Philips "Cinema" 21:9 TV

IanP · 02-02-2009, 16:37

Philips are to launch a TV with 21:9 aspect ratio the Cinema 21:9

Quote:

Cinema 21:9 lets you enjoy movies as you would in the cinema and just as the director intended

Quote:

Traditional LCD televisions compromise on this experience by distorting the picture to fill the screen – or by displaying the picture in letterbox format with black bars at the top and bottom.

The next big thing or another marketing gimmick?

AFAIK there are no native 21:9 video sources (DVD, Blu-Ray or DVB broadcasts) so I assume the TV just crops letterboxed movies to fill the screen.

As for how it handles video with a lower aspect ratio, well regular 16:9 content is distorted to fill the screen and 4:3 content has black bars down either side

I don't think I'll be rushing out to by one.

ntlhellworld · 02-02-2009, 16:52

interesting.

16:9 content could be displayed with bars to the left and right of it, there is no reason why it should distort it.

-Chris

IanP · 02-02-2009, 18:29

I assume the TV is aimed at people that can't stand not having the screen filled. Personally I always prefer to watch movies and TV in the original aspect ratio and a 16:9 screen is the perfect compromise for showing letterboxed movies, pillarboxed archive TV and the majority of modern TV 16:9 full screen. You'd have to be a serious movie addict to want a 21:9 LCD and if you want the big screen experience that much you'd probably be better off with a projector than a display.

bobcar · 02-02-2009, 22:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanP

I assume the TV is aimed at people that can't stand not having the screen filled. Personally I always prefer to watch movies and TV in the original aspect ratio and a 16:9 screen is the perfect compromise for showing letterboxed movies, pillarboxed archive TV and the majority of modern TV 16:9 full screen. You'd have to be a serious movie addict to want a 21:9 LCD and if you want the big screen experience that much you'd probably be better off with a projector than a display.

I'm not sure why you think that, I would have thought most people buying that would like to see films in their OAR - if they don't they would just zoom the 2.35:1 to fill a conventional 16:9 screen and wouldn't bother with this. (I know they say 16:9 can be "adapted" to fill the screen but then 16:9 TVs do that with 4:3 sources - you don't have to distort the picture just because you can).

To me 21:9 is the ideal ratio because it lets you view all sources at the same height. I won't be buying one though because my Panny plasma has at least 4 years left (guarantee).

Deacon1972 · 06-02-2009, 11:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanP

You'd have to be a serious movie addict to want a 21:9 LCD and if you want the big screen experience that much you'd probably be better off with a projector than a display.

You would have thought moving over to projection would be better, but it's not, to do it correctly can cost thousands.

I have an 8' screen and while 16x9 looks good, switching to 2.35:1 lacks impact, simply because height is decreased and width remains the same. Personally it should be the other way round, just as it is in the cinema with scope movies.

Fixed height is the way to go IMO, so when switching from 4x3 -> 16x9 -> 2.35:1 etc, masking on the sides should move out leaving the height constant, then a 2.35:1 movie will have the desired impact.

I'm not that interested in the TV, but I would be interested in a PJ that had the same technology for CIH that didn't cost a fortune.

daveac · 08-02-2009, 23:43

Well I like it and would love one - however my fireplace is in the way!

So if I get a very large screen it will be a projector I think.

Cheers, daveac

googleking · 09-02-2009, 01:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deacon1972

You would have thought moving over to projection would be better, but it's not, to do it correctly can cost thousands.

I have an 8' screen and while 16x9 looks good, switching to 2.35:1 lacks impact, simply because height is decreased and width remains the same. Personally it should be the other way round, just as it is in the cinema with scope movies.

Fixed height is the way to go IMO, so when switching from 4x3 -> 16x9 -> 2.35:1 etc, masking on the sides should move out leaving the height constant, then a 2.35:1 movie will have the desired impact.

I'm not that interested in the TV, but I would be interested in a PJ that had the same technology for CIH that didn't cost a fortune.

There's PLENTY of cinemas where it's the top and bottom masking that moves - actually sometimes just the top or just the bottom! Depends on the layout of the auditorium and the preference of the chain that built it.

AxG · 09-02-2009, 11:13

The BBC's Click have covered it.

Deacon1972 · 09-02-2009, 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by googleking

There's PLENTY of cinemas where it's the top and bottom masking that moves - actually sometimes just the top or just the bottom! Depends on the layout of the auditorium and the preference of the chain that built it.

Auditoriums do differ in their layout, some use CIH some CIA others use top/side masking.

I prefer CIH as this would give 2.35:1 ratio movie the impact they deserve.

The PJ I have has a "superwide" mode where it projects everything at 2.0:1 ratio, it adds about 100 pixels to 2.35:1 movies but crops 1.85:1, there are supposed to be dedicated screens for this but I have not seen any around, it's not ideal but if you prefer the wider format it's a start, it's not for me though.

will2348 · 09-02-2009, 18:24

Do most people have a living room wide enough for these types of screens though

gomezz · 09-02-2009, 22:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxG

The BBC's Click have covered it.

And the man from Philips needs a lesson in explaining why such keen afficionados should be willing to be pay so much to watch stretchy-vision.

googleking · 10-02-2009, 01:20

Stretchyvision is bonkers. Philips really have no idea do they.

gomezz · 10-02-2009, 10:12

I have no objection with having stretchy-vision as an option. As long as it is easy to turn off with the simple press of a button when not wanted.

stvn758 · 10-02-2009, 13:59

I like the look of it.

I still see lots of movies occupying the centre of my 46in 16/9. They should of saved a lot of bother and done it right from the start.

Tumble weed · 11-02-2009, 01:17

Don't like the idea of 16:9 content being stretched to 21:9 or 4:3 content being stretched to 16:9 ! I'm guessing you will be able to disable this (otherwise it'd be suicide from the start) but then you'd have a relatively tiny 4:3 image in the middle of the screen which would look a tad silly.

Think I'll still to 16:9 for now although I can see this being the norm in 10-20 years which is a shame.

Paul M C · 11-02-2009, 12:17

Don't like it.

Who on earth wants to watch 16:9 stretched to 21:9 or 4:3 into 16:9?? As an earlier poster said, I expect you should be able to disable this, but even still, if you ever wanted to watch 4:3 stuff for example, the picture would look ridiculous!

Mind you, anyone that does get one, don't worry - you won't have to put up with it for long - remember it's a Philips make - meaning it will breakdown in the not too distant future!

Everything I have ever had from Philips - ranging from TVs/DVD recorders/Landline phones have ALL broken only a few years after they were purchased. I know many others who have had the same experience as me, and it is beyond me why anyone would ever spend a lot of money on something from Philips - they are a total joke of a company, using crap materials and poor workmanship on their products...

will2348 · 12-02-2009, 18:15

Would anyone here buy a tv like this

I might be tempted but only use it to watch dvds or watch movies on

bobcar · 12-02-2009, 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M C

Don't like it.

Who on earth wants to watch 16:9 stretched to 21:9 or 4:3 into 16:9?? As an earlier poster said, I expect you should be able to disable this, but even still, if you ever wanted to watch 4:3 stuff for example, the picture would look ridiculous!

Why would it look ridiculous? It would be the same height as both 16:9 and 21:9 programmes - so what if there are bars to the side.

stvn758 · 13-02-2009, 01:02

It would mean a Blu Ray film filled the whole screen, wouldn't it?

It wouldn't stretch it, as I mentioned earlier I see a lot of movies with black bars either side - wouldn't need the zoom/wide zoom feature on my TV. Not that I use it much unless they show something 'squashed'.

davidweller · 13-02-2009, 21:29

Since all BD and DVD presentations of 2.35:1 movies are letterboxed within a 16:9 frame, wouldn't you have to zoom in for them to fill the screen, which would mean a loss of resolution?

