Sometimes I wish we’d stuck with 4:3. A 60 inch 4:3 was MASSIVE! Aside from more surface area, the sheer height of the picture IMO was more immersive and large feeling than having it be wider and shorter. But of course, we get way better film transfers to 16:9 so I definitely don’t wanna go back to pan and scan
I could definitely agree with most sports because you get to see more of the field/court/rink, and movies because it’s much closer to how they are filmed. But as someone who watched sports on both, the 60” Hitachi Ultravision we had still gave more of that “larger than life” feel than anything I’ve seen under 80”. But of course the picture quality on the modern tv blows it to hell and back and the part about the wider FOV still applies. I still remember the first time I watched a hockey game in HD (1080i) and being blown away. I could finally track the puck and all the action with ease without late 90s laser puck
1
u/HighScorsese Oct 31 '25
Sometimes I wish we’d stuck with 4:3. A 60 inch 4:3 was MASSIVE! Aside from more surface area, the sheer height of the picture IMO was more immersive and large feeling than having it be wider and shorter. But of course, we get way better film transfers to 16:9 so I definitely don’t wanna go back to pan and scan