What is it with TVs these days? Billion-to-one contrast ratios. 600Hz refresh rates. And now: begun, the aspect ratio wars have. 21:9 may be more familiar to you as something like 2.35:1 or Anamorphic widescreen. The widest of the common aspect ratios, the size has been around for a long time and many films will now be viewable without letterboxing on this 56-inch TV. But is it worth it?
While having a screen this wide is a boon for those people who use their TV only for movies, but what about all the other content? Home videos are shot at 4:3 or 16:9. HDTV broadcast standard is approaching 16:9. 50 years of TV programming are in 4:3. How will the TV handle them? Unfortunately, by stretching the image, a technique I consider incompatible with reason.
Their plan for stretching 16:9 to 21:9 involves “only stretching the edges of the image” with some sort of reverse Anamorphic process. This can’t possibly look right; even Anamorphic, a mature technology that’s been around for many decades, produces a very specific distortion that once you see, you can’t un-see. 4:3 images will be stretched to 16:9, apparently because Philips thinks we’re too inattentive to notice that everyone’s head looks like Stewie’s.
Why stretch it at all? Why not letterbox it, or windowbox it, or do whatever it takes to preserve the original content? Cinematographers will shoot themselves en masse when they see their carefully composed shots as if in a funhouse mirror.
If you must have one of these TVs (they cost a huge amount, around $7000 if I remember correctly), then please only watch movies meant for it. Keep a 16:9 display around or do what you can to minimize the amount of stretching your media gets. And consider that a 16:9 display that’s not too much bigger (maybe 65 inches?) will give you the same size image, probably at a lower price and with no compatibility price to pay.
super cool but too expensive
Phillips claim of “no more black bars” is rediculous. Any 16:9 content will have black bars not on the top, but on the sides.
There is so little 21:9 content, that anyone buying this screen better get used 2 sidebars.
It’s a wonder why so many companies are doing poorly these days — let’s spend tons of development and marketing cash on products no one wants to buy! Phillips and GM should hang out together.
The only practical application for this size screen would be the ability to watch 2 standard letterbox broadcasts simultaneously side-by-side as split screen.
…or to mount it vertical, hook it up to your PC and never have to scroll a webpage again ;)
BTW what DVD releases actually support a 21:9 ratio anyway??
um many DVDs do actually. now with blu ray you can get HD stuff in 2.35:1 too :)
i actually want one of these once (if) they drop in price
If you really think about it, 21:9 should have been the logical upgrade from 4:3.
We’ve had movies in this format for at least as long as I’ve been alive, what was the purpose of going 16:9 from 4:3?
Why do we still have two different ratios for movies and television?
Are we going to be talking about the 21:9 conversion 5 years from now?
First of all we have 4:3 ratio because old CRT TV’s which are square …at least used to be
…any way movies are done in 21:9 ratio, and that ratio is in cinemas.
Since we have lcd’s and plasmas we could make our tv’s wider so instead of jumping to 21:9 straight away we have comparison which is 16:9, which is in the middle of 4:3 and 21:9.
So 21:9 is first concept and thats why we have 16:9.
Im sorry about my language
HI THERE BE GREAT TV FOR THE GAMERS ON A 21:9 RATIO TV
As a big fan of Cinemascope and Panavision movies (2.40:1 aspect ratio), I have been wanting a TV like this to exist for years; and now it’s finally happening. Most of my DVDs and Blu-Ray’s are 2.40:1, so I wouldn’t have to deal with black bars hardly at all