4:3 vs. 16:9 CRT HDTV

[Azndude51]

I'm shopping for the Sony KV-32HS420 or 30HS420 (they're the same price.) I'm leaning towards the 32" 4:3 aspect ratio monitor. However, everytime I go to Best Buy, Sears, etc. the salesperson always tells me to get the 30" 16:9. I ran the size calculator thing from cnet (there was one from another site, but I forgot the link).
Letterbox on 32" 4:3 is 29"
Windowbox on 30" 16:9 is 24"
Are these measurements actually correct? do you REALLY get 29" letterbox on a 4:3 TV?

From those measurements, it seems like it is better to get a 4:3 since the difference is smaller. Right now I am wathcing all non-HD programming, but I am planning to subscribe to some HD channels. All the sales people claim that TV programming will all change to HD in a couple of years; however, I remember hearing that only OTA was supposed to and not cable TV. Is that true? Do you guys think that it is a better choice for me to get a 4:3 instead of a 16:9? Can you guys give some other things to consider?

 

[SLCentral]

I would get a 16:9. I am almost completely sure that if it is a 4:3 HDTV, it downsizes it, so you aren't getting the whole picture. 16:9 is the new standard, and it has been the standard for DVD's for the past years. No reason to get older technology.

 

[toekramp]

no freakin' way should you get 4:3 if you are investing in a new tv

 

[95SS]

Those numbers are correct, and you'd be smart to get the 16:9 display. Watching HD in 4:3 is like P&S DVD, what's the point?

 

[BD2003]

Trust us, get a 16:9. Movies will be easier to watch. Most good programming is starting to show in HD. I usually watch standard def in 4:3 sideboxed mode, but the panoramic stretch modes are quite good at making 4:3 programs fit into 16:9.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Trust us, get a 16:9. Movies will be easier to watch. Most good programming is starting to show in HD. I usually watch standard def in 4:3 sideboxed mode, but the panoramic stretch modes are quite good at making 4:3 programs fit into 16:9.

Not to mention gaming, if you are into that.

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: toekramp
no freakin' way should you get 4:3 if you are investing in a new tv

Exactly. IMO, 4:3 HDTV's are a travesty, and whoever is putting them out should be shot. Get the 16:9, you won't be disappointed.

 

[amol]

get 16:9

 

[GoSharks]

i suspect that there should be vertical squeeze on the 4:3 tv. (ie the actualy viewing area is compressed and you dont lose any resolution - ala adjusting the size of the picture on a CRT monitor). check it out, and if there is, there should be no reason to get the 16:9 tube - unless you want to have the coolness factor of the 16:9.

you said it yourself, on the 32", all 4:3 programming (which there is still lots) will be 32". 16:9 will be 29". on the 30", 4:3 will be 24" and 16:9 is 30". there is a huge difference between 24" and 32". i would go for the 32", actually its a no-brainer for me.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: BD2003
Trust us, get a 16:9. Movies will be easier to watch. Most good programming is starting to show in HD. I usually watch standard def in 4:3 sideboxed mode, but the panoramic stretch modes are quite good at making 4:3 programs fit into 16:9.

Not to mention gaming, if you are into that.

Hells F***ing Yea!!!

I picked up the $800 ilo HD 27dn LCD display from the Walmart deal and plugged in to wy 9700 pro via DVI, Games have NEVER looked so good so big .... (though the image quality does appear to be a tad bit better on a 19inch CRT as they generally run higher res, and the therefore the pixel density is much higher (the jaggies are very easy to see on the LCD.)




EDIT: one other note ....
16x9 "squished" to a 4x3 screen looks horrible
4:3 programming "squished" to a 16x9 screen doesn't look too bad IMO ... I honestly have a hard time noticing that the screen is stretched sometimes.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: BD2003
Trust us, get a 16:9. Movies will be easier to watch. Most good programming is starting to show in HD. I usually watch standard def in 4:3 sideboxed mode, but the panoramic stretch modes are quite good at making 4:3 programs fit into 16:9.

Not to mention gaming, if you are into that.

Hells F***ing Yea!!!

I picked up the $800 ilo HD 27dn LCD display from the Walmart deal and plugged in to wy 9700 pro via DVI, Games have NEVER looked so good so big .... (though the image quality does appear to be a tad bit better on a 19inch CRT as they generally run higher res, and the therefore the pixel density is much higher (the jaggies are very easy to see on the LCD.)


EDIT: one other note ....
16x9 "squished" to a 4x3 screen looks horrible
4:3 programming "squished" to a 16x9 screen doesn't look too bad IMO ... I honestly have a hard time noticing that the screen is stretched sometimes.

Yep, and if you use the linear stretch, it just makes everyone look fatter, which makes you feel better about yourself.

 

[purbeast0]

trust me ... get the 16:9

and once you get the actual HD subrsciption, you WILL watch stuff in HD just to see how good it looks.

i never thought i would watch discovery channel stuff soo much, but i do now cause i have it in HD. its beautiful!

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS
i suspect that there should be vertical squeeze on the 4:3 tv. (ie the actualy viewing area is compressed and you dont lose any resolution - ala adjusting the size of the picture on a CRT monitor). check it out, and if there is, there should be no reason to get the 16:9 tube - unless you want to have the coolness factor of the 16:9.

you said it yourself, on the 32", all 4:3 programming (which there is still lots) will be 32". 16:9 will be 29". on the 30", 4:3 will be 24" and 16:9 is 30". there is a huge difference between 24" and 32". i would go for the 32", actually its a no-brainer for me.

I agree, because what I currently watch is NOT 16:9. the 16:9 sets either stretch the 4:3 image, or risk burning in bars on the edges. The anamorphic squeeze on my 36" yields a 33" letterbox, which suits me just fine! Maybe there will be a worthwhile reason to switch to 16:9 by the time this puppy pukes...

 

[TechnoKid]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS
i suspect that there should be vertical squeeze on the 4:3 tv. (ie the actualy viewing area is compressed and you dont lose any resolution - ala adjusting the size of the picture on a CRT monitor). check it out, and if there is, there should be no reason to get the 16:9 tube - unless you want to have the coolness factor of the 16:9.

you said it yourself, on the 32", all 4:3 programming (which there is still lots) will be 32". 16:9 will be 29". on the 30", 4:3 will be 24" and 16:9 is 30". there is a huge difference between 24" and 32". i would go for the 32", actually its a no-brainer for me.

I agree, because what I currently watch is NOT 16:9. the 16:9 sets either stretch the 4:3 image, or risk burning in bars on the edges. The anamorphic squeeze on my 36" yields a 33" letterbox, which suits me just fine! Maybe there will be a worthwhile reason to switch to 16:9 by the time this puppy pukes...

one of the few reasons i am holding onto a 32XBR400 is because of the "anamorphic squeeze/enhanced widescreen" capability; that and it does superbly on movies from progressive-scan dvd. With the anamorphic squeeze tech, you dont lose any resolution.

 

[suse920]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Trust us, get a 16:9. Movies will be easier to watch. Most good programming is starting to show in HD. I usually watch standard def in 4:3 sideboxed mode, but the panoramic stretch modes are quite good at making 4:3 programs fit into 16:9.

 

[Staples]

I bought a HDTV a year ago. I bought a 4:3 32". Most stuff I watch is still 4:3 and will probably but that way for years to come. I think a 16:9 would have been more future proof but I am not planning on holding on to it for 10 years. This native 16:9 fuction on this TV looks just fine.

And I only get HD programming from
1) OTA (yes my TV has a tuner)
2) From an Xbox

Only some nightly stuff is HD. Most stuff between the hours of 7 and 10 is HD. I hardly watch DVDs but when I do, window view can be pretty small (but it is not like you have to get the widescreen version).

 

[kyparrish]

OP, I've got the 30" widescreen sony CRT HDTV, and it's beautiful. I won't watch SD programming letterboxed anymore, because the stretch mode on the TV is sooooo good. It honestly looks great.

 

[CHfan4ever]

16:9 is tha thing dude!For games,movies it kick arse.

Make sure your getting a nice HDTV that support 1080i,720p and 480p

I choose myself a CRT(personal choice ) but DLP are the best atm.LCD suck for black levels.Its just horrible to watch black on a LCD.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Staples
I bought a HDTV a year ago. I bought a 4:3 32". Most stuff I watch is still 4:3 and will probably but that way for years to come. I think a 16:9 would have been more future proof but I am not planning on holding on to it for 10 years. This native 16:9 fuction on this TV looks just fine.

Same here, except mine is 27"

 

[aphex]

Ya know what i noticed? Having bought a 30" widescreen HDTV last november..... I was at first concerned that many of the programs i watched were in 4:3 instead of 16:9; however, as time slowly progressed, my viewing habits did as well and now im watching the 15 or so HD channels i get 95% of the time, and only 5% watching standard def 4:3 content.

 

[Viperoni]

I just got a 51" Toshiba 51H84C, and I got the rogers HD box (Scientific Atlanta 3250), after owning a regular Toshiba 32" CRT for 8 years, and I highly reocmmend getting a widescreen.

 

[DarkKnight]

HD programming in 16:9 is awesome, don't get 4:3.

 

[T2T III]

4:3 ratios and HDTV should NOT even reside in the same sentence.

 

[jpeyton]

To play the devil's advocate, technically the OP is correct because a 32" 4:3 HDTV will only give up an inch in 16:9 content, and since it has a 16:9 mode that squeezes the picture to display in full resolution, it will not lose any picture quality.

If you watch most of your TV in 4:3, and you play lots of games in 4:3, there is absolutely nothing wrong with getting the 4:3 32" HDTV. The only drawback is that you have to deal with much bigger "bars" on the top and bottom of 16:9 content.

But I faced the same decision last October, and decided to get the 30HS420. I watch a ton of DVD movies and DVD TV shows every month, I have a dual-tuner HDTV DVR so I can record and watch a lot of HDTV content, and I don't like black bars that much. And for the few shows I watch that are native 4:3, the Sony does a good job of stretching using the Wide Zoom mode.

 

[w00t]

i own a panny 60'' i have hdtv it says on that caculator thing that i get 49 on sd which is correct but on hdtv i can get the full also u can change the settings on ur remote for cable so it stretches which i always do either that or the black things on the side . man i love my t.v

get the 16-9
are u going DLP or LCD projection o ya or plasma?