Phillips is coming out with a 21:9 56" LCD HDTV:

http://news.digitaltrends.com/news-article/18974/philips-announces-21-9-lcd-television

LCD, that is in the past, I am more interested in the LED and laser TV's shown at CES.

I'm having a hard time being impressed here. It's only 56" diagonal! That means that for standard 16:9 HDTV images it's equivalent to a 45" diagonal set. I mean, for all of us here, that's a dinky picture size either way.

It's not the product that is impressive, but the 2.35:1 category of product. Anything in that direction is a huge step forward, don't care if it's a 10" TV!

A finally some foot of the bed cinemascope.

Sony has some 21:9 laptops now, too. QQQ pointed that out somewhere else in this forum!!!

This is an interesting concept, but I guess all 2.35:1 material will be zoomed anyway? I'm not sure if I like the idea of black bars on the side for 16:9 content or about half the screen black with 4:3 content!

I love Phillips flatscreens though, I have three of them, one with the Ambilight feature which my daughter loves when watching her cartoons. As an adult, once you get used to it, it almost feels natural.

I thought Phillips discontinued their flatscreen sales to the US however? I'm in Asia and Phillips is very aggressive with their pricing and thus have a good market share of flatscreen sales.

[QUOTE=KyaDawn;15629326]This is an interesting concept, but I guess all 2.35:1 material will be zoomed anyway? I'm not sure if I like the idea of black bars on the side for 16:9 content or about half the screen black with 4:3 content!/QUOTE]

Chicken and egg! If TV companies build 2.35:1 TVs, there's no reason that movies couldn't eventually be transferred and streamed in a true 2.35:1, 1080x2560 format or even in a future enhanced BD format.

This is an interesting concept, but I guess all 2.35:1 material will be zoomed anyway? I'm not sure if I like the idea of black bars on the side for 16:9 content or about half the screen black with 4:3 content!

Chicken and egg! If TV companies build 2.35:1 TVs, there's no reason that movies couldn't eventually be transferred and streamed in a true 2.35:1, 1080x2560 format or even in a future enhanced BD format.

If you're talking about distribution formats AFTER Blu-ray, why stop at 2520x1080? They should be AT LEAST 5040x2160! :D Let's not take baby steps here! :)

For enhanced Blu-ray, perhaps we'll see "anamorphic" 2.35:1 discs using 1080p but "squeezed" to utilize all the pixels. Hey I'm all for it! We'll still have the problem of side black bars for 16:9 content. Don't know why 16:9 was chosen to begin with, it should have always been 21:9! :mad:

don't know why 16:9 was chosen to begin with, it should have always been 21:9! :mad:

:)






.

Don't know why 16:9 was chosen to begin withTake two rectangles of equal area, one with the widest aspect ratio commonly used (2.35:1) and the other with the tallest aspect ration commonly used (1.33:1), and superimpose them one on top of the other. The rectangle you draw around them will be 16x9. The rectangle inside/common to them will also be 16x9.

Sanjay

Take two rectangles of equal area, one with the widest aspect ratio commonly used (2.35:1) and the other with the tallest aspect ration commonly used (1.33:1), and superimpose them one on top of the other. The rectangle you draw around them will be 16x9. The rectangle inside/common to them will also be 16x9.

Sanjay

Wow. What a perversion of math. Only a government scientist could come up with something so stupid.

Wow. What a perversion of math. Only a government scientist could come up with something so stupid.

The easiest solution would be "take the widest screen ratio and use it".

Bingo!

Everything else would right fit in. Anything else is just a compromise.

The easiest solution would be "take the widest screen ratio and use it".That makes no sense, since it would result in more wasted space for anything other than 2.35 sources, which is why the industry didn't adopt anything wider than 16x9 (despite many cinematographers lobbying for 2:1 ratio displays). It would have been too much of compromise.

Sanjay

That makes no sense, since it would result in more wasted space for anything other than 2.35 sources, which is why the industry didn't adopt anything wider than 16x9 (despite many cinematographers lobbying for 2:1 ratio displays). It would have been too much of compromise.

Sanjay

Of course it makes sense, it's the ideal solution for the majority of films and any new HD material. Who cares about how 4:3 looks on it, if that's the concern, why change aspect ratios at all?

Of course it makes sense, it's the ideal solution for the majority of films and any new HD material."Majority of films"? What percentage of films are 2.35 versus 1.85? As for new HD material, it's 16x9. So it certainly makes more sense to go 16x9 than 2.35:1. Who cares about how 4:3 looks on it, if that's the concern, why change aspect ratios at all?Plenty of people care about proper display of 4x3 material, since there is lots of legacy content worth caring about (at least for film buffs). If no one cared, then why did the industry universally adopt the specific aspect ratio that displays 2.35 and 4x3 with the exact same amount screen of space (leaving equal areas of black bars).

Sanjay

"Majority of films"? What percentage of films are 2.35 versus 1.85? As for new HD material, it's 16x9. So it certainly makes more sense to go 16x9 than 2.35:1.

No, not really, because if the screen is 2.35:1, you have constant height, which is more important than constant width and the highest resolution, highest quality source material will be presented at the highest resolution possible and the lesser formats will be have less and less vertical line resolution to match their aspect ratio. 16:9 was a stupid format, a new invention for no reason, when they could have simply used 1.85:1 at the very least. I'd be glad to leave 16:9 in the dustbin of history.


Plenty of people care about proper display of 4x3 material, since there is lots of legacy content worth caring about (at least for film buffs). If no one cared, then why did the industry universally adopt the specific aspect ratio that displays 2.35 and 4x3 with the exact same amount screen of space (leaving equal areas of black bars).

Because they are government bureaucrats that voted for compromise rather than progress. 16:9, as I recall was a compromise between the computer, television makers, broadcast and film industries, rather than 'the industry' choosing. It was four industries and government, not one industry with a vision.

Of course it makes sense, it's the ideal solution for the majority of films and any new HD material. Who cares about how 4:3 looks on it, if that's the concern, why change aspect ratios at all?

I got your back ;)

"Majority of films"? What percentage of films are 2.35 versus 1.85? As for new HD material, it's 16x9. So it certainly makes more sense to go 16x9 than 2.35:1. Plenty of people care about proper display of 4x3 material, since there is lots of legacy content worth caring about (at least for film buffs). If no one cared, then why did the industry universally adopt the specific aspect ratio that displays 2.35 and 4x3 with the exact same amount screen of space (leaving equal areas of black bars).

Sanjay

What Alimentall said! :D

I got your back ;)

Thanks! :) Couldn't have said it better myself. +10

Alas, 16:9 is not going to the dustbin of history; it is here to stay, and more and more content is going to be produced for it.

I am all for constant-height viewing---but only if the height of the material is not constrained to achieve it. If your media room is nice and wide, and can accommodate the same height screens in both 2.35:1 and 16:9 ratios, then by all means, go with a 2.35:1. But if you are width-constrained in any way, constant height just doesn't make sense to me.

And that's why this dinky 2.35:1 flat panel seems so stupid to me. Almost every situation I can conceive of where that flat panel will fit will also accommodate a taller 16:9 panel.

Well, I'm just saying that every product that comes out that supports native 2.35:1 is alright with me, I don't care if it's a wristwatch. BD should have native 2.35:1 with 2560 pixel width. Then you lop off the sides if you want or squeeze it down if you want. As I said, I made my pitch for a 1080x2560 JVC panel at CEDIA and they kinda dug the idea, though oddly, they acted like it had never occurred to them. I'd be less bitchy if HD were 1.85:1.

What Alimentall said!Can't see his posts (haven't for years). Not that it matters, since I gave you the reason why 16x9 was chosen. You'll have to deal with the reality that the industry has different priorities than you do; i.e., they cared enough about 1.33 to make it a factor in their final choice of aspect ratio.

There were other choices at the time: 16x10 (Sony was already selling 1980x1200 widescreen computer monitors), 15x9 (early Japanese widescreen TVs were 5x3), 16x8 (cinematographers, like Vittorio Storraro, had argued heavily for 2:1 being the aspect ratio for HD).

So it's not like the industry arbitrarily picked 16x9, since there were plenty of alternatives worth considering. But none of them treated the widest aspect ratio (2.35) and the tallest aspect ration (1.33) equally. May not be your priority, but it certainly was their's. And they got to decide what the shape of future TVs would be (and why it would be that shape).

BTW, you never answered my question: what is the percentage of 2.35 films compared to 1.85 films?

Sanjay

It kind of reminds me of the reason 1080i exists - because most tubes couldn't handle 1080p. So now we have an HDTV system that is limited by the TV least likely to exist in a home - a 1080i CRT.

Can't see his posts (haven't for years). Not that it matters, since I gave you the reason why 16x9 was chosen. You'll have to deal with the reality that the industry has different priorities than you do; i.e., they cared enough about 1.33 to make it a factor in their final choice of aspect ratio.

