[David Susilo]

Philips have released it in Europe last year, JVC, AUO, Vizio showcased them this CES. When are we going to actually get them? I use CIH for my HT and once I went CIH I can't go back to CIW.

Any clue? Speculation?

 

[BGY11]

I don't see this catching on in the mainstream market anytime soon. The average consumer is content with their 16:9 sets and probably would be pretty upset if a different standard came out. This is especially true if broadcast television didn't adapt to this aspect ratio as well (something that would take quite a few years to implement).

That said, I could see why enthusiasts would want such a TV. The problem is, would there be enough demand to justify the cost of producing these?

 

[David Susilo]

There must be enough demand if Philips Europe have released this TV in EU and about to reease a 2nd gen this year in EU and AU.

JVC is planning to release the 2.4:1 with 3D capability in Asian marketthis September.

Besides, almost all blockbuster movies are in 21:9 aspect ratio.

 

[Civuck]

I think it speaks to the fact there are two distinct home markets: broadcast TV viewing and feature movie viewing.

I would love to see some percentages on aspect ratios for recent feature movie releases in terms of how many are 2.35; it seems like most.

It's interesting (and a bit frustrating) how when we moved away from 4:3 CRT televisions to 16:9 panel televisions, everyone expected it was the end of the top/bottom black-bars. Then everyone realized just how many movies were actually 2.35 meaning the black bars lived on.

Now these new "ultra-wide" panel TVs come out and over compensate the other way because we end up with black-bars on the sides for 16:9 material such as broadcast TV.

Will there ever be aspect-ratio harmony in the world of the moving image?

 

[jvincent]

Will there ever be aspect-ratio harmony in the world of the moving image?

No. It's been like this for many decades. It's not going to magically stop now.

 

[audacity]

Will there ever be aspect-ratio harmony in the world of the moving image?

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.

The real answer is for the content producers to make different versions of their content optimized for various aspect ratios.

On the standardization front, if anything, I think movie theaters should adopt 16:9.

 

[57]

Here's the FAQ on Apects. The link to the IMDb database on aspects seems to have gone dead. If someone can find it or another aspect summary, please advise:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=654656#post654656

The aspect often depends on the "type" of film. As stated, many new "blockbuster" movies are 2.35:1, however, many romance movies, children's movies, etc are released as 1.78-1.85:1. This is of course a generalization and there will be exceptions.

I can't see a 2.35:1 TV as a primary TV, especially if you watch 4:3 SD on it since it would leave 1/2 the screen black.

Here's the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image) (I see that even there the IMDb link has gone dead. When it was up, the list had many more 1.85:1 movies than 2.35:1, however, that doesn't represent what's happening today)

 

[David Susilo]

16:9 was chosen for HDTV because during it's standardization time (ie in the early 90s) it's impossible to create a 21:9 screen without the tube being deeper than the width of the TV so 16:9 was chosen as a compromise.

 

[57]

That was only part of the reason. At the time, CRTs and plasmas dominated the market and burn in was a major concern. The compromize 16:9 was for several reasons, one of which was that 4:3 could be stretched to 16:9 and still look OK. 4:3 could not be stretched to 21:9 and look reasonable.

Here's the summary of reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9

 

[David Susilo]

During that time of the standardization (early 90's) plasma was only available with the max size of 21" and 4:3 (manufactured by NEC). It's not until 1997, when the 16:9 have been long established, 16:9 plasma was released (Fujitsu, IIRC, at 42", EDTV) -- prior to that all plasma were 4:3.

The 16:9 ratio decision making didn't take plasma TV into consideration due to the infancy of plasma TV technology at the time.

 

[David Susilo]

addition:

here's a list of (virtually) all 21:9 movies since 1922:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/garyswidescreenlist-r1.htm

PS: when imdb list the percentage of 1.85:1 AR vs 21:9 etc, the number was skewed because made-for-TV movies, TV mini-series, direct-to-DVD/Blu-ray movies were included, not only theatrical release.

 

[57]

Sorry, didn't realize that Plasmas didn't come into play until later, but the CRT burn in argument still holds some truth, as do the other arguments for 16:9 TVs.

As noted in several links, "everyone" in the world who was on a slightly different standard eventually took up the 16:9 standard.

Of course there are 21:9 screens for FPs and there will be someone producing a 21:9 TV for "widescreen fanatics", however, they will not become mainstream. Even though many (most?) recent (theatrical) films are 21:9, some are produced in formats outside that - 2.0:1, 2.6:1, etc. I believe that the 16:9 compromize was a good choice and has done well.

I read this morning that theatrical receipts were down significantly this year, probably due to many people downloading, etc. If the trend holds, then there may be a shift to more 16:9 productions for TVs, computers, etc., since "everything" else (new) produced for TVs is 16:9.

If you wish to purchase a different TV for each format produced, good luck.

 

[Michael TLV]

Greetings

Structural integrity of a 21:9 crt tube was also an issue. They implode. Ouch.

regards

 

[Spike4881]

I had always thought Europe had adopted 16:9 sets for a very long time now - well before North America did. My parents had German magazines in the house when I was younger and I remember thinking that their tvs were odd looking whenever they were shown.

 

[David Susilo]

Structural integrity of a 21:9 crt tube was also an issue.

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.

Even until the last day of CRT, the edge sharpness of 16:9 TV was an issue shared by various manufacturers. I still remember the days of my 30" 16:9 TV.... wow.... I wish I still have the picture of that set up. A TV which width and depth were essentially the same.

 

[David Susilo]

I had always thought Europe had adopted 16:9 sets for a very long time now - well before North America did.

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.

 

[JamesK]

I had always thought Europe had adopted 16:9 sets for a very long time now

In Europe, they've had PALplus since about the mid '90s. However, this was still analog and is being surpassed by digital TV.

 

[Fry1989]

16:9 was chosen for HDTV because during it's standardization time

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.

 

[Fry1989]

In Europe, they've had PALplus since about the mid '90s. However, this was still analog and is being surpassed by digital TV.

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.

 

[David Susilo]

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.

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.