$800 sony 4:3 or $900 sony 16:9 ??? (1 Viewer)

[Charlie C]

I watch move tv than movies but would love to get the HD setup.

pros and cons of each??? oh yeah, these prices are from Best Buy

 

[JamesCB]

I don't see any "pro's" to getting a 4:3 tv (I don't know, there could be some?). Unless its a really good deal.
Widescreen and HD are the future standard. If you watch alot of standard aspect tv, you can use the stretch or zoom modes to fill the screen.

Good luck,
James

 

[John S]

I'd only favor the 4:3 screen in two areas. If those areas are real important than it is a viable purchse.

1. Do you watch a lot of old movies? By old I mean when movies were 4:3 aspect ratio, 50's and older?

2. Do you have a large Laserdisc collection with lots of 4:3 material?

Both of these fit my uses to a tee, I bought the 4:3 with the native 16:9 mode for HD/1080i sources. It seems for myself, I made the way right choice.


The other thought is pure screen size, I upgraded from a 46" 4:3 set. That meant unless I wanted a downgrade on screen size for 4:3 material, I would have had to go to an extremely large / expensive 16:9 set.

Just some things to think about.... Best of luck with your choice....

 

[Stephen Hopkins]

Keep in mind that a 32" 4:3 set has nearly the same 16:9 area as a 30" 16:9 set. In turn, the 32" 4:3 set has a much larger 4:3 area than a 30" 16:9 set. So to me it makes a lot of sense to pay less money to get the same 16:9 screen area and alot more 4:3 screen area, especially if the 4:3 set has 16:9 squeez so you can still get the full resolution from anamorphic DVD and HDTV. Based on the price range it looks like 32" 4:3 and 30" 16:9 sets are what he's comparing. Even though HDTV and Anamorphic DVD are the current emerging standards there's still alot of 4:3 material out there, especially most broadcast TV. So in that price range and screen size the 4:3 set makes much more sense to me. In larger sizes like RPTV i'd say go 16:9 any day of the week, but this particular situation (and most situations involving smaller screens) the 4:3 set seems to make more sense.

 

[Charlie C]

Steven, that is my line of thinking for now. but do I really want to drop $800 for a regular tube tv when I can get one used for under $200?

AAAAHHHH !!!!!!

oh well. Im also a big PS2 player and I dont know how many games have widescreen, although more and more are being made. but im a big GRAN TURISMO fan and im sure it will be in 16:9....

AAAAHHHHH!!!!!

Also, I used to own a projector... so AAAAHHHH!!!!!

 

[Stephen Hopkins]

Well i doubt you could get one of those Sony's used for $200, or even a 32" Flat Non-HD used for $200 regardless of brand. There is something apealing about a widescreen set, but is that apeal worth paying more money to lose 40% of the 4:3 area and then be forced to use stretch modes just to fill the screen? W/ a projector or RPTV there's enough screen real-estate that watching 4:3 on a 16:9 screen w/out stretch is still reasonable, but on a set that size you need to get every inch you can, especially if you're more than 8' away. Also, for games that benefit from 16:9 you can always use the 16:9 squeez. I'm also looking forward to GT4 and i'll probably play it mostly on my 88" 16:9 projection screen, but i'm sure i'll play some as well on my 32" 4:3 hdtv, but i'll probably use the 16:9 mode.

 

[Charlie C]

hell, ill just move into your place then Steven

yeah, i think im gonna hold off on the tv purchase for now. wait till the dust settles with all these new formats. what concerns me is that the wars will never end

But I will have to race you in GT4

 

[John S]

Yes, wait long enough and there wil be no 4:3 sets anymore to even consider. Problem solved. lol