 
|
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 |
Found a cool site that shows what happens when a movie is modified to fit your screen. It's a 2 minute demo.
Follow Ups:
http://homepage.mac.com/hdtv_guide/
Then see the six links. Though, that site seems to favor 4:3 TVs and monitors for value, since the 4:3 set is cheaper, and you can just deal with the black bars when viewing widescreen material.Though, like you, I think wide screen is the best (especially if the material is shot in widescreen). Just buy a bigger TV and deal with the black bars and the risk of burn-in! :-) Someday, for example, a 34" 16:9 set may be cheaper than a 36" 4:3 set. Both yield the same size 16:9 image at the same resolution (assuming it does compression to use all the scan lines for the 16:9 image).
And one day I WILL trade in my 36" 4:3 36af61 SDTV for a 34" 16:9 whatever modelnumber by then HDTV. since pretty much everything I watch is already 16:9 or wider. This seems to be the aspect ratio of the future.
A 4:3 TV is a better value, and 16:9 TV's are definitely priced at a premium. You can get the same size 16:9 image on a brand of 4:3 TV as on the same brand 16:9 TV for less money. But 16:9 TV's look much slicker, they don't cost THAT much more, and I only watch DVD's anyway (so I get less black/grey bars this way). Usually the 16:9 TV's have a few extra features that relate to higher definition use.
Sort of true. Take Toshiba's line (which I like a lot). The 36inch 4:3 hi-def (36HF71) is about $1699 at my best buy (brooklyn, OH). The 34inch 16:9 hi-def (34H81) is $2349. A difference of about $650. At least it isn't 2x more, I suppose. I guess it depends how easy one can swallow that $650 (in this case). And YMMV from other retailer or other models, naturally.
That is a fair $$ difference, I wonder if the WS Toshiba doesn't have some more HD and other features? Many large-screen TV's are NOT HD capable (esp. 4:3), so watch that when comparing. Also, the price difference between direct-view 4:3 and 16:9 can be quite large, and I'm assuming that is what you were comparing. Different technology than RPTV, and harder to do in larger sizes. What I meant by slicker is it doesn't look so tall and dominating in the viewing room, you know, slimmed down a bit. As mentioned, I do not watch broadcast TV, and if I did I would certainly have a 4:3 TV for that (I do in the BR, 12 years old and lightly used). Viewing 4:3 pictures (from DVD) on the WS without distortion (or losing stuff) gives me a pretty small picture compared to the screen size, but I think all I have of those is The Simpsons, Fawlty Towers, and Black Adder. HBO TV looks GREAT on DVD's.
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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