David (2) · 24-02-2009, 17:33

21:9 - I was wondering how long that would take to make the jump into our homes.

In terms of movies, its a good idea, but as for tv content which is 16:9 or 4:3, its not so smart - we dont want more stretchy vision - and having the stretch mode turned off (pillar boxed), is wasting the screen (and your money).

On a wider point, if 21:9 is so great, why did they introduce 16:9?

Lets not go through another format change (although if it takes off, some people are going to make a lot of money from the public buying new sets). The biggest problem is that the screens are so wide - in our house, the one shown on Click was about the width of our main room. Also, smaller sets in 21:9 - the vertical height of the screen maybe so small its not useable.

Dave

hopeandfaith06 · 09-08-2009, 16:11

For people saying they wouldn't like 16:9 stretched to fill 21:9 and 4:3 stretched to fill 16:9, well my current tv was once set to show everything in widescreen (this was a standard setting when we got it) and you hardly ever notice it.

Later on i changed it to show programs in their original ratio, and i was actually surprised at how many programs/channels are still in 4:3 as i could never notice when they were stretched.

So unless you are actively looking for stretched faces etc, then you won't notice it much at all.

And really i think this tv is aimed at people who want a cinema room but don't want to have to set up a projection system.

Willie Wontie · 09-08-2009, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by hopeandfaith06

i could never notice when they were stretched.

So unless you are actively looking for stretched faces etc, then you won't notice it much at all.

Anybody who watches stretchyvision, and says that they don't even notice when they are watching stretchyvision, shouldn't really be making serious contributions to this thread...

bobcar · 09-08-2009, 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidweller

Since all BD and DVD presentations of 2.35:1 movies are letterboxed within a 16:9 frame, wouldn't you have to zoom in for them to fill the screen, which would mean a loss of resolution?

The real resolution would be the same as on a 1080 line 16:9 TV so no resolution loss, obviously the number of vertical lines is less than with a 16:9 movie but that is true whether this TV is used or not. If the TV is very good at upscaling or you sit the right distance away then you may not even notice much difference from a 16:9 movie (apart from the 16:9 having side bars of course).

bobcar · 09-08-2009, 22:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by David (2)

On a wider point, if 21:9 is so great, why did they introduce 16:9?

16:9 is a good compromise for most things. Also when HD was introduced it would have been very difficult to make a 21:9 CRT TV, 16:9 was difficult enough.

Quote:

Lets not go through another format change (although if it takes off, some people are going to make a lot of money from the public buying new sets).

It's not a format change in the sense that the source is not going to change so there are no compatibility problems.

Quote:

The biggest problem is that the screens are so wide - in our house, the one shown on Click was about the width of our main room.

These screens are not going to be for everyone but for some people they will be a very good idea - basically those who watch a lot of films and have the space and money.

Quote:

Also, smaller sets in 21:9 - the vertical height of the screen maybe so small its not useable.
Dave

If that's the case then the vertical height of a 2.35:1 movie on a comparable 16:9 TV will be so small as to be unusable. The big advantage of these TVs is that all the aspect ratios will have the same vertical height and since vertical height is the critical factor in TV sizing this is important. At the moment if I want to watch an "important" movie I pull the sofa forwards a few of feet (much to SWMBO's annoyance

).

On a related note it's annoying at the cinema when they have a "fixed width" screen and so a 2.35:1 movie will be similarly presented as for a 16:9 TV. Of course at the cinema you have the advantage that it's usually easier to change your seating position.

02-02-2009, 16:37	#1
IanP Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 3,440	Philips "Cinema" 21:9 TV Philips are to launch a TV with 21:9 aspect ratio the Cinema 21:9 Quote: Cinema 21:9 lets you enjoy movies as you would in the cinema and just as the director intended Quote: Traditional LCD televisions compromise on this experience by distorting the picture to fill the screen – or by displaying the picture in letterbox format with black bars at the top and bottom. The next big thing or another marketing gimmick? AFAIK there are no native 21:9 video sources (DVD, Blu-Ray or DVB broadcasts) so I assume the TV just crops letterboxed movies to fill the screen. As for how it handles video with a lower aspect ratio, well regular 16:9 content is distorted to fill the screen and 4:3 content has black bars down either side I don't think I'll be rushing out to by one.

