Dracoro

As far as I can see the actual area for about 95% of stuff that is on tv is broadcast in normal size so the widescreen is either making everyone fat (which looks stupid half the time) or not using the TV if you put it into normal size (i.e. with black left/right borders.

Therefore 28" widescreen is in effect a 26"(? more/less??) tv for 95% of the time where as the 29" normal aspect TV is at 29" for 95% of the time and you'd only have black top/below bits for some films and in that case it's effectively a 28" widescreen anyway.

Is this correct or am I missing something? I've seen two TV's (same make), one 28" widescreen and one 29" normal and the 29" looks better value for money (both similar price IIRC).

[Edited by Dracoro - 12/17/2002 1:18:56 AM]

Devil's Refugee

IMHO mate, anything under 32" Widescreen just looks too small.
I have a 29" TV and can't complaint at all.
I'd only upgrade to a WS if I can afford a 32-36" picture tbh.

what would scooby do

Buy a 32 or 36 WS and get used to the change in aspect ratio, after a few days you will not notice it.

Dazzler

Totally agree with you.

Was pondering this when I was buying a tv. Eventually went for a widescreen in the end pretty much because I thought that this must have some added benefit. In hindsight I wish I had gone for a 29".

S55 HOT

I've got a 33" 4:3 & a 32" widescreen in different rooms.

The widescreen is better for DVD which is what it was designed for, but is pants for regular telly - the 4:3 screen is much better.

You either have black bars down the sides, stretched 'fat' people or you lose all the captions off the bottom which can be annoying if you're watching something like who eants to be a milionaire and can only see 2 of the 4 possible answers.........

Apparently more & more stuff is being broadcast widescreen, but I haven't really noticed.

Al

father_jack

That new BBC / ITV digiatal replacement thingy is all widescreen...

Dracoro

32" is more costly than 29"/28".

The reason I asked is that the 28" and the 29" are very similarly priced.

Why a 32" widesreen rather than a 33" normal aspect tv then?
My parents have a 28" w/s and the stretchy business looks daft most the time.

~Anyway, it seems that the 28" is a 26" most the time which is 3" smaller than the 29" for 95% of the time.

bioforger

iTrader: (1)

Its a compromise. But u do get use to stretched 4:3 stuff. However I find that most of the stuff I watch on Sky is in WS anyway now. Most of the BBC channels are WS. Premier WS n box office WS covers most film requirements, and of course DVD, ps2/xbox games are mostly WS. Its only things like some sports channels, eg eurosport, which are still 4:3. Although virtually all channels will eventually go WS on digital platforms, as the trend in new large (over 29") tvs will always be in WS format.

xyzpaul

Widescreen TVs are a waste of money - why pay the same or more than a regular TV to get less picture? Unless you're happy with a distorted image of course.

In ten years time it will be different as all broadcasts will be WS.

[Edited by xyzpaul - 12/17/2002 12:42:35 PM]