There were other choices at the time: 16x10 (Sony was already selling 1980x1200 widescreen computer monitors), 15x9 (early Japanese widescreen TVs were 5x3), 16x8 (cinematographers, like Vittorio Storraro, had argued heavily for 2:1 being the aspect ratio for HD).

So it's not like the industry arbitrarily picked 16x9, since there were plenty of alternatives worth considering. But none of them treated the widest aspect ratio (2.35) and the tallest aspect ration (1.33) equally. May not be your priority, but it certainly was their's. And they got to decide what the shape of future TVs would be (and why it would be that shape).

BTW, you never answered my question: what is the percentage of 2.35 films compared to 1.85 films?

Sanjay

You should take Alimentall off ignore, you might learn something. :D

Of course, if he's schooled you so many times in the past like he did on this thread, I can see why you would take the coward's way out. :p

Lay off the sauce, KyaDawn. If you think this is Alimentall "schooling" sdurani or anyone else, you have far more to learn than sdurani. Alimentall is dealing in the aesthetic home theater geek ideal, and that's all well and good.

But he's certainly not dealing in the arena of reality governed by standards bodies, competing interests, capital investment, and uncertain futures---all of which require compromises from the ideal to insure that everyone is on board and shares the risk together.

Heaven knows I'd love to see native 2.35:1 1080p content and native 2.35:1 1080p DMDs to display them with. My daughter wants a pony.

Lay off the sauce, KyaDawn. If you think this is Alimentall "schooling" sdurani or anyone else, you have far more to learn than sdurani. Alimentall is dealing in the aesthetic home theater geek ideal, and that's all well and good.

But he's certainly not dealing in the arena of reality governed by standards bodies, competing interests, capital investment, and uncertain futures---all of which require compromises from the ideal to insure that everyone is on board and shares the risk together.

I obviously don't agree with you, Alimentall has made his points well, at least on this thread that I've seen. Seems like you have a personal problem with him which is coloring your opinion.

And if sdurani wasn't so scared of Alimentall's posts, he would have seen that I was replying to Alimentall, not him. I never disputed his claim of why 16:9 was chosen. The fact that he ignored Alimentall's post and thought I was replying to him was his error, not mine.

You clearly haven't been around here very long. That's fine. But if you had, you'd know that Alimentall has a long, colorful, and provocative history on this forum. Sdurani isn't ignoring him because he's "scared" of him; indeed I'm sure even Alimentall would agree with that. It's just an idiotic assessment, really.

In fact, Alimentall uses the ignore list himself. Is he a coward too? He's not only been a proponent of the use of ignore list in the past, he has suggested it be strengthened. Who's the coward? The answer of course is nobody, but if you insist on using the ignore function as some sort of indication, you've condemned a pretty wide swath of folks including the one you esteem here.

As for the actual content of this thread, I don't think he's out in la-la land or anything; I just think that he's being idealistic. Video standards that require cooperation from consumer electronics manufacturers and content providers don't just happen overnight. For better or worse they require cooperation and compromise, and consideration of legacy issues. I know John thinks his ideas are easy to implement, but that doesn't make them so.

You clearly haven't been around here very long. That's fine. But if you had, you'd know that Alimentall has a long, colorful, and provocative history on this forum. Sdurani isn't ignore him because he's "scared" of him; indeed I'm sure even Alimentall would agree with that. It's just an idiotic assessment, really.

In fact, Alimentall has not only been a proponent of the use of ignore list in the past, he has suggested it be strengthened. Who's the coward? The answer of course is neither, but if you insist on using the ignore function as some sort of indication, that's the inevitable conclusion.

As for the actual content of this thread, I don't think he's out in la-la land or anything; I just think that he's being idealistic. Video standards that require cooperation from consumer electronics manufacturers and content providers don't just happen overnight. For better or worse they require cooperation and compromise.

What's wrong with being "idealistic"? In fact, that was the context of my post that sdurani replied so aggressively to. If he had read Alimentall's post that I replied to, he would have understood the context. Instead, he decided to attack me for something he ASSUMED I meant, but didn't.

You yourself described that the decision of 16:9 as requiring "compromises from the ideal", which is in basic agreement with what I said, if you go back and read my post. In fact, I don't think I was ever even in disagreement with sdurani, so I find his subsequent posts bemusing.

As for my history on AVS, I have been here longer than you have. I changed my username in 2007 to honor of the birth of MY daughter, and named it after her (congratulations on Anna, btw). And I am aware of Alimentall's history, and we probably disagree quite severely on my choice of speakers, which are the B&W 802Ds. I've certainly read enough of his posts dissing my choice. However, I respect that as HIS opinion. I'm certainly not going to be so bothered by his right to express himself that I have to use the ignore function.

With regards to that, certainly it has its uses, but in MY opinion, if you are so thin-skinned to be rattled by a debate on the Internet, then perhaps the Internet is not for you. If I wasn't fond of someone's posts, perhaps I might skip over them, but I don't feel the need to have to censor someone as if they didn't exist. Then again, that MY opinion, and yes, we are dealing with opinions here, as we have been on this whole thread.

You should take Alimentall off ignore, you might learn something. :D

Of course, if he's schooled you so many times in the past like he did on this thread, I can see why you would take the coward's way out. :p

Actually, I deserved to get on 'ignore' in this case. Sanjay and I rarely disagree, but he made a comment about there not being any 7.1 audio movies announced in BD or HD-DVD. I was feeling pedantic that week, so I argued that there were probably movies announced that had 7.1, but that the information was scarce and so he was being assumptive. I should have dropped it but I didn't. As it turns out, he was probably right in the end, so I actually made a public apology, but by that time, I was on ignore so I'm sure he never saw it. No biggie, but I was the ass in that situation and it was one of the few times in forum banter where I kinda felt stupid. Arguing with Michael, of course, was one of the other ones :o

As Michael implies, the use of 'ignore' shows more intestinal fortitude than complaining about someone you don't like and yet not having the strength to turn the channel. I'm perfectly okay with Sanjay putting me on 'ignore', though I regret the fact that I earned it.

Actually, I deserved to get on 'ignore' in this case. Sanjay and I rarely disagree, but he made a comment about there not being any 7.1 audio movies announced in BD or HD-DVD. I was feeling pedantic that week, so I argued that there were probably movies announced that had 7.1, but that the information was scarce and so he was being assumptive. I should have dropped it but I didn't. As it turns out, he was probably right in the end, so I actually made a public apology, but by that time, I was on ignore so I'm sure he never saw it. No biggie, but I was the ass in that situation and it was one of the few times in forum banter where I kinda felt stupid. Arguing with Michael, of course, was one of the other ones :o

Well we all get like that sometimes, certainly I'm sure people felt the same way about Sanjay when he "invaded" the "DVD-A of Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon at last!!" thread in the Surround Music Formats forum and basically accused anyone of downloading it as being "criminals"...haha. :D

Most of the people wanted him off the thread, and I certainly didn't agree with him, but I found his point of view refreshing. ;)

Can't see his posts (haven't for years). Not that it matters, since I gave you the reason why 16x9 was chosen. You'll have to deal with the reality that the industry has different priorities than you do; i.e., they cared enough about 1.33 to make it a factor in their final choice of aspect ratio.

There were other choices at the time: 16x10 (Sony was already selling 1980x1200 widescreen computer monitors), 15x9 (early Japanese widescreen TVs were 5x3), 16x8 (cinematographers, like Vittorio Storraro, had argued heavily for 2:1 being the aspect ratio for HD).

So it's not like the industry arbitrarily picked 16x9, since there were plenty of alternatives worth considering. But none of them treated the widest aspect ratio (2.35) and the tallest aspect ration (1.33) equally. May not be your priority, but it certainly was their's. And they got to decide what the shape of future TVs would be (and why it would be that shape).

BTW, you never answered my question: what is the percentage of 2.35 films compared to 1.85 films?

Sanjay

Now if you UNDERSTOOD the context of my post, and the fact I was replying to Alimentall and not you, you would have understood that I was not disputing your explanation of how 16:9 came to be selected. In fact I accept it, though the reality is that it was a little bit more complicated than "Take two rectangles of equal area...", etc.

Kerns H. Powers, who came up with this idea, also considered 15:9, 1.85:1 and 2.20:1, besides 4:3 and 2.35:1, and yes, the over-lap of these rectangles of equal area produced an inner rectangle that was actually 1.77:1, not exactly 16:9 which is 1.78:1. So even 16:9 was a "compromise".

My reply was only lamenting what I WISH the aspect ratio of HD would have been, which is 21:9, in MY ideal world. My exact quote was, in a previous post which launched this tangent, "Don't know why 16:9 was chosen to begin with, it should have always been 21:9!"

And certainly in MY ideal world, I am not considering "standards bodies, competing interests, capital investment, and uncertain futures", all those issues as laid out by Michael.

And the reason being for my wishing that 21:9 was selected is because it is closest to the aspect ratio of CinemaScope and Panavision (2:35:1), or most of the movies I own today. Actually, most modern Panavision movies are in 2:39:1 nowadays, so even 21:9 (which is actually 2.33:1) would be a "compromise". When dealing with the varied aspect ratios of today and in history, there really is no "ideal".

