 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I did a couple quick calculations comparing a
30" 16:9 screen w/ a 32" conventional (there are
2 Samsung Models that are priced identically in
these sizes).It looks like a 16:9 LetterBox image on a 32"
conventional screen will actually be almost the
same size the 16:9 image on a 30" Wide screen
w/in an inch or so. (the 30" wide screen
image size is 26.1" X 14.7" and the 32" 16:9
letterbox size is 25.6" X 14.4" ).So.... my question is, which is the better
purchase, and why? What should be my decision
criteria. W/ a CRT, are there substantial
burn-in issues w/ letterboxing either for
16:9 images on a conventional screen or 4:3
images on a Wide screen?Also, if my calcs are right, the 30" Wide
shows 4:3 images equivalent to a 24" diagonal
conventional TV.let's get the dialogue going ...
Follow Ups:
If you go to:
http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml
you'll find that 16:9 (1.78:1) is not really
a common film format anyway, so EVEN a wide
screen TV will have letterboxing for most
films. Most epics are even greater than 2:1.
I don't know what the burn-in problems would
be on CRTs.
Rule of 92I use the Rule of 92 for 16:9 (1.78:1) movies. If you have a 4:3 display, then just multiply the diagonal size by 92% to get the on screen movie size. Here's an example using a 50" 4:3 display: 50 x .92 = 46" diagonal screen size of equal 16:9 display. If you have a 16:9 display and want to know how large a 4:3 display would have to be to display the same diagonal movie size, then reverse the process: 60 / .92 = 65.22" diagonal screen size of equal 4:3 display. It's accurate to a quarter of an inch.
Yes, this sounds exactly right- a 30" 16:9 wide screen
image, using your formula, would require a 32.67" 4:3
conventional screen. So a 30" Wide is very close to a
32" conventional. (For letterbox images, not for 4:3 imaages)
I recently did a lot of HDTV shopping. Your estimates on the 30" 4:3 image size are close.Unless your room is small, I think the 30" sets are undersized for 4:3 programming. If you watch mainly cable TV, then a 32" would make sense.
But have you considered a 34" set? That's what I bought and it displays a good sized standard 4:3 image and a great 16:9 DVD or HD one. Bars on the sides don't bother me - a 2:35.1 image on a 32" 4:3 screen with massive bars top and bottom...now THAT bothers me.
It just depends on what you want to optimize your viewing for - we have digital cable, but we mainly watch movies off it, and we watch a lot of DVDs. Therefor, it was more important to us to go for the best 16:9 experience, which is definitlely going to be had on a widescreen TV.
I'm not a big fan of stretch modes. As I said, the bars with 4:3 don't trouble me overmuch. But as far as burn=in on either aspect ratio, unless you/re running your set in showroom "torch mode", with the contrast and the brightness cranked all the way up, you shouldn't have any burn-in issues with a CRT direct view.
You might want to check out www.avsforum.com and their direct view forum. Lots of good TV info there, including Samsung comparisons.
(Have you checked out the Zeniths?)
If you are going to be using this set a lot for just watching regular TV, I would suggest a 4:3 set with a shrinkable scan raster for anamorphic DVDs. I don't like the stretch mode on 16:9 TVs, and many people apparently find the alternative gray bars along the side of the 4:3 picture somewhat annoying. The material I watch on my TV is over 90% 4:3, so I was comfortable going with the Sony 43" digital RPTV. I am frankly surprised at the number of widescreen sets on the market--if you have a lot of HDTV available or the majority of your TV viewing is 16:9 DVDs, fine, but I don't think most people fall into those categories.Todd
Earlier this year, my wife and I were able to move into a larger house to prepare for an expanding family. The new place has a downstairs family room and an upstairs bonus/"play" room. I realized we'd probably watch a lot of cable TV and videos downstairs and move upstairs for movies, so I put my existing 32" 4:3 downstairs and purchased a 47" widescreen as the centerpiece of my home theater. The upstairs unit only play DVDs and receives 2 channels OTA (ABC and CBS, both of which bring me football on Sunday & Monday, thank goodness) . . .
So you watch 4:3 Football on a 16:9 Wide?
Do the side bars bug you at all or is it
not a big deal?
It's called "JUST" -- for "justify," I guess -- in the on-screen menu. Took some getting used to, but it looks OK and I don't have to worry about burn-in . . .
I seem to be going through the same decision process as you (see my 32" hdtv post below)...anyway, I was looking at that exact 30" samsung and I felt that the widescreen just does not lend itself well to regular tv viewing. The black bars on the sides or stretching the picture to fit both look silly to me...I am going with a 4:3...
Interesting, thanks! I guess the side bars are more
annoying to folks than the top & bottom letterbox
bars? And no one likes stretched images? I haven't
looked at a stretched 4:3 on a 16:9, so I can't say.
But for movies & stuff, I like the Wide. Both
samsungs look like good, reasonably priced models.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