09-08-2009, 22:43	#25
bobcar Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 14,718	Quote: Originally Posted by David (2) On a wider point, if 21:9 is so great, why did they introduce 16:9? 16:9 is a good compromise for most things. Also when HD was introduced it would have been very difficult to make a 21:9 CRT TV, 16:9 was difficult enough. Quote: Lets not go through another format change (although if it takes off, some people are going to make a lot of money from the public buying new sets). It's not a format change in the sense that the source is not going to change so there are no compatibility problems. Quote: The biggest problem is that the screens are so wide - in our house, the one shown on Click was about the width of our main room. These screens are not going to be for everyone but for some people they will be a very good idea - basically those who watch a lot of films and have the space and money. Quote: Also, smaller sets in 21:9 - the vertical height of the screen maybe so small its not useable. Dave If that's the case then the vertical height of a 2.35:1 movie on a comparable 16:9 TV will be so small as to be unusable. The big advantage of these TVs is that all the aspect ratios will have the same vertical height and since vertical height is the critical factor in TV sizing this is important. At the moment if I want to watch an "important" movie I pull the sofa forwards a few of feet (much to SWMBO's annoyance). On a related note it's annoying at the cinema when they have a "fixed width" screen and so a 2.35:1 movie will be similarly presented as for a 16:9 TV. Of course at the cinema you have the advantage that it's usually easier to change your seating position.

02-02-2009, 16:52	#2
ntlhellworld Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 2,649	interesting. 16:9 content could be displayed with bars to the left and right of it, there is no reason why it should distort it. -Chris

02-02-2009, 18:29	#3
IanP Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 3,440	I assume the TV is aimed at people that can't stand not having the screen filled. Personally I always prefer to watch movies and TV in the original aspect ratio and a 16:9 screen is the perfect compromise for showing letterboxed movies, pillarboxed archive TV and the majority of modern TV 16:9 full screen. You'd have to be a serious movie addict to want a 21:9 LCD and if you want the big screen experience that much you'd probably be better off with a projector than a display.

02-02-2009, 22:16	#4
bobcar Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 14,718	Quote: Originally Posted by IanP I assume the TV is aimed at people that can't stand not having the screen filled. Personally I always prefer to watch movies and TV in the original aspect ratio and a 16:9 screen is the perfect compromise for showing letterboxed movies, pillarboxed archive TV and the majority of modern TV 16:9 full screen. You'd have to be a serious movie addict to want a 21:9 LCD and if you want the big screen experience that much you'd probably be better off with a projector than a display. I'm not sure why you think that, I would have thought most people buying that would like to see films in their OAR - if they don't they would just zoom the 2.35:1 to fill a conventional 16:9 screen and wouldn't bother with this. (I know they say 16:9 can be "adapted" to fill the screen but then 16:9 TVs do that with 4:3 sources - you don't have to distort the picture just because you can). To me 21:9 is the ideal ratio because it lets you view all sources at the same height. I won't be buying one though because my Panny plasma has at least 4 years left (guarantee).

06-02-2009, 11:08	#5
Deacon1972 Guest Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by IanP You'd have to be a serious movie addict to want a 21:9 LCD and if you want the big screen experience that much you'd probably be better off with a projector than a display. You would have thought moving over to projection would be better, but it's not, to do it correctly can cost thousands. I have an 8' screen and while 16x9 looks good, switching to 2.35:1 lacks impact, simply because height is decreased and width remains the same. Personally it should be the other way round, just as it is in the cinema with scope movies. Fixed height is the way to go IMO, so when switching from 4x3 -> 16x9 -> 2.35:1 etc, masking on the sides should move out leaving the height constant, then a 2.35:1 movie will have the desired impact. I'm not that interested in the TV, but I would be interested in a PJ that had the same technology for CIH that didn't cost a fortune.

08-02-2009, 23:43	#6
daveac Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 466	Well I like it and would love one - however my fireplace is in the way! So if I get a very large screen it will be a projector I think. Cheers, daveac

09-02-2009, 01:32	#7
googleking Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: West London Posts: 14,776	Quote: Originally Posted by Deacon1972 You would have thought moving over to projection would be better, but it's not, to do it correctly can cost thousands. I have an 8' screen and while 16x9 looks good, switching to 2.35:1 lacks impact, simply because height is decreased and width remains the same. Personally it should be the other way round, just as it is in the cinema with scope movies. Fixed height is the way to go IMO, so when switching from 4x3 -> 16x9 -> 2.35:1 etc, masking on the sides should move out leaving the height constant, then a 2.35:1 movie will have the desired impact. I'm not that interested in the TV, but I would be interested in a PJ that had the same technology for CIH that didn't cost a fortune. There's PLENTY of cinemas where it's the top and bottom masking that moves - actually sometimes just the top or just the bottom! Depends on the layout of the auditorium and the preference of the chain that built it.

09-02-2009, 11:13	#8
AxG Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: The ⓩorro of ⓩero Posts: 6,829	The BBC's Click have covered it.

09-02-2009, 13:36	#9
Deacon1972 Guest Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by googleking There's PLENTY of cinemas where it's the top and bottom masking that moves - actually sometimes just the top or just the bottom! Depends on the layout of the auditorium and the preference of the chain that built it. Auditoriums do differ in their layout, some use CIH some CIA others use top/side masking. I prefer CIH as this would give 2.35:1 ratio movie the impact they deserve. The PJ I have has a "superwide" mode where it projects everything at 2.0:1 ratio, it adds about 100 pixels to 2.35:1 movies but crops 1.85:1, there are supposed to be dedicated screens for this but I have not seen any around, it's not ideal but if you prefer the wider format it's a start, it's not for me though.

09-02-2009, 18:24	#10
will2348 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: London Posts: 1,418	Do most people have a living room wide enough for these types of screens though

09-02-2009, 22:43	#11
gomezz Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Buckingham Posts: 28,590	Quote: Originally Posted by AxG The BBC's Click have covered it. And the man from Philips needs a lesson in explaining why such keen afficionados should be willing to be pay so much to watch stretchy-vision.

10-02-2009, 01:20	#12
googleking Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: West London Posts: 14,776	Stretchyvision is bonkers. Philips really have no idea do they.

10-02-2009, 10:12	#13
gomezz Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Buckingham Posts: 28,590	I have no objection with having stretchy-vision as an option. As long as it is easy to turn off with the simple press of a button when not wanted.

10-02-2009, 13:59	#14
stvn758 Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 17,338	I like the look of it. I still see lots of movies occupying the centre of my 46in 16/9. They should of saved a lot of bother and done it right from the start.

11-02-2009, 01:17	#15
Tumble weed Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: England ~ UK (Ex NTL Area) Posts: 7,682	Don't like the idea of 16:9 content being stretched to 21:9 or 4:3 content being stretched to 16:9 ! I'm guessing you will be able to disable this (otherwise it'd be suicide from the start) but then you'd have a relatively tiny 4:3 image in the middle of the screen which would look a tad silly. Think I'll still to 16:9 for now although I can see this being the norm in 10-20 years which is a shame.

11-02-2009, 12:17	#16
Paul M C Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,007	Don't like it. Who on earth wants to watch 16:9 stretched to 21:9 or 4:3 into 16:9?? As an earlier poster said, I expect you should be able to disable this, but even still, if you ever wanted to watch 4:3 stuff for example, the picture would look ridiculous! Mind you, anyone that does get one, don't worry - you won't have to put up with it for long - remember it's a Philips make - meaning it will breakdown in the not too distant future! Everything I have ever had from Philips - ranging from TVs/DVD recorders/Landline phones have ALL broken only a few years after they were purchased. I know many others who have had the same experience as me, and it is beyond me why anyone would ever spend a lot of money on something from Philips - they are a total joke of a company, using crap materials and poor workmanship on their products...

