Dismiss Notice
Attention AVForums app / Tapatalk users
Sadly GDPR means that, from 25th, we can no longer offer access to AVForums via the branded app or Tapatalk.
Click here for more information.

4:3 v 16:9 RPTV

Discussion in 'General TV Discussions Forum' started by Bassbin, Apr 26, 2003.

  1. Bassbin

    Bassbin
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,541
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Location:
    Leicester
    Ratings:
    +56
    I bought a Toshiba 43" rptv last year and after a lot of thought went for the 4:3 model in favour of the 16:9 one. I reasoned that the picture is almost as wide as the 42" 16:9 set from the same range but the overall surface area of the screen is much higher. I know 16:9 is more cinematic but does anyone else out there favour the bigger image size of 4:3 for the money?
     
  2. nathan_silly

    nathan_silly
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    For purely 4:3 material then OK I guess. But once you watch 2:35 ratio DVD's the top/bottom bars are huge.. so you're loosing alot of picture size.
     
  3. Bassbin

    Bassbin
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,541
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Location:
    Leicester
    Ratings:
    +56
    That's what I though before I purchased it but when I measured the screens in the store the 42" 16:9 set only gave an image 45-50mm wider so a 43" 4:3 can give the same size WS image as a 40" 16:9 set so the trade off was easily out weighed by the much bigger image for normal TV viewing.
     
  4. CraigKORE

    CraigKORE
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0

    Oh Yes! And infact, I just today placed an order for the new Tosh 43inch 4:3 (43VJ22P).

    The 43inch 4:3 Tosh gives you a widescreen 16:9 picture size of approx 40inch, with the added benefit of 43inch full screen for all 4:3 stuff. On the other hand, if I was to buy, say, a 42inch wide set, I would only get about 2 inch extra for 16:9 material, and drop bloody 5 inches in both directions for 4:3 stuff, since a 42inch widescreen only gives about a 28inch size for watching 4:3 material.

    I have quite a lot of non-anamorphic DVDs, which I find can be a nightmare on a widescreen set, and there is still a hell of a lot of stuff broadcast which is not 16:9 widescreen, I'm not talking about films, but TV shows, music videos ect.. Infact, even a good majority of 'extras' on DVDs still seem to be 4:3!

    I know that if I was buying a TV mainly to watch films, then a 16:9 set would more than likely be the better option, but to someone like myself who has a lot of non-anamorphic disks, disks of old comedies, older films, and watches quite a lot of 4:3 broadcast programmes, then sticking with a large 4:3 set for now is the superior option and the better of both worlds when it comes to aspect ratio compromise.

    To sum up, I will have a nice 43inch screen size for all 4:3 material, and a nice approx 40inch 16:9 size for all anamorphic material. And no need to mess about with different ratio options either, just a simple 16:9 button and thats it. In an ideal world though, I would have one TV for 4:3 material, and another widescreen set for 16:9 material... ;)
     

Share This Page

Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice