Question:
Looking at the Sony Wega 29" that Tesco are doing for about £480. Any comments or other suggestions ? Ta
Err ... Yeah get a widescreen. Most broadcasters are switching over now anyway.
But if you must get a 4:3 Then the 29inch Wega is pretty damned fine. I had this TV before getting a widescreen version of the same... and if anything prefered it's picture.
At the price you quouted it's good value.
But I would stress Widescreen is the way to go.
Originally posted by Fatboydim
But I would stress Widescreen is the way to go.
Rubbish - I rented a widescreen telly for eighteen months and the day I saw the back of it was one of unbridled glee and merriment, as I knew the days of endless fiddling just to try to achieve some kind of halfway acceptable aspect ratio compromise were finally behind me.
A widescreen set <U>might</U> suit you, depending on your viewing preferences - but don't believe the hype. A great many people prefer 4:3 sets, and have very good reasons for doing so!
You'll have the same problems fiddling with your 4:3 set in a few years time. Since widescreens are becoming the norm.
Each to his own.... But if you want to future proof... widescreen is the way to go.:thumbs:
I've got the same 4:3 telly as Mr Brooke and bought it for exactly the same reasons. As much as I can categorically guarantee that he has vastly more non-WS material than I, the idea of it being a happy medium for all sorts of aspect ratios is still very much valid.
Yes, a lot of teev is now broadcast in WS, with pretty much all Hollywood output in WS also, my few other AR movies, such as the Kubrick stuff like The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, etc, is far superior on my set, than having a 4:3 picture on a WS set - nice small box in the middle of the screen! :oh-hum:
Also stuff on TV that isn't in WS, such as The Simpsons, looks stunning.
I know where you're coming from, but it is nowhere near a complete argument by saying WS is the way to go.....
:)
Having said that, I am thinking of selling my 4:3 RPTV but simply as I'm considering an upgrade to a full projector system. I would prolly buy a WS tv set for general day to day telly viewing....
Love my 43" 4:3 RP Tosh, and it's the same price as the same width w/s model, plus no ******* around with aspect ratio modes. A 4:3 TV with an anamorphic mode is the ideal solution for me, for all the above reasons, and because Mario Kart looks AMAZING at that size :D
I think widescreen TV are better if you use Digital TV, DVDs and games
but 4:3 is probably better for cartoons, and normal TV (Non digital) and games.
I use US Gamecube with widescreen TV and 4:3 TV and there is no major problem with it.
Widescreen TV is a safer bet and more natural to watch then 4:3 TV.
If you buy a 29 inches 4:3 TV now and use it for a while and upgrade to a 36 inches widescreen TV or a Plasma TV in 2005 for example. You still can use your 29 inches TV in your office/bedroom and use it for gaming without annoying your wife/girlfriend.
I could be wrong but I'm guessing that £480 for a 29" 4:3 tv (which, by my calculations will give a "16:9", letter-boxed picture roughly the same size as a "full-screen" picture on a 28" w/s tv) is ever-so-slightly less money than a 28" w/s set of equivalent quality?
But, like I said, I could wrong...
Incidently GK, do you have a model number for that set? I'm looking at a Sony 29" at the moment (KV29FX30) and am looking for some comments (preferably similar to Fatboydim's in his second para.).
Originally posted by Fatboydim
You'll have the same problems fiddling with your 4:3 set in a few years time. Since widescreens are becoming the norm.
How? If my telly is fed a 16:9 signal, it displays a 16:9 picture (with anamorphic enhancement). If it's fed a 4:3 signal, it displays a 4:3 picture. No fiddling, no compromises, no adjustments - I get exactly what I'm supposed to get with absolutely no effort on my part.
So how exactly do you envisage things getting more difficult down the line?
Each to his own.... But if you want to future proof... widescreen is the way to go.:thumbs:
The simple fact is that a 4:3 telly with a 16:9 mode is capable of displaying a greater variety of pictures correctly than a 16:9 telly, and with far less effort on the part of the viewer.
Not only is it just as future proof as any widescreen model (a move to some kind of high-definition signal, which would leave virtually all widescreen TV owners equally scuppered), but it's also fully backwards compatible with any type of material - which a widescreen set demonstrably isn't (or at least not without resorting to cropping, stretching, shrinking or similar distortions).
So I'm not just future-proof but <U>past</U>-proof as well - and if you have an extensive video collection built up over nearly two decades, that's a pretty big deal.
I'm getting the 43" 4:3 Tosh anyway..got enough recommendations on the forums!
So I'm not just future-proof but past-proof as well - and if you have an extensive video collection built up over nearly two decades, that's a pretty big deal.
I believe those eight track cartridges where pretty good in their day too.:D
Originally posted by Fatboydim
I believe those eight track cartridges where pretty good in their day too.:D
I suspect an eight-track player would play just as well if you hooked it up to a current amplifier - whereas my point is that many pre-1999 video recordings do <U>not</U> come across very well if you hook them up to a widescreen set.
And you haven't answered my question: in what way am I going to be disadvantaged a few years down the line, given that my 4:3 telly displays 16:9 pictures perfectly?
And you haven't answered my question: in what way am I going to be disadvantaged a few years down the line, given that my 4:3 telly displays 16:9 pictures perfectly?
Ok.... Currently broadcasters are transmitting signals that are not true 16:9 as there are still more 4:3 TV's in the UK than widescreen. However this is already beginning to change since most production companies film in WS now... both because it is more cinematic, and they have an eye to the DVD market. Therefore those lovely black bars are going to get broader on 4:3 sets. Of course if you have a large enough 4:3 set... It's not too big a deal. But then the same could be said of WS sets. Most have a 4:3 mode which means that when viewing such material the bars appear at the side. Is this anymore distracting than bars at the top and bottom? Matter of opinion.
There's nothing wrong with my turntable either.... and plenty of people who think that vinyl sounds better than CDs. But as Arthur Daley once said.
Some people have opinions... while others have taste.;)
I nearly added as an afterthought "And no bloody 'Get a widescreen' responses, please !" But thought better of it ...
Anyway, partly for reasons covered above, but mostly for reasons covered comprehensively by Michael Brooke, I simply want a decent sized, quality, inexpensive 4:3, and the Sony WEGA 29" appears to top that particular league (despite the fact that Tesco have gone back to the £550 standard pricing point. Comet, however, are doing it online for £510. All things considered, that's good value.)
StuNew - model no I have is KV29LS30SL.
Originally posted by Fatboydim
Ok.... Currently broadcasters are transmitting signals that are not true 16:9 as there are still more 4:3 TV's in the UK than widescreen. However this is already beginning to change since most production companies film in WS now... both because it is more cinematic, and they have an eye to the DVD market. Therefore those lovely black bars are going to get broader on 4:3 sets. Of course if you have a large enough 4:3 set... It's not too big a deal.
It's not a deal at all - and if that's really the best example of a compromise you can come up with, you're pretty much supporting my argument!
But then the same could be said of WS sets. Most have a 4:3 mode which means that when viewing such material the bars appear at the side. Is this anymore distracting than bars at the top and bottom? Matter of opinion.
It shouldn't be distracting at all if you accept that black bars are necessary for displaying the picture in the correct aspect ratio and the correct proportions - but you've missed my point, which is that for me 16:9 tellies are extremely inconvenient when displaying non-standard pictures, because while you have various options for dealing with them, the end result is always going to be less satisfactory than what you'd get with a 4:3 set - and requires more work on your part even to reach that degree of compromise.
So how is this an improvement when a decent 4:3 set will display every type of image perfectly without any fiddling whatsoever?
There's nothing wrong with my turntable either.... and plenty of people who think that vinyl sounds better than CDs.
Flippant comments about 25-year-old technology aren't especially helpful when I'm talking about displaying certain current DVD releases properly! I buy a lot of Hong Kong discs (at less than a fiver a go, they're pretty irresistible), and even recent releases can often be non-anamorphic letterbox with subtitles below the frame.
And it's not as though I opt for non-anamorphic letterbox out of perversity - the fact is that if you're into HK films, the overwhelming majority of titles are only available in this format, so it's a choice between non-anamorphic letterbox and not seeing a great many titles at all. I suspect much the same is true of people who are into Bollywood films.
Some people have opinions... while others have taste.;)
Indeed - and it's precisely because my taste covers a rather wider range than many people that I need a setup that's as versatile as I can possibly make it! Widescreen sets - and this is based on eighteen months' increasingly frustrating personal experience, not opinion - are hopelessly limited for my purposes, whereas a large-screen 4:3 set with 16:9 mode is perfect.
I'm not remotely challenging your own personal preference for widescreen - just your assertion that it's invariably the best option for everybody.
Is it just me, or if you don't ****** about with the Super-hyper-wide-TV-super-zoom modes on WS TVs, everything is fine. Oh look it's a 4:3 image. Oh look it's in widescreen.
HK dvds :D
Now I know.
It's unfair to GK to hijack this post... Especially since my original point is to say that the Sony is a damned fine 4:3 set. Which indeed was the point of the post.
But your argument re: The turntable doesn't really hold water since they still sell Vinyl discs as well. So it's not exactly flippant is it.
Many of my records cannot be bought on CD.
But the simple fact remains that Widescreen is eventually going to take over. No reason why you shouldn't buy a 4:3 now... But well worth pointing out that this is the way things are going And since this is a DVD forum you are probably in a minority in your preference for a traditional shaped screen. And good luck to you.
But I'll let you have the last word.:brickwall
Originally posted by mjb1975
Having said that, I am thinking of selling my 4:3 RPTV but simply as I'm considering an upgrade to a full projector system. I would prolly buy a WS tv set for general day to day telly viewing....
Make sure you have the space for the projector system, and preferably a dedicated room! I have to do a lot of fiddling to watch a movie (with stands and setup), even though it looks excellent on the grey screen..because I'm moving to a new house without the space I'm compromising with the 43" Tosh..
Originally posted by Fatboydim
But your argument re: The turntable doesn't really hold water since they still sell Vinyl discs as well. So it's not exactly flippant is it.
It is, because it's completely irrelevant to the point I'm making. You can plug your turntable into a current amplifier and get precisely the sound you're supposed to get - but with certain types of non-anamorphic DVD you have to choose between a tiny picture, a cropped picture or a stretched picture, none of which is wholly satisfactory.
Many of my records cannot be bought on CD.
But you would have absolutely no problem converting them to a CD and playing them perfectly on a CD player. On the other hand, were you to convert some of my old tapes to DVD-R (especially the subtitled and letterboxed ones), you'd run up against exactly the same problems with regard to displaying the picture on widescreen sets - so your analogy is similarly flawed.
But the simple fact remains that Widescreen is eventually going to take over. No reason why you shouldn't buy a 4:3 now... But well worth pointing out that this is the way things are going And since this is a DVD forum you are probably in a minority in your preference for a traditional shaped screen. And good luck to you.
I'm not remotely bothered about the shape of the screen - all I'm concerned about is that it displays <U>all</U> my DVDs and other video materials to their best advantage, regardless of what format they're in. Even if widescreen becomes the dominant broadcasting medium, so what? I can display widescreen pictures perfectly at the moment, so there's absolutely no benefit to me in going back to 16:9, either now or at any point in the future.
Believe it or not, back in 1999 I was completely sold on the pro-widescreen propaganda that you're peddling now, but… well, put it like this, I was glad I rented! :D
Originally posted by Phayze
Is it just me, or if you don't ****** about with the Super-hyper-wide-TV-super-zoom modes on WS TVs, everything is fine. Oh look it's a 4:3 image. Oh look it's in widescreen.
Or "Oh look, it's in non-anamorphic 1.66:1 - damn, which compromise shall I make this time round?" :D
Incidentally, there is one type of picture that works better on widescreen TVs than 4:3 ones - but thankfully anamorphic 4:3 is relatively thin on the ground, probably because it delivers a lower-resolution picture than the non-anamorphic kind, so there's no obvious reason for opting for it unless the distributor wishes to force the viewer to display a 4:3 picture (i.e. without zooming or cropping), which seems a little draconian.
Originally posted by GK
I nearly added as an afterthought "And no bloody 'Get a widescreen' responses, please !" But thought better of it ...
Quite :brickwall
StuNew - model no I have is KV29LS30SL.
Damn! (was hoping it was the same model and therefore get some opinions). Thanks though.
Anyway, all this 4:3 vs w/s debate seems rather confusing and since I am looking to get a new set (and had thought of settling on a 4:3) perhaps I could lay out what I think the relevant points are (note use of word think):
- A 4:3 set will give no compatibility problems with any w/s image. It will always be represented in a "letter box" format (though the black bars will differ in size depending on the w/s format). This means it will always "cope" with any problems such as subtitles dropping off the bottom of the page.
- An anamorphic presentation will make a slight difference to the quality of the image.
- It's perfectly possible to get a 4:3 set that will produce a "letter box" image (at least with "16:9 w/s") equivalent to a "full screen" image on a w/s set. MB's set is a bit of a monster (I calculate it gives a 39" 16:9 image) but a 29" should be equivalent to a 28" 16:9 image.
- 4:3 tv technology has been around a lot longer than 16:9 and so should be less problematical.
- A 16:9 set can have many problems with the different w/s formats: different sized "letter boxes", subtitles dropping off the page etc. The full size of the screen will only be used if the image is anamorphic and in the correct w/s format. Zooming up non-anamorphic films will result in a lose of picture quality.
- An anamorphic presentation will make a more noticable difference to the quality of the image.
- Most terrestrial broadcasts are in 4:3 format and so will produce a "pillar box" effect on a 16:9 set. The size of this image will be significantly smaller than a reasonable sized 4:3 set (a 32" 16:9 set being equivalent to a 25" 4:3 and one would need a 36" 16:9 set to be equivalent to a 29" 4:3).
