4:3 OLED TVs: A Win For All

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hotaru.hino

Prominent
Sep 1, 2020
717
222
790
14
And cinephiles should have the option to buy the kind of OLED TV which doesn't force them to sacrifice content by cropping or stretching a 1:33:1 image to fill in vertical bars, as they would have to do with 16:9 displays.
Are you watching 4:3 format videos on a 16:9 display without setting proper scaling options? Because that's what it sounds like here.
 

hang-the-9

Titan
Moderator
I see your point about CRTs being only a partially good choice for gamers. And not being a gamer I wasn't aware that most games are formatted for 16:9 screens.
https://www.gamingscan.com/best-aspect-ratio-for-gaming/

But for my own needs I would hardly have wasted lots of time advocating release of 4:3 OLEDs at numerous forums, OLED TV brand feedback webpages and at A/V hardware review magazines if my brain were capable of processing 1.33:1 images on 16:9 displays like most "normal" brains apparently can, without annoyance or fatigue. As I've stated on this thread and/or elsewhere, to my eyes, watching vintage 1.33:1 movies (e.g. "Gilda", "Double Indemnity") or TV shows on 16:9 screens literally feels stifling while also appearing cheap and slapdash-yet the sensation is no where near as bad when I watch 1.85:1 or even 2.35:1 aspect movies on a 4:3 TV.

And cinephiles should have the option to buy the kind of OLED TV which doesn't force them to sacrifice content by cropping or stretching a 1:33:1 image to fill in vertical bars, as they would have to do with 16:9 displays.

As for the silly "draping" solution, I would be gaining only another 4" up from my 32" Toshiba CRT. And watching as much 1.33:1 content as I do will still cause the pixel differential aging which LOTS of 16:9 OLED TV owners are rightly concerned about.

How much more sensible to simply own a second TV in another room-an OLED TV with a native aspect ratio which will therefore solve all of these problems simply and naturally.
Having to build a new factory to make large square LCD panels, then getting TV makers to build TVs from then, then dedicating a second room to only square format movies is the exact opposite of "simply and naturally" to me. Have you priced the cost of making LCD panels for TVs in the shape and size you want at any sort of per panel basis? Never mind the building of TVs to house them on top of that. It's not really a simple thing here no matter how much you want this type of screen to exist.

Not sure what you mean about processing images on the screen, all it is is some bars around the sides, same bars as the edges of the TV just closer in. No one really watches 3:4 content in stretch mode past people that don't really know what they are doing, they watch it in the original ratio. If you watch wide-screen format on a square TV all you are doing it changing the bars from the side to the top and bottom.

But like we all said, if you think there is a market for this, round up some investment money and talk to some LCD panel makers and TV makers. No one is going to do this on their own cash. Even if you ask 100,000 people who say they will want a set like this, when it comes down to paying for one I doubt a tenth will actually go through with it.
 
Last edited:

soundtrek

Distinguished
Oct 11, 2009
36
0
18,530
0
Are you watching 4:3 format videos on a 16:9 display without setting proper scaling options? Because that's what it sounds like here.
Wrong. I thought I was clear on this; and it has nothing to do with scaling. It's simply the same age old dilemma-at least the one afflicting "abnormal" or "aesthetically oversensitive" brains like mine-dating back to release of the first 16:9 LCDs, or even those > 220 lb Sony Wega 34" 16:9 beasts: Viewing 1.37:1 (~ 4/3) content on a 16:9 TV screen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_ratio

Everyone then and now had to choose between viewing the image bordered by thick vertical bars (ugh!!)
or either cropping or stretching the image the fill the screen, which wiped the bars for the price of lost image content (no thank you either). Perhaps to address this content format incompatibility which suddenly confronted the early owners of 16:9 "panel" TVs, Dukane was probably the only brand to release a 40" 4:3 LCD monitor back in the early 90s. It sold or ~ $1800. and I heard that its overall video performance was rather poor. This brand ended production of 4:3 LCD/LED industrial displays in larger sizes. http://www.hantarex.com/CRT_Monitors.html

This brand might make LCDs larger than 40" but probably not for single units.
https://tru-vumonitors.com/request-quote/

Of course, like any LCD it probably won't come close to CRT's (or OLED's) contrast ratio and black level range, even if you order a low brightness model and use it in a dark room, like I would.

Thus, my call for a ~50" 4:3 1080p or 4K OLED TV. The only other >40" 4:3 display option is a 4:3 projector. Epsom makes a very good one for ~ $2700. but placement of projectors often problematic. Once again, ~50" 4:3 OLED TV, the "simple and natural" solution if you watch much 4:3 content.


Having to build a new factory to make large square LCD panels, then getting TV makers to build TVs from then, then dedicating a second room to only square format movies is the exact opposite of "simply and naturally" to me.
I don't agree that the world market for a 4:3 OLED TV is as small as you say. Many photographers and cinephiles long ago gave up asking retailers for any big screen 4:3 TVs because like me they've learned from years of experience that TV brands are notoriously indifferent to consumer opinion. Thus, many would-be 4:3 OLED TV customers fell silent. So I suspect actual worldwide demand is more like 300,000 and as much as one to three milion worldwide-across consumer, pro and industrial markets. Yes, if I was a younger person with lots of disposable funds and also lucky enough to find a capable and enthused production and marketing team I'd might go for it; lots of vacant commercial space on Long Island and believable proposals for job creation would likely get me good breaks on property taxes and utilities. However, as overall demand is no where near that for 16:9 TVs the company might only survive 5 to 7 years.

But whoever would build it, what is "simple and natural" about 4:3 OLED TV-as I thought I had clearly explained-is that its native screen format can display 1.37:1 images full screen with no bars, while thereby protecting your 16:9 OLED (in another room complete with surround sound and which many of the less than affluent among us can do) from larger areas of vertical bar pixel brightness differential aging-than would horizontal bar pixing differential aging from frequently displaying the common 1.77:1, 1.85:1. Only frequent displaying of wider 2.35:1 content would cause damage approaching 4:3 content vertical bar damage. See Jeff Manghera's examples here.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-chart-online-with-lines-marking-aspect-ratios-of-2-35-1-2-0-1-1-85-1-etc-all-within-the-16-9-frame
 
Of course, like any LCD it probably won't come close to CRT's (or OLED's) contrast ratio and black level range, even if you order a low brightness model and use it in a dark room, like I would.
If you are viewing the screen in a dark room, I don't see how the black bars would even matter. Paint the wall behind the screen black as well, and anything outside the active area should be more or less invisible on something like an OLED panel. A 65" diagonal 16:9 screen would provide a 4:3 area equivalent to a 53" 4:3 screen, and such a screen would offer around 2.75 times the viewable 4:3 area of a 32" CRT.
 

soundtrek

Distinguished
Oct 11, 2009
36
0
18,530
0
If you are viewing the screen in a dark room, I don't see how the black bars would even matter. Paint the wall behind the screen black as well, and anything outside the active area should be more or less invisible on something like an OLED panel. A 65" diagonal 16:9 screen would provide a 4:3 area equivalent to a 53" 4:3 screen, and such a screen would offer around 2.75 times the viewable 4:3 area of a 32" CRT.
I’m not about to paint the rear wall black but I would certainly hang a large black bed sheet or other material behind the OLED.

IF I could actually run this test for myself using any good 65” OLED, without first buying next year’s top Sony 65” OLED (and I have hundreds of bucks in Sony card points), I’d certainly go for it. But I don’t know anyone on Long Island who has an OLED. And you certainly can’t run a test like that at a Best Buy store-where they probably place the TV in a bright area deliberately to show customers how good the contrast still is even in bright rooms.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY