| |
Shortscreen TV |
| |
adrianl (07:04 14/12/2009)
filecore (07:32 14/12/2009)
Monty (09:21 14/12/2009)
filecore (09:30 14/12/2009)
bhtooefr (15:59 12/1/2010)
moss (09:08 14/12/2009)
richcheng (12:29 6/1/2010)
arawnsley (12:52 6/1/2010)
Loris (16:59 6/1/2010)
Acornut (17:22 6/1/2010)
mavhc (13:44 11/1/2010)
|
| |
|
Adrian Lees |
Message #112296, posted by adrianl at 07:04, 14/12/2009 |
Member
Posts: 1637
|
Why, oh why, did we get fobbed off with 16:9 TVs which leave large black stripes above and below the picture for films?  Why not go to 25:9, or whatever it is, straight away, instead of creating a TV that does nothing well?
[Edited by adrianl at 07:05, 14/12/2009] |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #112297, posted by filecore at 07:32, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112296 |
Posts: 3868
|
Because when 16:9 widescreen was taking over being the standard from 4:3, ultrawidescreen was still more or less limited to cinemas?
Edit: curious thought. Would an ultrawidescreen be wide enough to show two decent-sized 4:3 feeds side-by-side? I'm too lazy to work the numbers, but it's an interesting thought. That said, I don't watch TV at all and we just have a crummy old 28" CRT in the house. Most people have computer monitors bigger than that these days.
[Edited by filecore at 07:33, 14/12/2009] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Hoare |
Message #112298, posted by moss at 09:08, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112296 |
Posts: 9348
|
Why, oh why, did we get fobbed off with 16:9 TVs which leave large black stripes above and below the picture for films? Why not go to 25:9, or whatever it is, straight away, instead of creating a TV that does nothing well? Because wider televisions wouldn't really fit very well in a lot of living rooms and still maintain a sensible screen size?
Besides, then you'd still be getting black bars at the *sides* for various picture formats, so there's no way round it... |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Edward Rogers |
Message #112299, posted by Monty at 09:21, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112297 |
Member
Posts: 154
|
Ultra wide screen is very good for screens ten feet high, but if you've got to fit it into your bedroom, it would likely mean something more like ten inches high.
More importantly, were TV signal to change to 25:9, watching on one of the several million 4:3 tellies left would be akin to looking at TV through a mediaeval jousting helmet. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #112300, posted by filecore at 09:30, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112299 |
Posts: 3868
|
More importantly, were TV signal to change to 25:9, watching on one of the several million 4:3 tellies left would be akin to looking at TV through a mediaeval jousting helmet. Actually, some films are broadcast like this and many DVDs come with films in this format. It truly is awful to watch. The only thing that's worse is 'correcting' it with pan&scan. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
richard cheng |
Message #112681, posted by richcheng at 12:29, 6/1/2010, in reply to message #112296 |
Posts: 655
|
Philips make one:
http://www.consumer.philips.com/c/televisions/33092/cat/gb/?tab=cinema%2021:9 |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Rawnsley |
Message #112682, posted by arawnsley at 12:52, 6/1/2010, in reply to message #112681 |
R-Comp chap
Posts: 600
|
It is interesting that the website for that TV promotes it with the Dark Knight blu-ray.
Now, Dark Knight was shot partially in IMAX which is 16:9, so you can tell when watching the blu-ray because the whole screen is filled with hi-def goodness!
If watched on the Philips TV, the full-screen IMAX sections would be cropped top/bottom and lost, which would be a bit of a jip!
Indeed, to work with current hardware, the TV must identify itself as 1080p, but just stick about 1/3 of the image off-screen (vertically) to achieve the desired result with all the off-the-shelf 2.35:1 discs.
To be frank, for TV watching 2.35:1 is not really sensible (too much content is in 4:3 or 16:9 - only movies seem to use 2.35:1, and even then there are many that don't). However, I did see an Australian company selling special 2.35:1 projector lens attachments which were designed to remove excess light when fitted for perfect 2.35:1 viewing. Seemed the way to go if you're into home projection. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Tony Haines |
Message #112685, posted by Loris at 16:59, 6/1/2010, in reply to message #112682 |
 Ha ha, me mine, mwahahahaha
Posts: 1025
|
I don't really care what the proportion format is. 4:3 is fine, 16:9 is fine, 25:9 would be fine...
What I don't like is the variation, where images get cropped or shrunk into illegibility. Why can't we just have the one standard? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Blind Moose |
Message #112686, posted by Acornut at 17:22, 6/1/2010, in reply to message #112682 |
 No-eye-deer (No Idea)
Posts: 487
|
Bring back 2.66:1 (cineramascope) is what I say  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Mark Scholes |
Message #112790, posted by mavhc at 13:44, 11/1/2010, in reply to message #112682 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
imax is 1.44:1 actually, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/technical |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Eric Rucker |
Message #112803, posted by bhtooefr at 15:59, 12/1/2010, in reply to message #112299 |
Member
Posts: 337
|
There is one other application for ultrawidescreen - netbooks.
The Vaio P gets a full-size keyboard (shame it's damn mushy) with an 8" screen by having nearly a 21:10 aspect ratio. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
