Why buy a 4:3 native PJ instead of a 16:9?

[Lex]

1. Many older flicks are in the 4:3 aspect ratio. So, to view old films, 4:3 is best.
2. DVDs like Friends, Frazier, etc... are all 4:3.
3. 4:3 maximizes ALL image sizes. Witha 4:3 screen you still get as large a 16:9 picture, but also the big 4:3.
4. 16:9 ratio produces a smaller 4:3 image with bars on the sizes.
5. Still capable of 480P.

disadvantages:
1. Yes, there is some pixel loss for true HD 16:9 due to the expanded native format.
2. 16:9 does have bars top and bottom.

There you have it, 5 advantages, and 2 disadvantages. You be the judge.

Lex

[Trevor Schell]

When I jump into FPTV,,It's going to be for the purpose of HD Programming and DVD Movie viewing.
So on that note, a 16x9 set-up would be crucial.
My 61" RPTV will remain as a 4:3 material unit.




Trevor
My HomeTheater S.E.
Sonically Enhanced
C5

[Kevin P]

If you have/plan on getting a 16:9 screen, get a 16:9 native projector. If you have/plan on getting a 4:3 screen, get a 4:3 projector. Also consider what you watch the most. If you're watching mostly widescreen movies and/or HDTV, get a 16:9 setup. If you watch mainly 4:3 material (academy ratio movies, etc.) then you'll get more out of a 4:3 setup.

There are other options as well: a CRT PJ can operate in both 4:3 and 16:9 modes with no loss of resolution. Also, if you get a 4:3 digital PJ, you can add an anamorphic lens which stretches the 4:3 image to 16:9, so no pixels are wasted.

And to add to what Trevor said, if you're thinking of getting a 4:3 PJ to watch regular (non-HD) TV on, it's going to look like crap compared to DVD or HDTV on such a big screen. If you do a lot of TV watching having a separate direct-view or RPTV is a good idea, to save hours on the PJ's bulb or CRTs and for flexibility with lighting, etc.




Official Computer Geek and Techno-Wiz Guru of HTGuide - Visit Tower of Power
My HT Site

[George Bellefontaine]

I have a true 16:9 Pj and a 4:3 ( the NEC dlp) in my system. Basically I watch mostly widescreen material on a 16:9 screen that is masked for 2:35 and 4:3, but I mostly watch the NEC. I bought this PJ knowing full well it was 4:3, but when I saw it displayed next to an Infocus 7200 ( a true 16:9 dlp machine) I couldn't tell which was which. So I bought the NEC and saved myself a small fortune. My old crt was a 4:3 video grade model, so when showing letterboxed material there were bars that were visible. That's when I first started masking the screen .

If you watch a lot of tv in 4:3, I can see where it would make sense to have a 4:3 screen, and in that case there is nothing wrong with a 4:3 projector. But if, like me you watch mostly widescreen material, then I'd suggest a dlp if you are going to buy a native 4:3 PJ, or a crt, as these will have little or no noticable light in the black bars above and below when showing 1:85 or 2:35 material.




My Homepage!

[Andrew Pratt]

Doug i see some advantages for 4:3 projections/screens but honestly half your listed advantages are silly IMO. Citing old films only makes sense if those are predominatly what you watch which for the vast majority of us is false. Same goes for TV shows on DVD. I will admit that you'll get a larger image for both 4:3 and 16:9 with a 4:3 screen but IMO that only works for films if you have the ability to mask the 4:3 screen properly. I also have a problem with the lack of resolution the typical 4:3 projectors have for HD material but that to is likely going to change somewhat as the technology progresses in the coming years. Personally for me I want to maximize the highest resolution image I have which is currently DVD for me (HD in the future). I'm not impressed with how my 4:3 DSS looks properly framed on my 92" 16:9 screen and can not imagine how bad it would look if my screen were 4:3 so for me scaling TV shows down to fit the 16:9 screen still gives me an image that's almost four feet high

[Trevor Schell]

Doug i see some advantages for 4:3 projections/screens but honestly half your listed advantages are silly IMO.

