Vizeo unveils ultra-widescreen 21:0 Cinemawide HDTV LED LCDs (1 Viewer)

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Sam Posten

I think nobody is agreeing with you not because we don't understand your points but because we believe you to be, well, wrong.


I think you would find that all of us would agree with you if you were talking about CIH technology like a projector. While most of us think that is an interesting and 'cool' solution, buying into it doesn't make financial sense given the realities of the marketplace right now.


But buying an expensive flat panel where the vast majority of content will be ill formatted doesn't make sense, financially or visually, in the favor of the few times when true widescreen material would look marginally more awesome. It would be a VAST waste of money and produce an unsatisfying experience for all viewers.


Think about it this way, a 71" 21:9 monitor has about the same height as a 55" 16:9 unit at a much greater cost. Most users would gladly sacrifice the width and buy a 65" 16:9 flat panel (for less money) and have it fit a LOT more of their content correctly.

I'm not getting where you think 2.35 films are so rare. There's tons of them around. They are almost as common as 1.85 films nowadays. And I'm not talking about the ordinary consumer crowd looking for a display to watch TV, sports, videogames, and everything else to put in their living room. I said it before: I am talking about for a dedicated home theater for viewing movies. Which is the core focus of The Home Theater Forum.


I am planning on getting one for my dedicated home theater if I can spring for the 71 inch, depending on the price. That is no compromise. 1.85 films will still be the equivalent of about 60-65 inches or so and 1080 res. The benefit is that 2.35 films will not have to be "shrunk" to fit 16.9 dimensions and will be scaled to 1080 res which is in reality no worse than 720 res which is what I used to have for all material. All material at a constant height. Just like a movie theater.

It's a great solution. The set has a purpose.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert
I have never seen a commercial cinema that masks the top and bottom of a screen for 2.35 films. Can anyone confirm that is what theaters are doing?

Yup, because I worked in one for two years. Many megaplexes are set up this way. Some even adjust all four sides of the screen to play scope titles (lowering the top masking, raising the bottom masking, and widening left and right). Back before the age of the multiplex, the vast majority of screens would widen for scope films, but as shoebox-sized theatres became the norm, the size of the auditorium and distance from projector to screen wouldn't allow for this type of screen, so exhibitors would use lenses that "squashed" the image down to produce the scope ratio.

 

[Jon Lidolt]

Everyone seems to have a different point of view on the practicality of Vizio's new "scope" LCD sets. Frankly, I feel that the best all-round ratio would be 2:1. I came to that conclusion when I ran a repertory cinema many years ago because I wanted to maximize the use of my massive new screen and fill as much of its surface as possible whether the movie I was showing was shot in a 1.85 or a 2.35 format. With this shape of screen a 1.85 movie or standard HD broadcast would have a narrow black bar at each side of the picture. Conversely a 2.35 scope movie would fill the whole width of the screen with narrow black bars at the top and bottom. A great compromise I would think. Anybody else share my viewpoint on this?


Incidentally, there's no difference between a scope film that's billed as 2.35 or 2.39 or even 2.40. The film frame is still the same shape and there's been no change in the lenses used to shoot the picture. The studios just decided to reduce the height of the aperture plate opening in the projector to eliminate annoying splice marks appearing at the top and bottom of the screen every time a shot changes.

 

[Sam Posten]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert


I'm not getting where you think 2.35 films are so rare. There's tons of them around.

I don't believe them to be rare at all. And I absolutely love them. And even wider films too. But I personally believe that anyone who is building a dedicated theater room for exclusively ultra-widescreen viewing would be infinitely better served with a motorized CIH FP setup and that a flat panel marketed to those who exclusively watch ultra widescreen films is going after is a niche of a niche of a niche. I'm sorry if we here at HTF aren't as hardcore as those who might choose this format set but it seems completely impractical on all fronts to me because it targets a ratio that fits one size extremely well and every other format terribly. And think about it, none of the films you want to watch are going to be encoded in the native format of the panel either, so you are going through at least 1 round of stretching to get there!


Do I think there is a market for this? Perhaps. Will _any_ vendor make a profit from it? Perhaps a high end connoisseur brand might but i have a hard time seeing Vizio burning up the market with one.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Sam Posten


I'm not getting where you think 2.35 films are so rare. There's tons of them around.

I don't believe them to be rare at all. And I absolutely love them. And even wider films too. But I personally believe that anyone who is building a dedicated theater room for exclusively ultra-widescreen viewing would be infinitely better served with a motorized CIH FP setup and that a flat panel marketed to those who exclusively watch ultra widescreen films is going after is a niche of a niche of a niche. I'm sorry if we here at HTF aren't as hardcore as those who might choose this format set but it seems completely impractical on all fronts to me because it targets a ratio that fits one size extremely well and every other format terribly. And think about it, none of the films you want to watch are going to be encoded in the native format of the panel either, so you are going through at least 1 round of stretching to get there!


Do I think there is a market for this? Perhaps. Will _any_ vendor make a profit from it? Perhaps a high end connoisseur brand might but i have a hard time seeing Vizio burning up the market with one.

[/QUOTE]

It's not used to exclusively watch 2.35 films on. Academy ratio and 1.85 films work fine too. For the 71 inch model I would think of it as a 65 inch or so 1.85 display with "bonus" screen on the sides so that scope movies will really be scope, compared with other material viewed on the same display. I have no problem with that. I know someone brought up that some shoebox theaters would mat the top and bottom of the screen for scope films but that was absolutely not the main intent of the cinemascope process, which was to provide a wider canvas for a more immersive experience compared with "ordinary" movies and TV.


