The future has no black bars! 21:9 HDTV

[fighthefutureofhd]

and?

[Pondosinatra]

I told you so! I've always been railing against 2:35 in favor of 1.85 and been met with nothing but snobbish name calling by the OAR cheerleaders.

So now every TV manufacturer is going to switch to this type screen and everyone will be back slapping each other at how great life is.....until they start coming out with movies shot in even wider aspect ratios.

Then all the people that just bought these TV's will complain only to be met with 'hey it's the directors vision' comments on here.

But then someone will come out with a TV that's the new ratio and the whole TV upgrade cycle will begin again.

And like the lemmings you guys are everyone will be sure to upgrade.

Sad really.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by swifty7

the day the black bars turn into ad bars will be the day I will quit video in general, I can only take so much.

You hypocrit. You'll bend over and take it just like everyone else does when Batman 12 or whatever comes out and you JUST HAVE TO SEE IT!

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by g217814

I've never liked the 2.40:1 and like aspect ratios. I think all movies should be in be the 16:9 format that are made for BD's.

+1,000,000

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Teabaggins

this tv is LCD

So is the one that I previously had an issue of this nature with when viewing too much 4:3 content for an extended period of time.

It didn't seem to be a permanent problem, but it lasted and persisted for quite some time.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Teabaggins

this tv is LCD

Even LCDs can get permanent burn-in if static images are left on the screen for long (much longer than with plasma) periods of time.

For these sets, you'll have vertical bars on the side for the VAST majority of your viewing unles you:

1) Only use it to watch scope movies, or
2) ssssssttttttrrrrrrreeeeeettttccccchhhh your images to fill the scope screen

Eventually, those bars will become noticeable on the scope picture.

[Teabaggins]

hmm, thanks for the info gents,. I guess these guys didn't really think it out too much beyond avoiding "the black bars"

[Texitura]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

You mean like in the Event Horizon and The Truman Show Blu-rays where they encode it with a distorted picture?

The stretch function could be for when a broadcast signal is sent but the aspect ratio flag isn't sent or received correctly (or you timeshift a recording but the flag isn't recorded properly/at all).

Wouldn't a Blu-ray with independent stretching modes (X & Y axis) be useful for discs like The Truman Show where they've been encoded incorrectly, or would you just watch it how it was encoded - distorted - even though that wasn't what the director intended?

Actually, I'd rather the studios put out non-defective products.

[Leopold BUTTERS]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

I told you so! I've always been railing against 2:35 in favor of 1.85 and been met with nothing but snobbish name calling by the OAR cheerleaders.

So now every TV manufacturer is going to switch to this type screen and everyone will be back slapping each other at how great life is.....until they start coming out with movies shot in even wider aspect ratios.

Then all the people that just bought these TV's will complain only to be met with 'hey it's the directors vision' comments on here.

But then someone will come out with a TV that's the new ratio and the whole TV upgrade cycle will begin again.

And like the lemmings you guys are everyone will be sure to upgrade.

Sad really.

You have no clue do you? Do you realize that movies that are show in a 1.85 AR will have black bars on the side of the tv? and taht tv shows will have huge black bars on the tv if its 4:3 and that all tv shows in HD which are being shot it 1.85 will have black bars on the sides. so what would you rather have, black bars when you watch moves on a 16x9 tv when you watch a movie with a wider aspect ratio, or black bars when you watch tv, play games, or do anything else besides movies.

[rubberghost]

i've been wondering when this would happen. i love it.

[Truewitt]

Originally Posted by chriharr

Algorithms will fix your issue, the TV will be able to handle wide materiel with smart image frame remapping techniques, that some HD TV's currently have already.

I would buy a TV like this if it was available right now, I've been waiting for this for some time, projection isn't an option for me right now, don't have the space or proper setup for it either.

All cinemas use the pillar box technique for movies that aren't as wide as 2.35:1 so why does everyone have an issue with pillar boxes, I prefer pillar boxes to black bars, at least the picture isn't smaller in height, it's the same height in any format that's the advantage. pillar boxes are much better than black bars that fill the top and bottom of the screen making the overall image smaller.

Actually, I worked at a theater that had 20 screens and only two of those screens used the pillarbox method. The other 18 used top matting , which in effect is the same as watching with bars at home because it simply makes the image smaller in height.

[tqmilymi]

Originally Posted by dv8pdx

http://dvice.com/archives/2009/01/philips_cinema.php





Even though they use DVD as an example, it will still have the same cool result with Blu-ray. This tech will for the most part eliminate the black bars on big movies. But as wide as it is, I would think its main purpose would be for movie watching only, as watching 16:9 TV would be like watching 4:3 on a HDTV - it would have the black bars on the side and huge black bars on the sides when watching 4:3 movies or TV.

still... it sounds really cool!

Philips?

[supercutz]

Originally Posted by Texitura

Actually, I'd rather the studios put out non-defective products.

... at a more affordable price.

The time and money wasted on tech like this could just as well be put into researching more cost effective ways of getting 16:9 sets into as many homes as possible, sooner rather than later.

[Bravoxena]

It's cool how with a TV this wide, you can watch video at virtually any AR at a constant hight. Like others have mentioned, it means that widerscreen is actually WIDER and WIDER instead of wider and smaller.

Aside from the burn-in problem with the black pillarboxes, a TV at this ratio is impractical unless you are only watching movies. The great thing about the 16:9 ratio is that it's kind of in the middle of all the ARs that are currently in use... plus it's generally the new 'standard' AR.

[Canada]

I would love 2:40:1 TV but what will suck is that all the 2:40:1 movies will still have black bars top and bottom because the 2:40:1 movies arn't animorphically enhanced for the wider screen. 2:40:1 movies need to be animporphically enhanced!

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Canada

I would love 2:40:1 TV but what will suck is that all the 2:40:1 movies will still have black bars top and bottom because the 2:40:1 movies arn't animorphically enhanced for the wider screen. 2:40:1 movies need to be animporphically enhanced!

2.40:1 movies will be scaled to fit 21x9 screen so that there won't be blackbars. An anamorphic blu-ray would be an additional advantage as it could utilize the full 1080 pixel height of a 21x9 screen.

Wish to note that the side bars created by 16x9 (TV) material on 21x9 screen would be lot less intrusive than the horizontal bars created on 16x9 screen for 2.35:1 material because 16x9 screen creates horizontal bars right in your direct field of view which is the centre rather than the peripheral view which is the sides of the screen.

Further, horizontal bars makes the centre of the screen smaller which would make e.g. a face smaller in the middle of the screen which would give the sense of smallishness for 2.35:1 material when displayed on a 16x9 screen. This is not the case when 16x9 material is displayed on a 21x9 screen as it maintains the centre of the screen at the same size.

[Teabaggins]

that may be true but personally I prefer letterbox to pillar box.

[Rhylliam]

I'm surprised that it took this long for a 2.35:1 TV. I'm thinking it is too late to release something like this. Interesting idea, but not that good. 16:9 has become the perfect middleground, lets say, and I would much rather have a 16:9 TV than a 21:9 even though I DO prefer the 2.35:1 ratio for films. We would be dealing with either stretching or excess black bars far more with this kind of set than with a 16:9 set.

Thumbs down from me, and this idea/product will fail. Would be interesting to have I suppose... as a collector's item once it bombs big time.

[graf1k]

I think it looks quite awesome and maybe if the TV makers had gone with it first rather than 16:9 it would have a shot, but I don't think there is much room in the market for a bunch of TVs with different aspect ratios except with videophiles with too much time and money on their hands. Your average Joe isn't going to want one of these. If anything, I think you'll see more movies filmed in the 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 ratios. I mean back when 2.40:1 and 2.35:1 became relatively standard, they weren't planning for anything more than a theatrical run. Then when VHS and subsequent technologies took off, people all had 4:3 TVs and there was no reason to change format unless you wanted to frame your movie for 4:3 itself, which AFAIK only Kubrick ever started doing. But now that people have 16:9 TVs and any new TV these days except for super cheap tube TVs are all 16:9, it's the perfect time for movies to start using the 16:9 ratio more.

Personally I don't have much of a problem with the wider aspect ratios on my 16:9 TV once a movie is going because I get used to it pretty quick, although I have to admit watching The Dark Knight is kind of painful just because it switches back and forth and just feels weird. I do however hate watching SD channels with the pilar box bars as people call them, and generally stretch the image to fit the 16:9 screen. Actually the way my old XBR1 did it was actually pretty clever I thought. The middle of the image wasn't stretched or warped at all and only the edges were stretched to fill the screen, making the warping of the picture much less noticable. At least I think it was the TV. Might be the cable box.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Rhylliam

I'm surprised that it took this long for a 2.35:1 TV. I'm thinking it is too late to release something like this. Interesting idea, but not that good. 16:9 has become the perfect middleground, lets say, and I would much rather have a 16:9 TV than a 21:9 even though I DO prefer the 2.35:1 ratio for films. We would be dealing with either stretching or excess black bars far more with this kind of set than with a 16:9 set.

Thumbs down from me, and this idea/product will fail. Would be interesting to have I suppose... as a collector's item once it bombs big time.

Rhylliam, ha ha, love the picture buddy. Awesome.

"I don't want to sound gay, but I think unicorns kick ass!"