So I bought a flat screen tv - and I'm peeved. ..

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid
A 19" Widescreen is about like a 21" 4:3 TV when you are looking at 16:9 or 2.35:1 content. I don't know why the OP thought it would be like a 25". You would need at 23" widescreen to be about equivalent to a 25" 4:3.

Actually, you have it backwards. A 19" widescreen will seem smaller than a 19" 4:3. Especially for 4:3 and 2.35:1 content.

If he wants the equivalent to a 27" TV, he needs a 36" widecreen. When going from 4:3 to widescreen, always go a step or two up in size.

Actually, he had it correct. You are wrong this time. 😛

A 19" 16:10 widescreen is essentially identical in width to a 21" CRT (20" viewable). A 19" 16:9 is even wider. So any of the common "wide" formats (which he explicitly stated) will be essentially the same size on the two displays, and slightly larger if we're talking 16:9.

Link

Now a height limited format (4:3) of course he will have to go up a few sizes. But he explicitly said 16:9 and 2.35:1.

Now...

FOAD!

Viper GTS

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Let's start off by saying that I'm 40 years old. No "young whippersnapper smart ass syndrome here."

That said...

Why the hell do people spend $99.95 and expect some full HD movie like 100-foot picture scratch and sniff surround sound with happy ending? 😕

HEEEELLLLOOOOOO..... "Nice" isn't cheap and "Holy fucking shit!" will COST YOU, brother.

You__bought__a damn 19" (nineteen WhOLe goddamn inchesssss...OMFG!!!!_) TV and expect a reach thru the screen and jerk me off happy ending? What the hell is wrong with some people?

It's 2008. If some folks STILL don't understand aspect ratio and the diff b/t normal broadcast TV and what you see in the theaters, then they need to stick with a 4:3 TV and be happy.

Please don't jump into 2004 (not a typo) until you're really ready to be there.

ps
This is a Tech Forum and Tech Ignorant people (like my Mom) who can't set the clock on a VCR wouldn't/shouldn't be posting here. I'm all for teaching and educating but the OP...is still wondering if VHS is really better than Super 8 film.

Bitchy today?

Let's be fair: HDTV and HT subjects are ones a geek can easily ignore if their focus is elsewhere. We even separated the forums so he couldn't get accidentally sucked into the topic. He never cared about HDTV and was happy with his old TVs. So what? After all the money I've spent on HT stuff, I kinda envy him. LOL

Seems the more I know, the more I spend! 😱

Ok, that's fair. But please allow me to run this specification by you again: Nineteen inches. 19". 15 years ago, was 19" any sort of a "big TV?" A "nice TV?" No. It was not. Even 15 years ago a 19" TV was considered "standard" and that's by normal consumer standards. 15 years ago I bought a 32" Sony that I paid thru thru the ass for. I thought it was the second coming of the Space God himself. So did anyone who saw it (my friends in the same budget category as me).

To buy ANY kind of a 19" screen/monitor/TV/pocket calculator today and complain that you're "unimpressed" with it is really....sad.

My 70-year old Aunt who has a WebTV (internet appliance) has a 25" TV and even SHE knows "it's on the small side." Of course she doesn't understand "aspect ratio" or any other technical term...but even SHE did not buy a 19" TV.

 

[torpid]

15 years ago a 19" tv was still pretty small.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid
A 19" Widescreen is about like a 21" 4:3 TV when you are looking at 16:9 or 2.35:1 content. I don't know why the OP thought it would be like a 25". You would need at 23" widescreen to be about equivalent to a 25" 4:3.

Actually, you have it backwards. A 19" widescreen will seem smaller than a 19" 4:3. Especially for 4:3 and 2.35:1 content.

If he wants the equivalent to a 27" TV, he needs a 36" widecreen. When going from 4:3 to widescreen, always go a step or two up in size.

Actually, he had it correct. You are wrong this time. 😛

A 19" 16:10 widescreen is essentially identical in width to a 21" CRT (20" viewable). A 19" 16:9 is even wider. So any of the common "wide" formats (which he explicitly stated) will be essentially the same size on the two displays, and slightly larger if we're talking 16:9.

Link

Now a height limited format (4:3) of course he will have to go up a few sizes. But he explicitly said 16:9 and 2.35:1.

Now...

FOAD!

Viper GTS

In my expeirence with TVs, Widscreens always LOOK and APPREAR smaller than the same size 4:3 TVs.

So it's a subjective issue and I can't be wrong, bitch. 😛

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid
A 19" Widescreen is about like a 21" 4:3 TV when you are looking at 16:9 or 2.35:1 content. I don't know why the OP thought it would be like a 25". You would need at 23" widescreen to be about equivalent to a 25" 4:3.

Actually, you have it backwards. A 19" widescreen will seem smaller than a 19" 4:3. Especially for 4:3 and 2.35:1 content.

If he wants the equivalent to a 27" TV, he needs a 36" widecreen. When going from 4:3 to widescreen, always go a step or two up in size.

Actually, he had it correct. You are wrong this time. 😛

A 19" 16:10 widescreen is essentially identical in width to a 21" CRT (20" viewable). A 19" 16:9 is even wider. So any of the common "wide" formats (which he explicitly stated) will be essentially the same size on the two displays, and slightly larger if we're talking 16:9.

Link

Now a height limited format (4:3) of course he will have to go up a few sizes. But he explicitly said 16:9 and 2.35:1.

Now...

FOAD!

Viper GTS

In my expeirence with TVs, Widscreens always LOOK and APPREAR smaller than the same size 4:3 TVs.

So it's a subjective issue and I can't be wrong, bitch. 😛

Bah, you and your subjective. 😛 Yeah, if you take a 19" 4:3 TV and put it next to a 19" 16:9 TV, the widescreen will appear to be smaller. But that's to the technically ignorant eye, like my Aunt's. This thread is akin to the age-old Fullscreen vs. Widescreen DVD fights. "But everything is bigger!" vs. "But I see so much more of the scene!" debate.

We all know which one is correct. I own more than 500 original (no bootlegs) DVDs and 99% of them are WIDESCREEN for a reason.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid
A 19" Widescreen is about like a 21" 4:3 TV when you are looking at 16:9 or 2.35:1 content. I don't know why the OP thought it would be like a 25". You would need at 23" widescreen to be about equivalent to a 25" 4:3.

Actually, you have it backwards. A 19" widescreen will seem smaller than a 19" 4:3. Especially for 4:3 and 2.35:1 content.

If he wants the equivalent to a 27" TV, he needs a 36" widecreen. When going from 4:3 to widescreen, always go a step or two up in size.

Actually, he had it correct. You are wrong this time. 😛

A 19" 16:10 widescreen is essentially identical in width to a 21" CRT (20" viewable). A 19" 16:9 is even wider. So any of the common "wide" formats (which he explicitly stated) will be essentially the same size on the two displays, and slightly larger if we're talking 16:9.

Link

Now a height limited format (4:3) of course he will have to go up a few sizes. But he explicitly said 16:9 and 2.35:1.

Now...

FOAD!

Viper GTS

In my expeirence with TVs, Widscreens always LOOK and APPREAR smaller than the same size 4:3 TVs.

So it's a subjective issue and I can't be wrong, bitch. 😛

Is this shit forreal?

Text

Sorry if my sarcasm meter is broken

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid
A 19" Widescreen is about like a 21" 4:3 TV when you are looking at 16:9 or 2.35:1 content. I don't know why the OP thought it would be like a 25". You would need at 23" widescreen to be about equivalent to a 25" 4:3.

Actually, you have it backwards. A 19" widescreen will seem smaller than a 19" 4:3. Especially for 4:3 and 2.35:1 content.

If he wants the equivalent to a 27" TV, he needs a 36" widecreen. When going from 4:3 to widescreen, always go a step or two up in size.

Actually, he had it correct. You are wrong this time. 😛

A 19" 16:10 widescreen is essentially identical in width to a 21" CRT (20" viewable). A 19" 16:9 is even wider. So any of the common "wide" formats (which he explicitly stated) will be essentially the same size on the two displays, and slightly larger if we're talking 16:9.

Link

Now a height limited format (4:3) of course he will have to go up a few sizes. But he explicitly said 16:9 and 2.35:1.

Now...

FOAD!

Viper GTS

In my expeirence with TVs, Widscreens always LOOK and APPREAR smaller than the same size 4:3 TVs.

So it's a subjective issue and I can't be wrong, bitch. 😛

Bah, you and your subjective. 😛 Yeah, if you take a 19" 4:3 TV and put it next to a 19" 16:9 TV, the widescreen will appear to be smaller. But that's to the technically ignorant eye, like my Aunt's. This thread is akin to the age-old Fullscreen vs. Widescreen DVD fights. "But everything is bigger!" vs. "But I see so much more of the scene!" debate.

We all know which one is correct. I own more than 500 original (no bootlegs) DVDs and 99% of them are WIDESCREEN for a reason.

We all know illusions are illusions, but it's the APPEARANCE that counts. Even you agree that the same size LOOKS smaller. So go with it, man. Stop countin the numbers and go with that feelin. 😉

My advice is to anyone buying an HDTV: Go AT LEAST a size or two up from the 4:3 TV you had. You'll thank yourself.

