AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › 50", 58" Vizio 21:9 edge-lit TVs in Febuary, 71" backlit one date TBA
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

50", 58" Vizio 21:9 edge-lit TVs in Febuary, 71" backlit one date TBA

post #1 of 45
1/14/12 at 10:06am
Thread Starter 
50", 58" Vizio 21:9 edge-lit TVs in Febuary, 71" backlit one date TBA

http://ces.cnet.com/8301-33379_1-573...s-by-february/

Quote:
It's a cool idea, and I'm always intrigued by something different, but when I asked Vizio's reps how the TVs handled CinemaScope Blu-rays I was disappointed by the answer. Since such movies are formatted to a 1,920x1,080 resolution, some of the 1080 lines actually consist of black bars. That means that the 21:9 TVs have to zoom the image to eliminate those bars, scaling the image and preventing the 1:1 pixel matching achieved by actual 1,920x1,080 HDTVs. Still, I'm curious to see the sets in action, and I doubt most viewers will notice the scaling. On the other hand, they might notice the need to zoom/stretch/crop (or deal with black bars to either side) when watching normal 16:9 movies, TV shows, and sporting events.

When I mentioned these issues again to Vizio VP John Schindler during a CES 2012 prebrief, he told us that the company intended to face the chicken-and-egg problem of sparse ultra-wide-screen content by delivering the hardware first, and encouraging software and content developers to follow the lead.

I wonder if this means the TV will accept an input signal at the actual res of the screen? The Philips* TV, at least the first one, only accepted 1920x1080. I suppose it could at least be anamorphic 1920x1080, having the TV stretch out the image.

* (21:9)
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 45
1/14/12 at 10:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21-9news View Post



I wonder if this means the TV will accept an input signal at the actual res of the screen? The Philips* TV, at least the first one, only accepted 1920x1080. I suppose it could at least be anamorphic 1920x1080, having the TV stretch out the image.

* (21:9)

If the screen is native 2560 x 1080, then the TV should accept that as a native res. You have said the earlier Phillips TVs did not accept anything above 1920 x 1080 and apart from a PC input, what else is greater anyway.

These TVs would use bi-cubic scaling to fill the screen rather than need true anamorphic video. It means that letter boxed video is perfectly fine, though at some point, we can only hope that native 2560 x 1080 material finds its way into our homes.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 45
1/15/12 at 7:13am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

You have said the earlier Phillips TVs did not accept anything above 1920 x 1080 and apart from a PC input, what else is greater anyway.

You're missing the point. That's the "chicken and egg situation": Without a device to accept 2560x1080 input, there's little incentive to manufacture devices that output 2560x1080. Vizio were saying at least that situation existed regarding 21:9 screens and 21:9 media, I wanted to know whether they meant to overcome the resolution "chicken and egg situation" along with the aspect ratio one.

You don't need to tell me that what they currently do is zoom in on 16:9 (1920x1080 letterboxed) media to fill the 21:9 screen, I understood that from the start.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 45
1/15/12 at 1:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21-9news View Post

You're missing the point. That's the "chicken and egg situation": Without a device to accept 2560x1080 input, there's little incentive to manufacture devices that output 2560x1080. Vizio were saying at least that situation existed regarding 21:9 screens and 21:9 media, I wanted to know whether they meant to overcome the resolution "chicken and egg situation" along with the aspect ratio one.

You don't need to tell me that what they currently do is zoom in on 16:9 (1920x1080 letterboxed) media to fill the 21:9 screen, I understood that from the start.

Think back to 1991 (if you can), a time when the world was 4 x 3 and Phillips boldly showed the world their first 16:9 TV. There was no program to support it, so it had a very slow and shaky start. No different here. If the TV is the chicken and the program is the egg, then chicken came first both times. People complain about black bars, yet just read these forums to see how many complain about side pillars. You can't please everyone.

4K is coming and there is potential for true anamorphic content produced from 5K camera. I got to speak to the camera crew during work for a TV add last week and they were using a RED digital camera at 4K (for a TV add) which is capable of 5K for Scope capture. I was amazed that they would use such a camera for a 30sec TV add. The add will be produced for 16:9 even though they could have captured Scope at 5K allowing enough information for anamorphic squeeze.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 45
1/16/12 at 9:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

I got to speak to the camera crew during work for a TV add last week and they were using a RED digital camera at 4K (for a TV add) which is capable of 5K for Scope capture. I was amazed that they would use such a camera for a 30sec TV add.

They probably need the work to make the payments on the camera!
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 45
1/16/12 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jautor View Post

They probably need the work to make the payments on the camera!

Of maybe the TV industry has learned from the debacle of the last time they introduced a new format (HDTV) when they realized they had no program to show on it.

I'm sure these adds are not just for TV but cinema, hence their 4K rez.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 45
1/20/12 at 12:43pm
The 21 x 9 size is the only developement that got my "wow factor" going.
JJK
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 45
1/20/12 at 8:51pm
Especially when you see Scope program the same height as a 16:9 image. I like the look of the 21:9 display and should I find one at the right price would gladly change out the 16:9 plasma in the living room.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 45
1/23/12 at 12:15pm
I, for one, would be happy if the studios would simply put out anamorphic 1080p BD discs. A stretched image inside of a 16:9 (1920X1080) Blu-ray would work perfectly on this television. This worked great for years with SD DVDs. The human eye is way more sensitive to vertical resolution. Having 1920 get stretched out to 2560 would be fine as long as we were using every line of the 1080 for image (meaning no black bars.)

How many lines in a 2.35 1080p BD are actual image (and not black)? 800 or so? That's around 33% of wasted resolution. You would think we'd see a 1/3 increase in image detail. That sounds like a lot.

They really should have made this a part of BD's spec to begin with. (There were CIH setups when BD came out.) If there's no way to update existing BD players' firmware to recognize some sort of anamorphic flag and letterbox the image when played on a 16X9 TV, they could simply make an extra SKU that includes an extra disc (like they often do with 3D); this extra disc would have the anamorphic 2.35 image.

This disc would be very simple to produce. And if they thought they wouldn't sell many, they could always charge a lot for this SKU. Early 21X9 adopters would probably pay it... Certainly they would for the right movies.

If there's a reason Hollywood might fear to do this, it's probably that they don't want us to have any movie in the truly highest possible quality... They'd never be able to get us to buy the movie again!

brian
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 45
1/23/12 at 5:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by magi1500 View Post

I, for one, would be happy if the studios would simply put out anamorphic 1080p BD discs. A stretched image inside of a 16:9 (1920X1080) Blu-ray would work perfectly on this television. This worked great for years with SD DVDs. The human eye is way more sensitive to vertical resolution. Having 1920 get stretched out to 2560 would be fine as long as we were using every line of the 1080 for image (meaning no black bars.)

And every A-Lens user here would celebrate as well. The reason it won't happen is that the studios won't want complaints about geometry issues from the masses of 16:9 users.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 45
1/23/12 at 5:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post


And every A-Lens user here would celebrate as well. The reason it won't happen is that the studios won't want complaints about geometry issues from the masses of 16:9 users.

True. That's why I suggested the possibility of an additional disc in the box with a separate SKU, similar to how they often do BD3D SKUs / discs.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 45
1/23/12 at 5:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by magi1500 View Post

True. That's why I suggested the possibility of an additional disc in the box with a separate SKU, similar to how they often do BD3D SKUs / discs.

It is almost based on the masses being considered dumb. A separate 3D disc simply does not play on a 2D player, so you can't have the consumer ringing the 1800 hotline complaining that the image appears to be blurry.

A true anamorphic disc however is going to be 2D and therefore will have to play on every player. Suddenly the 1800 hotline is ringing 24/7 with people wondering why the image is tall and thin.

Besides, what about all the Scope 3D films? I love my CIH system and want to upgrade it to 3D. That means there would have to include 2 extra discs in the "true anamorphic" set.

The answer is native 2560 x 1080 software and new players that can down rez the files to 1920 x 810, and also generate the letterbox bars for 1920 x 1080 displays for backward compatibility.

The issue is that we live in a 16:9 world and with 4K just around the corner, 21:9 won't happen unless 5K shot material can be down rez'd to 4K and letter boxed.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 45
1/24/12 at 1:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post


It is almost based on the masses being considered dumb. A separate 3D disc simply does not play on a 2D player, so you can't have the consumer ringing the 1800 hotline complaining that the image appears to be blurry.

A true anamorphic disc however is going to be 2D and therefore will have to play on every player. Suddenly the 1800 hotline is ringing 24/7 with people wondering why the image is tall and thin.

Besides, what about all the Scope 3D films? I love my CIH system and want to upgrade it to 3D. That means there would have to include 2 extra discs in the "true anamorphic" set.

I author BD 3D for a living (actually I do the encoding, but I know the authoring software well) and I'm certain that the only reason those 3D BDs don't play on 2D players is because they lock out that ability in the authoring process. Older BD players got firmware so that they could play 3D discs in 2D (half our clients still want this) or so that they could read the lockout flag and not play the disc at all. No reason they couldn't do the same thing with a separate anamorphic 2.35 disc.

But you're right, of course. It will never happen with blu. If it happens, it will be blu's successor. I just hope there is one. And we're not forced into super compressed digital downloads for 4K & beyond.

brian
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 45
1/31/12 at 11:16am
I'm glad to see they're not neglecting "small" sizes with the 50" model. I try to make the most of of the little space I've got, and this would do it nicely. Not to mention the scaling artifacts are probably much less discernable at smaller sizes.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 45
2/2/12 at 8:40am
Vizio Shipping 58-Inch, 21:9 Widescreen HDTV in March

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399742,00.asp

For decades, 4:3 was the standard aspect ratio for TVs, but with HDTVs, that shifted to 16:9, which offered a wider picture that showed movies closer to their theatrical dimensions. The latest standard to emerge, however, is 21:9, and one of the first HDTVs to offer the super-wide aspect ratio will come from Vizio.

The company's new 58-inch CinemaWide HDTV will ship in March, USA Today reports. At 29 by a whopping 56.7 inches, the HDTV comes close to offering the 1:2.35 aspect ratio found in anamorphic movie format. Previously, home theater enthusiasts who wanted to watch movies in anamorphic format had to use a projector with an anamorphic lens. That changes this year, with Vizio standing as the first company to offer a 21:9 aspect ratio HDTV in the United States. Philips offers a 21:9 HDTV, the Philips Cinema 21:9 TV, but even though it launched in 2009 it hasn't hit the United States yet; it's only available in the United Kingdom.

The Vizio CinemaWide HDTV will feature almost all of the company's connected TV features, including Vizio Internet Apps (Vizio's app and online service platform), built-in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, a Bluetooth remote with a keyboard, and passive 3D with four pairs of glasses included. It won't have the Google TV Vizio Internet Apps Plus interface, though, and all of its features and super-wide screen add up to a hefty price tag; the HDTV will retail for $3,499 when it hits stores in March.

While $3,500 is expensive for an HDTV, it pales compared to the price tags of projectors that can show the anamorphic format. Good home theater projectors retail for several thousand dollars, and anamorphic lenses and sled mechanisms can add hundreds or thousands to the price, and that's not including a projection screen to show the picture with accurate colors.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 45
2/10/12 at 12:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by magi1500 View Post

I, for one, would be happy if the studios would simply put out anamorphic 1080p BD discs. A stretched image inside of a 16:9 (1920X1080) Blu-ray would work perfectly on this television. This worked great for years with SD DVDs. The human eye is way more sensitive to vertical resolution. Having 1920 get stretched out to 2560 would be fine as long as we were using every line of the 1080 for image (meaning no black bars.)

How many lines in a 2.35 1080p BD are actual image (and not black)? 800 or so? That's around 33% of wasted resolution. You would think we'd see a 1/3 increase in image detail. That sounds like a lot.

They really should have made this a part of BD's spec to begin with. (There were CIH setups when BD came out.) If there's no way to update existing BD players' firmware to recognize some sort of anamorphic flag and letterbox the image when played on a 16X9 TV, they could simply make an extra SKU that includes an extra disc (like they often do with 3D); this extra disc would have the anamorphic 2.35 image.