- Cost! Size for size and quality for quality, 4:3 sets are significantly cheaper than 16:9 sets.
That said, I'm hopeless when it comes to "techie stuff" so may be way off base; feel free to correct…
Stu
Just one thing...
Most broadcasts are in 4:3
I work in the TV industry and can assure you that every Drama that is currently being filmed for the British market is using 16:9 format.
News broadcasts etc etc are beginning to follow suit.
This will become more noticeable as time goes on.
A 43" 4:3 TV will give a 1.85:1 image of around 39.5".
A 40" Widescreen TV will give a 4:3 of significantly less (around 32"?) and be more expensive than the 4:3 set..
I'm another one who went back to 4:3 after renting a widescreen set, and I've been quite happy with my 29" Tau for the past couple of years or so.
However I do have a word of caution for you - unless someone knows otherwise, make sure you see the set in anamorphic mode before you buy it. Before I got the Tau, I had a similarly specced Wega (the predecessor of the model you're looking at, I believe) and it had the annoying feature of bringing the AKB lines into view when in this mode.
These are used for colour calibration and are usually just off the top of the viewable screen. However, when the vertical deflection is reduced for the anamorphic mode they stay in the same relative place which means they end up just above 1.85 material and in the black void on 2:35 or similar ratios.
The new model might not do this or if it does it may not bother you, but I found it rather distracting and swapped the Wega for the Tau.
I think you just need to learn how to use a widescreen TV... Its hardly bloody rocket science.
Thats said I dont do much with my Panasonic.. you feed it a 16:9 source it shows 16:9. 4:3 shows... 4:3 non anamorphic widescreen and the tv auto zooms.
Thanks for the warning Tim L (though I'm not sure I can picture what you mean (I don't even know what "AKB" lines are)).
Sorry...how can you have an anamorphic setting on a 4:3 set?
I thought it only applied to w/s sets (allowing you to "zoom" up the picture so that it was full screen, rather than letter-box without losing picture quality - but that this only applied to "16:9" (which I now realise is 1.85.1).
On 4:3 sets I understood that you just got a very slight improvement to the general picture quality which could only be really seen on very large sets :confused:
All that an anamorphic mode on a TV does is adjust the deflection of the electron beam in the tube to give the correct aspect ratio.
On a widescreen set, the horizontal deflection is increased, giving the subjective impression that the picture has been stretched horizontally when compared with the 4:3 viewing mode on that set. This is as I say subjective and in reference only to the standard 4:3 mode with bars at either side of the picture. I'm taking 4:3 as a standard picture because that is standard for PAL, widescreen or not.
On a 4:3 set, the vertical deflection is decreased, effectively squashing the picture vertically.
There isn't any inherent difference in quality between either method - all that's happening in either case is that a different voltage is being applied to the deflection, something that will vary between different types of tube anyway. Overall, if the final size of the picture on the widescreen set is the same as on the 4:3 set, and the tubes are of the same quality (similar dot pitch, etc) the final picture quality will be identical. There's nothing magic about widescreen tubes, they're exactly the same technology as 4:3 ones, just a different shape.
I hope at least some of the above ramblings make sense.
Originally posted by vila
I think you just need to learn how to use a widescreen TV... Its hardly bloody rocket science.
I know exactly how to use a widescreen TV, thank you very much - I spent eighteen months with one of the damn things, and I must have tried every single permutation and combination of options with certain discs in order to find the least painful compromise - all the time wondering why the hell I needed to compromise at all as this was supposed to be "future proof" and "the only way to go"!
Thats said I dont do much with my Panasonic.. you feed it a 16:9 source it shows 16:9. 4:3 shows... 4:3 non anamorphic widescreen and the tv auto zooms.
But is it clever enough to auto-zoom non-anamorphic widescreen with the subtitles printed below the frame? Mine certainly wasn't - or rather, if it tried, it usually produced a horrendous mess.
I suspect the problem wasn't so much that I didn't know how to use a widescreen TV but that I knew altogether too much about aspect ratios - and could see that widescreen sets had an inherent problem in that department!
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
[b]
But is it clever enough to auto-zoom non-anamorphic widescreen with the subtitles printed below the frame? Mine certainly wasn't - or rather, if it tried, it usually produced a horrendous mess.
You can shift the zoom up and down on my set so yes subtitles are no problem
You can shift the zoom up and down on my set so yes subtitles are no problem
And if the picture is 16x9 you lose the top of it in order to fit the subtitles in. This is the sort of compromise MB is talking about.
Answers:
Err ... Yeah get a widescreen. Most broadcasters are switching over now anyway.
But if you must get a 4:3 Then the 29inch Wega is pretty damned fine. I had this TV before getting a widescreen version of the same... and if anything prefered it's picture.
At the price you quouted it's good value.
But I would stress Widescreen is the way to go.
Answers:
Originally posted by Fatboydim
But I would stress Widescreen is the way to go.
Rubbish - I rented a widescreen telly for eighteen months and the day I saw the back of it was one of unbridled glee and merriment, as I knew the days of endless fiddling just to try to achieve some kind of halfway acceptable aspect ratio compromise were finally behind me.
A widescreen set <U>might</U> suit you, depending on your viewing preferences - but don't believe the hype. A great many people prefer 4:3 sets, and have very good reasons for doing so!
Answers:
You'll have the same problems fiddling with your 4:3 set in a few years time. Since widescreens are becoming the norm.
Each to his own.... But if you want to future proof... widescreen is the way to go.:thumbs:
Answers:
I've got the same 4:3 telly as Mr Brooke and bought it for exactly the same reasons. As much as I can categorically guarantee that he has vastly more non-WS material than I, the idea of it being a happy medium for all sorts of aspect ratios is still very much valid.
Yes, a lot of teev is now broadcast in WS, with pretty much all Hollywood output in WS also, my few other AR movies, such as the Kubrick stuff like The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, etc, is far superior on my set, than having a 4:3 picture on a WS set - nice small box in the middle of the screen! :oh-hum:
Also stuff on TV that isn't in WS, such as The Simpsons, looks stunning.
I know where you're coming from, but it is nowhere near a complete argument by saying WS is the way to go.....
:)
Having said that, I am thinking of selling my 4:3 RPTV but simply as I'm considering an upgrade to a full projector system. I would prolly buy a WS tv set for general day to day telly viewing....
Answers:
Love my 43" 4:3 RP Tosh, and it's the same price as the same width w/s model, plus no ******* around with aspect ratio modes. A 4:3 TV with an anamorphic mode is the ideal solution for me, for all the above reasons, and because Mario Kart looks AMAZING at that size :D
Answers:
I think widescreen TV are better if you use Digital TV, DVDs and games
but 4:3 is probably better for cartoons, and normal TV (Non digital) and games.
I use US Gamecube with widescreen TV and 4:3 TV and there is no major problem with it.
Widescreen TV is a safer bet and more natural to watch then 4:3 TV.
If you buy a 29 inches 4:3 TV now and use it for a while and upgrade to a 36 inches widescreen TV or a Plasma TV in 2005 for example. You still can use your 29 inches TV in your office/bedroom and use it for gaming without annoying your wife/girlfriend.
Answers:
I could be wrong but I'm guessing that £480 for a 29" 4:3 tv (which, by my calculations will give a "16:9", letter-boxed picture roughly the same size as a "full-screen" picture on a 28" w/s tv) is ever-so-slightly less money than a 28" w/s set of equivalent quality?
But, like I said, I could wrong...
Incidently GK, do you have a model number for that set? I'm looking at a Sony 29" at the moment (KV29FX30) and am looking for some comments (preferably similar to Fatboydim's in his second para.).
Answers:
Originally posted by Fatboydim
You'll have the same problems fiddling with your 4:3 set in a few years time. Since widescreens are becoming the norm.
How? If my telly is fed a 16:9 signal, it displays a 16:9 picture (with anamorphic enhancement). If it's fed a 4:3 signal, it displays a 4:3 picture. No fiddling, no compromises, no adjustments - I get exactly what I'm supposed to get with absolutely no effort on my part.
So how exactly do you envisage things getting more difficult down the line?
Each to his own.... But if you want to future proof... widescreen is the way to go.:thumbs:
The simple fact is that a 4:3 telly with a 16:9 mode is capable of displaying a greater variety of pictures correctly than a 16:9 telly, and with far less effort on the part of the viewer.
Not only is it just as future proof as any widescreen model (a move to some kind of high-definition signal, which would leave virtually all widescreen TV owners equally scuppered), but it's also fully backwards compatible with any type of material - which a widescreen set demonstrably isn't (or at least not without resorting to cropping, stretching, shrinking or similar distortions).
So I'm not just future-proof but <U>past</U>-proof as well - and if you have an extensive video collection built up over nearly two decades, that's a pretty big deal.
Answers:
I'm getting the 43" 4:3 Tosh anyway..got enough recommendations on the forums!
Answers:
So I'm not just future-proof but past-proof as well - and if you have an extensive video collection built up over nearly two decades, that's a pretty big deal.
I believe those eight track cartridges where pretty good in their day too.:D
Answers:
Originally posted by Fatboydim
I believe those eight track cartridges where pretty good in their day too.:D
I suspect an eight-track player would play just as well if you hooked it up to a current amplifier - whereas my point is that many pre-1999 video recordings do <U>not</U> come across very well if you hook them up to a widescreen set.
And you haven't answered my question: in what way am I going to be disadvantaged a few years down the line, given that my 4:3 telly displays 16:9 pictures perfectly?
Answers:
And you haven't answered my question: in what way am I going to be disadvantaged a few years down the line, given that my 4:3 telly displays 16:9 pictures perfectly?
Ok.... Currently broadcasters are transmitting signals that are not true 16:9 as there are still more 4:3 TV's in the UK than widescreen. However this is already beginning to change since most production companies film in WS now... both because it is more cinematic, and they have an eye to the DVD market. Therefore those lovely black bars are going to get broader on 4:3 sets. Of course if you have a large enough 4:3 set... It's not too big a deal. But then the same could be said of WS sets. Most have a 4:3 mode which means that when viewing such material the bars appear at the side. Is this anymore distracting than bars at the top and bottom? Matter of opinion.
There's nothing wrong with my turntable either.... and plenty of people who think that vinyl sounds better than CDs. But as Arthur Daley once said.
Some people have opinions... while others have taste.;)
Answers:
I nearly added as an afterthought "And no bloody 'Get a widescreen' responses, please !" But thought better of it ...
Anyway, partly for reasons covered above, but mostly for reasons covered comprehensively by Michael Brooke, I simply want a decent sized, quality, inexpensive 4:3, and the Sony WEGA 29" appears to top that particular league (despite the fact that Tesco have gone back to the £550 standard pricing point. Comet, however, are doing it online for £510. All things considered, that's good value.)
StuNew - model no I have is KV29LS30SL.
Answers:
Originally posted by Fatboydim
Ok.... Currently broadcasters are transmitting signals that are not true 16:9 as there are still more 4:3 TV's in the UK than widescreen. However this is already beginning to change since most production companies film in WS now... both because it is more cinematic, and they have an eye to the DVD market. Therefore those lovely black bars are going to get broader on 4:3 sets. Of course if you have a large enough 4:3 set... It's not too big a deal.
It's not a deal at all - and if that's really the best example of a compromise you can come up with, you're pretty much supporting my argument!
But then the same could be said of WS sets. Most have a 4:3 mode which means that when viewing such material the bars appear at the side. Is this anymore distracting than bars at the top and bottom? Matter of opinion.
It shouldn't be distracting at all if you accept that black bars are necessary for displaying the picture in the correct aspect ratio and the correct proportions - but you've missed my point, which is that for me 16:9 tellies are extremely inconvenient when displaying non-standard pictures, because while you have various options for dealing with them, the end result is always going to be less satisfactory than what you'd get with a 4:3 set - and requires more work on your part even to reach that degree of compromise.
So how is this an improvement when a decent 4:3 set will display every type of image perfectly without any fiddling whatsoever?
There's nothing wrong with my turntable either.... and plenty of people who think that vinyl sounds better than CDs.
Flippant comments about 25-year-old technology aren't especially helpful when I'm talking about displaying certain current DVD releases properly! I buy a lot of Hong Kong discs (at less than a fiver a go, they're pretty irresistible), and even recent releases can often be non-anamorphic letterbox with subtitles below the frame.
And it's not as though I opt for non-anamorphic letterbox out of perversity - the fact is that if you're into HK films, the overwhelming majority of titles are only available in this format, so it's a choice between non-anamorphic letterbox and not seeing a great many titles at all. I suspect much the same is true of people who are into Bollywood films.
Some people have opinions... while others have taste.;)
Indeed - and it's precisely because my taste covers a rather wider range than many people that I need a setup that's as versatile as I can possibly make it! Widescreen sets - and this is based on eighteen months' increasingly frustrating personal experience, not opinion - are hopelessly limited for my purposes, whereas a large-screen 4:3 set with 16:9 mode is perfect.
I'm not remotely challenging your own personal preference for widescreen - just your assertion that it's invariably the best option for everybody.
Answers:
Is it just me, or if you don't ****** about with the Super-hyper-wide-TV-super-zoom modes on WS TVs, everything is fine. Oh look it's a 4:3 image. Oh look it's in widescreen.
Answers:
HK dvds :D
Now I know.
It's unfair to GK to hijack this post... Especially since my original point is to say that the Sony is a damned fine 4:3 set. Which indeed was the point of the post.
But your argument re: The turntable doesn't really hold water since they still sell Vinyl discs as well. So it's not exactly flippant is it.
Many of my records cannot be bought on CD.
