[mythtv-users] Opinion on philips 32" hdtv..

[Robert Denier]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 02:07 -0600, Chad wrote:
> On 9/11/05, Robert Denier <denier at umr.edu> 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...