16:9 projectors (1 Viewer)

[Sacha_C]

I was thinking... Why would anyone want a 16:9 projector? That would mean for 4:3 videos/games you coudn't use the entire width of the screen, but with a 4:3 projector you can use the entire screen's width for both 4:3 and 16:9.

So, unless someone would watch only 16:9 movies, why would anyone want a 16:9 projector?

Thanks

 

[StephenL]

If your highest resolution sources are 16:9 (such as HDTV and widescreen enhanced DVDs) it's better to have a display that can use all its resolution for 16:9 sources. If your 4:3 sources are generally of lower resolution and quality, it's better to display to them on a 16:9 display rather than shrink your highest resolution sources to fit a 4:3 display.

 

[Neil Joseph]

Sacha, I have seen this question many times so I decided to place this in the FAQ Primer area...

16x9 vs. 4x3 - Which type of equipment setup should I select?

Front Projection - How do I select one for my needs?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I disagree with one 4:3 statement in the faq:

it's better to display to them on a 16:9 display rather than shrink your highest resolution sources to fit a 4:3 display.

The picture is only 'shrunk' if the 4:3 set you chose is narrower than the 16:9 sets. Some people opt for a 4:3 set that is simply taller (but the same width) as the 16:9 set they would have chosen. No shrinking, just drawing the raster closer together....which is exactly what most 16:9 RPTVs do...permanently shrink the raster, and lop the top and bottom of the screen off. Shortscreen(tm). Remember, if your RPTV is CRT-based, there are no 16:9 CRTs/guns for RPTVs....only 4:3.

 

[Doug_B]

If one chooses a 4:3 proj (and screen) that has the same horizontal resolution as a 16:9 proj (or same width screen) because one's space is width-limited, that could make sense if one watches a reasonable amount of 4:3 material. However, certain projectors may not be forgiving when showing the non-native aspect ratios from the perspective of how much the non-used portion of the projector's image/panel is illuminated.

In the example of a 4:3 projector, any wider aspect ratio image would show letterboxing, but the letterbox portion may not be as black as one would hope. I don't know how prevalent this is with projectors, but my inexperienced guess (please chime in) is that it would generally apply to digital projs such as LCD and DLP (and why not LCOS too). Using masking may be the best solution for this. Screen material probably has an effect as well. If given a mix of generally lower rez 4:3 material vs higher rez 16:9, 1:85, and 2:35 (etc) material, I'd rather see my high rez material less influenced by this light "spillage", thus the 16:9 preference (which is based on demoing only, as I'm still waiting for my screen ). I guess I will find out soon how much of an effect this has on my setup.

Doug

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Doug,

Agreed, fixed pixel displays which make up tons of FPTVs (and a small amount of RPTVs) have their own issues. I'd likely go with 16:9 for any fixed pixel display, and would suggest such even for folks who may rightfully go 4:3 for CRT-based displays...

In the fixed-pixel display market, 4:3 seems to be fast disappearing regardless. On the other hand, more 4:3 HD-cable CRT-based devices are on the market now than ever.