 2021?

But if yes will microleds be exclusively 8K TVs, which would be virtually useless and needlessly costly for DVD and 1080p BD collections like mine?

And what available sizes will there be? ~ 48”, 50”? Hopefully, not only in sizes larger than 55”. If yes, then unless the TV were placed practically on the floor the center of the screen would be well above axis of the eyes of most viewers in most room sizes.

And who would do the actual microled panel configuring for displaying the chosen aspect ratio? Does the user have to special order it or would it an in-home DIY set up?

How soon might a ~ 52” 4:3 configurable 1080p or 4K microled TV hit the market?
 

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,507
177
106
Did you read the actual article? It takes a 163" screen to have 4K pixels. This is because the "micro" LEDs are not that "micro" yet. An 8K TV using this same tech would be 326". A 1080P would be 81.5". It is a simple matter of math. Also, the whole "We don't have a firm price tag from LG at the moment – though we're trying to find out – but it's sure to be out of reach of all but the most privileged viewers, making widespread adoption impossible for now" kind of puts a damper on things. This is in the if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it category.
 

chane

Member
Apr 18, 2010
57
5
71
Did you read the actual article?
Actually, no I didn’t read it all, and I assumed that any serious competition to OLED would at least be cheaper to build. Perhaps prices will dip some years from now but a 1080p 4:3 TV that has to be 81.5” is much too big for my needs. And as all the OLED brands refuse to market any 4:3 models it looks like I’ll have to keep relying on my 32” Toshiba CRT TV for a long time.
 

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,507
177
106
Well, we got some pricing data finally on MicroLED. It is from Samsung which is releasing a commercial product with fixed sizes (still based on "The Wall" which was the first microLED display product sold to the public, and was also the first modular display). So the 110" fixed size MicroLED from Samsung is priced at $156,000.

Still no official pricing on "The Wall" which makes some sense given that it is a custom modular system, but I would have expected somewhere to give an average cost per module by now, even though it was always also in the "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it" category. "The Wall" has been sold for at least 2 years now, possibly 3 (it was first displayed 3 years ago, but no word on the first official sales).
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
5,641
535
126
Is there finally a chance for us vintage movie and TV show fans to enjoy 1.33:1 content the way it was meant to be seen.
??? Like a ~25" CRT, or even smaller B&W CRT TV depending on the content release date. A high res wall of a TV is far further from replicating the viewing experience than merely having some black bars.
 

chane

Member
Apr 18, 2010
57
5
71
??? Like a ~25" CRT, or even smaller B&W CRT TV depending on the content release date. A high res wall of a TV is far further from replicating the viewing experience than merely having some black bars.
There were 36” and even 38” CRTs decades before 16:9 aspect ratio TVs. Sony even had a 40” 4:3 CRT, circa 2003, albeit at ~ 240 lbs.

Certainly, films like “Gilda” (1946), “Double Indemnity” (1944), “Finger Fingers” (1952) and countless other titles shot in 1.33:1 were hardly made for TV release.

As for black bars, strange as it seems, my brain simply gets way more badly annoyed by vertical ones than horizontal ones. It’s very inconvenient but it’s not my fault and I also know that I’m not alone in this. Fortunately, many of us are sufficiently affluent to have dedicated rooms for both 1.33:1 and widescreen TVs. Now if we can just get an OLED TV 4:3 display with a total screen area comparable to a 55 or 65” 16:9 OLED TV.

Also, I for one never did or would ever want anything nearly as big as a 120” TV. But why shouldn’t vintage movie AND TV series fans enjoy the benefits of OLED picture quality in >40” 4:3 displays just because the producers of the movie or TV show could imagine the existence of such TVs?

As OLED is now a fully mature technology it hardly takes strokes of genius to make it happen. And I still believe that while market numbers may not be readily quantifiable any one brand who markets and sufficiently announces release of a ~50” 1080p or 4K 4:3 OLED TV will likely find it harder than expected to keep up with demand.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
5,641
535
126
^ But that is not the way it was meant to be seen. It was meant to be seen on the average TV in the average household at the time.

If you are talking about the 40" WEGA era, that's just a tiny drop in the bucket for the timeline of all the shows in history, and even then, the average household never had a CRT that size, moved from smaller to (maybe HD ratio CRT and then) LCD.

IMO if black bars annoy you then the content was not engaging. Sometimes things weren't really better back in the day. Nostalgia can be a mirage.
 

chane

Member
Apr 18, 2010
57
5
71
^ But that is not the way it was meant to be seen. It was meant to be seen on the average TV in the average household at the time.

If you are talking about the 40" WEGA era, that's just a tiny drop in the bucket for the timeline of all the shows in history, and even then, the average household never had a CRT that size, moved from smaller to (maybe HD ratio CRT and then) LCD.

IMO if black bars annoy you then the content was not engaging. Sometimes things weren't really better back in the day. Nostalgia can be a mirage.
With all due respect, IMO is just that. But it’s presumptuous on your part to assert that I couldn’t really be enjoying the content purchased if I’m that much bothered by vertical bars. Indeed, I made it plain that I love these movies too much not to view them but can’t bare seeing them with bars. THAT'S why I ONLY watch them on my 32” Toshiba CRT! Get it?? I would never watch them on a 16:9 TV. The only way I possibly might is if a 16:9 OLED TV has such inky deep blacks and its left and right bezel was so thin and the room was so dark that I couldn’t see the vertical bars at all. No all that likely in truth.

In any case, recall me pointing out that those 1.33:1 feature films were made to be seen in the movie houses of those times, none of which even had widescreens installed yet. And do you really think that even the newest cinemas of those times would have installed widescreens until they were showing mostly 1.85:1 or wider content? As it was, movie producers and theater owners were losing audiences in droves to TV. Subjecting theatrical audiences of “Gilda” or Hitchcock’s “Notorious” to never-before-seen vertical bars would have been all but suicidal. And not only would theatrical audiences be appalled but so would the Directors and especially the DPs of those films. Everyone would be losing big money if theaters showed those films on widescreens.

You totally state the obvious about things not necessarily being better in years past! That’s exactly why even digital tape didn’t much outlive analog tape, yet BDs continue to survive streaming as collectors know how easily Netflix and the rest can choose to banish a title forever as soon as it's rental rates drops too much for their liking. At least beyond crass but necessary profit making, the whole point of technological advancement is to enrich each of our lives rather to confine our choices to the dictates of an elite few. Just because the CE industry is mostly controlled by such thugs doesn’t make it logical, much less fair and good. It’s amazing to me that you seem to fail at grasping this. Ergo, ~ 50” 4:3 OLED TVs for those who want them.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: repoman0

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
5,641
535
126
I suppose we're all OCD in our own ways, but it's still OCD.

If you want to take the movie house argument then get a film reel projector.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY