21:9 CinemaWide HDTV

[coffeeman]

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/27/31...9-hdtv-on-sale

Review: Philips Cinema 21:9 extra-widescreen TV - YouTube

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/28/32...s-discontinued

In theory this is every movie buffs dream isnt it?

I mean all they needed to do was release them a bit cheaper and bigger
lighter, thinner, and something like 80"-90" and it would be serious competition for home projectors wouldnt it? an all in one unit
nice for the bedroom!

why you guys think it failed?
people just want viewing diversity?

[BluRoo98]

Originally Posted by coffeeman

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/27/31...9-hdtv-on-sale

Review: Philips Cinema 21:9 extra-widescreen TV - YouTube

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/28/32...s-discontinued

In theory this is every movie buffs dream isnt it?

I mean all they needed to do was release them a bit cheaper and bigger
lighter, thinner, and something like 80"-90" and it would be serious competition for home projectors wouldnt it? an all in one unit
nice for the bedroom!

why you guys think it failed?
people just want viewing diversity?

It failed because only SOME movie content is widescreen 21:9. Most TV shows are 16:9 and MANY movies are 16:9. Until all content is the same aspect ratio, you will see 16:9 be most adopted.

[blonde_devil]

ready about these a few years ago. They look cool but given that 16x9 is the standard for tv right now as well as being used for a lot of movies, I think it will be an oddity for now. but they look cool.

[Villiam Hayes]

Originally Posted by coffeeman

In theory this is every movie buffs dream isnt it?

I mean all they needed to do was release them a bit cheaper and bigger
lighter, thinner, and something like 80"-90" and it would be serious competition for home projectors wouldnt it? an all in one unit
nice for the bedroom!

why you guys think it failed?
people just want viewing diversity?

If they made them bigger they wouldn't be 21:9 TV's then.
They failed for the reasons mentioned,I remember looking at the Phillips one instore and thinking how cool it looked but it just wouldn't have been great for normal TV viewing.

I can't remember exactly but I read somewhere once that a set at a either 60" or 65",something like that and a Blu-ray with a certain aspect ratio actually gave you the same 21:9 dimensions.

[kurtis21]

This was reviewed recently in HOME THEATER MAGAZINE and got great reviews. One of the cool idea's this tv has is you can move the picture to the side and use the extra space for apps while you watch tv or a 16X9 movie instead of having BLACK BARS on the sides. And FYI...70% of movies are filmed in "Scope" meaning 2.35.1 OR 2.40.1 aspect ratio...so if you watch a lot of movies like me...it is a serious consideration!!

http://www.vizio.com/cinemawide/overview

http://www.soundandvision.com/conten...cm-3d-lcd-hdtv

[vargo]

They are making another attempt to push 21:9 next year. LG and Samsung have some curved 105" 5120 x 2160 sets and I heard there will be a few more examples at CES.

[coffeeman]

Originally Posted by vargo

They are making another attempt to push 21:9 next year. LG and Samsung have some curved 105" 5120 x 2160 sets and I heard there will be a few more examples at CES.

wow.. look forward to seeing those.. cool..

[Villiam Hayes]

Originally Posted by vargo

They are making another attempt to push 21:9 next year. LG and Samsung have some curved 105" 5120 x 2160 sets and I heard there will be a few more examples at CES.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...d-TV-race.html

[coffeeman]

Originally Posted by Villiam Hayes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...d-TV-race.html

cool, I do remember about 6 or 7 years ago there was a race to 100" screens from Korea and japan and I think japan got their first with their 102" lcd.
I have seen 70",80" screens released but never mainstream until recently I am starting to see 70" lcds and 80's screens, but not that much
still when I walk into electronic shops it's the 50' and 65-70" screens on displays

now I am sure the 80" screens are out there, but they probably come with high price tags,
I remember being in South Korea about 6 years ago and I was looking for some large screens, thinking well this is Seoul, home of Samsung they must have some huge screens here.. well.. NO, they didn't when I asked a guy he said, In Korea they don't release big tvs, they all go to USA and abroad.
Korea just release around 40" - 60"
I found it strange...
but he was right I looked high and low..
I looked online and I found a 70" screen for sale for like 50.000 dollars LOL

so anyway obviously Samsung have come to their sensors and are in the race for the large super screens to the market as I am sure Samsung want to number 1.. so with competition from their rival LG I am sure we will see them coming out soon. BUT
will they come to market?
the UHD TV are going for 10.000usd, for a 55"
so will samsung just double the price to 20.000 dollars for a 105"?
sure I can see many companies buying those screens for business.
but for the home consumer at a price of 20K.. no way.
for 20 K we all know what we can buy for that.SOOOO MUCH MORE.
pretty much a whole dedicated HT.

for me, if the price was 7-8.000USD
for a 110" screen
I would be all over it

[Mr.Poindexter]

Originally Posted by BluRoo98

It failed because only SOME movie content is widescreen 21:9. Most TV shows are 16:9 and MANY movies are 16:9. Until all content is the same aspect ratio, you will see 16:9 be most adopted.

Some movie content is 21:9? No, most movie content is 21:9 and nearly all the big budget stuff is.

