-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
4:3 HDTVs
- Thread starter Demigod Mac
- Start date
No, it doesn't. I do not mind black bars on the top and bottom at all...but I DO mind them on the sides.
What Error Macro said is correct. It seems you have completely forgotten about the 3:2 pulldown. Did you really think a 4:3 set simply letter boxes the image? It seems you have a bit to learn still...
In my case, I was limited by space. I could have had a 16:9 CRT that was the same width as the 4:3 I use. In both cases, the 16:9 image would have been basically the same size and resolution (when using the anamorphic squeeze on the 4:3). However, 4:3 images would be tiny on the 16:9 CRT. What exactly is wrong with top and bottom black bars if the image produced between them is the same size as the other potential 16:9 options? Same image size, same resolution.
You are COMPLETELY 100% incorrect about the resolution differences.
Here's a graphic for ya (the example only uses 480 lines, however, but that does not mean they are limited by that obviously)...
Naked Snake
Member
borghe said:
Wow, just wow... Good job on making yourself sound like an idiot. See Error Macro and dark10x's following posts.
I am not consufsing anything.Error Macro said:
I never said all sets can resolve 1920x1080. but today's sets (as in this model year), almost all of the name brand sets can resolve almost all of 1920x1080, and many can fully resolve it.
vertical compression does NOT occur for HD material. It is solely for 480p to display anamorphic widescreen in letterboxed mode. hd material is displayed at 810 lines of resolution. ALL 4:3 sets only contain 540 scan lines on them. vertical compression only reduces 480 of those lines to a 16:9 aspect ratio. anything displayed at 1080i has to be reduced to 810 lines http://www.cdtv.ca/en/faq/#6
first, a 36" screen only displays a 33" picture, so a 34" widescreen set will still give you a bigger widescreen picture. second, that 36" screen is still only going to display HD at 810 lines. and with essentially square pixels and with a full resolution signal the screen will still AT MOST be only 1440x810, whereas a 16:9 set (you fail to mention that many 16:9 sets and most top end 16:9 sets fully resolve 1920x1080) can and possibly will resolve the entire 1920x1080.
almost as pathetic as trying to justify a loss of resolution with screen size.
how is this the absolute best image quality when you are only getting 75% of the HD picture?
you seriously haven't been paying attention here, have you. next generation consoles, black bars gone. network television, black bars gone. main premium movie channels, black bars gone. sports, black bars gone. dvds, black bars gone, hd-dvd/brd, black bars gone. unless of course you have a 4:3 set in which case the black bars are only beginning to ramp up.dark10x said:
alright man.. now you are starting to piss me off. learn what the fuck you are talking about before you decide to jump into a fight. 3:2 pulldown ONLY affects framerate conversions, more specifically telecining a 24fps film to 29.97fps using a 2:3 inverse pulldown and then once on the DVD with a 3:2 cadence using 3:2 pulldown to assemble a progressive frame with proper filed order. 3:2 has NOTHING to do with with vertical compression.dark10x said:
and you are 100% wrong about vertical compression on 1080i. here is some basic math for you. first off, your chart is for an analog set. this is a big deal because the analog set is actually only scanning 240 lines per refresh. However sets for AGES have had more than 400+ lines of actual resolution. So vertically compressing 240 lines of actual resolution per refresh into a 16:9 image on an analog set is nothing.
now when it comes to HD, it is a bit trickier. because there are 540 lines of resolution, but a DVD is only 480 lines of resolution, right there is a 1:1.5 aspect ratio. the ALREADY NARROW BEAM only has to compress an additional 16%, or 8% (which is actually still done by droping resolution, though hardly enough to cry about) on the top and bottom, to make an anamorphic movie 16:9. However, if it were to make a 1080i picture vertically compressed with the full 540 lines of resolution per refresh, it would have to compress the picture by 25%!!! I tell you what. You give me your model of TV, and I will give you service codes for it. I will also give you instructions on how to do your own vertical compression. You reduce a full screen picture by 25% and let me know how the picture looks, ok? It can't be done. Well, it CAN be done but geometry would be completely fucked on the picture. they have to drop lines.
for vertical compression to work on HDTV like it does on NTSC, it would need the exact same scenario. That is you would need signficantly more lines than 540 so that you can compress the picture down to 540 without suffering in geometry distortion.
