Forget 16:9 - new 2.35:1 TV

This doesn't make any sense. Nothing is coded at 21:9. There's no standard for it. There's nothing you're going to be able to watch on it without pillarboxing.

Or, zooming in, I guess, on 16:9-coded material -- but why would you want to? You're just begging to have people complain about the quality of it.
 
As cool as this seems, I agree that it's kind of impractical. 16:9 is a good medium ratio. You can see 4:3 content pillarboxed, scope material letterboxed, and anything in 1.85 or 1.78 pretty much fill the frame. I think 4:3 TVs are too square and this 2.40 TV seem too oblong. Maybe it's something to use in editing for a scope film, and I would maybe get one for that since I tend to shoot everything in scope, but I couldn't see myself watching movies or TV on a monitor like that. But then again, this is probably what everyone said when the first 16:9 monitor came out. But right now, it just seems like a gimmick.
 
Specialty items are often impractical. And, more than likely you would be pairing it with a High Defintiion Source (Blu Ray) so zooming the image to fit probably won't be such a huge deal.

That said, might as well grab a projector setup?

Either way, I likes it.
 
The apparent resolution difference of zooming in would be roughly equivalent to that of zooming in on letterboxed 4:3 on a 16:9 screen.

I like the idea of it if material was coded properly for it.
 
Don't they master some HD transfers of 2.35:1 films to 16:9 anamorphically? I remember reading this article on the T2 Ultimate Edition where they talked about it. How they took the source master and stretched it to fill a 16:9 screen so they would keep the most quality during the process.
 
JesterJJZ said:
That's not what I meant. For the T2 HD transfer they ended up with a 2.35:1 image that was stretched to fill the 16:9 frame. That would probably play perfectlly on this monitor.
Click to expand...
Even if that is the case, the image would still have to be uprezzed.
 
It’s funny because, before I knew any better, I just assumed they were already making these. I remember a colleague of mine showing off the new widescreen TV he got for his digital studio and me asking him what the specific aspect ratio was… 1.85, 2.40… he didn’t know. It certainly looked wider than my set—but alas, no mention of it in the manual! ’Twas a mystery for quite some time.

Of course, since learning that such sets did even exist, I have always thought rather hopefully of someone implementing idea. Now that it’s finally here, I would certainly be tempted to get one, if I did not predict more requisite upscaling than I will ever want or need on all of the relevant content.

Increasingly bigger boxing, on the other hand, does not phase me in the slightest; I don’t understand Joe Consumer’s vehement rejection of “black bars” when it is at most distracting for about a week or two until your eyes adjust to focus only on the active picture area. Though I of course want to conserve space in my house.

So, where does the use of such a display come in? Well, it could be nice for Blu-rays, but then again, 1920×1080 is still 1.78:1, and as I understand it anamorphism is not currently a part of the BD specification. Which means that in order to accommodate such displays Sony’d have to amend the standard, which would break support with exisiting devices, and I doubt they want to go through that again. (Though, I’m sure ’Net-enabled players could undergo some sort of a firmware upgrade for it…)

Nevertheless, if these things catch on it could put pressure on VOD and movie channels like HBO to start broadcasting films in their native aspect ratio. It is nearly impossible to find any widescreen content that has not been cropped in to fit either 1.37:1 on SD channels or 1.78:1 on HD channels; 1.85 and 2.40 seem to be “DVD-only” frame sizes, a point of constant vexation for purists like myself.

In short, I think this set certainly has the potential to improve the home movie experience, but for now it’s just something for cinephiles to drool over.
 
I like the idea of this -- even with scaling issues -- because you could watch a 2:35 movie without backlight bleed. And, in a really dark theatre room, that makes a difference.
 
The Panasonic AE3000U 1080p projector has a very cool 2.35:1 scaling feature. Basically, it extracts the 2.35 image, scales it to height and then uses the lens memory to fit it on a 2.35 screen. It works really really well. And I have to admit the scaled imagery looks very good. It truly is "cinematic". Phillips is most likely doing something similar with the extraction/scaling.

Until someone releases a 2.35:1 film full-frame 16x9 anamorphic (with a 1.33x squeeze) then that scaling is the only way to watch cinemascope films.
 
Wouldn't it be the same resolution as the actual movie area of a 16:9 screen displaying a 2:40:1 movie? If this TV had the same number of pixels as the area that a normal HDTV actually displays a 2.40:1 movie on, why would there be uprezzing required?
 
CodySolo said:
Wouldn't it be the same resolution as the actual movie area of a 16:9 screen displaying a 2:40:1 movie? If this TV had the same number of pixels as the area that a normal HDTV actually displays a 2.40:1 movie on
Click to expand...

It doesn't. At 16:9 1080p, the image area height of 2.40 material would be appx 810 lines, give or take. On this TV, the image area height would (in theory) be 1080 lines.

At 16:9 the width would be 1920. On this TV, the width would be 2560.
 
almost half the screen is letterboxes when you playback 4:3
and BD and Broadcasts are 16:9
most cameras have 16:9 output
so what are you planning on viewing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top