[edited by mods - broken link. Philips news report/pictures to follow in our news section imminently]
-
When should you upgrade your hi-fi? How to control ‘upgradeitis’
New from Philips
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
sweet.
would be interested in early opinions on the 9000 models and of course pricing/release dates for the uk (but you knew all that already didnt you
)
would be interested in early opinions on the 9000 models and of course pricing/release dates for the uk (but you knew all that already didnt you
)SOSAGES:sweet.
would be interested in early opinions on the 9000 models and of course pricing/release dates for the uk (but you knew all that already didnt you )
Thought you'd be telling us...
would be interested in early opinions on the 9000 models and of course pricing/release dates for the uk (but you knew all that already didnt you
)Thought you'd be telling us...
Andrew Everard:SOSAGES:sweet.
would be interested in early opinions on the 9000 models and of course pricing/release dates for the uk (but you knew all that already didnt you )
Thought you'd be telling us...
I need a like button for this!
The new 9 series develops on the old as you would expect but a product launch is a very tricky place to accurately assess performance. Nothing really starts to happen until late June early July but as always that could change. No point discussing price until launch.
would be interested in early opinions on the 9000 models and of course pricing/release dates for the uk (but you knew all that already didnt you
)Thought you'd be telling us...
I need a like button for this!
The new 9 series develops on the old as you would expect but a product launch is a very tricky place to accurately assess performance. Nothing really starts to happen until late June early July but as always that could change. No point discussing price until launch.
Philips 21:9 gold 50PFL7956K(pdf)
Just waiting to hear about the more "attractive" price.
Also Philips suggesting 2013 for Glass less 3D TV based on lenticular construction. (won't link house rules).
Not sure about 21:9 tv check out this rather interesting promo
Just waiting to hear about the more "attractive" price.
Also Philips suggesting 2013 for Glass less 3D TV based on lenticular construction. (won't link house rules).
Not sure about 21:9 tv check out this rather interesting promo
The new 50PFL7956 looks very good. Finaly they made the 21:9 in a attractive size with a attractive price. Nice and usefull detail with the combined stand and Vesa compatible wallmount. Only "niggle" is the two sided Ambilight instead of three - looks a little silly with this whide screen having light coming out of the ends, almost useless Ambiligt on such a whide TV.
But hopefully some manager with a clear view at Philips, will overrole the price-differentiation decision, and include Ambilight 3.
But hopefully some manager with a clear view at Philips, will overrole the price-differentiation decision, and include Ambilight 3.
PeterHerz:Finaly they made the 21:9 in a attractive size with a attractive price.
So just a shame about the unattractive format, then?
So just a shame about the unattractive format, then?
v1c:
Philips 21:9 gold 50PFL7956K(pdf)
Just waiting to hear about the more "attractive" price.
Should be circa £2k for the 50" 21:9 set although as I said before that may change before July.
Philips 21:9 gold 50PFL7956K(pdf)
Just waiting to hear about the more "attractive" price.
Should be circa £2k for the 50" 21:9 set although as I said before that may change before July.
Andrew Everard:
PeterHerz:Finaly they made the 21:9 in a attractive size with a attractive price.
So just a shame about the unattractive format, then?
All in your humble opinion of course Andrew........
I originally thought the 21:9 was perhaps a niche too far but decided we would try it out to see what the fuss was about. I had fully expected to test the TV and then sell it on but to my surprise as well as the rest of the team here the screen is brilliant. Even the small amount of image loss when the standard TV image is stretched to fill the screen is acceptable IMO.
PeterHerz:Finaly they made the 21:9 in a attractive size with a attractive price.
So just a shame about the unattractive format, then?
All in your humble opinion of course Andrew........
I originally thought the 21:9 was perhaps a niche too far but decided we would try it out to see what the fuss was about. I had fully expected to test the TV and then sell it on but to my surprise as well as the rest of the team here the screen is brilliant. Even the small amount of image loss when the standard TV image is stretched to fill the screen is acceptable IMO.
Andrew Everard:
PeterHerz:Finaly they made the 21:9 in a attractive size with a attractive price.
So just a shame about the unattractive format, then?
I think many misunderstand - there are several viewing angles to this.
The direct pratical viewing angle - our living room is fairly small, a 32" is what fits and which gives the correct viewing distance. Problem is, that sources in whide format, ( such as many movies ) are minimized to a thin stribe in the center of the screen. The picture on a 32" is already small - having even smaller, especially movies .......... If we could extend our present 32" in each side, there would be space for the movie/program without minimizing, Thus - both standard material and whide formats are presented without minimizing either of the two, maintaining the right size. A win win situation. I find it very difficult to argue against this - unless its complaining for the sake of complaining.
Another viewing angle is for those who wants the biggest movie screen possible in home - ( and dont want a projector ) - a 21:9 gives a larger moviescreen than a 16:9.