I can't believe it.. I am seriously floored by this thread. This is like the idiots who actually said DVD would fail. Or the idiots who laughed at stereo and said it would never last. In the face of an impending widescreen media boom people are actually recommending to other people to stick with 4:3 TV..... unfreaking real.
I will spell it out one more time for the thread. THE MAJORITY OF NETWORK AND PREMIUM TELEVISION IS WIDESCREEN! EVEN MORE WIDESCREEN CONTENT IS COMING! CONSIDERABLY MORE TO THE POINT THAT MOST MAJOR CABLE CHANNELS WILL BE HD WITHIN TWO YEARS! 4:3 CONTENT IS DISAPPEARING, AND AT A MORE RAPID PACE EACH DAY! A 4:3 set will display all upcoming content not only letterboxed, but at a reduced resolution. The content that is causing you to have gray bars on the side of your widescreen set is disappearing. The content that is causing you to have black bars on your 4:3 set is increasing. Am I getting through to anyone hear.
but you know what Error and dark.. hit www.avsforum.com or www.hometheaterspot.com or www.dbsforums.com or any of the other slew of home theater sites out there, and tell them how 4:3 is better. tell them about how you supposedly don't lose any resolution. tell them about how a 4:3 is better than 16:9.. and remember to post the links in this thread when you do it.
oh really.. show me ONE HDTV that does vertical compression on a 1080i signal. just one, that is all.. I have time.Naked Snake said:
they are wrong. vertical compression ONLY applies to 480p material, because technically it is barely compressing anything.. 1080i material is decimated by every fourth line. unless you can figure out a way to shrink a picture by 25% and still maintain geometry. you could do it on old analog sets because you had more than enough extra scan lines to work with. on new digital sets there are 540 lines and that is it
Uncle Dukey
Member
It's pretty much a given that the next consoles will support 720p or 1080i, so with that being my main focus (Along with DVD/HD/Blu-Ray), I see little reason to buy a 4:3 TV...
If you watch TV (SDTV) or place a lot of importance in current/previous gen games, I suppose 4:3 would be an okay choice.
The way I see it is:
4:3 - Bottom and top black bars with HD-material
16:9 - Left and right side black bars with SD-material (current/past)
Not that I have the money to buy an HDTV in the first place... Personally I'm hoping Xenon/PS3/Revolution have VGA/DVI/ or HDMI output.
If you watch TV (SDTV) or place a lot of importance in current/previous gen games, I suppose 4:3 would be an okay choice.
The way I see it is:
4:3 - Bottom and top black bars with HD-material
16:9 - Left and right side black bars with SD-material (current/past)
Not that I have the money to buy an HDTV in the first place... Personally I'm hoping Xenon/PS3/Revolution have VGA/DVI/ or HDMI output.
dark10x said:
Uh, what does 3:2 pulldown have to do with this? 3:2 pulldown converts 24fps film to 30fps video, reverse 3:2 pulldown lets you view it back in 24 fps, and it has nothing to do with this conversation.
Anyways, buy whatever fucking TV you want. But we're never going to finally switch to 16:9 if people still insist on buying 4:3 TVs. I hope they just stop manufacturing 4:3 sets. I'd rather see black bars on SD material (which looks like shit on HDTVs anyways), than on HD material.
The Sony KV-32HS420 that I use does indeed support this and there is a Toshiba that does as well.
I've tested this side by side with Sony's 30inch 16:9 CRT. I tested this using a 1080i video feed as well as an XBOX running THUG at 720p. There is no lost resolution on the 4:3 set. The beams are focused solely in the 16:9 region of the set.
Now, I was limited by space. I could go no larger than those sets. The two sets are of the same width.
With 4:3 material...
The 16:9 set provides a viewing area of 19.6 in(w) x 14.7 in(h) while the 4:3 set provides a viewing area of 25.6 in(w) x 19.2 in(h). The 4:3 set is 70.6% larger in this mode.
With 16:9 material...
The 16:9 set provides a viewing area of 26.1 in(w) x 14.7 in(h) while the 4:3 set provides a viewing area of 25.6 in(w) x 14.4 in(h). The 16:9 set is 4.1% larger in this mode.
So, my Sony supports vertical compression at 1080i and displays 16:9 material at a size very close to the 16:9 set. Now, considering that I do not mind the look of top and bottom black bars, I don't see a problem. The size difference is EXTREMELY small when viewing 16:9 material...
Ha ha, yeah, I know. I wasn't thinking when I typed that last night.
