16:9 vs. 4:3 Format for New HDTV

[Clocker]

Hi guys-

I'm mulling over the purchase of a new HDTV (CRT). I'm trying to decide if I should get a wide-screen unit (16:9) or a standard size (4:3). From what I'm seeing, the biggest 16:9 set I'll find that will fit my entertainment center is a 34" while the biggest 4:3 set is a 36".

If you had to choose between the 36" 4:3 or the 34" 16:9, which would you choose and why? Which way should I go? Am I missing anything?

Thanks,
Clocker

 

[jtr1962]

I'll be faced with a similar decision when I buy an HDTV next year. I'll probably choose a 32" or 34" wide-screen over a 36" standard screen for the simple reason that more and more is being shown in letter-box format. Most letter-box programming will actually appear smaller on the 36" than on a smaller widescreen. I'd say go with the wide-screen. It's the future. It won't be long before almost nothing is made in the 4:3 format.

Ideally I'd like to go with an even larger plasma unit and hang it on the ceiling over my bed (thus absolutely no size constraints). However, I don't see the prices of plasma TVs coming down to earth any time soon. I'm hoping by the time I'm ready a 32" wide screen CRT will be available for under $600.

 

[Pradeep]

Hi guys-

I'm mulling over the purchase of a new HDTV (CRT). I'm trying to decide if I should get a wide-screen unit (16:9) or a standard size (4:3). From what I'm seeing, the biggest 16:9 set I'll find that will fit my entertainment center is a 34" while the biggest 4:3 set is a 36".

If you had to choose between the 36" 4:3 or the 34" 16:9, which would you choose and why? Which way should I go? Am I missing anything?

Thanks,
Clocker

If the majority of your TV viewage will be 4:3 then I would suggest going with the 4:3 36". in fact you would get a 33" 16:9 image on the 36", only an inch smaller than the 32" widescreen TV. Plus you would get the full 36" for 4:3, whereas 4:3 windowboxed on the widescreen would be only 28"

http://att.com.com/4520-7608_7-1016109-4.html has a neat calculator.

Personally I went with the widescreen, and it really is nice, especially with a lot of my DVDs which are 2.35:1, you still get a nice large picture which would be smaller on a 4:3 set.

jtr, I believe there is a Philips widescreen CRT (30") for around the $700 mark, so you should see your 32" affordable pretty soon.

 

[Clocker]

Thanks. THat guide looks pretty informative. I'll be going through it. I'll probably end up with the 36" standard set as it is cheaper than the 34" wide screens {it seems}..

C

 

[Mercutio]

I keep buying widescreen TVs, because most of my viewing is movies or TV shows that were produced in letterbox.

Which should someday be the standard for all new TV content as well.

But for now watching 4:3 content is mildly unsatisfying and even a little annoying. I can stretch the picture horizontally, so everyone looks a little fat or I can have bars on the sides, which is not a big deal for a DLP set but that can really screw up a projection or Plasma TV.

Most importantly, if your primary interest is TV, spending the same amout of cash will get you a 4:3 set that can produce an image equal to the size of your 16:9 set (and which will display 4:3 content smaller).

 

[skeet]

Haven't posted here for awhile and just wanted to catch up with tannin. I'm a online/editor colourist in the UK. The only thing produced in 4x3 now is the news. And thats only because they haven't got the resources to switch immediately. Cheap cameras are only now producing 16x9 images off a larger CCD but they are here now. I bought a tru anamorphic 16x9 DV camera for £400 the other day. Don't ever buy a 4x3 Television. In the UK all 4x3 transmissions will switch off in 2007 and Australia must be pretty close behind because 4x3 sets will become uneconomic to produce. I haven't actually made a programme in 4x3 now for about 5 years which gives you some indication of how mature the format is. HDTV is a complete load of rubbish with low res MPG transmissions but 16x9 is here to stay. Just my humble two bobs worth...

 

[Mercutio]

Man I wish I lived someplace civilized.
In your country I'll bet they let the elect the head of state, too.

 

[Pradeep]

I don't think you can elect the Queen Merc Tho Aus had a decent go at getting rid of her, we failed. We still have the Governer-General as Her Majs representative.

 

[Mercutio]

Meh. "Chosen by God" beats the hell out of "Appointed by the Supreme Court".

 

[Pradeep]

Haven't posted here for awhile and just wanted to catch up with tannin. I'm a online/editor colourist in the UK. The only thing produced in 4x3 now is the news. And thats only because they haven't got the resources to switch immediately. Cheap cameras are only now producing 16x9 images off a larger CCD but they are here now. I bought a tru anamorphic 16x9 DV camera for £400 the other day. Don't ever buy a 4x3 Television. In the UK all 4x3 transmissions will switch off in 2007 and Australia must be pretty close behind because 4x3 sets will become uneconomic to produce. I haven't actually made a programme in 4x3 now for about 5 years which gives you some indication of how mature the format is. HDTV is a complete load of rubbish with low res MPG transmissions but 16x9 is here to stay. Just my humble two bobs worth...

Australia does have HD tv but looking at this site:

http://www.dba.org.au/index.asp?sectionID=15

The government is accepting 576P as a HD signal. And most of the 1080i broadcasts are merely upsampled versions of the SD feed. Oh well, perhaps the people will be satisfied with 16:9 in low rez. If they never see true native 1080i they won't know what they are missing.

 

[Pradeep]

Upon further investigation is looks like only Channel 7 is broadcasting 576p. Fortunately the cricket is on 9. Now if only I could get that HD feed on PPV Dish Network.