Once again, impact is mostly related to tv size, applying the word impact to a tv that reduces "impact" of regular tv and all other aspect ratios other than 2.33 is silly. Esp when its size at 2.33 is not big enough to have impact in the first place, and it only gets worse from there on.
Once again, impact is mostly related to tv size, applying the word impact to a tv that reduces "impact" of regular tv and all other aspect ratios other than 2.33 is silly. Esp when its size at 2.33 is not big enough to have impact in the first place, and it only gets worse from there on.
You obviously find the concept of relative impact impossible to comprehend and that people "get used" to a certain size so that anything bigger does have an impact.
I don't know why I'm bothering to post as you will make no effort to understand a view other than your own but maybe when you get older you will understand that everything is not black and white. No TV is good enough for you so you will always be disappointed whereas those of us who are happy with our 4:3/16:9 picture will then get extra oomph from the larger 21:9 (in my current case by moving the sofa) and so be even happier:).
Impact is related to size, not some arbitrary aspect ratio. Like previous concepts you brought up and abused, you are misuing this one as well. It doesn't matter that you label it as "impact" when its smaller in every aspect ratio to a 65" of the same price, it in effect spends most of its time sacrificing "impact". You are applying concepts entirely out of their spheres of use, sure impact is important once you reach adequate height, as projectors or as you get at the local cinema, but its silly to apply it to a dinky tv screen. Its like describing your idea of a super stretched yet far narrower iphone as having more "impact" when it fact it just makes it more impractical in almost every other use. The concept of impact is misapplied and totally missing the bigger picture.
Like it or not, these things are about common sense, and the market agrees with me. 5 years have passed since this idea was announced by a company, and almost no ones fallen over themselves to deliver such a product to compete in any way. Most people don't spend their time "moving their sofa" around.
Impact is related to size, not some arbitrary aspect ratio. Like previous concepts you brought up and abused, you are misuing this one as well. It doesn't matter that you label it as "impact" when its smaller in every aspect ratio to a 65" of the same price, it in effect spends most of its time sacrificing "impact". You are applying concepts entirely out of their spheres of use, sure impact is important once you reach adequate height, as projectors or as you get at the local cinema, but its silly to apply it to a dinky tv screen. Its like describing your idea of a super stretched yet far narrower iphone as having more "impact" when it fact it just makes it more impractical in almost every other use. The concept of impact is misapplied and totally missing the bigger picture.
Someone continually says to you "I'm happy with the size of my TV", you continually say back "no you aren't, it's too small to have any impact".
The way impact was being referred to here was explained to you pages ago.
We are referring to the screen "impact" between two ratios (16x9 Vs 2.35:1) on the same TV.
Regardless of screen size - what has more "impact" on screen - 16x9 or 2.35:1?
What do you prefer to have more "impact" on screen - 16x9 or 2.35:1?
Technically what should have more "impact" on screen - 16x9 or 2.35:1?
Your 65" TV may have more physical impact than the Phillips 21:9, but it will still present 2.35:1 with less "impact" than 16x9. The ultimate goal here is to have a screen where 2.35:1 has more "impact" than 16x9, not to simply pluck a big screen out of the air where the 2.35:1 image is just simply bigger than that of the 21:9 screen, which is all you are doing.
applying the word impact to a tv that reduces "impact" of regular tv and all other aspect ratios other than 2.33 is silly.
Esp when its size at 2.33 is not big enough to have impact in the first place, and it only gets worse from there on.
That's the whole point behind CIH - It increases the "impact" of 2.35:1 over 16x9, whether this be regular TV or a movie. This is precisely the affect those like me aim for.
There is no rule book that states screens have to be a certain size to achieve CIH - this is determined by the viewer, not you. Up to now CIH has been limited to PJ's, now you can achieve this on a TV.
Size/impact will also be down to personal choice. Someone may consider a 47" TV as having a big impact in their room, you may well disagree, but there's one thing for sure, it won't make a jot of difference to them - at the end of the day it's just your opinion.
The way impact was being referred to here was explained to you pages ago.
We are referring to the screen "impact" between two ratios (16x9 Vs 2.35:1) on the same TV.
Regardless of screen size - what has more "impact" on screen - 16x9 or 2.35:1?
What do you prefer to have more "impact" on screen - 16x9 or 2.35:1?
Technically what should have more "impact" on screen - 16x9 or 2.35:1?
Your 65" TV may have more physical impact than the Phillips 21:9, but it will still present 2.35:1 with less "impact" than 16x9. The ultimate goal here is to have a screen where 2.35:1 has more "impact" than 16x9, not to simply pluck a big screen out of the air where the 2.35:1 image is just simply bigger than that of the 21:9 screen, which is all you are doing.
That's the whole point behind CIH - It increases the "impact" of 2.35:1 over 16x9, whether this be regular TV or a movie. This is precisely the affect those like me aim for.
There is no rule book that states screens have to be a certain size to achieve CIH - this is determined by the viewer, not you. Up to now CIH has been limited to PJ's, now you can achieve this on a TV.
Size/impact will also be down to personal choice. Someone may consider a 47" TV as having a big impact in their room, you may well disagree, but there's one thing for sure, it won't make a jot of difference to them - at the end of the day it's just your opinion.
Its a completely senseless way to apply the term "impact" when the screen size is so small it isn't applicable in the first place. You might as well go up to steve jobs and tell him about your brilliant idea to make the ipad more "impactful" by stretching it to 21:9 while making it squatter. He'd probably sock you right in the face.
Trying to rebrand increased width as "impact" is marketing hackery. You might as well try to argue that 16:9 tv on a 16:9 is more impactful, thus better, its goes no where. The 65" has more screen area in all aspect ratios than that phillips, thus its got more "impact".
CIH only applies to cinema and projection once practical height is pretty much maximized and all you can readily modify is the width. Applying such a concept to tv's is just silly, and you might as well crow about the CIW of that 47" @ 16:9, it's neither here nor there, it's just a small tv no matter what fancy terminology you try to wrongly attach to it. Sure some people might think 47" is enough, some thing 32" is enough, but those are the same people who dont' care about your "cih" nonsense. Quite to opposite even, they are the types that watch tv most of the time and probably even zoom on wider aspect ratios, as it's all rather unimportant to them. The only thing 21:9 would do for them is to add an additional trip to the store to return it once they found out all their regular tv programs were horribly pillarboxed to death. 21:9 phillips is a product that caters for neither cinephiles or regular people who don't care. If you live in a room the size of a closet, you couldn't afford it anyways.
CIH only applies to cinema and projection once practical height is pretty much maximized and all you can readily modify is the width.
So why would someone increase the width when height is pretty much maximised?
It wouldn't be so they could view 2.35:1 in it's wider format would it? It can't be to increase the size of 16x9 because 16x9 would remain the same size, providing they matched height between the two screens.
So any one under maximum height can't opt for CIH then, they have to stick with 16x9?
You do know what's involved moving from a 16x9 screen to a wider format screen don't you? It's not a simple case of - I can't go any higher, I'll have to go wider.
CIH is a viewing preference, no different to CIW or CIA. Everything needs to be worked out, screen size, seating distance and throw of the PJ, you can't just get the biggest screen the wall can fit, and when you can go any higher you just go wider.
Have you had any experience with projectors?
CIH is for those who want to watch their movies in their wider format, not letterboxed in a 16x9 frame.
That's because you don't understand CIH, you think it's just for when someone reaches maximum height, they can't go any higher so they have to go wider. And you say I'm misusing the CIH concept - please.
CIH is for those who want to watch movies in their wide format, not letterboxed, size has no consequence. Any size screen can achieve CIH.
It makes no odds how big/small the TV is, one ratio will have more impact than the other.
You know what we are on about, stop being so pedantic.
Who's re branding? It's just a term we are using to describe the difference between two ratios. Would you prefer us to use the term "bigger"?
So why would someone increase the width when height is pretty much maximised?
It wouldn't be so they could view 2.35:1 in it's wider format would it? It can't be to increase the size of 16x9 because 16x9 would remain the same size, providing they matched height between the two screens.
So any one under maximum height can't opt for CIH then, they have to stick with 16x9?
You do know what's involved moving from a 16x9 screen to a wider format screen don't you? It's not a simple case of - I can't go any higher, I'll have to go wider.
CIH is a viewing preference, no different to CIW or CIA. Everything needs to be worked out, screen size, seating distance and throw of the PJ, you can't just get the biggest screen the wall can fit, and when you can go any higher you just go wider.
Have you had any experience with projectors?
CIH is for those who want to watch their movies in their wider format, not letterboxed in a 16x9 frame.
That's because you don't understand CIH, you think it's just for when someone reaches maximum height, they can't go any higher so they have to go wider. And you say I'm misusing the CIH concept - please.
CIH is for those who want to watch movies in their wide format, not letterboxed, size has no consequence. Any size screen can achieve CIH.