I suppose if you were able to read Alimentall's post, you would have gotten this context. Now when I said 21:9 would be the "ideal solution" for "any new HD material", again, I was referring to MY ideal, which was that 21:9 was picked as the HD aspect ratio, not 16:9. Obviously, if 21:9 was picked as the standard instead of 16:9, "any new HD material" would be produced in 21:9.

The fact that you said, "As for new HD material, it's 16x9", which assumes I'm referring to present-day reality, shows you missed the entire context of my post. Obviously today's HD aspect ratio is 16:9, and that has been underlying the whole discussion on this thread. That was NOT what I was talking about.

Now about your question of "what is the percentage of 2.35 films compared to 1.85 films?", I'm not sure why you are asking me this as I never proposed that I knew "the percentage". In fact, I never made any statement regarding 2.35:1 at all, my exact quote was "Of course it makes sense, it's the ideal solution for the majority of films and any new HD material." And by reference, I was referring to 21:9. I would never make such a claim about 2.35:1 anyway as the Panavision format was changed to 2.39:1 in 1970.

But accepting you taking liberty with my quote in question, are you disputing my claim that 21:9 would be "the ideal solution for the majority of films" or are you questioning whether I know "what is the percentage of 2.35 films compared to 1.85 films?"

Because I hope you understand that whether I know "the percentage of 2.35 films compared to 1.85 films" has no factual bearing on whether my statement of 21:9 being "the ideal solution for the majority of films" is correct or not.

Let's put it in an example even my 2 year-old daughter would understand (and by this, I am not commenting on your ability to comprehend, only utilizing a frame of mind I have been accustomed to with raising a young daughter).

Say I made the statement that "Barack Obama won the 2008 election for the United States Presidency". Would I be right? Yes, I would be right.

Now say you asked me, "what is the percentage of American voters who voted for Obama compared to McCain?" Would you asking me this question and my failure to answer disprove my original statement that "Barack Obama won the 2008 election for the United States Presidency"? No, it would not.

Would you be wrong to assume that McCain won the Presidency based on the fact that you asked me, "what is the percentage of American voters who voted for Obama compared to McCain?" and I failed to answer? Yes, you would be wrong.

So the point I'm making is unless you know yourself the answer to your question of "what is the percentage of 2.35 films compared to 1.85 films", and it aids your argument, there is no point in asking me this question. And asking me this question, in anycase, would be irrelevant anyway when you consider most Panavision films being made today are in 2.39:1.

What you could do to counter my claim is to pick on my use of "ideal" in stating 21:9 would be "the ideal solution for the majority of films" as 21:9 is really just 2.33:1, certainly not the "ideal" in the strictest form for 2.35:1 OR 2.39:1.

And of course, if we are that strict, there really isn't much of a point to these forums anyway, as I was only stating MY OPINION, which can be disagreed upon, but cannot be disproved. And after all this, I don't even know what YOUR personal stance in this "ideal" aspect ratio debate is, only that you were stating the reasons why 16:9 was chosen.

So let me ask you a question, what would be YOUR ideal aspect ratio for HD and why?

What's wrong with being "idealistic"? Nothing, if you're not actually trying to make money. This thread, however, is about an actual product, and it's got about as much chance of making money as a fireplace salesman in hell.

I'll give it better odds than that, depending on price. I know a lot of graphics people that would love to have that kind of display to use. Hollywood alone will likely buy a ton of these, business and personal.

Now that's a fair point; I could see this being used in professional settings. I don't see it for personal use though; it's just too darn small!

Now that's a fair point; I could see this being used in professional settings. I don't see it for personal use though; it's just too darn small!

They're ALL too small! :)

Nothing, if you're not actually trying to make money. This thread, however, is about an actual product, and it's got about as much chance of making money as a fireplace salesman in hell.

I don't dispute that, and if you took the time to READ my initial posts about the product instead of ASSume my thoughts on it, you would know we were in agreement.

However, to ignore the fact that in forum discussions, there can be, and often will be, tangents deviating from the original discussion and which yet still stay "on topic", is surprising for someone that's so willing to remind others of their so-called "seniority" in this forum.

And that's why this dinky 2.35:1 flat panel seems so stupid to me. Almost every situation I can conceive of where that flat panel will fit will also accommodate a taller 16:9 panel.

Going back on topic, can you name some examples? Just looking at my house, where I have three flatscreens, in each situation a 21:9 screen would fit as well or better than a 16:9 screen.

I guess we're also dealing with a chicken-and-egg situation here as well, at least if we are talking about furniture design. I'm sure 15 years ago, the same thing can be said of 16:9 screens in a "4:3 world".

ALl this for a product with very likely an uncertain future...

Going back on topic, can you name some examples? Just looking at my house, where I have three flatscreens, in each situation a 21:9 screen would fit as well or better than a 16:9 screen.Glad to get back on topic! Any space that was originally designed for a 16:9 or 4:3 set will obviously qualify. Most home entertainment cabinetry is going to be designed that way these days. If you have an opportunity to design your own, then sure, you could spec it for this screen. If you're risk averse though, you probably wouldn't want to do that, until the viability of this aspect ratio is proven. I'd play it safe until then and design for a standard 16:9 AR.

Let me be clear, I'm not talking about 21:9 screens of any size. I imagine that there are a lot of dedicated home theater rooms that could accommodate a very large 2.35:1 projection screen without artificial height constraints, especially if you want to make sure that the screen is far enough from the floor for a good viewing angle. My skepticism is specifically about this relatively 56" diagonal screen. Are the spaces you're thinking of in your house for larger screens, or specifically for this size?

Keep in mind that a 56" diagonal 2.35:1 screen, with a 1" bezel around it, is going to be 23.9" tall by 53.5" wide. A 16:9 HDTV with the same horizontal width would be 59.1" diagonal, and only 7" taller (30.9"). It seems to me that anyone who has 54" of horizontal space available is likely to have 31" of vertical space, too.

On the other hand, a 2.35:1 projection screen that's, 60" tall only needs 11.75 feet of horizontal space, which isn't that unreasonable for a home theater room, particularly if you go acoustically transparent. I'd definitely favor a constant-height approach at those dimensions.

I definitely agree if we're talking about TV cabinet furniture made today. 16:9 is the standard and 21:9 is not.

Strangely enough though, in my own experience, I have found instances where cabinets designed for 16:9 actually fit 21:9 BETTER. This is because the designer often cannot account for the dimensions of the flatscreen stand, for which there are no standards.

I'll post some photos up of the instances where it's happened in my home. For myself, it opens up the opportunity to add some "thin" speakers within the space. :D

Still, I think we are talking about a chicken-and-egg scenario here. While I do think it's too late to start implementing 21:9 screens based on our current standards (HDTV, Blu-ray, gaming, etc.), I'm all for a jump to 21:9 for whatever the next standards may be - 5040x2160, for example.

I'm skeptical, however, that this will happen anytime soon for a variety of reasons, not the least due to 16:9 being a relatively "new" standard and what I perceive will be reluctance of the general public being able to accept and accommodate another change so quickly.

And that's why this dinky 2.35:1 flat panel seems so stupid to me. Almost every situation I can conceive of where that flat panel will fit will also accommodate a taller 16:9 panel.

Just for fun, and not to disprove Michael's points or anything like that, here are some photos of two of my flatscreens where the space would accommodate a 21:9 screen better than a 16:9 screen. My third flatscreen, which I mentioned before, is on a simple stand by an open wall, so a 21:9 or 16:9 screen would fit equally well.

This is the 42" in our family room. Having taken some measurements, if we increase ONLY the screen to 21:9, and use the same width of the LCD frame, a 21:9 screen would fit quite snugly here, and would make better use of the available area than a 16:9 screen, which has reached the maximum height.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv225/kyadawn_album/DSC00448.jpg

Here is the 52" in our master bedroom. Keep in mind we just moved into our new house and still doing the unpacking, which explains the barren shelves and why there is still protective film on the set! :D

In this case, I think the designer was rather "forward thinking" and designed it for a 21:9 screen! There is more than enough room for it, and it would work much better than the current 16:9 screen. Still, the extra space allows me to put in some speakers next to the screen to fill up that open space! :p

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv225/kyadawn_album/DSC00453.jpg

Michael, just for fun, you are more than welcome to post photos of any the examples you had in mind to illustrate your point. ;)

Well I have to admit, those are two pretty good examples! You woild obviously be a good candidate for this screen then, if it came in the right sizes. Perhaps what is happening here is that a cutout for a 16:9 screen wiyh side speakers will fit a 21:9 screen without them. So if you can find alternate placements for your speakers you can use this.

In my family room I have an opening for a 60" 16:9 flatscreen set, with separate openings for speakers.

Openings for many RPTV sets however tend to have extra height, not width.

Glad to get back on topic! Any space that was originally designed for a 16:9 or 4:3 set will obviously qualify. Most home entertainment cabinetry is going to be designed that way these days.

