I'm looking for a new, traditional 4:3 28" TV - can anyone recommend a good one? So far all I can find is the Toshiba 28N33 in the Index catalogue for £299 - is it any good? Sony's 29" 4:3 TV is too expensive at £549. I require stereo audio outs, teletext and a great picture. Thanks!!!

oops - Index is selling the 28N23 NOT the 28N33, sorry! Here's the Toshiba UK site - does anyone have this TV?

Toshiba TV's (28N23)

Don't. Seriously, why 4:3 and not 16:9? Everything film/TV/videogame-wise is moving the way of 16:9 anamorphic, so even if you have a vast collection of old 4:3 material, a 16:9 set is the best way to accomodate the multi-aspect nature of past, present and future material. Although I did rate my old 28 inch 4:3 Tosh. Of course it's worth noting that you would need to trade up to at least a 32 inch wide to keep a similar 4:3 picture size (they give about 26-27 inch 4:3), and they can be expensive...

monkeysoup - I agree with you on most points but, picture size by picture size, I'll get more 4:3 value for money with a £300 traditional style 28" TV than a 36" widescreen at £800+. The Sky channels I watch the most are UK Gold/UK Drama/Plus/Challenge/TCM/E!/UK Style/Home & Leisure, etc, and all of these are 4:3. At least for now. Using a tape measure while observing a correctly-displayed 4:3 picture on a widescreen set I've calculated that the picture sizes are:-

28" W/S = 21" 4:3

32" W/S = 24" 4:3

36" W/S = 27" 4:3

So for now I'm gonna seek out a new 4:3 27" set and then in a few years time - when most channels will have swtiched to widescreen - I'll retire my set and invest in a widescreen one, 32", that, by then, should be affordable to me.

So, can anyone offer any good or bad comments about Toshiba's 28N23 4:3 28" TV?

hmm i have a goodmans 285ns(B) its a philips chassis, not bad tv......

If you're gonna get a new tv, you should definately get a widescreen one.

They may not look that great at first, but trust me after a few weeks with em (set up correctly of course, non of this stretch-o-vision crap) then you'll love it.

If you have digital tv then even better because all terrestrial channels are in full widescreen (see extra bits you wouldnt see on a 4:3 set), all sky movie chanels are widescreen now i believe? (not sure though) so are sky sports.

Sky one has gone widescreen(ish) and its only a matter of time before all other channels follow. Most music videos are made in letterbox format now so your new widescreen tv will zoom that out to fill the screen leaving no black edges like you'd have on a 4:3 set.

dvd films are amazing, you get to see the film exactly how the director intended and see every last corner of the film. None of this pan and scan nonsense where you'll only get to see half of someones face, and if two people are talking to each other on opposite ends of the room (i think this happens in star wars a few times) then good luck in enjoying that scene on a 4:3 set

Seriously though, widescreen is the future and it would be wise to get one now!

i love 4:3

any reason?

just watch wimbledon on a 16:9 set to see what your missing! how can anyone like seeing less of the picture

I would go with 4:3 too. Look out for a set that allows you to switch to 16:9 by collapsing the picture. This gives much better resolution than the traditional letterbox method of display on standard 4:3 sets. Apart from the BBC and DVD's, very little programming is actually made in widescreen, and most are just 4:3 shots arc'd to look like 16:9.

its all now made in widescreen, even most of the US based stuff. Of course if you dont have any kind of digital TV (and dont intend to get it) then a WS set is of little use. Now though all sports based in the UK are shown in WS, all Sky movie channels + Sky one (slowly) are WS.

I would think that over the next few years a lot more channels will go WS, so unless you plan on replacing your set again quite soon, I would always suggest getting a WS set.

I remember watching Psycho (1960) years ago on 4:3, when they brought out the DVD version to make it 16: 9 they cropped the picture, such a shame. This seems to happen quite a lot with older films.

sounds strange, but if you have a 'big w' near you pop round to it - there were a fair few £199 28" 4:3 tvs (daewoo & toshiba).
the 28" daewoo & philips widescreens were £250, and for the money, pretty damn good quality.

Actually a lot of new material is still in 4:3, but all archive material is 4:3 and the only way to watch this on a 16:9 set is eithe to crop the top and bottom of the picture, or to pillarbox it. Both look crap on a widescreen set. I have a 32" widescreen in work and don't like it at all.

For a sensible discussion on films and widescreen, you have to know the aspect ratio intended by the director.

Psycho was released in the cinema framed at 1.85:1 which is, very roughly, 16:9.

It was shot on 35mm film, with an aspect ratio of 1.37:1, which is, very roughly, 4:3. When shown in cinemas, the top and bottom of the 4:3 frame was "masked off" to 1.85:1, as intended by Mr Hitchcock.

Thus, 16:9 is the way it was intended to be seen by Mr Hitchcock.

The version you've seen in 4:3 reveals more of the image than was intended by Mr Hitchcock, and probably reveals boom-microphones and other extraneous kit that was never meant to be seen in the shot. (Either that, or it was "pan and scanned", so cropping the 1.85:1 frame down to 4:3, which makes the 4:3 image an even worse choice, as you would be losing some intended image).

Thus, despite there being more viewable image in 4:3, the correct way to watch Psycho is 16:9. That way, the carefully composed shots by Mr Hitchcock appear as he intended.

Many older films (older than Psycho, pre 1950's) were shot and intended to be shown in 4:3 format. That is the way they should be viewed. On a widescreen TV, there should be black bars at either side for these films.

Graeme
Last edited by GDK : 30-06-2003 at 16:42

Actually, there's more 16:9 stuff than you're probably aware of, since most of it is intended to be backwards compatible with 4:3 (i.e. shot 14:9 or 4:3 safe) most of the people who watch TV on a 4:3 screen will not be aware of just how much is now made in widescreen.

All new drama is 16:9 in the UK. The BBC channels are 16:9 most of the time. Most sports coverage is now 16:9, as are games shows (for some reason!). Most new TV in the US is made HDTV (which has an aspect ratio of 16:9). The only type of material still mostly shot 4:3 in the US is sitcoms.

Graeme

If you watch a 4:3 prog on a WS TV in 4:3 mode ('pillar boxed') then how can it look 'crap'? It's the same picture you'd see on a conventional 4:3 TV!

Looks fine on my WS TV.
It's only when people stretch it to fit when it looks 'crap'.

I totally agree! But, to be fair, when you first see 4:3 pillarboxed on a 16:9 screen it does look pretty naff and takes some getting used to. The reason it looks crap, though, is not through any fault with 16:9, it's because watching 4:3 in a 16:9 frame highlights the problems with frame composition in 4:3, where everything looks unnaturally cramped together. 16:9 is closer to the eye's natural aspect ratio.

Graeme

Stick with 4:3. Damn all wrong with a cramped picture!

No, widescreen pictures look fine on a widescreen set, but 4:3 pics look bad with the big black bits on the left and right of the screen. However a 16:9 picture letterboxed on a 4:3 set is a lot more acceptable. Better still if you can collapse the picture and get full resolution in that letterboxed portion.

I have a 32" widescreen in work (fed from the internal BBC ring main) and I still prefer 4:3.

What's so bad about 'black bits' on either side?
I just watch the picture and ignore them just as I ignore the speakers on the side and on top of the tv!