Widescreen TV size to show 4:3 material same size as current 68cm set ?

[hb]

What size widescreen TV would you need to buy in order to show 4:3
material the same size as my current 68cm 4:3 set ? Some of the 76(?) cm
widescreen sets I've seen at friends house look an awful lot smaller than my
current cheap TV when showing 4:3 material.

TIA.

[BenOne©]

hb wrote:

> What size widescreen TV would you need to buy in order to show 4:3
> material the same size as my current 68cm 4:3 set ? Some of the 76(?) cm
> widescreen sets I've seen at friends house look an awful lot smaller than my
> current cheap TV when showing 4:3 material.
>
> TIA.
>
>

90 i think.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[Joan]

Diagonal Width Height Diagonal Width Height
Quoted in cm Diagonal
4:3
5 4 3 1.97 1.57 1.18
34 27 20 13.39 10.63 7.87
51 41 31 20.08 16.14 12.2
59 47 35 23.23 18.5 13.78
68 54 41 26.77 21.26 16.14
80 64 48 31.5 25.2 18.9
16:9
18 16 9 7.09 6.3 3.54
76 68 38 29.92 26.77 14.96
86 76 43 33.86 29.92 16.93

Quoted in inches
4:3
53 42 32 21 16.54 12.6

16:9
66 59 33 26 23.23 12.99
81 72 41 32 28.35 16.14
94 84 47 37 33.07 18.5
107 95 54 42 37.4 21.26
127 113 64 50 44.49 25.2



If you want the spreadsheet formulae, they are quite simple and can post them here.

--
Joan.

"hb" <benben@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:Paxkd.31673$K7.10118@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
> What size widescreen TV would you need to buy in order to show 4:3
> material the same size as my current 68cm 4:3 set ? Some of the 76(?) cm
> widescreen sets I've seen at friends house look an awful lot smaller than my
> current cheap TV when showing 4:3 material.
>
> TIA.
>
>

[Mike]

hb wrote:
> What size widescreen TV would you need to buy in order to show 4:3
> material the same size as my current 68cm 4:3 set ?

You want the same height. A 68cm has a theoretical height of 40.8cm.
(3/5 x 68). Pythagorus reckons that the same as an 83cm widescreen.

[Geoff Walker]

This is all good old Pythagoras, where the square of the hypotenuse is
the sum of the squares of the other two sides.

The quoted size of any screen is the hypotenuse, or diagonal, of a right
angled triangle. For a 4:3 screen the hypotenuse is simply 5 (=ˆ(16 +
9), and for a 16:9 screen the hypotenuse is ˆ(256 + 81) = 18.36.

For the 4:3 material to be the same size you want the height of the
picture to be the same in both cases, so therefore magnify the 4:3
screen to 12:9 with a hypotenuse of 15. This means that the hypotenuse
of a 16:9 screen is 18.36/15 = 1.24 times that of the same height 4:3
screen.

Consequently, in the case of a 68cm 4:3 screen the corresponding 16:9
screen has a diagonal of 68cm x 1.24 = 84.3cm.

Cheers,
Geoff

In article <Ewzkd.31812$K7.4835@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Joan" <joan@myplace.com> wrote:

> Diagonal Width Height Diagonal Width Height
> Quoted in cm Diagonal
> 4:3
> 5 4 3 1.97 1.57 1.18
> 34 27 20 13.39 10.63 7.87
> 51 41 31 20.08 16.14 12.2
> 59 47 35 23.23 18.5 13.78
> 68 54 41 26.77 21.26 16.14
> 80 64 48 31.5 25.2 18.9
> 16:9
> 18 16 9 7.09 6.3 3.54
> 76 68 38 29.92 26.77 14.96
> 86 76 43 33.86 29.92 16.93
>
> Quoted in inches
> 4:3
> 53 42 32 21 16.54 12.6
>
> 16:9
> 66 59 33 26 23.23 12.99
> 81 72 41 32 28.35 16.14
> 94 84 47 37 33.07 18.5
> 107 95 54 42 37.4 21.26
> 127 113 64 50 44.49 25.2
>
>
>
> If you want the spreadsheet formulae, they are quite simple and can post them
> here.

[Joan]

Of course it is. It just appeared that the OP didn't know how to work it
out.

--
Joan.
http://joan.colley.name:85
"Geoff Walker" <inv@l.id> wrote in message
news:inv-B55835.18305011112004@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> This is all good old Pythagoras, where the square of the hypotenuse is
> the sum of the squares of the other two sides.
>

[das]

Actually, it's 83.2cm (without all the waffle)... ;-)

sqrt(9^2+16^2)/9*3/5*68

Cheers,
Darren

"Geoff Walker" <inv@l.id> wrote in message
news:inv-B55835.18305011112004@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> This is all good old Pythagoras, where the square of the hypotenuse is
> the sum of the squares of the other two sides.
>
> The quoted size of any screen is the hypotenuse, or diagonal, of a right
> angled triangle. For a 4:3 screen the hypotenuse is simply 5 (=^(16 +
> 9), and for a 16:9 screen the hypotenuse is ^(256 + 81) = 18.36.
>
> For the 4:3 material to be the same size you want the height of the
> picture to be the same in both cases, so therefore magnify the 4:3
> screen to 12:9 with a hypotenuse of 15. This means that the hypotenuse
> of a 16:9 screen is 18.36/15 = 1.24 times that of the same height 4:3
> screen.
>
> Consequently, in the case of a 68cm 4:3 screen the corresponding 16:9
> screen has a diagonal of 68cm x 1.24 = 84.3cm.
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
> In article <Ewzkd.31812$K7.4835@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> "Joan" <joan@myplace.com> wrote:
>
>> Diagonal Width Height Diagonal Width Height
>> Quoted in cm Diagonal
>> 4:3
>> 5 4 3 1.97 1.57 1.18
>> 34 27 20 13.39 10.63 7.87
>> 51 41 31 20.08 16.14 12.2
>> 59 47 35 23.23 18.5 13.78
>> 68 54 41 26.77 21.26 16.14
>> 80 64 48 31.5 25.2 18.9
>> 16:9
>> 18 16 9 7.09 6.3 3.54
>> 76 68 38 29.92 26.77 14.96
>> 86 76 43 33.86 29.92 16.93
>>
>> Quoted in inches
>> 4:3
>> 53 42 32 21 16.54 12.6
>>
>> 16:9
>> 66 59 33 26 23.23 12.99
>> 81 72 41 32 28.35 16.14
>> 94 84 47 37 33.07 18.5
>> 107 95 54 42 37.4 21.26
>> 127 113 64 50 44.49 25.2
>>
>>
>>
>> If you want the spreadsheet formulae, they are quite simple and can post
>> them
>> here.

[Joan]

But they don't make TVs that size.

--
Joan.

"das" <mad_s14@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mxGkd.32315$K7.31713@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Actually, it's 83.2cm (without all the waffle)... ;-)
>
> sqrt(9^2+16^2)/9*3/5*68
>
> Cheers,
> Darren
>

[Samual]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 01:47:16 GMT, "Joan" <joan@myplace.com> wrote:

> Diagonal Width Height Diagonal Width Height
> Quoted in cm Diagonal
> 4:3
> 5 4 3 1.97 1.57 1.18
> 34 27 20 13.39 10.63 7.87
> 51 41 31 20.08 16.14 12.2
> 59 47 35 23.23 18.5 13.78
> 68 54 41 26.77 21.26 16.14
> 80 64 48 31.5 25.2 18.9
> 16:9
> 18 16 9 7.09 6.3 3.54
> 76 68 38 29.92 26.77 14.96
> 86 76 43 33.86 29.92 16.93
>
> Quoted in inches
> 4:3
> 53 42 32 21 16.54 12.6
>
> 16:9
> 66 59 33 26 23.23 12.99
> 81 72 41 32 28.35 16.14
> 94 84 47 37 33.07 18.5
> 107 95 54 42 37.4 21.26
> 127 113 64 50 44.49 25.2
>
>
>
>If you want the spreadsheet formulae, they are quite simple and can post them here.

Stop post in HTML dimwit



What the original poster is after is either a Panasonic or Sony 86cm
widescreen set. When showing 4:3 they are very close in size to a 68cm
set.

They cost from $3-$4,000


Sam

[Joan]

Are you suggesting that no other brand makes a set that size?
The OP asked the size not the brand.
The HTML post was used to keep the columns in line. It worked and didn't
hurt anyone. If you can't read it then the problem is yours not mine. If
you want to stay in the dark ages WRT news posting, then stay there.

--
Joan.

"Samual" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:41933ca2$0$43746$892e7fe2@authen.puce.readfre enews.net...
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 01:47:16 GMT, "Joan" <joan@myplace.com> wrote:
>
>
> Stop post in HTML dimwit
>
>
>
> What the original poster is after is either a Panasonic or Sony 86cm
> widescreen set. When showing 4:3 they are very close in size to a 68cm
> set.
>
> They cost from $3-$4,000
>
>
> Sam
>

[Samual]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:57:20 GMT, "Joan" <joan@myplace.com> wrote:

>Are you suggesting that no other brand makes a set that size?
>The OP asked the size not the brand.

I was giving a solution rather then a maths lesson.

Apart from the Sony or Panasonic all the other 86cm+ CRT's are crap or
expensive or both.

>The HTML post was used to keep the columns in line. It worked and didn't
>hurt anyone. If you can't read it then the problem is yours not mine. If
>you want to stay in the dark ages WRT news posting, then stay there.

