CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

[digitalayon]

I know they wanted tv to be like a theater and standardize a ratio of 16:9. But I miss having more area vertically. It made it fun. Perhaps I just miss how the signal filled on my old 52 inch CRT TV. I mean my 50 inch plasma does ok. Perhaps the "jump effect" is gone. You know when you went from a 19 inch tube to a 52 inch it was massive. Then added a 16:9 panel and never felt like it took off for me. It actually felt a lot smaller.

[ElTopo]

21:9 the only one

[AnalogRocks]

I still have 4:3 but only a few channels still broadcast that way and not all the time. I'll miss it too.
The other thing that annoys me is the aspect ratio changes. Say you have one show at 4:3, the commercials may be 16:9 in a 4:3 window, you try watching this on a 16:9 set and you get the "postage stamp" look. Little tiny picture in a big window. Then the next commercial fills the screen, Then you are back to the 4:3 program.

[AnalogRocks]

I still have 4:3 but only a few channels still broadcast that way and not all the time. I'll miss it too.
The other thing that annoys me is the aspect ratio changes. Say you have one show at 4:3, the commercials may be 16:9 in a 4:3 window, you try watching this on a 16:9 set and you get the "postage stamp" look. Little tiny picture in a big window. Then the next commercial fills the screen, Then you are back to the 4:3 program.

[416ray4538]

They have to keep changing things because new/different is always better. Makes all the old stuff just that much more "last week" and therefore just not good enough. I mean what's the point of making new stuff if you can't make the old stuff obsolete. We have to buy things, take them home, then throw then in the trash and buy new crap so that the companies that make the crap can go on making crap and having us buy it, take it home, then throw it in the trash.

[km987654]

Its much better for CRT life as well.

[the big E]

I also miss the 4:3 due to the same issue ar has

Here I have a 120 inch screen and a 4:3 in a 16:9 program is like 60inches wtf is up with that

Don't get me wrong I like 16:9 but it does have its downfalls

Speaking of which I had a plasma tv get major uneven wear due to this very thing(looked great at the sides but the middle was dull)

[larryp]

my screen is 4:3 I just use the crop - stretch- & letterbox feature on the direct tv remote. works for me

[the big E]

[winny]

[CasetheCorvetteman]

16:9 was born due to it being right in the middle of 4:3 and 2.35:1

I was using a 125" 5:4 screen for a long time, I used active masking for the 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 aspects, but I recently bought a larger screen and it only comes in 1.78:1 or 2.35:1.

I never watch TV, so that isn't an issue. I do play a lot of old video games, and they are almost all in 5:4 ( some arcade games ) or 4:3. Split screen games on older consoles were almost all split horizontally, meaning the 5:4 screen was perfect.

Running a 1.78:1 or 2.35:1 inside a 5:4 wear area is no problem at all. I could game all day and night and never worry about the static wear ever being visible within the wider formats.

Running 4:3 within a 1.78:1 ( or ever worse, running a 1.78 and a 4:3 inside a 2.35:1 ) will use a small to really small tube face area, and will wear within the movie viewing area unevenly every single time.

The issue with 16:9 aspects here in Australia is they NEVER took off at all until they were forced upon the consumer. I did own a 16:9 Panasonic GAOO rear projection CRT, but I never knew anyone else at all that ever had a wide rear pro, and only ever met one other person that had a wide direct view CRT ( Philips Matchline Pixel Plus 2, so they were after high image quality ) Any stores that displayed 16:9 aspect TVs sold very very few of them, because for regular viewing there was a compromise. You either got short fat people, boarders at the sides, or cut the top and bottom off. In the case of the Panasonic, there was a mode that would stretch the image more the further away from the center, which worked very well, however it still cut parts of the image off top and bottom.

When plasma TVs started selling here, there was no option, so you either went 16:9 or you bought another CRT with a better image and at a considerably cheaper price.

The issue with computers and especially internet browsing is that width is never the issue. Its the height you always want more of, hence the 5:4 format, allowing more height to fit the Windows task bar at the bottom of the screen and not imposing on the 4:3 viewing area. Same goes for 16:10 over 16:9. Trying to get a computer monitor in 4:3 or 5:4 these days is possible, if you want to put up with 1280x1024 resolution and 19" screen size... Cause that's about all you can get. And they are dear as f***. Id happily go back to the 1920x1440 or my CRT monitor any day.

Having all that height of the 4:3 made the TV look HUGE.

[CasetheCorvetteman]

I wouldn't run a single CRT projector on a 2.35:1 screen ever... At least the 16:9 window within it will have perfect astig and great corner focus I guess...

[HogPilot]

[the big E]

I have a samsung rear projection crt tv and when I replaced the red tube the wear pattern was close to the edge but that was widthwise the top and bottom had virgin phosphor

Its a 16:9 HDTV

Here in my area people wasn't in a hurry to go to HDTV due to the same issues case listed

I may set me up a extra screen for 4:3 only so I can play the older games in all they're splendor

I knew it had to be the manufacturing side of things somewhere that forced this on us

[digitalayon]

Good to know I am not the only one that feels we now have less area on the screen.

[the big E]

I rather have a 120 inch screen without the black bars then have one with them

Downside is my hdtv tuner doesn't do the crop or pan and scan stuff whereas my other equipment does

[larryp]

I have a old 3DO game system which I still use a lot. Looks great on my set up. Regular & HD tv look great to. No complaints at all.

[ecrabb]

Personally, I couldn't care less about no more 4:3. Don't miss it at all. I always hated the shape (almost square), because I always watched movies, watch are almost exclusively a wider aspect unless you like to watch a lot of black and white. For projection, a decent-sized 4:3 screen won't work in rooms with normal floor-ceiling heights because it gets too tall. It leaves no room for a center-channel speaker, and I watch almost zero 4:3 content.

SC

[CasetheCorvetteman]

[MrBlonde83]

I have to agree that 4:3 looks a lot larger... You do have that height that makes it seem much larger. Especially with these projection screens. I remember watching all the president's men (4:3 side DVD) and how awesome Washington DC looked at night like you were looking out of a nice picture window on a tall skyscraper. I guess the only way you'd get that size is by making your screen larger.

[ecrabb]