New HD RPTV 56"

caseymou

I bought one last week at CC for $1299. The only drawback is that it was 4:3 not widescreen. I can still set my dvd up to show widescreen movies with the letterbox at top and bottom right? Things will not look stretched or elongated? For the price I couldn't beat it or I would have preferred a widescreen.

Dr. Spec

Oh, man....for $1300, I would have waited a few more paychecks and gone widescreen. Send that thing back before 30 days passes.

You will totally regret not owning widescreen. P&S will be a thing of the past soon. DVDs are all coming out in widescreen and there are less and less full screen versions available. Also, as digital HDTV takes off, ALL TV broadcasts will eventually be 16:9 also, as NTSC finally dies.

This is not raining on your parade - I'm just trying to save a Polk brother from a really bad decision, IMHO. SEND IT BACK and invest another $400 and get a 16:9.

To answer your question, you will need to buy P&S (aka fullscreen) DVDs, or suffer through the huge black bars and loss of image on the left and right. It will not be distorted or stretched if you select the appropriate aspect on your TV, but you will not be viewing it as intended. Please reconsider this purchase - $1300 is a LOT of dough.



Doc

scottvamp

caseymou, good deal for the money. Congrats!! Depending on the brand and features. That is about the going price now for what you got. What did u upgrade from? Even if movies are wide screen you will still benifit from the larger screen - IMO is a HUGE part of HT. If you can get good black levels from it the black bars are not that anoying at all.

You will totally regret not owning widescreen.

Well im sure just a little part of the desision was that anybody can put this comparision on their radar but you have spend the money

---

standard 53"tv for $1300 even less or a MIT 75" 9inch gun-HDTV widescreen tv for $10,500.

DVDs are all coming out in widescreen and there are less and less full screen versions available.

I have been buying dvd's from day one. And unfortunatly I see even more fullscreens out there then ever before. The last 4 movies I bought i had to DIG to find the WS - even Star Wars EII for god sake!!!!!!
And another thing that has troubled me is that I have seen very FEW WS tv's (only small crt and lcd screens) that are actually 16:9 ratio. They are mostly more anamorphic. Every time I see a "WS" tv playing a 16:9 dvd there are still small black bars on the screen.
It is strange how "we" don't give people $hit about watching WS dvd's on a 25" tv's. They brag that at the same price as a 50" tv there Sony trinatron Wega is the bomb. Man, I will take a "modern day" 50" over a 25" for HT anyday -WS or not.
Ok I feel better now!!!

caseymou

Take it easy everyone! I have done the math and even with a ws movie playing I will have the equivalant of a 46" ws which is all I would be getting for that extra $400. This is a panasonic 2 tuner with nice remote and a screen protector. Also, since this is not a dedicated theater tv, I will be watching a heck of a lot of satellite tv which I don't believe is formatted 16:9. I have been buying ws dvd's since the beginning though. My previous tv is a 6 year old 27" samsung tube. Is it true that when watching regular tv (4:3) on a ws the picture is distorted or the black bars are on the side?

Doc, I do appreciate your input and opinions. I did really want a ws but $400 can be spent many other places. I could almost buy a good used set of ls9's for that. Widescreens just look cool!

scottvamp

I have done the math and even with a ws movie playing I will have the equivalant of a 46" ws which is all I would be getting for that extra $400.

That is my point!!!!! And then some

---

Dr. Spec

It's perfectly fine to disagree and still be civil - that's what these forums are for.

I feel very strongly that widescreen is the right choice for any HDTV, but ESPECIALLY as the core component of a HT system.

All TV will eventually be broadcast in a HD widescreen format. All movies were originally shot in widescreen, and that is the intended format for playback. All movie theaters are widescreen. The very premise of "home theater" is WIDESCREEN.

I'll say it one more time - you are making a HUGE mistake by investing that much cash in an HDTV and not buying widescreen. HUGE.

There is a very good reason CC is blowing out full screen HDTVs - they aren't selling well. I asked the CC guy where I bought mine and he says widescreen kills full screen in sales volume.

Please, I implore you to poll as many HT buffs as you can, on as many HT forums as you can find, and tally the results. Widescreen will win by a overwhelming margin.