That's a factor, sure, but most of the LCDs we do mount to the wall above a cabinet, rather than in a cabinet, so it wouldn't matter at all.

Right, which means they likely have more than enough room in both directions. My point is that 2.35:1 starts to make sense once you *run out* of usable height.

Right, which means they likely have more than enough room in both directions. My point is that 2.35:1 starts to make sense once you *run out* of usable height.

Or if it's predominately is used for movie watching. I could say that 16:9 only starts to make sense when you've run out of width ;)

Oh, absolutely. If you have a narrow home theater you may do best with 16:9. But when you get to projection sizes you have not just space but viewing angles to consider! I think 2:35 is a a good choice for far more people that are considering that size range.

I think my general rule of thumb is that, to within reasonable (aggressive!) viewing angle limits, I want the biggest damn picture I can get for every piece of HD content I watch. I don't include 4:3 SD material in this rule due to its lack of resolution. I certainly don't want to sacrifice my HD video viewing size just to achieve a certain aspect ratio. A constant-height system should only be undertaken by increasing the screen width, not by reducing the screen height.

So let me ask you a question, what would be YOUR ideal aspect ratio for HD and why?By the time I made my previous post in this thread and logged off for the night, I didn't see your long post. However, your question above deserves an answer, since I took issue with your claim that anything short of the "widest screen ratio" would be "just a compromise".

I hadn't given much thought to what would be an ideal aspect ratio for displays until this thread but, now that I have, 16x9 makes to most sense to me. Just as 1.33 displays heavily compromise 2.35 films by wasting almost half the display pixels, so would a 2.35 display similarly waste almost half the screen when displaying 1.33 material.

With a 16x9 display, 2.35 and 1.33 films use three-quarters of the display pixels, with 1.85 and 1.66 using almost all the pixels. For folks that watch movies (all movies, not just the widescreen ones) 16x9 offers the least wasted pixels and the least compromise when displaying a variety of aspect ratios.

Neither 1.33 displays nor 2.35 displays offer such efficient use of screen space when dealing with multiple aspect ratios. When it comes to maximizing use of pixels, a display with the "widest screen ratio" is the real compromise; just as much as a display with the tallest screen ratio would be. Each is ideal for its extreme end of the aspect ratio scale, but not for the middle, let alone the opposite end of the scale.

So when you say that a 2.35 display is "the ideal solution for the majority of films", I don't see any numbers to back up how you arrived at that conclusion. Unless you've seen some figures that lead you to believe that there are more 2.35/2.39 films than 1.85/1.66 and 1.33 films combined. Otherwise, 16x9 may end up being the better solution (better fit) for the majority of films.

Finally, I'm not going to get into the minutae of 2.33 vs 2.35 vs 2.39, since the differences are negligible. Likewise your claim that 16x9 is a "compromise" because the intersecting rectangles came out to 1.77 instead of 1.78. You'll have to excuse me for not being able to see (literally) the compromise you're talking about (i.e., I wouldn't be able to tell 1.77 from 1.78 without measuring tools).

Sanjay

I'm sure people felt the same way about Sanjay when he "invaded" the "DVD-A of Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon at last!!" thread in the Surround Music Formats forum and basically accused anyone of downloading it as being "criminals"Nope, I didn't call anyone any names nor did I discourage anyone from downloading. I did point out that the download was illegal. That may have upset some people, but no one disputed the fact that this title was being distributed without the authorization or permission of the content owners (let alone the artists). Of course, if he's schooled you so many times in the past like he did on this thread, I can see why you would take the coward's way out.Yup, that's exactly what happened, except he didn't resort to ad hominem attacks the way you so quickly did.

Sanjay

By the time I made my previous post in this thread and logged off for the night, I didn't see your long post. However, your question above deserves an answer, since I took issue with your claim that anything short of the "widest screen ratio" would be "just a compromise".

I hadn't given much thought to what would be an ideal aspect ratio for displays until this thread but, now that I have, 16x9 makes to most sense to me. Just as 1.33 displays heavily compromise 2.35 films by wasting almost half the display pixels, so would a 2.35 display similarly waste almost half the screen when displaying 1.33 material.

With a 16x9 display, 2.35 and 1.33 films use three-quarters of the display pixels, with 1.85 and 1.66 using almost all the pixels. For folks that watch movies (all movies, not just the widescreen ones) 16x9 offers the least wasted pixels and the least compromise when displaying a variety of aspect ratios.

Neither 1.33 displays nor 2.35 displays offer such efficient use of screen space when dealing with multiple aspect ratios. When it comes to maximizing use of pixels, a display with the "widest screen ratio" is the real compromise; just as much as a display with the tallest screen ratio would be. Each is ideal for its extreme end of the aspect ratio scale, but not for the middle, let alone the opposite end of the scale.

So when you say that a 2.35 display is "the ideal solution for the majority of films", I don't see any numbers to back up how you arrived at that conclusion. Unless you've seen some figures that lead you to believe that there are more 2.35/2.39 films than 1.85/1.66 and 1.33 films combined. Otherwise, 16x9 may end up being the better solution (better fit) for the majority of films.

Finally, I'm not going to get into the minutae of 2.33 vs 2.35 vs 2.39, since the differences are negligible. Likewise your claim that 16x9 is a "compromise" because the intersecting rectangles came out to 1.77 instead of 1.78. You'll have to excuse me for not being able to see (literally) the compromise you're talking about (i.e., I wouldn't be able to tell 1.77 from 1.78 without measuring tools).

Sanjay

Now I'm certainly not going to disagree that 16:9 makes the most sense if the intent is to maximize the "efficient use of screen space" in consideration of all commonly used aspect ratios. That is correct and 16:9 would be the "best" aspect ratio under those conditions.

However, in my view, the "efficient use of screen space" is less important than maximizing the quality of the picture. For me, that is to assume "higher resolution equals greater quality", and in which case, I feel 21:9 would be the best, if not "ideal", aspect ratio for HD.

First off, for the sake of argument, let's define "4:3" as either NTSC which is 720 x 540, or PAL which is 768 x 576 (yes, I know there are variations of both, but that's irrelevant in this case), and any film content between 1.33:1 and 1.43:1. Let's also define "16:9" as any content between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1, and "21:9" as any content between 2:33:1 and 2.39:1.

Now let's say 21:9 was adopted as the HD aspect ratio and, for the sake of argument, using the height of 1080p, 2520 x 1080 was adopted as the 21:9 format, and 720p and 1080i/p never existed. However, any 16:9 content would take up the resolution of 1920 x 1080 in the 21:9 format, while any new 4:3 HD content (1.33:1 films presumably) would take up the resolution of 1440 x 1080 in the 21:9 format.

Taking the above into consideration, a 21:9 screen with the resolution of 2520 x 1080 would be able to display the full pixel information of any 4:3, 16:9 and 21:9 content without any compromises in terms of pixel resolution. Legacy 4:3 video content would be up-scaled, of course, but any HD 4:3, 16:9 and 21:9 content will be displayed in its full resolution as allowed by the 1080 pixel height.

In comparison with 16:9 and using the 1080p resolution of 1920 x 1080 as the standard, while 4:3 and 16:9 content would still be in the same pixel resolutions as in the 21:9 format, 21:9 content would be displayed as 1920 x 820 resolution in the 16:9 format as opposed to 2520 x 1080 in the 21:9 format.

That's a pixel loss of over 42% for 21:9 content on a 16:9 screen! :mad:

Now I understand that under this premise, one can make the argument that a new 4:3 HD format of 1920 x 1440, using the width of 1080p, could be the "best" solution, if one has a preference for 4:3 over 21:9. However, to me that makes less sense as most legacy 4:3 content is in PAL and NTSC video, which has a defined SD pixel resolution, while legacy 21:9 content is mostly in film, which does not, and can be scanned and captured to 2520 x 1080 resolution or higher, as opposed to 1920 x 820 in the 4:3 HD format of 1920 x 1440.

Now some people may feel that too many "screen pixels" or too much "screen space" is wasted when viewing 4:3 material in a 21:9 screen. However, I prefer to see it not as "wasted" screen space, but as "unused" screen space.

For example, a 4:3 image will always remain 4:3 in its native resolution, whether you are using a 4:3, 16:9 or 21:9 display. When viewing 4:3 content on a 21:9 display with a pixel resolution of 2520 x 1080, you are not getting any less of the pixel information than you would be getting in a 16:9 or 4:3 set. You are just not using the full potential of the 2520 x 1080 pixels that are available on the 21:9 display. The same goes for 16:9 content in 1920 x 1080 resolution on a 21:9 set.

In terms of actual "screen size", a 4:3 image will measure 36" wide, 27" tall and 45" diagonally in a 27" tall set, whether that set is in 4:3, 16:9 or 21:9. You are still getting the largest 4:3 screen size possible for the height of the screen, just that you are not maximizing the screen space available with a 21:9 set.

Now I understand that some people just don't like having to view black bars on the screen, particularly the larger black bars of a 21:9 screen with 4:3 content, and feel 16:9 is the best solution because it offers the best "compromise" with the smallest black bars for either 4:3 or 21:9 content. However, for me, I find that losing over 42% pixel resolution when viewing 21:9 content on a 16:9 display a far BIGGER "compromise", and I would gladly accept viewing larger black bars with 4:3 content on a 21:9 screen to get 100% pixel resolution for all aspect ratios.

And for these reasons, that is why I feel the "widest aspect ratio", in this case 21:9, would be the "best" format for HD.

Maybe some next gen 2.35:1 TVs will have black sliders to block the black bars that annoy people so much ;)

Maybe some next gen 2.35:1 TVs will have black sliders to block the black bars that annoy people so much ;)

Yes, or motorized mini-curtains! :D

So when you say that a 2.35 display is "the ideal solution for the majority of films", I don't see any numbers to back up how you arrived at that conclusion. Unless you've seen some figures that lead you to believe that there are more 2.35/2.39 films than 1.85/1.66 and 1.33 films combined. Otherwise, 16x9 may end up being the better solution (better fit) for the majority of films.
Sanjay

I don't have any numbers to back up that claim either but anecdotally it seems to me that many if not most of the "mainstream" blockbuster type movies such as Casino Royale, LOTR, etc...are 2:35 or so and that's why I went with the anamorphic lens and 2:35 or so screen. Would be interesting to see the stats but wouldn't change my habits anyway.

What would be interesting is if this led to the development and production of 2:35 native projectors but I don't see that happening (based on similar discussions on other threads).

I think 2.35 PJs are inevitable and will happen before affordable 4K. It's a natural way to get more money for an increasingly commoditized product.

for the sake of argument, let's define "4:3" as either NTSC which is 720 x 540, or PAL which is 768 x 576...Why? There's no reason to limit 4x3 to 480 or 576 scan lines. So let's define 4x3 as full 1080p. Not for the sake of any argument, but instead based on actual hi-def titles sitting on my shelf ('Casablanca', 'Robin Hood'). That way, it keeps this part of the discussion rooted in real-world resolution rather than imposing some hypothetical limit. Now let's say 21:9 was adopted as the HD aspect ratio and, for the sake of argument, using the height of 1080p, 2520 x 1080 was adopted as the 21:9 format...Again, why? That never actually happened in the real world. So, if we're going to take a hypotherical departure from current reality, let's be fair and say that any manufacturer that can increase the number of horizontal pixels in their display from 1920 to 2520 can do the same for vertical pixel count. If their 21x9 panels are 2520x1080, then their 16x9 panels would be 2520x1420. That's a pixel loss of over 42% for 21:9 content on a 16:9 screen! :mad:That's would happen ONLY if you imposed an arbitrary limit on vertical resolution but not on horizontal resolution. Why do that?

If you take away those artificial limitations, then you never suffer such severe pixel loss, for ANY aspect ratio. On a 16x9 set, 4x3 and 21x9 movies will both use around 75% of the pixels, while 1.85/1.66 films use over 95% of the pixels.

So, since pixel use is maximized on 16x9 panels and makes for the least amount of pixel loss across various aspect ratios, let's take a look at image size. In terms of actual "screen size", a 4:3 image will measure 36" wide, 27" tall and 45" diagonally in a 27" tall set, whether that set is in 4:3, 16:9 or 21:9.Again, you're imposing an artificial limitation on height that doesn't exist in the real world. A 27-inch tall 21x9 image would be 63 inches wide. On a 63-inch wide 16x9 set, a 4x3 image would be over 35 inches tall, not 27 inches tall.

On a 16x9 panel, both ends of the aspect ratio scale would be able to maximize size by emphasizing their attributes: 21x9 would use the entire width while 4x3 would use the entire height. Wide films look wider, tall films look taller, without favouring one over the other. Best part: films with inbetween aspect ratios (1.85/1.66) would end up using almost all the width AND height of the screen. And for these reasons, that is why I feel the "widest aspect ratio", in this case 21:9, would be the "best" format for HD.But 21x9 turns out to be "best" only IF you limit the resolution of 4x3 source material and IF you limit the vertical pixel count of 16x9 panels and IF you limit image size to a constant height. If you don't deliberately stack the deck against all other aspect ratios by imposing these artificial limitations, then 21x9 displays become as big a compromise as 4x3 panels, since each is optimized for an extreme end of the aspect ratio scale.

16x9 panels don't suffer such compromises across various aspect ratios. The most pixel loss you'll see is 25% for any aspect ratio, never anything like 42%. Which is why it makes sense that the industry was so specific in its choice: not 16x8, not 16x10, but 16x9. Anything else would have yielded worse compromises in pixel use and image size.

Sanjay

Compromise is the downfall of progress. We're not worried about the best compromise, we're worried about what makes sense for the progress of high-resolution video - give the most densely packed material the most pixels for display and give the least to the least.

Why? There's no reason to limit 4x3 to 480 or 576 scan lines.

You need to read my whole quote without cutting off the sentence. What I wrote was:

First off, for the sake of argument, let's define "4:3" as either NTSC which is 720 x 540, or PAL which is 768 x 576 (yes, I know there are variations of both, but that's irrelevant in this case), and any film content between 1.33:1 and 1.43:1.

I was merely grouping together all possible content that could be considered "4:3" without having to get into the "minutae [sic]", as you call it, of NTSC vs. PAL or 1.33:1 vs. 1.43:1, etc.

So let's define 4x3 as full 1080p. Not for the sake of any argument, but instead based on actual hi-def titles sitting on my shelf ('Casablanca', 'Robin Hood'). That way, it keeps this part of the discussion rooted in real-world resolution rather than imposing some hypothetical limit.

Again, no offense, but you should really take the time to READ my post CAREFULLY before you respond. Otherwise, my replies are really to point out that the issues you are bringing up I have already addressed. I have said later in the post:

...while any new 4:3 HD content (1.33:1 films presumably) would take up the resolution of 1440 x 1080 in the 21:9 format.

Please also note that 1440 x 1080 resolution IS the resolution for 4:3 content in 1080p. By the way, any 4:3 content, by definition, cannot be "full 1080p", which is 1920 x 1080 resolution and by definition, 16:9. It is impossible to have 4:3 content in its native aspect ratio to fill up 1920 x 1080 pixels.

Again, why? That never actually happened in the real world.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the phrase, "for the sake of argument". Yes, of course it's "never actually happened in the real world", we all know 16:9 was adopted for HD and not 21:9. Are we not still talking about what our IDEAL aspect ratio is for HD?

Just to clarify what I'm talking about, I'm talking about why 21:9 SHOULD have been chosen as the HD aspect ratio, and purely in IDEALIST terms without referencing the political, financial, and all other mechanics that went into "real-world" discussion, with clear understanding that it was not chosen.

I'm sure when you gave YOUR reasons to why you think 16:9 is the IDEAL aspect ratio for HD, it was based out of YOUR preferences and reasoning and not just because it was what was decided by the "powers that be". Or was it? :rolleyes:

Now let me craft a scenario which perhaps will make it easier for you to understand. "Imagine" we went back in time BEFORE 16:9 was chosen as the HD aspect ratio and we are amidst a discussion on what we SHOULD choose as the HD standard. ;)

So, if we're going to take a hypotherical departure from current reality, let's be fair and say that any manufacturer that can increase the number of horizontal pixels in their display from 1920 to 2520 can do the same for vertical pixel count. If their 21x9 panels are 2520x1080, then their 16x9 panels would be 2520x1420.

First off, 2520 x 1420 is not a true 16:9 pixel resolution and would NEVER be used as a 16:9 resolution. The closest pixel resolution that fits your "argument" is 2520 x 1418, which is also not a true 16:9 resolution and would never be used.

In anycase, it doesn't matter what the resolution is of any display a "manufacturer" produces. They can make a 2520 x 1420 display and 1080p content will STILL be in the native pixel resolution of 1920 x 1080.

Yes, we are talking about the aspect ratios and resolutions of HD FORMATS here, NOT displays. You can make a 25200 x 14200 16:9 display and the 1080p material you show on it will still have only 1920 x 1080 native pixel resolution.

Now it seems you have trouble understanding how I came up with the 2520 x 1080 pixel resolution for the "hypothetical" 21:9 format we are discussing here. Let me explain it to you. What I did was take the 1080 pixel height of the current 16:9 standard, 1080p, which is 1920 x 1080 resolution, and expanded it to 21:9, which is 2520 x 1080.

The reason for this is I'm taking the "real world" 16:9 standard and using that as the reference point for our "hypothetical" 21:9 standard. If you want, we can use 720p is the reference point, at which the "hypothetical" 21:9 standard would be 1680 x 720, and nothing would change in my argument.

For that matter, you can even use YOUR "hypothetical" 16:9 resolution of 2520 x 1420 (which again is not true 16:9) and the 21:9 format would be 3313 x 1420 (which is not a true 21:9 resolution), and my argument would still hold true. You would still lose over 42% of pixels viewing 21:9 content in the "16:9" resolution of 2520 x 1420 as opposed to viewing it in the "21:9" resolution of 3313 x 1420.