You will NEVER see all content have the same aspect ratio, just like we won't see all paintings or photos have the same aspect ratio.

Originally Posted by coffeeman

In theory this is every movie buffs dream isnt it?

I mean all they needed to do was release them a bit cheaper and bigger
lighter, thinner, and something like 80"-90" and it would be serious competition for home projectors wouldnt it? an all in one unit
nice for the bedroom!

why you guys think it failed?
people just want viewing diversity?

For film viewing, 2.35:1 screens are the top end experience, but these will not be serious competition for home theater projectors, even at 90" they do not give the immersive experience. Besides that, most rooms are height constrained on screen size, not width constrained so going to 2.35:1 is a logical choice for many installations.

These have failed because the value proposition just isn't there for the consumers to adopt in mass numbers and without the large sales, the production runs are smaller and they don't get the economies of scale. I actually have a 2.35:1 flat panel. It costs more than an equally wide but taller 16x9 panel. I just didn't want a 16x9 screen in my theater bathroom so I went with the Cinemascope screen.

[BluRoo98]

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

Some movie content is 21:9? No, most movie content is 21:9 and nearly all the big budget stuff is.

You will NEVER see all content have the same aspect ratio, just like we won't see all paintings or photos have the same aspect ratio.

I get why you say that, to understand my perspective, I have a 6 year old child so I watch a lot of 1.78:1 movies too...so while I understand that most Hollywood produced movies are 2.35:1 and someone who watches ONLY movies would have a perspective that these TVs would make sense to eliminate the black bars, a lot of consumers still watch HDTV content. I found this article an interesting read:

http://www.projectorcentral.com/formats.htm

Especially the part about using masking tape to create your own "aspect ratio " (this is sarcasm in case I need to explain myself)

[Mr.Poindexter]

It wasn't masking tape they were mentioning, but electric masking systems. I happen to have a 4-way, motorized masking system on my screen. I can take my aspect ratio from full width open frame 2.35:1 down to full width 2.76:1 and also full height 1.33:1 and I think it can even mask down to 16x9 letterboxed inside of a 1.33:1 frame although I have not tested that in a long time and don't remember if I verified it or not. Generally, if it is letterboxed into an 4:3 frame, I am not watching it in the theater.

I also have children, 7 and 10 and most animated HD content is 1.78:1 but I don't have the kids content playing in my theater that much. I found it was just easier to have a more entry level direct view system for them, which also cuts down on the wear and tear of the theater.

[BluRoo98]

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

It wasn't masking tape they were mentioning, but electric masking systems. I happen to have a 4-way, motorized masking system on my screen. I can take my aspect ratio from full width open frame 2.35:1 down to full width 2.76:1 and also full height 1.33:1 and I think it can even mask down to 16x9 letterboxed inside of a 1.33:1 frame although I have not tested that in a long time and don't remember if I verified it or not. Generally, if it is letterboxed into an 4:3 frame, I am not watching it in the theater.

I also have children, 7 and 10 and most animated HD content is 1.78:1 but I don't have the kids content playing in my theater that much. I found it was just easier to have a more entry level direct view system for them, which also cuts down on the wear and tear of the theater.

I just checked out your theater pics. Your setup is legitimately sick. I am jealous. I hope to do something similar one day and whatever house I buy next, I plan to make sure it will have a room that I can dedicate to this kind of treatment. And back to the convo from the OP, if I had your room, I would go projector/screen too - NOT Plasma/LED - there is just no substitution for a theater experience. So what kind of TV do you have in your family/living room for HDTV content? When I was sharing my opinion on the OP's question, it comes from my assumption that most people have one main TV in their living room and not a dedicated theater room.

[Mr.Poindexter]

I have a 70" Sony Bravia 3d LED TV in the living room, 55" LED TV sets upstairs in the children's theater and in the master bedroom, a 40" Samsung LED 3d TV in the office and a 29" Cinemascope LCD in the theater bathroom. I don't remember how large the TV is in the Au Pair's room, but I think it is either a 32" or 40". They are all fairly recent models. I will be replacing the TV in the children's theater with a 3D model in the next month, as I bought a large number of displays for my work and now have I think 24 sets of 3D glasses - easily enough to let the kids start playing with them when their friends are over.

I certainly would not opt for a Cinemascope display anywhere else in the house aside from a theater. The tradeoffs for 16x9 content and value proposition are just not worth it unless it is primarily a film display.

[coffeeman]

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

I certainly would not opt for a Cinemascope display anywhere else in the house aside from a theater. The tradeoffs for 16x9 content and value proposition are just not worth it unless it is primarily a film display.

primarily a film display, just as a home theater is.

a hypothetical question.
what if Samsung was to release a 150" 2:35:1 cinema plasma screen?
or a 16x9 screen at 150"
at a price of 10.000usd?

interested?

because I get into these debates all the time from novices, which I am too.
which you obviously are not.
but I hear all the time
"ohh projectors just wont ever be as good as a tv"
projectors just can't bring the colors and sharpness which tv's can

"so no thanks, I ain't ever buying a home theater, I will just settle for the largest plasma I can buy".

what would you say to someone who thinks like that,
without using the size argument?.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by coffeeman

because I get into these debates all the time from novices, which I am too.
which you obviously are not.
but I hear all the time
"ohh projectors just wont ever be as good as a tv"
projectors just can't bring the colors and sharpness which tv's can

"so no thanks, I ain't ever buying a home theater, I will just settle for the largest plasma I can buy".

what would you say to someone who thinks like that,
without using the size argument?.

Have two discussions, perhaps three.

The first should be held before they look at anything, just a blue-sky what- if chat.

The second should be after they see a projection system, with the compromises that go with that. Room blackout, stuff like that.

The third when they see a 84", or 90", or 100"+ screen LED.

There will be no huge plasmas. See what they'd prefer. It's all subjective, and they'll want the big screen.

[coffeeman]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

There will be no huge plasmas. See what they'd prefer. It's all subjective, and they'll want the big screen.

that's open to personal preference really.
some people don't always think VERY big is better than BIG

if someone can have a 84' lcd, which many people do have, and that is a VERY huge screen, I mean you sit at the right distance with a full 5.1 mid price range surround sound THX system and you are enjoying a fantastic movie experience. the colors will be better than any projector for most users , no?

the colors from the LCD will be the best they can be!

now let's say you go 120" screen, with a mid range projector, screen and the same system?

first of all, the person wont be able to watch movies, sports and tv on his projector during the day as he can with this HUGE 84' there will be a very big difference.
he doesnt have to worry about bulb life either.

why will he just pick the biggest screen?
if the person is a serious movie buff, enjoys BR at the highest quality, looks for PQ and black levels, scrutinizes film transfers, a so called videophile.
the mid range cheap projector wont cut it.


really a projector needs to accompany a home projector system.
its not one or the other, it's both.

but for some people, the 84' lcd is enough!


for me sometimes I think, how much is enough for me...
if I had an 84' lcd, would I even consider a projector?
sometimes I think no..

but for one think I know, 120' wont be big enough for me
I know I will need 170-200' for my ultimate home theater
and I am happy to wait until retirement for it..
thats 25 years from now! LOL but I will enjoy all my favorite movies in my golden years in style! hahahaha
BUT... that being said, I wont buy a 200' system if it doesnt look better than a tv at a size I can afford. and probably in 20 years time 100' screens will be affordable.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by coffeeman

but for one think I know, 120' wont be big enough for me
I know I will need 170-200' for my ultimate home theater
and I am happy to wait until retirement for it..
thats 25 years from now! LOL but I will enjoy all my favorite movies in my golden years in style! hahahaha
BUT... that being said, I wont buy a 200' system if it doesnt look better than a tv at a size I can afford. and probably in 20 years time 100' screens will be affordable.

I agree with just about everything you said. But a 70" screen will be standard by year's end. 84" to 90" will not be a big push, and manufacturers are now making 105" screens. They'll be standard in a year or two, and will not be especially hard to make.

The limitation is the method of home furnishings used world-wide. People purchased stands and "home theater" nooks, and feel stuck with them. I have a relative that is a complete sports nut, whose wife told him he could get anything he wanted, as long as it fit in their huge, medieval looking stand/chest with all her gewgaws on it.

Turned out he could slide a 42" set in there without scraping the sides too much. He's the jealous type; the smallest TV I have is 52", and I use it for a monitor. I'm trying to figure out how to get a 105" unit.

My house - I bought it new just a few years ago - has a "TV nook" area in the family room. Most of the homes in my neighborhood have one, and the owners quickly bought into the fad of turning it into a shelved area, with "enough room for the TV", and quickly put all the crap they collected on vacations, decorative plates, ceramic figurines, photos of ancestors, and stuff like that. In mine, there is a 70" TV. Next room over, a 60". Neither room is centered on the TV's; they're just there, and huge.

So people come over, and they see this thing, and especially the guys think, jeez, this is so much nicer. Fashion will change. There are still people who deride technology in the home as being a "man-cave" and all that nonsense.

Projection is for a dedicated area, and will never catch on generally; it requires too many compromises for good viewing. Large screens are already here, today, and are simply waiting for manufacturers to stop overpricing them, and the public to make that change in viewpoint.

[Mr.Poindexter]

I would not expect those extremely large screen flat panels (100" or more) to be large movers. First off, try and get one up a flight of stairs. Just to get my projector screen into my theater, I had to bring it in through a hole in the wall because it would not fit around the corners in the hallway. When they have screens that can roll up, I think you will see more people put in mega screens in their house.

As for the idea of a $10k 150" plasma, I would have to see what it looks like. If it doesn't look like film, I would pass on that for installation in my theater. As for the people who would eschew a dedicated theater for a big plasma, that is their choice. There are people who skip on speakers for headphones. Everybody has different preferences and priorities and not everybody will vote with their dollars for a projector or set aside the square footage in their house for a dedicated viewing room, something I think you need for a projector to really perform.

[Mr.Poindexter]

I also agree that home design needs to change. Most family rooms still have a fireplace as a focal point with a tv nook in the corner, rather than a large wall for a monster screen. Even if that changes, there are lots of houses already out there that have small tv nooks in the corner of the room.