Widescreen or 4:3

[Thomas]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee67c74a.0406111630.b975b5d@posting.google.com...
> At this moment, it is arguable whether the glass is half empty or half
> full because the HD programming is insufficient. But the TV
> programming is filled with more and more HD shows, then your glass
> will appear more and more empty.
>
> Given that the 4:3 HDTV are cheaper, it is a very attractive
> alternative.

There is some (small) sacrifice in hdtv quality when a 4:3 does HDTV,
though.


Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Richard C. wrote:

> =================
> But 16:9 seems to be the future even for SD.
> ================

Indeed, the UK has had widescreen on SD for several years now. I think
you would be mad to buy a 4:3 tv these days. DVD alone makes it worth
having 16:9 and HD even more so.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Thomas" <tom@nowhere.ca> wrote in message
news:XMsyc.3$NvZ.2@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> There is some (small) sacrifice in hdtv quality when a 4:3 does HDTV,
> though.

None that I know of, as long as the 4:3 HDTV knows how to squeeze all 1080
scan lines into the 16:9 letterbox. I think most recent models know how to
do this.

 

[Thomas]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:eL4zc.23993$eH1.10849256@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> "Thomas" <tom@nowhere.ca> wrote in message
> news:XMsyc.3$NvZ.2@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > There is some (small) sacrifice in hdtv quality when a 4:3 does HDTV,
> > though.
>
> None that I know of, as long as the 4:3 HDTV knows how to squeeze all 1080
> scan lines into the 16:9 letterbox. I think most recent models know how
to
> do this.

It's the compressing (squeezing) of the scan lines that *cause* the
problems.

Scan lines cannot be optimized for 4:3 and 16:9 so the widescreen will
suffer from overlap and a fuzzier picture.

Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>DVD alone makes it worth
>having 16:9 and HD even more so.

Amen.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee67c74a.0406091754.321a1d48@posting.google.com...
: oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message
news:<20040609025923.09839.00000430@mb-m01.aol.com>...
:
: > >Also, when the salesguys say "in the near future", what
: > >does that mean? Later this year or 5 years from now?
: >
: > The FCC has mandated that all broadcast stations located in the
United States
: > be HD capable and broadcasting a pre-requisite amount of HD content
by 2006.
:
: I thought the FCC's mandate only require digital broadcast. Are you
: sure the stations cannot pump out SD in 4:3 digitally?

==================
Of course they can.
It is done daily.
====================
:
: If you only watch off the air stations at prime time, then HDTV
: contents are quite decent. However, if you consider all programs on
: the cable channels around the clock, HDTV content is just a tiny
: fraction. It is simply not enough.

=================
Things change................