4:3 HDTV's (1 Viewer)

[Chris Lambrou]

Aren't 4:3 HDTV's a contradiction? I mean isn't an HDTV signal 16x9? Will these 4:3 sets that display 480p and up signals, have to show black bars when showing a true HDTV broadcast? Will some HDTV broadcass be 4:3?
I'm confused....

 

[Juan_R]

True HD is 16:9 so you will see black bars on top and bottom of a 4:3 HDTV. A lot of the 4:3 HD people watch is upconverted material, it looks good but not as good as when it is true HD. I would go with a 16:9 tv because that is the future. Good luck on what ever you decide.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

4:3 HDTV's are the biggest waste of money in the HD business. Would you buy a two story home if in 5 years there was going to be a law limiting all houses to 1 story? Well, when the HD rollover occurs, all those 4:3 sets will be pretty much obsolete.
Bruce
------------------

Welcome aboard the Satellite of Love

 

[Abdul Jalib]

Feh. There will always be 4:3 programming (reruns). Consider the Philips 4:3 60PP9601 versus 16:9 55PP9701. Both produce the identical 55" 16:9 picture using identical hardware. After a couple of adjustments in the service menu, the only differences between the sets is that the Philips 4:3 set's passive screen is taller and the 55PP9701 costs $1200 more. The situation is similar for the Sony HS10/30 versus Sony widescreen RPTV's.
The advantages of 16:9 sets are that HDTV content fills the screen (but not 2.35:1 movies on Showtime-HD or DVD) and 4:3 content is smaller, which makes it easier to sit at one distance from the set for all content. These advantages sometimes come at great cost.
------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Philips_HDTV/joinClick to subscribe to Philips_HDTV discussion group

 

[Andy L]

I completely disagree about 4:3 sets being a waste of money. Many if not most 4:3 HD sets have an anamorphic mode so that they squeeze the raster for a 1080i signal. Thus, you still get the full resolution of the HD picture. Meanwhile, while 90+% of the shows are only broadcast in 4:3, you get the benefit of a full screen presentation.
I can understand why someone would choose to buy a 16:9 set for the future, but I can also understand why someone would buy a 4:3 set with a squeeze mode today.

 

[Allan Jayne]

With a 4:3 HDTV capable set you need to beware of those that do an 810 scan line downconversion when playing 16:9 HDTV shows. You want an optical squeeze, that keeps all 1080i scan lines active.
As far as I know, the downconversion to 810 scan lines is accepted as part of the HDTV standard for TV sets but must be disclosed to the consumer.
Other video hints: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/video.htm

 

[NickSo]

Im probably buying a 4:3 HDTV soon before New Years.. why?
Because almost 80% of the stuff i watch on my current HT TV is in 4:3, and overall 98% of everyting i watch is in 4:3...
And its also much cheaper than a 16:9...
------------------
The So Family Home Theater!
http://www.multimania.com/sonick182/ht/index.html
You're all entitled to your opinion, but you're all wrong!!! - Paul Dalmine
ICQ: 8593599

 

[Michael St. Clair]

(crossposted from the Software Area, my response to another member expressing concern about burn-in watching Twin Peaks on his 16:9 set)
---------------------------------------------------
Ha!
Tell that to somebody like me.
An addict of:
Twin Peaks
The X-Files
Star Trek (all series except Voyager)
The Prisoner
The Avengers
The Prisoner
Secret Agent / Danger Man
...and several other high-quality 4:3 shows
And an even bigger fan of:
Looney Tunes / Merry Melodies
MGM cartoons
Betty Boop cartoons
Popeye cartoons
...and many other classics
And of course I can't live without 4:3 classic films like:
Snow White
Citizen Kane
King Kong (1933)
It's a Wonderful Life
The Red Shoes
all of the Marx Bros films
early Alfred Hitchcock
...and a few hundred other films
And on the weekend I have to watch some baseball and open wheel racing, both of which are on Fox Sports and ESPN, both of which have no interest in doing 16:9 HD in the next few years.
And don't forget IMAX!
And most of the rest of the movies I watch are 2.35:1, which are going to have black bars on any set! I bet 15% of the movies I watch are 1.85:1 or 1.77:1.
But even mention getting a 4:3 HD set that has a proper 16:9 squeeze mode, and people treat you like you are a war criminal. They'll tell you that you are supposed to get used to stretching, cropping, and otherwise mutilating the image of your 4:3 material. They'll tell you that you are stupid, that you just don't understand or 'get it', that 4:3 sets should not be made, and that you are buying an 'antique'.
Nah, better to buy a 16:9 set so you can spend the next 5 years watching Family Law and the New York Lacrosse league without any black bars around the picture.

[Edited last by Michael St. Clair on October 08, 2001 at 01:56 PM]

 

[David Von Pein]

EXACTLY what Michael said!

 

[Jan Strnad]

Michael,

But even mention getting a 4:3 HD set that has a proper 16:9 squeeze mode, and people treat you like you are a war criminal.

Please report to the nearest War Crime Tribunal today. If you do not appear, the Widescreen Police will hunt you down like a rabid rat. You have been warned!
Seriously...
We've been over the 4:3 vs. 16:9 debate a lot in this forum and Michael and I have exchanged a lot of discussion on the subject.
Frankly, I'm tired of typing the same info over and over, so it's on my website and you can get to it from here with a mouse click. Click on the link in my sig.
If you prefer to be lazy and not read the article, that's fine. You'll just regret it for the rest of your life.
Cheers,
Jan

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I posted that message over four months ago.
In the meantime, people have gotten a lot more tolerant of sets of various ratios. I'm proud of the forum membership on this progress.
Jan,
I've read your article before. I like it a lot. I'd probably only change one thing. The FCC 'deadlines' are just about anything but. And those so-called deadlines don't apply to the hundreds of cable/satellite-only stations. And 8 of the 18 ATSC (DTV) modes are 4:3; terrestrial stations can digitally broadcast 480i 4:3 until the end of time. Omitting this information gives a skewed view as to what is required in the future.
I'm still enjoying ISF tweaked HDTV (and anamorphic DVD) at 48.6" and 480i/p at 53". Loving it, in fact.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Chris, here are some meaty links to other threads in which we have beaten the horse to near death (the horse is probably seen the light many times before we cruelly dim them again and again on it).
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...6&highlight=43
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...6&highlight=43

 

[David Von Pein]

I posted that message over four months ago.

Hey Michael....better check again. It was over sixteen months ago (Oct. 2001). Just something that caught my eye while archive-browsing.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Damn, I thought it felt a LOT longer than 4 months ago. I should have looked at the dates more closely.
And the forum collective has mellowed considerably regarding 4:3 sets since then. Back then it wasn't unusual to get downright rude responses to even suggesting that some people might be better off with a 4:3 set.
Even Jan has mellowed a lot...he used to be a real hardliner.
One thing that is practically never addressed is the Laserdisc crowd. It's a damned shame that too this day letterboxed laserdiscs look better on 4:3 sets than most 16:9 sets. Pioneer is still the only exception. Some of us have hundreds of laserdiscs and that is a real consideration.

 

[David Von Pein]

Back then it wasn't unusual to get downright rude responses to even suggesting that some people might be better off with a 4:3 set.

Your orig. 2001 post up there came before I ever stepped foot on this sacred ground known as HTF. But I hear what you're saying.
But even now, while perusing this site, DVD Talk, AVS, and H.T. Spot forums, I find VERY few individuals discussing the merits of their "just-purchased 4x3" TVs. I'd say it's at least 9-to-1 in favor of 16:9 sets right now.
But, interestingly, Michael, you say the attitude has "mellowed" in this last 1.33 years.
Seems like, with now far MORE people going the 16:9 route, that we'd have even more tirades/rants AGAINST people buying those wicked 4x3's.
But, I have no intention at all of getting a 16:9 TV. Maybe never.
I'll always have many, many 4x3 tapes & DVDs that I'll want as FF on my big-screen 4x3, as opposed to the awful grey side-bars on the WS. I don't know what it is (just the brighter color of them I guess), but I HATE those grey rods (er...bars)! Esp. when the TV is is Letterbox mode for DVDs. On 2.35 material, you have to cope with TWO sets of bars, of differing colors. Two grey ones, and two smaller black ones.
Does ANYBODY use the horrid Letterbox Mode on their 4x3 RPTVs? (Less burn-in risk I'm told. But certainly no other advantage; and quite a hideous experience actually.)
Let's hear it for Four-By-Threes!!! They'll never go out of style in my book.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

David,
A year and a half ago there were probably only a couple of people on the forum who publicly admitted buying a 4:3 HD set. There are several now, and at least one administrator. And there is a lot less conflict in the discussion, though there are occasional exceptions.
I have absolutely nothing against 16:9 sets, and have said for a long time that 16:9 sets are the best choice for most of the contemporary home-theater crowd.
I certainly hope within the next few years that I find myself upgrading to a 80-100" front-projection setup that can at least do native 720p (hopefully 1080p) and has excellent black-level. The projector will almost certainly have 16:9 panels and I have no issue with that.
In the meantime, given my current viewing habits (including 6 HD channels), budget, and room size, I'll be best served by my 4:3 HDTV.

 

[Jan Strnad]

Michael,

Yes, I was much more of a hardliner, but your arguments (and others') opened my eyes.

I'd advise everyone who wants to enjoy legacy material in its OAR to buy it up now. I have this itchy fear that, as 16:9 takes over, we're going to see cropped, stretched and otherwise malformed versions cropping up on broadcast TV...not to mention those @#%&*! network bugs.

I could be wrong about this, but as they say, just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you.

Jan

 

[Jan Strnad]

I've read your article before. I like it a lot. I'd probably only change one thing. The FCC 'deadlines' are just about anything but. And those so-called deadlines don't apply to the hundreds of cable/satellite-only stations. And 8 of the 18 ATSC (DTV) modes are 4:3; terrestrial stations can digitally broadcast 480i 4:3 until the end of time. Omitting this information gives a skewed view as to what is required in the future.

Michael,

I don't want to clutter the article, which is meant as a quick overview, with a lot of technical detail. However, I'd be happy to link to a piece offering the additional information you're talking about. It could be on another site or I'd host the page at AtomBrain.com. If you're interested in writing something up or have a single good source to refer readers to, email me.

Jan

 

[Michael TLV]

Greetings

Last note ...

4:3 material when viewed in a native form on 16:9 sets is compromised compared to a native 4:3 display.

16:9 sets have to process the 4:3 image one more time to make it fit the screen by adding bars to the image.

Regards

 

[Angelo.M]

As I've said in many posts on this (and other) boards, I am the proud owner of a 60-inch 4x3 set. It provides me the best of all worlds: a very large image for letterboxed DVDs (comparable to a 50+ inch 16x9 set), and a large 4x3 area for those things I watch most, namely sports, news and other TV programming.

I'll stick with 4x3 for as long as it will carry me. My guess is that it will be well into the next decade, at least.