Are panels that are wider than 16:9 a sustainable trend? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 39 Old 01-13-2013, 08:26 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,288
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 743

...Or even a trend at all? I keep seeing this show up. I'm curious.....Is the public becoming increasingly annoyed with the black bars?

Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 39 Old 01-13-2013, 08:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,909
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 218

This is probably the only recent 21:9 TV thread on the LCd FORUM wink.gif
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1417773/official-vizio-xvt3dxx0cm-21-9-cinemawide-owners-thread/150
8mile13 is offline  
post #3 of 39 Old 01-13-2013, 08:59 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,288
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

This is probably the only recent 21:9 TV thread on the LCd FORUM wink.gif
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1417773/official-vizio-xvt3dxx0cm-21-9-cinemawide-owners-thread/150

Some people (for some reason) are insulted when someone points them to another thread. I'm not one of them. So, Thanks!

Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #4 of 39 Old 01-13-2013, 09:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,909
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 

Some people (for some reason) are insulted when someone points them to another thread. I'm not one of them. So, Thanks!
What i meant is that there is very little interest in 21:9 TVs. Vizio seems to be the only one left who is making them.
8mile13 is offline  
post #5 of 39 Old 01-13-2013, 10:55 AM
Member
 
Whatstreet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

...Or even a trend at all? I keep seeing this show up. I'm curious.....Is the public becoming increasingly annoyed with the black bars?

Why bother. There are so many aspect ratios used in the content that there will always be black bars sometimes.
Whatstreet is offline  
post #6 of 39 Old 01-13-2013, 11:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,225
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

What i meant is that there is very little interest in 21:9 TVs. Vizio seems to be the only one left who is making them.

I doubt very much that the 21:9 "trend" will reach anywhere near 1% of the market in the next 5 years.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #7 of 39 Old 01-13-2013, 02:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jim McC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oconomowoc, WI.
Posts: 5,896
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 32
I hate the wide formats, even 2.35:1. I wish all HD content was 16:9. Why settle for a smaller image?
Jim McC is offline  
post #8 of 39 Old 01-13-2013, 02:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 6,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 328
I don't mind occasionally watching ultra wide screen movies with black bars. However, since most program content is currently 16:9, you would be looking at side bars most of the time. eek.gif



Ian

The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others

mailiang is offline  
post #9 of 39 Old 01-13-2013, 04:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McC View Post

I hate the wide formats, even 2.35:1. I wish all HD content was 16:9. Why settle for a smaller image?
The wide formats are actually larger than 16:9, and that's the problem. Your 16:9 TV isn't big enough so you have to either chop the sides off, or shrink the image to fit.

With a 21:9 native display, 21:9 content (the largest format) fills the display, and the smaller 16:9 and 4:3 formats are pillarboxed. (or stretched, displayed side-by-side etc.)
It actually makes a lot more sense to do it this way, the only problem is that there are no anamorphic Blu-rays, so 21:9 content needs to be scaled up to 2560x1080.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

I don't mind occasionally watching ultra wide screen movies with black bars. However, since most program content is currently 16:9, you would be looking at side bars most of the time. eek.gif
Most of the time? The only time I have a 16:9 image is with my PC running on my TV, and a PC would fill the screen with a 21:9 display too. Most of the time I have letterboxing. Unfortunately none of the 21:9 displays on the market were all that good.

Perhaps there is hope with 4K OLED. If they choose to go with an upscaled image as they currently do, 4K should help minimize the artifacting from that.
But they could always go with 3840x1620 and use 1:1 mapping with letterboxed sources, scaling down 16:9 ones. (as they are less important on a 21:9 panel)


I don't really see much of a future for 21:9 displays though. Too bad they didn't make the switch to 21:9 being the standard when introducing 4K.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #10 of 39 Old 01-13-2013, 05:20 PM
Senior Member
 
