What is the Standard Aspect Ratio TV Screen Size for Various Widescreen TV Sizes (1 Viewer)

[JoeDoakes]

I am not sure how to ask this. I have a 35" tube tv. The largest tube tv was made by Sony at 40". Both had traditional television aspect ratios. Now, if I got a widescreen tv and I wished to watch old academy ratio movies or traditional aspect ratio tv shows in their original aspect ratio (so that the sides of the widescreen tv were dark), approximately what size widescreen tv would I need to be able to at least get what I have in interms of screen size? What size would I need to get the screen size of the 40" sony tube tv? What is the traditonial screen size offered by various common sizes of widescreen tv: 40"; 42"; 50", 55", or 60"?

 

[Steve Berger]

In other words, you are trying to match the screen height of older 4:3 sets in a 16:9 format. That is actually the correct way to compare old and new styles. You could measure some sample sets or do some calculations, but here are some examples. A 42 widescreen set is 20" high, which is the same as a 33" 4:3 TV. A 50 widescreen set is 24" high, which is the same as a 41" 4:3 TV. A 49 widescreen set would be about the equivalent of that 40" Sony Due to the increased number of vertical lines, you can go bigger for a given seating distance with the new type TVs also.

 

[Jason Charlton]

Pythagorean Theorem and geometry are your friends.


A traditional TV has an aspect ratio of 4:3 - that is 4 units wide, 3 units high. Using pythagorean theorem, that means the diagonal is 5 units long. We can simplify this to say that for a given diagonal measurement x, the height is (3/5)*x or x/1.67.


For your 35" 4:3 display, if the diagonal is 35", then 35/1.67 = 21" high.


Likewise, a widescreen display has an aspect ratio of 16:9 - 16 units wide, 9 units high. The numbers don't come out quite as nice and rounded here - the diagonal for these sets, works out to be 18.36 units long. Again, simplifying, we get for a given diagonal measurement x, the height is (9/18.36)*x or x/2.04.


For a 42" 16:9 display, the height works out to be: 42/2.04 = 21" high.

 

[David Weicker]

Pythagorean Theorem and geometry are your friends.


A traditional TV has an aspect ratio of 4:3 - that is 4 units wide, 3 units high. Using pythagorean theorem, that means the diagonal is 5 units long. We can simplify this to say that for a given diagonal measurement x, the height is (3/5)*x or x/1.67.


For your 35" 4:3 display, if the diagonal is 35", then 35/1.67 = 21" high.


Likewise, a widescreen display has an aspect ratio of 16:9 - 16 units wide, 9 units high. The numbers don't come out quite as nice and rounded here - the diagonal for these sets, works out to be 18.36 units long. Again, simplifying, we get for a given diagonal measurement x, the height is (9/18.36)*x or x/2.04.


For a 42" 16:9 display, the height works out to be: 42/2.04 = 21" high.

Actually, the first post was correct. Your geometry examples are a bit off. A 4x3 35" screen is 28 wide by 21 tall (28sq + 21sq = 35sq). A 4x3 40" screen is 32 wide by 24 tall. To get the equivalent 16x9 screen, take the height of the original 4x3 screen divide by 9 and them multiplied by 16. Take those two numbers and apply the pythagorean theorem. So, a 4x3 35" is a 16x9 42.8". A 4x3 40"is a 16x9 48.95" David

 

[Jason Charlton]

I'd hardly call rounding numbers an "error" in geometry


Yes, I rounded the result of 42/2.04 from 20.588235 to 21" for purposes of simplification. I don't know of any 42.8" 16:9 displays out there. 42" is a standard size television, and IMO is a fine equivalent to a 35" 4:3.

 

[JoeDoakes]

Great answers! I knew I came to the right place. BTW: How well do the following look on a widescreen tv: 1. An unpconverted standard definition dvd 2. a regular VHS tape 3. a VHS tape recorded at SP speed Does the size of the wide screen matter? All of these look pretty good on my 35" tube tv, but I'm no techie.

 

[Todd Erwin]

1. Not bad, depending on how good the DVD or (preferably) Blu-ray player upscales

2. Not great, but marginally watchable

3. Horrible

 

[Jason Charlton]

It's all a matter of resolution. According to wikipedia, the resolution of VHS tapes is roughly equivalent to 333x480 pixels. Whereas a modern HDTV has a resolution of 1920x1080.


All modern plasma and LCD displays are fixed pixel displays. They ONLY display their native resolution. They accept any number of input resolutions, but they are ALL scaled to the native resolution before being displayed.


Scaling a 333x480 pixel image to 1920x1080 is going to result in a very soft and artifact-filled image. There simply isn't enough resolution there. The larger you scale it, the worse it will look.


DVD on the other hand, has a resolution of 720x480 pixels. More than twice the horizontal resolution of VHS. It will look better, no doubt, but still soft compared to native HD material.


Actually, to amend what Todd wrote, "SP" is generally the highest-quality VHS recording (Standard Play). It was "SLP" that is the slowest speed that offered longer record times. It will look the worst of all the VHS options.

 

[Steve Berger]

Fixed pixel displays particularly don't like video tape signals. The head switching lines at the bottom and VITS, VIR, etc at the top drive the sync circuits nuts. If the tracking is off a little bit you will often see the screen blank out completely, making adjusting the tracking almost impossible.