Advantage of 4:3 hdtv over old 4:3

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Adam Smith, Dec 11, 2003.

  1. Adam Smith

    Adam Smith Guest

    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, Dec 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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, Dec 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Adam Smith

    Richard C. Guest

    "Adam Smith" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : 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., Dec 11, 2003
    #3
  4. Adam Smith

    Adam Smith Guest

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

    Thanks.

    Adam Smith

    "Richard C." <> wrote in message news:<3fd8832e$0$7571$>...
    > "Adam Smith" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > : 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, Dec 11, 2003
    #4
  5. 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, Dec 11, 2003
    #5
  6. >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, Dec 11, 2003
    #6
  7. Adam Smith

    Mark Spatny Guest

    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, Dec 11, 2003
    #7
  8. Adam Smith

    Invid Fan Guest

    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 shit. 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, Dec 11, 2003
    #8
  9. Adam Smith

    Invid Fan Guest

    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 shit. 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, Dec 11, 2003
    #9
  10. 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, Dec 11, 2003
    #10
  11. (Aaron Brezenski) wrote in
    news:brauuv$69r$:

    > 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.


    Hm. I may be misunderstanding monitor tech, but I didn't think you lost
    scan lines by squeezing the picture. I thought the effect was similar to
    adjusting the image height on a computer monitor; same number of scan lines
    by the electron guns, just aiming at a tighter vertical space on the crt
    face. I could see the dot pitch on the mask/grille affecting this, I
    guess, but it wouldn't be a steep loss, would it?

    Geo
    --
    George Mealer | geo*at*snarksoft*dot*com
    George Mealer, Dec 12, 2003
    #11
  12. Adam Smith

    Scot Gardner Guest

    "George Mealer" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns944EBC3AC8A19geosnarksoftcom@208.201.224.154...
    > (Aaron Brezenski) wrote in
    > news:brauuv$69r$:


    > 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.


    <<Hm. I may be misunderstanding monitor tech, but I didn't think you
    lost scan lines by squeezing the picture. I thought the effect was
    similar to adjusting the image height on a computer monitor; same number
    of scan lines by the electron guns, just aiming at a tighter vertical
    space on the crt face. I could see the dot pitch on the mask/grille
    affecting this, I guess, but it wouldn't be a steep loss, would it?
    Geo>>


    It appears to me that there is no loss of scan lines, but in 4:3 high
    definition sets, there could be too few pixels available to display all
    of the picture information in a compressed image. Here is a pixel
    (dot-pitch) related argument which I once made in regard to compressing
    anamorphic DVD images on standard CRT screens. The concept being
    presented here may not be fully applicable to standard CRTs, but it may
    be fully applicable to high definition sets.

    This argument assumes the following criteria is correct:

    Dot Pitch
    "The dot pitch of a monitor refers to the size of the pixels on the
    screen. The pixels are the tiny little dots of color used to make up the
    entire picture. The lower the dot pitch number the smaller the actual
    dots are. This also means there are more dots on the smaller dot pitch
    monitors. This affects the resolution of the image on the screen
    dramatically when you compare a .29 dot pitch monitor to one with a .22
    dot pitch on the same size screen. The .22 monitor will have more dots
    on the screen and a clearer picture."

    http://www.epinions.com/cmd-review-8CA-A5976C0-39455FB8-prod2

    As long as the dot pitch, or pixel size, is small enough to meet or
    exceed the resolution of the vertically compressed DVD source, there
    will be no problem. This "too few pixels" explanation may apply only to
    fixed-panel digital displays, such as DLP, LCD, or plasma. It may not
    fully apply to standard-resolution CRT sets. Many of these digital
    displays already have a fixed-panel resolution inherently higher than
    DVD, but these assumptions may not be applicable to high definition
    4:3 CRTs.

    By vertically-compressing an anamorphic image by 25%, geometric
    integrity is restored without taking any scan lines from the visible
    image. The resulting increase in resolution is usually said to be around
    33%. However, this claim may not always be correct.

    Because the compressed anamorphic image is being squeezed into a smaller
    slice of the 4:3 TV screen, the actual number of pixels used to display
    the visible image is decreased, resulting in the availability of fewer
    pixels to display the compressed image. Fewer pixels result in less
    resolution and therefore, the assumption that anamorphic DVDs have a
    33% increase in image detail may become invalid on some TVs. The
    following formula suggests that the actual increase in image detail
    present in compressed anamorphic images may drop to as little as 25%.

