# 942 in Standard Aspect Ratio for 36" HTDV?



## treiher (Oct 24, 2002)

Maybe this question has already been answered somewhere, but I can't seem to find it. I was curioius how the 942 performs with a standard format HDTV. I would think, that if it were set-up with one of the two 4:3 aspect ratios, you would get black bars on the top and bottom for wide screen, and fill the screen for SDTV broadcasts without changing anything. But I have a friend who recently added a 942 to his 36" Sony HDTV, and he says he gets bars on the top and bottom for wide screen, and then also top, bottom and sides for SDTV broadcasts. 

Is this really the way this is supposed to work, or is it more likely he as something setup wrong?


----------



## BobinENC (Oct 12, 2005)

I have a standard format (4:3) 32" Sony HDTV and a 942. When watching HDTV broadcasts I will switch the HD settings in the 942 to 1080i and 4x3 #1, giving me widescreen, ie black bars on the top and bottom only. When I am viewing SD I change the settings back to either 480i or 480p and 4x3 #2, which fills the screen, ie no black bars (unless you are viewing an SD show broadcast in widescreen which will have black bars at the top and bottom). This is all in normal mode on the 942 as I don't care for any of the zoom modes.


----------



## treiher (Oct 24, 2002)

Thanks Bob for the reply. Guess that means its a pretty manual process every time you change back and forth, but probably not too bad once you get used to it. I've got a 942 on order, and am about to pull the trigger on an HTDV, and am seriously considering a 36" 4:3 tube television, which I know probably sounds a bit strange today. But the prices are really good on those sets, I understand the picture quality is very good, and even with the new HDTV programming offered by Dish, most of the channels are still broadcast in 4:3. Haven't ruled out 42" Plasma wide screen yet, but it's just something I'm considering. I'm just concerned it may be more hassle than its worth if I have to keep changing the video settings on the receiver depending on what channel I am watching.


----------



## Bichon (Jun 5, 2003)

treiher said:


> am about to pull the trigger on an HTDV, and am seriously considering a 36" 4:3 tube television, which I know probably sounds a bit strange today. But the prices are really good on those sets, I understand the picture quality is very good, and even with the new HDTV programming offered by Dish, most of the channels are still broadcast in 4:3.


I think you are making a mistake going for a 4:3 TV. The signal sources with the highest picture quality (HDTV, DVD) are widescreen. You'll be viewing those on a fraction of your screen real estate, with big black bands top and bottom. Meanwhile, the lower quality standard def stations, less resolution, fuzzier and with compression artifacts, will be blown up to take the entire screen. That seems backwards to me.


----------



## lakebum431 (Jun 30, 2005)

I agree with Bichon. You would be surprised how much content is broadcast in widescreen.


----------



## CABill (Mar 20, 2005)

I'm using a really low end 32" 4:3 CRT ($577 at WalMart) and never change the 942's HD menu settings. If I'm watching a non-HD channel, it fills the screen. If I'm watching a HD channel, I get bars top and bottom and it displays the same image one would see on a 30" 16:9 set. If that HD channel is displaying 4:3 material, I will also get pillars on the sides for a postage stamp display. Hitting */format button on the 942 remote to get to Partial Zoom nearly fills the screen (slight pillars) and one more * gets Zoom that fills the screen (but has cropped off a small amount of the image). Maybe it matters what "SD" your friend is watching too.

If I'm watching a digital OTA with the tuner in the TV, I get the same results. 13-1 sends a 1080i signal that the TV displays as 16:9 letterbox. If they happen to be sending 4:3 material, it is the postage stamp. Switching to 13-2 gives a full display since it is sent at 480i. In terms of picture content, it is the same as the 942's 1080i when you Zoom the postage stamp. If I pick the same channels on the 942's OTA tuner, the HDMI input on the TV will display the same thing - the only difference being that Info (on the TV, not 942 Info) when watching 13-2 via the 942 will display 1080i for the source where it displayed 480i when watching OTA w/o the 942.

I haven't looked at HD CRTs in well over a year but compared 30" 16:9 screens to 32" 4:3 since they both displayed the same area for 16:9 material. The 32" displayed significantly (70%) more area on 4:3 material. Your 36" 4:3 set would be equivalent to a 33" 16:9 set (if one existed) but is really pretty close to a 34" that were available when I was looking. Depending on how much 4:3 material you will be watching, the 36" 4:3 set might be a much better choice than a widescreen set. Use cavecreations com tv2.cgi (I can't post URLs) to compare viewing area. If black bars top and bottom bother you (legitimate complaint) when watching 16:9 stuff, that outweighs viewing area choices. It just depends on how much of your viewing will be 4:3 and how much will be 16:9. There are a LOT of 480i channels on DISH and (at least on my TV) display full screen all the time when the 942 is in Normal format. 

I'd REALLY like to see the 942 support passthrough that doesn't convert everything to the selected HD resolution, but don't know if that will ever happen. That might also make it easier for those TVs that need to have the 942 HD setup changed to get a regular 4:3 display on a 4:3 TV.


----------



## treiher (Oct 24, 2002)

Thanks again for all the views on this. Your very thorough description, CABill, pretty much eliminates any guessing about what I would be dealing with if I went with a 4:3 screen. Also, your point about a 36" set displaying a 33" 16:9 picture is exactly what I was thinking, when considering a 34" widescreen TV. I currently have a 32" JVC standard TV hooked up to a 721 (which gets a great picture by the way for standard TV), so when I upgrade to HDTV, I don't want to wind up with a smaller picture, which is what I would get with a 34" widescreen, when viewing standard def. programs. So, for me, the choice is 36" tube vs. 42" plasma. The 42" is probably the ideal choice, but ofcourse, a lot more money, at least 2X. 

So, with the 4:3 format hooked to a 942, from CABill, I can conclude that I don't have to necessarily change any of the settings, but would have to use the zoom features on the remote as I change channels. But the only way to watch programming all day long without changing anything, is with a widescreen TV. I'm starting to think over time, the hassle of changing zooms and wondering about picture quality impact from that would be worth paying the extra money not to have to do that.

I'm struggling way too much over this, need to just bite the bullet and go with the more expensive set.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 1, 2003)

treiher, the one factor that determinied our purchase of a 34" 16:9 HD set was that the 4:3 picture on it is of equivalent size to that of my old 27" Sony XBR. Watching DVDs and HD content (as much time as I can) justifies the 16:9 widescreen format, and even with 4:3 SD format being around for a while longer, I don't notice the grey bars anymore.

The biggest change I notice between the Toshiba HD set and the old Sony, though, is scan lines! The Toshiba is like a PC monitor: a nice, solid image. The Sony hurts my eyes with the flickering of the interlaced picture. It's amazing that I once thought of my 1989 XBR as SotA (especially fed by my LaserDisc player!)


----------



## Ghostwriter (Oct 11, 2005)

I will just jump and agree. I would definately get a 16:9 format TV esp. if you want the HD and watch alot of DVDs. Even when I had my 4:3 TV I purchased all my DVDs in Widescreen knowing I would eventually get my 16:9. Most HD programming is widescreen (CSI, DHousewives, OC, NFL, Sopranos, Rome etc etc) and getting the true theatrical aspect or all the image provided my OTA HD it is well worth it. Go with the widescreen!


----------



## CABill (Mar 20, 2005)

You have other choices if you venture out of direct view CRTs, but with a CRT you are stuck (unless you go smaller) with 30" or 34" for 16:9 and 32" or 36" for 4:3. At least when I was looking 18 months ago. The 4:3 set will display about 95% of the size you'd see on the smaller widescreen set on 16:9 material but the 4:3 set displays about a 70% larger area than the widescreen on 4:3 material. I'm glad I went with the 4:3 set. That doesn't guarantee that all 36" 4:3 sets automatically display the 480i channels full screen. After initial setup, I'd never been back to the HD Setup menu and was really surprised when people were listing it as a bug when they went in to change it when they changed channels. I really don't even use Zoom for the postage stamp material all that often. A Zoomed CBS-HD Survivor (not 16:9) does show a much better picture than the compressed Sat SD version though. Before you get a 36" 4:3 set, I'd try to verify the make and model does automatically display all the NTSC Sat channels full screen when the 942 has sent it via HDMI at 720p or 1080i. Until I read the bug reports, it hadn't occurred to me that a 4:3 set wouldn't do so. I understand changing setup in single mode with the current bug about TV2 using the TV1's aspect ratio if that is 16:9, but if it is set to 4:3 that shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## treiher (Oct 24, 2002)

Well I've weighed all of this pretty thoroughly, and think I've decided to go with new Panasonic 37" Plasma widescreen (TH-37PX50U). This one gives you almost as much vertical viewing area as a standard 32", which I have now, but you still get the benefit of a widescreen TV and the one setting fits all scenario with the 942 seems a lot more probable. Also, and I didn't mention this before, but it is just narrow enough to fit in a larger armoire, which makes my wife happy. Didn't realize until recently, this has been a tremendous source of anxiety for her. She really likes the whole armoire/TV setup and look in our family room. 

I really appreciate the comments from CABill, Ghostwriter, Foxbat, lakebum431, Bichon, and BobinENC. Very helpful!! This board truly is a god send! So much money to spend, so many things to line up . . . the receiver, changes to the dish (how to get those VOOM channels), will my current LNB setup work, changes to the programming, and oh yeah, spending two grand plus on a TV and what type of TV, where to put it, will it fit? Yikes! Remember the days when you just went to Best Buy, bought a TV on sight, brought it home and plugged it in?

