"But I don't care about a 57" 4:3 screen to watch sub-standard cable TV, I want a bigger screen to watch HD and DVD. Can you see why I would buy a 16:9 instead of 4:3? " Right in your case.
Also I'm right in my case. My 4:3 sources are mainly Laserdisc and DVD, heck, I don't even have an NTSC tuner hooked up anymore period. And I came from a 48" 4:3 set, so when I was going to upgrade, I certainly wasn't going to gain virtually nothing on my 4:3 screen size. There is also, the fact that everybody I know that has a 16:9 display, really isn't happy with laserdisc pertformance on them period as LD players have no concept of a 16:9 display. 90% or more of my 500+ Laserdiscs look really awesome at 60" on my display. This certainly adds to my satisfaction on what I bought and why I bought it as well.
All my widescreen DVD's and HD look fabulous on the native widescreen mode as well. with thew display.
Different priorities for each person. After this set, I'm sure I will go front projection, but it is not time for that yet for me, and will still be many many moons away.
I just hope you can see the rational for 4:3 for some people.
PS: I'm also a big old movie buff, much of the B&W stuff I like is 4:3 OAR, and so far all the B&W movies even VCR stuff looks really really good at 60".....
My first reply was to explain that it differs with your viewing habits and preferences. It spiraled down from the fact that I tried to justify my choice. I always realized mine was not the optimum for all.
However, there is a difference in watching a movie with bars on the top and bottom, versus a TV show with bars on the sides. I just think a big screen 4:3 gave you the best of both worlds, something a 16:9 has yet to show me (again excluding the technological differences). Like Scott HH calculated, a 60" 4:3 looses 5" in widescreen mode while a 60" 16:9 losses 11" in 4:3 mode (assuming no stretching of source material is occurring). Since the vast majority of TV signals are in 4:3 a 60" would be large enough for the DVD and also for the TV without having to suffer through an unusual display (if stretched to fill the 16:9 screen, or matte bars on the sides). I think this whole "substandard" cable line I keep reading about is over rated. Agreed, HD is higher quality then standard cable, but its TV shows we're talking about here. Do that many people have that crappy of reception? I'm all for counting the wrinkles on Harrison Ford's face while watching Indiana Jones on DVD...not so much when watching Law and Order. When this HD technology appears for DVD's to use, then I'm all over it. Just don't make me get a TV with a display ratio not used by a majority of Hollywood (either in TV or in the movies) in order to have access to the newest technology. That's my point. TV manufacturers have reduced the product choices for the consumer who isn't mesmerized by HD cable, forcing them to spend more $ then they want to (or is justifiable) in order to have access to the newest technology. Of course some of the points I made are premature since the HD-DVD standard has yet to be announced and we could find that you will be able to watch a HD-DVD without a HDCP-DVI/HDMI connection and everyone will rejoice, hold hands and sing hyms of praise to having a choice.
Sorry, but that is like saying you can't buy a digitally tuned, cable ready, 60" black and white TV. 4:3 TV's are not the standard anymore. You can accept it or you can whine, your choice. Besides, there are a few big screen 4:3's still for sale, exactly what "technological" differences are you missing?
I'm currently looking into buying a 4:3 set, probably the sony trinitron 36" analog. I just watch cable tv and my current dvd's. When all tv channels and HD-DVD comes out then i will buy a HDTV.