Which is the best ratio in HDTV: 16:9 or 4:3 (1 Viewer)

[Gil D]

I just bought a 4:3 HD Ready Sony KP-53HS30 and I made a BIG mistake. Should have got the 61HS30
But seriously, the stretch modes on 16:9 TV's are too annoying especially when watching the ball game. I spend to much time watching the ball to have the play cut off the screen(zoomed), an unsymmetrical gridiron(stretched), and stats, tickers and heads chopped.
If your mainly going to watch widescreen DVD, Discovery HD, and HBO-HD at the present time, and don't plan on buying another TV for the next 10 years than 16:9 is for you. Otherwise, the 4:3 suits my needs in the very mixed aspect ratio environment that will exist for at least the next few years. Since my last analog RPTV lasted 4 years, in 3 years or so I'll re-evaluate and probably consider a more maturer and cost-effective DLP RPTV solution.
Burn-in is also still a risk on 16:9. Black bars still exist on letterbox films and grey bars for 4:3 are not foolproof.

 

[Reginald Trent]

I still contend a 4:3 is more flexible than a 16:9 display. Especially if the 4:3 can do the anamorphic squeeze. I also find it hypocritical when members profess and espouse stretching thus distorting 4:3 material to fill their 16:9 displays. These same people have conniptions when owners of 4:3 displays set their DVD players to 16:9 to get a fuller picture.

I also find it annoying when they talk as if non movie 4:3 material is not worthy of respecting the OAR. Therefore, it quite acceptable to stretch and distort that programming.

I believe you either respect OAR or you don't and if you're stretching 4:3 material to fill your 16:9 you're a hypocrite. If you choose to display/watch it on your monitor it should be displayed properly, irrespective of monitor type pure and simple.

 

[Gil D]

I believe you either respect OAR or you don't and if you're stretching 4:3 material to fill your 16:9 you're a hypocrite.

Reg,
Most are stretching to protect their investment since they are still viewing a considerable amount of legacy TV

 

[Reginald Trent]

Quote:

Reg,
Most are stretching to protect their investment since they are still viewing a considerable amount of legacy TV
-----------------------------

Sorry but that's no excuse. Equipment failure due to proper use is simply part of the expense of having HT.

 

[Mike I]

I believe you either respect OAR or you don't and if you're stretching 4:3 material to fill your 16:9 you're a hypocrite

One could still argue that just about all programming produced in the last 2 to 3 years is shoot widescreen and framed for 4.3, so watching 4.3 is not exactly oar either

 

[Carl Johnson]

If respecting OAR for movies while not giving it much thought on television programs makes me a hypocrite then so be it. That's like trying to put Dom Perignon in the same category as Thunderbird wine because I drink them out of the same glass.

 

[Mike I]

So it includes both OTA and DBS feeds

Yes it includes OTA and dbs as well as cable....OTA broadcast tv is only capturing 20% of the viewing audiance so DBS and cable channels are an imprortant part of the picture...

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Does 460 hours a week include the fact that HDNet repeats stuff constantly, and DiscoveryHD is even worse?

I mean, come on, DiscoveryHD repeats a 3 hour loop ALL DAY long.
HD is a VERY small percentage of total material broadcast each week.
Even after ESPN lauches their HD channel, 95% of all ESPN programming will still be SD-only.

 

[Mike I]

Does 460 hours a week include the fact that HDNet repeats stuff constantly, and DiscoveryHD is even worse?

It must be tough going thru life with the always "the bottle is always half emty attitude" with obviously no buisness sense that production and equipment does not happen overnight
For the record both HD net and Discovery HD have a lot more content than a 3 hour loop playing over and over..

 

[elMalloc]

I think point is currently, many like myself don't see why someone would buy a 16x9 if they're gaming, watching standard 4x3 material, and DVDs. Stretching the 4x3 image, in games or cable tv can be a bad thing.

The point to make is:
When using a 4x3 hdtv, you can display a 4x3 image using the whole screen without changing ratio. You can also display a full 16x9 image without losing ratio, and have it display the exact same picture (IN THE DARK) as a 16x9 TV. The 16x9 tv set does the same, but opposite...the 4x3 image will be black barred and the 16x9 image will be full. It depends on the content you have. If, as I'm guessing many are, a person watches more 4x3 content than 16x9, they should go with a 4x3 hdtv right now. Why end up risking black bar burn in or watching stretched material when you could just watch it full screen and leave the 20% watching time dedicated to DVDs for the black bars?

-ELmO

 

[Michael St. Clair]

For the record both HD net and Discovery HD have a lot more content than a 3 hour loop playing over and over..

Discovery does repeat a 3-hour loop each day, for a total of 21 hours of Discovery HD programming a week.
HDNet probably shows about 30 to 40 hours of programming a week, and many shows (Bikini Destinations!) have probably been shown 200 times since the channel started.
I love HD. I've been watching HD at home for 2 years.
I'm also a realist. 460 hours of HD a week is seriously inflated.

 

[Jan Strnad]

Michael St. Clair,
I didn't mean to offend you with my "live in the past" phrase. What I meant was, to some HTFers the most important thing they watch is old (non-widescreen) films and TV episodes. A 4:3 set makes sense for them because, for example, the original "Star Trek" series is never going to suddenly go widescreen.
If a person's more concerned about where TV is going rather than where it's been or where it is right now, they're going to find more and more material in 16:9 and less and less in 4:3. If, as someone suggested, I get only 4 years out of my widescreen RPTV, I'm going to be pissed. Even if that's the case, I expect to find an ever-increasing quantity of material to enjoy on it during those four years.
Again, no offense was intended.
Reginald Trent: Then I guess I'm a hypocrite, 'cause I don't give a poo about the OAR of my local news or the Home Shopping Network.
Jan

 

[Mike I]

I love HD. I've been watching HD at home for 2 years.

I'm also a realist. 460 hours of HD a week is seriously inflated.

Than lets just agree we can disagree on the amount of available content and how well I think available HD content has increased in a short time...2 and a half years ago we were lucky to see 5 hours a week...Now just about every night there is a choice of at least a half dozen different broadcast at any one time.
Would I like to see more..Of course I would...But the equipment available for everything to be HD will not appear overnight..Networks will replace all there equipment over time for 24 hour HD..

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Than lets just agree we can disagree on the amount of available content and how well I think available HD content has increased in a short time...2 and a half years ago we were lucky to see 5 hours a week...

I agree, and this is cause for optimism. There are also various concerns, though. Not only is Fox broadcasting Medium-Definition TV, but my local CBS affiliate is broadcasting broadband internet to rural areas, and they reduce the HD bitrate because of it (and you can tell). Other stations around the country are also doing this, and a lot more are in the planning stages.

But I digress...as a whole, HD is improving substantially. I eagerly await ESPN HD, though since 90% of the baseball I watch is on Fox Sports Net Ohio, I know I'll be watching lots of SD Reds and Indians games for several more years...unfortunately.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Regardless of the amount available, there is now enough available that one has to decide which show to watch in HD and which to time shift.

And this will become an even bigger issue as more and more sports (see ABC/ESPN announcements) begin to be telecast in HD.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Michael St. Clair has hit on the most worrysome aspect of the whole HDTV rollout. Of course there will be more and more so-called HDTV over time. But in the short run an awful lot of it will be cropped and upconverted SDTV shows. In the intermediate term, the broadcasters are going to sell chunks of the HDTV bandwidth for other purposes and compress the heck out of the actual TV programming.

Since we consumers seem to consider overcompressed DirecTV and Dish Network programming worth spending real money for there's no reason to expect "free" broadcast TV to provide a higher-bandwidth signal once the initial deloyment period is completed. They'll bill it as "more content over the same bandwidth" but it will really translate into continued crappy pictures on our expensive, carefully-calibrated HDTV sets (whether 4:3 or 16:9).

I think the day when you can sit down and channel-surf among hundreds of hours a week of comedy, drama and sports programming in better-than-DVD-quality picture and sound are very, very far in the future. Certainly long after every TV discussed today on Home Theater Forum is worn out or obsolete. That's why I think it is false economy to buy a TV today based on programming that is not currently extant.

 

[Jan Strnad]

Hogan's Heroes, Mission Impossible, and other shows (with Cheers on the way) have been cropped to 16:9 for HD broadcast, and I'm sure Star Trek will also be cropped to 16:9 eventually. In fact, Cheers and Trek are both Paramount properties...the handwriting is on the wall.

Handwriting? Looks more like grafitti to me.

Cropping 4:3 shows for 16:9 is reprehensible. Much better, IMHO, to show the original OAR and let people stretch the picture if they want to fill their wide screens.

Jan

 

[Shana]

Wow, a heated discussion for sure. I did a search on this topic as I was unsure whether to go with widescreen or not but since almost all of my viewing is non-HD DirecTV and I sure do love those classic movies (beats the hell out of those Keanue Reeves and other "special" effects bullshit movies) I am glad I went with the old fashioned route

 

[David Von Pein]

I am glad I went with the old fashioned route.

You got that right, Shana. I agree.
I'd MUCH rather have a big-screen 4x3 set vs. the 16:9 variety.
As many people have no doubt said in this thread: 4x3 is the best of both worlds. Very Big 4x3 picture + A Big Widescreen pic too! (And no gray bars to contend with while watching 4x3 material.)
My set emits a 50" 4x3 image and still a healthy 44" picture on 2.35:1 material.
I'll bet that most avid DVD collectors (the ones who have upwards towards 1,000 DVDs) might not even realize how many 4x3 only titles they may possess.
Considering ALL TV collections on DVD are 4x3, plus the myriad of recently-released (+ not-so-recently) older films from the 1.37 Academy days, I think that the decision to get a 4x3 TV is very wise, even in this "Widescreen" age we've now entered. Perhaps I'm swimming upstream here, but that's the way it has to be.
Plus, there's also all the documentaries and TV Specials that are on DVD as well, all in 1.33:1 ratio.
My OOB (Out Of the Box) PQ was excellent, in my eyes.
And, since I've read where most TVs look their worst before the 100-hour "break-in" period is up, I think I'll be very pleased with the post-100-hour image for certain.
(Actual preferences may vary.)
(Size Enlarged To Show Texture. No, wait, that's on cereal boxes. )

 

[David Von Pein]

Shana: What 4x3 TV did you end up getting?