And the 34" will have a smaller 16:9 picture than the 36" 4:3

Video Asylum

TVs, VCRs, DVD players, Home Theater systems and more.

In Reply to: "...But 16:9 TV's look much slicker, they don't cost THAT much more.." ... posted by Aroc on July 9, 2002 at 14:18:09:

That is a fair $$ difference, I wonder if the WS Toshiba doesn't have some more HD and other features? Many large-screen TV's are NOT HD capable (esp. 4:3), so watch that when comparing. Also, the price difference between direct-view 4:3 and 16:9 can be quite large, and I'm assuming that is what you were comparing. Different technology than RPTV, and harder to do in larger sizes. What I meant by slicker is it doesn't look so tall and dominating in the viewing room, you know, slimmed down a bit. As mentioned, I do not watch broadcast TV, and if I did I would certainly have a 4:3 TV for that (I do in the BR, 12 years old and lightly used). Viewing 4:3 pictures (from DVD) on the WS without distortion (or losing stuff) gives me a pretty small picture compared to the screen size, but I think all I have of those is The Simpsons, Fawlty Towers, and Black Adder. HBO TV looks GREAT on DVD's.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Signature Sound

[ Signature Sound Lounge ]

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - widescreen vs pan&scan - Joe Murphy Jr 06:58:32 07/08/02 (4)

Another useful link on WS vs. P&S... - Aroc 09:19:27 07/08/02 (3)

You are right about that - cfraser 20:34:32 07/08/02 (2)

"...But 16:9 TV's look much slicker, they don't cost THAT much more.." ... - Aroc 14:18:09 07/09/02 (1)

And the 34" will have a smaller 16:9 picture than the 36" 4:3 - cfraser 15:48:06 07/09/02 (0)

Follow Ups

And the 34" will have a smaller 16:9 picture than the 36" 4:3 - cfraser 15:48:06 07/09/02 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.