Suprised on the hard sell for 4:3 sets by tweeter (1 Viewer)

[Dan_R_M]

Went to tweeter to check out the sony 34" widescreen XBR800...and the guy was really selling me on the 40" xbr8-00 4:3 set. Saying that you would get a bigger 16:9 screen plus the 40" for 4:3 viewing...cost was about the same if you include the stand. Any opinions?

-Dan

 

[Trenton McNeil]

If the cost is about the same, you should decide if you watch 4:3 or 16:9 more often and make your decision accordingly. I think he was just pointing out that the 4:3 40" set has a widescreen viewing area similar to the 34" widescreen set. If the cost is the same, I would personally go with the larger 4:3 set since I watch 80% 4:3 material.

 

[Ken Custodio]

But you lose resolution when watching 16:9 material on a 4:3 tv.

 

[Steve Schaffer]

You don'l lose resolution watching 16/9 material on a 4/3 set if the 4/3 set has an anamorphic squeeze mode, which the 40" Sony does have. This mode "squeezes" the scanning lines vertically so they are all used only in the 16/9 area of the screen. No difference from a native 16/9 tv as no scanlines are wasted on black lines above and below the 16/9 image.

I would strongly recommend a widescreen rptv over a 4/3 model because the screen size for 4/3 stuff is still very large.

Since 34" is about as big as any reliable/halfway affordable 16/9 direct view set is gonna get, it does make sense to get that size image on a 40" 4/3 set and still have a 40" 4/3 image.

With the 34" 16/9 set, a 4/3 picture is gonna be about 29-32" or so.

With the 40" you'll get the biggest of both aspect ratios.

Of course, there is an undeniable coolness factor in just having a widescreen set sitting in your viewing room, even with it turned off, and I'd be the last to discount the importance of that coolness factor. It's a big reason why I have a 57" widescreen rptv instead of a 61" 4/3 hd ready set which would have been cheaper.