This disc would be very simple to produce. And if they thought they wouldn't sell many, they could always charge a lot for this SKU. Early 21X9 adopters would probably pay it... Certainly they would for the right movies.

If there's a reason Hollywood might fear to do this, it's probably that they don't want us to have any movie in the truly highest possible quality... They'd never be able to get us to buy the movie again!

brian

The BDA had the option for anamorphic BD and opted out of it. It simply won't happen this late in the game. Another issue is a film with a 2K scan and master equals 1080 x 1998 for a 1.85:1 film and 858 x 2048 for a 2.39:1 film. So there is no real way to get 2560 pixels across in the first place. Film scanning is done in it's native 17:9 format for 2K and 4K.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 45
2/10/12 at 12:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRO-630HD View Post

The BDA had the option for anamorphic BD and opted out of it. It simply won't happen this late in the game. Another issue is a film with a 2K scan and master equals 1080 x 1998 for a 1.85:1 film and 858 x 2048 for a 2.39:1 film. So there is no real way to get 2560 pixels across in the first place. Film scanning is done in it's native 17:9 format for 2K and 4K.

So when they scan a Scope film (from 35mm), does the negative they use contain the squeezed image or is it something else? If it is anamorphic, do they then compress each digitally scanned frame to to make it letter boxed?

I am curious to exactly what they use because (and you don't see this on BD) I have a few DVDs where even the end of real markers (AKA the cigarette burns) are visible. These films are 16:9 enhanced DVD presented as a letterbox.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 45
2/10/12 at 12:52pm
http://www.edcf.net/edcf_docs/DCI%20...%20Formats.pdf

http://www.celco.com/FormatResolutionTable4K.asp

Those are an excellent example of trying to understand all this. With Cinemascope you will have a loss in vertical resolution as the actual aspect ratio is squeezed 1.195:1 and unsqueezed to 2.39:1 so alot more of the frame is being used for the picture. Say best case scenario 2048 x 1736 modern anamorphic scan the 1736 vertical lines will get compressed to 868 for the bluray and the 2048 horizontal lines will get cropped or compressed to 1920.

I really would save the $3,500 for a 4K display. They are coming out this year. 4K bluray will be out in 2013 and the display will be utilising all the picture information on the disc. The vizio is simply zooming in on the picture! No different than a non-anamorphic dvd. I really don't see the point and there is no content in native 21:9.

16:9 displays when they first came out, I had one in March 1997 were great for anamorphic dvd's and broadcast television shows starting to film in 16:9. I still have episodes of widescreen SD TV shows on Super VHS. It is a middle ground from 1.33:1 to 2.76:1 for a few ultrawide films. I admit I like the 2K/4K digital cinema aspect ratio of 17:9 better. Problem is for all films up too the early 50's you will have massive pillarboxing as they are 4:3 and have pillarboxing for 1.85:1 films as well.

Ideally for me a 17:9 4K display, but I will settle for a 16:9 if I need to.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 45
2/13/12 at 2:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRO-630HD View Post


Ideally for me a 17:9 4K display, but I will settle for a 16:9 if I need to.

So your OK with black bars for anything wider than 16:9 or 17:9?
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 45
2/13/12 at 7:01pm
You can never avoid black bars period. Even on the 21:9 vizio all TV programming will have black bars, all 1.37:1 films will have them as well as 1.85:1 films. They will just be pillarboxed instead.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 45
2/13/12 at 10:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRO-630HD View Post

You can never avoid black bars period. Even on the 21:9 vizio all TV programming will have black bars, all 1.37:1 films will have them as well as 1.85:1 films. They will just be pillarboxed instead.

There is a difference between black bars (which run horizontally and waste vertical rez) and pillar bars (which run vertically and only fill the gaps from the edges of the picture to the edge of the screen. On a CIH display like this, it should possible for all images to vertically fill the screen. Not the case on 16:9.

Quote:
Originally Posted by William88 View Post

Of maybe the TV industry has learned from the debacle of the last time they introduced a new format (HDTV) when they realized they had no program to show on it.

I'm sure these adds are not just for TV but cinema, hence their 4K rez.
__________________

We can only hope.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 45
3/30/12 at 10:07pm
There isn't a ton of information in this video, but it certainly provides a lot of awkward moments. http://www.hometheater.com/content/p...o-james-kittle
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 45
6/8/12 at 1:00pm
That was a great link. I am very interested in the 71". I do have concerns and question on a few things. Here is one:

-The native BD resolution is 1920x800 (excluding black bars). The vizio has a native panel resolution of 2560x1080, so is the picture zoomed to just fill the screen, or does vizio "up-scale/up-convert" to the new resolution to enhance the experience?
Edited by rx74ray - 6/8/12 at 1:42pm
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 45
6/9/12 at 1:37pm
I found my answer in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M98iugDQZ_E

Apperanltly vizio actually up-converts the native BD picture resolution from 1920x800 to 2560x1080.
Thats great news, meaning any BD movie will look better on the cinemawide vizio due to enhanced resolution.
Based on my calculations, the upconverted experinece will be 80% richer in 2D resolution. This is very impressive:

BD 2D frame resolution: 1920 x 800 = 1.536 MP
Up-converted 2D frame resolution: 2560 x 1080 = 2.7648 MP

[(2.7648 - 1.536) / 1.536] *100 = 80%.
Edited by rx74ray - 6/9/12 at 1:45pm
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 45
6/12/12 at 1:27pm
I called vizio. They said no info on 71" release is available. It might even get canceled.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 45
6/15/12 at 5:32pm
The problem is there is no native 21:9 content for these displays. Upconversion is simply that. trying upconverting a dvd and tell me you are getting an HD picture. It isn't going to happen. You are limited to your source material. SD is SD and no amount of upconversion is ever going to change that. 1080 x 1920 is all the resolution you will ever get from these displays. Up conversion is a gimmick and always has been and will never increase resolution of the source material.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 45
6/15/12 at 9:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRO-630HD View Post

The problem is there is no native 21:9 content for these displays. Upconversion is simply that. trying upconverting a dvd and tell me you are getting an HD picture. It isn't going to happen. You are limited to your source material. SD is SD and no amount of upconversion is ever going to change that. 1080 x 1920 is all the resolution you will ever get from these displays. Up conversion is a gimmick and always has been and will never increase resolution of the source material.

That is literally what we are trying to change:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1412547/could-this-be-it-folded-space-enhanced-resolution
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 45
6/16/12 at 6:01pm
Because the BD spec was never finalized, it has allowed upgrades - the most notable of course being 3D. I think there is need for further upgrades and Folded Space offers such a workable solution. I hope the BDA can see this.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 45
6/17/12 at 4:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

That is literally what we are trying to change:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1412547/could-this-be-it-folded-space-enhanced-resolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Because the BD spec was never finalized, it has allowed upgrades - the most notable of course being 3D. I think there is need for further upgrades and Folded Space offers such a workable solution. I hope the BDA can see this.

It sure looks like a solution that should be implemented, but who knows.
AVScience Insider

Buy Gear From AVS

» Get the latest news and updates at the AVScience sponsor page.
Reply
AVScience Insider

Buy Gear From AVS

» Get the latest news and updates at the AVScience sponsor page.
Reply
post #30 of 45
6/17/12 at 3:14pm
The challenge being, 21:9 TVs are currently struggling to even get a foot hold (not that different from 20 years ago when Phillips introduced the 16:9 TV. It would not be until SONY jumped on the band wagon and the introduction of DVD some 5 years later that the public became aware of the need to change) and they already need a design revision because from what I understand, they may have 2560 x 1080 rez, but only except 1920 x 1080. They need to be able to accept and map 2560 x 1080 at 1:1. Then people would have a need for technology like Folded Space.

As a user of an Anamorphic projection system, Folded Space is perfect and exactly what we need.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › 50", 58" Vizio 21:9 edge-lit TVs in Febuary, 71" backlit one date TBA