AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 68 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,360 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,200 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,091 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,360 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Sony has some 21:9 laptops now, too. QQQ pointed that out somewhere else in this forum!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,037 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,091 Posts

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,037 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/15633202

Quote:
Originally Posted by KyaDawn /forum/post/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!

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!
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,848 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by KyaDawn /forum/post/15634818


Don't know why 16:9 was chosen to begin with

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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,091 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/15635058


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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,037 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/15636066


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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,848 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by KyaDawn /forum/post/15636358


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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,037 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/15637999


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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,848 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by KyaDawn /forum/post/15638094


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.
Quote:
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,091 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/15640650


"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.
Quote:
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,091 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by KyaDawn /forum/post/15638094


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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,037 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/15640650


"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!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/15640825


I got your back

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

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,200 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
Top