Does DVD/HD on 16:9 sets have greater Visual Impact? (1 Viewer)

[Gil D]

Fortunately, a properly designed 4:3 HD set displays both the 4:3 and the 16:9 ATSC modes well.

Michael,
I was wondering what happens with the HD programs in 4:3 (1080i)I am hearing that occurs on HBO-HD and some OTA stations. With a 4:3 set like the Sony HS30's will it try to vertically squeeze it to 16:9 or can I view it 4:3 at 1080i native?

I didn't think about scaling on the 16:9 sets with my old laser discs. As I occasionally do use them (but very infrequent), it seems like that this would be a plus on a 4:3 set. Would laser look better on the Sony HS sets than on my 4 year old Hitachi Ultravision analog RPTV?

It seems like you probably own an HD 4:3 set. Which models currently on the market would you recommend.

One more thing. On a 16:9 set, when it's set to display 4:3 OAR with black/grey bars to the sides, is the set still displaying 1080i native or is there still some scaling going on (ie the 4:3 CRTS still pre-squeezed).

Thanks,
Gil

 

[nousername]

RyanDinan wrote:

I dont get hung up on the aspect ratio of the screen - I care more about the aspect ratio of the show...
If both both types of sets can resolve the image with the same detail, then it doesnt matter to me..

Well said...

 

[GeorgeAB]

I'm just voicing my opinions in an attempt to state a case for 16X9 over 4X3. I love our freedom to choose whatever format we personally prefer. I am also grateful for our economic system that provides a variety of choices. It's wonderful that both styles of TVs are reasonably affordable. Clients depend on me to suggest what I believe will give them the best overall enjoyment for their investment. In the context of the original post it is my advice to choose a 16X9 format. If a client predominantly prefered old academy ratio films, I would certainly recommend a 4X3 display. You assume too much. It is not my position that everyone should own a widescreen set.
Stanley Kubric chose to produce his most influential, and broadly admired film, '2001 A Space Odyssey', in Cinerama. I don't believe there was ever a more widescreen (narrow?) format ever successfully implemented. Granted, the black monolith WAS tall. Was it a golden rectangle?
The man was an independant thinker and thought nothing of bucking trends. He chose to distribute his films in mono because he disliked the ill-conceived acoustics in most theaters his audience would see the film in. His priority was the intelligibility of the dialog and believed a monaural soundtrack would preserve that element. He chose to move backward in technology to accomplish his goal. It didn't persuade many others, however. I do not recall him ever thinking so much of "tall" to buck the trend of widescreen formating of his films.
George Lucas, likewise, recognized the problem of poor sound in theaters. Instead of moving backward in technology he moved forward and developed better standards for film sound. His THX programs have advanced the technologies they are applied to.
It is my opinion that 16X9 displays are the desireable advancement in display shape formating over 4X3 displays. True, a lot of 16X9 displays have weak video processing. The manufacturers elected to devote costs to other areas of priority. Certainly outboard processers can be invested in to improve this element of performance significantly. Again, the marketplace has alternatives. As progressive DVD players have become less expensive, perhaps so will better-implemented video processing circuits, standard in HDTVs, become a reality.
I addressed the anamorphic squeeze capability in some 4X3 sets by pointing out that many people prefer the minimized black bars available when displaying anamorphic images on 16X9 sets. That factor must be considered as well.
Here is your smiley back: and an exra one for fun:
Yes, we can all get along, if we choose. Civil discourse is the warm and fuzzy side of debate.
Best regards and beautiful pictures (of your choice, of course),
G. Alan Brown
Insist on HDTV (with better video processing and minimum to no black bars)!

 

[Michael St. Clair]

One more thing. On a 16:9 set, when it's set to display 4:3 OAR with black/grey bars to the sides, is the set still displaying 1080i native or is there still some scaling going on (ie the 4:3 CRTS still pre-squeezed).

Typically 480p.
I recommend the Sonys for 4:3. I didn't look at Hitachi, I didn't have good dealer support at the time. Toshiba almost nailed it last year and did it right, but they upconvert everything to 540p and I don't care for it.
Some of the 16:9 sets do 4:3 better than others but I don't remember which. Personally I don't like stretch modes on any of them, even Pioneer. I was more focused on how non-anamorphic letterboxed material was zoomed. I can't stand how it looks on the 16:9 Sonys, Mitsubishis, and Hitachis (my personal opinion). The only 16:9 set (as of 9 months ago) that I found to look acceptable on material like letterboxed laserdiscs are the Pioneers. But the Pioneers were out of my price range for this go around.
I would advise taking a non-anamorphic letterboxed DVD (like 'The Abyss') into the dealer and make them hook a DVD player up via composite or s-vid. Play the movie and this will give you a decent idea of how LD is going to look on the set. The DVD will look a little better. I guess a somewhat noisy, composite sourced letterboxed DVD would be best, but I don't know one off the top of my head (probably because I stick with the LD if the DVD isn't anamorphic).
I can certainly see buying a 16:9 set at some point in the future. But not yet. And I know my opinion and needs do not match the mainstream, and for most film fans I would say get 16:9.
A lot of diehard sports fans would also be best served by a 4:3 HD set, but that's a whole 'nother story...

 

[Jan Strnad]

Gil D asked:

Jan,
If you could buy a display for about the same money that had the same electronics and features as your 42" Toshiba and displayed the equivalent of a 48" 16:9 but on a 4:3 set, you would still choose the 42" 16:9?

Oh, yes, definitely.
I greatly prefer the look (set turned off) of a widescreen TV. Although my 42" 16:9 Toshiba is larger in most respects than my 35" 4:3 Mitsubishi was (the Tosh is several inches shallower), it seems less intrusive in my small living room, less like a huge glass eye staring at me all the time.
I prefer flat screens over curved ones, and wide screens (golden rectangle) over more-nearly-square ones, with the TV turned off. It's just a matter of esthetics.
With the set turned on, I don't like black bars but I accept them in order to watch OAR. The smaller they are, the better. I also don't like black/grey bars along the side, and usually prefer to watch the non-linearly-stretched mode over watching with bars, but not always (OAR enters in again).
The 20" 4:3 set in my bedroom now seems quaint. The 4:3 RPTVs I see in showrooms strike me as kind of monstrous and ungainly.
But hey...that's just me! I do not, have not and will not suggest that 16:9 is for everyone. To each his own. I believe that it's definitely worth thinking about if someone is in the market for a new TV, and that there's more to consider than a simple rule-of-thumb about what % you watch of which aspect ratio.
Jan

 

[Warner]

Michael,
I have to admit you do a fantastic job presenting the the argument for 4:3. You certainly made an informed decision based on your viewing habits when you bought your set. I believe I did the same when I bought my widescreen. Sometimes things get a little emotional because we love tv/film and we spend much $$ on our HT hobby. Discusions like this will help others also make the right decision based on their priorities, so all is well.
Non-a letterboxed dvds can be made to look better on a 16:9 set with a dvd player that does the scaling (like the RP91), as opposed to using zoom on the tv. I realize you probably already know that, and it does not address the laserdisk issue, but I just thought I'd throw it out there for others who might be interested.
I still maintain that 16:9 material has a greater visual impact on a 16:9 set, but that's just my opinion.
Warner

 

[Alfred Seet]

In my country, the biggest issue is cost. A progressive scan 36" 16x9 would cost me about USD$2500 while a 29" 4x3 is less than half that. The 36" model is the smallest in the market (widescreen tvs are relatively rare), and way out of what I am willing to pay for a television. So the choice is simple, I'm going to buy a new 29" progressive scan TV.

 

[Jan Strnad]

Alfred Seet,

You don't mention what country you're in. I'm curious!

The price aspect is a bummer, all right. Here in the U.S. of A. my 42" RPTV, 16:9, was just over $1500 delivered to my door. A 4:3 set would have been cheaper, but not by a lot.

The lack of affordable 16:9 sets is a major goof on the part of manufacturers, IMHO.

Jan

 

[John-Miles]

I totally agree with you Jan, i bought a 36" 4:3 Tv, if i could ahve gotten a 34" widescreen for the price of a 32" 4:3 i would ahve been all over it, but at the same price as the 36" i had to go 4:3