Doc

Ron-P

It really boils down to what format you watch the most. If you watch mainly 4:3 material, don't go widescreen. Sure, WS is the way of future for movies, but for OTA, not anytime soon. 4:3 will be around a lot longer than caseymou 4:3 TV.

I only bought a WS set because it sees nothing but WS DVDs besides the "Friends" season sets, that's the only 4:3 material my WS set will see.

or a MIT 75" 9inch gun-HDTV widescreen tv for $10,500.

Not sure where Scottvamp is getting his info, but Mits does not make a 75", only 73" and it comes in 2 models. For $7,998 you get it with an HD-tuner built in, or for $4,998 w/o the tuner...a far cry from $10,500.


Peace Out~:D

goingganzo

i watch my regular tv in ws mode it is streched a little but it still looks good but when something is on that is in ws i use the strech feathure to get it to be the right ratio and i would agree get a ws set comcast has a hi def box now and you can get hi def for you sat

scottvamp

Ok I was 2" off. WoW!!!!
MSRP "was" $10,500 - along with my local Momn and Pop HT store.:)

scottvamp

I was just making an example. Geeeezzzzsh!!!!

Ron-P

Hey, 2" can make a huge difference.

BTW, no one pays MSRP. If you local M&P is charging MSRP, I'd never set foot in the place. I got my prices from Ken Cranes, and their prices are workable.


Peace Out~:D

scottvamp

I have friends that work there so I get dealer cost on some of what they carry.
I hope that nobody pays MSRP - once again just make an example between to big screen tv's.

rlightfoot

So how da he!! does a full screen DVD look on a widescreen TV?

begbie

4/3 material which is pretty much everything on tv these days, was a big consideration when I purchased my widescreen pro-jo.
Most sets are pretty good at "fitting" the 4/3 material on a widescreen image. Sony, Pioneer and Toshiba(theater wide 1 baby!) are among the best at it.
Of course,when you watch a widescreen movie on a w/s set, it's awesome!

Once you go wide you will never go back!!

fireshoes

I don't really buy the whole arguement from people that say they watch more 4:3. Guess what happens when they start filiming in HD only. Booyah! Letterboxed tv! I've already seen it during a college basketball game that was shot in HD but I was watching a freakin 19-inch. Couldn't see crap. 4:3 tv's=ick.

MxStYlEpOlKmAn

that'd be a weird sized tv. They will have to come out wit a new style of glass's *tv glass's*

RBreak

I have a 4:3 Toshiba 50 inch (model 50A61) I paid $1250 for. I went through the "widescreen vs. standard" dillema for over a month before I bought. At the time a comparable widescreen would have been very close to double the price. I decided on a standard because in my opinion there is not enough widescreen channels available yet to justify the extra cost, and I still believe that while the future is widescreen for all programming, that future is still a long time off. I watch much more 4:3 material than widescreen, DVD's are about the only time it's 16:9 or anamorphic, and my Toshiba SD2800 DVD player has a zoom option which allows 3 different zoom settings to help fill the screen and take up some of the black bars. Hardcore widescreen folks will holler about losing some of the left and right side of the picture if I zoom it in, but these same hardcore folks are watching regular T.V. either with some sort of distortion to make it fill their wide screen, or either watching it with grey bars on the left and right side after paying twice for their sets as what I payed for mine. I would much rather watch the occasional DVD without a widescreen T.V. than watch the majority of T.V. in a distorted view, to me any distortion is unacceptable, especially considering how much a widescreen cost. My friend payed $3500 for his Mits 55" widescreen and he claims he can't see the distortion with regular T.V. I think it's more that he has convinced himself he cant see it after paying that much, because when I watch regular T.V. at his place I can sure see it, and I don't like it at all. We were watching a football game, and when a player would run across the screen he would start out looking short and squat, then in the middle of the screen he would get tall and thin, then as he ran off the other end of the screen he would be short and squat again! I was like "WTF, you have to be kidding me!".
When the day comes that the majority of programming is widescreen, I'll go ahead and buy a widescreen T.V., and by then the prices should have come down considerably. And I'll also put my Toshiba in the master bedroom and have a very nice 50 inch 2nd T.V. All things considered, I am very happy with my T.V. for its multi-purpose role. If I were only going to use it for DVD's, that would be a no brainer, of course a widescreen. But for now, I watch regular signal (analog) T.V. and get a very good picture, if it's a digital feed I get an even better picture, and DVD's look very clear and good also.
Of course all of this is subjective and everyone has their own opinion. Go to any home theater forum and you can read hundreds of threads of folks arguing over the pros and cons of each system. There is no right or wrong, it's whatever you decide is best for you. Anyway, congrats on your purchase, and yes you can watch any DVD without any stretching or elongation, and if you watch regular T.V. on a widescreen you either have distortion or bars on the left and right.

Dr. Spec

The ONLY reason to buy a HIGH DEF TV is if you are going to watch DVDs or an actual HDTV feed. Otherwise the technology is wasted. Consider the following:

1) All current satellite or digital cable true HDTV feeds are widescreen format only.

2) The intended playback format for Home Theater is widescreen, AND true HD DVD is right around the corner.

3) When NTSC is shut off forever, the only OTA broadcasts will be true HD in widescreen format only.

If you watch a lot of OTA or regular cable broadcasts, then by all means get a fullscreen TV. But why would anyone pay the extra coin for a high def fullscreen TV to primarily watch regular cable and OTA - IMO it's a waste of money.

Doc

Ron-P

Hardcore widescreen folks will holler about losing some of the left and right side of the picture if I zoom it in, but these same hardcore folks are watching regular T.V. either with some sort of distortion to make it fill their wide screen, or either watching it with grey bars on the left and right side

Not true, this hardcore folk has a 4:3 for the TV stuff and the 16:9 for the DVD's. "Why only buy one when you can have two at twice the price?"


Peace Out~:D

begbie

Originally posted by fireshoes
I don't really buy the whole arguement from people that say they watch more 4:3.

Huh? Pretty much everything on tv is 4:3 programming !!!!

Anyways, go widescreen all the way!

begbie

Rbreak, many of the widescreen tv's have aspect modes for 4:3 programming. Many of them are very good at "fitting" the program on your w/s set. I'm not familiar with the Mitsubishi sets but most likely he used the wrong aspect mode.

Toshiba's "theater wide 1 mode" and Sony's "wide zoom mode" are among the best I've seen.

Having worked in a/v sales, most purchasers are still uneducated about which aspect to use even after owning their sets for a year and even more!

Dr. Spec

Watching OTA on a widescreen TV is a drag. Any aspect ratio is ultimately an unsatisfactory compromise. Either you get:

1) grey bars on the side ("normal" setting);
2) the top and bottom lopped off ("fill" setting);
3) the sides stretched out like a fishbowl ("smoothwide" setting);
4) the whole image stretched sideways ("full" setting)

My Hitach sucks at smoothwide - the bigger the TV, the harder it is to pull off that setting well. My buddy's 50" 16:9 Toshiba does it very well.

When I do watch OTA on my widescreen, I usually go with the "fill" setting and just deal with it. I'd rather do that than burn the grey bars into the screen, which I'm told is a real possibility.

I like Ron's solution - "this hardcore folk has a 4:3 for the TV stuff and the 16:9 for the DVD's. Why only buy one when you can have two at twice the price?" :-)

Doc

begbie

Notice i didn't recommend Hitachi? Not all manufacturers have the same method of aspect modes.
Sorry Dr. Spec but Hitachi has got to be one of the worse at this. Funny, even when I demonstrated this flaw to customers, they still wanted the Hitachi set ?! ? Usually it's based on a number of reasons that they still decide to get a set with this horrible aspect mode , eg.- price, brand name, cabinet style, a buddy who thinks he knows it all and has tagged along with the customer, etc. etc.
If any one is thinking of choosing a widescreen tv., don't let the idea of "stretch" modes fool you. Often I got customers turned off immediately when they hear that word , yet when they first walked in the store they didn't even notice this feature and marvelled at the picture!
Sony, Pioneer or Toshiba are my picks for aspect modes on 4:3 material.

RBreak

3) When NTSC is shut off forever, the only OTA broadcasts will be true HD in widescreen format only.

I'm not positive on these dates, but if I remember right it was 2006 for NTSC shutoff, but then I think I read somewhere it had been moved back to 2007 due to broadcasting companies complaining they couldn't make the transition by 2006. Again, not positive on these dates but whenever NTSC shutoff does happen, then a widescreen would would without question be the best way to go.

