 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: 16:9 Mode in 4:3 TV posted by Nglazer on January 19, 2003 at 09:05:33:
I don't have much info on the 4:3 side, but I can comment on 16:9.There are usually two ways to view 4:3 material on a 16:9 screen:
(1) with black or grey bars to the left and right of a 4:3 image, or
(2) a stretched image. Some stretched images are more tolerable than others, and whether you'll like them is subjective. Any stretched image, however, distorts the original picture.If you mostly watch sports with occasional movies, it may not seem like a 16:9 set makes sense, but have you seen any sports in HD on a 16:9 set? If not, do yourself a favor and go see it before you make a purchase decision. IMO, HD sports are clearly superior.
You might also want to consider that 16:9 will be the standard format in the future. Whether you buy a 16:9 set now isn't a cut-and-dry decision, however. It depends on how much money you plan to spend as well as what you watch. There will be lots of 4:3 material for a long time to come, but sports, movies, network shows and DVDs are moving to or already in 16:9 format. If you spend big bucks on a set, obsolescence is a risk with 4:3.
I bought a 55" 16:9 RPTV about 18 months ago. At the same time, two friends bought 36" Sony Wega sets for about 30% less than my cost. One is still happy with his Wega. The other has been having buyers remorse for about the last year. I was a bit nervous about the aspect ratio, too. Turns out for my family, it was a needless worry. We're still very happy with the purchase decision.
Follow Ups:
This is recent technology and it seems comparitively expensive for the availability of High Definition content. This is true in Canada at least. Still worth the price though as it will continue to progress I'm sure.I've recently acquired a 32" Sony Trinitron WEGA which is HD ready. I'm extremely happy that I went this route vs. true 16:9 widescreen where regular content would be distorted at best. The only consideration is that I have to put up with the black bars on the top and bottom when watching true HD content. This seems like a resonalbe trade off since 99.9 of broadcasting is still in 4:3.
Sure, someday everything will be in 16:9 format. At that point widescreen will certainly be the way to go. However, I've been waiting for a paperless society for over 30 years now. I've yet to see a paperless bathroom.
Thanks, BQ. I lean to 16:9 but here is a logistics problem perhaps you can address.Right now I have a 32" old tech TV, which is the right size for my room. The largest widescreen my room can accommodate is 34", perhaps 36" if I push it.
I understand, however, that a 4:3 picture on a 16:9 widescreen set of those sizes will be more on the order of 24" - 27" diagonal if I don't stretch the picture. That is just too small. So what do I do?
Thanks.
Neal
As was written, all of the 16:9 screens have a stretch mode. They take the 5:4 picture and stretch it to the wide screen. Some are clearly better at doing that than are others. One of the best at it is Toshiba, and I suggest you look at a Toshiba set and decide for yourself. They must use a very fancy algorithm because I think they do an amazing job of it.Of course, if you are certain that you're not going to watch much wide-screen material, you've answered your own question.
However, as someone wrote, wide screen will more and more become the norm.
Mel
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