One other thing. I was amazed there seems to be no place on the net where you can easily compare actual screen sizes in actual width and height. CNET comes close, but I wanted to compare the actual dimensions. So I finally dragged out what I remember from algebra, set up some equations in Excel, and it will give you that information based on diagonal size and aspect ratio. I attached the file in case anyone else wonders about that I like I did!

942 should arrive next week!


----------



## zephyr (Jun 25, 2005)

This forum is a great resource.

I just want to add that desirable image size is entirely dependent on viewing distance. For us, the 34" Sony XBR 16:9 CRT display is large enough at a viewing distance of 7 feet or less. It is only the vertical dimension of a 30" + or - 4:3 TV, but the black blacks and image quality are fantastic.

A word from the CRT holdouts.


----------



## treiher (Oct 24, 2002)

I agree, the direct views do really have impressive picture quality, without the baggage of burn-in, etc. All though plasmas are a lot better about that now. I have had my eye on that Sony XBR, but I just hate to give up that much vertical real estate on a 34", since I already have a 32" standard TV. I'm sitting about about 12 feet from the TV, so I want to go a little bigger. Also, according to the spreadsheet I uploaded in my last post, a 34" widescreen has a vertical dimension more like a 27" or a theoretical 28" 4:3 TV. A 30" would have 18" compared to the 34" 16:9 with about 16.7". You can plug in the numbers and see. Hope I set that thing up right! 

I appreciate the CRT hold out. They are very good! I'm still just a bit tempted.


----------



## CABill (Mar 20, 2005)

I couldn't post a real URL yesterday, but you'll find http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi does a swell job of showing/comparing the dimensions of different set sizes and aspect ratios. Different make and models can have slight variations from the sizes shown, but you can't really do much different and still have an N" diagonal on an X:Y display. The 37" widescreen will be the same area on 4:3 material as a 30" 4:3. I'd compare your spreadsheet to what is displayed at Cavecreations.com.


----------



## zephyr (Jun 25, 2005)

treiher said:


> I agree, the direct views do really have impressive picture quality, without the baggage of burn-in, etc. All though plasmas are a lot better about that now. I have had my eye on that Sony XBR, but I just hate to give up that much vertical real estate on a 34", since I already have a 32" standard TV. I'm sitting about about 12 feet from the TV, so I want to go a little bigger. Also, according to the spreadsheet I uploaded in my last post, a 34" widescreen has a vertical dimension more like a 27" or a theoretical 28" 4:3 TV. A 30" would have 18" compared to the 34" 16:9 with about 16.7". You can plug in the numbers and see. Hope I set that thing up right!
> 
> I appreciate the CRT hold out. They are very good! I'm still just a bit tempted.


Absolutely true about the vertical number being closer to that of a 27". It was late and I was going from memory. Did the same thing with pencil sketches when I bought the Sony. Was coming fom a 32" also. I do like the incredible detail and richness of the blacks, though the monster weighs almost 200 pounds.

Oh what the heck, just go for the projector and 108" screen.


----------



## treiher (Oct 24, 2002)

CABill said:


> . . .you'll find http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi does a swell job of showing/comparing the dimensions of different set sizes and aspect ratios.


That's exactly what I was looking for, and could never find it! I was just interested in actual screen dimensions, but this gives you a lot more. Thanks!!


----------



## Bichon (Jun 5, 2003)

treiher said:


> That's exactly what I was looking for, and could never find it! I was just interested in actual screen dimensions, but this gives you a lot more. Thanks!!


You ought to dust off your trigonometry and algebra skills. Remember Pythagoras's theorem for right angle triangles: A^2 + B^2 = C^2

You know C, the diagonal measurement of the TV.

And you know that the ratio between A and B are 16:9 or 4:3.

If you didn't sleep through high school math, it isn't too tough. Let do the math for a 34" widescreen:

(16X)^2 + (9X)^2 = 34^2

256X^2 + 81X^2 = 34^2

337X^2 = 34^2

18.357X = 34

X=34/18.357

X=1.852

So the width of the screen is 16*1.852 which is 29.632
and the height is 9*1.852 which is 16.668


----------



## treiher (Oct 24, 2002)

Already did that, and automated into the spreadsheet I posted, since I couldn't find it on the net. Pythagoras's theorem was the best way to make that work. As much as I was tempted, I did not sleep through algebra in high school as I knew I was going to need it in college! I think there was some finance class, though . . . :new_sleep


----------



## Bichon (Jun 5, 2003)

Sorry, didn't realize you'd authored that spreadsheet. Although it's always tempting to google for a calculator, sometimes it's more fun to figure it out for yourself.


----------