CatBus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I'm pretty much the target demographic for these things and I'm still stuck at "curious-but-not-remotely-sold". Think of it basically as nothing more than a low-budget CIH solution and that's the entire appeal. Yeah, I'd go for a projector if I had the a) budget, and b) space--but having neither, these sets look good on paper. About 75% of the content I watch is wider than 16:9, and the other quarter is almost all 4:3, so I'm pretty much looking at black bars almost 100% of the time on a 16:9 display. My living room (and wife) really isn't going to allow any set that much larger than 50 inches, so there you go, projectors and screens would be silly for me. At that small size and my actual home viewing distance, problems from scaling should be unnoticeable. But at least so far, they all seem fairly half-assed in implementation. Anyway that's the point of view from someone who actually could want one of these things.
CatBus is offline  
post #11 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 05:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 204
Chronoptimist: what is the ratio of people's eyes? Is it less than 21:9 or more?

Seems to me like the best ratio would be what most people's actual vision is. Is that true or not?
Artwood is offline  
post #12 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 07:50 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,288
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Chronoptimist: what is the ratio of people's eyes? Is it less than 21:9 or more?

Seems to me like the best ratio would be what most people's actual vision is. Is that true or not?

I'm not so sure. You have 2 eyes, each with overlapping FOV. If you believe Wikipedia (I only do when it agrees with me smile.gif ):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia article on the Human Eye, 'Field of View' section View Post

The approximate field of view of an individual human eye is 95° away from the nose, 75° downward, 60° toward the nose, and 60° upward,

With both eyes taken into account, this puts us at a total of 190° HFOV and 135° VFOV, which suggests a 190:135 (or a 1.4:1 ratio). 1.4:1 is roughly 12.6:9. How interesting. If this is true, we're walking around with CRT vision......LOL.....
Joe Bloggs likes this.

Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #13 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 10:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Chronoptimist: what is the ratio of people's eyes? Is it less than 21:9 or more?

Seems to me like the best ratio would be what most people's actual vision is. Is that true or not?
I'm not sure that actually matters. We have decades of 2.37:1 film content ("21:9") and the vast majority of films shot today are in that aspect ratio. The display should suit the aspect ratio of the content it's displaying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I'm not so sure. You have 2 eyes, each with overlapping FOV. If you believe Wikipedia (I only do when it agrees with me smile.gif ):
With both eyes taken into account, this puts us at a total of 190° HFOV and 135° VFOV, which suggests a 190:135 (or a 1.4:1 ratio). 1.4:1 is roughly 12.6:9. How interesting. If this is true, we're walking around with CRT vision......LOL.....
I'm not sure why that's so surprising. When I get right up close to a 16:9 display, I lose the edges before the top and bottom leaves my field of vision. Probably explains why I never had a problem with 4:3 displays - in fact I am still quite fond of the 4:3 aspect ratio. I would much rather have a 4:3 notebook than the 16:9 or 16:10 displays manufacturers seem to be pushing these days.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #14 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 11:52 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,288
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

I'm not sure that actually matters. We have decades of 2.37:1 film content ("21:9") and the vast majority of films shot today are in that aspect ratio. The display should suit the aspect ratio of the content it's displaying.

Or just be big enough to display nifty black bars AND see what you want. Or use my JSC method. (Just Sit Closer) LOL...

Quote:
I'm not sure why that's so surprising. When I get right up close to a 16:9 display, I lose the edges before the top and bottom leaves my field of vision. Probably explains why I never had a problem with 4:3 displays - in fact I am still quite fond of the 4:3 aspect ratio. I would much rather have a 4:3 notebook than the 16:9 or 16:10 displays manufacturers seem to be pushing these days.

The charter for a computer display is vastly different for that of a television. Height is very valuable relative to width when reading a document or perusing a website. As for the 4:3 nature of our own eyesight being "surprising"....it wasn't per se, but I didn't expect it either. I am far more L/R cognizant than I am U/D. I could see why there'd be evolutionary reasons for this (attacks and hunting occurs on the ground in horizontal fashion) but I'd be guessing. This could be why 4:3 seems less appropriate for movies as well. Again, more guessing.

Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #15 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 11:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 6,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

The wide formats are actually larger than 16:9, and that's the problem. Your 16:9 TV isn't big enough so you have to either chop the sides off, or shrink the image to fit.

With a 21:9 native display, 21:9 content (the largest format) fills the display, and the smaller 16:9 and 4:3 formats are pillarboxed. (or stretched, displayed side-by-side etc.)
It actually makes a lot more sense to do it this way, the only problem is that there are no anamorphic Blu-rays, so 21:9 content needs to be scaled up to 2560x1080.
Most of the time? The only time I have a 16:9 image is with my PC running on my TV, and a PC would fill the screen with a 21:9 display too. Most of the time I have letterboxing. Unfortunately none of the 21:9 displays on the market were all that good.

Perhaps there is hope with 4K OLED. If they choose to go with an upscaled image as they currently do, 4K should help minimize the artifacting from that.
But they could always go with 3840x1620 and use 1:1 mapping with letterboxed sources, scaling down 16:9 ones. (as they are less important on a 21:9 panel)


I don't really see much of a future for 21:9 displays though. Too bad they didn't make the switch to 21:9 being the standard when introducing 4K.


They have a Vizio wide at Costco, all 16:9 broadcast content was stretched. Looked absolutely awful.


Ian

The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others

mailiang is offline  
post #16 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 12:10 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,288
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

They have a Vizio wide at Costco, all 16:9 broadcast content was stretched. Looked absolutely awful.


Ian
That's not the fault of the Vizio, nor of the 21:9 AR. That's the fault of the knuckleheads setting the zoom parameters, so it's neither here nor there.

Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #17 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 12:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 6,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

That's not the fault of the Vizio, nor of the 21:9 AR. That's the fault of the knuckleheads setting the zoom parameters, so it's neither here nor there.

That may be so but also worth noting is Tom Norton's review, (HT Magazine Dec. issue) where geometric distortion and other oddities were an issue on many BDs with changing screen formats. Regardless of the wide control setting. Vizio is trying to iron out these kinks, however, at this point, I'm not holding my breath. biggrin.gif When not watching scope content you still have to deal with side bars.



Ian

The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others

mailiang is offline  
post #18 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 12:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

That may be so but also worth noting is Tom Norton's review, (HT Magazine Dec. issue) where geometric distortion and other oddities were an issue on many BDs with changing screen formats. Regardless of the wide control setting. Vizio is trying to iron out these kinks, however, at this point, I'm not holding my breath. biggrin.gif
Seems like it was set wrong. You zoom with 21:9 content, and use pillarboxing for 16:9 or 4:3 content. Doesn't seem hard.
It only really gets problematic when you're watching titles like Tron Legacy where it switches between 21:9 and 16:9 several times throughout the film, but those titles are rare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

When not watching scope content you still have to deal with side bars.
Right, but 90% or more of the content I watch is 21:9 native. (or could be, with my PC, as it has a flexible output) Are people complaining about pillarboxing on 4:3 content much these days?

The point is also that on a 21:9 panel, a 16:9 or 4:3 image does not get smaller, just narrower. Our perception of image size largely depends on the height of the image, more than the width.
On a 16:9 panel, 21:9 content appears to be smaller, because the height gets reduced. 4:3 content is fine, it just gets narrower.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #19 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 01:30 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,288
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Seems like it was set wrong. You zoom with 21:9 content, and use pillarboxing for 16:9 or 4:3 content. Doesn't seem hard.
It only really gets problematic when you're watching titles like Tron Legacy where it switches between 21:9 and 16:9 several times throughout the film, but those titles are rare.
Right, but 90% or more of the content I watch is 21:9 native. (or could be, with my PC, as it has a flexible output) Are people complaining about pillarboxing on 4:3 content much these days?

The point is also that on a 21:9 panel, a 16:9 or 4:3 image does not get smaller, just narrower. Our perception of image size largely depends on the height of the image, more than the width.
On a 16:9 panel, 21:9 content appears to be smaller, because the height gets reduced. 4:3 content is fine, it just gets narrower.

This isn't the same thing at all, but I seem to remember back when HD was first going mainstream that there were some manufacturers that still did not get the pixel aspects quite right. I remember side by side examples at BB where one face was ever so slightly wider than it should have been. I asked a BB grunt on hand why, and he had the typical "beats me" look on his face. It was not due to a zoom setting either, because both seemed pixel for pixel complete. I just figured that some panels weren't adhering to the aspect ratio specs precisely.

Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #20 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 02:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,909
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist 
Seems like it was set wrong. You zoom with 21:9 content, and use pillarboxing for 16:9 or 4:3 content. Doesn't seem hard.
It only really gets problematic when you're watching titles like Tron Legacy where it switches between 21:9 and 16:9 several times throughout the film, but those titles are rare.

In The Dark Knight Rises there is lots of aspect ratio switching, The Dark Knight Switcher Rises tongue.gif
8mile13 is offline  
post #21 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 03:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 6,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Right, but 90% or more of the content I watch is 21:9 native. (or could be, with my PC, as it has a flexible output)


I guess our viewing habits are different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Are people complaining about pillarboxing on 4:3 content much these days?.


Fortunately, I rarely watch 4:3 or SD content on my HDTV's. I have my tube set for that. wink.gif



Ian

The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others

mailiang is offline  
post #22 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 04:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

I guess our viewing habits are different.
It really comes down to whether you watch TV or Film content. With the exception of maybe one or two shows on Blu-ray, I don't watch TV at all.

I can't see 4K broadcast content happening any time soon, I expect it will all be films. So why not make 4K 21:9 native? (too late now of course)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

Fortunately, I rarely watch 4:3 or SD content on my HDTV's. I have my tube set for that. wink.gif
The same thing could be said about 16:9 displays and HD rather than 4K.

I have some 4:3 Blu-rays though. They're definitely HD quality content, but were shot in that aspect ratio for whatever reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

In The Dark Knight Rises there is lots of aspect ratio switching, The Dark Knight Switcher Rises tongue.gif
Yeah, there are a handful of titles that do it, but those two are the only ones I can think of. It's very rare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

This isn't the same thing at all, but I seem to remember back when HD was first going mainstream that there were some manufacturers that still did not get the pixel aspects quite right. I remember side by side examples at BB where one face was ever so slightly wider than it should have been. I asked a BB grunt on hand why, and he had the typical "beats me" look on his face. It was not due to a zoom setting either, because both seemed pixel for pixel complete. I just figured that some panels weren't adhering to the aspect ratio specs precisely.
With SD being 720x480 or 720x576, neither of which are 4:3 or 16:9 resolutions, it was a little more complicated. Somewhat more complicated when you're dealing with CRTs rather than flat panels too. There's only one way to display a 720p or 1080i/p signal correctly though, so it should basically be impossible to get it wrong with these 21:9 displays.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #23 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 04:28 PM
Senior Member
 
CatBus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 26
All of the "issues" around the actual aspect ratio are nothing new to anyone with a projector/CIH system. Movies that switch aspect ratios shouldn't actually be a problem (if they're encoded properly...) A movie that switches between 2.35:1 and 4:3 is essentially a 2.35:1 movie all the way through--it just has big black pillars on sections of the movie. So set your system to treat it as a 2.35:1 film and it will just work[TM]. That said, there WERE a couple DVDs that were NOT encoded properly, but they looked wrong even if you didn't have a CIH system and AFAIK they were all fixed with a later reissue. i.e. imagine the section of the film that's supposed to look smaller actually looking bigger, that's the problem they had (example: Brainstorm DVD).

Yes, people's viewing habits differ and I don't think CIH holds a great deal of appeal for people who actually use the top and bottom pixels of their display most of the time. But it never held any appeal for them before these sets existed either. CIH is not new, these sets are just a way of introducing it to people who couldn't previously have it.

I think a real problem is that these sets never seem to have specs nearly as good as the flagship models, yet they're supposed to somehow appeal to cinephiles. Another problem is that the stretch method itself could use improving (both technical and UI-wise). It seems to me like someone had a bright idea for a niche product, but in an attempt to mainstream it, they've killed its chances of any success at all. Frankly I'd love a 21:9 4K plasma with top-of-the-line specs. These sets aren't anywhere near that ideal.
CatBus is offline  
post #24 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 04:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

Yes, people's viewing habits differ and I don't think CIH holds a great deal of appeal for people who actually use the top and bottom pixels of their display most of the time. But it never held any appeal before these sets existed either. CIH is not new, this is just a way of introducing it to people who couldn't previously have it.
The problem is that before, you were using a projector with optics in front of the lens, many of which didn't quite get the aspect ratio correct, and most of which reduced image quality.

You have similar problems with current 21:9 flat panels because you are scaling 1920x810 up to 2560x1080 which is going to introduce artefacts and reduce sharpness.
Make it a standard, and you have a 1:1 mapped image without any of the image scaling problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

I think a real problem is that these sets never seem to have specs nearly as good as the flagship models, yet they're supposed to somehow appeal to cinephiles. Another problem is that the stretch method itself could use improving (both technical and UI-wise). It seems to me like someone had a bright idea for a niche product, but in an attempt to mainstream it, they've killed its chances of any success at all. Frankly I'd love a 21:9 4K plasma with top-of-the-line specs. These sets aren't anywhere near that ideal.
Philips actually did make a flagship model with the 21:9 aspect ratio. Full array local dimming etc. The problem is that the price of it was ridiculous... and it was a Philips set.

This is why I wish they had standardized on 21:9 for 4K. I don't see much need for 16:9 4K, because most of the content produced for it is going to be films rather than broadcast. That's not to say you can't make a 4K 21:9 display, but if you make it a standard, then it's going to see much wider appeal.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #25 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 04:54 PM
Senior Member
 
CatBus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

That's not to say you can't make a 4K 21:9 display, but if you make it a standard, then it's going to see much wider appeal.

I see what you did there wink.gif

And yes, I agree on the technical points. Ideally I think the media should be have the film in its native aspect (no black bars encoded at all on any AR), and the player just reads this metadata and adds whatever matting is necessary to match its output resolution. Lacking that, however, this tech makes me curious. And a little disappointed.
CatBus is offline  
post #26 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 05:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,288
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

I see what you did there wink.gif

And yes, I agree on the technical points. Ideally I think the media should be have the film in its native aspect (no black bars encoded at all on any AR), and the player just reads this metadata and adds whatever matting is necessary to match its output resolution. Lacking that, however, this tech makes me curious. And a little disappointed.

Doesn't even need to be meta-data. The size of each of the frames is readily apparent as they are read by the DVD Player/BD/TV.

Dynamic extents could have historically been used in other ways though: Back in the 4:3 pan-and-scan "full screen" DVD hey-day, if you wanted both it was always mastered twice: either two DVD's (one "full screen", one "wide"), or those impossible to read dual sided ones. There was no reason for the DVD to not have as part of the specification a set of 4:3 extents that wander around within ONE wide screen DVD. One DVD, two ways of displaying it, everyone happy. 'Course, that's now a dead issue.

Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #27 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 07:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,909
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist 
Yeah, there are a handful of titles that do it, but those two are the only ones I can think of. It's very rare.
The Dark Knight also has aspect ratio switching in it, not as much as DKR though. Both DK and DKR are Christopher Nolan movies as you probably know smile.gif
8mile13 is offline  
post #28 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 08:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 204
In the movie Ben-Hur what kind of ratio would you need to see all the chariots in the chariot race?
Artwood is offline  
post #29 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 08:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Doesn't even need to be meta-data. The size of each of the frames is readily apparent as they are read by the DVD Player/BD/TV.
What if they entire frame or 90% of it is black?
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #30 of 39 Old 01-14-2013, 08:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

In the movie Ben-Hur what kind of ratio would you need to see all the chariots in the chariot race?
For the 2010 TV version, 1.78:1 probably. smile.gif Which is closer to the aspect ratio of our eyes.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off