How big is the actual 16x9 area on 4:3 Sony 32" sets? (1 Viewer)

[Frank@N]

If someone could measure this area while running a DVD menu, I'd appreciate it.

I wanted to measure this area at the store, but they're always pumping some dubious 4:3 letterboxed material of various aspect ratios...

Trying to figure how much 16x9 area you can get on a 4:3 TV vs. an actual widescreen monitor.

I'm somewhat tempted by Sony's new 30" 16x9 direct-view (910 series with super fine appature grill), but I suspect that you can get *most* of those inches in 4:3 set for far less money.

 

[Doug_H]

Check this site out, it gives you the size based on aspect ratio for various screens. Link Removed

 

[Frank@N]

Thanks for the link...

I'm really amazed at the 32" 4:3 results (16x9 area)....

The diagonal size is 29.4 in
This is the equivalent of a 29.4 inch 16:9 TV

This essentially means that buying a pricey 30" 16x9 direct-view would be mostly a waste, since a much cheaper 32" 4:3 contains almost the exact same (29.4) 16x9 viewing area.

I was expecting more like 26"...WOW!

 

[DarrenAlan]

Keep in mind ...

-16x9 is actually 1:1.78, many movies are actually 1:1.85 and

-Some movies are 1:2.35, so your black bars are even thicker.

 

[Frank@N]

Very true, but actual HD-ratio monitors are limited by the same 'dead zone' effect.

But it does make a case for buying the biggest monitor you can fit/afford.

 

[Fred Tedsen]

I have a Sony 32" CRT, and watching 2.35 wide screen is not a pleasant experiance on it. So much so that I'm looking for a wide screen. It's interesting that a 34" wide screen is 1/3 smaller for 4:3 but is 1/3 larger for all of the wide screen modes.

 

[David_Rivshin]

Fred,
But remember that a 36" 4:3 display will have very nearly the same 16:9 viable area as a 34" 16:9 display. And last time I checked 36" CRTs were a good $800 less than 34" CRTs. I admit that the last time I checked about a year ago, but I'm sure the general idea still holds: you get the same size widescreen image for less money. The only downside is that you get a larger 4:3 image, which will make cable/satellite look even worse, but it's a small price to pay for saving that much $$$.

Of course if you're looking at RPTVs, LCD TVs, Plasma TVs, or front projectors widescreen displays are equivalently priced, so I'd definitely recommend going wide for theater purposes.

BTW, I've got a 32" direct view as well, and while watching LOTR:TTT the other week my first thought was "this picture is just too small, I need a projector". Too bad I'm in a small apartment... Strange how what once seemed so fine tends to seem inadequate over time, isn't it? Sounds like we've both got a case of upgraditis to me

-- Dave

 

[Lew Crippen]

But remember that a 36" 4:3 display will have very nearly the same 16:9 viable area as a 34" 16:9 display.

Don’t forget that (as posted in another thread in this area) that for HD viewing you probably lose resolution compared to the 34”, 16:9 widescreen.

 

[David_Rivshin]

Don’t forget that (as posted in another thread in this area) that for HD viewing you probably lose resolution compared to the 34”, 16:9 widescreen.

Yes, that is true in some cases, but I believe that with the following assumptions the difference is negligible:
1) the 4:3 set has a "16:9 mode" which shrinks the vertical raster
2) the pixel density (per unit area) is the same on both displays

The first assumption I think is pretty safe for any HD set (except for 2003 and 2004 Panasonic models in 480p). I'm unsure about the second assumption. It seems reasonable to me that manufacturers would not be able to pack in any more pixels per unit area on a 16:9 than on a 4:3 set, since this is a physical and not electronic quantity.

Anyone have any real-world knowledge about this?

 

[Lew Crippen]

It is my understanding that for direct display sets there are none that actually resolve (physically) 1080 vertical lines. For sure, take this with a grain of salt, as new models get introduced every day (with significant advances) and I don’t pretend that I know the technical specifications of everything anyway.

But, if this is correct, consider the problem in a 1080 line HD display (even if it could resolve the full 1080 lines). A 36’, 4:3 displaying a 16:9 picture does not use about 25% of its vertical picture. This means that overall in order for the 1,080 vertical lines to be squeezed into the 16:9 frame, the display must be capable of physically resolving 1,440 vertical lines. This is far different than the squeeze of a DVD where the same 16:9 picture squeezed into the 4:3 display results in the display as a whole only needing to physicall resolve 640 vertical lines (480 squeezed down 25%).

This is not at all a problem with today’s technology.

 

[John Royster]

Lew,

This is far different than the squeeze of a DVD where the same 16:9 picture squeezed into the 4:3 display results in the display as a whole only needing to physicall resolve 640 vertical lines

The 1080i signal is squeezed resulting in no loss of scanlines or picture information. It works exactly the same way as the 16x9 squeeze for DVDs.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Not a challenge John, but I’d be interested in the models that actually resolve in this much detail. I know that my Sony (a 16:9 XBR800) has a screen that won’t allow it to resolve the full 1080 lines.

As I indicated I am not aware of direct view models that have this fine a resolution (this does not mean that they do not).

 

[John Royster]

Lew,

True, there are limitations with CRTs that limit actual resolution, but when running a HD signal to the XBR450 a 36" directview I own the picture is squeezed. There is no 25-35% loss displaying the black bars. The black bars aren't even scanned. Exactly like the 16x9 squeeze for 480p and widescreen DVDs.

Infact the widescreen TVs one sees are nothing more than normal CRTs that are permantently "squeezed"

Make sense?

 

[Lew Crippen]

John, I understand that the picture is squeezed. But I still believe that the technology used in that model Sony will result in an actual resolution loss (as opposed to the same picture on a 16:9 display). But as the displays are not that large, it is certainly possible that no one would actually be able to discern the loss (I’ve not done a comparison, so I can’t say one way or the other).

Here is my reasoning that there is an actual loss in resolution on this (and similar sets).

·First the display does not resolve 1,080 lines, physically. Though certaintly the electronics handle this with no problem.
·But assume that the 36” display will in fact physically resolve 1,080 lines.
·A 16:9 picture inside the 4:3 display does not use (approximately) 25% (vertically) of the 36” display.
·The ‘squeeze’ means that 1,080 lines must now be physically scanned into this smaller display. Which means that physically the display must be able to resolve the equivalent of 1,440 lines vertically for the whole 36” (in order to get 1,080) into the smaller area.
·It is my belief that the physical limitations of the grid inside the picture tube (which actually keep the resolution below 1,080 lines) will not allow resolution of this detail.
·Of course if the real physical resolution of the 36”display is even slightly below 1,080 vertical lines, then no amount of squeezing will be possible when a 16:9 picture is being displayed, simply because the signal is already better than the set’s limitations for its full 36” and will only be degraded in a smaller frame.

I should point out that I bought my Sony knowing that it would not fully resolve 1,080 lines. And I spent a bunch more money for my HD receiver. And I love every minute of HD TV, including Monday night’s football and did not care one bit that the picture could possibly be better. Just as I’m sure that the guys with plasmas that ‘only’ resolve 720 lines or projectors that don’t resolve 1,080 lines don’t care.

Will I be in line when sets come out (at my price point) that will provide an even better picture? Of course, but I’m pretty pleased with what I have right now.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Infact the widescreen TVs one sees are nothing more than normal CRTs that are permantently "squeezed"

It is possible that the 16:9 sets physically resolve fewer lines than the 4:3 sets. I don’t have the technical data. Does anyone?