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

Am I going to be sorely disappointed with a 4:3 set?

Blue Goose
02-24-2005, 06:07 AM
I didn't do my homework maybe as well as I should have perhaps. I bought a JVC 32" HDTV a few days ago for what I feel is a great price $599.

After discovering this forum(isn't it always that way?) I found out a whole lot more about HDTV than I realized. I haven't had the HD portion hooked up yet(March 4th) so I really can't judge on how the quality of my HD is going to be. As I have found out the SD quality is a lot less than I am used to coming from my Toshiba 32" standard TV.


few questions.....will the HD broadcasts on ths 32" set look bad or compressed or whatever due to the 4:3 size (boxes, bars etc during HD broadcasts?

Also if I moved up to a 34" TV will SD broadcasts look "stretched" or something like that? Is that because SD signals right now are 4:3?

Move to a 34" would be an extra 1000 dollars...ouch. Hav eto really think about that one :eek:

ja2935
02-24-2005, 12:30 PM
Do you have size restrictions (outside dimensions) for the set?. As you will have read elswhere in this forum there are picture quality issues with SD on digital (HD) tvs although I think some of it is perception and some quality of the signal. Some SD stations on my cable are actually comparable with viewing on an anologue tv. If you get a widescreen tv - which I would recommend over a 4:3 - you can view the picture in original aspect ratio (ie 4:3) or stretch it several ways depending upon the tv's menu options. After some research I chose the Toshiba 34hf84 as it was the narrowest 34" and also was a good price at $1300. DVDs will always look better on a 34" 16:9 than a 32" 4:3 as the screen is wider; and HD looks magnificant!

rbinck
02-24-2005, 01:45 PM
Personally, I think your choice is just fine for your first HDTV. Mine was a 27" 4:3 set. I figured I might as well get the education and viewing habits trained on a much cheaper set before springing for the big bucks.


It will place letterbox bars top and bottom while viewing the HDTV material, but depending on how far you sit from the screen, you will be wowed by the HD picture. True you will not be getting the full HDTV resolution, but at that picture size, it still will be very good. Enjoy your TV and someday move it to the bedroom when you want to upgrade.

RSawdey
02-28-2005, 06:43 PM
No! No! No!

4:3 sets are semi-compatible with HDTV at best, the spec requires widescreen! They have an inherantly flawed design that will drive you buggy and do a very poor job of presenting HDTV. You will naturally compare the SD & HD images... the SD will look fuzzy in comparison and the HD will look crisp and too tiny. When an HD station broadcasts a narrowscreen image, it's in a 16:9 frame. Your TV will letterbox AND pillarbox this image (bars all sides) so it'll be tiny & digitally clear & NOT ZOOMABLE OR STRETCHABLE. An HDTV image with 5 times the details needs to be shown larger & wider NOT smaller & shorter!

Jeadm
03-02-2005, 10:18 AM
So you are saying an image broadcast in HD that's 16x9 will appear boxed on ALL sides on a 4x3 HD set, not just top & bottom? I've read differently, perhaps someone can corroborate this.

This is my quandary. I too am searching for that first HDTV, budget in $1k-1.5k range. By far the most I watch is SD, but not because I want to. My choices will be limited because OTA is not an option (very rural, too far away, terrain issues, no cable etc.) so it's strictly DishNetwork. From what I read the consensus seems to be their PQ is just OK at best, and they're in no big hurry to deliver any significant, meaningful HD content. The news from DirectTV seems to be just slightly more encouraging, but it seems all the same "vaporware" until it actually happens.

I like to watch the local channels in prime time, proudly displaying their "In HD (where available)". Only problem is, it isn't. I really don't mind spending my hard earned money on new stuff; the picture quality you see in the stores is exciting to watch. It's just that I expect to get what I'm paying for. If 3 years ago I spent $4k on an RPTV HD set (which today would cost $1.5K, best guess) I wouldn't have the DVI connections available today, and I'd still be waiting for some meaningful content.

This is what gives me pause, and makes me take a hard look at the less expensive 4:3 direct view models. It's kind of like buying that old computer that has no software support (ah, remember those good old days...) ;)

Big Bob1077
03-02-2005, 05:40 PM
Hey, what ever you do, DON'T buy a 4:3 HDTV, regardless if it fits perfectly in your cabinet (most common excuse)!! When the station is broadcasting in Hi-Def, you will have the stupid bars at the top and bottom of the screen. You can stretch the picture vertically (think of silly puddy) on some TVs, but what's the point in that! Save an extra $100+ and get a widescreen. You won't be sorry....

rbinck
03-02-2005, 06:04 PM
On the other hand with a wide screen TV when the station is broadcasting in Standard-Def, you will have the stupid bars at the left and right of the screen. You can stretch the picture horizontally (think of silly puddy) on some TVs, but what's the point in that!

And the point is different people have different tastes and needs. I had one customer whose spouse watched a cable news channel and other SD primarily. The spouse was not interested in and did not appreciate HD at all. The pillar boxes or distorted stretching was just unacceptable, not to mention the SD picture was smaller than the 4:3 set we took out of the space, so we ended up having to replace the widescreen with a 4:3 set.

Point is it depends on what you watch primarily. If you will watch 4:3 material primarily when you get your new TV, then a 4:3 set may be just what you need. On the other hand if you primarily use your TV to watch DVD movies and 16:9 HD programming and there are some people who this is 90% of their TV watching (and the spouse can just pound sand) then a widescreen is definately for you.

I would just say not to be overly influenced by opinionated people, but take some reflection on your viewing habits and make your decision based on what you feel like.

andrew28
03-03-2005, 11:40 AM
I just bought a Panasonic 32" HDTV ($389!) as a replacement for a 27" 10 year old Sony.

I was more inclined to buy a 34" widescreen, but my other half wanted no part of it. Since Cablevision presently offers only 14 or 15 HD channels, I like to think of it as a regular TV that primarily shows SD TV. If I'm watching "24" or some other "Made for HD" broadcast, I'll switch to the HD channels.

While it's true that the HD channels broadcast certain programs in 4:3, you CAN remedy this program by adjusting the aspect ratio on both your TV (which in my case makes the image "taller") and your cable (which makes it wider). The result is full screen (4:3) HDTV.

I personally don't mind the letter box bars on 16:9 broadcasts, especially since I've gotten accustomed to watching DVD's with this feature.

And for such a low entry price (<$400) I think of it as an economical solution until they work the bugs out of LCD, DLP and Plasma (and the prices come down even further).

P.S. Even though my entertainment center said it could hold 32" TV's, the HDTV's are so big, I still had to get a new unit.

RSawdey
03-04-2005, 01:41 AM
The point of stretching & zooming images is to keep the screen filled & prevent burn in. This, of course, distorts the image or clips part of it because of the different aspect ratios. People who want to watch images in their original aspect ratios, and don't want to worry about screen burn, should buy a TV that uses a burn proof technology without phosphors.

4:3 sets CAN NOT zoom or stretch an HD signal, only SDTV signals... and they automatically letterbox all HDTV signals, since all HDTV is widescreen 16:9. If you have a full screen display on one of these sets, you are NOT watching HDTV but an SDTV downconvert.

It's good you like letterbox bars, since you'll see them more & more for the next 22 months until you see them constantly with analog switch off.

When widescreen HDTV content is displayed it will be full width, and 3/4 height. When the HDTV broadcaster sends a 4:3 image it will be within a 16:9 frame padded with bars - and will appear on your TV as a tiny centered image with bars on all sides.

Your center was designed for a 4:3 TV... make sure to avoid sets with side speakers when width constrained... speakers on the bottom leaves a lot more room for image width.

When stepping up from a 27" set, a 34" or bigger widescreen is recommended. Hope your new center is big enough for the widescreen you'll be replacing this set with...

andrew28
03-04-2005, 10:36 AM
T
It's good you like letterbox bars, since you'll see them more & more for the next 22 months until you see them constantly with analog switch off.

I don't necessarily "like" the letterbox bars, but they certainly don't drive me crazy like it does others.

And while the 16:9 format is certainly more desirable, given the fact that I paid under $400 for a 32" HDTV (roughly the same price as a comparable sized 32" SDTV) I think it was a wise investment. Especially since I don't spend every waking moment in front of the TV.

22 months from now when there's a good deal more HD content, and technology is superior to today's technology, I can move this TV to the den, and buy something flat in the 40" range (for around what a 34" direct view costs today).

RSawdey
03-05-2005, 06:52 PM
That's the only advantage of these sets... they're cheap. I'll give you that... but you get what you paid for...

andrew28
03-07-2005, 02:57 PM
That's the only advantage of these sets... they're cheap. I'll give you that... but you get what you paid for...


Well there's that, and the fact that when I watch non-HD programming (about 85% of the time) or even non 16:9 HD programming, I'll be getting a full-frame picture (as opposed to having the edges stretched, or zooming/cropping the picture).

Granted, if we lived in a perfect world (technologically speaking), EVERYTHING (all TV, including news, MTV, sports, etc) would be in 16:9 HD. Then there would be absolutely no reason to have a 4:3 set. Until then, a cheap 4:3 set still makes a lot of sense.

RSawdey
03-07-2005, 08:15 PM
Well, that 'perfect world' will be here in 21 1/2 months... when analog is switched off. From now until then the amount of content in 4:3 will steadily diminish...

rbinck
03-07-2005, 08:35 PM
I could agree to the reduction of 4:3 material as far as the networks are concerned. I doubt if it will have any effect on the cable channels or any locally produced programming. They'll just merge their 4:3 content into a 16:9 frame.

RSawdey
03-08-2005, 04:02 AM
Now that HD camcorders are available for $3500, it's affordable for the budget newsrooms, too. Slowly but surely...

andrew28
03-08-2005, 07:03 AM
Well, that 'perfect world' will be here in 21 1/2 months... when analog is switched off. From now until then the amount of content in 4:3 will steadily diminish...


Do you honestly think the FCC (aka The Government) will do anything on time?

And if by some stroke of luck they do, I can absolutely live with bars on the top and bottom of the screen.

RSawdey
03-08-2005, 07:38 PM
It involves Congress grabbing some money... they'll do that ASAP.

andrew28
03-08-2005, 07:39 PM
It involves Congress grabbing some money... they'll do that ASAP.


Well, at least we can agree on something!

RSawdey
03-09-2005, 11:22 AM
In this case they can brag about helping our 'first responders' and improving security while grabbing the money... how could they resist?

CatManDoo
03-09-2005, 08:22 PM
I didn't do my homework maybe as well as I should have perhaps. I bought a JVC 32" HDTV a few days ago for what I feel is a great price $599.

After discovering this forum(isn't it always that way?) I found out a whole lot more about HDTV than I realized. I haven't had the HD portion hooked up yet(March 4th) so I really can't judge on how the quality of my HD is going to be. As I have found out the SD quality is a lot less than I am used to coming from my Toshiba 32" standard TV.


few questions.....will the HD broadcasts on ths 32" set look bad or compressed or whatever due to the 4:3 size (boxes, bars etc during HD broadcasts?

Also if I moved up to a 34" TV will SD broadcasts look "stretched" or something like that? Is that because SD signals right now are 4:3?

Move to a 34" would be an extra 1000 dollars...ouch. Hav eto really think about that one :eek:

Original title: Am I going to be sorely disappointed with a 4:3 set?

Answer: YES! :)

couchnit
03-10-2005, 01:33 AM
Andrew28, I agree with you. 4:3 HD tubes make a lot of sense, given where we're at with content right now. They're economical, the picture quality is great, and as rbinck suggests, letterboxing is no more offensive than pillarboxing (I don't understand the whole "black bar" phobia some have). Actually, you're using a larger area of your available screen when you letterbox an HD image on a 4:3 set, than when you pillarbox an SD image on a widescreen display.

I own 4:3 and 16:9 HD sets (both Sony WEGA); I can tell you that at this point in time, I probably end up watching a full-screen picture more often on the 4:3. And as an added bonus, the letterboxed HD picture is slightly better on the 36" 4:3 than on the 34" 16:9 (it letterboxes to 33" diag). Interesting that no one would balk at the mention of a 33-34" widescreen TV, but place that within the area of a larger 4:3 screen, and suddenly it's a poor choice (?). Yeah, it takes up a little more room (height-wise, I guess...), but so what? If it works in your space, and gives you an adequately-sized letterboxed picture for your viewing distance, great.

RSawdey
03-10-2005, 08:51 AM
"Actually, you're using a larger area of your available screen when you letterbox an HD image on a 4:3 set, than when you pillarbox an SD image on a widescreen display."

The problem with that, is that you're making your poorest image largest, and your best image smallest. You fill the screen with 330,000 pixels, and cram 2 million into the middle 3/4. HDTV has 5 times the detail, it is intended to produce a good image on a large screen, AND it is intended to be wider & more like the shape of human vision. These 4:3 semi-compatible sets show HDTV as no wider & shorter than low definition. By the natural comparison of the two types of imagery, the SDTV will always look fuzzy in comparison, and the sharp HDTV image too small.

Look at it this way... assume you sit at the perfect distance to view your SDTV image, not so close you see rasters or screendoor, but close enough to resolve all the detail that is there. Now, you want to view an HDTV image with 5 times the detail... to view each pixel of detail with the same accuity (resolution) the screen area needs to be five times as big. Or you have to move to one fifth the distance. If you view an HDTV image SMALLER than the SDTV one from the same distance, you're limited to percieving only 3/4 of the pixels of SDTV (it's only 3/4 as large within your perceptual field) 247,500 pixels. That's throwing away 1.75 MILLION pixels of information. Isn't that why you buy an HDTV, to see ALL that perfect detail?

Bottom line, if your narrowscreen SDTV is adequately sized to show SD well at your current seating distance, there is NO WAY you can possibly present an HD image with five times the detail in an even SMALLER area... it can never be both adequate for HDTV & inset within the adequate SDTV area.

Part of the black bar phobia you mention is fear of phosphor burn on CRT based sets. Most manuals will tell you to avoid watching more than 15% of the time with unfilled screen. Since where we're at with content now is a mixture of 12:9 (4:3), 16:9, 17:9, and 22:9 it's better to have a display that doesn't use phosphors - that way you can view all these formats at their original aspect ratio without worrying about burn in.

jh.csv
03-10-2005, 04:58 PM
Join the 21st century and get a 16x9 set.

andrew28
03-10-2005, 06:56 PM
Join the 21st century and get a 16x9 set.

21st Century? That's an odd thing to say considering this the Tube TV section of the site.

If this had been the plasma or LCD section, your comment would carry a good deal more weight.

RSawdey
03-11-2005, 05:10 PM
I don't think that's odd at all... tube (direct view CRT) is one thing, compatiblity with the HDTV standard requirement of widescreen is another.

For people looking for a small budget HDTV with good color rendition, a 'tube' TV can be a fine choice...

But I'd never recommend anyone buy a narrowscreen anything because that's not compatible with the standard. 4:3 was the OLD shape, for SDTV, now obsolete.

andrew28
03-12-2005, 09:54 AM
I don't think that's odd at all... tube (direct view CRT) is one thing, compatiblity with the HDTV standard requirement of widescreen is another.

CRT HDTV's are still rooted in 50 year old technology (e.g. 20th century).

My point is that the only way for the 21st century argument to truly be valid would be for it to come from someone who's using 21st century (or even late 20th century) technology (not an alteration to the tube TV's we all had as kids).

RSawdey
03-12-2005, 11:50 AM
Although TV is much younger, the CRT has been around for over 100 years! Roentgen was playing with a CRT when he noticed it gave off X-rays!

couchnit
03-12-2005, 04:00 PM
Since the idea of postage stamp/boxed video is one of the major objections in this discussion on 4:3, what about SD letterboxed content on your 16:9 display? (i.e. movies on the Sundance channel or IFC or HBO/Showtime)... Do you zoom on them to fill your screen? Doesn't exactly end up looking nice and crisp, huh?

Also, to address the issue of 4:3 and 16:9 size/viewing distance being incorrect in relation to each other on a 4:3 set-- I think it's interesting to point out that 35mm film is, in fact, basically in 4:3 aspect. Most features are shot matted. So really, going between 16:9 content and 4:3 content on your 4:3 TV is not always compromising ideal viewing distance between formats, as can sometimes be the case with 16:9 (those old black and white movies from the '40's shouldn't necessarily be smaller than the ones you watch on your monitor's full width from the correct distance, they sometimes should be taller).

Yes, there's definitely the resolution issue as you point out, but since the whole 16:9 aspect ratio was inspired by feature films, you can also pose the argument that your optimum/ideal 4:3 size should basically be taller than your optimum 16:9 size (think "open matte"). Check some DVDs in your library and you'll see what I mean. The 4:3 "versions" aren't always zoomed or pan/scanned. Maybe instead of the (heretofore unheard) term "narrowscreen," you should use "tallscreen" instead?

Again, your point is well-taken that, ideally, higher-res should be (or rather, is capable of being) viewed larger, and lower-res smaller, but there are other factors to consider as well. Bottom line, I think we should avoid terms like "semi-compatible," because it could lead someone who is considering one of these to think that they don't display HD in its full resolution (which they do).

RSawdey
03-13-2005, 06:31 AM
I usually watch letterboxes in IFC without zoom. Since this is just SDTV, it's really not a good enough quality signal to present really large. This has nothing to do with the display, or it's aspect ratio. Giant screen filling images need HDTV quality. The SDTV standard was designed with 10" screens in mind.

Viewing distance has nothing to do with aspect ratio... it's all about resolution. How far away can you distinguish a detail of a certain size. If we were adopting a standard for a taller format, intended to be displayed larger, it would have more detail. But we're not, and the old narrower format just doesn't have the pixels to look good large. When at the appropriate distance to percieve each pixel's detail, an image with 5 x the detail must be 5 x as large an area. When a 'tallscreen' SDTV image is shown on a widescreen display, the display gives it 3/4 of the area - much undeserved since it only has 1/5 the detail. When a 'tallscreen' display shows a widescreen HDTV image, it devotes 3/4 of it's screen to an image with 5 x the detail, when it NEEDS to dedicate 500% of it's area!

Your 'open matte' hasn't been in use since films went talkie... because they don't fit the shape of the human visual field. When your vision is more filled, the illusion of immersion (like being there) is increased. In competition with the limited width of SDTV, film adopted Cinemascope, then Cinerama... more width = more realistic illusion.

When the Advanced Television Standards Committee (ATSC) was called upon to bring us an improved version of television they adopted an aspect ratio closer to the proportions of the human visual field, and closer to the proportions used with film (since we like to show film on TV). HDTV at 16:9 is 1.78:1, Academy standard is 1.85:1 (17:9), Cinemascope is 2.35:1 (22:9). Analog NTSC was 12:9 (4:3).

I think 'semi-compatible' is a good description... even IF CRTs could produce the full 1920 x 1080 they claim (they don't) the detail is presented too small to percieve on these sets when the viewer is at the proper distance to see SDTV. Conversely, if sitting at a distance to properly percieve detail for the HDTV image, your SDTV image will show just how blurry, noisy, and artifacted it is... because you would be sitting five times too close.

The 4:3 display shape is INcompatible with the ATSC standard, even though a small HDTV image can be shown on a portion of the screen. Many inconveniences derive from not following the standard, making them a PITA to use.

couchnit
03-13-2005, 06:14 PM
If you reject the idea that physical screen size and composition/size of subjects contained within should have nothing to do with optimal viewing distance—and that it’s ONLY a matter of resolution—then there’s probably no point in a discussion. There are a lot of us who disagree and take these other factors into consideration when deciding on a display; the high-resolution of HD is, of course, our huge added bonus.

My comment on “open-matte” refers to film-to-video transfers, and the method employed to achieve a 4x3 version of a feature film that was shot for 1.85. I can assure you that this has long been, and still is, in practice. My point is that if a viewer does, in fact, take into consideration screen size, subject/composition/aspect, etc., when deciding what display/viewing distance is “optimal,” then there isn’t necessarily a discrepancy between “accurately” viewing 16x9 and 4x3 material (in relation to each other) on a 4x3 display. Again, if you reject these other factors and are only concerned with whether or not the eye can perceive an artifact, then you simply have a different set of criteria.

I am curious that after complaining of SD anamorphic content on 4x3 resulting in boxed video, you don’t seem too bothered by the issue of SD letterbox video on 16x9 (which yields the same result). Isn’t a 2.35 scope feature on IFC then too small to watch? Well, this is one of the major advantages 4x3 viewers enjoy. We don’t have to sacrifice size or resolution by zooming on such content. And, as some here have already pointed out, a 36” 4x3 HD set gives you the equivalent of a 34” 16x9 set-- the same widescreen area and the same 4x3 pillar-box area. And, for now, a much better (full) viewing option for the SD (especially letterboxed) content that’s still so common.

When all broadcasts eventually migrate to 16x9 as you remind us, we’ll still have the advantage of our tube’s picture quality and proven lifespan. And, at that point it won’t matter if the mattes have burned in because they won’t be used, right? (I don’t agree that this is a problem at all with a quality product like a Sony WEGA tube—I see no evidence of it). Again, think of 36” 4x3s as 34” widescreen sets, just with a little extra height. It shouldn’t be implied that those 34 inches don’t offer the same HD resolution as the widescreen set. That’s why “semi-compatible” is unfair.

Yes, 4x3 (and direct-view in general) is an obsolete format for larger rooms and spacious home theaters, but for appropriately smaller spaces that can also accommodate the depth of a tube, it’s not a bad choice at all.

russiet
03-14-2005, 08:55 AM
No.

RSawdey
03-14-2005, 02:51 PM
It's not the letterboxing, I much prefer content OAR... it's the relative areas.

Resolution is what determines the optimal viewing distance... it's that distance at which we can resolve all detail & not see the production artifacts like raster lines or screen door. It maximizes the visual percentage occupied by the image. It breaks down to being able to discriminate a certain sized element of the picture (pixel).

Which is just a complicated way of saying optimal viewing distance is a function of a certain sized pixel our limited human senses can percieve. And the more pixels, the more area required to present the image. Otherwise you are so close you break the illusion, or so far you can't resolve the pixels.

RSawdey
03-14-2005, 03:31 PM
Using an opened matte or dematted master is a way of trying to include a wider percentage of the image than when panning within the matte... but that newly included area was not in the director's intent when he framed his presentation. Definate chance of including a bit of boom mike or power pylons in your old west... :D

HDohioTV
03-26-2005, 10:12 AM
I'm happy with both my 16:9 and my 4:3 HDTVs.

Abe
03-29-2005, 12:50 AM
So, would a 36" 4:3 be a clear disappointment to a 34" 16:9? Is the pixel density actually higher on the 16:9 tubes?

I Currently have a 32" SDTV which is on its way out and would like to avoid buying another SDTV. I am considering replacing it with either a 34" 16:9 HD or a 36" 4:3 HD. Even if I got some HD content, 90% of viewing would still be SDTV. Considering the SDTV on a 34" 16:9 will result in a 27" 4:3 image, will that trade-off be overshadowed by the increased picture quality of the few HD channels and DVD movies being displayed? Is the 34" PQ better than the letterboxed 36"?
I havent seen a lot of 36" HDTVs in stores so it's been tough comparing them to the 34" widescreens. Has anyone been able to do any side-by-side comparisons?
DVD in progressive is more important to me that HD programming right now. I am considering this set sort of a "temporary fix" that will hold me over for a couple years.

Unfortunatly, spouse does not agree to spending $3000 on a PRO-530HD. :(
It's OK though, i'll wait for the 1080p stuff and spend 5x that :D

RSawdey
03-29-2005, 08:53 AM
I really try to discourage people considering a narrowscreen set for HD use... the HDTV standard spec's a wide display & all HDTV is transmitted in the wide frame. Widescreen is the ONLY way to go...

Another issue is size... I recommend people get a widescreen set that shows an inset 4:3 image that is the same size or larger than their old set. Another way of saying it is you need a widescreen with the same or larger screen HEIGHT than your old set. That suggests you'll be happier with a set at least 40". It's been said you can't begin to see all the details without a set at least that big. But that would mean some technology other than direct view CRT, since they max out at 34 or 36".

DLP RPTVs in the 40+" range start at $2000, LCD RPTVs start at $1800.

rbinck
03-29-2005, 08:58 AM
I don't think a blanket statement can be made as it will depend on the way the tube is constructed. If we are talking about a shadow mask type tube where the electron beam must pass through holes to light up the tube, then in theory 2 tubes that have the same dot pitch in the shadow masks (likely) will be very different. Say the shadow mask is set for 600 lines of resolution (typical) then the 16:9 tube would use the entire 600 lines to create the picture. The 4:3 tube would use fewer than the 600 lines due to the letterboxing to create the 16:9 image.

Now this difference will not be present in the Trinitron sets, because they use vertical wires in lieu of the shadow masks, so theoretically all of the 720 or 1080 lines could be scanned either way. This is why Sony (and others that use the same technology) is considered the best direct view set for the money.

The horizontal resolution would probably be the same for both the 4:3 tube and the 16:9 tube assuming they were the same width and had the same dot pitch.

CatManDoo
03-29-2005, 01:11 PM
Now this difference will not be present in the Trinitron sets, because they use vertical wires in lieu of the shadow masks, so theoretically all of the 720 or 1080 lines could be scanned either way. This is why Sony (and others that use the same technology) is considered the best direct view set for the money.

Can you please confirm or deny that the CRT in my 34" Zenith WS was made by Sony? This is what a salesman told me and I believed him, but I have not been able to get independent confirmation of that. I have searched the 'net, but to no avail.

Zenith C34W37 (http://www.zenith.com/index.asp?url=./sub_prod/subCategory_Display.asp%3Fcat%3D46)
Either way I wouldn't return my set, because I love the picture (which leads me to believe it IS a Sony tube). I'm just curious and every time I mention this I have to qualify my statement because I really don't know for sure. Thanks a lot!

Abe
03-29-2005, 02:50 PM
RSawdey,
I understand why you discourage the narrow sets but, in my scenario, I'm comparing a 34" widescreen to a 36" non-widescreen. Fitting a 16:9 image on a 36" results in a 33" HD image. Therefore, the final letterboxed HD image size is only slightly smaller on the 36". Conversely, fitting a 4:3 image on a 34" widescreen results in a 27" SD image which significantly smaller then the 36" SD image.

So, in my opinion it would come down to the PQ trade-offs, if any.

Theoretically, if a 34"widescreen resolved 600 lines and a 36" SDTV resolved 800 lines then a letterboxed HD picture on the 36" should be 600 lines, which would equal the resolution of the widescreen but as a slightly smaller image.

I dont like to get too caught up in the numbers but I think in this case they may help form expectations and possibly give a little more direction on which sets to audition.
It will all boil down to what I (or whoever is looking) perceive as having a better picture.

rbinck
03-29-2005, 03:37 PM
My company was a Zenith dealer, now LG Electronics. I don't think that is true, although the Zenith tube are fine pitch picture tubes, so I agree with you about the great picture. LG Electronics is a Korean company, so it is doubtful on the face that they would use a Sony tube as LG are the old Goldstar people.

The number of lines the two would resolve would have to be known to make such a comparison. If both tubes have the same dot pitch then there would be more dots in the 4:3 tube than in the same width 16:9 tube. Problem is the dot pitch (or stripe pitch for Sony) is hard to find for any given tube.

vash0523
03-29-2005, 11:03 PM
Although TV is much younger, the CRT has been around for over 100 years! Roentgen was playing with a CRT when he noticed it gave off X-rays!

Ha, someone paid attention in Physics class.. or is a physics teacher.. or a physicist..

RSawdey
03-30-2005, 09:22 AM
I COULD say it was in the bio of him on one of the science channels recently... but my major was chemistry, so you're close.