And if you want to really enjoy HDTV, get as big as you can afford. Nothing seems to shrink after time like a TV.

BTW, all my DVDs and Blu-Rays are widescreen as well. Never bought a fullscreen in my life unless by accident. 😛

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid
A 19" Widescreen is about like a 21" 4:3 TV when you are looking at 16:9 or 2.35:1 content. I don't know why the OP thought it would be like a 25". You would need at 23" widescreen to be about equivalent to a 25" 4:3.

Actually, you have it backwards. A 19" widescreen will seem smaller than a 19" 4:3. Especially for 4:3 and 2.35:1 content.

If he wants the equivalent to a 27" TV, he needs a 36" widecreen. When going from 4:3 to widescreen, always go a step or two up in size.

Actually, he had it correct. You are wrong this time. 😛

A 19" 16:10 widescreen is essentially identical in width to a 21" CRT (20" viewable). A 19" 16:9 is even wider. So any of the common "wide" formats (which he explicitly stated) will be essentially the same size on the two displays, and slightly larger if we're talking 16:9.

Link

Now a height limited format (4:3) of course he will have to go up a few sizes. But he explicitly said 16:9 and 2.35:1.

Now...

FOAD!

Viper GTS

In my expeirence with TVs, Widscreens always LOOK and APPREAR smaller than the same size 4:3 TVs.

So it's a subjective issue and I can't be wrong, bitch. 😛

You mean when they are off? Surely you don't think a widescreen tv showing a 16:9 source looks smaller than a 4:3 tv with the same diagonal showing the same 16:9 source?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid
A 19" Widescreen is about like a 21" 4:3 TV when you are looking at 16:9 or 2.35:1 content. I don't know why the OP thought it would be like a 25". You would need at 23" widescreen to be about equivalent to a 25" 4:3.

Actually, you have it backwards. A 19" widescreen will seem smaller than a 19" 4:3. Especially for 4:3 and 2.35:1 content.

If he wants the equivalent to a 27" TV, he needs a 36" widecreen. When going from 4:3 to widescreen, always go a step or two up in size.

Actually, he had it correct. You are wrong this time. 😛

A 19" 16:10 widescreen is essentially identical in width to a 21" CRT (20" viewable). A 19" 16:9 is even wider. So any of the common "wide" formats (which he explicitly stated) will be essentially the same size on the two displays, and slightly larger if we're talking 16:9.

Link

Now a height limited format (4:3) of course he will have to go up a few sizes. But he explicitly said 16:9 and 2.35:1.

Now...

FOAD!

Viper GTS

In my expeirence with TVs, Widscreens always LOOK and APPREAR smaller than the same size 4:3 TVs.

So it's a subjective issue and I can't be wrong, bitch. 😛

Is this shit forreal?

Text

Sorry if my sarcasm meter is broken

Yes, it is for real. Not counting 16:9 material, of course, but for 2.35:1 and 4:3 material, a 16:9 TV will appear smaller than the same diagonally measured 4:3 TV.

The images in link you posted are NOT the same size diagonally. They are the same size in height. Which is what I advised people to do, if they want a TV that APPEARS to be the same size: Measure by height or by 4:3 picture size diagonally. That will result in a step or two up in size.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Amused
My advice is to anyone buying an HDTV: Go AT LEAST a size or two up from the 4:3 TV you had. You'll thank yourself.

And if you want to really enjoy HDTV, get as big as you can afford. Nothing seems to shrink after time like a TV.

BTW, all my DVDs and Blu-Rays are widescreen as well. Never bought a fullscreen in my life unless by accident. 😛

Your advice is sound, especially because 4:3 content will not use the full screen on a wide screen TV. OP was watching mostly movies, which generally are widescreen if they have been made in the last 40 years, so that is why I made the comment I did (trying to figure out OP's reasoning).

Do you not own any older movies or non-widescreen TV shows? Old time movies were shot in 4:3 for the most part. Sadly, some DVDs made from 4:3 material actually cut off content to make them appear to be 16:9 or similar. They used to do that with certain Kubrik movies even though he shot them in 4:3.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Amused
My advice is to anyone buying an HDTV: Go AT LEAST a size or two up from the 4:3 TV you had. You'll thank yourself.

And if you want to really enjoy HDTV, get as big as you can afford. Nothing seems to shrink after time like a TV.

BTW, all my DVDs and Blu-Rays are widescreen as well. Never bought a fullscreen in my life unless by accident. 😛

Your advice is sound, especially because 4:3 content will not use the full screen on a wide screen TV. OP was watching mostly movies, which generally are widescreen if they have been made in the last 40 years, so that is why I made the comment I did (trying to figure out OP's reasoning).

Do you not own any older movies or non-widescreen TV shows? Old time movies were shot in 4:3 for the most part. Sadly, some DVDs made from 4:3 material actually cut off content to make them appear to be 16:9 or similar. They used to do that with certain Kubrik movies even though he shot them in 4:3.

Yep, I have some 4:3 TV shows, but I don't consider them "fullscreen" since their OAR was not altered. I know, it's not the real definition but... whatever. 🙂

Kubric was a strange bird. That's all I got to say about him. LOL

What I like is what HDnet has done with Hogan's Heroes. Have you seen it?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

Sad way to get a good thread. I try to get people to have thoughtful conversations and debates. Many of my threads are 100 posts or longer with few if any one liners or nefs.

Yes, I rock. 😛

and just about every one of those 100 posts ends up in a giant nested quote chain :|



edit: i only had one good thread 🙁

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

Sad way to get a good thread. I try to get people to have thoughtful conversations and debates. Many of my threads are 100 posts or longer with few if any one liners or nefs.

Yes, I rock. 😛

and just about every one of those 100 posts ends up in a giant nested quote chain :|



edit: i only had one good thread 🙁

All debate threads are nested quote chains. 😛

 

[lifeobry]

if i got a 19" HDTV at Walmart i'd be peeved too.

 

[shabby]

Originally posted by: lifeobry
if i got a 19" HDTV at Walmart i'd be peeved too.

Here we go again...

 

[hans030390]

In the strange event that no one mentioned it, most smaller LCD TVs have a 16:10 aspect ratio, which is typical for computer monitors. "Real" widescreen (as in televisions) is a 16:9 aspect ratio. So, yes, there are going to be black bars to put it in the proper aspect ratio.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Pocatello

Originally posted by: Fritzo
LOL at OP - that's something my dad would say.

Mine too 🙂.

I'm buying my parents a new TV for Christmas. I cringe when I think about trying to explain the black bars...or why the "regular" broadcasts look so bad...



BTW, OP, you do know that antenna broadcasts are going digital in February, right? You need a digital tuner for Over The Air broadcasts.

 

[xboxist]

I don't get the use of the term "flat screen tv" -- haven't TVs been that for about 15 years now? Can't even remember the last time I saw a rounded glass tube tv at a store.

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: KLin

Originally posted by: episodic
I don't watch alot of tv. I don't have cable - just a 3 out Netflix. . . I just do not understand the following:


Ok, why does a 19 inch flat have less viewable screen real estate that my 19 inch 4:3 tv in the bedroom. Even with the letter boxing on the tube tv, there is more viewable. . . than on that small thing.


Why don't they make movies to fill the screen? It is really stupid. I accepted the argument on my normal tv - o, well I've got a different kind of tv - they have to letter box to get it to fit. . . gotcha, I understand - but ok, why do wide screen tv's have this? Do even the big 1000$ tv's do this? So you have to buy o a 40 + inch to get 30 inches of movie?

It went back with no shame and I threw my 100 pound 25 inch back up on the shelf. . .

They fill the screen when you see them at the theater....

You've never noticed them lowering the black curtain before it starts to compensate for changing aspect ratios?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: LtPage1

Originally posted by: KLin

Originally posted by: episodic
I don't watch alot of tv. I don't have cable - just a 3 out Netflix. . . I just do not understand the following:


Ok, why does a 19 inch flat have less viewable screen real estate that my 19 inch 4:3 tv in the bedroom. Even with the letter boxing on the tube tv, there is more viewable. . . than on that small thing.


Why don't they make movies to fill the screen? It is really stupid. I accepted the argument on my normal tv - o, well I've got a different kind of tv - they have to letter box to get it to fit. . . gotcha, I understand - but ok, why do wide screen tv's have this? Do even the big 1000$ tv's do this? So you have to buy o a 40 + inch to get 30 inches of movie?

It went back with no shame and I threw my 100 pound 25 inch back up on the shelf. . .

They fill the screen when you see them at the theater....

You've never noticed them lowering the black curtain before it starts to compensate for changing aspect ratios?

some places adjust the ads to the movie's AR so there might not be observable masking shift. I have seen the masking system work, usually after the ads.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: xboxist
I don't get the use of the term "flat screen tv" -- haven't TVs been that for about 15 years now? Can't even remember the last time I saw a rounded glass tube tv at a store.

vertically flat <> flat.

 

[mb]

Here you go, episodic. They made it just for people like you!

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: mb
Here you go, episodic. They made it just for people like you!

lol, 21:9.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

Is this a parody?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy
Is this a parody?

Sadly no