Error Macro
Member
dark10x said:
As does my JVC I'Art, and almost all other sets. I can't think of one that doesn't operate in this way, it's just inherent to how raster compression works.
Apparently I am a total techno-philistine. I should go read up on sites like www.avsforum.com or www.hometheaterforum.com... Oh wait, I've been a member there for six years. How do you like that.
the jvc I'Art does not offer vertical compression on HD. it offers 16:9 compression for DVD, and HD Panorama which is the 810i downconversion.
http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?modelId=MODL027326&pathId=78&page=2
The Sony model. actually seems to say it uses it on the HD. I will give dark points on that. Previous to this year the ONLY Sony sets to offer this were the XBR ones. They have since discontinued all XBR 4:3 sets (which should tell one something) and apparently migrated this feature to the HS420 and XS955 lines. However there is a bit of debate on whether this feature (including in the XBRs) actually does what it says. the way you measured it dark means nothing. of course it is going to be the same size. The question isn't what size the picture is but if it displays all the pixels. It would seem that the sony's might not display all of the pixels (even the XBRs), however people on the spot and avs are not really able to determine if that's because the sony's are using a combination of dropping scanlines and raster compression, if they are showing all scanlines and it is a result of severe blooming from raster compression, or if in fact they aren't using ANY raster compression and are just dropping every fourth scanline. to top it off, the display varies from set to set so it is hard to pinpoint it.
So yes, the new sony seem to say they use it, to an arguable degree, but EVERYONE agrees that a 16:9 set picture looks better than the sony's and that the sony sets provide only slightly more detail than typical line decimation on pretty much every other set. and this isn't just by looking at it, which was your other fault here dark. it was fdone using avia and its resolution test. doing so will point this out.
on my KV-32HS510 in the bedroom (the TV I hate) it most certainly does 810i on HD material. The TV isn't even two model years old yet (though it will be in a month or two). So the sony thing is definitely new for last model year because the previous model year the HS510 series was the height of non-XBR direct view sets and the XBR sets were the only ones to do it.
nice try though.
oh, and seth.. send me a pm on the other boards.. would love to check out your user stats.
http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?modelId=MODL027326&pathId=78&page=2
The Sony model. actually seems to say it uses it on the HD. I will give dark points on that. Previous to this year the ONLY Sony sets to offer this were the XBR ones. They have since discontinued all XBR 4:3 sets (which should tell one something) and apparently migrated this feature to the HS420 and XS955 lines. However there is a bit of debate on whether this feature (including in the XBRs) actually does what it says. the way you measured it dark means nothing. of course it is going to be the same size. The question isn't what size the picture is but if it displays all the pixels. It would seem that the sony's might not display all of the pixels (even the XBRs), however people on the spot and avs are not really able to determine if that's because the sony's are using a combination of dropping scanlines and raster compression, if they are showing all scanlines and it is a result of severe blooming from raster compression, or if in fact they aren't using ANY raster compression and are just dropping every fourth scanline. to top it off, the display varies from set to set so it is hard to pinpoint it.
So yes, the new sony seem to say they use it, to an arguable degree, but EVERYONE agrees that a 16:9 set picture looks better than the sony's and that the sony sets provide only slightly more detail than typical line decimation on pretty much every other set. and this isn't just by looking at it, which was your other fault here dark. it was fdone using avia and its resolution test. doing so will point this out.
on my KV-32HS510 in the bedroom (the TV I hate) it most certainly does 810i on HD material. The TV isn't even two model years old yet (though it will be in a month or two). So the sony thing is definitely new for last model year because the previous model year the HS510 series was the height of non-XBR direct view sets and the XBR sets were the only ones to do it.
nice try though.
oh, and seth.. send me a pm on the other boards.. would love to check out your user stats.
Oh, I know that much. Simply looking at a picture isn't going to provide an accurate measurement. However, my point was that, when viewing the same HD content, the picture APPEARED to be of the same resolution. Even if that is not, in fact, true...I would not be bothered by it simply due to the fact that they DO look so close. The image size between the two was nearly the same AND the resolution appeared to be the same. It was not a simple glance either. I looked very closely at the two sets and determined that any difference in resolution between these models was not going to be an issue. As a result, I chose the 4:3 Sony due to the massive size difference when viewing 4:3 content. That is why I am perfectly happy with my selection.
I WOULD prefer a 16:9 set, that much is true, but I did not have the room to do so. Also, direct-view CRTs still remain the best choice for me. All other display options simply did not provide an acceptable gaming image quality. LCD, plasma, and DLP sets all had issues when displaying games that I could not overlook.
As I have said, I DO NOT watch television. At all. My TV is used for gaming (mostly), DVD viewing, and PC viewing. The 4:3 provides me with gaming image quality and image size in 16:9 that appears virtually the same as the actual 16:9 Sony CRT while also allowing me to enjoy 4:3 content at full size. The fact that next generation consoles are on the horizon does not necessarily mean that I will suddenly abandon 4:3 gaming either. Whether we are talking consoles from this generation or emulation via my PC, 4:3 content is not going to disappear for quite sometime.
I suppose a 4:3 set does not make sense in most cases, but for my uses, it simply fits my needs better. It's not as if this is going to be my final TV either.
Error Macro
Member
borghe said:
HD Panorama is one of the stretch modes for their 16:9 sets. The 4:3 sets don't have that...
Seeing as how the set upconverts any signal to 1080i, and I can compress those signals... HD sat, Xbox 720p/1080i, DVDs, etc....
sasimirobot
Junior Member
Oh yeah, almost forgot. If you use the HDTV as a moniter for your PC, 4:3 is handy also.
Drexon said:While we have experts in here.I live in PAL country, is it possible to get an american HDTV, like the ones from the thread starter, then get a PAL reciever, or maybe some other type of equipment, to get PAL TV to run on it, in that middle resolution mode (720p?)? I'm sure it works if I get a TV card on my comp, and uses one of those boxes that allows you to use your HDTV as a big PC monitor (dunno what it's called, newb). But I really want to make it it's own system, so to speak.
I soo want an HDTV, but the only ones here are on super expensive Plasma screens.
get an LCD. Not that expensive if you look carefully - Dabs.com doing one real cheap now. Most will take NTSC or PAL inputs from consoles, plus progressive scan.
But if you are thinking longer term, perhaps with half an eye on Sky HD launching next year, then think about waiting a little bit for HDCP compatible sets, which may be needed for copy protected content from Sky.
most LCDs are 1280x720/768, so 720p is done natively dot for dot. Perfect for Xbox 360.
sasimirobot
Junior Member
xabre said:
my bad. didnt know that, I still have to try to set up a HTPC but am imtimidated by the faqs I have looked at.
the set I linked to was a 32" 4:3 set with HD Panorama.Error Macro said:
DVDs do not get upconverted to 1080i, unless you are just lumping it in there. the other signals I know are accepted just fine, however the I'Art does NOT vertically compress 1080i, at least in any information that I have found on the net. The set seems to offer 16:9 compression on DVDs (per the info page), HD Panorama which is 810i, and then what appears to be the ability to zoom HD content to crop it on the sides (which IMHO seems fucking worthless).
not true at all.. all modern video cards that are capable of outputting to an HD set will output 720p and 1080i with a 1280x720 desktop or a 1920x1080 desktop.sasimirobot said:
games are a little different. if you have a set that DOESN'T do 720p input, you might be SOL because most games I have come across only have 1280x720 resolution support. I don't know if this changes at all by sending your set into a 1920x1080i desktop (too lazy to have done it with mine yet).
Sp3eD said:
720p is stunning for sure but it's a pity that locally we're stuck with either 576p which some networks consider HDTV (which is bullshit, minimum HDTV spec is 720p) or 1080i (which is nice and sharp but I'd take 720p over it anyday of the week as the 1080i image is down converted to fit on a 1280 x 768 LCD screen). TV's that can display a full 1080 frame a few and far between but this will change and 1080p when it takes off (will be a while) promises to be godly.
If you're happy to vertically stretch the image it is no problem. I however, am not prepared to do this (stretching horizontally is fine, vertically it's shit).
sasimirobot said:
I have; it's not difficult. The term 'HTPC' is subjective and I just consider it a PC hooked up to a large display along with other home theatre equipment. You can stream line it with software like Meedio which acts as a GUI frontend or use an impractical and noisy old beige PC tower with Windows 95 in shitty 640 x 480 resolution on an old 4:3 TV. I run a SFF shuttle system with Windows XP through a 30" LCD at 1280 x 768 which is a widescreen resolution (i.e. 720p). You can use traditional 4:3 resolutions of course, such as 1024 x 768 and you can either stretch the image horizontally to fill the whole screen or be happy with black bars on the sides of the screen. The specific 720p resolution that Windows (and many PC games fully support) is a much better option.
borghe said:
Yeah my LCD doesn't like 1280 x 720, but there are plently of games that will support 1280 x 768 and if not just run 1024 x 768 and horizontally stretch the image, you'll barely notice the difference.
technically bars are only really bad for 16:9 sets. because of the fact that on a 4:3 set the bars are horizontal and thus start and end directly on scan lines, there are no lines of demarcation to worry about. yes it is true that repeated and excessive viewing of letterboxed material can cause uneven wear across the screen and thus you could end up with minor burnin, as someone who owned a 60" 4:3 set for many years and watched thousands of hours of letterboxed laserdiscs and DVDs on it I never noticed anything.
