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]
posted Jan 15th 2009 10:40AM
wiiiiide-screen
Left side- MRRRRROW... Right side-MRRRROW...
"I should look to the right more often."
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...
Are any movies actually shot inthat aspect ratio? I seem to remember Kubrick's "Spartacus" was pretty wide . . . but 21:9?
@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
I'll ask the question everyone is thinking. Why?
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.
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.
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.
ridiculous but awesome
I'd love it as a monitor...damn.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Erwos is right. This aspect ratio is a must for anyone who loves to see movies the way they are meant to be seen.
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.
I thought the question everyone was thinking would be why isn't it 7:3?
@Tim - that's exactly what I was thinking!
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.
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
Wider, wider, wider.... I think I'll grow two more eyes at the back of my head to be future-TV-proof......
Just imagine the size of those black bars on the sides of the screen when watching tv!
How about watching two shows side by side? Instead of Picture-IN-Picture, it could be Picture-AND-Picture.
Those would be more like black boxes at that point.
what would you watch on it...nothing comes in 21:9 format does it?
*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.
Yes, anamorphic Panavision films does.
@ Like_A_Glove
I first read that as "anthropomorphic Panavision films" and was pretty intrigued.
I can't wait to play Microsoft Office on this!
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.
so now when im watching porn, the girls look really fat!
i mean no offense to fat people, or porn
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 ;)
How you are supposed to get content in this format?
A lot of DVDs come in this aspect ratio
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.
And then watch 4:3 video content i widescreen :P
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
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
Woo! 1.66:1, 1.78:1, and 1.85:1 is the new Fullscreen!
"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."
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
the purpose of the wide ratio is surely to satisfy/emulate periphery?
Thanks Ian, that was my 1st and only question about this TV.
@Verythrax
Why go to 16:9 instead of 21:9? Simple. Cost. It's cheaper to make more squarish sets than wider screen ones. Hence the sticking to 4:3 for so long, and the fact that even when "wide-screen" computer monitors hit the scene, they were only 16:10.
@Chuckles McGee
As I recall computer monitors were made 16:10 so that they could fit the HUD. The move to 16:9 is to save costs, since now they can share parts of the production line with the TVs. You'll notice that 16:9 monitors actually tend to be slightly lower resolution compared to similar sized 16:10 displays (they removed vertical pixels, rather than add horizontal ones).
Oh great, that area I see which is blurry and my brain mostly ignores. Although I know some will hate black bars enough to buy it.
But think of how bad standard TV will look on it! Either huge black bars or some VAST stretching!
if you have money for this in these dire times, you will have a second tv for watching cable...
Most movies are produced in 1.85, but most of the content people watch (blockbusters like Batman, Indiana Jones, etc.) are 2:35. I think I'd rather have a 1.85 set as a happy medium between 2.35 film and 1.77 HDTV, but truth be told, I don't mind my 1.77 set for watching 2.35 movies.
Marshall
The Real HT Info Podcast
P.S. Jim Addie from Platinum Home Theaters discusses Aspect Ratios in Episode 35 of The Real HT Info Podcast.
Perhaps most movies are made in 1.85:1, but most movies out on BluRay are 2.35:1. I believe this is because big special effects movies tend to be in scope (2.35:1), and those also tend to be released on BluRay (instead of chick flicks).
It disgusts me. The real solution is for Hollywood to stop making movies in scope. If you go to a theater, you actually get less picture on a scope movie than an academy flat (1.85:1) one. So why is Hollywood making movies that throw away image space in both theaters and on my TV? It's stupid.
@why not the LS2LS7?
"If you go to a theater, you actually get less picture on a scope movie than an academy flat"
That's not necessarily true. I worked in a theater as a projectionist for a number of years, and it depends on the auditorium. In some auditoriums, the masking (curtains) would move vertically, which would give a scope movie a smaller picture, but in other auditoriums (often the larger ones) the masking would move horizontally to make the picture larger.
For whatever reason I tended to like the scope movies better. They seemed to look a little better (I don't think there was a technical reason, it was probably just because many of our projectors didn't have their flat lenses adjusted properly) and I think the wider viewing experience (in a "horizontal" masking environment) was nicer.
Yes, it isn't necessarily true. But it is true. You can find good older theaters where you get more screen with scope films. But go to any 10-plex built lately and it isn't true.
I think part of the reason we still see films in scope is Hollywood thinks they are making movies to be viewed at the Cineramadome. And it's not true, hasn't been for a long time.
Finally!! Btw, why not use the smallest denominator and say 7:3??? Same with computer monitors, 16:10 should be 8:5.
Why not reduce everything down to 1? 2.35, 1.85, 1.77? Seems easier to understand to me.
Maybe because 16:9 has become a common notation, so designating this set as 21:9 makes it easily understood as "wider" (though, once again, reducing to 1 would do the same thing).
Marshall
The Real HT Info Podcast
Using numbers like 1.77 is slightly confusing because more than one calculation has the same result.
I'm intrigued, but a little puzzed by the press release, considering a tonne of todays films are released in 16:9.
My question is about resolution though. Considering cinema always goes by horizonal rez, and TVs are described in vertical rez. I presume this'll be 1920 pixels wide, so based on that aspect ratio, 1920x823? An 823p 24p display...
If it's a FullHD TV set, it has to be 1080 pixels tall. This would mean 2520x1080 in this case.
Ideally, it should be 1080 vertical in order not to lose resolution when watching a 16:9 bluray. So, maybe 2520x1080.
I don't really see the market for this though.. As a movie buff I prefer a projector, and for general TV/movie use a 16:9 display is a good compromise.
Just stick some cardboard on the top and bottom of your current monitor/tv and presto, your very own 21:9 display!
In other words this means nothing without some size/resolution information now does it?
sure, slate the little guy with his lackluster website, lol, they had the lowdown before you! It's not a bad site.
Exactly, and the design is nicer than Engadget :-P
Will it crop out the hard coded black bars on 16:9 blueray discs that have 2.35:1 media on them?
Any chance of Special edition disc with 21:9 media with no hardcoded black bars?
Or maybe Bluray does not use Hard Coded black bars in the first place, but are added in by the player?
I'd say it is the player's job. Compressing the black bars would add a little bit of noise and increase the size required for the movie, while creating them at play time is easily coded and requires almost no processing time.
I need this
I'll rejoice the day I can put 8 foot widescreen as thick as a piece of glass hanging on the wall above my fireplace mantel - at this aspect ratio! oh, and it weighs just 30 pounds! oh, and costs less than $1300!
Aren't most US shows still made in 4:3?
Mmmh... Not those I watch: House, Battlestar Galactica, Angel, True Blood... Only some literal shows are done in 4:3, but it is slowly changing. There are, actually, quite a lot of HD channels which broadcast in 16:9.
And many movies are in 2:35.
No, I don't think so.
Even scrubs is widescreen now. The only US ones I watch that aren't are the colbert report and the daily show, which aren't about how pretty it looks.
And since the US government is enforcing HD soon nothing will be 4:3 unless it's converted to it after taping for foreign markets that use old systems.
I'm intrigued, but a little puzzed by the press release, considering a tonne of todays films are released in 16:9.
My question is about resolution though. Considering cinema always goes by horizonal rez, and TVs are described in vertical rez. I presume this'll be 1920 pixels wide, so based on that aspect ratio, 1920x823? An 823p 24p display...
I like the idea of having a wide screen panoramic experience. However, these formats would have to become universal in order to justify buying a TV in those dimensions. I also think it is rather bizarre that companies that make monitors are using 2048 x 1152 as a standard resolution now for 23"-26" panels.
21:9? Doesn't anyone know how to divide? It's 7:3.
It's kept that way to easily communicate that it's even wider than the 16:9 format.
Is no one else curious to know how BIG the screen is? The press release only gives the aspect ratio. Great. Who gives a fig if its only a 27" diagonal?
Note that 1.85 and 16:9 content will have to be letterboxed. This means that you will get the full aspect for 2.35 content, but that the image for all other content will appear "smaller." Kind of like how you need a 37" 16:9 screen to get the same 4:3 image size as a 27" SDTV.
This sucker better be at least 52", really more like 56". Otherwise its just not worth the shrinking effect for all other content -- unless you never watch, you know, HDTV on your "HDTV."
The source says it's 56" just like the official site for it.
http://www.cinematicviewingexperience.com/press.html
This is just going to be a standard hi-def tv with the top and bottom chopped off to 1920 by 822 (i think) just like 16:9 notebook screens. The only thing it has going for it as emphasized on the site is that a 2.35:1 full scope picture fills the entire screen and is then more immersive which is true but any extra immersion is still only in the mind. Youll still be paying a premium for a lower pixel count.
I might be being picky here... but nothing is actually being cropped. Black bars do not mean you're missing the picture... you're seeing the whole picuture, which is why black bars are necessary to fill in the space the entire picture cannot.
I know this is basic and elementary, but either some of you don't get that or I'm misinterpreting what you're trying to say.
Exactly! The "bars" are actually good because it means the picture is a different shape than your TV, but it's made to fit the screen without anything being cut off or distorted.
this format stuff sucks, it's getting really annoying. The industry should aim to bring everything to a single standard so that everything we watch will fit in a single size TV, not create ten different dimensions and now actual TV's. Ridiculous.
For watching Blu-Ray movies this would be incredible, but for watching Tv...I don't think so !
Waiting for it to be available in Seagal's 'Letterbox 2000' format...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d82j_Qfp_VA
I can't stand people who stretch 4:3 on widescreen TVs. I don't get how that can actually be better than black bars. And what's ridiculous is if you ask those people why they don't use the zoom function rather than stretch it, if it means that much to them... the answer usually is, "But that cuts off parts of the picture". Ok, and distorted squashed faces is any better?
Even worse is when they stretch 16:9 stuff that's actually supposed to fill the screen because they don't like it when the commercials don't fill the screen. -_-
I hope they bring this aspect ratio to laptops b/c this would be perfect on a laptop. I still get black bars on top and bottom with a 16:9 laptop. I can't wait to watch movies in their true aspect ratio.
Now with Super-Ultra-Clever-SmartStretch™ for those pesky old 4:3 shows...
As much as I LOVE the 2.35:1 picture, this is highly impractical. It would make a kickass dedicated movie watching TV, but how many people can afford such a luxury item these days?
I'll by one for my computer if I can rotate it to poitrat.
January 29th launch date...thats my birthday haha :)
I like it. I assume it is 2520 x 1080 resolution.
I find it much easier to ignore black bars on the side than on top/bottom which makes everything smaller.
This is just like 2:35 Constant image height projector setup at a lesser cost. I hope this catches on.
I don't even like this format in a theater. 16:9 is the best IMO.
Great, I'm going to need a bigger wallpaper now.