Philips introduces ultra widescreen Cinema 21:9 LCD TV

Last July, we took a look at whether or not ultra widescreen HDTVs could eventually become a reality. Fast forward half a year and change, and here we have Philips answering that with a resounding "sure, why not?" The Cinema 21:9 is said to be the planet's first cinema-proportioned LCD TV, and of course, it'll also incorporate Ambilight technology around the borders. We'll be frank -- we had our doubts upon seeing the lackluster website linked below that this thing was even real, but Philips itself confirmed to us that the panel will be shipping this Spring in Germany, Belgium, the UK and France. We're also told that a full site will launch on January 29th, though no pricing details (nor a US release date) were mentioned. Our one and only wish? That this thing would've been displayed at CES last week.

[Via GadgetVenue]

[Lock Stock @ Jan 15th 2009 10:44AM]

wiiiiide-screen

[pickleman77 @ Jan 15th 2009 10:58AM]

Left side- MRRRRROW... Right side-MRRRROW...

[Dirk Belligerent @ Jan 15th 2009 12:32PM]

"I should look to the right more often."

[MikefromAmsterdam @ Jan 16th 2009 6:06AM]

definitely wide, but what about tilting the screen 90 degrees. I would watch a mt.everest documentary and the camera wouldn't even have to move to follow the sherpa...

[Smart People Play Tuba @ Jan 15th 2009 1:38PM]

Are any movies actually shot inthat aspect ratio? I seem to remember Kubrick's "Spartacus" was pretty wide . . . but 21:9?

[garrenteed @ Jan 15th 2009 3:00PM]

@Smart People Play Tuba

Oh ya, a 21:9 aspect ratio is the closest you can get with whole numbers to the standard 2.35:1 recording aspect ratio in which most if not all modern movies are shot. Like Erwos states a few comments below

[Rob @ Jan 15th 2009 10:47AM]

I'll ask the question everyone is thinking. Why?

[Erwos @ Jan 15th 2009 10:50AM]

I thought it was obvious: 2.35:1 roughly equals 21:9. I would definitely consider buying one as a secondary TV. It'll be huge for movie buffs, that's for certain.

[Rob @ Jan 15th 2009 11:03AM]

I meant the question as one of practicality not of technicality. Think about it, not all movies are 2.35:1. Some use a 1.78:1 ratio (16x9) and some even use 2.39:1 or even 2.55:1 like the original Star Wars. This only brings up varying black boxes that now appear on the left and right for some films and, unless zoomed, all of broadcast TV. So given the choice between black bars on the Top and Bottom for some movies or bars on the Left and Right 90% of the time, I'd choose the former as would most people.

[Ghost_MH @ Jan 15th 2009 11:11AM]

This would be awesome for picture in picture. With a wider screen, you'd get a larger image when having two 1.78:1 images share the same screen. I know I'm always cursing my screen for wasting so much space when I'm watching a baseball game while playing a videogame.

I also see I'm not the first person to think this way.

[Josh @ Jan 15th 2009 11:20AM]

ridiculous but awesome

[superhobo @ Jan 15th 2009 11:39AM]

I'd love it as a monitor...damn.

[CraigJ @ Jan 15th 2009 11:47AM]

I tend to agree. I'd rather have a 16 x 9 and have black bars at the top and bottom, but I'm sure there is a market for this.

[NHAnimator @ Jan 15th 2009 11:52AM]

Wouldn't this cause regular HDTV programs to now have black pillars to the left and right (assuming no stretch mode)?

This is getting silly.

[Cmmndr312 @ Jan 15th 2009 12:18PM]

Even if a movie is in 2.35:1 on DVD it is still a 16:9 image. The DVDs have black bars placed on the top and bottom of the scope image to optimize the image for 16:9 screens. So, it seems that you would get black bars all the way around the image with this screen. Don't believe me? Pop a DVD in your computer and watch it in a window. Even if the movie is wider than 16:9 the DVD player window will most likely still only be 16:9 with black bars on top and bottom. As far I as know, that's how DVDs are made, basically a letterbox image inside of a 16:9 frame.

[Hafk @ Jan 15th 2009 12:49PM]

Maybe this will finally allow for that keyboard attachment in Rock Band?

Seriously, you could fit 4 note highways on this. And two vocal parts.

[bioadam @ Jan 15th 2009 12:56PM]

Erwos is right. This aspect ratio is a must for anyone who loves to see movies the way they are meant to be seen.

[Will @ Jan 15th 2009 1:29PM]

I can think of a lot of good reasons. Multitasking; comparing documents, sure 16:10 is nice for this, but it is just a little too small for my tastes; watching something and working, or using a social video player like Boxee, so that there is additional room for conversations with friends, etc; Video with widgets that don't cover the image.

[Tim @ Jan 15th 2009 2:50PM]

I thought the question everyone was thinking would be why isn't it 7:3?

[Joe @ Jan 15th 2009 4:44PM]

@Tim - that's exactly what I was thinking!

[Matt @ Jan 16th 2009 12:11AM]

7:3 just doesn't scream "wider than 16:9!" like 21:9 does. It's stupid, but a lot of people would think 7:3 is more like 4:3 than 16:9.

[Leo @ Jan 16th 2009 6:37PM]

Why - EXACTLY!

