Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
HDTV Reception Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Topic:
Height of a 16:9 or 4:3 TV
This thread has 12 replies. Displaying all posts.
Post 1 made on Saturday December 17, 2005 at 19:02
mrutta
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2005
54
I have a customer who is debating whether to get a 34" widescreen or a 32" standard TV. I am suggesting the 34" widescreen, but wanted to let the customer know how tall each set is. I want to let the customer know this as most of the time this customer watches TV they will be watching 4:3 TV. Is there a formula to figuring out the height of each of these type of sets?
Post 2 made on Saturday December 17, 2005 at 22:05
Ernie Bornn-Gilman
Yes, That Ernie!
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
30,104
Just as 4:3s were starting to be phased out, I realized that this stuff is just so easy to figure for a 4:3 because the two sides and the diagonal make a 3:4:5 triangle. The easiest right triangle to deal with. Let's look at triangles for a moment.

For instance, if a set has a 35" diagonal (that is 7x5), its image height will be 21" (3x7 and its width 28" (4x7). Diagonal x 0.8 = width; Diagonal x 0.6 = height. Not so difficult numbers. That's a 4:3.

The formula is that famous one parodied by the joke with a punch line something like "the squaw of the hippopotamus is equal to the sum of the squaws of the other two hides." That is, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. This is the Pythagorean Theorem showing the relationships among the three sides of a triangle with a 90 degree corner.

For a 3:4:5 triangle, 3 squared = 9, four squared = 16, 9 + 16 = 25. It just so happens that 5 squared = 25. I don't know of any other numbers for which there is so simple a relationship, but 16 and 9 are NOT two of them!

After doing the math...
If the height is 9 and the width is 16, the diagonal is 18 3/8 ... more or less (square root of sum of 81 + 256 = 337; sq rt of 337 = 18.358).

More math says that if you have the diagonal (D), the height will be D x 9 / 18.358 or 0.49D. The width will be D x 16 / 18.358 or 0.872D.

I find it easier to communicate this size thing by considering that if you change from a 4:3 to a 16:9, people will look like they are the same size if their height remains the same. TVs of different aspect ratios can appear to have the same size people, but the 16:9 will show a bit more out to the sides. So...what size 16:9 is going to give you the same size person as a 4:3?

A 32" 4:3 will have a height of 32" x 0.6 = 19.2". A 34" 16:9 will have a height of (give me a couple of minutes here) 34 x .49 = 16.66".

So how big would a 16:9 have to be so people look the same size as a 4:3? A 16:9 with a height of 19.2" would have a diagonal of 19.2 x 18.358 / 9 = 39.163". The inconvenient number to remember here is that a 16:9 will have the same size (height) picture (people) if it is 1.15 times the diagonal of a 4:3.

Lemme know if you can figure out an easy way to remember these numbers. I just had to figure them out again to answer you. Maybe I'll put 'em in my Palm Pilot.
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw
OP | Post 3 made on Saturday December 17, 2005 at 23:30
mrutta
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2005
54
Thanks for your time.
Here is what I can simply remember for the future, 4:3 has a height of .6 x the diagonal, and a 16:9 has a height just slight less than .5 of the diagonal.

Thanks again. I spent about a hour with the math earlier but I could not put it as clearly as you did.
Post 4 made on Sunday December 18, 2005 at 01:35
Ernie Bornn-Gilman
Yes, That Ernie!
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
30,104
On December 17, 2005 at 23:30, mrutta said...
Thanks for your time.
Here is what I can simply remember for the future,
4:3 has a height of .6 x the diagonal, and a 16:9
has a height just slight less than .5 of the diagonal.

Thanks for this. I have been known to be able to come up with the complicated answer while the simple one eludes me. That is an excellent summary!
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw
Post 5 made on Monday December 19, 2005 at 12:51
Spiky
Founding Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
2,288
I just made a spreadsheet and plug in numbers when I need to. Excel knows Pythagoras.
Post 6 made on Monday December 19, 2005 at 14:14
OTA AOK
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2005
38
In case you were wondering, if you watch HDTV programs in the 16:9 format on a standard 4:3 32" screen (black bars at the top and bottom), the viewing area is equivalent to a 28" widescreen 16:9 tv.
Post 7 made on Monday December 26, 2005 at 16:46
tunesandmore
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
December 2005
15
Cool..mathamaticans. But remember the screen fits in its cabinet. Simple solution - go to the mfgs website. They list the dims.
Post 8 made on Saturday December 31, 2005 at 19:14
Ernie Bornn-Gilman
Yes, That Ernie!
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
30,104
On December 26, 2005 at 16:46, tunesandmore said...
Cool..mathamaticans. But remember the screen
fits in its cabinet. Simple solution - go to
the mfgs website. They list the dims.

Speaking of "dim" --

he was asking about the screen size. The dims listed in most websites are the screen diagonal and the outer dimensions of the TV. Some TVs have speakers at the bottom, others on the side, so the relationships between picture size and TV dimensions vary and those dims are more confusing than helpful.
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw
Post 9 made on Sunday January 1, 2006 at 11:36
tunesandmore
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
December 2005
15


Speaking of "dim" --

I was trying to be helpful. I've seen customers buy TV's base on screen size only to find the TV's (with cabinet and speakers) do not fit into the opening.

Another thing - Native Americans find your "joke" offensive!
Post 10 made on Sunday January 8, 2006 at 19:16
cma
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
August 2003
3,044
Another thing - Native Americans find your "joke"
offensive!

What do Native Americans have to do with anything in this thread?
Post 11 made on Sunday January 8, 2006 at 23:36
Ernie Bornn-Gilman
Yes, That Ernie!
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
30,104
On January 1, 2006 at 11:36, tunesandmore said...
Another thing - Native Americans find your "joke"
offensive!

Sounds like they might.

So name two. Real ones. Who don't make their livings trying to get air time to say just this and only this.

This reminds me of the apparently small but LOUD group that wants to get rid of Indian-named teams and mascots, the general population who seem to be proud that their positive characteristics are (generally) being touted when Indian names are used, and the old Indian whom I saw on TV once, saying "they can start calling me a Native American when I stop calling myself an Indian."

While generalities are often a good way to understand the world, it is good to understand the complexity of the issue and see if perhaps the generality you are quoting is based on a wide swath of experience, or based on what someone with an agenda wants you to parrot.

For instance, do you REALLY think Jesse Jackson speaks for more than a handful of blacks? Remember -- if things get better for blacks, or if he admits that they have gotten better, he is out of a job!
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw
Post 12 made on Monday January 9, 2006 at 10:20
Spiky
Founding Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
2,288
There's a great cartoon reprinted in a schoolbook of mine. One uh....fairly dark-skinned kid is talking to another kid: "My grandpa is a negro, my dad is black, and my mom is African-American. I can't wait to find out what I am."

This country needs to get a grip. Esp tunesandmore. I know one Jew who would find that joke offensive. Does that mean anything?
(See, she finds all jokes offensive, she really ought to have picked up a sense of humor a few decades ago. Probably too late now that she's retired. Oh, well.)
Post 13 made on Thursday January 12, 2006 at 16:13
barlow
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2004
535
The formula is that famous one parodied by the joke with a punch line something like "the squaw of the hippopotamus is equal to the sum of the squaws of the other two hides." That is, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. This is the Pythagorean Theorem showing the relationships among the three sides of a triangle with a 90 degree corner,

Ernie,

Maybe next time you will have to just quote the version the Tin Man used in Wizard of OZ.

-Don


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse