Question:
I wanted to know which has more viewable area on screen.
More specifically a 29" 4:3 tv compared to a 32" widcreen tv.
can some one say which has more viewable area ?
If you watch mostly 4:3 then the 29" will be better, but if you watch more widescreen than 4:3 then the 32" will definitely be better for you. I went from a 29" 4:3 to a 28" widescreen and although 4:3 material is a lot smaller my widescreen dvds have a larger image, which is what was really important to me. The 4:3 material I watch tends to be poorer quality and I think that a smaller image is more flattering to it. Video recordings in particular look a lot more acceptable on a smaller screen (in my opinion of course).
cool, thanks for the tip. So has anyone upgraded from a 29" to a 32" widescreen ?
Yeah I have and its MUCH better..remember the 1.85:1 image on the 32" Widescreen TV is equivalent to 1.85:1 on a 37" fullscreen CRT TV.
Originally posted by Dan Druff
Yeah I have and its MUCH better..remember the 1.85:1 image on the 32" Widescreen TV is equivalent to 1.85:1 on a 37" fullscreen CRT TV. No its not, equivalent is about 35". With toshiba RP sets, the 43" 4:3 is exactly the same width as the 40" widescreen for comparison.
Originally posted by Mr Nice
No its not, equivalent is about 35". With toshiba RP sets, the 43" 4:3 is exactly the same width as the 40" widescreen for comparison.
What about the hieght difference ?
Originally posted by Mr Nice
No its not, equivalent is about 35". With toshiba RP sets, the 43" 4:3 is exactly the same width as the 40" widescreen for comparison.
Read this review of 37" Tosh CRT TV (in 16:9 mode) (http://www.t3.co.uk/reviews/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=14421&subsectionid=761&subsubsectionid=688)
Originally posted by Dan Druff
Read this review of 37" Tosh CRT TV (in 16:9 mode) (http://www.t3.co.uk/reviews/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=14421&subsectionid=761&subsubsectionid=688) Well that does only say "looks the same", they didn't do it with tape measures it would seem, and it would, there would only be about 1.5" in it.
If you do the trigonometry, the 16:9 area with in a 4:3 rectangle has about 90% of the diagonal. similarly, the 4:3 within a 16:9 has about 80% of the diagonal. Of course, tv sizes give the tube size, not the visible size, hence its not an exact science, I mentioned one of the few "exact" comparison's around.
Undercover:33% taller of course;).(4:3 may be written as 12:9, compare to 16:9, hence 16/12=1.33. Doing the diagonal multipliers requires more work).
So basically get the Widescreen TV if you prefer widescreen movies, and 29" if you prefer a bit of 1.33:1 goodness. :p
Answering the original question though, a 32" widescreen has a bit more screen area then a 29" 4:3. Ignoring things like difference between visible and tube size(which shouldn't change the overall conclusion anyway), the 29" 4:3 has an area of 403.68 square inches, while the 32" 16:9 has an area of 438.55 square inches.
Mr Nice enjoys a bit of calculation..keeps him young. :norty:
Originally posted by Mr Nice
Answering the original question though, a 32" widescreen has a bit more screen area then a 29" 4:3. Ignoring things like difference between visible and tube size(which shouldn't change the overall conclusion anyway), the 29" 4:3 has an area of 403.68 square inches, while the 32" 16:9 has an area of 438.55 square inches.
And of course if you watch alot of widescreen stuff, you'll know that 16:9 stuff will fill all that 438.55 square inches on the widescreen, but only a portion of the 4:3 box (I'll leave Mr "Numbers" Nice to do the maths!)
:)
Well if you transpond the rectangular votex along the x axis, the 1.33:1 disparity equates to the maximum image according to the supplied TV manual. :dork:
I went for a 32" 16:9 as a suitable upgrade to my 25" 4:3 because I calced that it'd give roughly the same 4:3 experience (bit of the old sin\cos\tan and it shows that a 4:3 image on a 32" 16:9 is about 24" or so).
To get the same 4:3 experience as a 29" you'll need to head to a 36" 16:9.
does that help ...?
Duncan.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by DunkWho
I went for a 32" 16:9 as a suitable upgrade to my 25" 4:3 because I calced that it'd give roughly the same 4:3 experience (bit of the old sin\cos\tan and it shows that a 4:3 image on a 32" 16:9 is about 24" or so).
I would have made it 25" or so but what's an inch between friends;).
Originally posted by DunkWho
To get the same 4:3 experience as a 29" you'll need to head to a 36" 16:9.
does that help ...?
Duncan. Agree there however:D.
More specifically a 29" 4:3 tv compared to a 32" widcreen tv.
can some one say which has more viewable area ?
Answers:
If you watch mostly 4:3 then the 29" will be better, but if you watch more widescreen than 4:3 then the 32" will definitely be better for you. I went from a 29" 4:3 to a 28" widescreen and although 4:3 material is a lot smaller my widescreen dvds have a larger image, which is what was really important to me. The 4:3 material I watch tends to be poorer quality and I think that a smaller image is more flattering to it. Video recordings in particular look a lot more acceptable on a smaller screen (in my opinion of course).
Answers:
cool, thanks for the tip. So has anyone upgraded from a 29" to a 32" widescreen ?
Answers:
Yeah I have and its MUCH better..remember the 1.85:1 image on the 32" Widescreen TV is equivalent to 1.85:1 on a 37" fullscreen CRT TV.
Answers:
Originally posted by Dan Druff
Yeah I have and its MUCH better..remember the 1.85:1 image on the 32" Widescreen TV is equivalent to 1.85:1 on a 37" fullscreen CRT TV. No its not, equivalent is about 35". With toshiba RP sets, the 43" 4:3 is exactly the same width as the 40" widescreen for comparison.
Answers:
Originally posted by Mr Nice
No its not, equivalent is about 35". With toshiba RP sets, the 43" 4:3 is exactly the same width as the 40" widescreen for comparison.
What about the hieght difference ?
Answers:
Originally posted by Mr Nice
No its not, equivalent is about 35". With toshiba RP sets, the 43" 4:3 is exactly the same width as the 40" widescreen for comparison.
Read this review of 37" Tosh CRT TV (in 16:9 mode) (http://www.t3.co.uk/reviews/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=14421&subsectionid=761&subsubsectionid=688)
Answers:
Originally posted by Dan Druff
Read this review of 37" Tosh CRT TV (in 16:9 mode) (http://www.t3.co.uk/reviews/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=14421&subsectionid=761&subsubsectionid=688) Well that does only say "looks the same", they didn't do it with tape measures it would seem, and it would, there would only be about 1.5" in it.
If you do the trigonometry, the 16:9 area with in a 4:3 rectangle has about 90% of the diagonal. similarly, the 4:3 within a 16:9 has about 80% of the diagonal. Of course, tv sizes give the tube size, not the visible size, hence its not an exact science, I mentioned one of the few "exact" comparison's around.
Undercover:33% taller of course;).(4:3 may be written as 12:9, compare to 16:9, hence 16/12=1.33. Doing the diagonal multipliers requires more work).
Answers:
So basically get the Widescreen TV if you prefer widescreen movies, and 29" if you prefer a bit of 1.33:1 goodness. :p
Answers:
Answering the original question though, a 32" widescreen has a bit more screen area then a 29" 4:3. Ignoring things like difference between visible and tube size(which shouldn't change the overall conclusion anyway), the 29" 4:3 has an area of 403.68 square inches, while the 32" 16:9 has an area of 438.55 square inches.
Answers:
Mr Nice enjoys a bit of calculation..keeps him young. :norty:
Answers:
Originally posted by Mr Nice
Answering the original question though, a 32" widescreen has a bit more screen area then a 29" 4:3. Ignoring things like difference between visible and tube size(which shouldn't change the overall conclusion anyway), the 29" 4:3 has an area of 403.68 square inches, while the 32" 16:9 has an area of 438.55 square inches.
And of course if you watch alot of widescreen stuff, you'll know that 16:9 stuff will fill all that 438.55 square inches on the widescreen, but only a portion of the 4:3 box (I'll leave Mr "Numbers" Nice to do the maths!)
:)
Answers:
Well if you transpond the rectangular votex along the x axis, the 1.33:1 disparity equates to the maximum image according to the supplied TV manual. :dork:
Answers:
I went for a 32" 16:9 as a suitable upgrade to my 25" 4:3 because I calced that it'd give roughly the same 4:3 experience (bit of the old sin\cos\tan and it shows that a 4:3 image on a 32" 16:9 is about 24" or so).
To get the same 4:3 experience as a 29" you'll need to head to a 36" 16:9.
does that help ...?
Duncan.
Answers:
[/B][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by DunkWho
I went for a 32" 16:9 as a suitable upgrade to my 25" 4:3 because I calced that it'd give roughly the same 4:3 experience (bit of the old sin\cos\tan and it shows that a 4:3 image on a 32" 16:9 is about 24" or so).
I would have made it 25" or so but what's an inch between friends;).
Originally posted by DunkWho
To get the same 4:3 experience as a 29" you'll need to head to a 36" 16:9.
does that help ...?
Duncan. Agree there however:D.
1 2