The most popular argumentation for 21:9 is to get rid of the black bars. Positive are: In case of ambilight is used, that the Ambilight is close to the picture also on the top - The more immence viewing experience having a screen which fits the movie. This is also the most fiearse debate, they are all right - since this is a matter of taste and personal opinion. No point in using time in long argumentations and debates.
Personally, 21:9 is primarly to solve the problem of minimized movies and programs - secondary, and subjective, that I get a better movie experience when the screen fits the movie + Ambilight fits too ( well unfortunately not on the 50" as presented ) + 21:9 looks more "right" than 16:9. Further + there is a clear trend twords 21:9 in both film and broadcast, thus buying the future and not the past.
PeterHerz:Finaly they made the 21:9 in a attractive size with a attractive price.
So just a shame about the unattractive format, then?
I think many misunderstand - there are several viewing angles to this.
The direct pratical viewing angle - our living room is fairly small, a 32" is what fits and which gives the correct viewing distance. Problem is, that sources in whide format, ( such as many movies ) are minimized to a thin stribe in the center of the screen. The picture on a 32" is already small - having even smaller, especially movies .......... If we could extend our present 32" in each side, there would be space for the movie/program without minimizing, Thus - both standard material and whide formats are presented without minimizing either of the two, maintaining the right size. A win win situation. I find it very difficult to argue against this - unless its complaining for the sake of complaining.
Another viewing angle is for those who wants the biggest movie screen possible in home - ( and dont want a projector ) - a 21:9 gives a larger moviescreen than a 16:9.
The most popular argumentation for 21:9 is to get rid of the black bars. Positive are: In case of ambilight is used, that the Ambilight is close to the picture also on the top - The more immence viewing experience having a screen which fits the movie. This is also the most fiearse debate, they are all right - since this is a matter of taste and personal opinion. No point in using time in long argumentations and debates.
Personally, 21:9 is primarly to solve the problem of minimized movies and programs - secondary, and subjective, that I get a better movie experience when the screen fits the movie + Ambilight fits too ( well unfortunately not on the 50" as presented ) + 21:9 looks more "right" than 16:9. Further + there is a clear trend twords 21:9 in both film and broadcast, thus buying the future and not the past.
I think the problem with 21:9 displays is that they're unsuitable for the majority of viewing contexts. Obviously all television programmmes will be stretched horizontally (ridiculously so if viewing 4:3 content). Furthermore, not all films fit the 21:9 aspect ratio.
If this seems the ideal solution to some, then fair enough, but I don't think I'd find a 21:9 display comfortable to live with (and I consider myself an ardent cinephile).
If this seems the ideal solution to some, then fair enough, but I don't think I'd find a 21:9 display comfortable to live with (and I consider myself an ardent cinephile).
I cant see why 21:9 displays should be unsuitable for the majority of contexts ? You dont streach 16:9 or 4:3, but its there as an option.
21:9 material is viewed without minimizing, 16:9 also without minimizing or maximizing and 4:3 also without minimizing or maximizing. Unless you mean that black bars on the sides of 16:9 and 4:3 material is "unsuitable" ....... thats another story if you think black bars dosnt look nice, but hardly unsuitable. .....
To cut into the core of this issue - there is the minimim distance to a picture, there is the optimal sitting position to a TV screen. If you have a 16:9, with a size chosed according to the disctance from the sofa to the telly - you will, watching movie material, sit too far from the screen, as the movie gets minimized. You will have to move the sofa closer to the TV in order to maintain the optimal distance. You could chose the TV size to be optimal for whide screen material, but then you will sit too close at 16:9 matrial. On a 21:9, the optimal viewing distance is the same for all formats - none are resized. So if we should use the word unsuitable - a 16:9 is unsuitable for a great part of what you watch, since the source is minimized on whide format material, influencing the optimal sitting distance. This is the indisputeble fact, and the problem to solve - movies and programs in whide format are minimized on a 16:9.
21:9 material is viewed without minimizing, 16:9 also without minimizing or maximizing and 4:3 also without minimizing or maximizing. Unless you mean that black bars on the sides of 16:9 and 4:3 material is "unsuitable" ....... thats another story if you think black bars dosnt look nice, but hardly unsuitable. .....
To cut into the core of this issue - there is the minimim distance to a picture, there is the optimal sitting position to a TV screen. If you have a 16:9, with a size chosed according to the disctance from the sofa to the telly - you will, watching movie material, sit too far from the screen, as the movie gets minimized. You will have to move the sofa closer to the TV in order to maintain the optimal distance. You could chose the TV size to be optimal for whide screen material, but then you will sit too close at 16:9 matrial. On a 21:9, the optimal viewing distance is the same for all formats - none are resized. So if we should use the word unsuitable - a 16:9 is unsuitable for a great part of what you watch, since the source is minimized on whide format material, influencing the optimal sitting distance. This is the indisputeble fact, and the problem to solve - movies and programs in whide format are minimized on a 16:9.
