Your TV sucks! (Wrong aspect ratio and shape)

[Warm Gun]

Originally Posted by jvonl

Why, yes I did, and I kinda regret the loss of time. Because it makes no sense. But by all means carry on (or get a bigger tv or a projector).

You didn't read the thread. You don't understand constant image height. If you get a bigger TV that makes scope movies fill your vision up more, then other common ratios like 1.85, 1.66 and 1.3 will be too close, too big. Bringing the TV closer or getting a bigger TV will also make more obvious that it's ****ing flat. The image gets skewed, bulges out in the center.

[jvonl]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

You didn't read the thread. You don't understand constant image height. If you get a bigger TV that makes scope movies fill your vision up more, then other common ratios like 1.85, 1.66 and 1.3 will be too close, too big. Bringing the TV closer or getting a bigger TV will also make more obvious that it's ****ing flat. The image gets skewed, bulges out in the center.

I did read. I do understand. I just don't care. Good picture? Check. Good sound? Check. Good enough for me, thanks. Why obsess about an "issue" that has no viable solution (short of a projector)? Good luck with your "white whale", I see no further point to be made.

[Vilya]

There's no pleasing the OP.

He does not like any of the display choices available and nothing anyone can say is going to change their dislike. He wants something that is not being made, so good luck helping him with that.

He should try to get outside more and maybe yell at some nice puffy white clouds obstructing his view of what should be a uniformly clear blue sky. He will be as successful with that as he is in getting a 21:9 TV.

[crutzulee]

Reading through this thread has given me a chuckle as I really can see both sides of this...

I don't know about conspiracies or having the TV manufacturers make multiple aspect ratio screens (Jesus, it took them forever just to get to 16:9..LOL) but for those of you casting aspersions about the OP's mental state, I have a few exes that have given me that "look" over the years over the lengths I've gone to to bring the cinema home...LOL

From the massive console TV I dug out of someone's trash that took up the entirety of the basement apartment I shared with a girl in highschool, through my girlfriend in University who came home to find me balancing a 50" RCA rear projection screen on a couple of office chairs ( I was trying to make sure that I maximized the cinematic view of my letterboxed LaserDiscs on a 4:3 screen) through an ex wife shaking her head at the "custom" mattes that I made for each aspect ratio (and the preparation time this took each and every time we sat down to watch a movie). This carried through on various projectors from a big 3 gun SONY CRT, through DLPs at 480i,720p,1080p,4K,4KHDR units until I finally got my first JVC...The ironic part is that unless the movie is in the TODD AO ratio, I now ALWAYS have black bars...and although I have mattes built, I can't remember when I last used them... Of course my present wife of 25 years totally gets why the entire room and ceiling tiles are painted jet black and why I have blacked out material covering the ceiling and walls a few feet out from the screen..LOL...... It looks like hell with the lights up...but when a movie fades to black..It's like being in a sensory deprivation chamber... which according to some of you is right where I belong...

[Warm Gun]

Originally Posted by crutzulee

Reading through this thread has given me a chuckle as I really can see both sides of this...

I don't know about conspiracies or having the TV manufacturers make multiple aspect ratio screens (Jesus, it took them forever just to get to 16:9..LOL) but for those of you casting aspersions about the OP's mental state, I have a few exes that have given me that "look" over the years over the lengths I've gone to to bring the cinema home...LOL

From the massive console TV I dug out of someone's trash that took up the entirety of the basement apartment I shared with a girl in highschool, through my girlfriend in University who came home to find me balancing a 50" RCA rear projection screen on a couple of office chairs ( I was trying to make sure that I maximized the cinematic view of my letterboxed LaserDiscs on a 4:3 screen) through an ex wife shaking her head at the "custom" mattes that I made for each aspect ratio (and the preparation time this took each and every time we sat down to watch a movie). This carried through on various projectors from a big 3 gun SONY CRT, through DLPs at 480i,720p,1080p,4K,4KHDR units until I finally got my first JVC...The ironic part is that unless the movie is in the TODD AO ratio, I now ALWAYS have black bars...and although I have mattes built, I can't remember when I last used them... Of course my present wife of 25 years totally gets why the entire room and ceiling tiles are painted jet black and why I have blacked out material covering the ceiling and walls a few feet out from the screen..LOL...... It looks like hell with the lights up...but when a movie fades to black..It's like being in a sensory deprivation chamber... which according to some of you is right where I belong...

