Wal-Mart to sell HDTVs: let the hypocrisy begin! (1 Viewer)

[Bob Black]

Where are all the pro-4:3 aspect ratio comments coming from? Is it the fact that "Wal-Mart" is in the thread headline?

Anyway, what you are all ignoring is the fact that your DVD players SHOULD BE more important than television programming. After all, this is the HOME THEATER forum, isn't it? For most people on this forum, their HD set is their home theater set-up. Just because there is currently little 16x9 television programming, aren't your DVD players better enriched with a widescreen monitor than a 4:3 display? Do you prefer watching movies with black bars and smaller pictures. Or worse, are these the same people who actually PREFER pan & scan? (If that's the case, I won't waste my time debating the benefits of a widescreen display because there's no hope for people of pan & scan mentality).

 

[Michael St. Clair]

If that's the case, I won't waste my time debating the benefits of a widescreen display because there's no hope for people of pan & scan mentality

Maybe some of us shouldn't waste our times debating the benefit of choice for somebody who thinks the entire world needs to think exactly like they do. And frankly, is coming across as a little bit rude.
OAR isn't about widescreen. Being a movie fan isn't about widescreen. It's about respecting the original ratio on whatever set you choose, for whatever reason. Far better to spend your energy supporting OAR than attacking the very existence of 4:3 HD sets.
It's just a screen, people. I'd buy a TV set that was ROUND if it would fit in my space and give a fantastic picture in all native ratios.

 

[Steve_Tk]

Well OK. I worked in an electronics store, I've been here for months. I knew all the benefits of both.

I bought a 4:3 Sony 40 inch XBR television.

Two reasons.

1) It has a larger WS image than the 34-inch WS Sony tube. And because I wanted a tube, not a RPTV, then this was the largest tube I could buy.

2) I don't have satellite. I have regular cable (which looks good on TV too, strange I know). So until HDTV comes out through regular cable then I will not have it.

If I were buying a TV only for watching movies, then of course I would have bought a WS TV. IF they (besides the two 38 inch ones) offered a WS tube TV that had a larger WS image than my 40 Inch, then I would have bought that. I bought my TV based on what I am going to use my TV for, for right now, not what may happen in a few years. When that time comes I can buy another TV. TV's to me are not something I buy once every 15 years.

So I think it was perfectly clear why I bought Sony’s 4:3 over their 16:9 (because the 4:3 image and the 16:9 are larger on my TV).

I understand that it's silly for Wal-Mart to sell them without educating the general public about HDTV, but no need for me to get all worked up on something I have no control of.

 

[Greg_M]

Wal-Mart customers can afford HDTV's?

 

[Bob Black]

I am not degrading 4:3 Hi-Definition televisions because I prefer widescreen sets - I am simply stating that the STANDARD for HD programming is 16x9! Period! I didn't set the standard, it was determined by the FCC several years ago.

I'm simply saying that it doesn't make any sense to invest in an HD display that isn't in the HD aspect ratio standard. Just because re-runs of "All In The Family" and pre-1950's films are in the 4:3 aspect ratio doesn't change these facts! That's like waiting for the dawn of DVD to finally invest in a laserdisc player (and I'm not razzing LD - I still have a player myself)

If you are filthy rich and can afford to buy HD equipment every year, then more power to you. Buy a square set now and buy another one in a couple of years. However, I hardly think millionaires are shopping at Wal-Mart.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Quote:

Why buy another one just because TV standards shift? If you only have the footprint space for a 47" 16:9 set or a 53" 4:3 set, that 53" 4:3 set will display an equal or better 16:9 image than the 47" set for many, many years to come. The 47" 16:9 set is simply a 52" 4:3 HD set that has been permanently shortened, not made wider. Some of us are looking at the picture, not the black bars.

 

[TedD]

If Wal-Mart sells a 4x3 set and calls it a HDTV, then they are breaking the truth in advertising laws. If they call it a DTV without the H, then they are complying with the truth in advertising laws.

Those 8 4x3 modes are NOT HDTV modes, they are DTV modes.

The CEA had a big discussion about this a couple of years ago and published rules for the vendors concerning what could be considered a true HDTV and be advertised as such. 4x3 sets do not qualify as HDTV's.

Ted

 

[Bob Black]

Michael,
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you - I was simply stating my opinion of 4:3 HD televisions.
4:3 programming just is not that important to me. I think television program quality peaked with "All In The Family" and has gone downhill from there. In fact, the only TV that I watch are Boston Celtics' games because I am a die-hard fan of the team and have been for years. And sports programming is usually framed for 16x9 displays now, so there is no problem with that.
You are obviously as passionate about television programming as I am about motion pictures, and I respect that even though I do not share your enthusiasm. Barring a handful of entertaining programs, I think television is at an all-time low! I have a satellite dish with over a hundred channels, and it is usually 100 channels of shit!
If you are happy with a 4:3 HD set then I applaud your purchase. For me, there was no question as to which aspect ratio I wanted for my HD television - it was the 16x9 ratio which was chosen as the standard. My main theater is my CRT projector room anyway. There's no better way to duplicate the movie experience in the home. In fact, I have adjustable screens to accomodate ANY aspect ratio including 4:3, so you would be proud So, you see, when I watch "Pinocchio" or "The Wizard Of Oz" I still watch them in OAR just like you. I just don't care if "Stephen King's It" is re-framed for 16x9 because the movie sucks anyway!

 

[Michael St. Clair]

The CEA had a big discussion about this a couple of years ago and published rules for the vendors concerning what could be considered a true HDTV and be advertised as such. 4x3 sets do not qualify as HDTV's.

