High Def Forum
Thank you for visiting. This is our website archive. Please visit our main website by clicking the logo above.

Which TV is the best? You decide!

mythy
07-29-2005, 12:42 AM
I cant make up my mind and I have 2 days to decide! Which is the best? please check there specs and base your decision on your knoledge :)


Tauô Series PureFlat TV CT-32HL15
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/vModelDetail?storeId=15001&catalogId=13401&itemId=93353&cacheProgram=11002&cachePartner=7000000000000005702&surfModel=CT-32HL15&catGroupId=24978&surfCategory=Tau%E2%84%A2%20Series%20PureFlat%20TV s&displayTab=S

Sanyo HT32744
http://www.sanyo.com/entertainment/televisions/digital/index.cfm?productID=905

Philips 32" Real-Flat HDTV 32PT9100D
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7023482&type=product&productCategoryId=cat03002&id=1099394447003

shellback
07-29-2005, 12:54 AM
Why 4x3? Why not look at Toshiba's 30hf85? It's 16x9.

jsslifelike
07-29-2005, 03:56 AM
Yeah, I'll have to agree with shellback. You're gonna end up kicking yourself later on if you don't go widescreen...

mythy
07-29-2005, 07:13 AM
Well the thing is we have basic cable and my parents wont change that! So unless I want to see black lines and loes 4 inches or so compared to thoes 32's I think I will stick to 4:3 :p

ja2935
07-29-2005, 07:34 AM
If you are only sticking to basic cable why get an HDTV?

Basic (analog) cable and an HDTV are not the best of combinations - you may be somewhat disappointed!

mythy
07-29-2005, 08:26 AM
I want the HDTV for DVD's I got the oppo and I plan to enjoyit...

I just got back from wallmart, I was looking at the sanyo and it was big and blury! :eek: All the tv's were blocky as well... Either way I didnt like the look of it so that ones out!

ja2935
07-29-2005, 09:04 AM
What size tv do you have right now?

A 30" widescreen (eg Toshiba 30HF85) will not be as massive or bulky as the Sanyo, will be much better for DVD watching and handles SD cable reasonably well. The stretch feature will give you a picture almost as big as a 4:3 32" in terms of picture content (it trims the top and bottom slightly and stretches the edges). My 34" set gives a 28" 4:3 image but when stretched looks much bigger.

mythy
07-29-2005, 09:08 AM
realy? I have a 24 or 25 inch old philips... how will a 30 inch widescreen compare? in terms of screen hight?

Because I dont want anything smaller in hight :rolleyes:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7015829&type=product&productCategoryId=cat03002&id=1099393182544

Any good? I didnt want a widescreen but it seems every one is telling me to get one :D
or this?

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=6494135&type=product&productCategoryId=cat03002&id=1077628885856

ja2935
07-29-2005, 09:19 AM
Probably about 25" - I suggest you go and see one in BB, SEARS or hhgreg (CC don't sell Toshibas). The widescreen Toshibas (26", 30" and 34") are very neat designs with the speakers underneath rather than at the sides. I moved from a 27" 4:3 to the 34" 16:9 - the 4:3 picture size wasn't that much bigger but in stretch mode looks much bigger - the real bonus is for DVDs which look impressively bigger than on my old 27".

mythy
07-29-2005, 09:35 AM
How tall is a 30 inch HDTV widescreen? I mean the actual screen? my 25 inch 4:3 is 15 1/2 and I'd like to compare it to a wide screen ;)

ja2935
07-29-2005, 09:46 AM
14.7" if my math is correct. But go and see one for yourself. I was just as sceptical until I took the plunge and brought one home!

RSawdey
07-29-2005, 09:46 AM
Screen height of a 30" widescreen is the SAME as a 25" 4:3.

mythy
07-29-2005, 10:16 AM
http://us.lge.com/download/product/image/1000000496/FZ4D_l.jpg

http://us.lge.com/Product/proddetail.do?actCategory=tv&archivedYn=&actType=search&categoryId=1000000089&prodId=1000000496&parentId=0000000001&parent2levelId=0000000001&category_level=3&totalItem=1&currentPage=1&perPage=10#

practicaly a done deal unless any of you object? :D

mythy
07-29-2005, 10:59 AM
ok guys... this is where you congraduate me on making a fine decision ;) Cause I need some help justifying this $990 dollor purchase :rolleyes:

ja2935
07-29-2005, 11:11 AM
This TV is so new that I doubt many people own one - you will have to give us your opinion. As an aside, I see that it is nearly 4" wider than my 34" Tosh - but mine doesn't have an HD tuner.

mythy
07-29-2005, 11:48 AM
http://images.cinenow.com/reports/ces_2005/lg/d00649.jpg

there is a side pic, the big one is my model the other is a newer version that isnt out yet...

http://images.cinenow.com/reports/ces_2005/lg/d00648.jpg


just thought I'd share them with you all :thumbsup:

Emsurfer
07-29-2005, 02:13 PM
I would have gone with the Panasonic Tau Series. I just bought a CT30WX15 for $791 including shipping for my Parents. Just my opinion and WaltChan will probably slam me for this, but granted the LG brand has improved tremendously since it's Kmart namebrand "Goldstar" days, it's still far inferior than SONY, Panasonic, and Toshiba. I would have them barely on-par with Philips and Sanyo. Given that their 30" HDTV is far more expensive than a comparable Philips and Sanyo, are they worth it? It all boils down to picture quality and durability. If size was a significant issue, I would consider RP LCD/DLP or straight LCD/Plasma. Just my humble 2 cents. I could get excited about a new Lexus, Infinity, or BMW but very difficult when you show me a new Daewoo or Hyundai.

borromini
07-29-2005, 03:43 PM
Nice TVs...

Nuked
07-29-2005, 05:53 PM
Brilliant.
cheers!

waltchan
07-30-2005, 01:19 AM
since it's Kmart namebrand "Goldstar" days.

Goldstar wasn't a K-Mart store brand name. It's an independent company.

Emsurfer
07-30-2005, 09:09 AM
Dude,

How anal-retentive are you??? Figuratively meaning CHEAP, poor quality. SAK's 5th Avenue= quality. Kmart, Walmart= cheap. Mercedes, Lexus= good. Hyundai and Daewoo= cheap. Get the point???

mythy
07-30-2005, 09:29 AM
HEY! :mad: Dont go dising my new TV! I hapen to find its image quality MUCH clearer then the sony next to it... LG is tearing up the market lately and there starting to make some realy great products!

Emsurfer
07-30-2005, 11:32 AM
I didn't mean to diss your TV set. The last reply was for Waltchan. I still think you should have gotten the Panasonic, SONY, or Toshiba though
:thumbsup:

But that's just my opinion. Enjoy the LG.

mythy
07-30-2005, 06:26 PM
ok, I have it all instaled and the vertic is...


:thumbsup:

When I was at best buy the sony was right next to it and the sony looke dlike crap! :eek: ok, maybe not crap but not as good as the LG ;) I have a question though, when I set my dvd player to widescreen and the tv to auto or 16:9 I still have some of the black bars when watching lord of the rings :mad: Why? or is it suposed to be like that?

ja2935
07-30-2005, 07:20 PM
Simple - 16:9 is approximately equal to 1.85:1, so films made in that aspect ratio will fill the screen. Lord of the Rings and a number of other films (eg Star Wars series) are made at 2.35:1, these will show black bars at the top and bottom - this is normal.

mythy
07-30-2005, 10:10 PM
I have a problem...

my dvd player is conected via standard video and audio... not even componit :( (cables not here yet) I have the dvd player set to 16:9 but when the TV is set to auto the video shows up as a rectangle box that doesnt fil up the screen! I can zoon it but its never right! My question is why? if I have a widescreen DVD and TV shouldnt it all work together? WHy is the video so smal? I can take a pic later if it will help... just imagine only 2/3 of the screen being used :mad:

BrianO
07-30-2005, 11:01 PM
I have a problem...

my dvd player is conected via standard video and audio... not even componit :( (cables not here yet) I have the dvd player set to 16:9 but when the TV is set to auto the video shows up as a rectangle box that doesnt fil up the screen! I can zoon it but its never right! My question is why? if I have a widescreen DVD and TV shouldnt it all work together? WHy is the video so smal? I can take a pic later if it will help... just imagine only 2/3 of the screen being used :mad:

I assume you are still talking about Lord of the Rings which is supposed to have an aspect ratio of 2.35:1.

Don't "Zoom" it, use the "Full Screen" setting. The small image you are seeing is probably compressed horizontally to 3/4 of its original width, so everyone in the picture will appear skinny. Zooming expands the image by 1/3 both horizontally and vertically, so the image will still be "skinny". The Full Screen setting will expand it by 1/3 horizontally without changing its height. The stretched image will use the full width of the screen and 76% of its height but the distortion will be gone and the picture look the same as the version shown in movie theatres. This is how the director intended the movie to be viewed.

Emsurfer
07-30-2005, 11:13 PM
I have a problem...

my dvd player is conected via standard video and audio... not even componit :( (cables not here yet) I have the dvd player set to 16:9 but when the TV is set to auto the video shows up as a rectangle box that doesnt fil up the screen! I can zoon it but its never right! My question is why? if I have a widescreen DVD and TV shouldnt it all work together? WHy is the video so smal? I can take a pic later if it will help... just imagine only 2/3 of the screen being used :mad:

I believe the issue is the composite video that you are using. This will Also happen if you use S-Video and Antenna setting. Everything should "normalize" once you use component or DVI/HDMI

waltchan
07-30-2005, 11:25 PM
Dude,

How anal-retentive are you??? Figuratively meaning CHEAP, poor quality. SAK's 5th Avenue= quality. Kmart, Walmart= cheap. Mercedes, Lexus= good. Hyundai and Daewoo= cheap. Get the point???

Wow, you are sure going off-topic, pretending that I am anal-rententive. I only said in one simple sentence.

Emsurfer
07-30-2005, 11:39 PM
Goldstar wasn't a K-Mart store brand name. It's an independent company.

You made a point to contradict me when all I was doing was making a comparison. Everyone knows that the generic term "KMart Brand" doesn't mean that the product is directly associated with KMart but that it just means "Cheap or low quality". I retorted by giving examples of other stores or products associated with quality or lack of quality to make a point. :rolleyes:

mythy
07-31-2005, 12:21 AM
I have trie dall diferent dvds.. and my tv wont just go fullscreen unless I zoom or strech.. if I strech it will only strech one way not the other and it distorts! :eek:

BrianO
07-31-2005, 03:05 PM
I believe the issue is the composite video that you are using. This will Also happen if you use S-Video and Antenna setting. Everything should "normalize" once you use component or DVI/HDMI

I believe Emsurfer is right about the composite video and s-video.

The following appears to be happening:

1) The DVD player is sending a 4x3 image to the tv set. The 16:9 setup only determines what processing is done on the image by the DVD player before it sends the image to the tv set. The image sent is always 4x3.

2) Composite video and S-video connections are always 480i even with a progressive scan DVD player. (Progressive scan requires a component video or better connection).

3) If the TV is set up to "auto set" the screen mode (aspect), it detects a 480i 4:3 image, assumes it is an NTSC signal and sets the screen to 4:3.

This will probably continue to happen until you change your connection to component video or better. If your set has ID1 detection then it should be able to set the screen aspect correctly once you use a component video connection. In the meantime you'll have to continue to set the aspect manually.

If your DVD player is a progressive scan player you might also have to change its setup to activate the progressive scan output because the default output via the component video outputs is often interlaced (as it is on my Panasonic player). Consult the DVD player manual on how to do this. I found that the ID1 detection in my set (Sony KD34XS955) didn't work with all DVD's until I activated progressive scan.

mythy
07-31-2005, 05:16 PM
I have the oppo player and today I tried component.. no diference! I no my dvd player wont upconvert threw the comp. either... only threw the DVI and my cable isnt here yet :( I just hope that fixes the proble! If not I'm gona cry!

Blue_Tech
07-31-2005, 11:22 PM
Dont freak out just yet, at least it appears you have read the manual. That OPPO player is a little goofy, not upconverting through the component outputs. Try your HDMI cable, I guess you bought the $0.99 one off Ebay so at least thats no huge investment.

Double check your TV's manual, some of the settings on these HDTV's dont always do what you think they will. You should be seeing a nearly full screen image on your widescreen set. Like it has been said tho, some DVD's will still have black bars top and bottom no matter what, cuz the TV's just arent wide enough for that particular format. But no matter what, the picture should touch the left and right edges.

mythy
07-31-2005, 11:36 PM
If i set the TV to auto (detects the signal) it will say its 4:3 :confused: but its not! And my dvd player conferms its not since I set it so that its output is "widescreen" If I set the tv's ratio to 16:9 it will strech it "with wise" BUT NOT IN HIGHT! Perhaps the component wont do the higher ress? well, we'll see in a few days when my cable arives... If it doesnt work I'm gona throw it out the window! TV and the DVD player! :mad:

BrianO
08-01-2005, 01:26 AM
If i set the TV to auto (detects the signal) it will say its 4:3 :confused: but its not! And my dvd player conferms its not since I set it so that its output is "widescreen" If I set the tv's ratio to 16:9 it will strech it "with wise" BUT NOT IN HIGHT! Perhaps the component wont do the higher ress? well, we'll see in a few days when my cable arives... If it doesnt work I'm gona throw it out the window! TV and the DVD player! :mad:

Reread my earlier posts. The DVD player is putting out a 4:3 image even if you have the player set to 16:9 or widescreen. That is what it is supposed to do. Your TV is correctly identifying the input as a 4:3 image. Your TV is not recognising the content of the 4:3 image it is receiving and is not automatically adjusting the aspect ratio to display it correctly. You will need to do that yourself.

Look at the box the DVD comes in. If it says "Enhanced for widescreen TVs" or it uses the word "anamorphic" then the picture needs to be stretched horizontally only because its height is already the correct height. Looking at the 4:3 image before stretching it will look squashed. After stretching it will look normal.

If it does not say enhanced or anamorphic, then you need to use the "zoom" aspect setting which streches the image by 33% both horizontally and vertically. In this case the image will look normal both before and after stretching.

After stretching the image will fill the entire width of the screen but will probably not fill the entire height of the screen. This is normal. Almost all movies produced today have aspect ratios greater than that of your TV (1.78 = 16/9). Many DVD's, but not all, specify the aspect ratio on the box. The most common are 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. A 1.85:1 movie will only use 96% of the height of your screen but the black bars will be barely noticeable. A 2.35:1 movie (Panavison) will only use 76% of the height of the screen and the black bars will be much more noticable. This is normal. This is how the the movies are supposed to look on your TV screen. They are not supposed to fill the entire height of your screen.

Emsurfer
08-01-2005, 04:05 AM
Brian O explained it much more discernible than I ever could. But I think you get the point. Let's just wait for your digital cable and see. Also I believe most DVD players (I could be dead wrong) that do upconvert, do it to 1080i. Component video should do 720p fine but do have problems with 1080i on many sets. This might just be all "normal" for an LG TV. :confused:

Emsurfer
08-01-2005, 04:14 AM
"As you can see from the Benchmark scores, the 971H is an outstanding budget DVD player. But I must advise you that the scores only pertain to the DVI output. This playerís component outputs do not support progressive playback, only 480i, so we were not able to plot a video frequency response curve. I was quite surprised, because Iíve never seen this before. The DVI video board in the player houses the Genesis FLI-2310 video processing chip, so the component video connections cannot take advantage of it."

I saw this from an Oppo review. The component output only supports analogue, 480i. Let's see what happens with the DVI-HDMI.

Blue_Tech
08-01-2005, 04:44 AM
Thats still weird though... have you ever seen a DVD player that did not output a widescreen signal? I haven't. Unless that OPPO is enforcing some aspect of the HDCP scheme that we havent heard of yet... it should be putting out a widescreen picture on the component outputs, albeit 480i. I still think we have a setting screwed up somewhere... maybe wrong input on back of set.

Wasn't there a Sony tube that would accept component on any one of 2 inputs, but wouldnt do anything over 480p on one of them? You had to hook to the other one for res higher than that.

ja2935
08-01-2005, 06:39 AM
"As you can see from the Benchmark scores, the 971H is an outstanding budget DVD player. But I must advise you that the scores only pertain to the DVI output. This playerís component outputs do not support progressive playback, only 480i, so we were not able to plot a video frequency response curve. I was quite surprised, because Iíve never seen this before. The DVI video board in the player houses the Genesis FLI-2310 video processing chip, so the component video connections cannot take advantage of it."

I saw this from an Oppo review. The component output only supports analogue, 480i. Let's see what happens with the DVI-HDMI.

What is strange about this situation is that even if you feed 480i (for 16:9 TVs) to the tv it should recognise this input and process it accordingly, ie stretch it horizontally for anamorphic discs. My tv will identify a 480i anamorphic signal over s-video and create a 540p or 1080i picture at full screen width when I select 'Full Screen' on the TV menu.

mythy - to check that the picture is correct aspect use the globe intro on Universal DVDs and freeze frame it to see if it is circular - you can usually tell straight away!

mybuddy
08-01-2005, 08:15 AM
I, like others, am wondering why you are thinking about purchasing a TV with the 4:3 aspect ration. Most all DVDs are already in widescreen and most regular programming will soon be. Most TVs and DVD players have options where you can the zoom the picture and not have to watch with the bars.
A couple of suggestions. Sam's has a Phillips 30" (HDTV monitor) widescreen that they sells for $597. Circuit City sells the same set for $749. It is one of the best buys out there.
Also, I purchased a Samsung 30" wide screen a couple of months ago. It is thinner at only 16" deep (most sets of that size are 22"), and weighs only 120 lb and has a built-in HD tuner. So you will be ready when you go to HD.
However, between the 3 sets you mention, any of them will probably OK. Personally, though, I would go with the Phillips.
Good Luck! MyBuddy

mythy
08-01-2005, 09:23 AM
1080I ressolution upconversion from the dvd player shakes when using dvi output... When I change the res. output on the dvd player to 720P it stops shacking...

WHY?!?!?!


:mad:

oh, and yea the cable fixed the widescreen problem ;) BUT NOW IT FLIKERS!!!!!!

Blue_Tech
08-01-2005, 11:01 PM
Test that HDMI 1080i flicker on another TV, goto a store and hook it up to a display model if you have to.

That TV of yours is a brand new model isn't it? I've never heard much praise about the LG sets, never any real bad stuff either though.

Test it out, see if the player or the TV is bad. I've got a hunch its the TV.

I, like others, am wondering why you are thinking about purchasing a TV with the 4:3 aspect ration.

If you've bothered to read, the poster has purchased a widescreen model. And its ratio, not ration.

mythy
08-02-2005, 09:58 AM
both my PC and dvd player flicker at 1080i... well actualy its more of a bounce, kinda like going up and down like by say 1/16 of a inch :( Either way It took me a hour just to get the TV upstairs and 100 bucks to bribe my neighbore to pick it up... SO theres no way I'm returning it :p Could it be the cable?

Emsurfer
08-02-2005, 12:32 PM
I agree with BlueTech to check the cable on another TV at a store even if you have to. Even though it's an LG TV :D, I doubt that it's the TV, but suspect it's your HDMI cables. DVI to DVI or HDMI to HDMI you could probably get away with economical cables. With DVI to HDMI (different standards), you should get quality cables to perform the conversion. You don't need $100+ Monster cables but should be at least $20+ range.

Mike Wolf
08-05-2005, 12:35 PM
Panasonic hands down. I got a Tau 27HL15 and i have never regreted it. It has a HDMI port, two wideband component ports, and a whole lot of other ports. Get the Panasonic

ja2935
08-05-2005, 12:55 PM
Who's question are you answering here - you should read the whole thread....

Mike Wolf
08-05-2005, 01:04 PM
im answering the original question posted here, and im suggesting the Panasonic 32" Tau.
My 27" Tau is the same as the 32" Tau, only with smaller screen. Thats all.

ja2935
08-05-2005, 03:56 PM
Yes, but the original poster has already bought an LG....so your advice is a bit late!

donal
08-05-2005, 04:17 PM
I think the Panasonic Direct View Tau HDTV Monitors are one of the best a values in HDTV CRT market. I am very pleased with my CT-27HL15 because of its great picture.

ja2935
08-05-2005, 07:02 PM
Don't people ever read the whole thread?

mythy made his choice a week ago - the LG....

MrRadman11
08-06-2005, 12:47 AM
Mythy, I have the same dilema. I have basic cable, and I also play video games like halo 2, etc. I was looking at a 32" 4:3, and a 30" 16:9 at BB, I measured them in widescreen mode (on the 32" 4:3). Height and width were the same. So my question is: "Why get a 30" 16:9 widescreen HDTV, when a 32" 4:3 HDTV plays widescreen in the same dimensions?" And then you can watch TV and play games in full glory! :thumbsup:

But if you still want 16:9, check sam's club and this site: http://www.6ave.com/product.jsp?x=CT34WX54&zipz=11001

Mike Wolf
08-06-2005, 12:47 AM
:D Thats great news, hope hes happy. Read, whats that? lol. Im to busy to read, lol. ;)

mythy
08-06-2005, 10:36 AM
YWa, the matrix never looked sooo damn good! :D But my PC threw HDMI looks blury and flickers so I cant game on it... I thought a 30 inch HD display was good enought for PC gaming... :mad:

Mike Wolf
08-06-2005, 10:44 AM
Thats because its not made for the PC, it says right there in the manual not to use the HDMI for the PC. You could cause damage to the equipment if done so ( not covered under the warrenty, since it is under abuse of equipment )

mythy
08-06-2005, 06:37 PM
WTF???? :eek:

Mike Wolf
08-06-2005, 06:57 PM
can you please explain your response, thank you.
Unless the manual says there is a PC connection, the tv is not made for connection to a computer. The HDMI port is not for PC usage, it is for connection to dvd players, set top boxes, and other high definiton electronics.

mythy
08-06-2005, 09:11 PM
Once again... :eek:

My 6800 ultra is designed to output 1080i and it automaticly detects my TV as a "LG HDTV 1080i" And automaticaly sets the ress apon conection... as long as the frame rates are corect along with the ress there is no diverence between a PC and a dvd player... ;)

Mike Wolf
08-06-2005, 09:33 PM
great to hear.

BrianO
08-06-2005, 10:58 PM
Mythy, I have the same dilema. I have basic cable, and I also play video games like halo 2, etc. I was looking at a 32" 4:3, and a 30" 16:9 at BB, I measured them in widescreen mode (on the 32" 4:3). Height and width were the same. So my question is: "Why get a 30" 16:9 widescreen HDTV, when a 32" 4:3 HDTV plays widescreen in the same dimensions?" And then you can watch TV and play games in full glory! :thumbsup:

But if you still want 16:9, check sam's club and this site: http://www.6ave.com/product.jsp?x=CT34WX54&zipz=11001

Actually a widescreen picture on a 30" widescreen tv is about half an inch wider than on a 32" 4:3. While the difference is negligible, there is a still good reason to get the 30" widescreen if you watch a lot of widescreen DVD's.

Widescreen DVD's that are labelled as either "Enhanced for 16:9 Televisions" or "anamorphic" will have a sharper image on a widescreen set than on a 4:3 set of equal quality. The image sent by the DVD player to the widescreen tv will contain 33.3% more scan lines, and hence more detail, than that sent to the 4:3 set for the same DVD.

OTOH, a 4:3 picture on a 32" 4:3 set is about 4.5" taller than that on a 30" widescreen.

ja2935
08-07-2005, 07:53 AM
My 27" SD Sony Wega had the option to squeeze down anamorphic DVDs in order to correct the aspect ratio - so it did use all 480 lines. My question to owners of 4:3 HDTVs is, can your set do this too? because if so the previous poster's arguement is surely invalid!

Emsurfer
08-07-2005, 12:58 PM
I know the Pannys and SONYs have it. I am not sure if my Toshiba (Orion) has it. No clue and don't care if the Sammys or LGs have it. And yes, this does weaken the previous argument suppporting 16:9 TVs. My argument would be simply preference. Plus, your eyes will perceive the letterbox on a say 32" 4:3 (even though approximately same size) as a 30" 16:9 as smaller because of the contrasting surrounding blank screen top and bottom. Example, 6'4" man is huge, but standing next to Shaq at 7'2" or even Yao Ming at 7'6"... can you say "shrimp". Also possible burn-in issues watching HD programs on a 4:3 without allowing the phosphorus at the top and bottom portions to "age" with the rest of the screen. The clincher... Ask a 16:9 owner if he or she would ever return to letterbox on a 4:3 again. :thumbsup:

ja2935
08-07-2005, 02:21 PM
Yes, perceived size is a big part of making the 4:3/16:9 choice. On my tv when I switch from an HD channel to a stretched 4:3 channel - say from the HD version to the regular cable version - the size of the image content, ie head size for a newsreader, is similar and does not jar. A similar exercise on a 4:3 HDTV will give a totally different perspective with the full screen 4:3 image suddely looming much larger. A bit like comparing the 'in your face' effect of full screen pan and scan movies to the correct letter box version.

BrianO
08-07-2005, 03:18 PM
My 27" SD Sony Wega had the option to squeeze down anamorphic DVDs in order to correct the aspect ratio - so it did use all 480 lines. My question to owners of 4:3 HDTVs is, can your set do this too? because if so the previous poster's arguement is surely invalid!

You are partly correct. Some of the better 4:3 TV's used to have "enhanced 16:9 mode", so if you set your DVD player up to send its output to a 16:9 TV then you could obtain the benefit of the sharper picture possible wtih an "anamorphic" DVD on one of those sets. However, your statement about "all 480 lines" is incorrect for any "widescreen" DVD with an aspect ratio greater than 16:9 (1.78:1), which means almost all of them. The picture portion of a 1.85:1 widescreen DVD would contain 461 scan-lines in its input to your TV, while a 2.35:1 (Panavision, Cinemascope-2) DVD would contain 363 scan-lines. "Ben Hur" with its 2.76:1 aspect ratio would only result in a 309 scan-line image being input to your TV. The rest of the 480 input scan-lines in all these examples would be letter-boxing. (The corresponding numbers in these examples for a 4:3 set without the enhanced 16:9 mode would be 346, 272 and 232 scan-lines respectively).

In the last couple of years, many of the TV manufacturers have "dumbed down" many of their CRT-based sets in order to reduce their prices and have removed some features like PIP and "enhanced 16:9" mode. So, unless the specs for a 4:3 set explicitly state that it has the enhanced 16:9 mode, do not assume that it does, even if similar sized sets from the same manufacturer used to have it.

ja2935
08-07-2005, 06:23 PM
Yes, point taken about the fewer lines for greater aspect ratios - I guess I only had 1.85:1 in mind. Interesting point about the 'dumbing down' of recent SD sets...

I'm glad I made the change to 16:9. I certainly would have regretted sticking to 4:3!

RSawdey
08-08-2005, 01:56 PM
The ATSC HDTV standard specs a widescreen display. 4:3 sets are only semi-compatible with the standard.

With a 4:3 set, you're filling the screen with 330,000 pixels & cramming 2 million into the middle 3/4 of the screen... because of the constant comparison of modes you'll percieve the full screen SDTV as 'fuzzy' & low res, and the letterboxed HDTV as too small (and probably with compromised quality).

With a 16:9 set, the lower res SDTV signal is pillarboxed so it's size is more in keeping with it's much lower detail signal. Widescreen should be presented as such, larger area for additional detail, not as shortscreen!