Is there a Conversion chart for 4:3 and 16:9 TV's? (1 Viewer)

[steve jaros]

What i want to know is - if a 16:9 TV is 40" (diagonal), how big would a 4:3 TV have to be to give me the same viewing surface area if i watched a widescreen DVD on it?
I know this is a geometry problem, but i'm too lazy to do the math. So does anyone have a chart or formula?
Thanks...
Plus, let me ask another question: Given that many high-end 4:3 TVs are being built with 16:9 modes (that allow you to unsqueeze the anamorphic DVD and get the extra resolution), what's the reason to buy a 16:9 instead of a 4:3 (given that i don't mind black bars?)...

 

[BradZ]

this is a good link to compare 4:3 size to 16:9 size sets.
Link Removed
------------------
zaphod
end of transmission...

 

[John Morris]

Given that many high-end 4:3 TVs are being built with 16:9 modes (that allow you to unsqueeze the anamorphic DVD and get the extra resolution), what's the reason to buy a 16:9 instead of a 4:3 (given that i don't mind black bars?)...

Other than the coolness factor, as your use of HDTV and DVDs increase, you'll run the very remote risk of 16:9 burn-in on a 4:3 set.
4 months ago, I was dead set on getting an HD 4:3 set. Now, with the prices on a comparable 16:9 set coming down, new improved 4:3 to 16:9 screen formatting on and the availability of HD cable in my neighborhood, I'm gonna get a 16:9 set... probably either the Toshiba 57H81 or the 57X81.
------------------
Take Care,
merc
----------------
DFAST, 5C, DVI, HDCP, SafeAudio, Macrovision and Lewinski!!!

 

[steve jaros]

Brad, thanks for the link.
But seriously, why not address the 4:3/16:9 issue?
I've *long* been an advocate of widescreen over pan/scan. I've owned a 16:9 TV for 4 years just so i could get the extra resolution from "unsqueezing" anamorphic DVDs.
But now that many 4:3 RPTVs are coming out with 16:9 functions, that advantage for the 16:9 is lost. IMO, here are the new set of pros/cons:
pro 4:3:
Bigger surface area for the money. For example, you can get an HDTV ready 4:3 tv that is 50" for the same price as a 16:9 HDTV ready set that is 40". And for the next couple years, most TV shows will still be broadcast in 4:3.
pro 16:9:
No "annoying" black bars (or at least smaller ones) when watching DVDs. But if this doesn't annoy you, what's the problem?

 

[Mike I]

You really should look at how much HDTV is available in your area or will be in the next year..About 50 % or my viewing is DVD and the other 50 % satellite or broadcast tv...Of the 50 % total tv, close to 80% of it is widescreen HDTV and probably more this fall...A year and a half ago I was lucky to see 2 to 3 hours of HD a week...16.9 is the standard for HD if that is your ulimate goal...
------------------

 

[David Head]

The new Toshiba 50H81 50" 16:9 and Sony 53HS10 53" 4:3 give you almost the same size pictures for DVD. They both can be purchased for close to $2000. Here's are the pros/cons IMO:
16:9 DVD picture -
Advantage 50H81. The Toshiba will give a slightly larger picture which also uses 3:2 pulldown. The new Sony 53HS20 or 53HS30 will also do 3:2, but are $400-$500 more.
4:3 DVD and cable picture -
Advantage Sony. The Sony will display a larger picture natively. The Toshiba can be stretched or zoomed to give a 2" wider picture, but some people don't like this mode.
HDTV -
I have read that the Sony has 1200 lines of resolution, but can't confirm this. The Toshiba has 1600 lines of resolution. If these figures are correct, the Toshiba is capable of displaying a better HDTV picture.
Bottom Line:
Your viewing habits. If you watch mostly cable and 4:3 material, the Sony would be the better choice. If you watch a lot of DVDs and/or HDTV, the Toshiba would be the better choice.
Plus the 16:9 RPTVs look cool...
David
[Edited last by David Head on August 14, 2001 at 11:13 AM]

 

[steve jaros]

David, i've been considering the Toshiba 61h70. That gives a much bigger screen, and the cost is around $2100.
But it is 1200 lines of resolution...

