Lack of Anamorphic Squeeze stops my RPTV plan. (1 Viewer)

[Arthur S]

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

 

[Allan Jayne]

>>> 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

 

[Jan Strnad]

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

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Quote:

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

 

[Gil D]

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
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.

 

[Gil D]

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.

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

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

 

[Jan Strnad]

Based on available floor footprint, I had room for a 47" 16:9 set or a 53" (Sony) 4:3 set, and the price was the same. The 4:3 set displays a 48.6" 16:9 diagonal image when displaying anamorphic DVD and 1080i HDTV. In what way is 47" larger than 48.6"?

Who said anything about footprint? A front projector would blow ALL the RPTVs away if you compare on the basis of footprint! If you compare equal screen sizes, my comment stands.
Given screens of equal size, 4:3 material will be bigger on a 4:3 screen; 16:9 (or thereabouts) material will be bigger on a 16:9 screen. What's the controversy? It's just a fact.
Personally, I think that anyone who buys a new TV loves it, except when the set doesn't work. Does anybody ever buy one of each and send one back? Nope! If your preference is for 4:3, get a 4:3. Lots of good deals on them now.
All that gets to me is when someone makes a decision based strictly on percentage of use: "I watch more 4:3, therefore I should get a 4:3." As if watching Amazing Animal Attacks were the same experience as watching The Fifth Element, or as if Who's the Boss was filmed with the same cinematographic skill as Lord of the Rings. I spend about 88% of my time not watching my TV at all; maybe I shouldn't even own one!
I don't mean to raise anybody's hackles, here.
Jan

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

Given screens of equal size, 4:3 material will be bigger on a 4:3 screen; 16:9 (or thereabouts) material will be bigger on a 16:9 screen. What's the controversy? It's just a fact.

I think you misread his post. He said that for his available space, ie footprint, he could fit a 47" 16x9 screen or a 53" 4x3 screen. If you do the calculations, like Michael did, you will see that a 53" 4x3 screen gives you a bigger 16x9 screen than a true 47" dedicated widescreen tv. It is 48" vs. 47". So yes, the better deal to watch all material would be the 53" 4x3. But you still need to get a good 4x3 tv that does anamorphic squeeze.

 

[Carl Hood]

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 ..

 

[Jan Strnad]

I think you misread his post. He said that for his available space, ie footprint, he could fit a 47" 16x9 screen or a 53" 4x3 screen.

I don't believe I misread his post. He found two RPTVs with a footprint that would fit, and the 4:3 had a bigger screen than the 16:9, right?

There is no perfect correlation between footprint and screen size, or even footprint and "what will fit" in your particular room. Footprints vary widely from brand to brand; some RPTVs are a "pedestal" design that makes the top bigger than the footprint; sometimes people have height limits, in which case a 16:9 set might fit where a 4:3 won't because the 4:3 will be taller.

If a person's room lets him get a larger 4:3 set than a 16:9, that's something to consider. But it's not a rule of thumb that you can get a bigger 4:3 set into the same space as a 16:9. (With my room, for example, the opposite is true.)

So, I'm just talking about screens, and in this case it's pretty straightforward: 4:3 screens fit 4:3 material better, and 16:9 screens fit 16:9 material better.

Jan

 

[Alan Benson]

All that gets to me is when someone makes a decision based strictly on percentage of use: "I watch more 4:3, therefore I should get a 4:3." As if watching Amazing Animal Attacks were the same experience as watching The Fifth Element, or as if Who's the Boss was filmed with the same cinematographic skill as Lord of the Rings. I spend about 88% of my time not watching my TV at all; maybe I shouldn't even own one!
I don't mean to raise anybody's hackles, here.

Tough. Consider 'em raised.
You seem to assume that all 16:9 material is inherantly more important (for any viewer) than 4:3 material. I love movies and demand OAR, but there are a huge variety of TV series that I watch and respect deeply. Not to mention specials, documentaries and PBS video productions, the Broadway Theater Archive, etc...
Add to that the ever-increasing number of season boxsets I've been buying, and it looks to me like I'll still be viewing half 4:3 and half 16:9 my entire life--and that there will be little or no difference in the amount of respect each one deserves.
My (increasingly clear, but still not final) decision to go with a 4:3 HDTV is based on an insistance on OAR for all materials (stretch-modes are unnacceptable), burn-in issues, and the viewing area of the tube sizes available in the brands I like.

 

[Warner]

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. 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. 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.

 

[Jan Strnad]

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."
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

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Quote:

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.

 

[Alan Benson]

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.

Pretty much sums it up...

 

[Warner]

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.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Laserdisks are obsolete. Dump ‘em or replace ‘em.

To a true film enthusiast, that comment is juvenile flamebait and does not deserve a response.

 

[Warner]

Michael, I know your tv very well! The 53" Sony, right? "HiScan" model I assume. Seriously, I think it's a nice tv. 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! 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! 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?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

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.