Not true, this hardcore folk has a 4:3 for the TV stuff and the 16:9 for the DVD's. "Why only buy one when you can have two at twice the price?"

Can't argue with that, thats the way to go for now if you can swing two T.V's. Thats the only way to get the best of both worlds.

Rbreak, many of the widescreen tv's have aspect modes for 4:3 programming. Many of them are very good at "fitting" the program on your w/s set. I'm not familiar with the Mitsubishi sets but most likely he used the wrong aspect mode.

Yea, I was not impressed with the Mits, at least not with 4:3 material. I have heard other brands are better, but like Dr. Spec said they are all compromises at best.

My vote would be the Ron P. method!

Ron-P

3) When NTSC is shut off forever, the only OTA broadcasts will be true HD in widescreen format only.

As I understand it, all OTA broadcasts must convert to digital by 2006, not to HD.


Peace Out~:D

caseymou

I think ron is right. But those dates are still being debated. The electronics manufacturers are complaining about the time frame and current costs.

begbie

I'm not concerned about the dates too much. People are buying very good,expensive analog sets and are even flat screen too. Televisions can give you a good ten years of service so people are going to hang on to them no matter what.
If there was no signal one day, can you imagine what an uproar it'll cause?! People will have the argument that there was no sticker warning my set will be useless in a few years.
Of course that will probably mean cable companies having to issuse a digital box(down-rez) to to their faithful customers. It's all about money and no-one wants to lose anyone's buisness.

Another issue that'll prolong the mainstream HD broadcast is copyright protection. There are sets now that have a dvi/hdcp connection so companies will protect their most regarded programs. Last I heard , sets even with dvi/hdcp connections may not be the up to par for what they want a few years from now.

My set doesn't have dvi connections but it doesn't bother me. Just enjoy the set for what it is now. Dvi may not get off the ground and if it does, someone out there will try to hack into it.

liv4fam

Ron,

In Philly all of the OTA networks have already converted to Digital and they are supposed to be full HD from 7pm to 11pm in third quater 2004. I have had HD from the beginning and up until a couple of weeks ago only the major players were digital like NBC,ABC,CBS,PBS, and FOX. But now we just got WB and UPN to finish off our OTA broadcast companies in this area.
I say HD is headed in the right direction and they are coming along just fine and I am confident that they will make there deadline for 2006. As far as Satellite goes I really don't think they will make the 2007 deadline for HD because Directv wants to charge people for HD until it becomes the Standard which I think is a HUGE mistake but that will definitely hurt there progress into the Digital world.

I agree with everyone else widescreen is the way to go because you get the best of both worlds.
It can display every format available right now so that is the logical choice to make over 4:3 televisions.

HBombToo

I find it interesting that any government regulated entity can never meet deadlines and are always bellyaching over capital expenditure.

liv4fam is dead on his comments regarding DTV and the whole consolidation thing with Hughes is just a sidestep to applying capital.

Point in case over this last year was the PAIN I endured converting the CDMA network I'm responsible for to 3G. Not only did it blow my capital budget for expansion, ("POOR COVERAGE AREAS"), but the manpower required delayed existing projects. To that end I'll have to waite untill 3rd QTR 2003 to really kick off any substantial projects for the creation of this new business unit.

If broadcast companies had to compete just the same as any non regulated industy these delays would never be happening and the consumer would DRIVE revenues in whole.

just my 2c

HBomb

Dr. Spec

Originally posted by Ron-P


As I understand it, all OTA broadcasts must convert to digital by 2006, not to HD.


Peace Out~:D

Ron: Originally, all digital OTA broadcasts were to be 16:9 HD. However, my latest research shows that digital broadcasters "might" do low def and high def initially. HD takes a lot of bandwidth, so the latest thinking is to reserve HD for programs that deserve it, and broadcast more mundane stuff in low def and conserve bandwidth. Regardless, I believe both formats will still be widescreen, though.

Doc

Ron-P

I'm all for widescreen HD, bring it on. I know I will never buy a 4:3 set again. I bought my last one 3 years ago.

Seems there is still a lot up in the air about which way things will go.


Peace Out~:D