 

[David Head]

The 61H70 also will not do the squeeze for DVDs. Only the new 2002 models might be able to do the squeeze for DVD (still to be determined). The model numbers end in a one instead of a zero (ex: 61H71).
David

 

[Brett G]

For me, the only way I justified going 16:9 was overall size. I got a 65" 16:9 because I placed DVD/HD viewing as top priority and was willing to sacrifice anything else. You would have to have a 71" 4:3 set in order to match the 16:9 window. A 71" 4:3 set would have been WAY too big for my room, plus I don't really need/want regular TV to be that big (DirecTV already looks not so great in my 53" 4:3 window).
I agree that once you go down to 56" models (same 16:9 window as a 61" 4:3) or less, the arguments for a 16:9 set decrease, unless you believe they result in better 16:9 pictures because that is it's native mode (I'm not sure about this). Of course this is only relevant in regards to 4:3 sets that will do the squeeze (not via service menu).
-Brett
------------------
Link Removed
My DVD's

 

[steve jaros]

David, the specs i read say it has "16:9 mode with vertical compression".
Doesn't that mean it will unsqueeze anamorphic DVDs?

 

[David Head]

Steve,
The "16:9 mode with vertical compression" on the 2001 models only works with a 1080i source (HDTV) not 480i or 480p.
This year's models are supposed to upconvert 480i and 480p sources to 540p, which will then play in the 16:9 mode (this still has to be confirmed though).
David

 

[steve jaros]

David - thanks a ton for that info. I was getting close to deciding to get that model, but if it doesn't unsqueeze DVDs, forget it.

 

[David Head]

You're welcome Steve.
OneCall currently has a good deal on the Sony 53HS10 for $1999 (there's only 2 left). It will do the squeeze for DVDs. OneCall is an Authorized Sony dealer too.
David

 

[John Morris]

The other option in a 4:3 set that does vertical compression is the Philips 60PP9601. During July, the PhilipsEmployeeStore had this TV on sale for only $2299, delivered!!! Maybe, it will go back on down before the end of the summer.
------------------
Take Care,
merc
----------------
DFAST, 5C, DVI, HDCP, SafeAudio, Macrovision and Lewinski!!!

 

[Tam Jen Yee]

"The "16:9 mode with vertical compression" on the 2001 models only works with a 1080i source (HDTV) not 480i or 480p.
This year's models are supposed to upconvert 480i and 480p sources to 540p, which will then play in the 16:9 mode (this still has to be confirmed though)."
Sorry for bring ignorant, what is 1080i & 480i??

 

[David Head]

Those numbers are scan rates. The 1080i is one of two scan rates used for HDTV (the other is 720p). The "i" stands for interlaced and the "p" stands for progressive. 480i and 480p are the scan rates used by DVD players. Here is a good resource to learn more. If you click on the link called "HDTV (High Definition) For You And Me" it will explain the various scan rates.
David
[Edited last by David Head on August 15, 2001 at 06:01 AM]

 

[Andrew W]

Do you like rotary phones?
Do you use a fountain pen?
Do you crank your car to start it in the morning?
If you enjoy antiques, then a 4:3 set is certainly for you.
I personally prefer to leave this 50+ year old standard behind.
After all, this is home the Home Theatre Forum, not the Home "Broadcast TV" Forum.
It appeals to my sense of asthetics that widescreen movies play bigger than academy format and TV.
I do understand the price of widescreen vs. antique TVs, (last years cars are cheaper too) but that was not enough of a factor to compel me to go with the antique.
------------------
Andrew in Austin
------------------
Sony DVP-S530D DVD Player
Sony STR-DA333ES A/V Receiver
Sony KP-57XBR10W Rear Projection TV (16:9)
Infintiy SM 120 (L & R)
Infinity SM Video (center)
Infinity SM 165 (surround)
Infinity BU-120 (subwoofer)

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

To answer the initial post without referring to another web page, a 4:3 TV simulates a 16:9 TV with 91.8% of its diagonal width. In other words, a 36" 4:3 TV squeezes to a 33" 16:9 TV. A 53" 4:3 TV would squeezes to a 49" 16:9, etc.
Similarly, a 16:9 set simulates a 4:3 set with 81.7% of its diagonal width.
Of course, this is just screen size, and doesn't take into account other stuff like image density yada yada yada, but that was not the question. You can use 90% & 80% as rules of thumb when you are away from a calculator/computer.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[MarcS]

Steve--if your email address didn't bounce back as invalid, you would have received from me a very nice (if I do say so myself) power point file that shows various size 4:3 and 16:9 screen sizes overlayed on each other for comparison...
I can send the file to anyone if interested, or if someone has a web page, they could post it and put a link in a followup to this thread...

 

[steve jaros]

Sorry about the e-mail, MarcS. I've fixed that problem, so if you wanted to send me the file again, i'd appreciate it.