How bad is standard satelite on 16:9?

I'm about to buy a Mitsu 65" 65511 16:9. I've been hearing that the picture
for standard satellite viewing is pathetic. Apparently the stretching on
each side? Does anyone recommend that I view a widescreen with regular
satellite programming before I buy, or is widescreen the norm of the future?




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"James Dougal" wrote in message
...
I'm about to buy a Mitsu 65" 65511 16:9. I've been hearing that the
picture
for standard satellite viewing is pathetic. Apparently the stretching on
each side? Does anyone recommend that I view a widescreen with regular
satellite programming before I buy, or is widescreen the norm of the
future?

1. Don't stretch 4:3 pictures to fit a 16:9 screen. Watch them as they were
intended to be watched in their original aspect ratio.
2. Direct TV looks much better than digital cable when viewed on large
screens because it hasn't been compressed nearly as much.
3. Don't believe the people who tell you that you will suffer burn in
problems when watching 4:3 on a 16:9 set.
4. A very high percentage of televisions sold will be wide screen in the
next few years. It is almost the present and definitely the future. You will
kick yourself over and over if you buy a 4:3 large screen set.

The funny thing is that 95% of current programming is 4:3. 16:9 is not the
present. It's not even close to being the present unless you just watch
DVD's or the few programs broadcast in 16:9.

This will probably be an unpopular opinion in this forum but it's reality at
this point in time. If you can get a high-quality 4:3 HDTV now for a
reasonable price with the plan to replace it with 16:9 when there's more
actual programming available in 16:9 down the road, you might be a happier
camper. Just think of your current purchase being a temporary stop-gap
measure.

I know I'm not real interested in seeing 4:3 programming shrunk down to the
size of a 25" diagonal TV in the middle of my 16:9 screen. So, it's up to
you. Determine what you watch the most of, 4:3 programming or 16:9
programming and then get the TV that's going to support what you watch the
most in the best possible quality/size for you.

-- Bob Lindabury

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
...

"James Dougal" wrote in message
...
I'm about to buy a Mitsu 65" 65511 16:9. I've been hearing that the
picture
for standard satellite viewing is pathetic. Apparently the stretching on
each side? Does anyone recommend that I view a widescreen with regular
satellite programming before I buy, or is widescreen the norm of the
future?

1. Don't stretch 4:3 pictures to fit a 16:9 screen. Watch them as they
were
intended to be watched in their original aspect ratio.
2. Direct TV looks much better than digital cable when viewed on large
screens because it hasn't been compressed nearly as much.
3. Don't believe the people who tell you that you will suffer burn in
problems when watching 4:3 on a 16:9 set.
4. A very high percentage of televisions sold will be wide screen in the
next few years. It is almost the present and definitely the future. You
will
kick yourself over and over if you buy a 4:3 large screen set.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message ...

1. Don't stretch 4:3 pictures to fit a 16:9 screen. Watch them as they were
intended to be watched in their original aspect ratio.

3. Don't believe the people who tell you that you will suffer burn in
problems when watching 4:3 on a 16:9 set.

I don't know about these two... depending on the set burn-in might be
an issue, *and* newer sets have stretch modes that work quite well. I
have an '03 model year panny 53" RPTV, and its "just" stretch mode
(which basically stretches the edges, but leaves the center alone)
works quite well and yields a pleasant picture. You can also go with a
"zoom" mode for 4:3 material that is letterboxed (ie, has boxes on all
4 sides on a 16:9 set) and that works out pretty well too. Frankly I
am less worried about maintaining the original aspect ratio on
"trading spaces" or "crock hunter*" than I am on, say, a good movie on
DVD.

* Crock hunter and several other animal planet shows are often
letterboxed, so you can just zoom them if your tv has that mode

On the original post - the quality of the source is going to determine
your satisfaction with the picture, although the TV or STB processing
can also impact things a tad.

I've found that analog channels (I do not have digital cable) from my
cable provider (comcast) vary in viewability - some channels are quite
clear (Animal Planet, Discovery) and look quite good blown up on that
big tv, others suffer from it (but are still viewable.) Digital cable,
with its compression artifacts that are visible even on smaller 4:3
tube tvs, is not going to be very pleasing even viewed in standard 4:3
mode on a 50"+ set. And of course, once you see any HD content on that
thing, nothing else will look that good

"James Dougal" wrote in message
...
I'm about to buy a Mitsu 65" 65511 16:9. I've been hearing that the
picture
for standard satellite viewing is pathetic. Apparently the stretching on
each side? Does anyone recommend that I view a widescreen with regular
satellite programming before I buy, or is widescreen the norm of the
future?

The larger screen and line doubling will result in a picture that is much
worse than that on a standard set. My Mits does a particulaly poor job on
Direct TV standard broadcasts. (A friend's Hitachi handled things a bit
better, but still the picture quality is below that of a standard set.) IMO,
Direct TV is sending out much poorer signals than in the past. The 16:9 can
allow viewing in 4:3. I don't care for gray bars on the side. I'd erather
have black. I've had no burn-in, but I have seen it on showroom displays.

One of the stretch modes is acceptable on my set.

On HD and DVD, however, the quality of the picture is what you are looking
for.

I usually watch SD content on a 27" set in another room.

My current set is two years old, and is in need of another ISF calibration.
I have a Samsung DLP set on order , which will replace this set in about a
month. It is coming with DVI receiver that should vastly improve 4:3 viewing
off sattelite.

If Direct TV doesn't give a good quality picture, why would Dish Network?
They are both digital satellite.

"James Dougal" wrote in message
...
I'm about to buy a Mitsu 65" 65511 16:9. I've been hearing that the
picture
for standard satellite viewing is pathetic. Apparently the stretching on
each side? Does anyone recommend that I view a widescreen with regular
satellite programming before I buy, or is widescreen the norm of the
future?




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"James Dougal" wrote in message
...
If Direct TV doesn't give a good quality picture, why would Dish Network?
They are both digital satellite.

I've found the opposite to be true. Just because they are both satellite
services doesn't mean the both use the same amounts of compression or
processing. I think you will also find differences in how various
televisions built in line doublers deal with interlaced input. Sony's DRC is
different from Brand X's xxx etc. There is the possibility of odd
interactions between compression artifacts and line doubling. You will find
the same issues with analog input Replay TV and Tivo boxes looking like ****
on certain televisions.



"James Dougal" wrote in message
...
I'm about to buy a Mitsu 65" 65511 16:9. I've been hearing that the
picture
for standard satellite viewing is pathetic. Apparently the stretching on
each side? Does anyone recommend that I view a widescreen with regular
satellite programming before I buy, or is widescreen the norm of the
future?




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

On 25 Jul 2003 09:15:17 -0700, (John) wrote:

Digital cable,
with its compression artifacts that are visible even on smaller 4:3
tube tvs, is not going to be very pleasing even viewed in standard 4:3
mode on a 50"+ set. And of course, once you see any HD content on that
thing, nothing else will look that good

This depends on your provider. My digital (Comcast) in western Ma.
looks excellent and I don't have artifacts.
Thumper

Direct TV provides an OUTSTANDING clean beautiful picture. Satellite and
OTA is the way to go. Just make sure you install the dish correctly and use
RG-6 coax.. I watch EVERYTHING in 16:9 format... You get used to the
stretched picture. I use an outside antenna for local stations even though
I have cable because I find OTA provides a much CLEANER picture. Cable has
too much noise on it even on a good day.


"James Dougal" wrote in message
...
I'm about to buy a Mitsu 65" 65511 16:9. I've been hearing that the
picture
for standard satellite viewing is pathetic. Apparently the stretching on
each side? Does anyone recommend that I view a widescreen with regular
satellite programming before I buy, or is widescreen the norm of the
future?




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

My point on "shrunk" is that on a same size diagonal 4:3 vs 16:9, you are
going to have a *smaller* 4:3 picture on the 16:9 than on the 4:3. If the
majority of your programming is in 4:3, it'd probably make more sense to get
a 4:3 TV.

No, I don't have a widescreen yet. I'm researching the market and checking
out picture sizes, quality, prices. I'm in the market for a 16:9 HDTV but
I'm sticking with my OTA HDTV receiver and my 50" 4:3 RPTV until such time
that I see more 16:9 programming and a bit more stability in the HDTV
standard. In the past couple of years the rear connection has gone from
Component to HDI and now on to something else.

I'm somewhat hesitant to spend a boatload of money on a large screen 16:9 TV
right now because of all the mixed-mode factors and standards factors.

As I said in my first post, it's up to the buyer. Determine what you watch
the most of or your plans for the future and make an informed decision.

Mine is to wait a bit longer as my market is the NYC market. We're a bit
short on OTA HDTV programming right now. That's supposed to change in the
fall. We'll see.

-- Bob Lindabury

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
...

"Bob Lindabury" -nospam wrote in message
.net...
The funny thing is that 95% of current programming is 4:3.

A great deal of the network programming is going to be HD this
fall...quite
a bit already is. I've now got four HD movie channels on Direct TV in
addition to Discovery HD and ESPN HD and HD Net. I pick up 8 digital
stations in Seattle OTA with lots of widescreen programming. Almost all of
my DVD's are widescreen.


16:9 is not the
present. It's not even close to being the present unless you just watch
DVD's or the few programs broadcast in 16:9.

This will probably be an unpopular opinion in this forum but it's
reality
at
this point in time. If you can get a high-quality 4:3 HDTV now for a
reasonable price with the plan to replace it with 16:9 when there's more
actual programming available in 16:9 down the road, you might be a
happier
camper. Just think of your current purchase being a temporary stop-gap
measure.

Not that used televisions ever bring in much money anyway...but can you
imagine the resaleability of a big used 4:3 set after even only a couple
of
more years?



I know I'm not real interested in seeing 4:3 programming shrunk down to
the
size of a 25" diagonal TV in the middle of my 16:9 screen.

4:3 is not shrunk, it is centered on your wide-screen. The shrinking
happens
when you watch 16:9 programming and DVD's on a 4:3 set. From your
comments,
is it safe to assume that you don't own a widescreen television? I think
you have blown the watching 4:3 on a 16:9 set issue way out of proportion.
We are living in a mixed aspect ratio broadcast world now...you can't have
your cake and eat it too anymore. You just need to decide if you want side
bars or top/bottom bars most of the time. If you buy a 4:3 set you will
increasingly be watching letterbox. Worse yet if your 4:3 set doesn't
allow
you to zoom on its progressive and HD inputs you will often have a 4:3
image
in the middle of the 16:9 image which is in the middle of your 4:3 set
when
watching 4:3 material broadcast in enhanced definition digital or HD
resolutions.