I did make clunky black mattes that attached with velcro to the bezels of my Sony X900E LED before I replaced it with a Sony A80K OLED.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by crutzulee

I have a few exes that have given me that "look" over the years over the lengths I've gone to to bring the cinema home...LOL

Of course my present wife of 25 years totally gets why the entire room and ceiling tiles are painted jet black and why I have blacked out material covering the ceiling and walls a few feet out from the screen..LOL...... It looks like hell with the lights up...but when a movie fades to black..It's like being in a sensory deprivation chamber.

Except that the cinema experience never involved watching movies in a pitch black room. There are always at least enough lights on so that people can find their way to the emergency exits and, of course, the concession stand.

I'm pretty sure that commercial cinemas never offered adjustable beds for seating, either.

To your creative credit, you did a whole lot more than just bring the cinema home; you customized and tailored it to become your idyllic movie viewing environment.

More to the point, you made the best out of the options available to you and created a home theater that you love instead of just complaining that electronics manufacturers are not making what you want. You made what you wanted a reality through your own ingenuity instead of shaking your fist at the heavens and spinning silly conspiracy theories.

[jvonl]

Originally Posted by crutzulee

Reading through this thread has given me a chuckle as I really can see both sides of this...

It's like being in a sensory deprivation chamber... which according to some of you is right where I belong...

I believe part of the both sides divide boils down to age. Having just rounded three-quarters of a century, I grew up when movies were in theaters only. If you were lucky a movie you liked might show up (usually trimmed poorly) on TV someday. When VHS arrived it was transformative! I was in heaven, my bank account not so much. Remember $500 VCR's and $100 tapes? Wonder how much that is in today's dollars. Then DVD (Wow what a picture), then Blu (Wow what sound), then 4K ( Wow Atmos). Through all of that, I have remained absolutely thrilled that I have movies and a little theater IN MY HOME! I think that sense of wonder is lost to anyone who grew up with movies at their fingertips. So, many of the things/complaints that I read about here just make me shake my head and laugh. Really? That's a problem? You have movies in your home! Perfection is generally unobtainable, so I "settle" for the best that I can achieve. It makes me happy, and I hope the thrill and appreciation never go away.

As for that last part, if I had a dollar for every time someone told me "You know you're nuts, right?", just think of the theater that I could build....

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by jvonl

then 4K ( Wow Atmos).

At 63, I have experienced what you described. Having gone from trying to tune in a movie with an outdoor aerial antenna in order to watch a cropped version of a movie on a 19" CRT TV to being able to readily enjoy 4K discs on my 85" 16:9 4K TV replete with 5.1.4 surround sound has made me immeasurably grateful for how great I have it now as a movie enthusiast.

As for Atmos sound, there is no technical reason why it can not be included on regular blu-ray discs. It's restriction to 4K discs is a marketing tactic and nothing more.

[the-pi-guy]

With VR/etc, we could have dynamic virtual screens that can be of any size or aspect ratio. For those who can handle it.

[crutzulee]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Except that the cinema experience never involved watching movies in a pitch black room. There are always at least enough lights on so that people can find their way to the emergency exits and, of course, the concession stand.

I'm pretty sure that commercial cinemas never offered adjustable beds for seating, either.

To your creative credit, you did a whole lot more than just bring the cinema home; you customized and tailored it to become your idyllic movie viewing environment.

More to the point, you made the best out of the options available to you and created a home theater that you love instead of just complaining that electronics manufacturers are not making what you want. You made what you wanted a reality through your own ingenuity instead of shaking your fist at the heavens and spinning silly conspiracy theories.

The blacking out of the surrounding room is about the perceived contrast ratio differences between home viewing and going to the cinema... although, when I still attended, I definitely favoured certain auditoriums over others based on a number of ambient factors, including lighting... I can still picture the worst offenders with EXIT signs in the audience's field of view or entrances that would wash out the projected image as people exited or entered...That having been said, my HT journey became far more enjoyable than I ever thought possible once I STOPPED trying to bring the cinema experience home. I've created something BETTER than what I remember...and from what I read about over in the MOVIE THEATERS thread on this site, and from what my kids tell me, it's better than whats going on right now!

[steel_breeze]

I can certainly relate to the OP's thoughts on the value of "constant height" but have NO problem with projectors as the solution. Love my 92-inch 2.35:1 screen -- with my Velcro matte-black panels I hang for 1.85, 1.66, 1.37, or 1.33 : 1. Only common ratio I don't have side panels for is 2.20:1 'cuz they'd be so slim, but those titles play just fine in the pitch-black of the screening room.

It really does bug me how scope movies becomes the "smaller" option on a 16x9 television. Projectors are the way to go! I'm an eccentric loony who continues to cycle through my collection in chronological order every two-and-a-half years or so, and I love those moments when 1.33/1.37 becomes 1.66/1.85 (On The Waterfront and then Rear Window, for me)... and then opens all the way up for the first time to 2.35:1 for Forbidden Planet. Yyyyeah baby.

[apricissimus]

If wide aspect ratios are too small because the TV isn't wide enough, then why aren't narrow aspect ratios too small because the TV isn't tall enough?

It doesn't make sense.

If you think your picture is too small, I don't know what to tell you except buy a bigger TV.

[crutzulee]

Originally Posted by steel_breeze

I can certainly relate to the OP's thoughts on the value of "constant height" but have NO problem with projectors as the solution. Love my 92-inch 2.35:1 screen -- with my Velcro matte-black panels I hang for 1.85, 1.66, 1.37, or 1.33 : 1. Only common ratio I don't have side panels for is 2.20:1 'cuz they'd be so slim, but those titles play just fine in the pitch-black of the screening room.

It really does bug me how scope movies becomes the "smaller" option on a 16x9 television. Projectors are the way to go! I'm an eccentric loony who continues to cycle through my collection in chronological order every two-and-a-half years or so, and I love those moments when 1.33/1.37 becomes 1.66/1.85 (On The Waterfront and then Rear Window, for me)... and then opens all the way up for the first time to 2.35:1 for Forbidden Planet. Yyyyeah baby.

Scope movies appearing "smaller" on a 16x9 display was a primary driver in the evolution of my HT as I too loved when a cinema would "open" up it's curtains or mattes for the main attraction. When I say that I've created something "better" in my home, it is partly because, as I understand it, some modern theaters are now employing 16:9 screens and projecting scope movies on them.

[steel_breeze]

Originally Posted by crutzulee

Scope movies appearing "smaller" on a 16x9 display was a primary driver in the evolution of my HT as I too loved when a cinema would "open" up it's curtains or mattes for the main attraction. When I say that I've created something "better" in my home, it is partly because, as I understand it, some modern theaters are now employing 16:9 screens and projecting scope movies on them.

Word. I love watching old B&W 1.33:1 Flash Gordon serials before the main feature in my constant-image-height projection room, especially when that feature is 2.35:1... and especially especially before something like a Star Wars flick. It's such a "wow" moment when that big scope movie hits.

[Warm Gun]

Originally Posted by apricissimus

If wide aspect ratios are too small because the TV isn't wide enough, then why aren't narrow aspect ratios too small because the TV isn't tall enough?

It doesn't make sense.

If you think your picture is too small, I don't know what to tell you except buy a bigger TV.

It's not complicated. All you do is take the same 16:9 TV that you already have and then widen it to 21:9. Just like in a cinema with curtains/masks on the sides. You don't change the height of the TV and you don't change the distance. Movies with narrow aspect ratios are then just as big as before and movies with wide aspect ratios simply open up to the sides. Getting a bigger TV than your space can handle for just wider movies is dumb, and many spaces can't accommodate projectors either.

Apparently, I needed to make this.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

... many spaces can't accommodate projectors either.

There are short throw and ultra short throw projectors that supposedly do a pretty good job and these will work even in very small rooms.

The Hisense PX3-PRO can project a 90" image just 6.6 inches from the screen. It can project an image from 80"-150", including 130" at a distance of just 14.3 inches from the screen.

Review here:

https://www.rtings.com/projector/rev...3-pro#page-top

I singled this model out because at least three different review sites picked it out as their favorite:

https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best...test_variant=B

https://www.projectorcentral.com/Hisense-PX3-PRO.htm

There are plenty of other makes and models at varying price points to choose from as well.

There are options available that give you the aspect ratio control that you want, but it is becoming apparent that you are not looking for solutions. It looks like you are just here to complain that there are no 21:9 TVs on the market, yet alone ones with a curved screen.

I wonder if you have made any effort to contact any of the TV manufacturers about what you want to see in a TV or if you are just here to ? Before you repeat your "it's a conspiracy" nonsense did you even try reaching out to them with your oh-so compelling arguments? I doubt that it would accomplish much, but you sure as hell aren't accomplishing anything here beyond maybe venting some of your frustration.

Your choices remain as they were before: 16:9 TVs or projectors or ineffectual complaining.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by steel_breeze

I can certainly relate to the OP's thoughts on the value of "constant height" but have NO problem with projectors as the solution.

Solving a problem, i.e.: constant image height, is rewarding. You and crutzulee both made it happen by opting to use a projector.

I would like to try one myself, but there will be no complete overhauls of my viewing environment due to my failing health, but that is ok as I genuinely enjoy what I do have. I did add my first subwoofer to my system and I am very glad that I did, but it will be my last upgrade.

[apricissimus]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

It's not complicated. All you do is take the same 16:9 TV that you already have and then widen it to 21:9. Just like in a cinema with curtains/masks on the sides. You don't change the height of the TV and you don't change the distance. Movies with narrow aspect ratios are then just as big as before and movies with wide aspect ratios simply open up to the sides. Getting a bigger TV than your space can handle for just wider movies is dumb, and many spaces can't accommodate projectors either.

Apparently, I needed to make this.

[Show spoiler]

I've literally never heard anyone else complain that their TV isn't wide enough. I suspect you're the only one with this problem. Or at least you're in a small minority.

I think you're out of luck.

[pacfwu]

You guys can have your CIH vs CIW arguments. From my perspective, the CIH argument ignores the taller aspects of IMAX expanded scenes either being cropped off or projected down and taking up the same screen real estate as the news, and the CIW argument makes Star Wars smaller than the news.

But the best part of this hobby is that for everyone's personal taste, there's a solution and no one is really wrong in their preference until they say everyone else is with theirs.

I found the least amount of compromise FOR ME in a constant area screen (2.07:1) with 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 manual masking panels. If I want Lethal Weapon to be narrower than Star Wars, I mask to 2.35 and project a 1.85 image with pillar boxes. If I want Jurassic Park to be taller than Tag, then I mask for 1.78 and go full height. I can mask Top Gun: Maverick to 2.35 and eliminate black bars and crop out the IMAX expanded portions, I can mask it to 1.85 and have fat letterboxing for the bulk of the movie and slim letterboxing for the 1.90:1 IMAX, or I can run unmasked and watch with slim letterboxing top and bottom or side/side depending on the scope of the screen as the processor uses its auto-aspect function. Then what's wide is wide and what's tall is tall and it's all pretty close to the same overall viewable area. I could add additional masking if I like, but I'm finding this satisfactory for now.

I can clearly relate to the OP's gripe, but expecting a niche complaint about a specific use-case (remember, TVs are required by the broader consumer base to display a variety of content and not just for replaying theatrical movies) to be an argument for TVs suck and are the wrong shape is begging the question. I think TVs are sub-optimal for re-watching theatrical movies as the artist originally intended because the light comes from the wrong direction and the image surface is glossy. But I'm not going to say everyone is wrong for doing it as there are a lot of benefits to TVs and bring less compromise to the what the average person cares about.

[crutzulee]

Originally Posted by pacfwu

You guys can have your CIH vs CIW arguments. From my perspective, the CIH argument ignores the taller aspects of IMAX expanded scenes either being cropped off or projected down and taking up the same screen real estate as the news, and the CIW argument makes Star Wars smaller than the news.

But the best part of this hobby is that for everyone's personal taste, there's a solution and no one is really wrong in their preference until they say everyone else is with theirs.

I found the least amount of compromise FOR ME in a constant area screen (2.07:1) with 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 manual masking panels. If I want Lethal Weapon to be narrower than Star Wars, I mask to 2.35 and project a 1.85 image with pillar boxes. If I want Jurassic Park to be taller than Tag, then I mask for 1.78 and go full height. I can mask Top Gun: Maverick to 2.35 and eliminate black bars and crop out the IMAX expanded portions, I can mask it to 1.85 and have fat letterboxing for the bulk of the movie and slim letterboxing for the 1.90:1 IMAX, or I can run unmasked and watch with slim letterboxing top and bottom or side/side depending on the scope of the screen as the processor uses its auto-aspect function. Then what's wide is wide and what's tall is tall and it's all pretty close to the same overall viewable area. I could add additional masking if I like, but I'm finding this satisfactory for now.

I can clearly relate to the OP's gripe, but expecting a niche complaint about a specific use-case (remember, TVs are required by the broader consumer base to display a variety of content and not just for replaying theatrical movies) to be an argument for TVs suck and are the wrong shape is begging the question. I think TVs are sub-optimal for re-watching theatrical movies as the artist originally intended because the light comes from the wrong direction and the image surface is glossy. But I'm not going to say everyone is wrong for doing it as there are a lot of benefits to TVs and bring less compromise to the what the average person cares about.

I agree with virtually all of this..although in my setup, I employ a 2.2:1 screen and find that the combination of my JVC's blacks and room treatment means that the use of mattes (which I have made) yields such a tiny improvement in perceived contrast ratio as to no longer be worthy of my time or effort. Ratios of 16:9, 1.85:1 and 2:1 use the full height of my screen with (truly) black bars on the side while 2.35:1 movies have very thin bars above and below the image. My screen is A/T, so my front soundstage comes out of the screen with dialogue specifically coming right out of the center of the image like in a real cinema...