PRO - JEC - TOR (boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew)
PRO - JEC - TOR (boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew)
PRO - JEC - TOR (boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew)
PRO - JEC - TOR (boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew)
PRO - JEC - TOR (boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew)
PRO - JEC - TOR (boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew)

...ad infinitum

[Like_A_Glove @ Jan 15th 2009 10:48AM]

Wider, wider, wider.... I think I'll grow two more eyes at the back of my head to be future-TV-proof......

[racethesun @ Jan 15th 2009 10:49AM]

Just imagine the size of those black bars on the sides of the screen when watching tv!

[Dude @ Jan 15th 2009 10:58AM]

How about watching two shows side by side? Instead of Picture-IN-Picture, it could be Picture-AND-Picture.

[will @ Jan 15th 2009 11:08AM]

Those would be more like black boxes at that point.

[adwilk @ Jan 15th 2009 10:49AM]

what would you watch on it...nothing comes in 21:9 format does it?

[Ryan Trevisol @ Jan 15th 2009 10:52AM]

*cough*DVDs*cough*

Well I don't know if it's 21:9 but most DVDs and some broadcast movies leave horizontal letterboxing on my screen.

[Like_A_Glove @ Jan 15th 2009 10:58AM]

Yes, anamorphic Panavision films does.

[absinthe party @ Jan 15th 2009 11:15AM]

@ Like_A_Glove

I first read that as "anthropomorphic Panavision films" and was pretty intrigued.

[Einhanderkiller @ Jan 15th 2009 11:30AM]

I can't wait to play Microsoft Office on this!

[John @ Jan 15th 2009 4:14PM]

21:9 is close to 2.35:1, which many movies are released in because for some reason directors think we want to see closeups of people's faces surrounded by miles of blurry background.

[Oli D @ Jan 15th 2009 10:49AM]

so now when im watching porn, the girls look really fat!

[Oli D @ Jan 15th 2009 10:50AM]

i mean no offense to fat people, or porn

[wrabbit @ Jan 15th 2009 11:13AM]

I don't think the porn industry took offense to that, especially since there is a whole niche that will greatly benefit from a screen like that ;)

[Verythrax @ Jan 15th 2009 10:52AM]

How you are supposed to get content in this format?

[Eddie @ Jan 15th 2009 10:54AM]

A lot of DVDs come in this aspect ratio

[Ethan @ Jan 15th 2009 11:02AM]

Most films come in a format a teensy bit wider, 2.39:1, this is 2.33:1. I presume the pixels just didn't add up. The other one used often in film is 1.85:1, a bit wider than 16:9, on your telly.

[tbensmann @ Jan 15th 2009 10:54AM]

And then watch 4:3 video content i widescreen :P

[tbensmann @ Jan 15th 2009 11:02AM]

However, this could offer nice PiP features...

Still, i'm afraid most people will end watching things in wrong format...

All to many people stretch the video format even with 16:9 shows on 16:9 tv's

[Romesh @ Jan 15th 2009 3:26PM]

That's so true, it really annoys me when I see people with great widescreen TVs ruining it by using the wrong aspect ratio :P

[LiqwidZero @ Jan 15th 2009 10:54AM]

Woo! 1.66:1, 1.78:1, and 1.85:1 is the new Fullscreen!

[Ian @ Jan 15th 2009 10:55AM]

"Using highly advanced formatting technology, regular 16:9 content from sources such as TV broadcasts and games consoles is also adapted to fill the 21:9 screen." http://www.cinematicviewingexperience.com/press.html
Does anyone else even use the read links?

Also, "The Cinema 21:9 LCD TV will be available in spring 2009. More detailed product specifications will follow at the end of February 2009."

[Ekauq @ Jan 15th 2009 10:59AM]

just hope it's not the same formatting technology that TNT uses for it's HD channel, can't stand looking at it when cameras pan around, the stretching becomes obvious

[Verythrax @ Jan 15th 2009 11:01AM]

Yeah, that tech is now new too, several 16:9 screens do the same for 4:3, using a compensated, semi-stretched image.

The question is: why did the market adopted 16:9 and didn't change to 21:9 directly, since the "true cinema experience" was the objective already?

[LiqwidZero @ Jan 15th 2009 1:08PM]

If you have been to a theatre, then you would also notice that there are black bars above and below the scenes in certain movies.

16:9 sets are made to replicate exact dimensions of the filmed scenes. All this new set will do is get rid of the black bars on the top and bottom, but with movies filmed in 1.66:1, 1.78:1, and 1.85:1, you won't be getting the exact width.

The black bars are made to be there.

[Elora HRanma @ Jan 15th 2009 11:05AM]

So it crops the video's higher and lower parts? I hope what that means is more like automatically scaling the image to the total height of the screen, removing only bottom and top black bars, if present, and keeping aspect ratio with lateral black areas.

I have always wondered why wasn't something like that incorporated in digital broadcast signals. Sending an indication of the aspect ratio used so that digital sets can automatically adapt the video to the available space is not difficult at all, and would have saved a lot of remote manipulation.

[Ethan @ Jan 15th 2009 11:08AM]

Maybe it's that "content-aware resizing," which can currently be done on the fly in photoshop and the GIMP;

http://www.tuaw.com/2008/10/09/adobe-demos-photoshop-cs4s-content-aware-scaling/

Almost definitely not, though, which means you'll get eyes and noses the right shape but weird flattened limbs. Pointless.

[Oli D @ Jan 15th 2009 11:17AM]

the purpose of the wide ratio is surely to satisfy/emulate periphery?

[HimiJendrix @ Jan 15th 2009 11:25AM]

Thanks Ian, that was my 1st and only question about this TV.