No, and I don't think there is any reason to go "wider" than 16:9 other than to allow display manufacturers to reduce screen real estate while they can still quote big sizes that are measured by a single diagonal measurement.Civuck said:Will there ever be aspect-ratio harmony in the world of the moving image?
Even if they can make it, the beam focus on the edges outside the 16:9 area can not be resolved unless the depth of the TV is deeper than the width of the TV. Furthermore, the time taken for the beam to travel left-right from top to bottom was an issue.Structural integrity of a 21:9 crt tube was also an issue.
They started earlier than us (also in Asia) but 16:9 penetration is taking much longer time than us. I bought my 20" 16:9 Sony Trinitron CRT back in 1996 from Singapore but strangely enough you still can buy a LOT of mid-level 4:3 TVs (most being CRT) today in South East Asia.I had always thought Europe had adopted 16:9 sets for a very long time now - well before North America did.
It was also chosen over other ratios because within a perfect circle, a 16:9 rectangle is the best balance between height and width. That's why it's supported by SMPTE and was/is being applied in Europe under the 16:9 action plan.16:9 was chosen for HDTV because during it's standardization time
Most of Europe converted all their channels to 16:9 in the late 90s-late 2000s, though some countries like Serbia and Italy is still in the process. Australia and NZ did it in 2000-2001.
Although I've read that, I don't buy it for a second because the perfect balance between height and width within a perfect circle is 1:1 ratio. Furthermore, any AR can fit within a perfect circle depending on the size.It was also chosen over other ratios because within a perfect circle, a 16:9 rectangle is the best balance between height and width. That's why it's supported by SMPTE and was/is being applied in Europe under the 16:9 action plan.