The war is on!!! ;zx


:wedgie: :smackbutt:




Trevor
My HomeTheater S.E.
Sonically Enhanced
C5

[Lex]

Folks, I was merely playing devil's advocate trying to point out, there are benefits from a 4:3 screen and projector. The benefits don't have to add up for you personally to realize what I said was true. They don't even have to add up to me. I was merely stating the facts. So, everyone has a true basis to make an informed decision. Lop sided views aren't very open minded, if you don't stop to see the other side.

Personally, I don't care if you think my reasons listed above were silly Andrew. When you have a component video feed for your 4:3 material, and have tried a 4:3 projector on a 4:3 screen, then you will be in a position to say what I said is off base. There are things that can be done to improve a 4:3 image even at 105" diagonal.

Lex

[Energeezer]

I'm not impressed with how my 4:3 DSS looks properly framed on my 92" 16:9 screen and can not imagine how bad it would look if my screen were 4:3

Andrew
You hit the nail on the head here. When I first started FP I wanted to be able to watch 4/3 Sattelite as well as 16/9 DVD. After the novelty of a 6X8' sattalite image wore off I found myself viewing less and less sattalite. The image ranges from barely acceptable to very poor depending on the material and station and in my case resolution is no issue. (I'm running 1280/960 for Sat.)
Now HD is a different story. GOOD HD (yes this too is a mixed bag) looks as good as the best DVDs. Sometimes it's hard to believe you are watching sattalite in these cases. The little football players in the background that are unintelligible with reg sat are suddenly In Focus (Pun intended Lex).
So anyhow Andrew. When I was over I saw the dish on your roof. Do yourself a favor and sign up for Bel HD.

As for the original question.
It is MO that with a digital PJ you should assess what format you will watch more of and get that formats native resolution. Keep in mind that reg OTA or Satetlite 4/3 programming will look soft so make sure you see a demo with those sources as it is my guess you may end up watching less of it than originally intended.




The Future of HT lies in FP SPREAD THE WORD

[Andrew Pratt]

Silly might not have been the best word to use and you're absolutly correct in that people have to asses what their needs are before buying. I'm happy that you like the format you choose and I'm sure for you it was the right move. I just thought your listing of the odd old movie and a couple of TV show DVD's didn't really strenthen your advantages vs disadvantages tally. There are very compelling reasons to pick a 4:3 projector though you did point out with respect to screen size so long as you are ok with how that large a TV image looks. For you with your HD feed its not an issue and that's wonderful but for many of us it could be a consideration.

[Lex]

Andrew, the HD material is in fact widescreen. What I was talking about was my 4:3 non-HD material, but still component video fed, can still be a pretty nice image, material quality dependent of course. That's true for broadcast directv or 480p component.

I will say though, I didn't appreciate having what I said called silly.

Lex

[Andrew Pratt]

I will say though, I didn't appreciate having what I said called silly.

And I did say that wasn't the best word to use

[Lex]

:nutkick: :smackbutt:

[Trevor Schell]

you're absolutly correct in that people have to asses

Some call it cheeks and some call them two hams.

Anyways!, I am enjoying this immensely!

:beer2:




Trevor
My HomeTheater S.E.
Sonically Enhanced
C5

[George Bellefontaine]

Me, too, guys. YUK YUK :nutkick:




My Homepage!

[Chris D]

Ah... this post seems to be a direct consequence of me posting advantages of widescreen PJ's over 4:3. My intention there was to throw out some good info for everyone to learn from, not necessarily to bias anyone's opinion.

I'll just point out that advantage #3 above isn't necessarily true. If you decide you want a certain WIDTH of a screen, and then choose between a height of 4:3 screen or a shorter 16:9 screen, it is then true that yes, a 4:3 screen will show the same size 16:9 image as you would get on a 16:9 screen of the same WIDTH, but a 4:3 image will be larger. However, if you keep a constant HEIGHT, and decide between a 4:3 screen or wider 16:9 screen, then the opposite is true. In that case, the 16:9 screen will show the same size 4:3 image as you would get on a 4:3 screen of the same HEIGHT, but the 16:9 image will be larger. In this situation, 16:9 maximizes both image sizes, and #3 is an advantage for 16:9, not 4:3.

So in this sense, you need to ask if you're comparing screens of the same height or width. In my case, the maximum screen height my 8' high room room could feasibly fit would be about 54". (4.5 feet in manly feet dimensions, not wimpy inch dimensions) So I could either choose to go with a 4:3 screen which is 4.5 feet high by 6 feet wide, or a 16:9 screen which is 4.5 feet high by 8 feet wide. My 12' wide room can easily accommodate either one. So in my personal situation, I'm HEIGHT limited, not WIDTH. So either 4.5 foot high screen I go with will show a 4.5 foot high standard 4:3 picture. But if I go with the 16:9 screen, I will be able to display a 4.5 foot high by 8 foot wide 16:9 picture, instead of a 3 foot 5 inch high by 6 foot wide 16:9 picture if I go with the 4:3 screen. So for me, deciding between a 4:3 screen and 16:9 screen, either way I get the same size 4:3 picture size. But with the 16:9 screen, I get more than an additional foot of 16:9 picture height and two additional feet of 16:9 picture width!!!!!!

While everyone has their own limitations, I'd actually hazard a guess that most people when they come down to it are ALSO limited by height for a screen, (due to ceiling mounts, viewer's heads not sticking into the picture, screen walls being naturally wider than tall, etc) not width. Also, #5 is an even push between the two formats, not an advantage for 4:3, since both can display 480p. To each their own, though!




CHRIS
Luke: "Hey, I'm not such a bad pilot myself, you know"

[Lex]

Yeah chris, I was attacking you. :a>'> heh.

Well, for me, my width is maxed out long before my widescreen height would be. So, the 4:3 screen does give more flexibility for positioning widescreen movies up high, middle, or down low, that's another really nice advantage of 4:3. But aside from that, it does give me a much larger 4:3 image.

My only point was to prove that there is no one right answer. There are situations where one can be an advantage over the other, other than the sheer loss of pixels for the 16:9 image for a 4:3 pj.

Granted, the prime benefit of widescreen is the pixel count, and the screen match for less grey bars.

Lex

[Frank T.]

To start with: I've sold my NEC HT 1000 (4:3) demo unit in favor of the Sharp XV-Z10000 (16:9).

Reason # 1: We deal basically with three picture formats, i.e. 1.33:1 (4:3), 1.78:1 (16:9) and 2.35:1 (21:9) where 16:9 is the best compromise, IMHO.

Reason # 2: Most 4:3 programs have unsatisfactory picture quality compared to 16:9 enhanced DVDs and HD programs. "Windowboxing" these within the 16:9 frame makes them smaller, deficiencies are less noticable.

Reason # 3: HD material (anamorphic by definition) yields a vertical resolution of 1080i scan lines. Most 16:9 projectors rescale to 720p. XGA 4:3s rescale to 576 and SVGA 4:3s rescale to meesly 480 vertical resolution.

Reason # 4: On a 1280 x 720 16:9 display the 4:3 image still has a vertical up-scaled resolution of 720, compared to the 768 of an XGA. Pretty respectable, wouldn't you say?
On the other hand downscale your HD program to 480. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO DO THAT?

Reason # 5: With most 16:9 projectors comes a certain assurance that they have been optimized for home theatre purposes. Go out into the world of datagrade, business 4:3 projectors and chances you pick an unsuitable one increase exponentially (and don't even expect later selling your 4:3 projector at a fair price, you will have major competition).

I totally concur: An IMAX program should look bigger than a movie program, black & white monaural movies swap their sound inefficiency with impressive sight and so on.

As long as these are not matted ("vertical pan & scan") I have no problems watching these with a horse-blinker effect. And if you can't live with that, just display the 4:3 section (of your 16:9 projector) onto your screen unless you feel the time is right for a wider screen.

4:3 will always be among us - It's just a question how to display it




Frank T.

[Energeezer]

Frank
If you read my last post on the CRT Faq thread you will know I am in process of getting an HT1000.
I'd be interested to know what your overall impressions of the HT1000 were and how you feel the new Sharp stacks up in image and value.
Is the Sharp the same price as the NEC?
A couple other things.
With my NEC XGLC CRT running 1440/960 @ 72 I currently sit 10 feet back from an 8' wide screen. I expect to go to a 7' wide screen with the HT1000 and realize I will have to sit furthur back so not to see pixel structure due to the lower resolution. My question is. How far back do you sit?