16:9 sets are different though. basically the gun either doesn't fire for the entire part up to the picture and then blasts full on for the picture (VERY BAD) or it scans at half intensity (50IRE) for the entire part up to the picture and then blasts full on. because this is across a single scan line, you either end up with clearly dilineated uneven wear after a relatively short time (for black bars) which just sucks, or you end up with just single lines of demarcation after a rather longer period of time, which is better than the obvious wear, but still can be annoying.
I won't argue with anyone that OAR is the best way to go. No question about it. But watching OAR on a 16:9 set constantly and often can mess it up. Me personally, I don't watch a whole lot of 4:3. Most of what I watch on network and cable is HD or letterboxed (SG1, Atlantis, BSG, etc). If I do watch somethingon cable I will usually stretch it. The exception to this is if I am watching something important, which is pretty much only classic movies shot full frame. A full frame movie I will watch with bars on the side. but if I happen to be catching teen titans or something I'll just stretch it.
Is it noticable? Yes.. and it never really goes away. but do I really care if teen titans or house of mouse or welcome back kotter is squashed? not really. this way I don't have to worry about lines getting burned in while watching Universal Monster movies or Wizard of Oz or Citizen Kane.. etc.
16:9 sets are different though. basically the gun either doesn't fire for the entire part up to the picture and then blasts full on for the picture (VERY BAD) or it scans at half intensity (50IRE) for the entire part up to the picture and then blasts full on. because this is across a single scan line, you either end up with clearly dilineated uneven wear after a relatively short time (for black bars) which just sucks, or you end up with just single lines of demarcation after a rather longer period of time, which is better than the obvious wear, but still can be annoying.
I won't argue with anyone that OAR is the best way to go. No question about it. But watching OAR on a 16:9 set constantly and often can mess it up. Me personally, I don't watch a whole lot of 4:3. Most of what I watch on network and cable is HD or letterboxed (SG1, Atlantis, BSG, etc). If I do watch somethingon cable I will usually stretch it. The exception to this is if I am watching something important, which is pretty much only classic movies shot full frame. A full frame movie I will watch with bars on the side. but if I happen to be catching teen titans or something I'll just stretch it.
Is it noticable? Yes.. and it never really goes away. but do I really care if teen titans or house of mouse or welcome back kotter is squashed? not really. this way I don't have to worry about lines getting burned in while watching Universal Monster movies or Wizard of Oz or Citizen Kane.. etc.
Error Macro
Member
borghe said:
It's a typo then, the 4:3 sets don't have HD Panorama.
Per JVC's definitions:
HD Panorama is only on the widescreen sets.
DVDs get upconverted, as does every signal that you feed it. It's not 810i. It can compress 1080i, as anamorphic DVDs are upconverted to 1080i, and then the 16:9 compression displays the full resolution and proper geometry. I have a fairly detailed technical paper from JVC about the D.I.S.T. upconversion process if you want to read it.
Error Macro
Member
AB 101 said:
All I know is that you don't know what you're talking about then.
Why don't you read through this thread? There is some valuable information being passed about here.well, then send them to me, because everything I am finding says that DIST isn't anything more than Sony's DRC or any other company's creative term for upscaling 480i video to 1080i. Also, according to thisError Macro said:
http://www.jvc.com/press/index.jsp?item=304
it seems that raster compression, again singled out here for DVD, is not applied to HDTV, not even creatively here. I would love for you to prove me wrong if things are pointed out in detail, but even looking up D.I.S.T. on JVC.com I can't find anything definitvely aside from that raster compression is applied to DVDs, that 480p sources are treated as 480p sources, and that HD is never mentioned to have raster compression applied to it.
edit - here they talk about 4th gen D.I.S.T on their HD-ILA sets and they specifically mention 480i DVD and how a typical set line doubles it but their set takes it to 1080i. Again no mention of 480p.
and to further elaborate, it would make actually little sense to take a DVD to 1080i outside of upsampling DVD players. The DVD signal is progressive and passed across analog cables (component video) it would then have to sort it based on analog scanlines and then interlace the picture and upconvert it to 1080i. this makes no sense. Of course if it did it digitally it would be signficantly better, but considering the only DVD players with digital video outputs already upscale the image to 1080i, it would make no sense to output 480i from DVI to then have the TV scale it to 1080i.
