4:3 or 16:9?? (1 Viewer)

[Jarett]

hey all,
I'm sure there are old threads about this but i'm looking for everyones current opinion...It seems here most people here tend to lean towards 16:9...but this is how i look at it...if my screen wall is 12x8 then I could go with an 8x6 foot 4:3 screen or a 8x4.5 foot 16:9 screen. With 4:3 I would have 8x4.5 16:9 and 8x6 4:3. With 16:9 I would have 8x4.5 16:9 and 6x4.5 4:3...It makes more sense to go with 4:3 because you get a bigger screen with 4:3 material and the same size 16:9 material. Now theres the question of weather I will use 4:3, and the answer is yes lol. Because 1. Regular cable/Satelite is 4:3
2. VHS is 4:3
3. Full screen DVD's do exsist, and sometimes thats all that is available.

Maybe I'm missing something and 16:9 is the way to go? HDTV is 16:9 but not much is HD yet...any opinions would be appreciated! thanks

Also...Theres the delima of anamorphic which is 2:35:1 i think? But I spose all it would be is a skinyer 16:9 so 4:3 screen would still be best??

tHanks...

Jay

 

[Matt-Z]

I had similar questions a while back that got buried at the end of a thread. This is what I've learned in the meantime: It seems to all depend on what it is you will be watching. I wrote this a while back stating similar stuff:



Now, as I said, I didn't get any answers to this; but this is what I think I know now. The Infocus X1 has a resolution of 800x600. The Infocus SP4805 is 854x480. All this means to me is that you either have to choose short and wide or narrow and tall. There doesn't seem to be a perfect solution to what I (and I think you) want. That would be 854x600 I guess. Does that even exist? I don't know.

 

[Shane Martin]

A couple things:

They shouldn't. You should be able to find a Widescreen OAR copy of any movie you are looking for(either rental or purchase).

Me personally I'd get 16x9 as that is the way of the future and I like to think ahead. You can always create mattes or utitlize the stretch modes of the video display. More and more programs are headed 16x9 and you will want to get HD ASAP with that large screen. The bigger it is, the better the best stuff looks.

 

[Jarett]

well i know for a fact that sometimes all that is available for DVDs is 4:3 because 1: Old movies reisued to DVD r sometimes on fullscreen, ex. half baked i think and 2 i've been in cases where all the widescreen copies at a rental store are rented and all i can get is full screen....I feel like i'm swearing when i say this but i prefer 4:3 on my 27" tv as it gives me a bigger image lol...and also...i get what ur saying about "16:9 = wave of the future"...but y not have a 4:3 and then when you want have 16:9 u got it? just what i'm thinking...

Jay

 

[Craig Beam]

I don't think anybody should be basing these types of decisions on "Half Baked"... MAR or not.

 

[Jarett]

hey now half baked is a funny movie and i'm just making a point as if i ever had a collection it would be in it lol.. jay

 

[Matt-Z]

Again i think it seems to all depend on what your're watching. Do you watch a lot of tv on dvd? Play video games? Watch old movies, the majority of which have an original aspect ratio of 1.33:1? How about non-anamorphic transfers? Like perhaps a large laserdisc collection? Even a lot of DVD's are non-anamorphic. Personally, I do all that AND watch wide screen new releases. That all being said, I agree that things are headed towards 16:9. I think I just want the best of both worlds. Does anyone get the gist of what I'm thinking? I'd like someone to spell out just how stupid I'm being so I can finally go and buy my 4805!

 

[Marc G]

The one thing I have never seen in a discussion of 16:9 vs. 4:3 devices is the optimal viewing distance. As I understand it, the simple definition: when starting at the screen and moving away, the point that at which the "structure" becomes acceptable. Meaning, the point at which you don't see individual lines, pixels, interpixel gaps, etc. You can calculate the distance based on source material and device (and for front projection this is probably a ratio of screen size to distance). These calculations are based mostly on horizontal resolution, so 4:3 480p material is best viewed from the same distance as 16:9 480p material of the same height.

Also, there is little 4:3 material (mostly 480i with exceptions) with as much resolution as most 16:9 material (480p and better). Not including the exceptions, the optimal viewing distance of 4:3 material is much farther away than the same width 16:9 material. So yes, it's possible to have a bigger image on the 4:3 material, but you'd have to move your chairs back to the next room!

Or to put it another way, all else being equal, if you were to get a 4:3 projector and a 16:9 projector and set both up for the optimal 4:3 480i picture from a 12' viewing distance, your 2 images would be the same size. But as soon as you pop in a widescreen dvd, the 4:3 projector gives you a smaller image and the 16:9 projector gives you a larger image.

Of course, some people perceive bigger as better even with the visible drawbacks. That's their choice.

And I only speak from the experience of a 53" and 55" RPTV owner. FPTV may have a different experience.

(Can you tell I'm on the verge of buying a 16:9 FPTV and am just trying to justify my decision? )

 

[Shawn Perron]

Wouldn't the obvious answer be that your screen should match the aspect ratio of your projector (assuming you are using a fixed pixel device)? If your projector's native resolution is 4:3, then it'd make sense to go with a 4:3 screen, and vice versa.

 

[Philip Hamm]

I have a 94" 4:3 X1 based projector setup right now, I'll answer based on my experience.
Full screen DVDs like "Gone With The Wind" and some concert DVDs look amazing blown up to my big 94" 4:3 screen. Just wonderful.

I also have other 4:3 high quality sources - a large LaserDisc collection with lots of 4:3 concert discs. The 4:3 screen works for me very well. I also zoom the center of the 16:9 image on HDTV football broadcasts (because that's the OAR - what's being fed to NTSC) and it looks tremendous.

What's right for you won't be right for everyone.

 

[Greg Bright]

I have a 60 x 80 screen, and I have blocked off the bottom of the screen to extent that when I have my Panny 500u zoomed out all the way (minimum picture size) a 16:9 image fills the screen horizontally. When I have it zoomed in all the way (maximum picture size) a 4:3 image fills the screen from top to bottom. This gives me small black bars in both formats, but it maximizes picture size in both formats. Everyone in my family likes the compromise.

 

[John S]

Get what is right for you...

I bought a 60" 4:3 RPTV with a native 16:9 mode. For all the different sources I view, I am still convinced I did exactly the right thing for me personally.


At least the native 16:9 mode, still way delivers on 1080i HD sources.

 

[Antonio_B]

Most DVD's are coming out in a 16 X 9 format to represent exactly what you saw at your local theatres.
There's only VHS tapes that could still use the 4X3 format but nowadays who's gonna buy VHS when movies are automatically converted into DVD's for home use.

So I would suggest you to follow the technology because one day or another,you'll have to move on.

 

[Jarett]

I see what your all saying and its al good input...but what antonio said about following the technology...I would stil be able to whatch 16:9 on a 4:3 projector so whats the diff?? And also, what can u get in HDTV? discovery which is great, football which i dont whatch, and then others in certain areas, i live in canada and may be moving to a remote area so hdtv may be a long ways away for all my veiwing....and if regular tv is gonna look like crap on a projector i can't understand how a dvd can look that great because i have component and all that jazz and its much better then regular cable, but my cable looks very decent and if i'm goin to fork out like 2000 - 5000 bucks on a projector i was hoping to whatch tv lol...well just what i'm thinking...