Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

dumb hdtv aspect question


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 of 11 OFFLINE   Philip_G

Philip_G

    Producer



  • 5,035 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 13 2000

Posted June 13 2003 - 10:15 AM

I've searched and searched, and I just can't find the darn answer. What is HDTV broadcast in? 4:3 or 16:9?

the "old folks" are trading a perfectly good mitsu RPTV (16:9) in for a 4:3 sony tube (XBR at least) because they don't care for the RPTV, I'm wondering if they'll be watching HDTV letterboxed this fall when it's finally available.. and if I'll be laughing at them complaining about it Posted Image Posted Image

#2 of 11 OFFLINE   Michael TLV

Michael TLV

    THX Video Instructor/Calibrator



  • 2,909 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 2000
  • Real Name:Michael Chen
  • LocationCalgary, Alberta

Posted June 13 2003 - 10:17 AM

Greetings By definition HD material is 16:9. Regards
Michael @ The Laser Video Experience
THX Video Systems Instructor/ISF Instructor
Lion A/V Consultants Network - TLVEXP.com


#3 of 11 OFFLINE   Lew Crippen

Lew Crippen

    Executive Producer



  • 12,060 posts
  • Join Date: May 19 2002

Posted June 13 2003 - 11:00 AM

To expand a bit on Michael’s post, the HD telecast must be 16:9. However the content of the telecast is something altogether different. For example, HBOH (which has the same schedule as HBO) telecasts a 16:9 image with complete with black bars for their 4:3 material (such as Arli$$), which is SD, even though it is shown on their HD channel. Or for some sporting events, you get the full 16:9 image during the game and a 4:3 image inside of the 16:9 image when there is a switch to the announcer’s booth. Of course if we ever get lucky enough for some of the older movies to be telecast in HD, we will again get a 4:3 box inside of a 16:9 frame. This happens now for 2:35 movies that are telecast in HD—you get the horizontal black bars as a part of the telecast.
¡Time is not my master!

#4 of 11 OFFLINE   Philip_G

Philip_G

    Producer



  • 5,035 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 13 2000

Posted June 13 2003 - 11:46 AM

hehe just checking. it was my opinion that buying a 4:3 television was a bad idea.. Posted Image I'm going to go gloat now.

#5 of 11 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer



  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted June 14 2003 - 05:09 AM

There are arguments to be made for going with a 4:3 set that has a 16:9 mode, though (since most U.S. programming is still in 4:3). The future is widescreem, but in this time of transition a 4:3 HD-capable set that can display 480p and 1080i images correctly at 16:9 makes sense in some cases.

#6 of 11 OFFLINE   Philip_G

Philip_G

    Producer



  • 5,035 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 13 2000

Posted June 14 2003 - 09:35 AM

well, I think they've flopped again and will stick with the mitsu 16:9, it's their money so I'm staying out of it Posted Image

#7 of 11 OFFLINE   Don Petsche

Don Petsche

    Agent



  • 27 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2003

Posted June 15 2003 - 02:34 AM

For me, its all about the stretch modes. I find 4:3 on 16:9 is bearable if the set can do "panoramic" or some other named mode that fills the screen by stretching only the outer most areas of the picture. Size is potentially of interest. Remember 4:3 on a 50" 16:9 widescreen is 41" when shown with bars. Burnin is potentially an issue watching that way (I understand a myth for most), but newer technologies like DLP remove any fear of watching 4:3 normal on the wide screen. 1.85:1 anamorphic DVDs fill the screen at 16:9. 2.35:1 still have bars, all though much much smaller than when displayed on a 4:3 screen. I would stick to 16:9, but to each his own.

#8 of 11 OFFLINE   Philip_G

Philip_G

    Producer



  • 5,035 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 13 2000

Posted June 15 2003 - 04:16 AM

[quote] I would stick to 16:9, but to each his own. [quote]
I totally agree. WHo knows what they're thinking.

#9 of 11 OFFLINE   Jan Strnad

Jan Strnad

    Screenwriter



  • 1,004 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 01 1999

Posted June 15 2003 - 04:26 AM

Maybe the Folks just need to get their existing RPTV ISFed. Jan
Jan Strnad

aka J. Knight,
author of Risen and Boo.

#10 of 11 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer



  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted June 15 2003 - 05:05 AM

Jan, I've been meaning to ask for a long time: Is that Danny Thomas's mug on the TV in your sig image? It looks like him or Sid Ceasar.

#11 of 11 OFFLINE   Philip_G

Philip_G

    Producer



  • 5,035 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 13 2000

Posted June 15 2003 - 01:49 PM

[quote] Maybe the Folks just need to get their existing RPTV ISFed. [quote]
no doubt.. but it's a brand new set and to the average person that is a rediculous thought.
They just don't like not being able to watch tv from a 70-80 degree angle (I'm not kidding either) Also they have too much light in their livingroom causing some glare problems. So once again they've flip flopped and the sony 36" 4:3 tube is coming home tomorrow, and the 16:9 mitsu is going back




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users