All of that aside, unless there is a 5th generation D.I.S.T. I am still not finding anything that is saying D.I.S.T. will upscample 480p to 1080i.
http://www.jvc.com/Presentations/HDILA/z795.html
edit2 - ok.. I think I have figured it out... I think... D.I.S.T. upsamples everything BUT 480p to 1080i. I have done even more reading and realizing that not all sets upsample to 1080i (my Mits set for example only line doubles to 480p or 960i for example and the Sony KV-32HS510 only line doubles to 480p) I can see exactly what they are promoting; the fact that they upsample to 1080i, not just 480p (like all sets) or 960i (like some sets). However, I have found nothing yet that says they scale 480p to 1080i. The 720p native sets obviously scale 480p to 720p, but they don't really have a choice and they are still only upsampling a progressive image to a larger progressive image (through interpolation). They aren't interlacing the image and then upsampling or vice versa.
So again, if you have documentation showing that the I'Art D.I.S.T. upsamples 480p and raster compresses 1080i I would be happy to look at it.. because I am not finding it on JVC's US or UK site.
borghe said:
Then again, you sound like someone who wouldn't run their CRT (4:3 or 16:9) in torch mode.
Irrespective of aspect ratio (AR), bars can burn in horizontally and vertically because most people don't adjust their picture settings properly. I don't care what the AR is, most people run their brightness, contrast, etc, way too high. This can cause burn-in.I will concede that if a set is properly calibrated, (within reason, not necessarily professionally) then the likelihood of burn-in is reduced substantially. I'm a good example because I have a 4:3 60" Hitachi SD RPTV that I have gamed on A LOT with no burn-in.
BUT
I didn't game on it until I had at least 1500 hrs (est.) on the guns. Long before that point I had bought Joe Kane's Video Essentials calibration disk; and fine-tuned my picture to more reasonable levels. I just wanted to clairfy, because I think it's important not to leave the impression that any CRT sets are immune to burn-in. They can all suffer from it, if precautions aren't taken.
no, I've never run my TV in torch mode, and have calibrated my TV all the way back to the days of Video Essentials on my laserdisc player on a 27" TV (which WAS painful to watch letterboxed movies on). Thus the only pratical experience I have ever had with burn in was on my 60" set which was picked up as a demo model and had the sony logo burned in the bottom right corner (on a Mits set no less..... lol!) luckily the store honored the manufacturers warranty which at the time included burn in.
NOTE! Most manufacturers' warranties no longer cover burn in. VERY IMPORTANT NOTE!
It is because of this that I usually err on the side of caution when telling people. the truth is that as long as they don't run torch mode, most people who do end up with burnin probably won't notice it. However if you do end up with burn-in that IS noticable, most manufacturers will now tell you too bad. Well, actually they will fix it but you will have to pay for 3 new CRTs and installation.
NOTE! Most manufacturers' warranties no longer cover burn in. VERY IMPORTANT NOTE!
It is because of this that I usually err on the side of caution when telling people. the truth is that as long as they don't run torch mode, most people who do end up with burnin probably won't notice it. However if you do end up with burn-in that IS noticable, most manufacturers will now tell you too bad. Well, actually they will fix it but you will have to pay for 3 new CRTs and installation.
Error Macro
Member
This info is about at a couple of years old, and is for PAL resolutions and frequencies, but it's the same process for NTSC.
umm. huh? screen shape has nothing to do with it.. there are plenty of other factors in there. quality of the DLP, settings between the two, if you are running factory defaults or not, etc.AB 101 said:
screen size has nothing to do with it. what is being talked about here is that there is generally SOME resolution/quality loss when running HD SOURCES to a 4:3 set vs a 16:9 set. XBox won't exhibit any of this unless you are running a 720p (or rare 1080i) game between the two..
of course all of what we are talking about is moot depending on the TV. obviously a Sony XBR 4:3 set will look better probably than a 34" Philips widescreen set. but in general, one name brand manufacturers' 16:9 set will look SLIGHTLY better than another name brand manufacturers' 4:3 set with HD material.
