|
||||||||
21:9 cinema tvs |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,469
|
21:9 cinema tvs
Recently bought a lg ultrawide 34" monitor - played a 21:9 movie on it and was impressed, its surprising that the lack of borders made it somehow more immersive etc.
Wouldn't mind a 21:9 tv but of course they are very niche due to demand and lack of content. Philips release a 56" Cinema Display in 2009 - the last one, a 50" in 2011 is the only model with freeview HD and freeview recording via a USB powered drive. They have since been discontinued but perhaps a resurgence has started with the ultrawide monitors. Samsung have a 105" £80,000 21:9 tv and lg have a 100" at £70,000 (I think - basically current models way too big and expensive for mere mortals). Is there any news on samsung / lg or any manufacturer making a 50-60" 21:9 tv? Probably 4k / 5k A 55" would do as 16:9 would be about 40" which is what I have at the moment |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,457
|
If you were to buy a 21X9 TV, most of the time you would be watching 16X9 pillar box pictures unless you did something silly like zoom or stretch the image. All 21X9 feature films are mastered in letterbox format, your local multiplex has a zoom lens on its projector to match the image to the screen size. See the Sony Professional and the Digital Cinema Initiatives sites for further information. Philips had an anamorphic demo disc that they used in shops and a Philips rep at my local JL even claimed that films would be released in that format. I assume someone had a quiet word in JL's ear as the demo was rapidly withdrawn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,469
|
Yep it's either łetterboxng or pillar boxing - choose your poison!
So a movie you see at the cinema is actually letter boxed 16x9 but zoomed upto 21:9? A add on within chrome does this - if your watching on a 21:9 monitor - does a good job at the quality (Netflix 1080p) is pretty good. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
Recently bought a lg ultrawide 34" monitor - played a 21:9 movie on it and was impressed, its surprising that the lack of borders made it somehow more immersive etc. ]
Wouldn't mind a 21:9 tv but of course they are very niche due to demand and lack of content. Philips release a 56" Cinema Display in 2009 - the last one, a 50" in 2011 is the only model with freeview HD and freeview recording via a USB powered drive. They have since been discontinued but perhaps a resurgence has started with the ultrawide monitors. Samsung have a 105" £80,000 21:9 tv and lg have a 100" at £70,000 (I think - basically current models way too big and expensive for mere mortals). Is there any news on samsung / lg or any manufacturer making a 50-60" 21:9 tv? Probably 4k / 5k A 55" would do as 16:9 would be about 40" which is what I have at the moment |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,450
|
21:9 TV makes absolute sense to me; and even more so as TVs get bigger but broadcast TV picture quality is ever more compressed. The fact that we watch the worst quality sources (SD and HD TV broadcast TV and catch-up) using all the surface area of an enormous 16x9 telly, yet restrict out best quality source such as letterboxed Blu-ray to roughly 70% of that screen area is just perverse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,457
|
Quote:
Yep it's either łetterboxng or pillar boxing - choose your poison!
So a movie you see at the cinema is actually letter boxed 16x9 but zoomed upto 21:9? A add on within chrome does this - if your watching on a 21:9 monitor - does a good job at the quality (Netflix 1080p) is pretty good. Lots about it on the web if you have the time to search for it including all the resolutions for different formats. Digital intermediate formats for most films can be found on the IMDb website. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 9
|
Why isn't anything happening in this field... annoying. Doesn't look like 21:9 TV:s will be "back".
A 69, 70 inch would be perfect for movies and still be like a 55er for football. (with side borders) 5k, 5120*2160 (with zoom, re-fitting features of course) would be perfect. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
Why isn't anything happening in this field... annoying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reading
Posts: 27,902
|
Quote:
Why isn't anything happening in this field... annoying. Doesn't look like 21:9 TV:s will be "back".
A 69, 70 inch would be perfect for movies and still be like a 55er for football. (with side borders) 5k, 5120*2160 (with zoom, re-fitting features of course) would be perfect. ) who walk into Currys every weekend in search of a new telly are not walking out empty handed bemoaning the fact there are no 21:9 sets on sale.If there were loads of potential sales going missing I'm pretty sure the retailers would be feeding this back to the manufacturers and you would start to see sets on sale. But it would seem that the vast majority of the public are quite happy with 16:9. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,457
|
Quote:
Why isn't anything happening in this field... annoying. Doesn't look like 21:9 TV:s will be "back".
A 69, 70 inch would be perfect for movies and still be like a 55er for football. (with side borders) 5k, 5120*2160 (with zoom, re-fitting features of course) would be perfect. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
Because it's utterly pointless
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
The problem is that nearly all programmes would be like your football, 55 inch plus a lot of black border. Not many people would want that . Don't lets go back to stretchy vision to expand 16X9 to 21X9.
Curved screens seem popular but are a terrible idea, popularity and sense don't always go together. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,450
|
Quote:
Probably because the many thousands of mugs (sorry customers
) who walk into Currys every weekend in search of a new telly are not walking out empty handed bemoaning the fact there are no 21:9 sets on sale.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fylde Coast
Posts: 8,103
|
I've noticed that the latest series of 'Ripper Street' (Amazon Prime) seem to be in very widescreen format on my 16:9 TV (black bars above and below). Dunno why they do that, it is mainly for TV obviously. ??
Doesn't really bother me too much, but if it did I'd use my projector and screen, which can show any format without any obvious bars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
It's not pointless. If anyone watches a mix of 2.35:1 and 16:9 programming it makes a lot of sense, without moving the position of either the TV or chair/sofa you get the same height for all viewing. With a 16:9 TV you get the least impact for a 2.35:1 programme where usually you would hope for the greater impact.
It's not going to happen, it's completely pointless, and the few sets that have been made have made even larger loses than usual for the manufacturers. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sandy Heath, Beds. UK
Posts: 10,377
|
I have a 21:9 monitor
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
That's only YOUR personal opinion, and you're pretty well out on your own - the VAST majority of people wouldn't want a set like that.
It's not going to happen, it's completely pointless, and the few sets that have been made have made even larger loses than usual for the manufacturers. I will continue to give my opinion and if you don't like it then tough. I take it that since you think popularity is the important factor in how good an idea is then you are a fan of curved TVs since they sell well? Personally I think they are a poor idea. We don't know what would happen if major manufactures made TVs in that format as all we have had is the Philips TV and PC monitors. It's worth noting that where as decent facility exists like with Decon1972's projector it works well. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The garden of earthly delights
Posts: 4,509
|
I know that such ratios are how films are presented, but personally I feel that the best ratio for a TV is 4:3. A really large 4:3 screen can display all ratios including 21:9 with bars top and bottom (which are easier to live with than bars either side). A large 4:3 set would have a huge picture area and be very immersive. 16:9 is neither here nor there and seeing a presenter sitting in the middle surrounded by lots of nothing just makes it worse. Well that's my opinion - and I used to sell them and tell people why they 'needed' them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
I know that such ratios are how films are presented, but personally I feel that the best ratio for a TV is 4:3. A really large 4:3 screen can display all ratios including 21:9 with bars top and bottom (which are easier to live with than bars either side). A large 4:3 set would have a huge picture area and be very immersive. 16:9 is neither here nor there and seeing a presenter sitting in the middle surrounded by lots of nothing just makes it worse. Well that's my opinion - and I used to sell them and tell people why they 'needed' them.
It comes down to personal choice in the end and the ideal thing is for people to have choice. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,457
|
Manufactures make things to sell for a profit, 21X9 TVs failed in the mass market place so are no longer made. There is nothing to stop a small enterprise starting production, possibly based on a 21X9 computer screen. Are you willing to bet your house and life savings by starting such a project? I suspect not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
I take it that since you think popularity is the important factor in how good an idea is then you are a fan of curved TVs since they sell well? Personally I think they are a poor idea. However, I don't know where you get the idea that they 'sell well', because they certainly don't, and I can't see them having a long manufacturing run. The 'story' goes that curved screens were introduced by LG because they were initially unable to make flat OLED ones - so released them as a 'feature' rather than a 'manufacturing defect'. LCD manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon, and started producing curved LCD ones as well. I've no idea how true the story might be?, but it's the best explanation I've heard
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
Manufactures make things to sell for a profit, 21X9 TVs failed in the mass market place so are no longer made.
Pushed by the major companies they may or may not succeed however that is a different issue to whether they are a good thing or not, I assume the cheaper crappy TVs outsell the better ones but I'd rather have a better TV. There are good arguments for 2.35:1 though clearly not for everyone with some even preferring 4:3. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
I also think curved screens are an utterly stupid idea, just as much so as the idea of 21:9 sets.
However, I don't know where you get the idea that they 'sell well', because they certainly don't, and I can't see them having a long manufacturing run. . For me I can see no downside to 21:9. Currently if I want to watch a film I have to move the sofa closer to the TV but then I get told off by the boss as it gets in the way so I have to watch the films when she's out, I also have to have another pair of glasses just for these films so another expense. I also have to have a different setting on the surround sound to allow for the different seating position. With 21:9 everything can stay as it is and it is all so easy. For anyone who is interested in watching 2.35:1 films the wider TV takes up less space as it has less height and more importantly you don't have to adjust your viewing position to switch between 4:3/16:9 and 2.35:1. What are the downsides that you can see? (I don't count black bars at the side as a downside). It seems to me that any objections would be similar t those put around when 16:9 TVs were first coming on to the market. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
What are the downsides that you can see? (I don't count black bars at the side as a downside). It seems to me that any objections would be similar t those put around when 16:9 TVs were first coming on to the market. Another big downside is the physical size, it takes a lot more room than a similar height 16:9 set. But as I said, there's next to zero interest in such a format, amongst viewers and manufacturers. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
Perhaps not for you, but for the vast majority of viewers massive black bars down the sides on almost programmes would be a massive downside.
Quote:
Another big downside is the physical size, it takes a lot more room than a similar height 16:9 set.
It can take up less room. If you choose the size based upon 2.35:1 films then the width will be the same anyway with the height less - okay the height of the TV doesn't take up much space. However if you want to watch films at the right distance then you need to be further away for other viewing and that means more space lost on a 16:9.Even just taking the same screen height a 50" screen only increases by 13" in width but as I said if you are mainly interested in films it wouldn't need to increase at all. 16:9 only takes up less space if you are prepared to accept feature films having less impact than other viewing, for those of us who want the impact for feature films 21:9 does not take up more space. Following your argument we would still be using 4:3 TVs. Quote:
But as I said, there's next to zero interest in such a format, amongst viewers and manufacturers.
But viewers have never really been given the choice, the brief sojourn into the field by Philips was pretty small fry. For manufacturers a lot depends on future decisions that we wait upon, a wider screen makes a lot more sense for viewers than pointlessly and continuously increasing the resolution. We may have to wait years but that doesn't mean the format won't become widely available later.And also as I said and you seem incapable of taking in, not being popular doesn't make something "utterly pointless", there are lots of things in life that are not popular but are also not "utterly pointless". At the worst that makes it a niche product but one that most definitely has a point for some of us so by definition not "utterly pointless". |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:08.



) who walk into Currys every weekend in search of a new telly are not walking out empty handed bemoaning the fact there are no 21:9 sets on sale.