Sure it's relative but if you have one dedicated display to watch movies on, then the scope films should offer something extra compared with other material on the same display, not less. Hell they could even put little mechanized mattes on the sides, that would would be pretty nifty.


And yes, projection can get you this but at a cost when you add in optical image manipulation, and the general crap that goes along with front projection that you have to learn to put up with. With a flat panel you would not have the noise or brightness issues either.


Just my opinion.

 

[Sam Posten]

Guess we'll just have to disagree then. I'm curious tho, I know I have never seen one of these in the flesh, have you? I wonder if either of us would be swayed one way or the other actually spending more than a few minutes in front of one.

 

[Everett S.]

My local theatre when I was a kid used to flip up a black covered board when showing a CinemScope picture! I did'nt know for years why this was done.

 

[DaveF]

I'm playing catch-up, but I've been wondering how this TV works. Do I understand correctly:


Normal DVD or Blu-ray content, at 16:9 plays at pixel-perfect resolution (1920x1080) in the middle of the screen (with bars on the sides)

Content with lower aspect ratios, like 1.33:1 from pre-HD TV or older movies, will also play pixel-perfect in the middle of the screen (with larger bars on the sides).

Higher aspect ration, like 2.35:1, Lawrence of Arabia type movies, that have top and bottom bars in the disc-encoding, will be upscaled to fit the full resolution of the TV.


I see the appeal. But since I mostly watch TV shows (16:9) and most movies are close to 16.9, this TV doesn't seem like a great value for my interests. It would be more appealing if 2.35:1 content was natively encoded as such on Blu-ray and could be played on this screen without upscaling.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

 

[Jon Lidolt]

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

Very funny! I thought the Home Theater Forum was read by people who were serious about how they watched movies at home. And besides, what do Vittorio Storaro's comments have to do with my suggestion anyway?

 

[Sam Posten]

Home theater isn't just movies. And even movies aren't all about the 'scope effect. Some of the best movies ever made are in 4:3.... You can't find a bunch of people who will push harder to find material in their original aspect ratio, with all the detail the original creator's intended. But each bit of material has been set in stone in one of a myriad of different formats. 4:3 TVs had their set of disadvantages and 21:9 have theirs. 16:9 provides a remarkably effective compromise that just so happens to be the standard that HDTV broadcasts are formatted to for now and for the LONG foreseeable future.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

Very funny! I thought the Home Theater Forum was read by people who were serious about how they watched movies at home. And besides, what do Vittorio Storaro's comments have to do with my suggestion anyway?



We are serious about how we watch movies at home. It was just that your comment about the best all-round ratio being 2:1 brought back memories of reading through Storaro's various papers on the subject and his proposal for the 2:1 Univisium ratio. The positions are very similar, although Storaro's English is not as good as yours. Alas, the reason we don't have 2:1 HD screens (as if we need yet another non-standard display on the market) has more to do with TV manufacturers than anything else. Initially, I thought Storaro's idea for a 2:1 ratio was pretty good, until he started applying the ratio to everything he'd shot.

 

[Jon Lidolt]

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

Very funny! I thought the Home Theater Forum was read by people who were serious about how they watched movies at home. And besides, what do Vittorio Storaro's comments have to do with my suggestion anyway?



We are serious about how we watch movies at home. It was just that your comment about the best all-round ratio being 2:1 brought back memories of reading through Storaro's various papers on the subject and his proposal for the 2:1 Univisium ratio. The positions are very similar, although Storaro's English is not as good as yours. Alas, the reason we don't have 2:1 HD screens (as if we need yet another non-standard display on the market) has more to do with TV manufacturers than anything else. Initially, I thought Storaro's idea for a 2:1 ratio was pretty good, until he started applying the ratio to everything he'd shot.

I'll go along with that. I just recently threw out my 2:1 DVD of Apocalypse for a Blu-ray of the 2.35 original. On the other hand his idea of shooting 3 perforation 35mm film is being done a lot nowadays - the only difference being the ratio. You simply choose 1.85 or 2.35 and the lab extracts the image area for you. But why they can't just standardize on either one or something in between (like 2:1) is a mystery.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I'm pretty sure the megaplexes would love 2:1 standardisation. The problem is that filmmakers would argue that "one format fits all" interferes with their artistic "visions".

 

[Worth]

At this point, the industry might as well adopt 16:9 as a universal standard for all film and television production. It's exceedingly rare for modern films to make any kind of effective use of the scope format anyway - it's almost all fast cuts and closeups. There was only one aspect ratio for the first fifty-odd years of cinema and that didn't seem to hamper creativity.

 

[DaveF]

Mandating to artists that they shall use only 16:9 seems a surefire way to ensure they don't.

 

[Jon Lidolt]

Originally Posted by Worth

At this point, the industry might as well adopt 16:9 as a universal standard for all film and television production. It's exceedingly rare for modern films to make any kind of effective use of the scope format anyway - it's almost all fast cuts and closeups. There was only one aspect ratio for the first fifty-odd years of cinema and that didn't seem to hamper creativity

I have to agree with that statement. Scope movies only work if the picture is shown wider than one shot in the 1.85 ratio. Even most of the current films being presented in Imax theatres don't work as well as they should because they've been shot in 2.35 - they don't fill those huge screens. So what's the public paying a premium ticket price for? I like scope movies, always have, but they don't fill Imax screens or our screens at home. And you can't even bank on it happening at your local megaplex. So what's the point?