Widescreen worth it?? (1 Viewer)

[Mark_vK]

Hey,

I currently have a 34" 4:3 in my bedroom and was thinking of upgrading to a 32" widescreen and was wondering, is it worth it??

Thanks

 

[Dustin Harrison]

Yes, if you watch a lot of movies. Wide screen is the only way to watch a movie.

 

[Rick_Brown]

But I don't know if I'd recommend going from a 34" 4:3 to a 32" widesceen. Your effective picture size may be smaller than before. Now if you meant to say a 42"...great!

 

[Mark_vK]

it is a 32". hearing that, i might go bigger..

thanks

 

[DouglasBr]

Yes, if they're widescreen movies.

But really, the shape of the TV doesn't matter so much as the ability to do the 16x9 anamorphic squeeze, which many 4:3 TVs do (even some non-HD sets, I guess). The new predominance of 16x9-shaped sets is more about marketing than the ability to properly display the pictures we throw at the TV.

So it's more a matter of "Do you mind seeing larger black bars at the top and bottom of the screen?" when making the choice between the two types.

(Of course, it should be HD either way; not much point -- except to save money -- to buy something today that isn't.)

 

[Rajeev_s]

16x9 is the format for HD broadcast and thats why HDTVs are 16x9 and not for any particular aspect ratio of a movie on DVD.
Movies comes with different flavors of aspect ratio because of directors choice. So viewers have no choice but to watch what was intended.
I would definitely not think that 16x9 is a marketing scheme.

 

[Bob Lvl]

16:9 is the ONLY way to watch sports ... whether it is baseball, football or hockey. And for movies it's a no brainer ... in fact all movies should be watched in their OAR ... that is how the director set up all his or her scenes.

I would NEVER even consider buying another 4:3 TV ... after watching 16:9 for 3 years, 4:3 looks really ugly! If there is a program on in 4:3 NTSC that I don't want to miss, I use the stretching capabilities of my Bell ExpressVu receiver to watch it 16:9.

I asked one local high volume dealer recently about 4:3 vs 16:9 display sales ... he said that widescreen sales were way ahead of the 4:3 sales.

 

[DouglasBr]

First, please understand I'm not talking about "watching widescreen vs. pan-n-scan or fullscreen movies"; I'm talking about the TV sets on which widescreen or 4:3 programming are displayed.

Also, stretching 4:3 material to fit a 16x9 TV set seems contrary to the spirit of OAR (as does stretching or cropping 16x9 material to fit a 4:3 TV set).



Okay, mea culpa for the unsupported assertion. My point was that, we who have insisted on OAR for years preached that people should watch their programming, not their televisions (ie. don't worry about the black bars). As long as 4:3 HD sets do the proper anamorphic squeeze (yielding a higher resolution picture on 16x9 material), it doesn't matter what aspect ratio the TV set has.

Of course, if the bulk of your programming is 16x9 (you don't watch many older movies or TV), a similarly-styled TV set makes sense (plus there's the coolness factor). But if you're tastes run 50-50 or so, and you don't CARE that future broadcasting is 16x9, a big ol' inexpensive 4:3 HD set (like the 60" Philips at Costco) makes a lot of sense to me.

Actually, a front projector seems to make more sense than anything, which is where my research is tending at this point. Now, should I go 4:3 or 16x9? . . . .

 

[Bob Lvl]

My feelings are that with the exception of some inexpensive TV's sold at places like Costco, all televisions will be 16:9 in a couple of years. Tubes are being phased out by many of the big companies. LCDs, Plasmas, LCos, DLP's, and any other technologies will all be 16:9.

In few years nearly all those old programs recorded on film will be broadcast HDTV 16:9.

I don't know why you would want a 4:3 projection system. All the 4:3 chips are being phased out .. the new chips are all 16:9.

16:9 is were all the latest technological developments into display systems is going. There isn't going to be any money spent on 4:3 systems. So if you want the best quality picture you will want to go 16:9 whether you like that aspect ratio or not.

That is just my feelings.

 

[ChuckSolo]

My take on this is that 16x9 just gives you a more "theater like" movie experience. As for using stretch mode on the TV while watching 4:3 material, tv shows, etc., I use the stretch mode on my 40" widescreen Panasonic HDRPTV because I don't want to even get near a burn in scenario even though my contrast and brightness settings are all pretty low. The investment for a nice TV predicates that you do everything you can to avoid issues like burn in.

 

[Eric Hahn]

we really need to know what programing you watch, it it is 4:3, sd, then I would stay 4:3, I really do not like any 4:3 stretched to 16:9 on my 48 inch mits, if I could return it now, I would go either 4:3 60" really would give me the same 16:9 as I have now) and not have to stretch most of the programming,

or my first choice leave the 34, and get a cheap fp, and go as big as your wall will let you.

no one can argue that 16:9 is the future it just depends on how fast the future gets to your neck of the woods, in my case I only get the basic's in hd via ota, so I must stretch all sd for the ocassional good hd show. :frowning:

but dvd's and hd 16:9 ...is definatly the way to go..

just my .02

 

[oryan_dunn]

I work at walmart and even there, we have several HD sets, of which all the big screens and one of the tubes is widescreen. The widescreen HDs sell better than the 4:3 HDs but nowhere near as good as the old analog sets. Basically because most walmart shoppers are concerned with value instead of anything else. So as walmarts carry widescreen and the price drops, i don't see 4:3 sticking around for any length of time.

 

[Darren H]

My new home has built-in bookshelves in the family room, and cut into the shelves is a space designed for an RPTV. I've decided to fill it with a 4:3 HD with anamorphic squeeze capabilities. Because I'm limited to a set that is 48" wide, and because I plan to watch a high percentage of broadcast TV and older films, there is no reason for me to buy a 16:9 set. Now, every film or TV show I watch, regardless of OAR, will be approximately 48" wide.

And I agree with DouglasBr. Arguing for OAR and using the stretch feature on your TV seems a contradiction to me.

 

[JasonMA]

Another thing to consider when upgrading to a 16:9 from 4:3 is the size of the image you'll get for each type of programming. It would hardly be worth upgrading to the 32" 16:9 from the 34" 4:3 in my opinion, especially if the 4:3 does the anamorphic squeeze, and here's the numbers to back it up.

On the 32" 16:9 set, 4:3 images, when not stretched, will be the same size as if viewed on a 26.1" 4:3 set. 16:9 images will be 32" (duh!)

On the 34" 4:3 set, 16:9 images will be the same as if viewed on a 31.2" 16:9 set. 4:3 images will be 34" (duh again!)

So let's see, by "upgrading" to the 32" 16:9, you get a full 0.8" more on 16:9 material, and 7.9" less on the 4:3 material. Not really an upgrade when you think about it.

In order to get a 34" 4:3 image on a 16:9 set, you'll need to get one that is 41.6"

There's an awesome website that compares aspect ratios at this link: Link Removed

 

[Darren H]

That's a helpful link, Jason. It looks like I could fill that 48" space in my bookshelves with a 48" 16:9 or a 53" 4:3. Check out the comparison on 4:3 NTSC material:

16:9 TV:
Your viewing area is 31.4 in(w) x 23.5 in(h)
Total viewing area is 737.9 sq in.
This is the equivalent of a 39.2 inch 4:3 TV

4:3 TV:
Your viewing area is 42.4 in(w) x 31.8 in(h)
Total viewing area is 1348.32 sq in.
82.7% larger

 

[nolesrule]

Make sure you take into account the additional width of the TV cabinet.

Larger 4x3 isn't always better. Nearly all 16x9 material will look great larger, but the same can't be said about 4x3 material, more specifically, regular television programming.