AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
OK, so it seems to me that all (most) the widescreen movies are in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, so when if ever are the LCD and Plasma panels going to offer that? And if not why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
961 Posts
I dunno, a lot of movies (or at least DVDs and Blurays) are in 16:9. And HDTV is almost exclusively 16:9. So, do you want a 16:9 TV with letterbox bars for movies or a 2.35:1 TV with pillar box bars for TV?



jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
as i understand it, it is all about compromise.


the 4:3 sets were a compromise to fit the standard movie format at the time.


16:9 is a compromise for the current movie formats, and there are several.


take a look at the this thread for a great link to a site that computes the viewing areas of different size HDTV's AND the viewing areas of 2 different movie formats.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1099847
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
986 Posts
2.35:1 panels are a great idea. Once the production costs decrease, maybe the companies will start making something like this. I imagine these will start showing up once tvs mature into bendable sheets of transparent polymer. Something like OLED. Then 2.35:1 material will display in its full glory while 16:9 video will appear as if it was displayed on a 16:9 panel, without black bars on the sides.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,234 Posts
It could be an interesting marketing opportunity if one of the brands was bold enough to make a display with a 1920x816 resolution panel (may have to tolerate 9 pixels of overscan) at a pricepoint that is comparable to conventional 16:9 displays of similar diagonal measurement. Such a product would certainly raise the collective eyebrow of a certain home video customer demographic, but that demographic could still be a limited number if the "super-wide" feature just doesn't make sense to the larger hd demographic (hence, a risk to product viability).


Maybe an added perk to this 2.35 display would feature snazzy pip capability where the main frame switches to 16:9 (horizontal cropping 2:35 content, if need be) with 4:3 tiles of 2ndary frames to fill up the remaining width? The extra space when showing native 16:9 content at full height could also be used for a live news feed/ticker type of feature on one side of the display. It may not appeal to everybody, but it does have potential techno-appeal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,186 Posts
IMO If such a display was ever manufactured it would have to be fairly large to be of any interest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Like someone said above, it's all about compromise. I think they settled on the 16:9 shape because it provided the best balance between 4:3 and 2.35:1 / 2.40.1 formats, didn't loose as much vertical height (good for smaller TV's), while widening the set to be easier on the eyes.


Over time, 4:3 material will probably be phased out, so that will help out alot with the "black bar" problem. However, the best solution would be to have the filmmakers and broadcasters settle on one format (highly unlikely).


How nice would it be if they only made TV's and media that was 1080P and 16:9?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,926 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky /forum/post/15419249


It could be an interesting marketing opportunity if one of the brands was bold enough to make a display with a 1920x816 resolution panel

That sounds rather nonsensic: going down the resolution. But 2540x1080 would make sense: standard HD could be watched in full res with black bars
. One could call this then cinema display
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,941 Posts
TVs are made in enormous scale. Plasma panels are only made by a handful of companies -- LG, Samsung, Panasonic and possibly Hitachi (I've heard they're switching to Panasonic glass, as Pioneer is).


Those companies offer relatively few different panels. I think it's safe to assume, for example, that the panel in the Panasonic PZ80 is the same as the PZ85 and that the difference is in the electronics. Even with this relative lack of diversity, the companies are struggling to make a profit. There just isn't enough demand to support the manufacture of a 2.35 panel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,234 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck /forum/post/15420990


That sounds rather nonsensic: going down the resolution. But 2540x1080 would make sense: standard HD could be watched in full res with black bars
. One could call this then cinema display
.

Think about it...it's not "going down the resolution". It's exactly the resolution put on the disc for a linear 2.35:1 presentation. The only difference is what screen size is being marketed at that aspect ratio (a 52" 2:35 display vs. a 52" 16:9 display).


While 2540x1080 sounds like a higher rez, the truth is that there is no native hd material at that resolution. So any possibility of using that extra display resolution has to entail an upscaled 1920x1080 program, at best (which if it is 2.35:1 content, it will essentially BE 1920x816 material, less the native black bars). We are all well accustomed to the notion that upscaling cannot create detail that wasn't there in the first place, so logically there is no technical gain to upscaling standard 1080p programs containing 2.35:1 material to 2540x1080...but there is certainly the potential for scaling loss. That's a bitter pill to accept if you are paying for the extra resolution in the display.


Admittedly, native 16:9 1080p material would not be at its theoretical "best" on such a display, but it is not the priority on a 2.35:1 display, in the first place. I don't expect it would be "terrible" looking, either. It should look quite good with minimal scaling loss (as a consequence of 1080p being downscaled to 816p)...certainly no worse than what has to happen to put a 720p broadcast on a 1080p display (and I can say it can look quite good).


At any rate, a 1920x816 2.35:1 display will inherently have a cost advantage to a 2540x1080 2.35:1 display, just due to the relative manufacturability of a display with x number of pixels. In a potentially niche market for super-wide displays competing against 16:9 displays of similar (diagonal) screen size ratings, you will need all the cost advantage you can get to keep the product viable, imo.


Now this isn't to mean that I would be opposed to 2540x1080 displays, altogether. I just don't think it is the best first step going forward with a super-wide initiative. Later down the line, I imagine a 2540x1080 display could be quite cost competitive and actually desirable from a marketing perspective. This would be contingent upon the availability of actual 2540x1080 material or possibly specialty anamorphic 1080p br releases, of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,234 Posts
Anybody keeping tabs on anticipated CES products? I hear super-wide displays are on the menu...figured at least somebody would be excited to mention it in a thread such as this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,057 Posts
Anyone else think Philips is desperately trying to differentiate themselves in what is now an exceptionally tough TV market?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,951 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by SystemShock2 /forum/post/15582908


Anyone else think Philips is desperately trying to differentiate themselves in what is now an exceptionally tough TV market?

Even if they are, I can think of worse ways to differentiate themself. The niche of people who watch predominantly scope material might not be huge, but it certainly does exist.


For most TV owners, there's few things smaller than Ben-Hur, so if you happen to like that sort of thing, then this is great news. And if not, then it's not like the existance of this TV is going to hurt you in any shape or form.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
I can't believe that after all these years we're still arguing about the black bars. Honestly people, do they really bother you that much? Even on my low-end LCD with its less-than-ideal black level, once I'm into the movie the bars all but disappear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
Who cares? If the black levels are good enough, there's no problem with black bars.


Everything is moving into 16:9, which is already kind of a progress... 2,35:1 movies will be seen with black bars, and everything else pixel perfect. I think that's a really good scenario, because 2,35:1 is not suitable for all the contents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,057 Posts
Judging from the pics of it, I don't think I'm even going to like the way 2.35:1 displays physically look, for some reason. Just too narrow vertically. Guess I just don't watch quite enough movies in that format to be excited by the advantages.


Forgive my ignorance, but human vision is closer to 16:9 than 2.35:1, is it not? Two eyes, set side-by-side, with overlapping fields of view... that would seem to be an aspect ratio of less than 2:1, eh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allnatural /forum/post/15585652


I can't believe that after all these years we're still arguing about the black bars. Honestly people, do they really bother you that much? Even on my low-end LCD with its less-than-ideal black level, once I'm into the movie the bars all but disappear.

I just accepted them as a fact of life YEARS ago with 4:3 TV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,951 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by SystemShock2 /forum/post/15595648


Judging from the pics of it, I don't think I'm even going to like the way 2.35:1 displays physically look, for some reason. Just too narrow vertically. Guess I just don't watch quite enough movies in that format to be excited by the advantages.


Forgive my ignorance, but human vision is closer to 16:9 than 2.35:1, is it not? Two eyes, set side-by-side, with overlapping fields of view... that would seem to be an aspect ratio of less than 2:1, eh?

I've never been able to find a conclusive answer to the aspect ratio of human vision. It's harder to measure because it's more ovoid than retangular and because of the complexities of binocular vision. From what I've been able to piece together, it's at least 2:1.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top