or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › CIH Native PJ soon?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CIH Native PJ soon? - Page 2

post #31 of 82
If anyone makes it first, it will be Pansonic. I have no direct or indirect knowledge but they seem to be heading in that direction. Their memorized lens was created to create the poor mans 2.35 system. Now they may stop there as a anamorphic lens could price them out of their market, but they seem to get it
post #32 of 82
I have the same feeling on this as Daniel, I would not be shocked if Panasonic were the first to do this, if for no other reason than marketplace posturing.
What I would really like to see though is Panasonic drop the first native scope 3-D HDMI 1.4 projector with a couple of pairs of active shutter glasses for under $3K, ... and then JVC to copy them so you can get the same deal but with better black levels!
post #33 of 82
Why would anyone make a 21:9 projector for the home? There is no current format that uses it so it either has extra horizontal pixels to upscale or fewer pixels in 16:9 to downscale into. Blu-ray made the "short-sighted" decision not to have a 21:9 ratio as part of the standard so movies could be encoded 1920x1080 in a 21:9 ratio to use up all the pixels like DVD did with 16:9.

Now to be fair, there were no plans and still aren't any to move to 21:9 display devices unlike when DVD was created when 16:9 was to become the new standard within 7-8 years. I remember all the arguments when DVD first came out over whether a DVD should be enhanced or letterboxed because most people had 4:3 displays and that player down-scaling from 480 pixels to 360 pixels had noticeable artifacts on 4:3 displays. Plenty of us argued that people would soon have 16:9 displays and the DVD would be future-proof. However that argument wouldn't hold for 21:9 so Blu-ray has avoided the complaints from 99.99% of the users out there for the 0.01% of the people who could take advantage of a 21:9 native encoding.

So other than a small but decent percentage of HT front projection owners that really like CIH, who would really buy one if it cost more for the extra horizontal pixels? If the solution was to make 21:9 at 1920x1080 to keep costs equal but then 1.85:1 movies were down-scaled to 1440x1080 pixels, would you want one at all?
post #34 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Cler View Post

Not that it really matters, but the first native 1.78:1 projector was the Sony 400Q which was released in 1996 (before DVD). I know because I owned one .

Here's another thing that must not matter ... since I've heard no one point it out. 21 X 9 is not 'Scope format. It's not even 2.37 which is what HT anamorphic lenses typically produce. Simple math tells you it's 2.33 ... which is, I believe, significantly norrower that the current 2.39 'Scope spec.

In the final analysis, it surely won't matter ... but why couldn't they do it right? Perhaps the industry should stop trying to refer to ARs using only two integer numbers. Go to the single decimal (a Real) number to refer to ARs ... like the film industry has done for almost a century.

4X3, 16X9, 21X9, 84X35 (I made that last one up). It's really stupid.

They could call any new 'Scope format products "240" ... or "Scope240".
post #35 of 82
Why wouldn't someone make a 21:9 projector for the home if they thought it might make a great marketing campaign ("true cinema for the home", you know the type of thing) and drag a few more people to their products?

If companies only produced product based on what we need or what makes sense rather than how they can get people to re-buy the latest and greatest and dump what they only bought last year then this forum would be a lot quieter.

The home theatre projector market is still very small in the grand scheme of things but still every year new product is pushed at us, why?

Why wouldn't a company like Panasonic or Sony or whoever try to re-sell us the wheel (Hey everyone it's a new and improved shape) when we all know round works perfectly well?
post #36 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

Here's another thing that must not matter ... since I've heard no one point it out. 21 X 9 is not 'Scope format. It's not even 2.37 which is what HT anamorphic lenses typically produce. Simple math tells you it's 2.33 ... which is, I believe, significantly norrower that the current 2.39 'Scope spec.


If you were to try googling 2560x1080, I think you'll find it referred to as 21:9, for very obvious reasons.

Read post #8. When we discuss 21:9, the resolution is actually 2560x1080. Thats 2.37
post #37 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine View Post

If you were to try googling 2560x1080, I think you'll find it referred to as 21:9, for very obvious reasons.

Read post #8. When we discuss 21:9, the resolution is actually 2560x1080. Thats 2.37

Thanks very much for pointing that out to me. Now I know.

But I still think using integers is silly. Never understood it. And now, they're using integers inaccurately for the very reason that it's silly.

But again, thanks.

My two cents on the question of 'Scope format sets and projectors, I think I'd love to purchase a set like the Philips or the Vizio ... but I don't find the format very appealing on a projector. Lumens mostly. Would just stick with my Prismasonic lens.
post #38 of 82
Cinema 21:9 is a good marketing name, however 21 /9 does not equal 2.37, rather 2.33*.
post #39 of 82
I wonder though with 3D and 4K as the next evolutionary steps how much more confusion would a "pseudo" scope projector create.
post #40 of 82
3D can be any AR between 1.33:1 and Scope. I've seen Scope 3D and when displayed CIH (they used LCD shutterglasses and an XL Schnieder Lens), it is very cool. Not so cool when letterboxed on a 1.78:1 display.