My argument here is, being that case as it is, and with MORE content going HD/widescreen and SD/fullframe content going away as it is being replaced, why would you want a TV geared for the OLD content instead of the emerging content. I can understand the rationale for buying a 4:3 set years ago.. I mean I bought one 2 years ago and felt it was a right choice... but this is two years later.. it is possible by the end of this year to have up to 59 HD channels, many of us have already almost 20HD channels, DVD will show beautifully on a widescreen set with minimal black bars at most for 2.35:1 material, etc. Today, it just doesn't make sense for a 4:3 set (which is what this thread was originally asking). Well, to rephrase that, TODAY a 4:3 set might make sense to some, but within two years TOPS that set will have way more black bars on it than screen filling content. And with virtually ALL 4:3 TVs even showing a "marginally" lesser picture, I guess it just doesn't make sense TO ME to give up even a little picture quality in exchange for having a larger picture on content that is going away more rapidly every day.
again, it entirely depends on the sets you are comparing it on, how they are tuned in, etc.
though the two DLP sets I have had the pleasure of running XBox at 720p on looked outstanding, with no rainbowing at all.... I mean as in sell my CRT it's done outstanding. A Mits and a Sony.
though the two DLP sets I have had the pleasure of running XBox at 720p on looked outstanding, with no rainbowing at all.... I mean as in sell my CRT it's done outstanding. A Mits and a Sony.
Hitachi 60" HDTV (60VS810)
Sony 60" HDTV (KDF-WF655)
LG 60" Widescreen Digital-Cable-Ready Plasma HDTV
Samsung 61" Widescreen HD-Ready DLP-Projection TV
Mitsubishi 62" HD-Ready DLP Projection TV
JVC 61" Widescreen HD-Ready Rear-Projection TV
Toshiba 62" Widescreen DLP Projection HD-Ready TV
Panasonic 60" Widescreen HD-Ready LCD Projection TV
All of these are good sets. I would recommend going out and viewing them all before you decide anything. There's a mix there to. You have DLP, LCD, and LCOS/DILA.
But, if you can control your room light, I would highly recommend looking at Panasonic's AE700 front projector; or a new biggy on my radar, the Toshiba MT700. Both are 1280x720 HD PJ's. You can get the Panny for around $1800 after rebate, and the Toshi will set you back around $2500. The Toshiba is a DLP PJ, and for that price @ 720p, it's looking like one helluva' PJ.
Go here: AVS Forum to learn more than you'll ever want to know about all of the above.
Sony 60" HDTV (KDF-WF655)
LG 60" Widescreen Digital-Cable-Ready Plasma HDTV
Samsung 61" Widescreen HD-Ready DLP-Projection TV
Mitsubishi 62" HD-Ready DLP Projection TV
JVC 61" Widescreen HD-Ready Rear-Projection TV
Toshiba 62" Widescreen DLP Projection HD-Ready TV
Panasonic 60" Widescreen HD-Ready LCD Projection TV
All of these are good sets. I would recommend going out and viewing them all before you decide anything. There's a mix there to. You have DLP, LCD, and LCOS/DILA.
But, if you can control your room light, I would highly recommend looking at Panasonic's AE700 front projector; or a new biggy on my radar, the Toshiba MT700. Both are 1280x720 HD PJ's. You can get the Panny for around $1800 after rebate, and the Toshi will set you back around $2500. The Toshiba is a DLP PJ, and for that price @ 720p, it's looking like one helluva' PJ.
Go here: AVS Forum to learn more than you'll ever want to know about all of the above.
Error Macro
Member
borghe said:
lol, don't you think that since the I-P Converter has to convert an interlaced signal to a progressive signal before the resolution interpolation begins, that it would simply skip the I-P Conversion if it was feed a progressive signal to begin with?
The I'Art converts everything to 1080i, even 480p. This has been the subject of complaints on various forums all over, not exclusive to JVC, but any set that upconverts signals to 1080i.
I have looked on AVS and found nothing saying the I'Art upconverts 480p to 1080i. If you have a thread, feel free to toss it my way.Error Macro said:
And to answer your question, no, it is not a given. The problem is that an HDTV set has no native way of displaying a 480i signal. EVERY HDTV set has to upconvert a 480i signal to show it because it has no way to display it natively. A 480p signal though, any 1080i set can display a 480p signal natively simply because the set has to have 540p of resolution. So this means every 1080i set is incapable of showing a 480i signal natively and capable of showing a 480p signal natively. That is why it makes sense for a 1080i set to be able to upconvert everything BUT 480p to 1080i. Because 480i and 720p HAVE TO be converted to something just to be able to display them.
Like I said, if you have the threads talking about 1080i upconversion within the set from 480p, post them so I can read up on them because I couldn't find them. yeah, it does sound stupid if that is the case. why take the option away to show a signal natively and instead force it to be upconverted which in essence and practice gives NO real advantage whatsoever... ESPECIALLY when done over analog conponent inputs. it sounds so stupid in fact that that is why I have a hard time believing it. it would be like releasing a manual transmission sports car with 32 gears. it might sound good on paper but in practice there is no need for it and actually makes things worse than they would be with only six gears.
if youhave those threads, post them. because IF it is true, I want to read why they decided to do such a stupid thing.
sasimirobot
Junior Member
I run my TV at about 44% for the picture and brightness settings (sharpness is set to 0) is this low enough to avoid burn in, and which setting specifically should I be careful about?
contrast is the only setting that contributes to burn in. "torch mode" refers to the fact that virtually all sets (of all types and sizes) usually ship from the factory with contrast set to 100%. it's not that a contrast of 100% is bad per se, but the higher contrast definitely makes burn in easier to happen.
the best $30 ANYONE can spend for their TV is Avia. Seriously. If you care about how your TV picture looks at all, run, don't walk, to best Buy or wherever and pick up a copy. All of the main adjustments can be done right at the picture settings. Color, Tint, Contrast, Brightness, and Sharpness. None of these needs a professional to do.
less than 50% contrast will usually help signficantly in staving off burn in. When you are done with Avia your contrast will usually be set somewhere between 33-40% depending on the set.
the best $30 ANYONE can spend for their TV is Avia. Seriously. If you care about how your TV picture looks at all, run, don't walk, to best Buy or wherever and pick up a copy. All of the main adjustments can be done right at the picture settings. Color, Tint, Contrast, Brightness, and Sharpness. None of these needs a professional to do.
less than 50% contrast will usually help signficantly in staving off burn in. When you are done with Avia your contrast will usually be set somewhere between 33-40% depending on the set.
Oracle Dragon
Member
Is there a web site or conversion tool, or something that will allow me to compare screen sizes from 16x9 TV's vs 4x3 sets? I dont have that much room in my basement for a big 16x9 set, so I was thinking about getting a 32" 4x3 unit. I was wondering how big the displayed area would be if I watched a widescreen movie. I mean if all I can fit in my basment is a widescreen TV that displays an image that is 20 inches tall or so, and a 32" 4x3 tv would display a letterboxed image that is 20 inches tall or so, I would be better off with the 32" TV, since standard content would look much bigger.
the only thing I will say is read through this thread. "standard" content is going away very quickly and the new "standard" content will usually look better on a 16:9 set. why buy a TV for 4:3 content that is going away? there is a reason set manufacturers are making fewer and fewer 4:3 HDTVs. Because it is becoming harder and harder for consumers to justify buying them.Oracle Dragon said:
here is a comparison. for $999 you can get either a Sony 32" 4:# or a Sony 30" 16:9. Now the 32" shows a 32" 4:3 picture and the 30" shows roughly a 25" 4:3 picutre (calculators say 24" but most manufacturers usually stretch their 4:3 mode just a little to give a slightly larger picture). So you get 7" more on 4:3 content.. seems like a no brainer.
but let's give this a little more thought. The 32" set only shows a 29" letterboxed picture while the 30" shows a 30" letterboxed picture. On top of it, search any home theater forum and you will see posts of marginally worse picture quality on HD on the 4:3 set because of raster compression/line decimation method artifacts. Not a horrible picture, but definitely flawed sitting right next to a 16:9 set.
Now think about this (as mentioned earlier in the thread). Next gen we are probably looking at EVERY game being 720p/1080i, meaning widescreen. Right now we are looking at every network television channel being HD. Almsot all modern DVDs released are widescreen. Next gen DVD will be widescreen format as well. The 4:3 content you would be buying the set for is going away rapidly, and within two years the vast majority of the content you watch will be widescreen.
So, give up an inch and some quality so that content that is going away will be bigger? or give up size on content that is going away in exchange for a larger screen and better quality for the content that is here and growing?