Lack of Anamorphic Squeeze stops my RPTV plan.

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Arthur S, Jul 29, 2002.

  1. Arthur S

    Arthur S Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 1999
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wanted the Hitachi 53UDX10b because it had the best picture quality on standard definition material of all 4:3 sets. I want a 4:3 set because 75% of what I watch is 4:3. Then I stumble across the anamorphic squeeze. I never really understood it till now and it seems foolish to buy a 4:3 that cannot do the squeeze.

    I guess most of you would say "skip the 4:3 and get a 16:9". But with most of what I watch being in 4:3 it seems you get the best of both worlds with a 4:3 that can do the squeeze.

    Sony makes 4:3 RPTVs that squeeze and probably so do other companies.

    I hate this kind of dilemma.

    Artie
     
  2. Allan Jayne

    Allan Jayne Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 1998
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    >>> I hate that kind of dilemma...
    The decision is easy, if the set lacks a feature you want, don't consider it any more regardless of other features or price.
    Another common problem, only one regular video in jack and only one S-video jack and one has to be unplugged completely for the other to be used. That means only one thing besides the antenna can be plugged in. Don't buy such a set.
    Video hints:
    http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/video.htm
     
  3. Jan Strnad

    Jan Strnad Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1999
    Messages:
    1,004
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Once again with feeling: It isn't what you watch the most that counts, it's what you watch and care about the most.
    A 16:9 set will give you a bigger picture on movies, and you'd be surprised at how unobjectionable certain stretch modes are when 4:3 material is made to fill the screen.
    If there are people out there who've moved from 4:3 to 16:9 and regret doing so, they are staying remarkably silent on these message boards.
    That said, I agree wholeheartedly with Allan Jayne that the inputs on the set in question seem pathetic.
    Jan
     
  4. Michael St. Clair

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    6,001
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have seen two or three. And for every person who buys a 4:3 HD set (haven't heard much from them either) and regrets it, there are likely hundreds that are happy.
    Are you sure that Hitachi doesn't squeeze? The Aspect 5 mode sure sounds like it. http://www.hitachi.com/tv/browse/pro...53udx10b.shtml
     
  5. Gil D

    Gil D Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 1999
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Michael,
    The 16:9 set does seem to have more appeal or impact at least to me on widescreen material even though the display area is the same (or even a little larger) on the 4:3 set. There is something more visually appealing with viewing the 16:9 display area within the outline of a 16:9 rectangle than a 4:3 rectangle- golden triangle at work here or whatever [​IMG]
    I took a look at similar sized Sony 4:3 and 16:9 XBR direct view sets side by side displaying the same dvd and the 16:9 set was much more pleasing to view.
    I guess viewing in the dark or masking of some kind as one does with a front projection screen would alleviate this phenomenon.
    The stretch modes on these wide sets are another issue to be dealt with as I'm not all that thrilled with them either.
     
  6. Gil D

    Gil D Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 1999
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Artie,
    You also may want to consider the new 53UDX20 if your interested in the Hitachi 4:3.

    I'm debating between Sony 53HS30 which I know does the squeeze, and is decent on ntsc, or one of the widescreen sets: Sony 57HW40, new 57WV600 or 57WS500(Sept release) or Hitachi 57SWX20.

    Also note that the Hitachi tuner is very slow at changing channels.
     
  7. Jason Harbaugh

    Jason Harbaugh Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I also am looking for an HD 4x3 set that is in the ~50" crowd. I use a front projector for movies so that is where my 'quality' dvd viewing is done. I do want the set to do anamorphic squeeze on a 480p signal. I looked at the panni 51hx41 I think it was. Great looking set but from what I've found is that it only does anamorphic squeeze on a 1080i signal. How stupid is that?

    I gave up on ALL Hitachi sets because they take from 2.5 all the way to 5 seconds just to change channels. That is a huge inconvience (especially with over a hundred channels) and a deal breaker. RCA's are in my price range but poor build quality and too many returns. Sony's look pretty good but their price is jacked up higher.

    I almost went with a 47" 16x9 set but now I'm glad I didn't just because I do want to watch more 4x3 material on it and stretching does bother me on certain material.

    So where is that perfect tv:
    3:2 pulldown
    anamorphic squeeze on 480p
    at least 2 component inputs
    doesn't make basic cable look even worse
    4x3 ~50" range
    good company
    not hot in the center
     
  8. Jan Strnad

    Jan Strnad Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1999
    Messages:
    1,004
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  9. Jason Harbaugh

    Jason Harbaugh Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  10. Carl Hood

    Carl Hood Extra

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2002
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the point has been missed here in some instances. Anamorphic squeeze is all about picture quality. Has nothing to do with size. A non-anamorphic 1:85:1 dvd will occupy the same real estate on a 4:3 TV as it's anamorphic equivalent, but the quality of of the latter will be so much better. All that happens is that 525 scan lines (NTSC) of a normal 4:3 TV will be squished down to fit a 16:9 retangle. (Some of you will remember the vertical height control usually located at the back of old TVs - same principle!)
    You might like to think of a wodescreen TV as being a 4:3 TV anamorphically decompressed horizontally or vertically (depending on whether your perception of size really means height or width).
    If you want the the best quality an anamorphic DVD can deliver, and can live with black bars, then go for a 4:3 TV with anamorphic squeeze ..
     
  11. Jan Strnad

    Jan Strnad Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1999
    Messages:
    1,004
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  12. Alan Benson

    Alan Benson Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  13. Warner

    Warner Agent

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you do go 4:3, anamorphic squeeze is a must IMO. But what's this about footprint? It's not a problem if you design the whole room around the tv.[​IMG] That's the only way to go! It's almost a must if you also want your 5+ speakers and sub positioned properly. Plan the layout of your tv, couch, and speakers first. Everything else is secondary. [​IMG] If the room is wide enough for a typical 7 or 8 foot couch, it should also have room for a 4 or 5 foot wide tv. A few inches makes a difference? Geez, get rid of that wall unit or bookshelf or whatever else is interfering with your choice of tv.
     
  14. Jan Strnad

    Jan Strnad Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1999
    Messages:
    1,004
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Alan,
    You're right, I do tend to generalize based on my own viewing habits. Generally, when it comes to cinematography, I think that a lot more time and effort and talent goes into it for a feature film than for an episode of a TV show; but shows like 24 and some of the BBCA serials definitely make me back pedal, especially when compared with my own favorite genre, 1950s s-f, where "cinematography" pretty much means "sober up the camera guy." [​IMG]
    Still, the general point pertains: Give preference to the material you care most about. If it's 4:3, it's 4:3. If it's 16:9, it's 16:9.
    BTW, sounds like you're headed for a DLP projector. No burn-in.
    Cheers,
    Jan
     
  15. Michael St. Clair

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    6,001
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, except most 16:9 sets have crappy internal scaling when coming to dealing with 4:3 fullscreen images and fullscreen letterboxed images. So, you end up with 4:3 HD sets that make 4:3 look good and 16:9 look awesome (but slightly smaller), and 16:9 HD sets that make 16:9 look awesome and 4:3 look like shit. I don't mind terribly 4:3 being smaller, I do mind 4:3 material looking like shit. Then, to add insult to injury, most 16:9 HD sets make letterboxed NTSC material (like laserdisc) look worse than shit. It looks like whatever shit would call it's own excrement. Shit to the second degree. Yet all this material looks great on a 4:3 HD set. It's not about the size, it's about all material looking as good as possible.
     
  16. Alan Benson

    Alan Benson Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  17. Warner

    Warner Agent

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    4:3 material does not look like shit on a widescreen. It can look as good or better than as if displayed on a 4:3. Quality is more important than size. So, a 53" 4:3 set displays 16:9 material of about the same size and quality as a 48" widescreen, only with bars above and below the image. Fine. My 51" widescreen displays 4:3 material of about the same size and quality as a 43" 4:3 set, just with bars on the sides. I have no doubt that from an equal distance my 43" image looks better than your 53" image. Our source material has the same resolution, but your 4:3 set blows it up to a larger size, reducing image quality. In addition, my 4:3 image is centered on my 16:9 screen, this is the area of any RPTV that has the sharpest focus. Your 4:3 set displays less focus on the sides and corners of your 4:3 image. I firmly believe that if one is truly concerned about quality and not size, the best choice is a set that displays higher quality source material in a larger size, and lower quality source material in a smaller size, and this would be a widescreen.
    Laserdisks are obsolete. Dump ‘em or replace ‘em. The future is widescreen HD and DVD material.[​IMG]
     
  18. Michael St. Clair

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    6,001
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  19. Warner

    Warner Agent

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Michael, I know your tv very well! [​IMG] The 53" Sony, right? "HiScan" model I assume. Seriously, I think it's a nice tv.[​IMG] I almost bought one myself, but decided on the 51" Sony widescreen instead. For me it was the right decision. Our tvs are very similar on the inside. However, mine displays a larger 16:9 image than yours, and yours displays a larger 4:3 image than mine. We're even! [​IMG] I too looked at the Pioneers, but noticed that they had more ringing than any other display device ever made. Did you not notice that? I've seen your tv and my tv side by side, with the user controls for both adjusted by myself. From the same distance my 16:9 set displays a significantly sharper 43" 4:3 image than the 53" image on your set. But hey, no problem! [​IMG] I realize that some people prefer 4:3 material and would want to see it as large as possible.
    No flamebait intended, wouldn't any film enthusiast want the highest quality copy of a movie? Many movie fans are replacing their obsolete VHS and laserdisk titles with DVD copies, myself included. Don't you notice the quality improvement with DVD?
     
  20. Michael St. Clair

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    6,001
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've looked at the sets side by side and found the 4:3 picture quality inferior on the 16:9 set (but not on the Pioneer!). Better than on the Toshiba and the Mitsubishi, though. Perhaps our subjective judgement is different, or perhaps something was wrong (electrostatic focus or who knows what) on one or more set.

    As far as the Pioneer goes I am extra sensitive to ringing and have my SVM disabled, sharpness all the way down, and edge-enhanced titles like SW:TPM drive me up the wall. The Pioneer I saw must have been fixed, adjusted, or something, because it did not have any ringing.

    As far as laserdisc goes, of course I upgrade to good DVD titles when available. But some of us have dozens to hundreds of titles that are not on DVD (pre-1950 Warner titles, Criterion titles, titles that have only been released censored on DVD, titles tied up in legal limbo or disagreeing collaborators, music concert titles and so on). To tell us we need to throw out our LD players and discs and get with the program is offensive! The content is more important than the format.

    Not all of us have the same needs. There is no 'one size fits all' solution.
     

Share This Page