USENET is a text based system, if you are worried about the darkages
then piss off to web based forums. Or join a friendly womens
discussion group.

Even the newbie loser client of choice, Outlook Express defaults to
text for USENET postings.

Have a look at the size of your HTML posting, 982 lines as opposed to
16 in your text posting. What a waste of bandwidth.


Sam

[BenOne©]

Joan wrote:

> Are you suggesting that no other brand makes a set that size?
> The OP asked the size not the brand.
> The HTML post was used to keep the columns in line. It worked and didn't
> hurt anyone. If you can't read it then the problem is yours not mine. If
> you want to stay in the dark ages WRT news posting, then stay there.
>

Plain text has been and will always be the preferred format for UseNet postings.
Just set your editor to a fixed width font and you'll easily be able to lay out
the columns.

The reason for no HTML is it adds to the size of posts considerably. If everyone
started doing it a lot of servers would have to stop carrying newsgroups because
of the increased costs of transmission and storage.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[Joan]

Change your ISP or your internet plan or both, if that small volume is a
problem to you.
Maybe take a good look at all your usage.
Don't make assumptions about my interests. You will certainly be wrong.

--
Joan.
"Samual" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:41942802$0$52742$892e7fe2@authen.puce.readfre enews.net...
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:57:20 GMT, "Joan" <joan@myplace.com> wrote:
>

[Geoff Walker]

You're right of course!

18.36/15 = 1.224, not 1.24. And 1.224 x 68 = 83.2 - how embarrassing -
serves me right for relying on mental arithmetic after a nice red!

Thanks,
Geoff

In article <mxGkd.32315$K7.31713@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"das" <mad_s14@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, it's 83.2cm (without all the waffle)... ;-)
>
> sqrt(9^2+16^2)/9*3/5*68
>
> Cheers,
> Darren
>
> "Geoff Walker" <inv@l.id> wrote in message
> news:inv-B55835.18305011112004@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > This is all good old Pythagoras, where the square of the hypotenuse is
> > the sum of the squares of the other two sides.
> >
> > The quoted size of any screen is the hypotenuse, or diagonal, of a right
> > angled triangle. For a 4:3 screen the hypotenuse is simply 5 (=^(16 +
> > 9), and for a 16:9 screen the hypotenuse is ^(256 + 81) = 18.36.
> >
> > For the 4:3 material to be the same size you want the height of the
> > picture to be the same in both cases, so therefore magnify the 4:3
> > screen to 12:9 with a hypotenuse of 15. This means that the hypotenuse
> > of a 16:9 screen is 18.36/15 = 1.24 times that of the same height 4:3
> > screen.
> >
> > Consequently, in the case of a 68cm 4:3 screen the corresponding 16:9
> > screen has a diagonal of 68cm x 1.24 = 84.3cm.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Geoff
> >

[Samual]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:04:36 GMT, "Joan" <joan@myplace.com> wrote:

>Change your ISP or your internet plan or both, if that small volume is a
>problem to you.
>Maybe take a good look at all your usage.
>Don't make assumptions about my interests. You will certainly be wrong.

It is not problem for me individually as I am on broadband but surely
even someone as technically illiterate as you would realise that if
everyone on USENET increased the size of their postings by 6000% there
would be a problem.


Sam

[Joan]

You are making assumptions again. You are wrong.

"Samual" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:41958384$0$14770$892e7fe2@authen.puce.readfre enews.net...
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:04:36 GMT, "Joan" <joan@myplace.com> wrote:
>
> >Change your ISP or your internet plan or both, if that small volume is a
> >problem to you.
> >Maybe take a good look at all your usage.
> >Don't make assumptions about my interests. You will certainly be wrong.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^
>
> It is not problem for me individually as I am on broadband but surely
> even someone as technically illiterate as you would realise that if
> everyone on USENET increased the size of their postings by 6000% there
> would be a problem.
>
>
> Sam

[Mr Walker]

Joan wrote:
> You are making assumptions again. You are wrong.
>
> "Samual" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
> news:41958384$0$14770$892e7fe2@authen.puce.readfre enews.net...
> > On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:04:36 GMT, "Joan" <joan@myplace.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Change your ISP or your internet plan or both, if that small
> > > volume is a problem to you.
> > > Maybe take a good look at all your usage.
> > > Don't make assumptions about my interests. You will certainly be
> > > wrong.
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^
> >
> > It is not problem for me individually as I am on broadband but
> > surely even someone as technically illiterate as you would realise
> > that if everyone on USENET increased the size of their postings by
> > 6000% there would be a problem.
> >
> >
> > Sam

Spear him, Joan. :-).

Cheers, Dom.

[Samual]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 04:05:27 GMT, "Joan" <joan@myplace.com> wrote:

>You are making assumptions again. You are wrong.

Hmmm ... Yes, I thought you would realise the obvious

I was wrong.


Sam