The Future of HT lies in FP SPREAD THE WORD

[Dean McManis]

One point not mentioned (maybe it's too obvious) is price.

The largest market for projectors (by a huge margin over HT) is business presentation use, so generally, you can get a high resolution, bright, lightweight, small, high bulb life, computer-ready 4:3 projector for less $$$.

All but one of my projectors have been 4:3 native so far (1 RPTV, 2 CRT FPTVs, and 4 digital FPTVs), and yet I switched to a 16:9 screen many years ago. I don't watch too much TV, but I do have a full collection of classic 1.37:1 movies on DVD, and sometimes I cruise the internet and play games (which are usually 4:3 format) on the projector.
Mostly, I watch DVDs and HD, but I have an anamorphic lens for the projectors which optically converts the 1365 X 768 and 1024 X 768 4:3 picture into 16:9 widescreen, with the computer compensating the input image to have the picture proportional.

For many people who want a front projector, I ususally suggest that they actually keep their current tube TV or RPTV for watching regular television. And then watch the FPTV for DVD and HD movies and special events.

Personally, I think that 8' tall Taco Bell ads are pretty scary. 8O

-Dean.

[Frank T.]

My experience with the HT 1000 had been a very good one and the ENTIRE German Home Theatre Press has given the HT 1000 outstanding reviews, especially for his high contrast properties.

Via DVI from the Marantz DV 8400 the picture quality is breath-taking.

But...the pixel resolution - even at 1024 x 576 (vertical PAL resolution in Europe, sorry you 480s :LOL: ) - is visible.

That's the first positive thing I noticed in favor of 1280 x 720 resolution like the Sharp XV-Z10000 (the first unit arriving was for my customer, so I only could perform an initial test run and have to wait for my demo unit :cry: ) is that I don't notice the pixel resolution at all.

Since the follow-up to the 10000 is the 12000 (in Asia known as 11000) with improved contrast ratio (= better reproduction of black, opposite of high light output!) in a few weeks, the 10000 is a bargain and my Christmas favorite.

Would I recommend the NEC HT 1000?

If you intend to purchase an anamorphic lens to be put in front for HDTV or HD-DVD programs (> vertical resolution = 768) - YES

If you merely intend it for DVDs and standard TV - NO. In that case look for a HT optimized SVGA projector, because the vertical 16:9 squeeze will provide the native resolution of 480 for American NTSC. Pixel resolution will be more noticable, though. But don't get one without HDCP authorized DVI input!

Unless you want to use it as XGA graphic projector or with European DVDs
there are either-or options, depending on your budget.




Frank T.

[Dean McManis]

While I think that SVGA is too little resolution for a great picture, especially with LCD, I think that DLP XGA looks great, as long as you aren't sitting too close, or have a huge screen.

With a 96" diag screen viewed from 16' or more the picture quality looks great to me. With no discernable pixel structure.

Certainly 1280 X 720p looks visibly smoother, and more detailed with scaled DVDs and HD material, but the choice does come down to cost.

It's best to view and judge all of the projectors that you can get a chance to see with your own eyes.

-Dean.

[Lex]

Oh, another advantage I forgot to mention. Sports!

I just watched TN beat Miami on my 4:3 screen with a component video feed from my Samsung DirecTV box (whichi decodes both HD and non-HD material), and it was pretty nice imagery. Yes, if I got up within 8 feet, it was a bit grainy. But from my primary viewing position, it was pretty good quality. Sure, I'd rather watched it in HD. But that wasn't an option, and I refuse to pay local cable's price for digital cable for high def major network feeds. They can kiss my .... I'll take the DirecTV HD package all for less than 50 a month. I got ESPN HD, and while it doens't give me all the good games in HD, at least I have some. Fact is, there isn't enough HD material on network yet to even warrant it.

Lex

[George Bellefontaine]

My HT 1K is set for 16:9 and projects onto a 92" wide screen. I sit about 14 feet back from the screen and do not see any pixel structure. If I go to within 9 feet of the screen I begin to see the structure. Everything aside, I probably would rather have bought a WXGA projector, but I would have had to pay more more than twice of what I did for the NEC, yet I would certainly have not gotten twice the resolution, so I am happy. Fact is, I am so happy with this projector that I may never bother to upgrade. Seriously.




My Homepage!