Ultra Widescreen TV

[zameerisgreat]

The latest movies of today, released on Blu-ray discs claim to offer Full-HD resolution (1920 x 1080P). But since almost all these movies are being produced in the 2.35:1 format, approximately half the resolution of widescreen 16:9 telly's are wasted in reproducing black bars above and underneath the viewable picture. So basically, the picture we view is almost half the claimed resolution. Would'nt it be nicer if the movie studios revert to filming in the 16:9 format again so we can make full use of our Full HD Flatscreen's resolution?. This, i admit, seems unlikely so the only other option would be to provide 2.35:1 format movies in true Full HD resolution which would require new 21:9 sets which, unlike the philips 21:9 telly which crops and scales the image, are able to display images, pixel by pixel.

Philips, trully claimed that this would be the format, all future telly's would be produced in. So any idea's on other manufacturers plans to introduce these ultra widescreen tv's.

Comments from other members of the forum are welcome.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Mie studios reverting to 16:9? God I hope not!! 16:9 is nice, and is suitable for ot of basic films, but with 2.35:1 and 2.40:1, the director of photography has a great toot his disposal - watch any western or anything like No Country For Old Men and some of the panoramic shots of mountain ranges or vistas can look stunning. Transfer this to 16:9 and the vastness of these deserts are lost. I'd rather watch the narrower formats nowadays. In fact, when I receive a film and it's 16:9, I'm disappointed!!

Personally, I use a projector for watching movies, and the same applies to those - their native ratio is 16:9. The serious projector user can use a lens that makes use of all the pixels for letterbox movies giving better resolution, abeit at a price.

 

[ElectroMan]

Technically speaking, films have never been made in 16:9, the closest cinema ratio is 1.85:1 (or 18.5:9 in TV jargon).

 

[zameerisgreat]

You are right. Movies, especially high quality transfers, when seen on the super wide format do look stunning but the point is, they are not true full hd images. Even the high end projectors, available with optional anamorphic lens ,use a special processor which along with scaling, vertically stretches the picture to fill a fill the screen.

What we need are 2.40:1 tv sets which display true 1080p pictures without scalingprocessing.

 

[Frank Harvey]

zameerisgreat:What we need are 2.40:1 tv sets which display true 1080p pictures without scalingprocessing.But then 16:9 films will have black side borders, which would be what everyone would then be moaning about!

 

[ear]

sometimes i rent a movie on dvd and then just a few weeks later its show on tv....dvd always appears with black bars but the same movie on tv is broadcast in 4:3 format..how do they do this.? they cut the sides of the pics? or...like I've seen somewhere in camera viewfinders....the screen on the viewfinder is 4:3 then in the middle there is a rectangle that shows what 2.35:1 movie will display, and for 2.35:1 they just cut the image outside that rectangle?...So 4:3 gets more picture info than 2.35:1?

 

[Anonymous]

ear:sometimes i rent a movie on dvd and then just a few weeks later its show on tv....dvd always appears with black bars but the same movie on tv is broadcast in 4:3 format..how do they do this.? they cut the sides of the pics? or...like I've seen somewhere in camera viewfinders....the screen on the viewfinder is 4:3 then in the middle there is a rectangle that shows what 2.35:1 movie will display, and for 2.35:1 they just cut the image outside that rectangle?...So 4:3 gets more picture info than 2.35:1?

I noticed that with Batman Begins which was on tv last night. It filled my screen which surprised me a little so I checked my dvd cover which stated it was 2.40:1.

 

[Frank Harvey]

The 4:3 picture you see in a TV is generally the 2.35:1 picture with the sides cut off, so you're actually seeing less. You may sometimes get a little more top and bottom, but this was never intended, which is why boom mics and the like are sometimes noticed just in shot when they shouldn't be.

This is also the reason why the picture usually looks soft or out of focus, because what you're seeing is zoomed in on the middle bit of the 2.35:1 picture. That's about as simple as I can make it!

 

[ElectroMan]

There's also the dreaded 'scan and pan', where essentially they move the 4:3 frame around the image to make sure you see the most important part of the picture - everything else is cut off! If the original shot is, say, a pan or zoom, then scan & pan can introduce strange motion effects.

A lot of films that are in 2.35:1 are actually shot full-frame (rather than in true anamorphic widescreen), then masked off for the cinema prints - as ear suggests above. Then there's Super 35 - this article has more details if you're really interested!

 

[zameerisgreat]

It will be interesting to see whether other manufacturers follow philips example and introduce 21:9 sets at CES, this January. Maybe Philips too will replace their existing set with one with all the flaws rectified.

. Maybe the guys at WHF know about this ?

 

[professorhat]

I doubt other manufacturers will make the 21:9 screen, it was a marketing gimmick really. At the price the Philips 21:9 TV cost, you could buy an extremely nice projector and screen which would give you a far better and more authentic movie experience.

 

[ElectroMan]

I agree, and I don't know how successful Philips have been in convincing the studios to release 21:9 Blu-rays (not very, I would guess).

And 3D, for better or worse, will gain all the attention ...

 

[Tonya]

Hi all!
We have two of those new Philips sets at work and I have to admit I'm not THAT impressed so after a few weeks.
The black level is not up to my reference Sony set and the upscaling feature just doesn't cut it, IMHO.
As the eminent Professor said earlier, the money is much better spent in a good projector and screen, at least for home use.
We got ours out of curiosity, glad I didn't buy one for my home use now.