• 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 OLED TVs: A Win For All

chane

Member
Apr 18, 2010
67
7
71
Anyone owning or planning to own an OLED TV surely appreciates their uniquely stunning black level performance, a must for noir genre movie fans. On a related topic, perhaps 55% or more of your favorites were probably shot in 1.85:1 aspect, so the horizontal bars you see shouldn’t be too thick on your standard 16:9 OLED. Some recent movies and some old classics like “2001: A Space Odyssey”, “Sound of Music”, “Three Women”, “Ben Hur” and “Hud” were shot in 2.35: 1. Consequently, they will all have thicker horizontal bars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

Everyone hates bars but it’s much worse for many cinephiles like me who also enjoy movies released prior to the mid-50s. Many of those, both “A” and “B” pictures, were filmed in 1.37:1 aspect, such as
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038559/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042039/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036775/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038355/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057207/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048261/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023245/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044314/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043131/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041954/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187684/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034587/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5

Ditto for decades of vintage TV shows from the early 60s (Perry Mason) to the mid-90s (X-Files).

Try watching any of it even on a 77” OLED. If you’re like me the vertical bars, which will be even thicker than horizontal bars when viewing most widescreen aspect content, will be unbearable. And stretching Perry Mason or cropping Gilda’s (or Scully’s) matador hat is unthinkable. Consequently, many of us are compelled to watch this “pillarboxed” 4:3 content on CRT TVs. Picture quality is not too bad and CRTs have excellent OLED-like contrast ratio. But except for a 40” direct view CRT which Sony once released about 17” years ago, virtually all CRTs are a painfully small 32”, less than half the area of 65” widescreen TVs. And the best of performing CRTs (flat CR tube. component video inputs) are becoming impossible to find, and to get serviced. The same for refrigerator sized rear projection CRTs, which while some had 50” screens picture quality couldn’t match that of direct view CRTs. And though direct view projectors can deliver high contrast ratios and large 4:3 images many of the better models cost at least $5,000. and may present placement problems for some users.

The obvious solution here to persuade select TV brands to market a 4:3 OLED TV, size ~ 40” to 50”.

Unfortunately, as much of the CE industry is closely tied to Hollywood, it’s not surprising that cutthroat aspects of that business reflect indifference towards consumer opinions and expectations, at least among the major TV brands, all of whom no longer accept consumer feedback at their websites. Indeed, “apparent” demand might have grown substantially larger if cinephiles hadn’t given up in disgust with asking OLED brands to release 4:3 TVs. Again, except for perhaps Pioneer, most of the majors are deaf to consumer requests, save perhaps from what they glean from their own prognostications. And try finding their marketing VPs’ contact info to share new product ideas; good luck with that.


However, I am about to begin proposing this new product to several other approachable brands .

While demand for a 4:3 OLED may not be huge it is certainly vibrant and long lived. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-panels-general/1852162-will-anybody-ever-make-4-3-oled-display-watching-old-tv-shows-stuff-4-3-a.html

Additionally, there still are communities at AVS and at other home theater forums devoted to long defunct direct view CRT TVs, of course which are almost exclusively 4;3. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/64-direct-view-single-tube-crt-displays/ And here only two months ago members are still calling to bring CRTs back into production, as they have for years. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/64-direct-view-single-tube-crt-displays/1423003-please-bring-back-crt-tv-s-into-production-line-again.html

It’s also well known among videophiles that CRTs, plasmas and OLEDs share very similar performance levels-unmatched by any existing display technology. But as Anthony1 from the first AVS link above suggested, many CRT fans would instantly embrace a space saving flat panel 40” or larger 4:3 OLED TV.

A good sized 4:3 OLED is the way to go-and ideally with a processor at least nearly as good as Sony’s to upscale DVD and BD content.

Analog Video Connectivity: A Must for the 4:3 OLED

Whatever the reasons for the CE industry’s imposed Analog Sunset, it unfairly deprives cinephiles of enjoying their feature packed Denon, Marantz, Pioneer and other high end DVD players. Sony includes one (1) composite input, though most inconveniently placed on the side of their A9G OLED (presumably just for camcorder playbacks)-but which is unsightly and would require longer cable runs from the TV to the DVD player.

But all high end DVD players have component video outputs. And as that connection yields the highest quality analog signal it likely will make it easier for the OLED’s processor to upscale the DVD video signal.

Furthermore, virtually no currently produced BD players have zoom control-a highly prized viewing tool among cinephiles. I was badly upset that my otherwise excellent Oppo BDP-95 has only partial zoom control; it doesn’t allow you to reposition and center a desired part of the zoomed image on the screen. My new Pioneer UDP-LX500 BD player and the discontinued Arcam 411p are about the only BD players which can. But virtually all DVD players have this advanced zoom control functionality, like my trusty JVC XV-NA70BK.

Cinephiles have long been victimized by the Blu-Ray Assn for mandating Oracle’s BD-J disc authoring-which by default or deliberately locks out zoom and sometimes also slow motion features-and forces compliance upon BD player brands. But all DVDs are free of these oppressive restrictions that rob consumers of the freedom to enjoy as they please the products they purchase. Advanced zoom and slow motion controls are invaluable viewing tools allowing cinephiles more intimate viewing and appreciation of select scenes. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=17681489#post17681489

Sadly, few if any DVD players have an HDMI output. Thus, all OLED TVs should include component video inputs-or at the very least a rear mounted composite and/or S-video input. Indeed, all OLED TV brands can be assured that adding this analog video connectivity to the proposed 4:3 OLED will further endear this long awaited niche product to the home theater enthusiast community.

Pixel Count and DVD/BD Upscaling

All currently produced OLED TVs have 4K resolution; the pixel count being roughly four times that of the LCD or LED panels used to build earlier 1080p displays. So unless the 4:3 OLED TV has a high quality on board upscaling processor-like the one in Sony’s A9G OLED-the 1080p BD or 480i DVD content displayed on 4K OLED panels may likely fill only a small part of the screen. Alternately, it’s worth considering that while these processors generally do a good job, since most users would only be watching 4:3 content on a this 4:3 display, if it was instead a 1080 rather 4K OLED, BDs would be shown in their native 1080p scale; only DVDs would need to be upscaled. Of course, there currently are no consumer OLED brands making 4:3 OLEDs, nor are there any 1080 widescreen OLEDs.

Ultimately, only each TV brand would know how the economics of OLED panels with 1080 vs. 4K pixel counts would impact their own production of 4:3 OLED TVs. But if they stay with 4K pixels, Pioneer or those brands below should aim to design the 40” to 50” 4K 4:3 TV’s OLED TV around the best upscaling processor within the niche market price point, perhaps ~$2200. or so. The high quality upscaling of 1080p BDs and DVDs (source formats still probably most common among collectors of vintage movies and TV shows) will allow viewers to sit at a comfortable distance.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: AnitaPeterson

chane

Member
Apr 18, 2010
67
7
71
Subject: 4:3 OLED TVs: A Win For All, Part 2 of 3

Fortunately, as OLED technology has now matured the overall cost of making these TVs today has fallen substantially, thus volume sales risks versus tooling costs may be comfortably low-even when marketing
lower volume 4K 4:3 OLED TVs with advanced upscaling, the same full featured remotes found in popular 16:9 widescreen OLEDs-and the added component video inputs.

Regarding assembly parts, though LG is likely still the sole supplier of OLED panels this firm may be helpful in getting 4:3 TVs built as cheaply as possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Display_Corporation

And there are now numerous OLED panel fabricators. Perhaps these and others are supplying the Chinese OLED TV brands listed below-those which may already be selling OLED TVs in North America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flat_panel_display_manufacturers#List_of_OLED_panel_manufacturers https://www.oled-info.com/companies-list/oled-display-producers
 
  • Haha
Reactions: AnitaPeterson

chane

Member
Apr 18, 2010
67
7
71
Subject: 4:3 OLED TVs: A Win For All, Part 3 of 5

Again, regarding demand, even if there are conservatively just ~ 10,000 members among the most prominent home theater forums expressing interest in owning 4:3 OLEDs, the number of consumers actually wanting one could be well beyond 10 to 50 times as much. Demand could easily be tested with runs of 7,000 units or so.And if Pioneer or Chinese brand OLEDs can perform nearly as good as Sony and LG models, and/or for a somewhat lower price, sales may grow even higher.

Finally, given the still extant global pandemic lockdown with so many people staying close to home, a 40”
or larger 4:3 OLED will make big chunks of one’s vintage personal movie and TV collection look their best.

I will first be approaching Pioneer, as I especially hope it will be they who agree to market this product.
Though no longer making TVs, their UDP-LX500, which I purchased last week, is arguably the best full featured BD player in its price class.
https://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/Blu-ray-Disc/Elite-Blu-ray-Disc-Players/UDP-LX500

If Pioneer’s 4:3 OLEDs were to impress like their Kuro plasmas had for years they may literally corner the market. Depending on Pioneer’s interest will I decide on approaching several Chinese OLED TV brands which now or soon will be serving the US market. https://www.cnet.com/news/ces-2020-chinese-tv-giant-skyworth-goes-big-to-enter-us-market/
 
  • Haha
Reactions: AnitaPeterson

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,673
253
126
The problem with OLED and 4:3 I believe is more one of screen wear. As stated, must current content is in a widescreen form for the last 20 years, and a significant amount of content (i.e. movies) from the 1940’s onward is in some widescreen format as well. Having a large portion of the top and bottom of the screen wearing at a different speed than the middle will produce visible artifacts in OLED screens after only a very short time. The moment you then attempt to watch the 4:3 content that you intended to gain the most benefit from such an aspect ratio, you will notice the bars across the top and bottom of the screen. Pillow boxing alternatively, produces the same kinds of issues, however it is on the extreme sides of the picture, typically where very little important content is being displayed (there are exceptions, but they are few because most cinematography teaches to put the main subject matter at or near the middle of the screen so that audiences generally know where to focus). Thus having visible screen degradation on the sides of the screen is much less problematic than something that runs horizontally across the top and bottom of the entire screen (more complaints and returns/RMA requests will occur for the one with damage closer to the center of the screen).
 

FaaR

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2007
1,056
411
136
What a ridiculous first-world problem to get hung up on. Btw, good luck convincing consumer goods manufacturers to cater to a tiny fringe of obsessive-compulsive maniacs in a cut-throat, razor-thin margins business like TV manufacturing. You'd be paying out the nose - and every other bodily orifice of yours - for that pleasure I can assure you if any manufacturer was ever crazy enough to take you up on this idea.

And of course, you'd pay even more ridiculous sums for repairs of your most assuredly one-shot-never-to-be-repeated device, if repairs would even be possible.

I watch old TV shows on my widescreen LCD TV, it works fine. Picture looks better than any CRT TV I ever saw as well. Not sure why you're singing the old vacuum tube's praises the way you do, the tech was terrible. It worked well enough for its time, but come on. It doesn't hold a candle to OLED in particular. CRT has so many quirks it's hard to even mention them all, most of them rooting in the analog nature of the whole system. No discrete pixels, so moire issues, image geometry issues, convergence, bleed, afterglow... Phosphor aging/color accuracy (which is also dependent on aging process of other analog components in the video signal chain.)

Let CRTs rest in their graves where they belong. Don't go dragging them up again, they were never THAT good.
 

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2009
9,749
2,395
136
Let CRTs rest in their graves where they belong. Don't go dragging them up again, they were never THAT good.
You, sir, have obviously never seen a well setup system based on capable projectors. I still remember the immersive feeling sitting on the floor in front of a 12' wide toroidal screen in Cinescope format. Watching The Fifth Element in that kind of presentation, in a completely light controlled room, was amazing. But that was one of the benefits of a CRT projector in that you could map and converge on such a surface.
 

FaaR

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2007
1,056
411
136
I say rose-colored glasses. If you could compare side-by-side a modern, deep color HDR display and your toroidal CRT projector I'm pretty sure the latter won't look nearly as good as you remember.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnitaPeterson

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2009
9,749
2,395
136
Sure, now find me one that is twelve feet wide. I'm not looking to downsize and I'm already at ten feet.
 

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,673
253
126
They make em, you just can’t afford them. To be honest I would rather have “the wall” personally than a large OLED. The micro-led is much better to be honest (no burn-in risk).

And if you really want to, I am pretty sure you can configure “the wall” in a 4:3 (or fairly close) format, but you would be wasting a lot of screen space unless you like zooming and cropping off the sides....
 

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2009
9,749
2,395
136
Which is why I have been suggesting that forward path. You can fill the wall of your home theater and only use ares at aspect ratio for the content being shown and never have to worry about bars or image retention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: teejee

chane

Member
Apr 18, 2010
67
7
71
I think microLED will solve the problem with bars.
What a ridiculous first-world problem to get hung up on..... I watch old TV shows on my widescreen LCD TV, it works fine. Picture looks better than any CRT TV I ever saw as well. Not sure why you're singing the old vacuum tube's praises the way you do, the tech was terrible.........Let CRTs rest in their graves where they belong. Don't go dragging them up again, they were never THAT good.
They make em, you just can’t afford them. To be honest I would rather have “the wall” personally than a large OLED. The micro-led is much better to be honest (no burn-in risk).

And if you really want to, I am pretty sure you can configure “the wall” in a 4:3 (or fairly close) format, but you would be wasting a lot of screen space unless you like zooming and cropping off the sides....
A contentious and lively discussion with open minded members is a great thing. But as for labeling my concerns as petty “first world” (elitist?) caprice, I think most know that many technology applications discussed here-and at forums like AVS, diyaudio.com, stevehoffman.com, audioasylum.com, computeraudiophile.com, et al-are very often in pursuit of the most authentic reproduction of picture and sound within one’s budget and technical capabilities. And I can assure you that the passions driving those pursuits burn in those of even the most modest means-at least among those who find themselves in places like this.

As for LCD vs. CRT, though you list the very real limitations of the latter, it’s common knowledge that LCD can’t touch CRT’s or plasma’s contrast ratio and black level performance-a must for film noir fans like me. Of course, direct view CRT TV screen size is unbearably small and plasmas’ are energy hogs and emit heat like space heaters (as did many LCDs), ergo the call for a large 4:3 OLED TV. But I also think that some of my specific points and goals may have gone somewhat misunderstood.

First, my brain somehow happens to find vertical pillar bars unbearably disturbing, while horizontal bars are essentially no problem for me, save for the very real lose of screen space, as discussed later. At worst, that makes me different, not some crazy first world trust kid; nor am I not alone on this score either. In any case, the other problem-which everyone faces-when watching 4:3 images on a 16:9 display is that the vertical bars will be thicker than would be horizontal ones, at least for 1.85:1 images, so you lose more actual screen space regardless of how big the screen is.

As for OLED burn-in risks, if a ~ 52” to 60” 4:3 OLED TV were ever marketed
I would be using it exclusively for viewing 4:3 content (e.g. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036775/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5 and all TV shows up to circa 1993). Thus, since it would never be displaying black bars there would be little if any chance for accelerated burn in events. And in my other room would be a 65” 16:9 OLED TV, likewise, used exclusively to view content between 1.85:1 (e.g. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063115/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5) and 2.55:1 (e.g. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047849/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5) aspect.

Indeed though, owing to the variation among actual “widescreen” aspect ratios used over the decades, my widescreen OLED would be more likely to suffer burn in damage as black bars will always appear however thin from 1.85:1 content to thick ones from 2.55:1 content. On the other hand, since I invariably watch movies in dimly lit rooms-thereby allowing me to reduce the OLED’s brightness and enjoy energy savings and less heat emissions-will doing so reduce likelihood of burn in attacks?

Thus, with all content being displayed in its native or near native aspect ratio, burn in damage is minimized, plus no appreciable need to stretch or crop images (not that cinematic purists like me would ever do so anyway).

As for being “picky”, how would your reaction be any different if there were no 16:9 displays and only 4:3 screens to watch one of your favorite 1.85:1 movies or post circa 1995 TV shows-or to suffer with even thicker horizontal bars when trying to watch “Bad Day at Black Rock“ or “2001” shot in 2.35:1- not to mention the even wider aspect ratios Hollywood now wants to pursue? In fact, if Hollywood gets its way (and thanks to Sony and the rest of those CE thugs it usually does), 16:9 screens will be phased out sooner rather than later in favor of 21:9 screens, thereby making their newest titles appear more attractive due to smaller horizontal bars. CE brands are already beginning to foist 21:9 on consumers as they have now virtually phased out 16:9 smart phones.