Actually, the CEA definition says 'capable of displaying a 16:9 image'. It does not say 'has a 16:9 screen'.

Current 4:3 HDTVs are definitely HDTVs based on the CEA's definition.

 

[JohnTKline]

If you would just by a widescreen hdtv set and watch all your lovely 4:3 material in stretch mode, then 100% of your viewing will be....widescreen, might not be hd, but hey it's crappy to begin with, seriously.
And for the video gamers out there, widescreen games are everywhere for x-box, ps2, etc.

John

 

[Jack Briggs]

Michael's got it right.

People, look at it this way: Wal-Mart's demographic is not the same as the one your friendly, local high-end home-theater and home-audio emporium caters to. People ain't rushin' there to check out the Sharp 9000 DLP front projector or to ask about good deals on Stewart Firehawk screens.

Its demographic is just now becoming aware that HDTV even exists. DVD is still new to them.

The store is selling to that crowd, not the HTF membership.

There's nothing hypocritical here. It's just marketing. And when Wal-Mart senses a greater interest in sets with a native 16:9 ratio, then the chainstore will begin stocking them.

Actually, this is a positive development. Why not look at this from a glass-half-full perspective?

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Actually, this is a positive development. Why not look at this from a glass-half-full perspective?

You took the words right out of my mouth, Jack!

 

[Michael St. Clair]

You are obviously as passionate about television programming as I am about motion pictures

Actually, that's not exactly the case.

My enthusiasm for television is limited to a few series: Star Trek, The Twilight Zone, The Prisoner, Twin Peaks, and a handful of others. There are some current shows I watch but do not care enough about to buy on DVD. TV shows in my DVD collection probably make up 5% of what I own, but I own several hundred (thousands? I don't keep a database) movies on DVD (and LD). And I spend most of my free time watching movies.

My point is simply that not everyone's priorities are exactly the same, and that choice is not a bad thing if it helps to get HDTV rolling and addresses different needs during the digital transition. 4:3 HD sets are not the enemy. Walmart selling HDTVs is not the enemy. And anybody who buys a set that is different than what you would buy is not necessarily stupid or mislead.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Here's another issue that some of you may not have thought of.

4:3 HD sets may increase OAR acceptance.

On typical 4:3 HD sets of the current generation, when you watch HD, it is presented 'letterboxed' with black or grey bars at the top and bottom. On most sets, there is no way to change this presentation.

As people with 4:3 HD sets start watching HD, they HAVE to get used to the black bars.

People with 16:9 HD sets can watch all television broadcasting with the screen filled, further confirming the 'everything should fill my screen' point of view that some of them have.

Think about it.

 

[Roberto Carlo]

After all, this is the HOME THEATER forum, isn't it?

By that logic, your next crusade should be to persuade Ron and company to remove all discussion of purely audio equipment such as SACD, CDs and especially turntables! My goodness man, they're not even digital!

 

[Jack Briggs]

Let's not get heated up over this, please.

 

[Brian]

Why is it okay to alter images in the name of "saving gear", when it is not okay to alter images in the name of making money (for the studios), or personal preference (J6P)

Do you always sit directly across from the center of the screen when you go to movies? If not, your view of the screen has been altered by your perspective, similar to the way stretching affects the image. I usually sit near the front of the theater, so the screen is actually a trapezoid from my perspective. Stretching an image does not add or remove content. It's just like viewing it from a different angle, which our brains easily compensate for.

-B

 

[Seth Paxton]

Michael

I think the CEA definition does dictate how many lines of resolution must make up that 16x9 displayed picture.

This is EXPLICITLY the reason at least one CE company (that I worked for) had to alter the description of 4x3 HDTVs to Enhanced DTVs instead.

HOWEVER, the same company (and many others) put squeeze modes into these new 4x3 HDTV sets in order to meet the resolution qualifications for the 16x9 display, which is how these sets ARE LABELED as HDTV sets. (this is why I side with you Michael)

Its really a solid solution. If you say 4x3 sets automatically aren't HDTV you are wrong. It's not debatable because its a fact.


And I've said a million times, TV screen shape NEVER, EVER will solve the LBX/MAR problem, simply because there is not a consistency in the OAR of the materials that will be watched on these screens. NO SCREEN AR is going to be "the" solution. I wish more people would come to grips with that.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Seth,
From the CEA's definition of HDTV:

- Capable of displaying a 16:9 image. Note: In specifications found on product literature and in owner's manuals, manufacturers are required to disclose the number of vertical scanning lines in the 16:9 viewable area, which must be 540p, 810i or higher to meet the definition of HDTV.

Note that not only do they say 'Capable of displaying a 16:9 image', they also mention 'the 16:9 viewable area'. Both are consistent with current generation 4:3 HDTVs with 16:9 squeeze mode.
One of the most impressive HD sets made was a big Zenith 4:3 set (around 64" I think) with 9" guns that resolved the full 1920x1080i in the 16:9 HD squeeze mode. If I had one of those and somebody with a 40" 16:9 set with 7" guns resolving around 900x1080i told me that my set wasn't the 'real' HDTV, I'd be awfully tempted to laugh in their face.

 

[Chris Duran]

My Wal-Mart and I think most Wal-Marts and Sams clubs around the country are finally getting on the HDTV market. My local Wal-Mart sells a Philips 4X3 and RCA 4X3 HDTV and a Philips 16X9 HDTV, they are all fed with a HDTV singal from Dishnetwork, showcasing the HDTV demo channel also HD HBO and HD Showtime, they want their customers to see the difference in HD, I think they are going in the right direction in showing the people the benifits of HDTV.