Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Any extra-wide widescreen TVs?

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 of 19 OFFLINE   Tim Kline

Tim Kline

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 245 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 01 2000

Posted August 27 2001 - 04:25 PM

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!
My DVD List
My Home Theatre
Some call me Tim.

#2 of 19 OFFLINE   Brian Lipszyc

Brian Lipszyc


  • 10 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 1999

Posted August 27 2001 - 04:49 PM

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]

#3 of 19 OFFLINE   ManW_TheUncool



  • 5,886 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 18 2001
  • Real Name:ManW

Posted August 27 2001 - 09:21 PM

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...

Just another amateur learning to paint w/ "the light of the world".

"Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things..." (Apostle Paul)

#4 of 19 OFFLINE   Timmy


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 160 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 22 1998

Posted August 29 2001 - 05:42 PM

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

#5 of 19 OFFLINE   Brian_J


    Second Unit

  • 421 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 03 2001

Posted August 29 2001 - 07:18 PM

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...
Zed's Dead Baby...

XBOX Tag: DreadMantis

#6 of 19 OFFLINE   Marc Alexander

Marc Alexander

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 134 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 03 1999

Posted August 30 2001 - 02:41 PM

If my memory serves me correctly, there were 16x9 ratio TVs before HDTV.
Equipment List
Mitsubishi 65807 HDTV
Kenwood VR-2090 DD/DTS Reciever; CD-3280 200 Disc ChangerKlipsch Synergy SpeakersKSF-10.5 mains; KSF-C5 center; KSF-S5 surrounds; KSW-300 subwooferOnkyo TX-DS474 DD ReceiverEnergy Take 5 SpeakersPanasonic...

#7 of 19 OFFLINE   DaveF



  • 15,301 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2001
  • Real Name:David Fischer
  • LocationOne Loudoun, Ashburn, VA

Posted August 30 2001 - 03:30 PM


and then your bars are only on the sides

[quote]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.)

#8 of 19 OFFLINE   Chris Biggs

Chris Biggs


  • 46 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 08 2000

Posted August 30 2001 - 05:40 PM

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.
Chris Biggs
Quote:Why do I get the feeling that you are going to be the death of me?
Obi-Wan to Anakin

#9 of 19 OFFLINE   steve jaros

steve jaros

    Second Unit

  • 362 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 1997
  • Real Name:Steve
  • LocationBaton Rouge, LA

Posted August 30 2001 - 09:48 PM

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...

#10 of 19 OFFLINE   Mike I

Mike I

    Supporting Actor

  • 727 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 20 2000

Posted August 31 2001 - 04:00 AM

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]

#11 of 19 OFFLINE   John-D


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 200 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 27 2001

Posted August 31 2001 - 11:59 AM

[quote] 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
The things we own, end up owning us

#12 of 19 OFFLINE   Bill Slack

Bill Slack

    Supporting Actor

  • 841 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted August 31 2001 - 04:23 PM

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. Posted Image

#13 of 19 OFFLINE   Brian G Hopps

Brian G Hopps


  • 1 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2001

Posted August 31 2001 - 07:15 PM

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.

#14 of 19 OFFLINE   Chuck C

Chuck C


  • 2,237 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2001

Posted August 31 2001 - 10:22 PM

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.


Chuckster's HT Equipment List
The Dorm Room Theater

#15 of 19 OFFLINE   Bill Slack

Bill Slack

    Supporting Actor

  • 841 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted September 01 2001 - 06:36 AM

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. Posted Image

#16 of 19 OFFLINE   AlbertH


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 117 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2000

Posted September 02 2001 - 08:57 PM

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.

#17 of 19 OFFLINE   John-D


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 200 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 27 2001

Posted September 03 2001 - 05:16 PM

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

#18 of 19 OFFLINE   Heinz W

Heinz W

    Second Unit

  • 415 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 05 2001

Posted September 04 2001 - 05:40 AM

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]

#19 of 19 OFFLINE   John-D


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 200 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 27 2001

Posted September 04 2001 - 06:50 AM

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
The things we own, end up owning us

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users