16:9 100" craze going on. how about 105" 21:9 displays? would u like one? (1 Viewer)

[YANG]

how high would a 105" 21:9 display looks like?

reference to a post i shared in another forum...

...it seems that the picture height is close to 82inch 16:9 display, which shouldn't be an issue to most large screen display adopters, unless you have a space restriction due to the width of the set, which would consume more than 8.5ft/2.6m of the space.
of course, if this is too big, smaller size like 92“, 81" are available in the market. although... for the moment, large 21:9 displays are built and employed for commercial and conference use.

i had been hoping that more of such displays be built like what LG and PHILIPS had made in the past for home use... however the market demand globally seems to be remain low.

the 105" 5K 21:9 dimension picture above belongs to this model that i come across...

MAXHUB - UW Series

MAXHUB focuses on developing collaboration solutions that enable immersive communications. We have enhanced team creativity and productivity worldwide by providing advanced audio-visual technologies and one-stop solutions.

www.maxhub.com

other makers like ViewSonic, Jupiter, Avocor as well as a slew of others also have 105" makes for, as mentioned for commercial and conference display application ...and the price is... not friendly for home use for the moment due to the limited purpose and sales target group.

i think a USD$3000, 16:9 100inch with the same backlight spec would be more value for money when displaying ws2.35:1 image, may get a picture height close to 77" display.​

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Nah, if I ever go for a 21:9 (or 2.4:1) screen for my HT, I'd probably want at least 150" diagonal to yield almost the same image height as my current 120" 16x9. As it is, I'm probably moving upto 135" 16x9 next year -- I'd move upto 150" 16x9, if I could, but I don't have enough throw distance for that w/ my PJ.

No interest in anything smaller than my current setup... so no direct-views for me for foreseeable future...

_Man_

 

[Sam Posten]

No

 

[DaveF]

I don't have the room / wall width for a screen greater than 16:9 without compromising the majority of what I watch.

If I did, I'd probably have bought into a 2.35 screen and used Zoom CIH.

But regardless there's no video standard for 4K 2.35 so any ultra-wide direct-view set will be based on zoom and interpolation methods, not using content that's inherently that format. I know some enthusiasts love using upscaling systems to do just that with projectors, especially with anamorphic lenses. With this TV...? Maybe that will all be built in? Maybe with Lumagen and Envy it will work better and more robustly without projector zooms and motorized lens sleds and screen masking systems to deal with.

But for me, this doens't work in my home regardless of my tastes or budget.

 

[YANG]

measurements of large sized 16:9 displays against 21:9 of same heights for reference...

...such that for whoever interested, may have some idea of picturing how a scope-AR that ranges from 2.35/2.55/2.76:1 would look on the different displays... knowing what u may have missed or gaining.

 

[YANG]

with the maturity of re-tooling, hardware specs and production, western marques or tech companies of Jupiter or MaxHub Display alike, should reconsider in getting 21:9 displays back as home displays like what PHILIPS had attempted some 20yrs ago...

...gradually first with 30% horizontal expansion to mainstream sizes that should comes without internal TV tuner function, but serves as big screen monitors, either for computing, gaming or commercial use.

below are some other measurements to hope for base on the current popular diagonal size of 16:9 displays.

​

 

[Sam Posten]

No

 

[John Sparks]

My kind of answer, short and sweet, not 10 paragraphs.