21:9 Aspect Ratio Philips TV

P

persisting1

Gawd
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
858
For those of you who hate black bars, then here's your dream.

philips_219.png


http://www.gadgetvenue.com/philips-cinema-tv-with-219-aspect-ratio-01153223/
 
That is what I was looking for! Perfect for home cinema. Why no one hadn't made it before?
 
I love how manufacturers put the little diagonal gloss on their products, makes things so much desirable!
 
jimblevins said:
That is what I was looking for! Perfect for home cinema. Why no one hadn't made it before?
Click to expand...

Perfect for home cinema?

A scene from "MiB" blu-ray movie:

539po5.jpg


Same thing with "true home cinema" (from HD camcorder) - side bars!
 
albovin said:
Perfect for home cinema?

A scene from "MiB" blu-ray movie:

539po5.jpg


Same thing with "true home cinema" (from HD camcorder) - side bars!
Click to expand...
I think there are a lot more blu-ray's in 2.35 & 2.4 aspect ratio than in 1.78 & 1.85. I have about 20 movies and the only ones that are not in 2.35:1 are my two seasons of Lost and Hellboy 2.
 
~same diagonal to compare:

541cl4.jpg


The newborn looks miserable.

Vertical resolution/size has always been the ranking factor for displays.
 
Don't know if I want to watch tv on it. Movies yes, but anything else, probably not.
 
albovin said:
~same diagonal to compare:

541cl4.jpg


The newborn looks miserable.

Vertical resolution/size has always been the ranking factor for displays.
Click to expand...

Except it is probably priced closer to a 52" panel. Production cost is related to panel area not diagonal. Here is a more fair comparison have about the same area:

aspectca1.jpg


If we used the Diagonal sizing argument, we should have all stayed with 4:3 screens. for a movie watching screen this can make a lot of sense.

Though I would actually prefer if they made more movies in 16:9 or offered 16:9 versions of movies on the same disk. I really think 2.35:1 is too wide and is more of a gimmick. But if we have 2.35:1 movies then having a 2.35:1 screen for entertainment makes sense.
 
This display seems ideal for a dedicated dvd/bluray movie room, not so much for watching broadcast tv.

What's the resolution on this bad boy anyway? I couldn't find the res on the linked article.
 
The only solution for the poor lambs who's eyes bleed when they see a black bar is a dynamically resizable display - which is never going to happen.
 
it would be nice to have as long as you have another tv for the other movies.
 
philjohn said:
The only solution for the poor lambs who's eyes bleed when they see a black bar is a dynamically resizable display - which is never going to happen.
Click to expand...

In theory it might. For a projector (if that counts) it's just a matter of 'resizing' the screen. And for a more regular TV, unused parts of an OLED display could just be made transparent.

As said, for movies this could be quite good. And for that reason I'd imagine it having a 1080p resolution. But as an allround TV? No thanks.
 
Another idea I just had - make the "black bars" the same colour (and maybe even design if it's fancy) as the bezel. That would be quite cool.
 
philjohn said:
Another idea I just had - make the "black bars" the same colour (and maybe even design if it's fancy) as the bezel. That would be quite cool.
Click to expand...

I think samsung have had this on some of their plasmas - in grey. The real reason behind it I think is because pure black might wear more on the display. Anyway, the result was horrendous.
Perhaps because the bezel doesn't emit light - it was even hard to realize that that was the purpose of it being gray, and not a bug of some sort :p
 
brumwald said:
I think samsung have had this on some of their plasmas - in grey. The real reason behind it I think is because pure black might wear more on the display. Anyway, the result was horrendous.
Perhaps because the bezel doesn't emit light - it was even hard to realize that that was the purpose of it being gray, and not a bug of some sort :p
Click to expand...

Yep one of my friends has a plasma with very grey bars on purpose. It is hideous.

I would have the backlight elements arranged such that you could completely shut off the the sides in 16:9 mode. Kind of like a giant local dimming mode but just for 16:9 mode. Perfect black bars as good as morphable display in the dark or low light.
 
Too bad it's Philips. They suck. Wonder if anyone else is gonna bring this out.
 
Snowdog said:
Except it is probably priced closer to a 52" panel. Production cost is related to panel area not diagonal. Here is a more fair comparison have about the same area:

aspectca1.jpg
Click to expand...


TV market speaks "diagonally".
"Area" is too complicated for a regular consumer.
 
The market might speak diagonally, but it prices on area. So you will get the sizing I have shown for the same dollar.

In that context, the difference is much less dramatic than you made it out to be. I find CIH very appealing. I prefer black side bars than top/bottom black bars, which I find makes everything smaller and more disruptive.

I think 2.35 widescreen for entertainment could be great. Again I am not a widescreen freak, I wish they would stop making 2.35 movies, but since they do, having a screen that matches makes sense. When you think about it. Epics are are most often shot on 2.35 aspect, they need to be as big as possible. The 1.85 movies tend to be talking head movies. No great loss losing screen area on them.

For computer screens I don't even like 16:9. I prefer 16:10 or 4:3.

If I had to do everything (computer + entertainment) with one screen,16:10 would be the best comprmise IMO.

Right now I have a 16:10 computer screen, and 16:9 TV (also computer connected), but that could easily be a 21:9 screen.
 
Snowdog said:
The market might speak diagonally, but it prices on area. So you will get the sizing I have shown for the same dollar.

In that context, the difference is much less dramatic than you made it out to be.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that they base their prices on area.
They may price on brand, on innovations, on size, on quality, on market trends, on their expenses, etc.
Regarding the size, we can only speculate about what is more important price-wise : area or shape.
It's hard to imagine that you will ever find two different aspect ratio TVs priced equally due to their equal area.:)

In fact, diagonal ranking is too simplified. Area ranking could be somewhat more reasonable but it's not adopted and therefore has no practical sense. Imagine cars compared in size in units of volume (instead of length/width), engine torque (instead of horse powers), gallons per 100 miles (instead of mpg). That all make sense technically but not practically.

Look, they invented a new screen shape but did not find anything else but labelling it by diagonal size. Why? Because nothing else works. That's why they have to support their description with 21:9. Also they will need a new marketing "name" for 21:9.
We can start a competition right now - to find the most shameless gimmick for 21:9 (super HD, panoramic HD, theatrical HD, CND HD - Customer Knoledge Deficit HD)

In that context, the difference betwen 21:9 and standard TVs of the same diagonal is that dramatic so far.

541cl4.jpg
 
I can see Steven Speilberg twiddling his fingers and grinning about his new 30:9 format *joke
 
Why do we need yet another fucking aspect ratio? We can't even standardize on the ones we have now, so why are they introducing another?

I bought a 16:9 display so that I could watch 16:9 content, and now people aren't even making movies in 16:9.
 
albovin said:
There is no evidence that they base their prices on area.
Click to expand...

Look at 20" 4:3 and 20" 16:10 monitors. The 4:3 monitors were consistently more expensive.

It cost more to build more area and competition means retail will be driven to a small margin above production cost. So if production cost is proportional to area (and it is), retail will be proportional to area as well.

So there is evidence that price is based on area.

pcgeek86 said:
I bought a 16:9 display so that I could watch 16:9 content, and now people aren't even making movies in 16:9.
Click to expand...

I don't think any movies are in 16:9 some are close at 1.85:1. But Epic movies have been in 2.35:1 for over 50 years so that is not new.
 
philjohn said:
Another idea I just had - make the "black bars" the same colour (and maybe even design if it's fancy) as the bezel. That would be quite cool.
Click to expand...

Since most of the TVs on the market at the moment are black there wouldn't be any change to what the bars look now. ^^; (you only have to match screen and bezel coating to even get the texture right)

Your idea sounds relatively simple but is really quite hard to implement properly (with non black bezel) as the bezel will change it's appearance depending on the room lighting, whereas the display will be mostly independent of it. The TV would need sensors to measure the lighting conditions to change the image accordingly.

The Philips Aurea TVs do the opposite and change bezel color and surround lighting to match the TV picture. http://www.cnet.com.au/tvs/lcd/0,239035307,339282180,00.htm


I do kinda like the 21:9 aspect if it'd be used with a PC, but mostly cause of the added resolution real estate. ^^;
 
Does this mean the vertical resolution is back down to ~600 pixels?

I hope not..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top