AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
I knew this was gonna happen. First they shove widescreen down our throats and now ultra wide screen. I bet in few years widescreen will be history.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
I actually like the idea.


Until now 2.35:1 has only been possible with a projector and anamorphic lense.


I have a Planar PD8150 and a Schneider Cine-Digitar lense. It's a very different movie experience you get from a setup like that.


I like it



If you have a "movie room" where the majority of your TV watching is movies, the new Philips TV could be a nice choice of TV for a room like that.


fabbas01 - I don't think they shove it down our throats, I mean, all the movies (almost) in the cinema are 2.35:1 so the format is here to stay.


I like having more options as a consumer. I think it's a bold initiative from Philips.


Regards

Martin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
well it is like shoving it down our throats, because 4:3 is almost gone. I do like widescreen, but after looking at 2:35:1 dvd's 8 years ago, i said it to myself that they are going to come out with ultra widescreen right when everyone gets comfortable with widescreen. Its a good idea as an option, but all its gonna do is confuse the average consumer even more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
dunno if id want that to watch sports on
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,951 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by fabbas01 /forum/post/15562822


I knew this was gonna happen. First they shove widescreen down our throats and now ultra wide screen. I bet in few years widescreen will be history.

The industry standardizing on 1.78:1 was a dumb idea in the first place, considering at the time almost no films were actually made in that ratio. I'm quite happy to see them fixing that decision, even if belatedly.


Next up, we need anamorphically enhanced blu-rays.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Personally I don't like it at all! For regular TV broadcasts 16:9 is the standard, only for certain movies who aren't converted to 16:9 you would need these kind of TV's. Sadly most movies these days are using this ridiculous ultra widescreen format, so if you are only watching movies these TV's are fine of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,326 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carled /forum/post/15563433


The industry standardizing on 1.78:1 was a dumb idea in the first place, considering at the time almost no films were actually made in that ratio. I'm quite happy to see them fixing that decision, even if belatedly.


Next up, we need anamorphically enhanced blu-rays.

By saying this you realize your TV just got smaller right? and you are committing yourself to black bars on just about everything. Yes, you will get bars on a 16:9 screen however no bars on HD programming and some movies. Not a good idea IMO. The standard is 16:9 and at this point let's stick with it for a while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,790 Posts
Fail-- Will still letterbox Ben-Hur.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Again, for a dedicated movie room, this TV would be a nice option (if you don't want / can't fit in a projector).


PS. that first picture looks awesome - I really like the look of this TV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
When watching a true 2.35:1 movie on this 56" TV, what size does it correspond to on a normal 16:9 TV?


A 60" TV or?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,807 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayla /forum/post/15565233


When watching a true 2.35:1 movie on this 56" TV, what size does it correspond to on a normal 16:9 TV?


A 60" TV or?

Pythagorean theorem: A² + B² = C²


56 in (21:9) (image diagonal)


A = 2.37y

B = y

C = 56


(2.37y)² + y² = 56²


y = 21.77 in (image height)

x = 2.37y = 51.58 in (image width)


C in (16:9) (image diagonal)


x = 51.58 in (image width)

y = 0.56x = 28.88 in (image height)


A = 51.58

B = 28.88

C =


51.58² + 28.88² = C²


C = 59.11 in (image diagonal)


So, for 2:37:1 aspect ratio content, a 56 in (21:9) display is equivalent to a 59 in (16:9) display.


AJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
I say bring it on and make it bigger. I wish they can bring this techno to front projector.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength /forum/post/15566256


Pythagorean theorem: A² + B² = C²


56 in (21:9) (image diagonal)


A = 2.37y

B = y

C = 56


(2.37y)² + y² = 56²


y = 21.77 in (image height)

x = 2.37y = 51.58 in (image width)


C in (16:9) (image diagonal)


x = 51.58 in (image width)

y = 0.56x = 28.88 in (image height)


A = 51.58

B = 28.88

C =


51.58² + 28.88² = C²


C = 59.11 in (image diagonal)


So, for 2:37:1 aspect ratio content, 56 in (21:9) equivalent is 59 in (16:9).


AJ

Good lord man you're confusing me with these number, can you just put a ruler on the tv screen and give us the number.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,807 Posts
Okay, in case you zoned out before the conclusion at the bottom of my previous post...

Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength /forum/post/15566256

***So, for 2:37:1 aspect ratio content, a 56 in (21:9) display is equivalent to a 59 in (16:9) display.***

AJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
I'm sure it will have a following, but nothing too popular, who can fit such a wide screen in their living room let try and watch any broadcast sources over it?
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top