Anyone else miss 4:3 rear projection TVs?

You should really just get a 65 inch or larger 4k like all non poor people.

Having gigantic obscenely large and ugly "entertainment centers" and giant shitty built in speakers made theme so large since it was large shitty bulky setup especially with old surround speakers that were gigantic. They were shitty take off your nostalgia goggles.

>>60950680
The speakers are there to make use of the space the TV would take up anyway, behind the speakers are the projectors.

>>60950635

nope absolutely not

paying 10k+ for a big dull 320x240 smeared image with terrible chroma bleed from a composite input that was the only thing around back then.... nope....just nope

All the worst aspects of projection attempted to be worked in an environment not meant for it. Yeah sure, totally miss going to a friend's house to play some games only to see a reflection of our dumb faces.

>>60951054

Not neccessarily the video quality, but 4:3 just felt BIGGER

>>60952005
It is. For any given screen size a 4:3 monitor will have a larger area than a widescreen one. The closer it gets to 1:1, the bigger the area is. a 20" 5:4 monitor is larger than a 20" 4:3 monitor, which is larger than a 20" 3:2 monitor, and so on.

>>60950635
No, they had a shit picture quality. Only people 19 and under fawn over bullshit old tech.

shiity blacks

>>60950635
Yes and no.
I hated that for optimal experience one had to sit facing the television directly. I do miss tube televisions though...although that's just nostalgia.

I remember the first time I saw an LCD 1080P flat screen and thinking how awesome porn must look on it.

I was not disappointed in my assumption.

>>60952026

It's one reason I still hold onto my 16:10 Dell monitor, it makes every other widescreen monitor feel like i'm playing through Cyclop's visor versus a gateway into another world.

File: 1496453941225.jpg (108KB, 500x565px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 500x565px

>>60951054
>320x240 smeared image
NTSC sources (broadcast, VHS, Laserdisc, etc) had 480 visible lines per frame, but had varying horizontal resolution. With VHS being around 200 horizontal irresolution and Laserdisc and broadcast NTSC being above 400 lines horizontal.

>>60952258
> 480 visible vertical lines per frame

>>60950635
Image quality on these was absolute shit tier, so no.

>>60950635
Ugh. No, not in the least. But, if you still want one, Craig's List is FILLED with them for free. But, you usually need to haul one of these monstrosities out without the owner's help.

>>60950635
Ever tried to move one of these things? Way to big and heavy, and for that reason I'm out

>>60950667
>rich people use televisions

Hahaha

>>60950667
>or larger 4k like all non poor people.
To watch what? So I can watch price is right in upscaled 4k?

>>60952393
This. I'm poor and even I recognize that TV's apart from myself personally needing noise when I sleep, are fucking useless brainwashing zombie enducing devices.

Literally TV's, especially cable, are the worst thing you can do to yourself. Worse than meth. At least meth will actually make you do shit outside.

i feel like the height of the screen matters more for perceived size than the diagonal. so a 50" 4:3 screen will feel about the same size as a 60" 16:9 screen.

File: 9879613.jpg (171KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1000x541px

>>60950635