4:3 vs 16:9 anamorphic over the same surface area

[andykara2003]

I have a question regarding image quality in 16:9 vs 4:3:

In an imagined scenario, say I have two CRT TVs - both are progressive scan, but one is a 4:3 ratio and the other is 16:9. Both TVs are sized so that they have the exact same screen surface area and both are being fed a similar progressive signal. The 16:9 TV is fed an anamorphic widescreen image from a Gamecube game for example. Using another Gamecube, the 4:3 TV is fed an image from the same game in 4:3 mode.

Because both screens have exactly the same surface area and are being fed the same amount of pixels, they are both displaying at the same pixel density per unit area - the only difference is the 16:9 display has shorter and wider pixels.


My question is this:

Even though these TVs are outputting at the same pixel density, will the 16:9 image inherently look worse due to the wider pixels creating a 'stepped' effect or will they look close to identical in image quality?

Cheers..

[Fudoh]

That's a weird comparison, because giving them the same screen area means you're reducing the 16:9 image in height - thus increasing the vertical resolution per inch on the widescreen set.

[andykara2003]

Exactly - the 16:9 set will be shorter and wider than the 4:3 set. What I'm trying to understand is are there other aspects or quality of an anamorphic 16:9 image other than basic pixel density that makes it inherently less desirable than a 4:3 image.

I'm interested because some people are adamant that 4:3 is the only way to play these games, even if they have a 16:9 option. I realise that if you compare a 16:9 image to a 4:3 image of the game on the same screen, the 4:3 image will look better due to the higher pixel density - but I'm wondering if there are other contributing factors that degrade the image quality when viewing in anamorphic widescreen, i.e. the odd, rectangular pixel shape.

I'd like to find out because I'm thinking of buying a widescreen CRT for 16:9 480p games. Because anamorphic 16:9 seems to have a bad reputation, I'd want to mitigate any potential loss of IQ by making sure I get a 16:9 TV in a size that will match the same image quality as my 4:3 31khz CRTs, whether it either just means adjusting the size to match the pixel densities or if there are any other contributing factors from the anamorphic image. If having the same pixel density is the only factor determining the differences in 16:9 and 4:3 IQ, I can calculate, for example, that a 30" 16:9 will have almost exactly the same image quality as my 28" 4:3 Metz due to having a nearly identical screen surface area.

It just means I can confidently make a choice about what size 16:9 CRT to buy, knowing that it'll have the same basic image clarity as my 4:3 TVs running the same games. If there are other aspects to a 16:9 anamorphic image that degrade the perceived image, then I'd need to go for a slightly smaller 16:9 to allow for this... or even eschew 16:9 anamorphic completely in favour of 4:3.

[Fudoh]

In your scenario it would be fine.

All claims that 4:3 is better (this includes statements by me) are comparing 4:3 and 16:9 *on the same screen*.

The problem is that once you have a 16:9 screen, you can ALWAYS reduce the image to 4:3 and with that you get better quality, so the real problem here is your scenario

[andykara2003]

Thanks v. much for that - as I suspected :) Confirms my thoughts that a 32" 16:9 should be the way to go for me then.

[Ikaruga11]

16:9 anamorphic widescreen on the GameCube and Wii isn't necessarily bad by any means. In fact, enabling it gives you more FOV (Field of View) from games that support it, meaning you can see more of the "world" inside the game.



The only issue is that you're stretching a 4:3 resolution to 16:9. You have non-square pixels and a lower pixel density.