On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 02:07 -0600, Chad wrote: > On 9/11/05, Robert Denier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > My thought is that if you are going with HDTV, you probably are > looking towards the future, or better picture; either way, 16x9 is > probably more along the lines of either of those choices ;) > > Otherwise, why not just grab a 200-300 tube from Phillips and save for > a larger, more HDTV style TV when prices get even lower?
Well the reason for that one was it had hdmi where the cheaper ones don't. A more interesting question is does it appreciably affect the lifetime of a 16:9 TV if you run mostly 4:3 content on it? I.E. After a year of watching 4:3 content will the sides be brighter when viewing 16:9 or have some other kind of observable difference due to the different useage patterns? I honestly don't know, It does seem to me that tv's last pretty long these days so maybe it doesn't matter that you would have the wasted space most of the times, as long as your useable screen size was similar. At any rate it was just a thought. Here is a thought. A 4:3 picture equals a 12:9 picture so 4 units out of 16 are unused. In particular 4:9 is unused. It seems to me that in theory you could stack 3 4:3 images on the right of a big 4:3 image on a 16:9 screen. For instance, something like my poor attempt at ASCII art below should be possible for a total of 1 main image and 3 secondary images. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCC AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCC AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCC AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDD AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDD AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDD Of course I have no idea if this kind of idea would be useful in practice...
_______________________________________________ mythtv-users mailing list [email protected] http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
