The Ultimate Home Cinematic 21:9 Viewing Experience

Cinema 21:9 by Philips

(PhysOrg.com) -- Imagine yourself, watching true Cinema 21:9 LCD TV in the privacy of your own home! Philips is the first to come out with Cinema 21:9, as other manufactures are sure to follow in their footsteps. But Philips has taken their Cinema 21:9 one step further with Complimentary three-sided Ambilight Spectra that accurately matches on-screen content to extend the picture beyond the confines of the screen.

   

• morpheus2012 - Jan 20, 2009
  • Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
  crap ratio and beside somw movies
  
  u get the box efffect
  
  fail
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• h0dges - Jan 20, 2009
  • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
  "Now regular 16:9 content from TV broadcast and game consoles has been adapted to fill the 21:9 screen. This has been accomplished by using highly advanced formatting technology adapted by Philips."
  
  They are therefore saying 16:9 ratio TVs are rubbish and are providing formatting correction to convert 16:9 content to 21:9.
  
  Why can't I argue that 21:9 is crap and I can provide 'highly advanced formatting technology' to convert 21:9 on 16:9?
  
  Highly advanced or not you can't use that as a selling point if the inverse procedure unjustifies the product itself. Follow me?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Soylent - Jan 20, 2009
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
  The "ultimate cinematic experience" is and will for the forseeable remain 4:3 IMAX.
  
  The only sensible justification for letter-box formats is that it's easier to make a cinema wider rather than taller and most interesting stuff tends to happen along the horisontal axis, therefor if your resources are limited you should concentrate on letterbox aspect ratios first and go to IMAX or something when it comes down in price.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• brant - Jan 20, 2009
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
  sux. This will end with a 3d wrap around dome.
  I'll wait.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• tothal - Jan 21, 2009
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
  That was a nice example how to compare a 65" Tv to a 52".Surpisingly the bigger looks better, wow.Soylent, we are missing you on Jericho boards.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Soylent - Jan 21, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet

  Soylent, we are missing you on Jericho boards.

  
  
  Sorry, you're confusing me with someone else.
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• nonoice - Jan 21, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Do I smell spam?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• VOR - Jan 21, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  glad to see a few posts supporting reasonable legacy ratios. I couldnt agree more. The industry continues to move in a rediculous direction. 16x9 is already too pinched. They have managed to convince most people that pinched 'wide' is better. The only thing it benefits is a misleading marketing ploy of width measurement, giving higher manufacturing yeilds via less screen area for a given diagonal measurement.Bboycott all formats 'wider 'than 16x9. (16x10 if you can help it). The idea that pinched/short/stretched (whatever you want to call it) ratios are more like we naturally see is preposterous. wide screens require greater mouse movement and greater eye movement distances to cover the same area. Scanning the visually field on widescreen takes the eye longer, and less info is gathered peripherally. the is nothing, nothing better about ratios 'wider' than 16x10. A 4x3 TV can display the same size wide-ratio image as a wide display of the same footprint. And it displays 4x3, still the most common format, much larger. It's footprint we should be concerned about, not horizontal measurement. That's the industry's BS. We are being hypnotized by marketing into believing a lie.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• VOR - Jan 21, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  It's footprint we should be concerned about, not horizontal measurement.- should read 'diagonal measurment'
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Dhanne - Jan 25, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  I agree that 21:9 is moving in a ridiculous direction, and there is no reason for to make screen size wider than that. Anyway, I disagree that 16:9 is worse than 4:3, because in my opinion wide screen is far more better than the old boxed ratio.
  Long live wide screens! :)
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• NanoStuff - Jan 25, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  How primitive. I'm still waiting for a 1000:1 "slithole" display.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• visual - Jan 26, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  It is cool as long as it is actually wider and keeps the same height, but unfortunately that's hardly the case. It can also be considered a vertically-trimmed format, that's just a matter of semantics.
  
  In fact all BD movies that I've seen to use this super-wide format are stored with the standard 1920 pixel width and with a reduced height, which shows the second view to be more valid. And it pisses me off, because it is still marketed as "1080p" despite it obviously having less than 1080 pixels height.
  
  Also, if there is any price premium for TVs in this new format, then it is likely you can buy a standard widescreen TV with at least the same width but larger height, and thus larger diagonal, for the same money. If that really turns out to be the case, this format is doomed to failure.
  
  I am very curious about what they do to 16x9 picture to display it on this screen though... I just can't imagine it, no matter if they call it "highly advanced formatting" or whatever, it can only be three things: stretching the image, cutting the image or adding black bars. Can't be good in either case.
  
  Oh, and what in the world would they do to 4:3 images? Imagine that stretched... They can nearly fit two such images side by side... It's a shame, really, that they didn't take this format just a bit further, to 24:9 aspect. That would've been an interesting bonus with some dual-tuner TVs. Though I still would prefer two "normal" TVs :p
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5