Help.... WS vs. 4:3 (1 Viewer)

[Brent Hutto]

Personally I bought my Panny 16:9 because I enjoy watching movies the way they should be watched. Rectangular on a Rectangular screen.

Me too. I like watching movies the way they should be watched, on a rectangular screen, in a darkened room, with the sound at a level that's clearly audible but doesn't hurt my ears, sitting in a comfortable seat right next to my wife. That's why we have a home theater. BTW, our rectangular screen consists of a Sony 36XBR800 with black cardboard mattes above and below the picture. Beautiful.

 

[Jan Strnad]

My first OAR experience was with a VHS tape of 2001, a bootleg recorded from an anamorphic print. I had to reach around to the back of my TV and adjust the vertical size to squeeze it.

Reginald, if we took your advice literally, we wouldn't be concerned with size of screen, sharpness, artifacts, interference, etc., we'd just watch the movie and be glad we could see anything at all.

But, this is the "display devices" board and we are concerned (obsessed?) with presentation as well as content. There's enough discussion about movie content on the Movies and Software boards, I think, to call most of us "movie lovers."

I suppose people are a bit dismissive of the value of "filling the screen" because that seems to be J6P's reason for buying P&S/"fullscreen" DVDs over widescreen ones. But matching the screen shape to the film is done in theaters and by ht enthusiasts who make adjustable mattes and by people who buy squarish TV screens to fit their squarish TV viewing...it's part of "quality of presentation" to match content with the best screen form factor.

Stretching changes the content to match the screen, and that's another matter! However, faced with the possibility of burn-in on an $X000 set, stretching becomes the only reasonable alternative. So the user has to prioritize his viewing: What material must be viewed OAR and what material can be stretched to protect the TV?

Hey, Michael St. Clair, about "bigger": What about an episode of the original Star Trek vs. The Wrath of Khan? If one has to be bigger than the other, which would you choose?

Seriously, some TV is worth watching large, you're right. But if I watch the news and sitcoms and such on a big screen and get used to seeing them that size, and then the picture shrinks when I put on a widescreen movie, I feel a bit let down. As I said, it's a personal thing.

Jan

 

[Michael St. Clair]

As I said, it's a personal thing.

Absolutely, that's what I've always said. There is no hard and fast rule of thumb or formula.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

PT47wx52. Couldn't pass it up since it came with a free RP62 DVD player, $200 rebate on the TV, $40 rebate on the free player and don't pay for 14mths. Sold both over time and bought the RP82.

Many of us (including myself) have a larger 4:3 screen than yours...large enough that even when in 16:9 mode, the displayed picture is larger than your screen. There are many ways of trying to get closer to the theatrical experience. To you, that is buying a TV whose passive piece of plastic on the front is shaped in a 16:9 ratio...a somewhat 'one-size-fits-nothing' ratio that was chosen as a compromise by the government and the consumer electronics industry.

To me, it's more important to get the biggest screen you can afford, in the highest resolution you can afford (supporting the full resolution of anamorphic DVD is a must), with brightness and black level that fit your lighting requirements and personal preferences. And you must have the display ISF calibrated.

So, we all have different priorities, even in the goal of trying to approximate the theater at home.

I once had somebody with a 40" 16:9 display tell me that my set wasn't 'proper home theater' but that his was. His screen was literally half the size of mine, had less resolution, and had not been calibrated resulting on color temp that was way, way off.

I laughed in his face.

 

[Richard Burzynski]

Alan:

My answer to your question comes down to intended usage. What will you use the TV for PRIMARILY?

If your family will watch standard 4:3 programming (such as cable) most of the time, and watch only 1 or 2 DVD's on the weekend, then get a 4:3 TV. I owned a 16:9 set and we 4:3 cable MOST of the time. Stretch modes work, but everyone looks like Oprah. Bars on the right & left give you a small 4:3 image. 4:3 Tv for lots of 4:3 viewing gives you large 4:3 image. This TV will also be cheaper

If you intend to acquire HDTV programming, thru satellite like Expressvu (great selection especially with recent launch of 2nd satellite) or Starchoice (I'm not sure if your cable service offers HD yet) and watch lots of DVD's, then you will be much happier with a 16:9 set. This set will cost more, but is the ultimate for dedicated widescreen (16:9) material.

If you go with a 16:9 set, make sure it has DVI and Firewire. If you go 4:3, don't worry about it being "obsolete". 4:3 TV's will still "work" even when they do the full conversion to digital broadcasting 20 years from now. A 50" 4:3 TV will give you a 46" 16:9 sized image, and a 60" 4:3 TV will give you a 55" sized 16:9 image. In my opinion, this is the best of both worlds during the existing "transition" period.

Good Luck!

Rich B.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I picked up my 56" 4:3 RPTV for $1300 on a closeout deal, and that same set yields a 51" 16x9 image, so I think I'm doing okay on the 16x9 side given that I sit roughly 8-9 feet away. And yes, it's totally a transitional TV that was bought at a very affordable price (comes with 12 months same as cash financing as well).

 

[David Von Pein]

A 50" 4:3 TV will give you a 46" 16:9 sized image...

When you say 46" WS image on a 4:3, you mean a 1.85:1 image on the 4:3 set, correct?

What does a 2.35:1 image measure on a 50" 4:3? My guess = 41" (give or take).

Thanks.

 

[Jan Strnad]

My answer to your question comes down to intended usage. What will you use the TV for PRIMARILY?

That formula doesn't work for me. I watch a lot more satellite TV than DVD, but since I care about DVD presentation about twenty times more than I care about broadcast TV, I bought the set that gives me the best DVD presentation on the films I watch the most (widescreen).

That's why I say, "Follow your heart, not your wristwatch."

Jan

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

What does a 2.35:1 image measure on a 50" 4:3? My guess = 41" (give or take).

Does it really matter for this comparison since it's 4x3 vs 16x9, not 2.35:1?

Basically, any image of ratio >=1.78:1 (ie. 16x9) can have equal size between a 46" 16x9 TV and a 50" 4x3 TV. This is because they can ALL use up the entire width of the screen on both 16x9 and 4x3 TVs.

Note though my slight qualification w/ "can". This is due to PQ issues involving non-anamorphic images. Such images will probably look better on a 4x3 TV than a 16x9 due to the need for zooming/scaling. It's certainly something to consider in the whole equation for widescreen movies, especially for LD owners and even DVD-only folks who love movies, not just the anamorphic widescreen DVD variety. This is why I'm still sitting on the fence about a new DVD player to go w/ my new 16x9 TV--I need good scaling/aspect ratio control for the non-16x9 DVDs. And yes, I also own a bunch of LDs, but they are mostly replaceable while lots of non-16x9 DVDs are not (yet anyway).

If you read most of the comparisons between 16x9 and 4x3 TVs, this particular PQ issue w/ widescreen movies often gets overlooked and unfairly so. I guess many LD diehards just spend the $$$ on an external scaler OR a Pioneer Elite (OR BOTH!) to address the PQ-to-size issue. And then many others just get into the FP world (and REALLY get into scaling)...

Oh, FWIW, I did do the calculations on a spreadsheet for various TV sizes to determine movie sizes of the commonly used ratios, but I don't have the spreadsheet handy right now. I did it to get a good idea how big I need either 16x9 or 4x3 TV to be to enjoy the movie sizes of the various ratios. If still interested, I guess I can update later.

_Man_

 

[David Von Pein]

Does it really matter for this comparison since it's 4x3 vs 16x9, not 2.35:1?

It most certainly does matter I would wager.

We're talking "diagonal" comparisons on both sets correct?
If so, then a 2.35 diagonal measurement is most certainly going to be LESS than a 1.85 or 1.78 measurement on any given TV.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Yes, the 2.35:1 will certainly be smaller, BUT my point was that it will be smaller by the same ratios/degrees/etc on BOTH 16x9 and 4x3 TVs.

If a certain 4x3 TV has a 16x9 area equal to a certain 16x9 TV, then they will BOTH be able to display the same size 2.35:1 image (or anything wider than 16x9/1.78:1 ratio). How exactly to display the 2.35:1 image will vary though as I mentioned before, but basically, you'd be looking at aspect ratio control capabilities for that.

_Man_

 

[TommyLov]

Here's some formulas for you guys, where D is the diagonal and A is the physical area that the image uses:

4:3 TV -
4:3 source - A = .48 * D^2
16:9 source - A = .36 * D^2
2.35:1 source - A ~ .272 * D^2

16:9 TV (no stretching) -
4:3 source - A ~ .320 * D^2
16:9 source - A ~ .427 * D^2
2.35:1 source - A ~ .323 * D^2

And since I left everything in terms of the diagonal, you can directly compare using the coefficients. So with two TVs having the same diagonal, the 4:3 will have 12% more usable space than a 16:9. A 4:3 image will be 50% larger on the 4:3 TV. A 16:9 image will be 23% larger on the 16:9 TV, and a 2.35:1 image will be 19% larger on the 16:9 TV.

Edit:
I rounded to one more digit.

 

[Reginald Trent]

Jan, I'm not trying to pick on you by quoting your statement. The major point I trying to make is....4:3 displays allow for the satisfactory presentation of both 4:3 and 16:9 programs without resorting to stretch modes irrespective of reason, i.e. burn in, filling screens with image etc.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Ok. Let's just plug in the #s to verify 2.35:1 size then for 50" 4x3 vs 46" 16x9:

50" 4x3 TV yields Area ~ .27 * 50^2 = 675

46" 16x9 TV yields Area ~ .32 * 46^2 = 677

There. Just as I said. Rounding errors are more than enough to make the negligible difference meaningless besides the fact that nobody's gonna miss 2 square inches.

For reference, the #s for 16x9 size:

50" 4x3 yields Area ~ .35 * 50^2 = 875

46" 16x9 yields Area ~ .43 * 46^2 = 910

Hmmm... This difference is more noticeable, but still might be greatly affected by rounding of the coefficients. Even if exact, I'd think one would be hard pressed to really notice the difference w/out intense scrutiny.

_Man_

 

[Reginald Trent]

Man-Fai Wong, there's a website that lets you make quik comparions telling you how much image is visible
between 4:3 vs 16:9 I'm sure someone here has the link.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Thanks for the reminder. Did a search and found the link you refered to. It's here:

http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi?KeohiHDTV

The results actually come much closer to agreeing w/ what I said earlier. Of course, it really should since what I said was based merely on simple mathematical principles.

_Man_

 

[Jan Strnad]

Reginald,

I haven't taken offense at anything you've said. I understand where you're coming from, I think.

You can watch 4:3 material on a 4:3 display without stretching it to fill the screen. On a 16:9 display, you risk burn-in on the sides because of the bars on either side of the picture. But you do have the option of stretching the picture to fill the screen, if the distortion doesn't drive you nuts.

However, on a 16:9 display, you have no distortion of a 1.85:1 widescreen film, and it fills the screen. No bars, no risk of burn-in. On a 4:3 display, you'll have bars top and bottom, which gives you the same risk of burn-in as bars on the sides. However, there is no "vertical stretch" option because that kind of stretching is unwatchable by virtually everyone's standards.

Any way you look at it (4:3 or 16:9), something isn't going to fit your screen perfectly. Something is going to leave you with bars, either on the sides or the top and bottom. However, with 16:9 you do have the option of stretching to eliminate the side bars...if you can take the distortion.

I don't blame anyone for choosing bars over stretching, or for finding side bars more annoying than top/bottom bars, or for watching primarily 4:3 material, or for choosing a set based on what is broadcast now rather than what is supposed to be broadcast in the future if things go somewhat as the FCC plans. All of these considerations could very well point someone in the direction of a 4:3 set, especially if they can get a bigger screen for the same amount of money.

But for most people, I'm still going to recommend a widescreen set for the reasons I've already beaten to death in this thread.

Jan

 

[Richard Burzynski]

David:
I meant what I wrote. I will re-phrase. Inorder to offer an apples to apples size comparison of 4:3 set to 16:9 set:
When watching widescreen DVD's:
* A 50" 4:3 TV will give you the same size picture as a 46" 16:9 TV.
* A 60" 4:3 TV will give you the same size picture as a 55" 16:9 TV.

Jan:
That is fine. Everyone is entitled to their own view, and different things make different people happy. I used to feel as you do now, but then daily usage changed my mind. I bought a 16:9 TV with DVD watching being the top priority, and watching DVDs was great. Problem was, DVD watching was only 2-4 hours out of the entire week; the rest of TV usage was watching 4:3 broadcast TV - which stunk! We now have a large 4:3 TV and we couldn't be happier when watching both DVDs and 4:3 cable.

Also, 16:9 sets display black bars also, they're just smaller than the black bars on their 4:3 counterparts. And when I watch a DVD on my 4:3 TV, I have no "distortion".

Alan:
My original opinion and advice has not changed.

Side Note:
I find it very interesting that so many of the HT crowd are so very adamant about OAR (original aspect ratio), but only when it comes to DVD's. "A 16:9 set is the only way to go." "Preserve the original artistic integrity of the presentation." "Cropping/distorting original aspect is evil."

But then these same guys when watching 4:3 programming on their 16:9 sets, just take of their OAR membership caps and throw them out the window. It's OK to stretch and distort, and zoom and cut 4:3 stuff, but not 16:9 stuff?

Why the two sets of rules?

Once my eyes were trained to instantly spot correct and incorrect aspect ratio presentation, I couldn't stand watching stretched 4:3 material. It looks WRONG. Who cares if it's "only broadcast TV" stuff. Why should I compromise ANY of my TV usage and viewing?

Rich B.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I find it very interesting that so many of the HT crowd are so very adamant about OAR...

Why the two sets of rules?

Once my eyes were trained to instantly spot correct and incorrect aspect ratio presentation, I couldn't stand watching stretched 4:3 material. It looks WRONG. Who cares if it's "only broadcast TV" stuff. Why should I compromise ANY of my TV usage and viewing?

Actually, I think the majority of the HT crowd you refer to are not really that adamant about OAR. For the most part, they just like watching widescreen movies, especially the big budget Hollywood action fair, and realized what they are missing w/ evil P&S and/or don't like black bars from so many DVDs. For the most part, DVD is how I learned about OAR as well although I don't only care about the big budget action stuff, and like many purists-of-sorts don't like to distort what I watch (or listen to). OTOH, I also don't feel a need to condemn people for their preferences either.

The ones who are "very adamant about OAR" do not subscribe to distortions like stretching 4x3 TV viewing. And if you read this thread (and other similar ones) carefully, you'd spot them very easily and know that they indeed will have nothing to do w/ such viewing habits.

And in case it's not clear, I agree w/ you about stretching being too unnatural to be acceptable. As I said earlier, when it comes to stretching 4x3 content, it's in some ways actually worse than P&S. You're not JUST trashing the OAR, but also trashing the natural PQ of what's left in the frame. J6P's desire to fill the screen via P&S or zoom&crop is more understandable to me than the use of stretch modes.

_Man_

 

[Jan Strnad]

Richard,

Problem was, DVD watching was only 2-4 hours out of the entire week; the rest of TV usage was watching 4:3 broadcast TV - which stunk!

In other words, you found that you cared more about your broadcast viewing, because there was so much more of it, than your DVD viewing. So, I think my advice fits.

However, for me it's like weighing a ton of gravel against two diamonds.

Which is why I tell people to buy the set that best presents the material they care most about, not just the material they watch the most of.

And yeah, 2.35:1 movies on a 16:9 TV still have bars. But they're hardly noticeable, since overscanning greatly reduces them.

Also, when people ask for a "which to buy" opinion on 4:3 vs. 16:9, I look at the whole eight years that a TV typically lasts. There's never going to be more 4:3 broadcast material than there is today, while there's going to be more and more widescreen material broadcast in the next few years. By 4-1-05, two-and-a-half years into the expected 8-year life of the set, the broadcast landscape is going to be very different. I try to factor that in.

Jan