It has EVERYTHING to do with how big the tv is. The bigger the tv, the more screen area. The more screen area for the money the more "impact" you get. As I said, the 65" at the same price has a bigger picture in ANY aspect ratio, so prattling on about more "impact" on 21:9 is missing the point entirely. Everything about it is inferior, it even manages to give you less value for the money.
You are in no position to talk about not understanding basic concepts. Time and time again you and bobcar have abused terminology applying it where it doesn't belong based on incomplete understanding of the concepts you are using. Some people are used to being able to bamboozle regular people in arguments by inserting in abitrary jargon to sound like they know what they are talking about, it doesn't work that way here. You go as far as to misinterpret what I'm saying, cih applies when adequate height is reached, not some ridiculous oversized maximum as you are implying. A 21" tall strip of image from this phillips at 6-8 feet back is not adequate by any rational standard, let alone a cinephile one, let alone at this price. Only someone barking mad would project an image 21" tall and apply cih to it and call it a day, let alone crow about it and justify it with "cih". Applying cih to small tv's is simply patently ridiculous. It's the inability to see the forest for the trees.
It makes no odds how big/small the TV is, one ratio will have more impact than the other.
You know what we are on about, stop being so pedantic.
I suggest you give up, there's no way he'll accept that someone can have a different personal preference to himself that can be valid. Trying to put this across to Poc is not going to work as he can't or won't consider other's opinions as worth anything if they are different to his own. (As I said in a much earlier post it's like talking to a religious fundamentalist in that they both have the same mindset).
It has EVERYTHING to do with how big the tv is. The bigger the tv, the more screen area. The more screen area for the money the more "impact" you get. As I said, the 65" at the same price has a bigger picture in ANY aspect ratio, so prattling on about more "impact" on 21:9 is missing the point entirely. Everything about it is inferior, it even manages to give you less value for the money.
You are in no position to talk about not understanding basic concepts. Time and time again you and bobcar have abused terminology applying it where it doesn't belong based on incomplete understanding of the concepts you are using. Some people are used to being able to bamboozle regular people in arguments by inserting in abitrary jargon to sound like they know what they are talking about, it doesn't work that way here. You go as far as to misinterpret what I'm saying, cih applies when adequate height is reached, not some ridiculous oversized maximum as you are implying. A 21" tall strip of image from this phillips at 6-8 feet back is not adequate by any rational standard, let alone a cinephile one, let alone at this price. Only someone barking mad would project an image 21" tall and apply cih to it and call it a day, let alone crow about it and justify it with "cih". Applying cih to small tv's is simply patently ridiculous. It's the inability to see the forest for the trees.
You started off by saying "to keep the same screen height is not something people aim for, or something they should aim for." Now you are arguing the toss about the concept behind CIH and where and when someone should consider using it.
I think it best if you stick with your 65" 16x9 TV and let the rest of us who aim for CIH or use CIH enjoy 2.35:1 how we prefer to view it, not how you think we should view it or what it should be viewed on.
I suggest you give up, there's no way he'll accept that someone can have a different personal preference to himself that can be valid. Trying to put this across to Poc is not going to work as he can't or won't consider other's opinions as worth anything if they are different to his own. (As I said in a much earlier post it's like talking to a religious fundamentalist in that they both have the same mindset).
Like you I have had a few attempts at explaining why I aimed for CIH and how it will appeal to others - but as you say, pretty pointless when your debating with someone who thinks only their opinion counts.
You started off by saying "to keep the same screen height is not something people aim for, or something they should aim for." Now you are arguing the toss about the concept behind CIH and where and when someone should consider using it.
I think it best if you stick with your 65" 16x9 TV and let the rest of us who aim for CIH or use CIH enjoy 2.35:1 how we prefer to view it, not how you think we should view it or what it should be viewed on.
Keeping the same screen height when in fact you are choosing to create an inferior experience in 16:9 and all narrower aspect ratios is not something people aim for, let alone at this price. I've been consistent, when screen height is inadequate as it is in consumer tv's, aiming for cih is a bogus aim. Its taking a term out of its sphere of use and misapplying where it doesn't belong. Its marketing/sales flim flam, you might as well sell a 16x9 tv on CIW alone by that reasoning.
A 26" 16:9 has CIW!! OMG its golden!!!:D :rolleyes:
A 65" as I said has superior size in all aspect ratios, even at 2.33/2.35, so your reason for arguing for paying the same amount for less in all aspect ratios is simply dubious. It's an argument against value for the sake of some misused technical concept.
As I said, you can prefer whatever you wish, like a pan and scan enthusiast, but you can't misuse technical jargon as basis for your strange preferences.
Like you I have had a few attempts at explaining why I aimed for CIH and how it will appeal to others - but as you say, pretty pointless when your debating with someone who thinks only their opinion counts.
You should take a look in the mirror and take your own advice.
Sorry to butt in (and I hope I'm not going over old ground coz I gave up reading at p5) but I was actually thinking of getting one of these. The killer for me was the lack of a 4:3 mode (that's right, 'standard' TV *must* be stretched to 16:9).
I hadn't thought of the subtitle issue, but that would also be a real bitch (and a deal-breaker). There are plenty of films out there which have occasional subtitles, and I would be frankly embarrassed if anyone saw me having to squish the picture just to see the subtitles.
Instead I went for a 55" 16:9 and love it. But the concept of the Philips as such is a good one for those who predominantly watch movies. In 5 years time if the price is right and 4:3 TV has finally retired, it might well be the right shape telly for me.
Sorry to butt in (and I hope I'm not going over old ground coz I gave up reading at p5) but I was actually thinking of getting one of these. The killer for me was the lack of a 4:3 mode (that's right, 'standard' TV *must* be stretched to 16:9).
I hadn't thought of the subtitle issue, but that would also be a real bitch (and a deal-breaker). There are plenty of films out there which have occasional subtitles, and I would be frankly embarrassed if anyone saw me having to squish the picture just to see the subtitles.
Instead I went for a 55" 16:9 and love it. But the concept of the Philips as such is a good one for those who predominantly watch movies. In 5 years time if the price is right and 4:3 TV has finally retired, it might well be the right shape telly for me.
That would be a killer for me as well, a very strange decision not to have 4:3. It doesn't alter the concept though so if when the time comes for me to renew my TV (at least 3 years time) I'll have a look at 21:9 TVs if there are any around and they would of course have to do 4:3.
Comments
I don't know why I'm bothering to post as you will make no effort to understand a view other than your own but maybe when you get older you will understand that everything is not black and white. No TV is good enough for you so you will always be disappointed whereas those of us who are happy with our 4:3/16:9 picture will then get extra oomph from the larger 21:9 (in my current case by moving the sofa) and so be even happier:).
Like it or not, these things are about common sense, and the market agrees with me. 5 years have passed since this idea was announced by a company, and almost no ones fallen over themselves to deliver such a product to compete in any way. Most people don't spend their time "moving their sofa" around.
Someone continually says to you "I'm happy with the size of my TV", you continually say back "no you aren't, it's too small to have any impact".
What's it like in your world?
Its one where I don't think moving my couch back and forth over a few inches is normal.
We are referring to the screen "impact" between two ratios (16x9 Vs 2.35:1) on the same TV.
Regardless of screen size - what has more "impact" on screen - 16x9 or 2.35:1?
What do you prefer to have more "impact" on screen - 16x9 or 2.35:1?
Technically what should have more "impact" on screen - 16x9 or 2.35:1?
Your 65" TV may have more physical impact than the Phillips 21:9, but it will still present 2.35:1 with less "impact" than 16x9. The ultimate goal here is to have a screen where 2.35:1 has more "impact" than 16x9, not to simply pluck a big screen out of the air where the 2.35:1 image is just simply bigger than that of the 21:9 screen, which is all you are doing.
That's the whole point behind CIH - It increases the "impact" of 2.35:1 over 16x9, whether this be regular TV or a movie. This is precisely the affect those like me aim for.
There is no rule book that states screens have to be a certain size to achieve CIH - this is determined by the viewer, not you. Up to now CIH has been limited to PJ's, now you can achieve this on a TV.
Size/impact will also be down to personal choice. Someone may consider a 47" TV as having a big impact in their room, you may well disagree, but there's one thing for sure, it won't make a jot of difference to them - at the end of the day it's just your opinion.
Its a completely senseless way to apply the term "impact" when the screen size is so small it isn't applicable in the first place. You might as well go up to steve jobs and tell him about your brilliant idea to make the ipad more "impactful" by stretching it to 21:9 while making it squatter. He'd probably sock you right in the face.
Trying to rebrand increased width as "impact" is marketing hackery. You might as well try to argue that 16:9 tv on a 16:9 is more impactful, thus better, its goes no where. The 65" has more screen area in all aspect ratios than that phillips, thus its got more "impact".
CIH only applies to cinema and projection once practical height is pretty much maximized and all you can readily modify is the width. Applying such a concept to tv's is just silly, and you might as well crow about the CIW of that 47" @ 16:9, it's neither here nor there, it's just a small tv no matter what fancy terminology you try to wrongly attach to it. Sure some people might think 47" is enough, some thing 32" is enough, but those are the same people who dont' care about your "cih" nonsense. Quite to opposite even, they are the types that watch tv most of the time and probably even zoom on wider aspect ratios, as it's all rather unimportant to them. The only thing 21:9 would do for them is to add an additional trip to the store to return it once they found out all their regular tv programs were horribly pillarboxed to death. 21:9 phillips is a product that caters for neither cinephiles or regular people who don't care. If you live in a room the size of a closet, you couldn't afford it anyways.
You know what we are on about, stop being so pedantic.
Who's re branding? It's just a term we are using to describe the difference between two ratios. Would you prefer us to use the term "bigger"?
So why would someone increase the width when height is pretty much maximised?
It wouldn't be so they could view 2.35:1 in it's wider format would it? It can't be to increase the size of 16x9 because 16x9 would remain the same size, providing they matched height between the two screens.
So any one under maximum height can't opt for CIH then, they have to stick with 16x9?
You do know what's involved moving from a 16x9 screen to a wider format screen don't you? It's not a simple case of - I can't go any higher, I'll have to go wider.
CIH is a viewing preference, no different to CIW or CIA. Everything needs to be worked out, screen size, seating distance and throw of the PJ, you can't just get the biggest screen the wall can fit, and when you can go any higher you just go wider.
Have you had any experience with projectors?
CIH is for those who want to watch their movies in their wider format, not letterboxed in a 16x9 frame.
That's because you don't understand CIH, you think it's just for when someone reaches maximum height, they can't go any higher so they have to go wider. And you say I'm misusing the CIH concept - please.
CIH is for those who want to watch movies in their wide format, not letterboxed, size has no consequence. Any size screen can achieve CIH.
It has EVERYTHING to do with how big the tv is. The bigger the tv, the more screen area. The more screen area for the money the more "impact" you get. As I said, the 65" at the same price has a bigger picture in ANY aspect ratio, so prattling on about more "impact" on 21:9 is missing the point entirely. Everything about it is inferior, it even manages to give you less value for the money.
You are in no position to talk about not understanding basic concepts. Time and time again you and bobcar have abused terminology applying it where it doesn't belong based on incomplete understanding of the concepts you are using. Some people are used to being able to bamboozle regular people in arguments by inserting in abitrary jargon to sound like they know what they are talking about, it doesn't work that way here. You go as far as to misinterpret what I'm saying, cih applies when adequate height is reached, not some ridiculous oversized maximum as you are implying. A 21" tall strip of image from this phillips at 6-8 feet back is not adequate by any rational standard, let alone a cinephile one, let alone at this price. Only someone barking mad would project an image 21" tall and apply cih to it and call it a day, let alone crow about it and justify it with "cih". Applying cih to small tv's is simply patently ridiculous. It's the inability to see the forest for the trees.
I think it best if you stick with your 65" 16x9 TV and let the rest of us who aim for CIH or use CIH enjoy 2.35:1 how we prefer to view it, not how you think we should view it or what it should be viewed on.
Keeping the same screen height when in fact you are choosing to create an inferior experience in 16:9 and all narrower aspect ratios is not something people aim for, let alone at this price. I've been consistent, when screen height is inadequate as it is in consumer tv's, aiming for cih is a bogus aim. Its taking a term out of its sphere of use and misapplying where it doesn't belong. Its marketing/sales flim flam, you might as well sell a 16x9 tv on CIW alone by that reasoning.
A 26" 16:9 has CIW!! OMG its golden!!!:D :rolleyes:
A 65" as I said has superior size in all aspect ratios, even at 2.33/2.35, so your reason for arguing for paying the same amount for less in all aspect ratios is simply dubious. It's an argument against value for the sake of some misused technical concept.
As I said, you can prefer whatever you wish, like a pan and scan enthusiast, but you can't misuse technical jargon as basis for your strange preferences.
You should take a look in the mirror and take your own advice.
I hadn't thought of the subtitle issue, but that would also be a real bitch (and a deal-breaker). There are plenty of films out there which have occasional subtitles, and I would be frankly embarrassed if anyone saw me having to squish the picture just to see the subtitles.
Instead I went for a 55" 16:9 and love it. But the concept of the Philips as such is a good one for those who predominantly watch movies. In 5 years time if the price is right and 4:3 TV has finally retired, it might well be the right shape telly for me.