Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Opinions on widescreens....I cant decide!

I own the Sony 43HT20, which is Sony's 43" 4:3 rptv, and it is outstanding. Starting about 2 years ago, Sony started stepping up with their rptv's, and their new lines have been highly regarded. They are certainly considered comparable to the Toshibas, Mitsubishis and Pannys. All of them have their pluses and minuses.

I've been mulling over the big screen purchase for a couple of years now. Here's my $.02: get the biggest HD capable, REGULAR shape TV you can afford (or that your room will allow).

Why not widescreen? Because you'll have to reverse letter-box your picture for standard TV signals, or worse, stretch or zoom the picture to fit the screen. DVD images should fit nicely, but a letter-boxed DVD image on the old shape screen (50"-60") will still be as big or bigger than the image would be on the widescreens you're looking at.

In reply to:

---

but a letter-boxed DVD image on the old shape screen (50"-60") will still be as big or bigger than the image would be on the widescreens you're looking at.

---

With less resolution.

A front projector + screen will take much less footprint than a small 42"-46" widescreen TV (essentially zero footprint, if ceiling-mounted).

Just my usual $0.02. HAHAHA...

I have the 50H82. I would only trade it for something bigger. I'm extremely happy with the brand. I second Chess' hometheaterspot.com advice. That is where I did all my research.

Actually, Semi_On, if the 4:3 TV has a 16:9 squeeze mode (as many do, including my Sony 43" RPTV and my 27" Wega), the DVD image will have the same resolution as on a widescreen set. Not to really start a 4:3 vs. 16:9 debate, because they both have their merits, the fact is, my 43" RPTV produces approximately a 40" 16:9 picture with exactly the same resolution as a 40" widescreen set would produce when I am using the squeeze mode with anamorphic DVD's.

Why less resolution? I'm suggesting an HDTV that is traditionally shaped, not a low resolution RPTV. To me, it seems like a no-brainer - you get a large, high resolution DVD image (albeit letterboxed) and a huge TV image that neither needs cropping, stretching or zooming.

My personal opinion is that the new TV format may never catch on, but if it does it will be far further in the future than 2006. So why bother with the inconvenience of a widescreen?

I haven't really looked into this, but just assumed I was getting a widescreen for my next TV when the time comes. The wide fits the DVD's properly, and TV will either have the bars on the side or will be stretched to fit. I would expect the picture quality doesn't differ much on traditional vs. wide with a similar quality TV. Those black lines on the top and bottom have always annoyed me during movies....it seems like so much of the screen real estate is lost.

If those black bars annoy you while watching movies now, wait until you have to choose between "cropped" or "stretched" mode on a new $3000+ TV. Cropped you will have massive vertical bars on each side (and a small picture in the middle). Stretched you will have fat, distorted images and a decreased picture resolution.

My brother has a widescreen and I hate it. It is good for watching two football game at one though - via splitscreen. Both games take up half the screen with only a little bit of vertical compression. Good feature for gamblers.

Gem, you're right, IF the TV has a sqeeze mode. Not all do.