Of course, that will mean your collections of 1.85:1 movies and TV shows will display with big fat horizontal bars. Likewise, as it was with watching 4:3 images on 16:9 screens, you will lose lots of screen space when watching 1.85:1 widescreen stuff on wider 21:9 screens.

Question: Does micro LED yield contrast ratios and black levels equal to OLED?
 

FaaR

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2007
1,056
411
136
Question: Does micro LED yield contrast ratios and black levels equal to OLED?
Yes, but that tech is a really long way off from being cost effective for something as large as a TV screen. Even just a laptop screen made with micro-LED tech would probably set you back $10k or maybe more today.

Actually, from what I've read, micro-LED is superior to OLED in both color reproduction/spectrum and contrast ratio (due to much higher peak brightness, while retaining typical OLED black levels.) It supposedly also draws considerably less power than OLED, which is why future interest in the tech is so high. Problem is though it's made by etching the LEDs out of a semiconductor wafer using the same photolithographic technology used to make microchips, which has very high requirements on cleanroom standards, air filtering, vibrations and so on and uses some very costly equipment.

So it will be a while before TVs are made this way. Mini-LEDs will make it there first, they're traditional discrete LEDs (just considerably smaller than usual.) We'll probably see micro-LED in smart watches first, then phones, as their screens are small so less cost per device, and the power savings (and peak brightness) will make the biggest performance impact. Also, since phones especially are high volume these days it will help drive down costs as manufacturing is refined and accelerated.

Anyway... How much time do you actually spend watching old TV show material that OLED burn-in on a traditional 16:9 set might become a concern? (It's not actually burn-in though... It's uneven subpixel wear. :)) I hear modern OLED screens quietly wear down the lesser used areas of the screen in the background to compensate, so if true having two different TVs would not be very cost efficient. Not that it really is regardless though as there's a multitude of widescreen formats and you'll get black bars anyway most of the time to deal with, as you noted yourself. :)

Also, I have yet to see even ONE 21:9 TV set, either in real life or on the web. I wasn't even aware such a thing was being planned, much less trying to be rushed onto the market as you allege.

I doubt such a move would take people by storm by the way, considering the prevalence of 16:9 video material these days. People spend far more time watching streaming video than they do watching feature movies, which are the only media using wide widescreen aspect ratios today. It would be annoying and distracting with the black bars on the sides every time people tune into netflix or the like, so I suspect 21:9 TVs might share the same fate as 3D TVs had a few years ago...

Plus, a 21:9 screen would become extremely, if not ridiculously wide if you wanted the same screen height as a large 16:9 screen - to the point many people just could not fit them into their homes. If you instead picked a 21:9 screen which was as wide as a 16:9 screen, the total screen area would be much less for the 21:9 unit, which would lead to an unsatisfactory viewing experience for many I think, particularly for 16:9 material viewing (which again, is the majority for most people.)

So maybe you worry over nothing here, I'm thinking? Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno. It has been known to happen! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnitaPeterson

chane

Member
Apr 18, 2010
67
7
71
Yes, but that tech is a really long way off from being cost effective for something as large as a TV screen. Even just a laptop screen made with micro-LED tech would probably set you back $10k or maybe more today.

Actually, from what I've read, micro-LED is superior to OLED in both color reproduction/spectrum and contrast ratio (due to much higher peak brightness, while retaining typical OLED black levels.) It supposedly also draws considerably less power than OLED, which is why future interest in the tech is so high. Problem is though it's made by etching the LEDs out of a semiconductor wafer using the same photolithographic technology used to make microchips, which has very high requirements on cleanroom standards, air filtering, vibrations and so on and uses some very costly equipment.

So it will be a while before TVs are made this way. Mini-LEDs will make it there first, they're traditional discrete LEDs (just considerably smaller than usual.) We'll probably see micro-LED in smart watches first, then phones, as their screens are small so less cost per device, and the power savings (and peak brightness) will make the biggest performance impact. Also, since phones especially are high volume these days it will help drive down costs as manufacturing is refined and accelerated. :)
Yes, I meant “uneven pixel wear” indeed yet another reason for wanting a ~ 55” OLED 4:3 TV. That way no black bars while watching native 1.37: 1 content and no uneven pixel wear risks to my 16:9 OLED TV since I wouldn’t be watching any 4:3 content on it. And while my 16:9 widescreen OLED will get hit with thin and thick black bars from 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 content, respectively, my 4:3 OLED never will. Thus, it may never need panel replacements. Even if it did, OLED is now a mature technology, so much that there may now be other panel suppliers besides LG, which may present less obstacles for servicing.

As for the average percentage of 4:3 stuff I watch weekly, I’d probably have to say a good ~ 45 to 50% or so, owing to my age, cinematic tastes, my large collection of vintage movies and TV shows across many genre. Therefore, for this and the other reasons above, a 4:3 OLED TV in a separate room is the ideal solution for me.

As for content beyond my collection, save for https://www.kanopy.com/-a free service via the local public library and Hulu (a friend gave me her password but I hate the commercial ads so I rarely use it)-I don’t subscribe to cable TV or any streaming service. I get word of new movie titles via https://mubi.com/ and https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/topic/movie-reviews If I find the story of interest I’ll first check to see if Kanopy has it or a regional library has it on disc that my home library can interloan for me. http://www.lilink.org/ Of course, nearly all of those new movies will be shot in widescreen format, so I’d view them on my 16:9 TV.

I may be wrong but I don’t think most 16:9 TV viewers will notice much variation in the thickness of horizontal bars. The most common widescreen aspect ratios are 1.85:1 (some 1.77:1) and 2.35:1 (some 2.55:1), so only the bar thickness of two larger ratios may only be noticeably different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

Again, happily in my case, it’s the vertical not the horizontal bars which most annoy me. And as a good 55% or so of widescreen movies in my collection and from other sources were shot in 1.85:1 or close to it, the bars are quite thin on my 16:9 TV.

Though the 21:9 aspect now owns much of the smart phone market, I was apparently wrong about its penetrating the TV market. https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1568361005
https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1346136568
Here’s a lively discussion on the obvious good and bad about a 21:9 TV format. https://www.avforums.com/threads/why-no-21-9-tvs.2248194/ Only if Hollywood and indy producers now shoot most movies in 2.35:1 and continue doing so may 21:9 TVs become available, allowing users to enjoy very small or no bars with those movies-though all of 1.85:1 movies will have thick ones.

As for 4:3 OLED TVs, it’s just a hunch but I do really feel that those Chinese OLED brands are way more willing and able to experiment with the kind of new product ideas that Sony, Panasonic, LG, Philips and Samsung would never go near. So I will try to pitch the idea once I settle on a screen size. Only if they all turn me down will I have to go with a 4:3 projector; not an ideal alternative but not the worst. ~52 to 60” 4:3 Da Lite or other brand screens are available; Da Lite will even custom cut the screen to size if needed, all for ~ $500. (non-motorized). Perhaps one of these:
https://www.projectorcentral.com/Maxell-MC-X8170.htm
https://www.projectorcentral.com/Epson-PowerLite_L610.htm

My other room where I’d install this is smaller and will be kept quite dark allowing the projector to operate in eco mode. But though this will minimize heat and fan noise and I would actually be suspending the projector from a metal rack spanning the entire width of an empty closet, I fear the fan noise may still be too loud. And relative to my seating location the distortion from any required keystoning might be too noticeable.

Furthermore, few projectors may yield contrast ratios and black levels equal to OLED TVs. And of course, you lose the convenience of having your BD player and amplifiers along or near the same wall as you can with an OLED TV. I’d have to consult a professional projector installer and run some fan noise, keystoning and tests before committing to any such hardware.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: AnitaPeterson

AnitaPeterson

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
5,754
113
106
Wow... like someone else said above, what a first-world problem!
Of all the things that we're facing now with technology, the return to Academy ratio for TV screens must really be at, or near, the bottom of the barrel.