I'm basing that statement on the presumption that it's preferable to have as much content as possible fit the aspect ratio of the television. On that basis, a 16:9 television is more suitable for everyday contexts that 21:9 display.
However, if you're happy watching most television content with black bars at the side, I wouldn't berate you for it. I was merely stating that I wouldn't find this set up comfortable to live with.
However, if you're happy watching most television content with black bars at the side, I wouldn't berate you for it. I was merely stating that I wouldn't find this set up comfortable to live with.
strapped for cash:
I'm basing that statement on the presumption that it's preferable to have as much content as possible fit the aspect ratio of the television. On that basis, a 16:9 television is more suitable for everyday contexts that 21:9 display.
However, if you're happy watching most television content with black bars at the side, I wouldn't berate you for it. I was merely stating that I wouldn't find this set up comfortable to live with.
No problem - personal opinion is never wrong, we are all different.
I'm basing that statement on the presumption that it's preferable to have as much content as possible fit the aspect ratio of the television. On that basis, a 16:9 television is more suitable for everyday contexts that 21:9 display.
However, if you're happy watching most television content with black bars at the side, I wouldn't berate you for it. I was merely stating that I wouldn't find this set up comfortable to live with.
No problem - personal opinion is never wrong, we are all different.
I still have an issue with the picture-cropping and subtitles problems on the 21:9 sets. They're supposed to be aimed at movie lovers, but they're the very people whom want to see all the film - uncompromised in format - which to date the Philips sets still can't deliver. Here's hoping it's addressed...
Clare Newsome:I still have an issue with the picture-cropping and subtitles problems on the 21:9 sets. They're supposed to be aimed at movie lovers, but they're the very people whom want to see all the film - uncompromised in format - which to date the Philips sets still can't deliver. Here's hoping it's addressed...
True Clare - let´s see if this is addressed in the new models - but I can live with no subtitles getting non-minimized movies, if they cut a little here and there sometimes I live with that too. Else I suppose one could simply leave it as is without scaling to fit 21:9 in severe cases.
True Clare - let´s see if this is addressed in the new models - but I can live with no subtitles getting non-minimized movies, if they cut a little here and there sometimes I live with that too. Else I suppose one could simply leave it as is without scaling to fit 21:9 in severe cases.
But yet again you're into a world of compromise... I could forgive that in a 'value' product, but from a flagship, premium TV?
As I said, here's hoping Philips have addressed these issues for the 2011 models; we look forward to testing them!
As I said, here's hoping Philips have addressed these issues for the 2011 models; we look forward to testing them!
The new 50" 21:9 is a "value" product, a 7000 serie. I too look forward to the reviews - and to finaly have the old 32" replaced.
strapped for cash:
I think the problem with 21:9 displays is that they're unsuitable for the majority of viewing contexts. Obviously all television programmmes will be stretched horizontally (ridiculously so if viewing 4:3 content). Furthermore, not all films fit the 21:9 aspect ratio.
If this seems the ideal solution to some, then fair enough, but I don't think I'd find a 21:9 display comfortable to live with (and I consider myself an ardent cinephile).
Couldn't agree more!
Unless you only watch movies on your TV (and specifically select the movies in the right format), most content will still come in 16:9 or even 4:3 format. 21:9 is just different type of compromise than the 16:9.
I think the problem with 21:9 displays is that they're unsuitable for the majority of viewing contexts. Obviously all television programmmes will be stretched horizontally (ridiculously so if viewing 4:3 content). Furthermore, not all films fit the 21:9 aspect ratio.
If this seems the ideal solution to some, then fair enough, but I don't think I'd find a 21:9 display comfortable to live with (and I consider myself an ardent cinephile).
Unless you only watch movies on your TV (and specifically select the movies in the right format), most content will still come in 16:9 or even 4:3 format. 21:9 is just different type of compromise than the 16:9.
The last time Philips lead with a new format it was 16:9 TV and look how that's ended up. Screen size format for standard TV viewing is totally irrelevant it's all about getting closer to the Cinema experience and that is what 21:9 does. Will everybody like it ? how long did it take for 16:9 to replace 4:3 ?. I remember thinking widescreen TV looked funny to 4:3 to start with but once your eyes adjust to what your watching it becomes the norm.
Philips should be applauded for their continuing innovation.
21:9 TV is definitely on my future radar.
Philips should be applauded for their continuing innovation.
21:9 TV is definitely on my future radar.
Indeed Philips should. But I still have a problem with a product that claims to be 'closer to the cinema experience' when it crops movie pictures and can't handle subtitles
If they solve that, it'll get a big thumbs up from me!
If they solve that, it'll get a big thumbs up from me!
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Something is not right and I’m hoping a forum member will help me
- Started by Fuel4life1234
- Replies: 7
-
Chinese Grand Prix live stream: how to watch the F1 free online from anywhere
- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 0
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram