how many people use 4:3 mode with regularity

[aj327]

Since my last question hasn't gotten any responses I'd like to rephrase my question...

How many people with high def wide screen tvs use the 4:3 setting with any regularity? Do you always feel nervous about getting "burn in" when you do this, or do you figure that burn in is pretty unlikely. I'd like to hear from those of you who have had a widescreen tv for at least 6 months or so.

How much is too much and is there anything I can do to prevent burn in besides not use the 4:3 mode.

$3000 is a HUGE sum for me (I'm a student). I don't mind spending my hard earned money if it's worth it - and this whole burn in thing is really the only thing stopping me from going ahead with it. I've spent the better part of three hours today calling up the tech guys from sony, samsung, panasonic, and Toshiba...but either the wait was ridiculous or the tech support team seemed to be slightly retarded and had absolutely no clue what I was talking about.

Somebody has to have some good advice for me. And if it helps, the model I'm interested in is the panasonic 40 inch widescreen LCD projection HDTV.

Thanks,

-aj327

[LeeS]

I do not watch anything in 4:3. I use one of the 'stretch' modes on my TV. It does a non linear horizontal stretch to fill the screen when I have a 4:3 program.

Stretch Modes (http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1044)

The link will take you to a section of the FAQ's.

Good Luck,
Lee

[pcoffman]

I do not use the 4:3 mode either. I use a stretch mode as well. :)

[57U]

Originally posted by aj327
Since my last question hasn't gotten any responses I'd like to rephrase my question... I did answer the last question a few minutes before you posted this question. I will answer this one too. Sheesh, is a few hours too long to wait?

I have had my TV for a year now. I set up the TV after only a few weeks with AVIA, with contrast and brightness at suitably low levels.

I watched 4:3 images (blissfully unaware of burn in since the salesperson said the grey bars prevent it.) for about 4 months, 4 hours a day or so.

When watching an HD image one day, with a light background, I noticed very faint burn lines where the grey bars met the 4: 3 image.

I've been using stretch modes ever since, and have recommended them to anyone who'd listen.

Please try to be patient. We aren't getting paid to do this you know.

[woodman]

aj:
See my reply to your other post ... there's good news there for you!

[aj327]

Thanks,

and sorry for the impatience but I just found out about this burn in thing last night and have been more than a little anxious about it. I've been working myself up about getting an HDTV for quite a while now so I'm just a little disappointed that it might not work out after all.

I'm wondering now if I should just wait for the DLPs to get cheaper since their technology makes burn in impossible. I appreciate that people say that you can get used to the stretch mode - but it seems to defeat the purpose of having a high def tv to begin with. I mean you buy it so that you can have a perfect picture...people talk about the "enormous" difference that progressive scan makes for instance, yet people are willing to live with shows being morphed way out of normal proportion...fat heads, etc...I suppose the distortion is clear - but still - it seems like a huge concession to make. People say you can get used to the stretch mode - well you can also get used to fuzzy reception...it doesn't mean it still doesn't bug you.

I guess my point is that for such an expensive luxury I just wish I could have my cake and eat it too...

By the way, did your tv ever recover from the burn in - or is it permanent? If it didn't there was a thread posted on the panasonic site where the guy actually took panasonic to court over the burn in. They said they wouldn't fix it because it was his fault for watching it in 4:3. But they did provide a 4:3 mode which would imply that it can be used, otherwise they wouldn't have made it an option you would think. Anyway he won and got a new TV out of it.

Thanks and I'll let you know what I decide to do.

-aj327

[57U]

Originally posted by aj327 By the way, did your tv ever recover from the burn in - or is it permanent? It is permanent, but I caught it very early, so it is not noticable, unless I have a very light background and I look for it carefully. I've taught myself not to look for it. I'm very happy with my set, so I didn't want to bother going after Hitachi.

[nleaf]

You'll notice commentary in the FAQ on stretch modes that your brain eventually gets used to the 'fatter' picture and eventually it looks normal.

This is 100% true. When I first started watching everything stretched, it was difficult and I didn't like it at all. After 3 weeks, however, I have adjusted to it and it now looks perfectly normal! When I revert to 4:3, everyone looks like Ally McBeal, and I'm just as uncomfortable watching in this mode as I was when I first watched everything stretched.

So I would say that disregarding all widescreen TVs as an option because of this is a mistake, especially because more and more programming will be done in 16:9 in the future.

[kevinw]

Depending on the television, stretch modes can be just fine. Toshiba has one,(Theater 1), that barely stretches the center, but pulls the edges. You don't notice the stretch because it is on the outer portion of the picture. The quality ofmthe stretch is all in the eye of the beholdr.

[Wooger]

...and you KNEW I would have to post my usual diatribe about this, didn't ya?!?!

OK, IMHO, buy a (much cheaper) 4:3 with HDTV mode and watch your 16:9 stuff with bars on the top and bottom. If you are like me, you watch more 4:3 programming than 16:9, and so the 2+ hours spent watching movies with black bars on the top and bottom won't burn in as likely as with 16:9 and 4:3 programming.

PLUS, with my set at least, the 16:9 programming varies in how much balck bars it uses. Rarely is the black bar line the same from one programming type to the next. I watched The Sopranos last night in HD (and Dolby 5.1 ... WHEEE!) and was surprised to see that it is by far the fattest (up and down) of all programming that I have seen. I recently watched a movie (I forget which one... maybe the Lord of the Rings DVD?) that had HUGE black bars... a REAL wide wide screen. My Sony adjusts and puts the edges on the edges left and right and fills the top and bottom as needed I guess.

The positives: (mentioned before in another thread, summed up here)
1) The biggie for you... No burn-in worries
2) 4:3 HD sets are MUCH cheaper (and often found on closeouts lately)
3) 4:3 programming is full-sized, not shrunken, and STILL pervasive.
4) 4:3 sets usually fit better (more vertical - less horizontal space necessary, which usually is nicer).
5) Mathematically, you lose less real-estate going from 4:3 to 16:9 than the other way around. For instance, my 61" 4:3 becomes an approx. 56" 16:9. (By my quick math, a 61" 16:9 would give approx. a 46" 4:3 picture!)
6) You lose NO quality. This is subjective, I know, as is most HD viewing. But I have seen very few 16:9 sets that surpass my 4:3 Sony in 16:9 mode. It is comparable at WORST, and often superior quality. S'why I bought it!

The negatives:
1) You don't have the high-tech looking 16:9 shape that makes most go "Ooh! HDTV?!"
2) The image is actually SMALLER when watching 16:9 programming (movies, etc.)
3) It WILL become outdated (one day, when 16:9 programming is all pervasive... and this will be when?!)

I wish I could say I regretted buying my 4:3 Sony (so I could, of course, go out and buy a NEWER set!), but I am (happily? sadly? hmmm) stuck with this behemouth for a while.

Not trying to persuade (much), just pointing out options that DO exist.

[kevinw]

I knew you would:D
My latest trip to Best Buy revealed they have approximatly 9 different widescreen RP HDTvs in house and 2 square screen RP HdTv's on the floor.
and 3 analog Squares. At Sears the numbers were similar.
Last year I might have considered 4:3 for the reason my best friend Wooger mentions, but today with twice as much Hd programming available and the prices of WS now at the price you would have paid last year for a 4:3. Why settle for less or is that more?

[Ratman]

I have a 16:9 set (direct view).
I'd say about 70% of my viewing is 4:3 with grey bars.
The TV is on approx. 12+ hours per day.
I've had this set for almost 1 year.
No indications of 'burn in' (yet?).

Now... as the locals have been broadcasting digitally, I am very aware of the length of time that I watch 4:3 stuff (with black bars).

IMO... if you try to 'exercise' using the 16:9 as much as possible, you can circumvent (or reduce the risk) the problems (whether it's 'stretched' or watching a few DVD's, etc).

Either way... 16:9 is the way to go! Most all newer DVD's are 16:9 and all HD is 16:9. Why subject yourself with a 4:3 set for the next 10 years, when hopefully in the next 4-5, most everything will be 16:9? Just my $.02

[aj327]

I just got off the phone with a tech support guy from Panasonic and he REALLY knew his stuff. Here's the low down for all those who care...

Burn in can happen with any tv out there except the DLPs coming out - becasue they reflect their image off of mirrors which would make burn in impossible. The most susceptible are the rear projection CRTs followed closely by the plasma tvs. Next would be the projection LCDs followed by the flat panel LCDs and last would be the direct view CRTs. The latter burn in as much as your average tv so he said that he wouldn't worry about the direct views at all. As far as the others go however, he said that even with the projection LCD TVs, for instance, he would only recommend watching things on the 4:3 mode - a maximum of 15% of the time. He agreed that this was asking a bit much if you don't like stretch mode...which he didn't like either.

He also said to my astonishment that direct view tvs actually produce the best picture among all tvs - bar none...that includes plasma and the new DLP sets. He said that if you are more interested in quality rather than quantity - direct view is always the way to go.

Maybe in a few years the LCD technology will fix their little burn in problem so that gamers and people who don't like to see fat heads will be satisfied...and maybe DLP will eventually be cheap enough and offer as nice a picture as the direct views. But for right now - if quality (not size) is your priority, then it looks like direct view is the way to go.

So it looks like I'm going to be getting the 34 inch panasonic widescreen high def direct view tv. Retails for $2500 but I've seen it for as little as $1900 with shipping included.

Hope this helps,

aj327

[57U]

You have relayed one person's opinion. As an educated consumer, with a strong technical background, I would disagree with the order of the TV sets. For example, his comment about mirrors is totally erroneous since RPTVs use a mirror and they are the most likely to have "uneven phosphor wear".

The comment about direct view having the best picture is also usually based on old or mis-information. Direct view sets are usually small (<36"), while RPTVs are large >40", so their quality is hard to compare and a "smaller set" will "appear" to have "better" PQ, but if you compared them at a distance that makes both sets appear the same size, you'll find that RPTVs look just as good and are "larger" and are "cheaper".

There are a number of "experts" on this forum that would disagree with your "posted" opinion, especially about Direct View TVs. Since I have enough posts here, I'll let those others chime in.

[woodman]

Maybe the Panasonic guy might have sounded like he knew what he was talking about, but I vehemently DISAGREE with him on virtually all counts (and I've spent half a century working with TV sets).

He gave you very bad advice, believe me ... a widescreen direct-view is the worst possible choice today - bar none (except possibly for plasma). A large CRT is very difficult to obtain optimum focus, geometry, and convergence on - especially a 16:9 screen tube. To add insult to injury, those tubes are so prohibitively expensive that if or when one of them fails after the warranty has expired, you're left with a very expensive door-stop! Replacing such a tube is not an option!

Please reconsider aj ... I'm trying to help you here. I thought that I had eased your mind on the whole "burn-in" issue, only to have this Panasonic guy undo it all, and steer you toward a potentially BIG mistake. As Lenny (Zarlor) pointed out in a reply here, screen burn CAN happen with an LCD-based display - but only in totally ABNORMAL circumstances. In normal use, LCD panels do NOT suffer from burn-in problems - direct-view CRT sets are more likely to suffer this anomaly than LCDs will (contrary to what the Panasonic guy told you). Also his comments about direct-view sets having the absolute best picture quality gave him away as someone that doesn't really know what he's talking about! At one point in time, that POV had some merit ... today, it doesn't.

[aj327]

I'm no expert in this field but from the research I've done the DLP tvs are very different from any other tv technology. It's not the fact that they use mirrors that is important - they might all use mirrors for all I know...the point is how they use the mirrors. Either Red, Green, or Blue light is directed at a postage size network of mirrors compsed of roughly 1 million very tiny mirrors at a very high requency (maybe around 1000 HZ). These mirrors then reflect the given light directly onto our eyes. The bottom line is that the light reaching our eye is coming directly from a mirror that cannot burn out, as opposed to a heated gas or phosphor that can experience different levels of wear. Liquid crystal can also lose its luster over time so it is also subject to uneven wear. But a mirror is not...therefore it is impossible to get "burn in" on a DLP screen.

As far as the direct views go, yes I suppose its a matter of opinion whether or not it indeed posesses the best quality, but I don't think that anyone would argue that as far as "burn in" goes, direct view tvs are much less susceptible...something that most of us can confirm considering that most of us already own one and have been playing video games on them for hours on end, etc.

I'm sure that once they come out with burn in proof tvs they will be all the rage and everyone will be like "oh my god I can watch my tv in the regular 4:3 mode without worrying", and "I can play video games on them and leave it on pause for hours on end", or whatever. Playing video games and watching things in the format that they were intended to be watched in is something that is important to a lot of people - so I think it's something that all buyers should go into the game informed about. It's not just a mild nuisance - it could wreck your tv...

-aj327

[Wooger]

Wow.

Sorry man. I worked in TV (WILX-TV Lansing, MI) and Woodman is a TV guy too. And we can BOTH confirm that direct view are the WORST for burn-in. Really. You should have seen the color bars images that had burned into the monitors at the TV station.

Also, about the mirrors, you are correct in the fact that the mirrors won't burn, but (just like the mirrors used in RPTVs) the SOURCE of the picture (reflected onto the mirrors) is where the burn occurs.

Now, I have absolutely NO clue where plasmas fall in the grand scheme of things, but I can tell you with all certainty, from worst to best of the ones I know about:

(worst) Direct view -> RPTVs -> LCDs (best)

...dunno where DLPs and Plasmas fit.

[woodman]

Originally posted by Wooger
Wow.

Sorry man. I worked in TV (WILX-TV Lansing, MI) and Woodman is a TV guy too. And we can BOTH confirm that direct view are the WORST for burn-in. Really. You should have seen the color bars images that had burned into the monitors at the TV station.

Also, about the mirrors, you are correct in the fact that the mirrors won't burn, but (just like the mirrors used in RPTVs) the SOURCE of the picture (reflected onto the mirrors) is where the burn occurs.

Now, I have absolutely NO clue where plasmas fall in the grand scheme of things, but I can tell you with all certainty, from worst to best of the ones I know about:

(worst) Direct view -> RPTVs -> LCDs (best)

...dunno where DLPs and Plasmas fit.


Hey Wooger:
Just a few "heads-up" on your reply:

CRTs are the worst for "burn-in" but the types that are the MOST susceptible are not the direct-views, but the CRTs used in RPTVs. This is because, in an RPTV - in order to produce "bright" pictures that will rival those of direct-views, they drive those CRTs unmercifully hard!

Regarding the DLP technology - the SOURCE of the video images ARE the mirrors themselves ... they are not reflecting an image created elsewhere, but are the very source of the images. They reflect light (from a lamp) thru a synchronized "color wheel" - then thru magnifying lenses to the screen. Interesting concept, but without any history regarding the DMD chip and how long it'll last - and what it would cost to replace it, I'm not ready to embrace it just yet.

Plasma displays are yet another with insufficient history to know what to expect in terms of reliability - which is of paramount importance to me.


Welcome back ... where ya been?

[aj327]

OK well you guys win, I'm thoroughly confused now.

The guy at Panasonic said that they were told to recommend to everyone who had the LCD and crt projection tvs not to use them in 4:3 mode more than 15% of the time - and they had no restrictions for the direct views at all. This led me to believe that the direct views were the safest for burn in...and I'm sorry to be harping on the burn in thing, but it is the most important factor for me. Burn in issues = poor reliability.

Also I've since spoken to other people about the quality scale and so far everyone has seconded what the Panasonic guy said...direct view is still the gold standard for quality...in terms of brightness, clarity, motion artifact (or lack thereof). I mean this guy talked me out of getting the more expensive model which made me trust his intentions. But I do concede that he just might not have known what he was talking about...

I mean it's hard to judge quality at Best Buy because for some reason their hdtv feed is always split up and unequally distributed - so it's tough to tell the difference between signal and tv. That being said, the LCD projection tv did look the best - far and away. But like I said, no direct view crts were hooked up properly at the time either...so it's tough to make the call.

So woodman - what I want to ask you is this...if you bought the LCD projection tv - would you just throw caution to the wind and play video games on it and watch stuff in 4:3 mode - because that's what I want to do. If you tell me honestly that you would, maybe I'll think a little harder on it...It's just that I'm a poor student with a a little money socked away, a 0% interest credit card that's just dying to get used, and an enormous fetish for home theater systems....and I've had my eye on one of these babies since they came out. So I'd hate to get burned (no pun intended).

let me know,

thanks,

-aj327

[zarlor]

For burn-in worries, I think your LCD will be fine. Even the worst offender, a CRT-based RPTV would probably be just fine (heck, I do it all the time with mine, with no signs of burn-in) as long as you just stay aware of the situation, turn down that contrast and brightness and remember to vary the picture on the screen every haf hour or so, if you are real worried about it. I think that's good advice for any screen that is susceptible to that kind of wear and it should greatly prolong the life of your set, as compared to something you just take home and set up without making any changes to the settings. (Most TVs come from the factory in what many folks around here love to call "torch mode" :))

LCDs are fine. The problems to be most aware of with an LCD are that they tend to not be as good with black levels (black tends to be grey on an LCD) and they often do not handle high-speed motion as well (often leaving a little bit of a ghost trail of anything moving quicky across the screen due to refresh rate limitations). They are great for connecting to a computer, though, since it is a true digital display with all pixels directly accessible. If you've read the "resolution" discussions they are far less applicable to LCD since easch pixel on the scren is directly addressible instead of being interpolated on a scan line.

I will say that while, in my experience, a Direct-View no doubt would have less susceptibility to phosper wear, it doesn't have to be much of an issue if you take the precaustions mentioned above, which leaves you with Picture Quality. I have to strongly agree with the others on this matter in taht a Direct-View is generally not the way to go.

I think one of the key reasons folks often find direct-views look "better" is simply because we are so used to the old 480 visible scan lines (or thereabouts;)) standard. On a standard direct-view that's nice and bright. And a standard CRT RPTV those lines can't put out nearly as much light when blown up that big. With the additional scan lines being used in HD CRT RPTVs you suddenly get a whole bunch more lines giving out light, and I find that if a Direct-View is properly set to the right contrast alongside an RPTV and the are positioned so that the viewer would see both sets as if they were the same size, the RPTV would look at least as good, if not better. Up close the RPTV is quite capable of showing the finer details of the picture that you would never have seen on that direct-view (which can sometimes be a bad ting, since you can see all the finer details of problems in the picture, as well... blemishes you probably never would have noticed on that direct-view.) This is especially true with 9" CRTs lenses.

To add to that you can also find that quality on Front Projection systems, and those ofte let you even fine tune things like convergence and geometry errors even better than many RPTVs will, allowing you a bit more control in refining the picture. However they do suffer a good deal more from needing lower light conditions to be an effective viewing platfrom, although they have gotten much brighter over the years. Same caveat would seem to apply for CRT FPTVs about burn-in as for any other CRT.

So, if your big interest is playing games, get the LCD. If your big interest is overall picture quality, look at CRT Projection sets, preferably with 9" guns... although chances are the 9" sets will probably be out of the price range you are looking for. Eiter way, just take care of the set and stop worrying so much about burn-in! (Of course, that is just my opinion and I have been known to be wrong. :))

[woodman]

So woodman - what I want to ask you is this...if you bought the LCD projection tv - would you just throw caution to the wind and play video games on it and watch stuff in 4:3 mode - because that's what I want to do. If you tell me honestly that you would, maybe I'll think a little harder on it...It's just that I'm a poor student with a a little money socked away, a 0% interest credit card that's just dying to get used, and an enormous fetish for home theater systems....and I've had my eye on one of these babies since they came out. So I'd hate to get burned (no pun intended).

OK aj - here's my answer:

I would buy the LCD RPTV in an instant without worrying for even a New York second about "burn-in" - I would play video games on it - watch DVDs on it - watch TV programming on it - and enjoy the ever-lovin' bejeebers out of it - not worrying for even a New York second about anything! Is that plain and clear enough?

Having said that, I do recommend turning down the brightness and contrast some from the way it's probably adjusted "out-of-the-box" - AND, I'd also not leave any static bright object on screen for hours and hours on end - AND, I would watch a variety of different aspect ratio images, although I don't agree with the "do not watch 4:3 images for more than 15% of the time" BS ... that's complete and total paranoia, pure and simple.

In closing, let me add - I would NOT buy a large screen direct-view set today at any price - not a chance! The common misconception that they provide the best picture quality is a myth and an illusion which is explained quite simply by the fact that their pix are inevitably smaller - thus, look "better" (a smaller pic ALWAYS looks sharper, "clearer" and just better than an enlargement. This is true of photographs, and it's also true of TV pictures.

Hope this helps to reduce your confusion

[kevinw]

I might buy the Samsung 30in Direct View Widescreen that Best Buy had on sale for a $1000.00 as a bedroom TV...

Ok Ok I am just fanning the flames....:D

[Wooger]

Woodman:

Thanks for the info. Yes, I was WAY off on the mirrors thing (just looked it up online... I had no idea how it worked!). That looks mighty intriguing, eh? Spinning mirrors projecting the various colors based on the timing? Sounds too complicated for me.

And yeah I have to agree with you on... well, everything actually.

AJ, listen to woodman on this. Buy the LCD and don't worry about it. With normal usage (ie: do NOT turn on a video game and then leave for the Bahamas, etc.) you have nothing to worry about for at LEAST the forseeable lifetime of this set. Use it as you would use any tool... with respect, but don't worry about things overly. LCDs really are quite durable. It took THOUSANDS of hours of static images to burn in a ghost of an image on our LCD screens on our servers downstairs. This is not normal usage. Use it as you would normally and you have nothing to worry about.

...now, a direct CRT I might caution about, but... not thee new LCDs. And (again, from what I have read online) plasmas either. They seem to be the wave of the future.

I personally am amazed at the brightness achieved by these new LCDs. I thought this would be their achilles, but not from what I have seen. That Panny I mentioned in another thread was amazing! I am certainly thinking LCD for my next one!

Good info here guys. Gotta love the flow of information!

[ibm135]

I have a DLP set, so do not worry about burn in. However, I always stretch the picture to 16:9 since I hate to waste all that screen size, plus my TV does a pretty good job of interpolating the picture wider.