I can't even express my amazement at this perfect demonstration of hubris.

So what if there are 10,000 North-American purists (the earlier description of " obsessive-compulsive maniacs " may be a bit harsh, but it's on the nose!) clamoring for their right to watch "Gone With the Wind" without black bars on the sides? Do you know how big the rest of the world is? Do you think that it cares?

Leaving aside the fact that human vision is actually "wide" (170 degrees on the horizontal, and some 90 degrees on the vertical), why would anyone in their right mind think that dedicated 4x3 screens would ever stand a chance to make a comeback?

To watch what - reruns of "Married with Children"? "I Love Lucy"? Tapes of Uncle Jim's wedding?

"Finally, given the still extant global pandemic lockdown with so many people staying close to home, a 40” or larger 4:3 OLED will make big chunks of one’s vintage personal movie and TV collection look their best "

Err... newsflash: nobody's going to buy yet another screen in order to specifically bask in the glory of VHS.

What's next, an appeal for bringing back DIVX? Betamax? 8-track?
 

HeXen

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2009
7,821
33
91
Err... newsflash: nobody's going to buy yet another screen in order to specifically bask in the glory of VHS.

What's next, an appeal for bringing back DIVX? Betamax? 8-track?
The retro/nostalgia market is still pretty big despite it's niche. For retro gamer's, CRT's sell like candy. I'd love to have a 4:3 OLED tv since they take up far less room than a CRT. Also since most free streaming networks like Pluto TV focus on older tv shows for which you have a good 60 years worth of very watchable shows, a lot of people tend to watch them simply because it's free and the pay networks, despite their huge libraries can sometimes feel limited in the type of shows you like. That forces some like me to pay for Hulu, Netflix, Prime and Disney all at once just to have a good range of shows for the whole family.
Yet 90% of the time I find myself watching Pluto TV since it's a live stream and I don't have to physically search and pick out something for each show.

I just wish the 4:3 Tv's weren't so expensive and small screen.
 

Dranoche

Senior member
Jul 6, 2009
243
34
91
I would buy a 4:3 OLED if there was one available, though not a very big one, maybe 24 inches. 32 inches max if that's all I could get. Eventually something I can't fix/replace in my PVM or one of my old consoles is going to degrade. I know people who would pay a decent bit for a PVM if they could fine one local, but don't have the space for it. Improved emulation accuracy and CRT filters/shaders will eventually be the only way to get close to the same experience. Could always build a cabinet over a 16:9 screen, but the 4:3 form factor would be nice. That's still niche though when compared to the TV market in general, even if combined with film buffs. The panel manufacturers are ultimately the ones that would have to get on board to make it happen.
 

guidryp

Golden Member
Apr 3, 2006
1,515
1,703
136
No one is building 4:3 OLEDs for an ultra-niche market.

Get a decent LCD TV (no burn in), and build some custom masking (like used in home projection) if black bars bother you that much.

Or just dedicate an OLED TV to 4:3 usage. If you only use it for 4:3, then you will never notice the differential aging. This accomplishes essentially the same thing without need to build a specific 4:3 model.

Personally, I finds 4:3 bars much less annoying that 2:35:1 bars on a 16:9 screen. The latter seems to shrink the picture much more.
 

PlanetJosh

Golden Member
May 6, 2013
1,595
71
91
Get a decent LCD TV (no burn in), and build some custom masking (like used in home projection) if black bars bother you that much.
If a stylish masking product for those TVs came out. Or maybe there are some functional and attractive ones.

edit - As far as 4:3 I remember I couldn't bear to shift to watching something so wide as 16:9. Even though that should make no sense considering all the movies in theaters I saw over the decades. Then after after getting used to and loving 16:9 which is where I am now I can't imagine ever getting used to ultra wides
 
Last edited:

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
6,467
825
126
If you need all this to enjoy a show, that show was not very entertaining.

You should be able to buy whatever you want to spend the money on, but this is far too small a niche market to make what you want, more than an extreme luxury, price point product. It is not going to be a situation like "similar screen area means similar price" when the market is so small.

Finding a group of people who all want the same thing because they sought such a group, is just a normal evolution of the web, not a lot of people in the grand scheme of things.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY