Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,190 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,368 Posts
Civuck said:
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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
56,507 Posts
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)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
56,507 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
Discussion Starter #11

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
56,507 Posts
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. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
Greetings

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

regards
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
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. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,302 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
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. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
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.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top