On Jun 4, 10:28*am, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 06:54:52 -0700 (PDT), N8N
wrote:



On Jun 3, 8:15*am, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 07:58:35 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
Since when is 24 to 32 inches "not too big"? Having grown up watching
a 13 inch black and white "GE Adventurer 1", I think your sense of
proportion is a bit much.

Go look at a 24 inch 16:9 widescreen TV and see what you think.

It's not very big at all compared to a 4:3 ratio 19 inch TV.

It's wider, but a LOT shorter vertically.

And an LCD is very thin and light; almost feels like a toy compared to
the TVs of yore.

I guess an equivalent size would be a 19" or 21" CRT and I remember
those not being particularly light. *I still have an excellent Samsung
CRT monitor that I bought new back in the mid-late 90s. *It'll
probably stay in my garage until I clean up and recycle it

nate

The vertical height is what is most important, as that determines how
tall people will be in the movie you are watching...

Widescreen 16:9 ratio

24" *= 20.92" wide 11.76" tall

22" *= 19.17" *10.78"

19" *= 16.56" *9.32"

Standard 4:3 ratio

20" *= 16.00" *12.00"

19" *= 15.2" *11.4"

17" *= 13.6" *10.2"

You left out letterbox on a 4:3, which makes the vertical height
height even smaller, but can also increased on a 16:9 with the zoom
feature.

http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

And what is "most important" is debatable (not with you of course),
because if a movie was shot in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 you are missing a lot
of the original content if the move is "formatted to fit this screen"
like a lot of VHS movies were.