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

Serious Question: Why get a 16:9 TV?


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

#1 of 20 OFFLINE   steve jaros

steve jaros

    Second Unit



  • 378 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 1997
  • Real Name:Steve
  • LocationBaton Rouge, LA

Posted August 13 2001 - 10:21 PM

I've owned a 16:9 tv for 4 years, and i hate pan/scan. I got it because i knew that anamorphic DVDs were going to be released, and i wanted the extra resolution. But i also don't mind black bars as long as i'm getting the 16:9 resolution. So now that many of the HDTV-ready 4:3 tv's have a 16:9 compression function, what are the reasons to get a 16:9 tv? Thanks!

#2 of 20 OFFLINE   SteveA

SteveA

    Supporting Actor



  • 701 posts
  • Join Date: May 25 2000

Posted August 14 2001 - 05:42 AM

For movies, 16:9 sets are much more visually appealling that 4:3 sets. And they're just plain cool! Not to mention the fact that within the next several years, all new television programming will be 16:9 (hopefully).

#3 of 20 OFFLINE   steve jaros

steve jaros

    Second Unit



  • 378 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 1997
  • Real Name:Steve
  • LocationBaton Rouge, LA

Posted August 14 2001 - 06:27 AM

SteveA - but balance the aesthetics with the "fact" that, money-wise, 4:3 TVs seem to be cheaper. You can get a 55" square-shaped TV for the price of a 45" 16:9...

#4 of 20 OFFLINE   Terisha

Terisha

    Auditioning



  • 4 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 07 2001

Posted August 14 2001 - 06:30 AM

This is a tough question. I went with 16:9 for the following reasons: we watch a lot of DVD movies and we have high definition TV available from our local Time Warner Cable company. You cannot imagine the look of high definition TV and you really, really need a 16:9 set to appreciate it. I have a 50" Panasonic Plasma display capable of resolving the 1080i signal of HDTV. When I watch NTSC (which will become more and more rare), I 'justify' the picture to avoid burn-in. If you go with a direct-view set, you will not have to worry about this. Those of us with RPTV or plasmas do. I should note that in our area, the NTSC signal via the digital cable box is much better than the standard cable signal -- but neither can hold a candle to HDTV. I can even tell which signals have been upconverted (boo to the networks that do this and yea to CBS which transmits a gorgeous HDTV signal). Terisha

#5 of 20 OFFLINE   Mike I

Mike I

    Supporting Actor



  • 727 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 20 2000

Posted August 14 2001 - 08:16 AM

You really should look at how much HDTV is available in your area or will be in the next year..About 50 % or my viewing is DVD and the other 50 % satellite or broadcast tv...Of the 50 % total tv, close to 80% of it is widescreen HDTV and probably more this fall...A year and a half ago I was lucky to see 2 to 3 hours of HD a week...16.9 is the standard for HD if that is your ulimate goal... ------------------

#6 of 20 OFFLINE   Brian Kleinke

Brian Kleinke

    Supporting Actor



  • 971 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 09 1999

Posted August 14 2001 - 08:48 AM

There is the fact that a 57" 16:9 Screen with play a larger widescreen image then a 65" 4:3 TV (or approx these numbers Posted Image) Toss that in with the fact that someday I'll get HDTV and I want a 16:9 screen for that it was a no brainer for me.

Brian

#7 of 20 OFFLINE   Tim Campbell

Tim Campbell

    Agent



  • 49 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 2001

Posted August 15 2001 - 04:48 AM

If you are like me, you will be kicking yourself in five years saying you should have bought the 16:9

#8 of 20 OFFLINE   Michael St. Clair

Michael St. Clair

    Producer



  • 6,009 posts
  • Join Date: May 03 1999

Posted August 15 2001 - 08:29 AM

quote:
There is the fact that a 57" 16:9 Screen with play a larger widescreen image then a 65" 4:3 TV (or approx these numbers ) [/quote]

Actually, that is wrong.

A 65" 4:3 set in 4:3 mode has a 2028 sq in image.
A 57" 16:9 set in 4:3 mode has a 1040 sq in image.

A 65" 4:3 set in 16:9 mode has a 1518 sq in image.
A 57" 16:9 set in 16:9 mode has a 1336 sq in image.

As long as a 4:3 set has properly implemented 16:9 modes for 480p/540p/1080i, there is little reason to buy a comparable 16:9 set (which usually costs more mostly due to perceived value and economies of scale). Unless it bothers you that 4:3 programming will be larger (huge!) than the 16:9 material. Doesn't bother me a lick, especially when watching IMAX. Posted Image Sit further away when you watch 4:3 if the colossal size bothers you. Posted Image

The properly implemented part is the key. For now, the general rule is to stick to Sony (HSx0 series), Toshiba (the new models this fall), and Phillips.

4:3 sets with a properly implemented 16:9 mode are especially great for sports fans who will be watching lots of SDTV/NTSC for many years to come. ESPN, for example, doesn't plan on doing anything with HD for YEARS.

It all comes down to what you want. There is no single right answer for everyone.

I've been an OAR bigot since the 80s. That bigotry does not translate to passive screen ratios, which will only sometimes match the OAR of the material you watch, even if you are a movie fan who cares NOTHING about television.

[Edited last by Michael St. Clair on August 15, 2001 at 11:32 AM]

[Edited last by Michael St. Clair on August 15, 2001 at 11:33 AM]

#9 of 20 OFFLINE   Dalton

Dalton

    Screenwriter



  • 1,200 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2001

Posted August 21 2001 - 04:51 PM

I agonoized over this question last year when i was shopping for a new tv. I knew that I would be watching more movies on dvd than anything else, so i went with the 56" Panasonic WXF95(16:9). I have to tell you that I don't regret the decision one bit. The pictue with a progressive scan dvd player is extraordinary. I researched for a long time and i am glad that i did. The best advice to give anyone who is in the market for an HDTV is do some research and alot of comparisons.

#10 of 20 OFFLINE   Matt Heebner

Matt Heebner

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 247 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 02 2000

Posted August 21 2001 - 05:40 PM

I also have not regretted getting a 16:9 Mitsubishi at all. It took me about one week to get used to the "stretched" 4:3 material on a 16:9 screen. I dont even see it anymore, and on some of the widescreen shows (ER, Sopranos) it does not look at all "stretched". My wife feels the same way. She doesnt even see this anymore either. I have also watched football games in the streched mode, and do not think that it is out of proportion, or non-real looking. I specifically looked for it watching MNF last night. At halftime, I visited my brother who was bartending down the block from me. They have a 60" or so 4:3 Mits, and my TV looked as good as that one. Watching DVD's on 16:9 screen is an experience that I just dont think you can get watching a 4:3 screen....and I dont care how good it does a 16:9 "mode". I will never own a 4:3 tv after living with my 16:9. Matt ------------------ ....Eat, Drink, and Be Merry, For Tomorrow We Die....--DMB NO OAR-NO SALE WARNER!

#11 of 20 OFFLINE   Dalton

Dalton

    Screenwriter



  • 1,200 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2001

Posted August 22 2001 - 02:53 PM

Right on the money Matt. I'll second that.

#12 of 20 OFFLINE   MarcRS

MarcRS

    Auditioning



  • 3 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 21 2001

Posted August 22 2001 - 07:24 PM

Are there 4:3 direct view tube sets that have properly implemented 16:9 modes? Quote: "The properly implemented part is the key. For now, the general rule is to stick to Sony (HSx0 series), Toshiba (the new models this fall), and Phillips"

#13 of 20 OFFLINE   tim verry

tim verry

    Auditioning



  • 7 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 22 2001

Posted August 29 2001 - 09:25 AM

see my post under other thread: Toshiba 61HX71 vs 57HX81(16:9 vs 4:3)

#14 of 20 OFFLINE   Mark Bendiksen

Mark Bendiksen

    Screenwriter



  • 1,090 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted September 03 2001 - 04:00 PM


[quote]

Are there 4:3 direct view tube sets that have properly implemented 16:9 modes?

[quote]
Yes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe most of the current Sony Wega direct view sets have the 16:9 compression.

Posted Image


#15 of 20 OFFLINE   Michael St. Clair

Michael St. Clair

    Producer



  • 6,009 posts
  • Join Date: May 03 1999

Posted September 03 2001 - 05:37 PM

To each his own! I'm not even sure yet which passive screen ratio I'm getting for my next set. Just keep in mind that (with an RPTV) you are watching a passive piece of plastic, and that there are three squeezed 4:3 CRTs that are actually projecting the image. An earnest question for those who are bothered by the extra top and bottom space on a 4:3 passive screen when watching squeezed 16:9 480p and 1080i material.... When you watch 2.35:1 material (or even wider stuff like 2.55:1) on your 16:9 set, are you bothered by the extra unused passive screen real estate that appears above and below the movie image?

#16 of 20 OFFLINE   Pete M

Pete M

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 88 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 20 2000

Posted September 04 2001 - 02:03 PM

[quote]

....and I dont care how good it does a 16:9 "mode".

[quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the same hardware in 4:3 TVs with "squeeze" mode the same as 16:9?? What I mean is all RPTV have round guns, right? So isn't a 16:9 set always in "squeeze" mode?

#17 of 20 OFFLINE   Matt Heebner

Matt Heebner

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 247 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 02 2000

Posted September 04 2001 - 05:06 PM

4:3....16:9...., personally I don't care who chooses what because it is always going to be a matter of personal preference. What matters to me more is that 85% of the population gets a HDTV so that broadcasters can switch to HD/Digital programming! (if only it would be that easy!:bg Posted Image

Matt

------------------
....Eat, Drink, and Be Merry, For Tomorrow We Die....--DMB

#18 of 20 OFFLINE   John-D

John-D

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 200 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 27 2001

Posted September 05 2001 - 02:20 PM

I have yet to see a stretch mode that makes Ally McBeal watchable.. It's just not there.. she's soo thin even the slightest of stretches distorts the picture and there is NO way you can get used to THAT.. unless you are bent on ignoring such a massacre of OAR. ------------------ The things we own end up owning us
The things we own, end up owning us

#19 of 20 OFFLINE   JohnFR

JohnFR

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 57 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 07 2001

Posted September 06 2001 - 04:03 PM

I've been seriously considering a HD tv for a while now. I'm also having the 16:9/4:3 internal debate. I'm questioning whether I will be able to tolerate watching tv in any stretch mode, even though I understand that the aspect ratio of the center is preserved. After all, I have the Video Essentials disk and I'm always concerned about the geometry of my current set. I'm not sure I understand the concept of watching an intentionally distorted image. However, I am assuming if you have a widescreen watching 4:3 with bars, you will inevitably get some screen burn.(?) So, it seems that using stretch mode is almost mandated. Life is full of tradeoffs, I suppose. I agree that watching anamorphic dvds at 480p on a widescreen is extremely tantalizing. I dunno. Tough decision. JR

#20 of 20 OFFLINE   Dave Scarpa

Dave Scarpa

    Producer



  • 5,316 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 08 1999

Posted September 06 2001 - 05:48 PM

Serious Answer: HD NET Nuff said
My DVD Collection

The Megaplex




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users