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.

[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.

[U4K61]

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.

I don’t think content will ever have the same aspect ratio, it's more of an artistic choice.

21:9 has a place in the computer world. It would make it easier to view three full pages at the same time. Deliver a curved screen, put two together, and I’ll be in an Avatar style internet nirvana.

[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

[Scarface32]

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?

I couldn't take it, that guy in the video keeps saying BY. Anyone that's not a complete idiot knows that 21 BY 9 refers to a unit of measurement that is usually in inches or feet such as 21 inches by 9 inches, of which TVs are not. He should have said 21 TO 9.

21 BY 9 = 21x9 = moron
21 TO 9 = 21:9 = intelligent

[PanamaJoe]

So, you all just don't get it, 21:9 rules, and so what, if you have 16:9 content, you will not get blackbars if you stretch the video, you barely notice the difference between stretched and unstretched. I have been using 21:9 vizio cinemawide HDTV for five plus years and it is awesome, no matter what video format viewed, all videos are the same height, no black bars on top and bottom or 'smaller' video to fit the less wide screen. You all screwed up not supporting it, too bad about stupid ideology about 16:9 HDTV...

[PRO-630HD]

The problem with a 21:9 set is digital cinema is done at an aspect ratio of 17:9. That is the aspect ratio I wish UHD TV had gone too! So even with a 4K scan of a film 2160 x 4096 pixels is the most you will get. Someone wishing for 5040 pixels x 2160 is doing just that, wishing. Costco had the 21:9 58 in. set back in 2012-3 for $800. It seemed like a steal for that aspect ration. The problem is severe windowboxing for all other content. I never, ever stretch the picture to fill the screen!!! It creates geometric distortion and is sacrilege. The 16:9 aspect ratio is quite simply the happy medium for all content.

Two anamolies I have are How the West Was Won with a 2.89:1 aspect ratio and Beyoncé, live in Atlantic City which has at 3.29:1.

It does seem Europe has taken an interest in this aspect ratio more than the US except for the new computer monitors.