Advantage of 4:3 hdtv over old 4:3

What do the new 4:3 hdtvs do to shrink a widescreen image? Are there
benefits to getting this 4:3 hdtv over the standard sony wega (which
also recognizes and portrays the widescreen)?

The answer to this may appear obvious, but I would just like to hear
it explained in technical terms.

Thanks in advance.

Adam Smith

Adam Smith

Adam Smith wrote:
> What do the new 4:3 hdtvs do to shrink a widescreen image? Are there
> benefits to getting this 4:3 hdtv over the standard sony wega (which
> also recognizes and portrays the widescreen)?
>
> The answer to this may appear obvious, but I would just like to hear
> it explained in technical terms.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Adam Smith

If you're going to buy a TV, don't spend more then $300 (US) on an
analog tv. If you want an HDTV, don't buy a 4:3 one, you'll really
regret it later.

--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson

Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost

Grand Inquisitor

"Adam Smith" <> wrote in message
news: m...
: What do the new 4:3 hdtvs do to shrink a widescreen image? Are there
: benefits to getting this 4:3 hdtv over the standard sony wega (which
: also recognizes and portrays the widescreen)?
:
: The answer to this may appear obvious, but I would just like to hear
: it explained in technical terms.
:
: Thanks in advance.
:
: Adam Smith

=================
A 4:3 set is a serious compromise.
If you are getting a new HDTV set, you will be very disappointed with a 4:3 in a
short while.
ALL HD content is 16:9.
=====================

Richard C.

It may be purely subjective, but could you state some of the reasons
why 4:3 hdtv is inadequate?

Thanks.

Adam Smith

"Richard C." <post-> wrote in message news:<3fd8832e$0$7571$ m>...
> "Adam Smith" <> wrote in message
> news: m...
> : What do the new 4:3 hdtvs do to shrink a widescreen image? Are there
> : benefits to getting this 4:3 hdtv over the standard sony wega (which
> : also recognizes and portrays the widescreen)?
> :
> : The answer to this may appear obvious, but I would just like to hear
> : it explained in technical terms.
> :
> : Thanks in advance.
> :
> : Adam Smith
>
> =================
> A 4:3 set is a serious compromise.
> If you are getting a new HDTV set, you will be very disappointed with a 4:3 in a
> short while.
> ALL HD content is 16:9.
> =====================

Adam Smith

In article <>,
Adam Smith <> wrote:
>It may be purely subjective, but could you state some of the reasons
>why 4:3 hdtv is inadequate?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Adam Smith

You'll lose resolution on true-HDTV presentations (16x9), as the
4:3 TV will letterbox them, or do an anamorphic squeeze to a size
which likely exceeds the true capability of the set to resolve 1080i.

On the other hand, if all you're watching are 4:3 presentations, or
DVDs, you'll "lose" nothing, although with comparable upconversion
circuitry you'd be better off with a 16:9 for watching widescreen DVDs.

I don't think anyone is broadcasting 4:3 1080i, but I could be wrong.


--
Aaron Brezenski
Not speaking for my employer in any way.

Aaron Brezenski

>It may be purely subjective, but could you state some of the reasons
>why 4:3 hdtv is inadequate?
>

When HDTV ultimately replaces NTSC broadcasts, pretty much all HDTV broadcasts
will be done in 16:9. This means that, if you have a 4:3 set, you are going to
get black bars on the top and bottom parts of the screen with all broadcasts.
16:9 is wider than 4:3. - Reinhart

LASERandDVDfan

Adam Smith, says...
> It may be purely subjective, but could you state some of the reasons
> why 4:3 hdtv is inadequate?

It's quite simple. A 4:3 HDTV set does not display HDTV with the same
resolution and clarity as a true 16x9 HDTV set. So you are buying a
compromise - A compromise that works for the short term when the
majority of cable television is still 4:3. For the long term, however,
you will be unhappy as more and more shows swtich to 16:9.

The factors to consider when deciding are these:

1) Is the cost of the TV a big deal to you? If this is a major purchase
and you need it to last many years, then think long term. If a few
thousand bucks is no big deal and you figure you will probably replace
this in is few years, then the short-term compromise might be OK.

2) What do you watch most? If you mostly watch DVDs and major network
programming (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, WB), then the 16x9 TV is better for
you. If you mostly watch other cable channels, then the 4:3 might serve
you better.

3) Do you have HDTV easily available in your area? If the best you can
get is a few channels off DirectTV, then maybe the 16x9 is not so great
for you. If you can receive all your local networks HDTV broadcasts off
the air, or through cable, then get the 16x9 TV.

You have to weigh all these factors and decide for yourself.

Mark Spatny

In article <>,
LASERandDVDfan <> wrote:

> >It may be purely subjective, but could you state some of the reasons
> >why 4:3 hdtv is inadequate?
> >
>
> When HDTV ultimately replaces NTSC broadcasts, pretty much all HDTV broadcasts
> will be done in 16:9. This means that, if you have a 4:3 set, you are going
> to
> get black bars on the top and bottom parts of the screen with all broadcasts.
> 16:9 is wider than 4:3. - Reinhart

But you're going to have bars either way, if you enjoy old pre-HD
shows. Bars on the side, bars on the top... makes no difference to me,
to be honest.

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

Invid Fan

In article <brahct$vpi$>, Aaron Brezenski
<> wrote:

> In article <>,
> Adam Smith <> wrote:
> >It may be purely subjective, but could you state some of the reasons
> >why 4:3 hdtv is inadequate?
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Adam Smith
>
> You'll lose resolution on true-HDTV presentations (16x9), as the
> 4:3 TV will letterbox them, or do an anamorphic squeeze to a size
> which likely exceeds the true capability of the set to resolve 1080i.
>
Would it be possible to have a set with more scan lines? In other
words, a 16x9 image would take up all the width of the screen at full
resolution with black bars on the top and bottom, but 4:3 images would
take advantage of that extra room?

Actually, in a perfect world I could project an HD image on the wall
and make it any size I wanted to match the image ratio...

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

Invid Fan

In article <111220031705082011%>,
Invid Fan <> wrote:
>In article <brahct$vpi$>, Aaron Brezenski
><> wrote:
>
>> In article <>,
>> Adam Smith <> wrote:
>> >It may be purely subjective, but could you state some of the reasons
>> >why 4:3 hdtv is inadequate?
>> >
>> >Thanks.
>> >
>> >Adam Smith
>>
>> You'll lose resolution on true-HDTV presentations (16x9), as the
>> 4:3 TV will letterbox them, or do an anamorphic squeeze to a size
>> which likely exceeds the true capability of the set to resolve 1080i.
>>
>Would it be possible to have a set with more scan lines? In other
>words, a 16x9 image would take up all the width of the screen at full
>resolution with black bars on the top and bottom, but 4:3 images would
>take advantage of that extra room?

Sure, it's possible. It's just not done: you buy a 4:3 monitor which
is advertised as 1080i, you're not getting one whose 16:9 section is 1080i
but with extra rez for 4:3, you're getting one whose total line count
is 1080i and less for 16:9. The CE companies aren't giving away free extra
rez to the 4:3 TV owner.

That said, you can buy computer monitors with 2048x15xx displays, and
these are invariably 4:3 in aspect ratio. Of course, they are 21", too.

>Actually, in a perfect world I could project an HD image on the wall
>and make it any size I wanted to match the image ratio...

I'm a big fan of a 16:9 native projector with a Panamorph lens, and then
an AR-scaling DVD HTPC running ZoomPlayer or TheaterTek, myself.

--
Aaron Brezenski
Not speaking for my employer in any way.

Aaron Brezenski