But the simple fact remains that Widescreen is eventually going to take over. No reason why you shouldn't buy a 4:3 now... But well worth pointing out that this is the way things are going And since this is a DVD forum you are probably in a minority in your preference for a traditional shaped screen. And good luck to you.
But I'll let you have the last word.:brickwall
Answers:
Originally posted by mjb1975
Having said that, I am thinking of selling my 4:3 RPTV but simply as I'm considering an upgrade to a full projector system. I would prolly buy a WS tv set for general day to day telly viewing....
Make sure you have the space for the projector system, and preferably a dedicated room! I have to do a lot of fiddling to watch a movie (with stands and setup), even though it looks excellent on the grey screen..because I'm moving to a new house without the space I'm compromising with the 43" Tosh..
Answers:
Originally posted by Fatboydim
But your argument re: The turntable doesn't really hold water since they still sell Vinyl discs as well. So it's not exactly flippant is it.
It is, because it's completely irrelevant to the point I'm making. You can plug your turntable into a current amplifier and get precisely the sound you're supposed to get - but with certain types of non-anamorphic DVD you have to choose between a tiny picture, a cropped picture or a stretched picture, none of which is wholly satisfactory.
Many of my records cannot be bought on CD.
But you would have absolutely no problem converting them to a CD and playing them perfectly on a CD player. On the other hand, were you to convert some of my old tapes to DVD-R (especially the subtitled and letterboxed ones), you'd run up against exactly the same problems with regard to displaying the picture on widescreen sets - so your analogy is similarly flawed.
But the simple fact remains that Widescreen is eventually going to take over. No reason why you shouldn't buy a 4:3 now... But well worth pointing out that this is the way things are going And since this is a DVD forum you are probably in a minority in your preference for a traditional shaped screen. And good luck to you.
I'm not remotely bothered about the shape of the screen - all I'm concerned about is that it displays <U>all</U> my DVDs and other video materials to their best advantage, regardless of what format they're in. Even if widescreen becomes the dominant broadcasting medium, so what? I can display widescreen pictures perfectly at the moment, so there's absolutely no benefit to me in going back to 16:9, either now or at any point in the future.
Believe it or not, back in 1999 I was completely sold on the pro-widescreen propaganda that you're peddling now, but… well, put it like this, I was glad I rented! :D
Answers:
Originally posted by Phayze
Is it just me, or if you don't ****** about with the Super-hyper-wide-TV-super-zoom modes on WS TVs, everything is fine. Oh look it's a 4:3 image. Oh look it's in widescreen.
Or "Oh look, it's in non-anamorphic 1.66:1 - damn, which compromise shall I make this time round?" :D
Incidentally, there is one type of picture that works better on widescreen TVs than 4:3 ones - but thankfully anamorphic 4:3 is relatively thin on the ground, probably because it delivers a lower-resolution picture than the non-anamorphic kind, so there's no obvious reason for opting for it unless the distributor wishes to force the viewer to display a 4:3 picture (i.e. without zooming or cropping), which seems a little draconian.
Answers:
Originally posted by GK
I nearly added as an afterthought "And no bloody 'Get a widescreen' responses, please !" But thought better of it ...
Quite :brickwall
StuNew - model no I have is KV29LS30SL.
Damn! (was hoping it was the same model and therefore get some opinions). Thanks though.
Anyway, all this 4:3 vs w/s debate seems rather confusing and since I am looking to get a new set (and had thought of settling on a 4:3) perhaps I could lay out what I think the relevant points are (note use of word think):
- A 4:3 set will give no compatibility problems with any w/s image. It will always be represented in a "letter box" format (though the black bars will differ in size depending on the w/s format). This means it will always "cope" with any problems such as subtitles dropping off the bottom of the page.
- An anamorphic presentation will make a slight difference to the quality of the image.
- It's perfectly possible to get a 4:3 set that will produce a "letter box" image (at least with "16:9 w/s") equivalent to a "full screen" image on a w/s set. MB's set is a bit of a monster (I calculate it gives a 39" 16:9 image) but a 29" should be equivalent to a 28" 16:9 image.
- 4:3 tv technology has been around a lot longer than 16:9 and so should be less problematical.
- A 16:9 set can have many problems with the different w/s formats: different sized "letter boxes", subtitles dropping off the page etc. The full size of the screen will only be used if the image is anamorphic and in the correct w/s format. Zooming up non-anamorphic films will result in a lose of picture quality.
- An anamorphic presentation will make a more noticable difference to the quality of the image.
- Most terrestrial broadcasts are in 4:3 format and so will produce a "pillar box" effect on a 16:9 set. The size of this image will be significantly smaller than a reasonable sized 4:3 set (a 32" 16:9 set being equivalent to a 25" 4:3 and one would need a 36" 16:9 set to be equivalent to a 29" 4:3).
- Cost! Size for size and quality for quality, 4:3 sets are significantly cheaper than 16:9 sets.
That said, I'm hopeless when it comes to "techie stuff" so may be way off base; feel free to correct…
Answers:
Stu
Just one thing...
Most broadcasts are in 4:3
I work in the TV industry and can assure you that every Drama that is currently being filmed for the British market is using 16:9 format.
News broadcasts etc etc are beginning to follow suit.
This will become more noticeable as time goes on.
Answers:
A 43" 4:3 TV will give a 1.85:1 image of around 39.5".
A 40" Widescreen TV will give a 4:3 of significantly less (around 32"?) and be more expensive than the 4:3 set..
Answers:
I'm another one who went back to 4:3 after renting a widescreen set, and I've been quite happy with my 29" Tau for the past couple of years or so.
However I do have a word of caution for you - unless someone knows otherwise, make sure you see the set in anamorphic mode before you buy it. Before I got the Tau, I had a similarly specced Wega (the predecessor of the model you're looking at, I believe) and it had the annoying feature of bringing the AKB lines into view when in this mode.
These are used for colour calibration and are usually just off the top of the viewable screen. However, when the vertical deflection is reduced for the anamorphic mode they stay in the same relative place which means they end up just above 1.85 material and in the black void on 2:35 or similar ratios.
The new model might not do this or if it does it may not bother you, but I found it rather distracting and swapped the Wega for the Tau.
Answers:
I think you just need to learn how to use a widescreen TV... Its hardly bloody rocket science.
Thats said I dont do much with my Panasonic.. you feed it a 16:9 source it shows 16:9. 4:3 shows... 4:3 non anamorphic widescreen and the tv auto zooms.
Answers:
Thanks for the warning Tim L (though I'm not sure I can picture what you mean (I don't even know what "AKB" lines are)).
Sorry...how can you have an anamorphic setting on a 4:3 set?
I thought it only applied to w/s sets (allowing you to "zoom" up the picture so that it was full screen, rather than letter-box without losing picture quality - but that this only applied to "16:9" (which I now realise is 1.85.1).
On 4:3 sets I understood that you just got a very slight improvement to the general picture quality which could only be really seen on very large sets :confused:
Answers:
All that an anamorphic mode on a TV does is adjust the deflection of the electron beam in the tube to give the correct aspect ratio.
On a widescreen set, the horizontal deflection is increased, giving the subjective impression that the picture has been stretched horizontally when compared with the 4:3 viewing mode on that set. This is as I say subjective and in reference only to the standard 4:3 mode with bars at either side of the picture. I'm taking 4:3 as a standard picture because that is standard for PAL, widescreen or not.
On a 4:3 set, the vertical deflection is decreased, effectively squashing the picture vertically.
There isn't any inherent difference in quality between either method - all that's happening in either case is that a different voltage is being applied to the deflection, something that will vary between different types of tube anyway. Overall, if the final size of the picture on the widescreen set is the same as on the 4:3 set, and the tubes are of the same quality (similar dot pitch, etc) the final picture quality will be identical. There's nothing magic about widescreen tubes, they're exactly the same technology as 4:3 ones, just a different shape.
I hope at least some of the above ramblings make sense.
Answers:
Originally posted by vila
I think you just need to learn how to use a widescreen TV... Its hardly bloody rocket science.
I know exactly how to use a widescreen TV, thank you very much - I spent eighteen months with one of the damn things, and I must have tried every single permutation and combination of options with certain discs in order to find the least painful compromise - all the time wondering why the hell I needed to compromise at all as this was supposed to be "future proof" and "the only way to go"!
Thats said I dont do much with my Panasonic.. you feed it a 16:9 source it shows 16:9. 4:3 shows... 4:3 non anamorphic widescreen and the tv auto zooms.
But is it clever enough to auto-zoom non-anamorphic widescreen with the subtitles printed below the frame? Mine certainly wasn't - or rather, if it tried, it usually produced a horrendous mess.
I suspect the problem wasn't so much that I didn't know how to use a widescreen TV but that I knew altogether too much about aspect ratios - and could see that widescreen sets had an inherent problem in that department!
Answers:
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
[b]
But is it clever enough to auto-zoom non-anamorphic widescreen with the subtitles printed below the frame? Mine certainly wasn't - or rather, if it tried, it usually produced a horrendous mess.
You can shift the zoom up and down on my set so yes subtitles are no problem
Answers:
You can shift the zoom up and down on my set so yes subtitles are no problem
And if the picture is 16x9 you lose the top of it in order to fit the subtitles in. This is the sort of compromise MB is talking about.
1 2