    My premise is that the original anamorphic image has a value of 100% and
    then, after it is squeezed down to 75% of its original size, it is being
    displayed by 25% fewer pixels. Correspondingly, the original theoretical
    33% increase in resolution -- which may not be supported by the
    remaining available screen pixels -- could be reduced to as little as
    75% of its original value. Depending upon the pixel count, the actual
    increase in picture resolution could be as little as 25% and as much
    33%.

    In the case of 4:3 high definition sets, the following formula could be
    accurate:

    33% (compression) x 75% (area of compressed image) = 25% actual
    increased picture resolution.

    Here is an explanation of how the above formula was obtained:

    For every 4 scan lines present in an anamorphic widescreen image, there
    are only 3 scan lines in the same non-anamorphic widescreen image. In
    order to restore geometric integrity to vertically-stretched anamorphic
    images, the down-conversion process of a DVD player removes 1 out of
    every 4 scan lines from an anamorphic picture and then uses the hijacked
    scan lines to create the black lines above and below the trashed
    down-converted image. On the other hand, a vertically compressed image
    does not have its black bars created from any recycled scan lines that
    previously contained picture information.

    It is now possible to assign values to the two resolutions in order to
    see how the math works:

    Anamorphic = 4

    Non-anamorphic = 3

    There is 1 scan line separating anamorphic DVDs from non-anamorphic
    DVDs. It is the relationship of this single scan line to anamorphic and
    non-anamorphic images that establishes the percentage of difference
    between them.

    An anamorphic image (with an assigned value of 4) has 33% more picture
    detail than a non-anamorphic image (with an assigned value of 3). This
    means that unprocessed anamorphic DVDs have 33% more resolution than non
    anamorphic and down-converted anamorphic DVDs.

    A non-anamorphic image (with an assigned value of 3) has 25% less
    picture detail than an anamorphic image (with an assigned value of 4).
    This would mean that non-anamorphic and down-converted anamorphic DVDs
    have 25% less resolution than unprocessed anamorphic DVDs.

    However, a television must have adequate pixels in order to fully
    display the maximum picture detail available. It appears that 4:3 high
    definition sets may lack this ability.
    Scot Gardner, Dec 12, 2003
    #12
  13. In article <Xns944EBC3AC8A19geosnarksoftcom@208.201.224.154>,
    George Mealer <> wrote:
    > (Aaron Brezenski) wrote in
    >news:brauuv$69r$:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    >Hm. I may be misunderstanding monitor tech, but I didn't think you lost
    >scan lines by squeezing the picture.


    You're right.

    > I thought the effect was similar to
    >adjusting the image height on a computer monitor; same number of scan lines
    >by the electron guns, just aiming at a tighter vertical space on the crt
    >face. I could see the dot pitch on the mask/grille affecting this, I
    >guess, but it wouldn't be a steep loss, would it?


    Scot's post illustrates it far better than I ever could. You're not "losing"
    scan lines, but by compressing to a tighter space than usual, the actual resolving
    power of the screen (and probably mask/grille to some extent) can come
    into play. The scan lines are all *there*, but they're overlapping each other
    and your ability to resolve pixels on adjacent lines is reduced.


    --
    Aaron Brezenski
    Not speaking for my employer in any way.
    Aaron Brezenski, Dec 12, 2003
    #13
  14. >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.
    >
    >-


    an alcoholic who I know would just love that.

    bars everywhere. ;)

    I couldn't resist.
    Waterperson77, Dec 12, 2003
    #14
  15. Adam Smith

    Smaug69 Guest

    (Adam Smith) wrote in message news:<>...
    > What do the new 4:3 hdtvs


    4:3 HDTVS are not HDTVs. HDTV is a 16:9 ratio. If the image of a
    broadcast HD show does not fill the screen(without any zooming effect
    which would crop the image or squeezing effect which would create a
    smaller viewing area) then it's not an HDTV.

    Smuag69
    Smaug69, Dec 13, 2003
    #15
  16. Adam Smith

    Smaug69 Guest

    Invid Fan <> wrote in message news:<111220031701429673%>...
    > 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.


    But for HDTV content- things that are broadcast in 16x9- it really
    does matter whether you have a 16x9 TV or not.

    Smaug69
    Smaug69, Dec 13, 2003
    #16
  17. Adam Smith

    Scot Gardner Guest

    "Aaron Brezenski" <> wrote in message
    news:brahct$vpi$...
    > In article <>,

    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.>>


    I have recently been experimenting with a new phenomenon: Anamorphic 4:3
    material. While this may seem like a contradiction in terms, it is not
    without precedent:

    The _Boogie Nights_ supplementary disk has a couple of anamorphic images
    with a 4:3 aspect ratio. The only other time that I ever saw this was on
    the theatrical trailer from Jailhouse rock. This can be found on the
    _Boogie Nights_ disk containing the supplements. The deleted scenes 3
    and 6 are anamorphic, but they are in a 4:3 aspect ratio with black bars
    on the top and bottom as well as the sides.

    I recently bought a Panasonic DVD-S55 player, which has the following
    picture size adjustments:

    4:3 Aspect: Select how to show images made for 4:3 aspect
    screens on a 16:9 aspect television.

    Normal: Laterally stretches images made for a 4:3 screen.

    Auto: Expands suitable 4:3 letterbox images to fill more of
    the screen. Other images appear in full in the center of the
    screen.

    Shrink: Images appear in the center of the screen.

    Zoom: Expands all images to fill the screen.

    In order to view anamorphic 4:3 DVD images on a conventional TV, you
    must have a TV which can do the vertical squeeze (an anamrophic mode)
    and a DVD player which has a "shrink" mode. What the shrink mode of the
    DVD player does is to squeeze the sides of a non-anamorphic 4:3 DVD
    image by 25%. This creates black bars on the sides of the image.
    Then, when the TV's vertical compression is also used, the image is
    compressed into a geometrically-correct 4:3 shape. True, the shrunken
    image is now 25% smaller than a standard 4:3 image, but the picture
    clarity, color and overall detail are vastly improved. Best of all, the
    horizontal scan lines have nearly disappeared.

    Prior to using the "shrink" mode on 4:3 DVD images, only anamorphic DVDs
    could benefit from vertical compression. (The player seems to be able to
    differentiate between non-anamorphic material and anamorphic material
    because anamorphic menus and movies, are never shrunk.)

    Traditional 4:3 DVD images come in two varieties: Standard academy ratio
    4:3 and various sizes of widescreen letterboxed images. All of these
    non-anamorphic images benefit from player shrinking and vertical
    compression. On non-anamorphic widescreen material, the zoom mode may be
    used to enlarge the image slightly, without seriously affecting the
    picture quality. (Zooming on compressed 4:3 material is not an option
    because the top and bottom of the image becomes more and more cut off as
    the size increases. On widescreen material, the top and bottom sections
    of the image are black bars, so there is no picture loss, but of course,
    the image becomes less and less detailed as it is enlarged.)
    Scot Gardner, Dec 13, 2003
    #17
  18. "Scot Gardner" <> wrote in news:20031212115259.429
    $:

    > However, a television must have adequate pixels in order to fully
    > display the maximum picture detail available. It appears that 4:3 high
    > definition sets may lack this ability.


    OK, so to distill your argument, the screen itself may not have the dot
    pitch necessary to support the tighter scanlines. I can go with that.
    Without knowing the dot pitch of a particular CRT, though, all you can say
    for sure is that it -might- not be as clear. It's possible that there are
    "dots to spare", at least for 480p. Clearly, a good audition of the set
    would be in order.

    Geo
    --
    George Mealer | geo*at*snarksoft*dot*com
    George Mealer, Dec 15, 2003
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Pundit

    Is there any advantage one over another?

    Pundit, Aug 18, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    524
    Hamman
    Aug 18, 2004
  2. Tony Spadaro
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,963
    Charlie D
    Sep 13, 2003
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    490
    Charlie Pearce
    Jul 15, 2006
  4. Tommy
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,733
    Mr. Arnold
    Nov 29, 2007
  5. Theo Markettos

    VOIP over VPN over TCP over WAP over 3G

    Theo Markettos, Feb 3, 2008, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    808
    Theo Markettos
    Feb 14, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page