luff1624705743 Posted November 12, 2002 Posted November 12, 2002 I've been watching a few latest DVDs and they come in the format of 16:9. This makes it a little annoying as I only have so much on my screen. Currently toying with the the idea of getting one. 1. How much does an entry level one cost? 2. Is it better to just get a bigger screen? Please advice.
Guest karlie Posted November 12, 2002 Posted November 12, 2002 I never advise anyone to get a 16/9 CRT display. It's an aberration. Get a 4/3 display that can compress and display the 16/9 signal without loss of resolution (sony Wega and others). This is the only way to get bangs for bucks. With a 16/9 tube, your bucks go into the challenge of making a rectangular tube that will not implode. With a 4/3 tube your bucks go into making the picture as nice as can be. charles
dbchoong Posted November 12, 2002 Posted November 12, 2002 From the way I see it, 16:9 is the way to go if you watch DVDs. A conventional 4:3 TV cannot do justice to widescreen DVDs unless you have a huge TV (> 33"). Currently 4:3 TVs still offer better value for money, but it just can't do it for widescreen movies. If you can afford it, get a widescreen TV. If not, get a large 4:3 TV. I remember my wife telling me "Don't ever buy those widescreen TVs. The picture is funny." But of course, being a typical guy, was I listening?... :) Saw a 2nd hand Panasonic 32" widescreen in Singnet ads and bought it for $800. Brought it back and my wife thought I was crazy. But now, she agrees completely that widescreen TVs was the right choice. DVDs played look absolutely beautiful. But normal TV programs (TCS, Channel U, etc.) suffered a bit as they are aired as 4:3. IMO, if your priority is DVDs - get widescreen if you can. If priority is off-the-air TV, then get a normal TV. If you're really into DVD watching, ever considered a 16:9 projector? ;D
luff1624705743 Posted November 13, 2002 Author Posted November 13, 2002 I've been looking at catalogs and shops but can't seem to tell the difference between a conventional 4:3 and 16:9. Is there a definate way of differentiating them? With regards to the Sony one that 'adjust' the pic from 16:9 to 4:3, is there a specific name to that function? Is that only exclusive to Sony TV?
htfreak Posted November 13, 2002 Posted November 13, 2002 luff.. as a owner of two widescreen TV's for the past 6 years. My recommendation is to go for it IF it is within your means of buying it. Unfortunately there is a dearth of widescreen CRT's available in the market at the moment which can accept progressive inputs. The only one I can think of now is the Philips Pixel Plus which at 36" is fairly acceptable in size but costs $4299 at stores like Best. Your other alternatives could include Plasma screens from various manufacturers ranging from 32" to 50" with prices from $6K to $20K. IMO, no matter how big a 4:3" TV can be, it will never be able to emulate the joy of watching 16:9 source materials on a widescreen TV. The feeling is just so different but be prepared for a burnt out wallet. ;D
luff1624705743 Posted November 13, 2002 Author Posted November 13, 2002 OMG! Did not know one wide screen tv cost soooo much ... Was working with a budget of 1k and nothing more, perhaps I'lll look into getting a second hand one. Don't want to burn a hole in my pocket. In the mean time I'll just have to stick with my good ol 4:3.
htfreak Posted November 13, 2002 Posted November 13, 2002 I've been looking at catalogs and shops but can't seem to tell the difference between a conventional 4:3 and 16:9. Is there a definate way of differentiating them? With regards to the Sony one that 'adjust' the pic from 16:9 to 4:3, is there a specific name to that function? Is that only exclusive to Sony TV? The term for this function is either "Vertical Squeeze" or "Anamorphic Squeeze" depending on the manufacturer.
Tyrion Posted November 13, 2002 Posted November 13, 2002 Is there a function that a 16:9 plasma screen has that converts a 4:3 signals? I remember seeing both a 16:9 plasma and 4:3 rear projection screen demoing a Madonna video at Carrefour. Both sets' images look really similar without any black borders. Any idea why? I've been looking at catalogs and shops but can't seem to tell the difference between a conventional 4:3 and 16:9. Is there a definate way of differentiating them? With regards to the Sony one that 'adjust' the pic from 16:9 to 4:3, is there a specific name to that function? Is that only exclusive to Sony TV? The term for this function is either "Vertical Squeeze" or "Anamorphic Squeeze" depending on the manufacturer.
Jag Posted November 13, 2002 Posted November 13, 2002 Yeah, stretch mode. The screen stretches only the sides while maintaining the geometry in the centre. To us, the image looks fine. In fact, the extreme sides are stretched. This feature is present in all 16:9 plasmas/TV/Pj. Just that the effect varies from manufacturer. Dats why 16:9 pjs are better because of this stretch feature.
Guest karlie Posted November 13, 2002 Posted November 13, 2002 If a 4/3 TV can display 16/9 program at the correct resolution e.g. 520(i or p) lines in a 16/9 aspect ratio, there is no reason to go for a 16/9 box That is unless a/ you prefer the shape of the box. b/ you have a lot of money to spend. A 16/9 tube (not considering masks (or grid) or electronics) is by itself extremely expensive to build. A 4/3 tube is a lot cheaper to build, and with the proper mask (or grid) and electronics it can display anamorphic videos very well. Well, may be building a mask to work properly for 4/3 and 16/9 is not so cheap. What I am trying to say is that the aspect ratio of the tube does not necessarily match the quality or capabilities of the display.
htfreak Posted November 13, 2002 Posted November 13, 2002 the problem is that u see so much more of the black bars that it becomes a major distraction when viewing 16:9 stuff on 4:3 TV. This is especially worse when u engage the anamorphic squeeze function for anamorphic discs. Hence, the premium is still worth it in my opinion. But as I said, this is only my opinion.
luff1624705743 Posted November 13, 2002 Author Posted November 13, 2002 The term for this function is either "Vertical Squeeze" or "Anamorphic Squeeze" depending on the manufacturer. With regards to this squeeze function I'd assume it can only be found in new tvs right? Just a rough gauge ... how much would one cost?
Guest karlie Posted November 14, 2002 Posted November 14, 2002 the problem is that u see so much more of the black bars that it becomes a major distraction when viewing 16:9 stuff on 4:3 TV. This is especially worse when u engage the anamorphic squeeze function for anamorphic discs. To me black bars (and the phospore should be off on the black bars) are less visible than the frame of the TV.
Corona11 Posted November 15, 2002 Posted November 15, 2002 Philips Pixel Plaus 34" 4:3 is only $2999.00 very tempting. For PJ, I would definitely go for 16:9 no less.
Recommended Posts