Need help selecting 34 vs 36" HDTV

[Guest]

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

I purchased a Sony XBR 34" widescreen with HDTV tuner last week, and I
have to say I'm impressed witht he picture. A lot of this decision
went into research, in part from these boards.

When I was shopping, I was trying to decide netween the above set and
a 36" Panasonic, Toshiba or Sony 36" HDTV, which, due to the deal I
got on the 34", turned out to be very close in price to the 36's, so
price is not a consideration.

What I'm looking to the board for is some idea of how fast more
stations will adopt to HDTV format. I've had the HD box installed by
Cablevision in NJ, but there are plenty of cable shows which we watch
that we need to view in stretch or zoom mode, both of which are
difficult to watch. I'm starting to think a 36" 4:3 may have made
better sense, despite what I've read.

Does it make sense to stay with the widescreen I have, and be able to
grow as HDTV take off (will it be relatively soon)?

The 36" 4:3 seems so much larger to me, and if a good proportion 60%+
of what I watch is still 4:3, doesn't it make sense to get the 36" TV
and letterbox the widescreen material?

a 36" is still a 33" screen in letterbox, while a 34" widescreen is
only a 28" screen in windowbox.

I have an entertainment unit, so I cannot go larger than a 36", and I
prefer CRT pictures in any case.

Some opinions from the board would be much appreciated.

 

[abe]

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

On 27 Sep 2004 14:37:27 -0700, dpaul01@yahoo.com (DPaul) wrote:

>I purchased a Sony XBR 34" widescreen with HDTV tuner last week, and I
>have to say I'm impressed witht he picture. A lot of this decision
>went into research, in part from these boards.
>
>When I was shopping, I was trying to decide netween the above set and
>a 36" Panasonic, Toshiba or Sony 36" HDTV, which, due to the deal I
>got on the 34", turned out to be very close in price to the 36's, so
>price is not a consideration.
>
>What I'm looking to the board for is some idea of how fast more
>stations will adopt to HDTV format. I've had the HD box installed by
>Cablevision in NJ, but there are plenty of cable shows which we watch
>that we need to view in stretch or zoom mode, both of which are
>difficult to watch. I'm starting to think a 36" 4:3 may have made
>better sense, despite what I've read.
>
>Does it make sense to stay with the widescreen I have, and be able to
>grow as HDTV take off (will it be relatively soon)?
>
>The 36" 4:3 seems so much larger to me, and if a good proportion 60%+
>of what I watch is still 4:3, doesn't it make sense to get the 36" TV
>and letterbox the widescreen material?
>
>a 36" is still a 33" screen in letterbox, while a 34" widescreen is
>only a 28" screen in windowbox.
>
>I have an entertainment unit, so I cannot go larger than a 36", and I
>prefer CRT pictures in any case.
>
>Some opinions from the board would be much appreciated.
---------------------------------
It'll be a few years yet before the great majority of programming is
in 16X9 format.

The answer is really a matter of opinion. If you still watch a
significant amount of 4:3 material, and 4:3 is just too small on a 34"
16:9 set (I agree, stretch/fill modes are unacceptable), go with the
new Sony 36" KD-36XS955. If you can live with the smaller 4:3
material on a 16X9 set, the 16X9 set gives you the advantage of being
compatible with anamorphically enhanced DVDs, which make better use of
the TV's resolution.

Personally, I've already made the decision, and am waiting on delivery
of the Sony 36" KD-36XS955 in the next week.

 

[Guest]

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

DPaul wrote:
>
> I purchased a Sony XBR 34" widescreen with HDTV tuner last week, and I
> have to say I'm impressed witht he picture. A lot of this decision
> went into research, in part from these boards.
>
> When I was shopping, I was trying to decide netween the above set and
> a 36" Panasonic, Toshiba or Sony 36" HDTV, which, due to the deal I
> got on the 34", turned out to be very close in price to the 36's, so
> price is not a consideration.

Normally the 4:3 CRT tube set is much less expensive
than a 16:9 set since the 16:9 tube geometry is more complex...



>
> What I'm looking to the board for is some idea of how fast more
> stations will adopt to HDTV format.

The 7 major TV Networks have moved 1st toward more HD Productions.

Local TV stations (about 1500) have gone digital with little
revenue stream to pay for a lot of New dig/HD facility..
Local Pass thru Digital/HD comes 1st.. Scrapping 4:3 local
analog cameras with good life left in 'em is wasteful...
Once a $$$ stream is directly related to digital broadcasts...
more local HD programs may develop from the local station...

It's the chick or egg... HD viewers & HD TV sets... & $$.


I've had the HD box installed by
> Cablevision in NJ, but there are plenty of cable shows which we watch
> that we need to view in stretch or zoom mode, both of which are
> difficult to watch. I'm starting to think a 36" 4:3 may have made
> better sense, despite what I've read.

I have access to 6 of 7 OTA Networks with HD transmissions....
Most HD Network Programs are on in Prime Time, Weekend Sports,
or Big Specials... The Only 100% OTA HD is PBS is with repeats.

Time Warner Cable has many Network HD Programs duping OTA,
but offers a list of 6 or 7 Full Time HD Program chans
with repeats.

Making everything HD all at once is many years away...
The transition for HD & $$ spent has to be gradual...
>
> Does it make sense to stay with the widescreen I have, and be able to
> grow as HDTV take off (will it be relatively soon)?

This is both a $$$ decision and a 'Black Bar' transition preference.
>
> The 36" 4:3 seems so much larger to me, and if a good proportion 60%+
> of what I watch is still 4:3, doesn't it make sense to get the 36" TV
> and letterbox the widescreen material?

Again where do you want to see black & gray bars...
When viewing a HD 4:3 picture or 16:9 analog picture...

>
> a 36" is still a 33" screen in letterbox, while a 34" widescreen is
> only a 28" screen in windowbox.

Those size calculations are correct... The 36" seems better ??
>
> I have an entertainment unit, so I cannot go larger than a 36", and I
> prefer CRT pictures in any case.
>
> Some opinions from the board would be much appreciated.

I purchased a Sony 34HS510 16:9 to view HD before my 62 year old
eyes go bad.... I value HDTV in it's superb 'no bar' Format!

Some value HD viewing in 16:9 perfection .. Some view the 36"
lesser
cost HD... Some have trouble with black & gray bars...
If you buy 16:9 you are set for the longer haul... If you
get a 4:3.. Then a HD set upgrade might be in the
shorter future... Will the HD transition pace chance quickly ???

 

[Guest]

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

> If you can live with the smaller 4:3
>material on a 16X9 set, the 16X9 set gives you the advantage of being
>compatible with anamorphically enhanced DVDs, which make better use of
>the TV's resolution.

I am new to wide screen TVs. What are anamorphically enhaced DVDs?

Nick

 

[abe]

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

>I'm new to wide screen TVs. What are anamorphically enhaced DVDs?
>
------------
Just do a google or yahoo search on "anamorphically enhanced." You'll
find lots on the topic.

 

[Guest]

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

Abe <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<k3ail0t7dnr83e50goa1fi3a979jsp12ph@4ax.com>...
> >I'm new to wide screen TVs. What are anamorphically enhaced DVDs?
> >
> ------------
> Just do a google or yahoo search on "anamorphically enhanced." You'll
> find lots on the topic.

Thanks for all of the information-- I've decided to go 36" for now,
and have honed it down to the Sony, Panasonic and JVC--probably
Panasonic Tau or Sony Wega (both HDTV). Price will be the ultimate
factor between them, although the Panasonic Tau 36" have great reviews
as well, the Sony probably edges it out for picture quality.