That's would happen ONLY if you imposed an arbitrary limit on vertical resolution but not on horizontal resolution. Why do that?

Again, if you understand how I came up with the 21:9 pixel resolution of 2520 x 1080, you would understand there was nothing "arbitrary" about it. The 21:9 pixel resolution of 2520 x 1080 was based on the pixel height of 1080p.

Now we can, of course, place a "limit on" "horizontal resolution" and in that case, my premise would be in favor of using 4:3 as the "best" HD resolution. And again, if you READ my post CAREFULLY, you would have seen that I had already addressed this issue and why I feel it would be preferable to favor 21:9 over 4:3. Here is what I said:

Now I understand that under this premise, one can make the argument that a new 4:3 HD format of 1920 x 1440, using the width of 1080p, could be the "best" solution, if one has a preference for 4:3 over 21:9. However, to me that makes less sense as most legacy 4:3 content is in PAL and NTSC video, which has a defined SD pixel resolution, while legacy 21:9 content is mostly in film, which does not, and can be scanned and captured to 2520 x 1080 resolution or higher, as opposed to 1920 x 820 in the 4:3 HD format of 1920 x 1440.

Just in case you don't fully understand how I came up with the 4:3 pixel resolution of 1920 x 1440, I used the "horizontal resolution" of 1080p, which is 1920 pixels, to derive this 4:3 resolution.

If you take away those artificial limitations, then you never suffer such severe pixel loss, for ANY aspect ratio. On a 16x9 set, 4x3 and 21x9 movies will both use around 75% of the pixels, while 1.85/1.66 films use over 95% of the pixels.

The height of 1080 and width of 1920 are not "artificial limitations", they are the ACTUAL pixel height and width dimensions of 1080p.

When using the 1080 pixel height of 1080p to derive the 21:9 resolution of 2520 x 1080, there WILL be over 42% pixel loss when viewing 21:9 content in the 16:9 resolution of 1920 x 1080 as opposed to in the 21:9 resolution of 2520 x 1080, just as when using the 1920 pixel width of 1080p to derive the 4:3 resolution of 1920 x 1440, there will be over 43% pixel loss when viewing 4:3 content in the 16:9 resolution of 1920 x 1080 as opposed to in the 4:3 resolution of 1920 x 1440.

So, since pixel use is maximized on 16x9 panels and makes for the least amount of pixel loss across various aspect ratios, let's take a look at image size.

Again, you're imposing an artificial limitation on height that doesn't exist in the real world. A 27-inch tall 21x9 image would be 63 inches wide. On a 63-inch wide 16x9 set, a 4x3 image would be over 35 inches tall, not 27 inches tall.

Now I hope you understand that if we are talking about the DIAGONAL dimension of a display screen or pixel resolution, we are then talking about maximizing the "efficient use of screen space".

I have already agreed in the first sentence of my previous post that under THAT condition and when applied to "all commonly used aspect ratios", that 16:9 would be the "best" aspect ratio for HD.

On a 16x9 panel, both ends of the aspect ratio scale would be able to maximize size by emphasizing their attributes: 21x9 would use the entire width while 4x3 would use the entire height. Wide films look wider, tall films look taller, without favouring one over the other. Best part: films with inbetween aspect ratios (1.85/1.66) would end up using almost all the width AND height of the screen.

Again, you are talking about maximizing the "efficient use of screen space", which I have addressed. As it seems I am just repeating what I said in my previous post, here is the actual quote:

Now I'm certainly not going to disagree that 16:9 makes the most sense if the intent is to maximize the "efficient use of screen space" in consideration of all commonly used aspect ratios. That is correct and 16:9 would be the "best" aspect ratio under those conditions.

However, in my view, the "efficient use of screen space" is less important than maximizing the quality of the picture. For me, that is to assume "higher resolution equals greater quality", and in which case, I feel 21:9 would be the best, if not "ideal", aspect ratio for HD.

As I have demonstrated in my previous post, using the 21:9 aspect ratio of 2520 x 1080, which was derived using the height of 1080p, "21:9" is able to display 100% of the 16:9 AND 4:3 content resolutions of "16:9" using 1080p while ALSO displaying 100% of the "21:9" pixel resolution of 2520 x 1080. With 1080p, "16:9" is ONLY able to display 100% of the 16:9 AND 4:3 content resolutions of 21:9, but would display LESS than 58% of the "21:9" content resolution of "21:9".

Thus, "21:9" is able to achieve "higher resolution" for ALL commonly used aspect ratios, and "maximizing the quality of the picture".

But 21x9 turns out to be "best" only IF you limit the resolution of 4x3 source material

As I stated in my previous post, most 4:3 material is already "limited" by the NTSC and PAL "standard definition" formats and would NOT benefit from a HD 4:3 format such as 1920 x 1440.

The exceptions to this would be films in aspect ratios between 1.33:1 and 1.43:1. But I think it can be reasonably argued, without know the exact percentages, that films produced in the aspect ratios between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 and between 2:33:1 and 2.39:1 far outnumber those produced between 1.33:1 and 1.43:1.

and IF you limit the vertical pixel count of 16x9 panels and IF you limit image size to a constant height.

Again, I am using the accepted 16:9 pixel dimensions of 1080p to derive the "hypothetical" 21:9 format of 2520 x 1080. And again, we are talking about FORMATS, not DISPLAYS.

And once again, we don't have to use height, we can use the width, which would favor 4:3 over 16:9. In either case, both are derived from the "real world" pixel dimensions of 1080p which is 1920 x 1080.

If you don't deliberately stack the deck against all other aspect ratios by imposing these artificial limitations, then 21x9 displays become as big a compromise as 4x3 panels, since each is optimized for an extreme end of the aspect ratio scale.

16x9 panels don't suffer such compromises across various aspect ratios. The most pixel loss you'll see is 25% for any aspect ratio, never anything like 42%. Which is why it makes sense that the industry was so specific in its choice: not 16x8, not 16x10, but 16x9. Anything else would have yielded worse compromises in pixel use and image size.

Sanjay

Again, you are reverting back to the "efficient use of screen space" argument, and if that is the case, there is no need for further discussion as I have already stated, I AGREE if those are the conditions.

But for MY ideal, "efficient use of screen space" is "less important than maximizing the quality of the picture", and I have clearly stated my reasoning why under THIS condition, 21:9 would be the "best" aspect ratio for HD.

Now if you care to refute my premise based on THIS condition, then we can further discuss this. Otherwise, we are just going around in circles. :)

Well, both of you are imposing constraints of some sort in order to favor your preferred aspect ratio. You say, KyaDawn, that you're "maximizing the quality of the picture"---but you're doing so by imposing limits on vertical resolution. His point, restated, is this: if you're going to allow for the use of 2520 pixels across on 21:9 content, why not allow all of those pixels to be used for 16:9 content as well? Otherwise you're limiting PQ for those aspect ratios.

But of course, you can respond and say, since this gives 16:9 content 1420 vertical pixels, why not not allow 21:9 content to use all 1420 vertical pixels, too---which means allowing 3133 horizontal pixels.

Ad infinitum.

Obviously every time you do this iteration, you're improving picture quality for one or more of the aspect ratios. At some point you have to impose an artificial constraint to stop the mad rush. Both of you are doing it. Neither of you is truly and completely favoring picture quality---because it is not possible.

Here's another way to impose the constraint: use square pixels in the film negative domain; that is, account for the use of anamorphic lenses during shooting. In that case, most 2.35:1 content will require less horizontal resolution for a fixed picture quality over 16:9 content. Anamorphic 1920x1080 would still give a slight edge to 2.35:1. So arguably this meets Alimentall's criteria better than either of yours, which is togive the most densely packed material the most pixels for display and give the least to the least.

Even better: just allow arbitrary resolutions, anamorphic and square, to be used on Blu-Ray discs, with the only constraint being the capacity of the disc. I mean as long as we're dispensing with practical issues...

I'm not following your argument, Michael. A 1080 x 2560 panel would perfectly reproduce 1080 4x3 and 16x9, plus allow 1.85 and 2.35 to be upscaled to fill more of the screen and use more pixels. I do agree with your 'let them store the movie however they want' idea, even if you were being sarcastic.

Yes, 1080 vertical pixels is a natural choice in some sense because it's the native resolution of much HD video. But what about film? There's no reason to limit yourself to that resolution when converting film to video.

I'm not so much being sarcastic as pointing out how far you can take idealism, and pointing out that we are all imposing artificial constraints of some sort, perhaps without realizing it.

I do think that the best compromise all around would be to allow anamorphic squeeze on Blu-Ray. Since most 2.35:1 content is shot anamorphically, that will give a close approximation to matching native film resolution to the video resolution.

Yes, 1080 vertical pixels is a natural choice in some sense because it's the native resolution of much HD video. But what about film? There's no reason to limit yourself to that resolution when converting film to video.

Of course, but there's a difference between conversion and archiving, portability and playback. I'm all for 2160x5120 or even higher if we can do it.

I'm not so much being sarcastic as pointing out how far you can take idealism, and pointing out that we are all imposing artificial constraints of some sort, perhaps without realizing it.

Well, there's idealism and obtainable idealism.

I do think that the best compromise all around would be to allow anamorphic squeeze on Blu-Ray. Since most 2.35:1 content is shot anamorphically, that will give a close approximation to matching native film resolution to the video resolution.

I agree with that :)

I was merely grouping together all possible content that could be considered "4:3" without having to get into the "minutae [sic]", as you call it, of NTSC vs. PAL or 1.33:1 vs. 1.43:1, etc.Please also note that 1440 x 1080 resolution IS the resolution for 4:3 content in 1080p.You're conflating aspect ratio with resolution. If 1440x1080 is the resolution for 4x3 content, then lets not limit it to NTSC or PAL resolutions. I'm sure when you gave YOUR reasons to why you think 16:9 is the IDEAL aspect ratio for HD, it was based out of YOUR preferences and reasoning and not just because it was what was decided by the "powers that be". Or was it? :rolleyes:It wasn't based on my personal preference, but instead on maximizing display pixels and screen space across all aspect ratios. If I had said something like 'who cares about how 4:3 looks on it', then you could attribute it to preference, since I would be making it clear that I disregard certain aspect ratios. But do you see me making statements like that? First off, 2520 x 1420 is not a true 16:9 pixel resolution and would NEVER be used as a 16:9 resolution. The closest pixel resolution that fits your "argument" is 2520 x 1418, which is also not a true 16:9 resolution and would never be used.After agreeing to dismiss differences between 2.33 vs 2.35 vs 2.39, you're now arguing 1420 vs 1418? Two scan lines? you can even use YOUR "hypothetical" 16:9 resolution of 2520 x 1420 (which again is not true 16:9) and the 21:9 format would be 3313 x 1420 (which is not a true 21:9 resolution), and my argument would still hold true. You would still lose over 42% of pixels viewing 21:9 content in the "16:9" resolution of 2520 x 1420 as opposed to viewing it in the "21:9" resolution of 3313 x 1420.Well, as Michael pointed out, we can play this game ad infinitum. A manufacturer that can produce a panel with 3313 horizontal pixels for their 21x9 panels can likewise increase the vertical pixel count to 1864 for the 16x9 version. Suddenly we're no longer losing over 42% of the pixels, but only 25% at most for ANY aspect ratio. I think it can be reasonably argued, without know the exact percentages, that films produced in the aspect ratios between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 and between 2:33:1 and 2.39:1 far outnumber those produced between 1.33:1 and 1.43:1.Well, we can state that the other way too: 1.66/1.85 and 1.33/1.43 films far outnumber 2.35/2.39 films. However, 1.66/1.85 films would use over 95% of the screen space and display pixels on a 16x9 panel. The same can't be said about displaying 1.66/1.85 on 21x9 panels. So 16x9 has the advantage there.

Then it boils down to 1.33/1.43 vs 2.35/2.39 films. A 21x9 display favours one aspect ratio over the other, as much as a 4x3 display would, only using 58% of the screen/pixels at times. A 16x9 display wouldn't go below 70-75% of screen/pixel usage, for any aspect ratio. Again, advantage 16x9. I am using the accepted 16:9 pixel dimensions of 1080p to derive the "hypothetical" 21:9 format of 2520 x 1080. And again, we are talking about FORMATS, not DISPLAYS.

And once again, we don't have to use height, we can use the width, which would favor 4:3 over 16:9. In either case, both are derived from the "real world" pixel dimensions of 1080p which is 1920 x 1080.Are we sticking to the real world or not? If you want to limit vertical resolution to 1080 for 4x3, then we should limit horizontal resolution to 1920 for 21x9. However, if you want to expand horizontal resolution to a hypothetical 2520 for 21x9, then we should likewise expand vertical resolution to a hypothetical 1440 for 4x3. We're talking formats, not displays, where 21x9 currently has a real world resolution of 1920x820.

If you want to stick to real world pixel dimensions, then I would appreciate you using 1920x820 from now on rather than some hypothetical. Let's face it, there is no 2520x1080 format or content in the "real world". This keeps things consistent with other real world pixel dimensions: 1440x1080 for 4x3 content and 1920x1080 for 16x9 content. I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the phrase, "for the sake of argument".I not only understand but, in fact, employ that very tactic every time you do. Whenever you expand horizontal resolution (format or display) to some hypothetical number "for the sake of argument", I do the same for vertical resolution. For the sake of argument, of course.

Sanjay

Well, both of you are imposing constraints of some sort in order to favor your preferred aspect ratio. You say, KyaDawn, that you're "maximizing the quality of the picture"---but you're doing so by imposing limits on vertical resolution. His point, restated, is this: if you're going to allow for the use of 2520 pixels across on 21:9 content, why not allow all of those pixels to be used for 16:9 content as well? Otherwise you're limiting PQ for those aspect ratios.

But of course, you can respond and say, since this gives 16:9 content 1420 vertical pixels, why not not allow 21:9 content to use all 1420 vertical pixels, too---which means allowing 3133 horizontal pixels.

Ad infinitum.

Obviously every time you do this iteration, you're improving picture quality for one or more of the aspect ratios. At some point you have to impose an artificial constraint to stop the mad rush. Both of you are doing it. Neither of you is truly and completely favoring picture quality---because it is not possible.

You would be correct if we were discussing ONLY 21:9 and 16:9. In that case, it would be a moot point as when considering both width and height, neither has an advantage to the other.

However, we are discussing "all commonly used aspect ratios", and that would include 4:3.

Now when discussing 21:9, 16:9 and 4:3, and under the premise that the "best" aspect ratio is one that maximizes "the quality of the picture" and that "higher resolution equals greater quality", 16:9 CANNOT be the best aspect ratio because it has neither the widest nor the tallest aspect ratio. Therefore, when considering all three aspect ratios, 16:9 will ALWAYS be a compromise.

Therefore, you are left with 21:9 and 4:3. 21:9 is the widest, while 4:3 is the tallest. Again, when considering both width and height, neither has an advantage to the other.

That's where "real world" consideration comes into play. My argument is that most legacy 4:3 content is in NTSC or PAL video, both of which have defined SD pixel resolutions, and CANNOT benefit from a HD 4:3 standard.

Most legacy 21:9 content, however, is in film, which does NOT have a defined pixel resolution and CAN be scanned into HD resolutions.

In addition to this, one can reasonably argue, without know the exact percentages, that there is more 21:9 film content (as defined by films with aspect ratios between 2:33:1 and 2.39:1) than there is film content in 4:3 (as defined by films with aspect ratios between 1.33:1 and 1.43:1).

Thus, when choosing between 21:9 and 4:3, I find it reasonable to give preference to 21:9, especially when the majority of legacy 4:3 content CANNOT benefit from a HD 4:3 format while the majority of 21:9 content can, and when there is more 21:9 content than can benefit from a HD resolution than there is 4:3 content that can.

You're conflating aspect ratio with resolution. If 1440x1080 is the resolution for 4x3 content, then lets not limit it to NTSC or PAL resolutions.

I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but one would be very wrong to assume that NTSC and PAL content would be in 1440 x 1080 native resolution in the 1080p format. For the sake of argument, using the D-1 Square Pix standard (and we can use any standard you like, the result would be the same), NTSC is 720 x 540 while PAL is 768 x 576. In 1080p presentation, the image is "upscaled" to 1440 x 1080. This is a VERY important distinction when we are considering which aspect ratio is the best for HD under the premise of maximizing the "the quality of the picture".

In any case, and I don't mean it in a rude way, but once again you have missed the CONTEXT of what I wrote. Let's look at it again:

First off, for the sake of argument, let's define "4:3" as either NTSC which is 720 x 540, or PAL which is 768 x 576 (yes, I know there are variations of both, but that's irrelevant in this case), and any film content between 1.33:1 and 1.43:1. Let's also define "16:9" as any content between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1, and "21:9" as any content between 2:33:1 and 2.39:1.

The whole point of the paragraph is to define what "real world" content would fit into each aspect ratio, whether that would be 4:3, 16:9 or 21:9, and to, again, avoid any discussion of the "minutiae" of NTSC vs. PAL, 1.66:1 vs. 1.77:1 vs 1.85:1, or 2.33:1 vs. 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1, etc.

As we were discussing what OUR ideal of what aspect ratio HD should have been, that would be to assume that there is NO HD standard in place, which is why I did not define 16:9 as including 720p or 1080i/p, etc.

It wasn't based on my personal preference, but instead on maximizing display pixels and screen space across all aspect ratios. If I had said something like 'who cares about how 4:3 looks on it', then you could attribute it to preference, since I would be making it clear that I disregard certain aspect ratios. But do you see me making statements like that?

Then amazingly, I'm sorry to say you have answered the simple question of "So let me ask you a question, what would be YOUR ideal aspect ratio for HD and why?" incorrectly.

After agreeing to dismiss differences between 2.33 vs 2.35 vs 2.39, you're now arguing 1420 vs 1418? Two scan lines?

I was just pointing out that "2520x1420" is not a true 16:9 resolution, but I agree with you that this is irrelevant to our discussion.

Well, as Michael pointed out, we can play this game ad infinitum. A manufacturer that can produce a panel with 3313 horizontal pixels for their 21x9 panels can likewise increase the vertical pixel count to 1864 for the 16x9 version. Suddenly we're no longer losing over 42% of the pixels, but only 25% at most for ANY aspect ratio.

Well as I pointed out to Michael, that would be correct if we were discussing ONLY 21:9 and 16:9. Neither would have an advantage over the other when considering both height and width.

But since we are discussing "all commonly used aspect ratios", and that includes 4:3, the advantage based on constant height would go to 21:9 and the advantage based on constant width would go to 4:3. 16:9 would not have the advantage in either case.

Well, we can state that the other way too: 1.66/1.85 and 1.33/1.43 films far outnumber 2.35/2.39 films. However, 1.66/1.85 films would use over 95% of the screen space and display pixels on a 16x9 panel. The same can't be said about displaying 1.66/1.85 on 21x9 panels. So 16x9 has the advantage there.

Then it boils down to 1.33/1.43 vs 2.35/2.39 films. A 21x9 display favours one aspect ratio over the other, as much as a 4x3 display would, only using 58% of the screen/pixels at times. A 16x9 display wouldn't go below 70-75% of screen/pixel usage, for any aspect ratio. Again, advantage 16x9.

You're making two points here. First off, to make things easier, let's change my statement to "I think it can be reasonably argued, without know the exact percentages, films made in the aspect ratios between 2:33:1 and 2.39:1 AND 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 far outnumber those produced between 1.33:1 and 1.43:1 AND 1.66:1 and 1.85:1."

The reason I can include "16:9" films when weighing both 21:9 and 4:3 aspect ratios is because 16:9 will be in its maximum resolution no matter if you are considering the constant height advantage of 21:9 or the constant width advantage of 4:3.

As for 16:9 using "over 95% of the screen space and display pixels on a 16x9 panel" and the "same can't be said about displaying 1.66/1.85 on 21x9 panels", that is again veering on the premise that the "best" aspect ratio for HD maximizes the "efficient use of screen space" when considering "all commonly used aspect ratios".

So is your statement of "A 21x9 display favours one aspect ratio over the other, as much as a 4x3 display would, only using 58% of the screen/pixels at times. A 16x9 display wouldn't go below 70-75% of screen/pixel usage, for any aspect ratio."

As I mentioned several times already, under that premise, there is no dispute from me that 16:9 would be the "best" aspect ratio for HD. But again, we are discussing the best HD aspect ratio under a different premise here.

Are we sticking to the real world or not? If you want to limit vertical resolution to 1080 for 4x3, then we should limit horizontal resolution to 1920 for 21x9. However, if you want to expand horizontal resolution to a hypothetical 2520 for 21x9, then we should likewise expand vertical resolution to a hypothetical 1440 for 4x3. We're talking formats, not displays, where 21x9 currently has a real world resolution of 1920x820.

If you want to stick to real world pixel dimensions, then I would appreciate you using 1920x820 from now on rather than some hypothetical. Let's face it, there is no 2520x1080 format or content in the "real world". This keeps things consistent with other real world pixel dimensions: 1440x1080 for 4x3 content and 1920x1080 for 16x9 content.

Just to clarify, I was using the "real world" standard of 1080p just to make things easier for everyone understand. As I stated in my previous post, we can use any 21:9 or 16:9 or 4:3 resolution you want, and my argument would still be the same.

However, to be able to demonstrate the resolution advantages of either 21:9 or 4:3 based on constant height or constant width, and disadvantage of 16:9 in either scenario, we NEED to use more than one resolution for 21:9 and 4:3 to do so.

For example, using constant height of 1080, 21:9 with a 2520 x 1080 resolution can display the full 16:9 resolution of 1920 x 1080 AND the full 4:3 resolution of 1440 x 1080.

In contrast, using the constant height of 1080, 16:9 with a 1920 x 1080 resolution can ONLY display the full 4:3 resolution of 1440 x 1080, but NOT the full 21:9 resolution of 2520 x 1080. For 21:9, it can ONLY display the resolution of 1920 x 820. This accounts for over a 42% loss of resolution when compared to the 1080 height resolution of 21:9, which is 2520 x 1080.

When using the constant width of 1920, 4:3 with a 1920 x 1440 resolution can display the full 16:9 resolution of 1920 x 1080 AND the full 21:9 resolution of 1920 x 820.

In contrast, using the constant width of 1920, 16:9 with a 1920 x 1080 resolution can ONLY display the full 21:9 resolution of 1920 x 820, but NOT the full 4:3 resolution of 1920 x 1440. For 4:3, it can ONLY display the resolution of 1440 x 1080. This accounts for over a 42% loss of resolution when compared to the 1920 width resolution of 4:3, which is 1920 x 1440.

Therefore, we can conclude that when using constant height, 21:9 has the advantage and when using constant width, 4:3 has the advantage, and that in neither scenario does 16:9 hold the advantage, and thus, 16:9 cannot be the "best" aspect ratio for HD under the premise that the "best" aspect ratio is one that maximizes "the quality of the picture" in which "higher resolution equals greater quality".

I not only understand but, in fact, employ that very tactic every time you do. Whenever you expand horizontal resolution (format or display) to some hypothetical number "for the sake of argument", I do the same for vertical resolution. For the sake of argument, of course.

Sanjay

Yes, except I was never "expand[ing]" the "horizontal resolution", but rather, simply deriving either 21:9 or 4:3 resolutions based on a fixed constant height or width. :)

The point is that you both have decided that there is some "objective" baseline from which there is to work. Either you're chucking practicality out the window or you're not. Forcing us to keep fixed at 1080 horiztontal lines is nothing more than a nod to practicality, as is forcing us to stick with 1920 vertical ones.

If you're really going to toss practicality out the window, do it, and go for the "ideal" format for home theater. No need to limit yourself to a single vertical or horizontal resolution, choose the best resolution separately for each aspect ratio, and let the scaler map it to display pixels. Then when higher-resolution or widescreen displays come out there is plenty of source resolution to work with.

My suggestion to add anamorphic support to Blu-Ray quite likely provides an efficient use of pixels across from 1.77:1-2.39:1 when considered from the perspective of the unstretched film negative. But of course, that too is also a nod to practicality: it would likely require the most modest change to the Blu-Ray standard possible: no new resolutions, just the addition of an anamorphic flag.

I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but one would be very wrong to assume that NTSC and PAL content would be in 1440 x 1080 native resolution in the 1080p format.I'm not assuming NTSC and PAL content are 1440x1080. I'm just not equating 4x3 with NTSC or PAL. We're discussing hi-def, so let's use the HD resolution for 4x3, not standard def. Then amazingly, I'm sorry to say you have answered the simple question of "So let me ask you a question, what would be YOUR ideal aspect ratio for HD and why?" incorrectly.I did answer the question (16x9), and explained why (least compromise). But it wasn't based around any particular preference of aspect ratios. For example, you've made it quite clear you couldn't care less about 4x3 material. I haven't expressed any similar like or dislike for a particular aspect ratio. But since we are discussing "all commonly used aspect ratios", and that includes 4:3, the advantage based on constant height would go to 21:9 and the advantage based on constant width would go to 4:3. 16:9 would not have the advantage in either case."Advantage based on constant height"? You keep making it sound asthough manufacturers can increase width but not height. If we take away the height limitation you're imposing, then 16x9 has the advantage: it never reaches the point of 42% pixel/screen loss, with any aspect ratio. But again, we are discussing the best HD aspect ratio under a different premise here.You are, not "we". I'm certainly not starting from a premise that limits 4x3 material to standard def resolutions and limits various aspect ratios to a constant height. Therefore, we can conclude that when using constant height, 21:9 has the advantage and when using constant width, 4:3 has the advantage, and that in neither scenario does 16:9 hold the advantage, and thus, 16:9 cannot be the "best" aspect ratio for HD under the premise that the "best" aspect ratio is one that maximizes "the quality of the picture" in which "higher resolution equals greater quality".How does 42% pixel loss equate to maximizing the quality of the picture? That's how much you lose when using 21x9 or 4x3 panels. You never lose that much resolution with 16x9 panels, no matter what aspect ratio the content is. Therefore, when considering all three aspect ratios, 16:9 will ALWAYS be a compromise.But it will be the least amount of compromise, if we are truly "considering all three aspect ratios". The only time 21x9 or 4x3 panels have the advantage is when displaying content with the panel's native aspect ratio. For any non-native aspect ratios, those panels are a bigger compromise than 16x9.

Sanjay

Well, the cool thing is we now have a choice.

Yes, indeed, and I think that even scaled non-anamorphic content will look great on it.