4:3 or 16:9

Thinking to buy a new TV,

Currently using a 4:3 TV with digital cable (not HD), of all the channels, only about 10% are display in 16:9 (ratio 72 to 9). Since I only had a 4:3 TV, I wonder how those 72 channels displays in a 16:9 TV.

I know there is decision for the change over by Dec 2006, but it seems consumers are not desperate to change, that made politicians reluctant to make hasty move, as the result, cable companies are happy to keep thing as is.

The future is 19:9, but my question is, realistic speaking, how much long is that "future". (that is, it may still be ok to buy new 4:3)

Thinking to buy a new TV,

Currently using a 4:3 TV with digital cable (not HD), of all the channels, only about 10% are display in 16:9 (ratio 72 to 9). Since I only had a 4:3 TV, I wonder how those 72 channels displays in a 16:9 TV.

I know there is decision for the change over by Dec 2006, but it seems consumers are not desperate to change, that made politicians reluctant to make hasty move, as the result, cable companies are happy to keep thing as is.

The future is 19:9, but my question is, realistic speaking, how much long is that "future". (that is, it may still be ok to buy new 4:3)
The short answer is "NO" -- it is NOT OK to buy a 4:3 TV. Some of the things you mention are accurate, like the % of HDTV programming (right now).
However, you will see more and more 16:9 HD programming, not less. It may be a slow conversion (some say 5 years or more; I'm one of the ones who thinks it will be more like 2-3). But the "decision" you are talking about is not about HDTV -- the decision has to do with broadcasters giving back their "analog" spectrum and going totally "digital". Remember, HDTV is digital, but not all digital TV is Hi-Def. Digital can be SD, ED, or HD (Standard, Enhanced, or High). But you will kick yourself in a year or two :banghead: when you realize that your 4:3 set is increasingly showing MORE black bars on the top and bottom, while your neighbor's 16:9 set is showing LESS black bars on the sides. :yippee:

Heed this advice, unless you just want a really cheap set for the next 2 years and don't mind buying another one in 2007.

p.s. Those 72 channels would appear "letterboxed" with black bars on the left and right if you get the 16:9 set (but you can stretch the picture to fill the screen if they bother you).

:hithere: There was n article around here somewhere that showed how big a standard Pic. was on a 16:9 tv. I believe it was 30(16:9)= 24"(4:3), 34"(16:9)= 27"(4:3). So on and so on. Even if you do get a widescreen and you are watching a 4:3 program your still getting a decent pic, is all I'm saying. Hope this helps. :D

If projected use of TV is 5 years or more: 16:9.

The ATSC standard spec's widescreen, and analog broadcasts will be turned off in 597 days. Definately ONLY widescreen.

To calc the diagonal of the inset 4:3 image on a 16:9 screen, multiply the diagonal by 0.82.

The ATSC standard spec's widescreen, and analog broadcasts will be turned off in 597 days.

It is thought to be extremely unlikely that analog transmission will be turned off at the end of 2006. There's that rule for 85% penetration of digital sets (does not include high definition or widescreen). Experts are predicting 2009+ as the actual shutoff date.

There are smart people who are weighing 4:3 and 16:9 HDTV sets and deciding to go for 4:3. And a lot of the reason is the sheer bulk of 4:3 programming. Admittedly, that is going to get whiddled away at, starting with the most popular shows on HD capable channels, and working down. Aside from show conversion, there is also channel conversion to HD to consider.

As a 16:9 owner, I'll be EXTREMELY happy at the point where my TV watching is 50% HD, 50% SD. But I'm not looking at that happening any time soon... certainly not at the end of 2006. If you watch any particular channels/shows, or have a provider with certain features or peculariarities, you'll want to factor that in.

Generally, in picture tubes, from what I have seen, you'll have a set that is, say, 32" at 16:9. Then, you'll have a set that is two inches larger at 4:3, and priced about the same or lower. The math more or less works out so where the area of the HD programming is slightly smaller, and the area of the SD programming gets a good bump higher.

My argument against that only boils down to a personal preference. If I'm watching an channel in HD, I want the most screen size so I can get the most resolution to my eye without getting very close to the set. 4:3 isn't helped by a larger screen, but 16:9 is.

Still, I'd give this as a toss-up to personal preference. Evidently, the tradeoff for additional size 4:3 at lower costs is something that is working in the marketplace.

The shut off date is 12/31/06 unless it is changed... it won't be. The rule is for 85% signal coverage... not market penetration of tuners or TVs. Don't know what self declared experts you're referring to, but they're wrong...
http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/rfupdate/20050513/Joe-Barton-DTV-digital-analog-20050506/

Smart people will weigh the 4:3 vs 16:9 question, and the informed ones will ALL choose widescreen. The new ATSC digital TV standard spec's widescreen displays. All HDTV is broadcast as 16:9, even when it's a 4:3 upconvert.

A 4:3 semi-compatible HDTV fills it's screen with 330,000 pixels, but has to cram two million into the middle 3/4 of the screen... by comparison the large low def image will always look fuzzy, while the high def will look razor sharp and WAY too small. Since HDTV has 5 times the pixels, it needs to be viewed much larger than the analog SDTV.

The shut off date is 12/31/06 unless it is changed... it won't be. The rule is for 85% signal coverage... not market penetration of tuners or TVs. Don't know what self declared experts you're referring to, but they're wrong...
http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/rfupdate/20050513/Joe-Barton-DTV-digital-analog-20050506/

Really? Tell me more.

hkla - you did not state whether you where considering an SD 4:3 or an HD 4:3. Many responses assumed HD 4:3. My feeling is that if you are considering an SD set then you will have to get a digital converter box to continue to use it after the analogue cut off - unless you are on a cable system in which case they will supply it. If it is HD you are after than forget 4:3 sets as you will come to regret it. Even 4:3 SD when sent digitally in 720p or 1080i blows away the best SD 480i from digital cable or satellite - the picture is much cleaner and can be stretched to fit the 16:9. The other major advantage is that DVDs look great on 16:9 sets.

Really? Tell me more.

Read the linked article...

The shut off date is 12/31/06 unless it is changed... it won't be. The rule is for 85% signal coverage... not market penetration of tuners or TVs. Don't know what self declared experts you're referring to, but they're wrong...

Read the linked article...

I already read the linked article. I was hoping you had something more substantial.

The linked article contains a house member who wants to _change_ the cutoff date. And it quite clearly pointed out that this was not a popular idea. "Other panel members seemed less enthusiastic about pulling the plug on analog transmission. At least two said they did not look forward to being in their offices, taking calls from angry constituents, who will want to know why they can no longer receive free over-the-air TV the day after the switchoff."

Further, he isn't the first lawmaker to try to propose a firm shutoff date instead of a soft date based on reception. Here's what was another attempt to make the firm shutoff as '09:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000487387

Former FCC Chairman Powell himself wanted a 2009 date:
http://www.nrtc.coop/us/main/nrtc_update/Update2004/NRTCU_100604.pdf
...but even that appears not to have met with success.

The shut off date is 12/31/06 unless it is changed? No.

No, the date is 12/31/06 or [...escape clause...] 85% of digital reception (not coverage). This figure has been wrangled to include digital cable boxes as digital reception.

Here...

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/abernathy/news/dtv.html

I'll deliver more URLs if needed.

Regarding the experts and the 2009 date...
http://www.electronichouse.com/default.asp?NodeId=1983
...actually, the 2009 estimate seems to extremely widely quoted. This would be one example.

So here's a question for you [changing the subject back to something closer to this thread]...

When do you think we'll reach a point where an _average viewer_ with an HDTV set will see 50% of their programming in widescreen?

A 4:3 semi-compatible HDTV fills it's screen with 330,000 pixels, but has to cram two million into the middle 3/4 of the screen... by comparison the large low def image will always look fuzzy, while the high def will look razor sharp and WAY too small. Since HDTV has 5 times the pixels, it needs to be viewed much larger than the analog SDTV.

I made a similar point in another thread (possibly even another forum?) some time back. I think this was the clincher for me personally. My personal choice was that I wanted the superior format in the best possible presentation, and standard definition could take a back seat. However, I can totally respect someone who makes the opposite decision. Just as I can respect someone's decision to buy a 42" EDTV.

The actual wording is:
Congress has required broadcasters to stop sending an analog television signal by December 31, 2006, or when 85% of the households in a market are capable of receiving a digital broadcast signal, if that date is later.

Now that can be interpreted as a household is capable of receiving a digital broadcast signal when the household is covered. Most people (other than those who hope upon hope that the date will be extended) consider this to mean coverage. That is why the mandated digital tuners are required and why several congressmen have toyed with the idea of providing the poor people with cheap or free STBs to facilitate the turnoff of the analog signals.

I have to agree the analog signals will be turned off sooner than later because the real driving force behind this is to return the analog slots for auctioning. The amount of money to be derived by reselling the slots will be far more than the cost of free converters for the poor.

If on the other hand you think the statement is based on the households having DTV gear, it could be forstalled forever by people just not buying DTV gear. Does that sound like our government? Not to me.

Currently using a 4:3 TV with digital cable (not HD), of all the channels, only about 10% are display in 16:9 (ratio 72 to 9). Since I only had a 4:3 TV, I wonder how those 72 channels displays in a 16:9 TV.

MSRP for the 36" 4:3 set (KD-36XS955) is $300 less than the 34" 16:9 set (KD-34XS955) from the same manufacturer with the same feature set.

Now that can be interpreted as a household is capable of receiving a digital broadcast signal when the household is covered.

Touching on your post...
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/blog/view.php?id=27265

MSRP for the 36" 4:3 set (KD-36XS955) is $300 less than the 34" 16:9 set (KD-34XS955) from the same manufacturer with the same feature set.

That's 15% more to be compatibly shaped for the NEW standard, rather than the outgoing OLD one.

[QUOTE=RSawdey]The shut off date is 12/31/06 unless it is changed... it won't be. The rule is for 85% signal coverage... not market penetration of tuners or TVs. Don't know what self declared experts you're referring to, but they're wrong...
http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/rfupdate/20050513/Joe-Barton-DTV-digital-analog-20050506/

My expert is none other than the President of the United States of America.

http://www.digitaltvdesignline.com/news/179101979

If you ever watch DVD's, I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to see them in wide-screen unless for the same price you can buy a 4:3 set with a screen so large that the letterboxed image is as big as a wide-screen...