Any extra-wide widescreen TVs? (1 Viewer)

[Tim Kline]

It seems like all the widescreen TVs are made to be the size of the generic widescreen aspect ratio.. but a lot of movies in my collection are wider, and they'll still leave a few black bars for me.. wouldn't it be better if the widescreen TVs were as wide as a movie comes.. and then your bars are only on the sides, instead of either one? Know what I mean?
Are there any TVs that are wider than the usual 16:9 or whatever?
------------------
Tim Kline
HT Newbie Extraordinaire!
[email protected]
Link Removed
My DVD List
Link Removed

 

[Brian Lipszyc]

There is a reason Widescreen TVs are 16x9 but I don't recall the exact details. Something to do with the 1.77 ratio.
My theory on the main reason that TVs are closer to the 1.85 ratio than the 2.35 is that once the networks start broadcasting in widescreen DTV more regularly, I'd say the majority of their shows will be in 1.85 format, thus filling up the entire screen and eliminating the black bars you'd see with a 2.35 show.
[Edited last by Brian Lipszyc on August 27, 2001 at 07:50 PM]

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

From what I remember reading in one of the Widescreen Review special issues, one of the main reasons for choosing 16x9 is that the 1.77778:1 ratio is equal to the 4x3 ratio squared, ie. 1.33333:1 x 1.33333:1, which IOW is simply 1/3 wider than 4x3, AND the popular 2.35:1 ratio is approximately the 4x3 ratio cubed, ie. 1.33333:1 x 1.33333:1 x 1.33333:1, which IOW is simply 1/3 wider than 16x9.
To put it simply, 16x9 is essentially the perfect middle point between 4x3 and the popular 2.35:1. This makes conversions between ratios easier besides the fact that a perfect middle point would be a good compromise between the tremendous amount of 4x3 material in existence and the growing number of 2.35:1 films.
Anyway, that's what I remember reading...

 

[Timmy]

The reason widescreen TV's are 16:9 ratio is because HDTV is a 16:9 format.

 

[Brian_J]

But Timmy it did not have to be. Is it the chicken or egg? I agree with the above poster, its a nice middle ground.
Brian
------------------
Zed's Dead Baby...

 

[Marc Alexander]

If my memory serves me correctly, there were 16x9 ratio TVs before HDTV.

 

[DaveF]

and then your bars are only on the sides

Why would that be particularly better than the current situation, with bars on top & bottom? In either case, you've got to deal with black bars to accomodate all film formats. (1.33, 1.85, 2.35:1, etc.)

 

[Chris Biggs]

One good thing about a 2.35:1 TV would be that all programming would be the same height. Wider shows would not be smaller.

 

[steve jaros]

Marc - yes, i've had a 16:9 tv since 1997, which predates HDTV at least in the US.
Tim - i think the reason that widescreen tv's are 16:9 instead of 2.35 is because people prefer letterboxing to windowboxing. And if tv's were 2.35, all of those 1.85 movies would be windowboxed...

 

[Mike I]

quote: Marc - yes, i've had a 16:9 tv since 1997, which predates HDTV at least in the US.[/quote]
Your set may predate HDTV, but the standards for HDTV were set back in the late 80's and early 90's at which time it was decided 16.9 was the standard for HDTV..
------------------
[Edited last by Mike I on August 31, 2001 at 07:00 AM]
[Edited last by Mike I on August 31, 2001 at 07:01 AM]

 

[John-D]

comes..

Your statement has the answer within. Movie formats were selected to disassociate themself as far as possible from regular TV formats. It was TV that finally gave in and followed movies adopting a wider aspect ratio that could accommodate various movie formats better.
------------------
The things we own end up owning us

 

[Bill Slack]

16:9 was chosen largely for it's relation to 4:3.
Drop every 4th line (or merge 3+4, etc. etc.) and you have a 16:9 aspect ratio, if it's 1:85:1 it's not a ratio evenly divisible by 4:3, which means more processing + artifacts.
It also happens to be nearly the same as a very popular movie aspect ratio, and still provide decent 4:3 viewing (e.g. zoomed viewing on a screen 2.35:1 wouldn't be much of an option!)
At least, that's my understanding of it.

 

[Brian G Hopps]

I'm pretty sure the 16X9 (1.77) was considered the best "middle ground." While many American movies are often shot 1.85 today, European films are often shot 1.66. I read this in "The Perfect Vision" years ago.

 

[Chuck C]

2.35:1 or any extra wide TVs don't and should not exist since 16:9 is the HDTV standard. DVDs come second in determining a ratio for a TV.
------------------
Chuck
Chuckster's HT Equipment List
The Dorm Room Theater

 

[Bill Slack]

One other thing...
With many FP sets, you can have a 2.35:1, fixed width, screen. (See Vern Dias setup, in the theaters section). The sets can use their ability to 'blank' out part of the picture. This will cause uneven wear on the part of the set being used, so it will be no good (after significant viewing) for use in a different setup after that.
Also need a pretty friggin' nice projector to do that well.

 

[AlbertH]

at the home audio/home theater show in NY a few months back they had some PLAMSA displays which seemed to be 2.35:1 ratio, correct me if i am wrong.

 

[John-D]

I have a feeling portable DVD players have a screen around that aspect ratio..
------------------
The things we own end up owning us

 

[Heinz W]

I thought I'd read somewhere that any display ratio wider than 16:9 would be either too difficult or too expensive to make due to limitations in CRT technology. Perhaps in ten or twenty years you'll be able to buy a set wider than 1.78:1.
At any rate, you won't likely see one until non-CRT technology is both good enough AND cheap enough to be widely available.
I also believe that 16:9 is a good compromise as neither 1.33:1 nor extra wide (2.20:1 and wider) suffer from too much 'dead space' on the screen.
I just wish all confusion over the standards and specifications for HDTV will soon be resolved so I can buy a 16:9 set. I can't afford to spend thousands on a TV that may be partly or wholly obsolete in five years...
[Edited last by Heinz W on September 04, 2001 at 02:52 PM]

 

[John-D]

I believe it's the lenses that create the compressed aspect ratios. Your 16x9 TV's still have 4:3 CRT's. You never get to use the full phosphor area of your purchase and you pay more than a 4:3 set.
Majorit of digital projectors are 4:3 too with anamorphic lense's needed to create 'squeezed' aspect ratios'. Some manufacturers do see the potential in Home Theater markets and are coming out with native 16x9 panel projectors.. none so far has ventured into a 2.35 panel though!
------------------
The things we own end up owning us