4K could mean 4096 x 2160 or 4096 x 1728. If it is the first, then either a 1.25x lens is required or you zoom or you live with letterboxing. The confusion we have now will just increase with the introduction of 3D, however, I think the concept is marketable if the prices are "real" nand their is genuine programing available.
post #41 of 82
The only way to give the average consumer the possibility to see the movies they most often see in their homes is to give them the possibility to purchase 21:9 TV's and Projectors.

The most seen movies/largest box office success are almost all made in "scope".
Everybody here know how much hassle and cost it is to set up a projector with anamorphic lens.
That is the reason that even here on AVS where people generally are more interested in movies and displays, anamorphic rigged HT's are a minority and a niche.
With native 21:9 chip projectors the only thing people need to do different from their 16:9 setup is is to buy a wider screen.

All the advantages we have with our CIH setups will be present, but minus the cost and rigging of an anamorphic lens.
The same vertical stretch will be done by the projector with the same gain in resolution and light + the projector will take over the Horizontal stretch which before was done by the anamorphic lens.
I mean; can anything be easier than that for displaying the most popular movies in their correct AR?

In 2004 after a factory visit to a high end DLP projector producer I asked if and when we would see a native "scope" projector and received a blank uncomprehending stare. After I argued why it would be a great idea, I got the answer that they thought never and didn't really understand why it should be needed.
That was before there was much talk about anamorphic lenses and CIH.
This just to illustrate how "shortsighted" and lack of vision the very people that make some of the display tools we love so much are.
And why great and "obvious" ideas develop so slowly.

As to which company/display technology will come with the first native 21:9 projector; Texas Instruments will soon release a 2560 x 1080 DLP DMD.
It is based on their recently release WQXGA resolution 2560 x 1600 DMD which first was released by projectiondesign in their F35 WQXGA projector. (that's 4 megapixel resolution by the way, double the HD resolution)
Whether the first downscaled to 2560x1080 version of this DMD will be seen in a projector from projectiondesign or SIM2 or someone else remain to be seen.

Calling this 21:9 is a great selling point as noted by Cavx.
TI's 2560x1080 DMD is 2:37:1.
The difference between that resolution and 21:9 is 17 vertical pixels.
So to begin to say "using integers is silly" about 21:9, that is pretty ridiculous as no 21:9 movies are cropped equal. (cropping "standard" in the movie industry is around 2:40:1'ish anyway)


I believe that, if the projector manufacturers manage to put a reasonable price on 21:9 native projectors they have a possibility to infuse some new "excitement" and recuperate a rather declining projector marked where there has been few real improvements in the last couple of years.


Some more illustrations;
One I found, one I made based on some I found.




post #42 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

TI's 2560x1080 DMD is 2:37:1.
The difference between that resolution and 21:9 is 17 vertical pixels.

Or 40 horizontal pixels. A true 21:9 display would probably have 2520x1080 pixels, or else it would not be a 1080p display.
post #43 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

So to begin to say "using integers is silly" about 21:9, that is pretty ridiculous as no 21:9 movies are cropped equal. (cropping "standard" in the movie industry is around 2:40:1'ish anyway)

You're certainly entitled to think my comment is rediculous. Just as I'm entitled to think using integers to designate ARs is silly.

But in the case of these new 'Scope TV's, I think it's particularly silly since they, in fact, aren't 21X9 at all. They're actually 2.37 rez as you pointed out to me (thanks again). Why then call it 21 X 9. It's just wrong! That was my point.

I come from the film business, not the broadcast business. There have been about a dozen different ARs used since the late 19th century. And none of them were 21 X 9.
post #44 of 82
21:9 is approximately scope, the same as 16:9 is approximately 1.85:1.
It's used to make things easier for the masses to understand who really dont care about aspect ratio's but still want rid of "those annoying black bars".
post #45 of 82
There's probably plenty of names you could call them that don't need numbers. I'd personally be happy calling them 64/27 or 237 or 21:9 or whatever the manufacturers like, but I suspect giving them numbers like that would just call everything into question. If the goal is to sell a simpler way to watch movies full height - you don't want customers to stand in the electronics store thinking, "Wait, the movie says it's 2.40:1, so why should I get a display that's 2.37:1? Will it look right?"

Something more descriptive seems like the right choice to me, like "cinema screen" or "scope TV" or just "extra wide." How about "super-hi definition?" Anyway, I'm sure every manufacturer who makes one (crossing fingers) will have a different name for it.
post #46 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

Why then call it 21 X 9. It's just wrong!

Having 9 as the height makes it easier to compare to 16:9. The actual value is 21 1/3:9, but it is simpler to write and say "21:9" as a nominal value.
post #47 of 82
4 x 3 or 1.33:1 is basically 12:9.
1.78:1 or 16:9 and is also 1.33 x 1.33.
2.37:1 (slightly over 21:9) is 1.78 x 1.33.
post #48 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

But in the case of these new 'Scope TV's, I think it's particularly silly since they, in fact, aren't 21X9 at all. They're actually 2.37 rez as you pointed out to me (thanks again). Why then call it 21 X 9. It's just wrong! That was my point.

I come from the film business, not the broadcast business. There have been about a dozen different ARs used since the late 19th century. And none of them were 21 X 9.

Why is the scope aspect ratio still referred to as "2.35:1" throughout the film industry, when the real ratio is 2.40:1?

Sometimes, there are no logical answers to questions like these. It's just the way things are done.
post #49 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Why is the scope aspect ratio still referred to as "2.35:1" throughout the film industry, when the real ratio is 2.40:1?

Sometimes, there are no logical answers to questions like these. It's just the way things are done.

Right Josh ... but I'll take it a step further. It's not 2.40 today. It's 2.39.

So whaddaya gonna do. The marketing people have their way.
post #50 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Garci View Post

Having 9 as the height makes it easier to compare to 16:9.

Absolutely - but 16:9 wasn't easier to compare to 4:3. 16:9 is TV^2 and "scope" is TV^3. The common denominator is just tough to find (for the average consumer).

1.33 --> 4:3 = 12:9 = 36:27

1.78 --> 16:9 = 48:27

2.37 --> 64:27
post #51 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

Right Josh ... but I'll take it a step further. It's not 2.40 today. It's 2.39.

It's 2.39 and change, which can be rounded up to 2.40.
post #52 of 82
Well Hell, 2.35 "can be" rounded up to 2.4.
post #53 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Why is the scope aspect ratio still referred to as "2.35:1" throughout the film industry, when the real ratio is 2.40:1?

Sometimes, there are no logical answers to questions like these. It's just the way things are done.

I would have to say 'market rounding' where even us Scope owners would say '235' or 'Scope' instead of 'CinemaScope' or saying the actual ratio of 2.35:1, 2.37:1, 2.39:1 or 2.40:1.

Another example is 5.1 in audio. The actual number is 5.005 where the first '5' denotes the number of full range channels and the '.005' represents a channel with a sample rate of 1/200th of the priciple sample rate. 5.1 just rolls off the toungue easier than 5.005 as does 235 or Scope to decribe the wider AR of film presentation.
post #54 of 82
Well, to reiterate ... I think 21 X 9 is a silly way to refer to these new displays. Having heard the phrase "CinemaWide" for the first time only a couple months ago, I'd give that a thumbs up. It's a nice way to market the product.

I'd love to have a Vizio like this in my bedroom. Move the Toshiba Regza to the guest room (give away the eight-year-old 30" Samsung direct view CRT) and keep the theater the way it is.
post #55 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

Having heard the phrase "CinemaWide" for the first time only a couple months ago, I'd give that a thumbs up. It's a nice way to market the product.

It has a catch to it. However, HDTV was also marketed as being "Cinematic" and "Wide Screen", so why I agree with the numbers 21:9. It gives a point of reference given that most are familar with 16:9.
post #56 of 82
It's nice that Panasonic has released 2 projectors so far with a CIH feature, and if other manufacturers follow it can only be good for the possibility of 21:9 native projectors.
post #57 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

It has a catch to it. However, HDTV was also marketed as being "Cinematic" and "Wide Screen", so why I agree with the numbers 21:9. It gives a point of reference given that most are familar with 16:9.

And it also makes it seem bigger because 21:9 > 16:9 so it must be awesome
post #58 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike2060 View Post

if other manufacturers follow it can only be good for the possibility of 21:9 native projectors.

Apparently TI is working on a 2560 x 1080 DMD.
post #59 of 82
Along a similar vein, I just think it's worth noting that I've seen a number of 'scope formatted HD commercials playing during NBC's coverage of the winter Olympics. To me it looks like advertisers understand that viewers associate the extra-wide image and black bars with special content. Maybe if those same ad agencies get together with CE bigwigs, they'll see the market possibilities.
post #60 of 82
I don't watch much TV, however the other night I noticed many of the adds were letterboxed which impressed me. I wonder how long before actual program is shot this way?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › CIH Native PJ soon?