12-02-2009, 18:15	#17
will2348 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: London Posts: 1,418	Would anyone here buy a tv like this I might be tempted but only use it to watch dvds or watch movies on

12-02-2009, 22:27	#18
bobcar Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 14,718	Quote: Originally Posted by Paul M C Don't like it. Who on earth wants to watch 16:9 stretched to 21:9 or 4:3 into 16:9?? As an earlier poster said, I expect you should be able to disable this, but even still, if you ever wanted to watch 4:3 stuff for example, the picture would look ridiculous! Why would it look ridiculous? It would be the same height as both 16:9 and 21:9 programmes - so what if there are bars to the side.

13-02-2009, 01:02	#19
stvn758 Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 17,338	It would mean a Blu Ray film filled the whole screen, wouldn't it? It wouldn't stretch it, as I mentioned earlier I see a lot of movies with black bars either side - wouldn't need the zoom/wide zoom feature on my TV. Not that I use it much unless they show something 'squashed'.

13-02-2009, 21:29	#20
davidweller Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Wallington, Surrey Posts: 6,960	Since all BD and DVD presentations of 2.35:1 movies are letterboxed within a 16:9 frame, wouldn't you have to zoom in for them to fill the screen, which would mean a loss of resolution?

24-02-2009, 17:33	#21
David (2) Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: S.West England. Posts: 18,037	21:9 - I was wondering how long that would take to make the jump into our homes. In terms of movies, its a good idea, but as for tv content which is 16:9 or 4:3, its not so smart - we dont want more stretchy vision - and having the stretch mode turned off (pillar boxed), is wasting the screen (and your money). On a wider point, if 21:9 is so great, why did they introduce 16:9? Lets not go through another format change (although if it takes off, some people are going to make a lot of money from the public buying new sets). The biggest problem is that the screens are so wide - in our house, the one shown on Click was about the width of our main room. Also, smaller sets in 21:9 - the vertical height of the screen maybe so small its not useable. Dave

DS Forums

Philips "Cinema" 21:9 TV

09-08-2009, 16:11	#22
hopeandfaith06 Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Penrith, Cumbria Posts: 16,521	For people saying they wouldn't like 16:9 stretched to fill 21:9 and 4:3 stretched to fill 16:9, well my current tv was once set to show everything in widescreen (this was a standard setting when we got it) and you hardly ever notice it. Later on i changed it to show programs in their original ratio, and i was actually surprised at how many programs/channels are still in 4:3 as i could never notice when they were stretched. So unless you are actively looking for stretched faces etc, then you won't notice it much at all. And really i think this tv is aimed at people who want a cinema room but don't want to have to set up a projection system.

09-08-2009, 17:46	#23
Willie Wontie Inactive Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 2,847	Quote: Originally Posted by hopeandfaith06 i could never notice when they were stretched. So unless you are actively looking for stretched faces etc, then you won't notice it much at all. Anybody who watches stretchyvision, and says that they don't even notice when they are watching stretchyvision, shouldn't really be making serious contributions to this thread...

09-08-2009, 22:28	#24
bobcar Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 14,718	Quote: Originally Posted by davidweller Since all BD and DVD presentations of 2.35:1 movies are letterboxed within a 16:9 frame, wouldn't you have to zoom in for them to fill the screen, which would mean a loss of resolution? The real resolution would be the same as on a 1080 line 16:9 TV so no resolution loss, obviously the number of vertical lines is less than with a 16:9 movie but that is true whether this TV is used or not. If the TV is very good at upscaling or you sit the right distance away then you may not even notice much difference from a 16:9 movie (apart from the 16:9 having side bars of course).