Anamorphic 2.35:1 Size Plasma Screen Availability

Discussion in 'Plasma TVs Forum' started by Black Adder, Jan 21, 2008.

  1. Black Adder

    Black Adder
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Messages:
    749
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Ratings:
    +67
    I saw some Anamorphic 2.35:1 plasma screens on the web last year from shows etc. Can't remember the manufacturers, but they weren't mainstream.

    Does anyone know who makes these and where they are available? I'm seriously considering one due to anamorphic films being too small on screen and ideally I don't want to go up a size in normal 16:9 screen as non-anamorphic material will be too big for my viewing distance.
     
  2. Otto J

    Otto J
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    115
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Horsens
    Ratings:
    +38
    To my knowledge, noone has ever displayed a 2.35:1 flatscreen of either technology, not even in prototype form. What you have seen is one of two things: A projection screen in 2.35:1, or a 16:9 plasma vertically mounted, that you thought was 2.35:1. The eye is easily fooled - when you first see a 16:9 vertically mounted, it looks a lot wider (taller) than it actually is.

    Pull the curtains, and buy a projector! It will give you much better image quality anyway, and there's a wide variety of 2.35:1 options. You'll be amazed how big you can go with SD material, if the quality of the setup is good enough (although the TV stations are doing their best to squash the qualityh of SD broadcast these days, so you can't go as big as you could just a couple of years ago... :( )
     
  3. eiren

    eiren
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    11,242
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,796
    It was Sharp who prototyped an Ultra Widescreen 2.35:1 screen, IIRC. I think it was a rear projection or CRT television though.
     
  4. Otto J

    Otto J
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    115
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Horsens
    Ratings:
    +38
    Come to think of it, I think I do remember having seen a 2.35:1 rear-projection prototype, but I'm pretty certain noone has showed a plasma or LCD at 2.35:1. CRT 2.35:1 wouldn't make much sense.
     
  5. eiren

    eiren
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    11,242
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,796
  6. madshi

    madshi
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,159
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Hamburg
    Ratings:
    +62
    There was a photo of a 2.35:1 flatscreen from Samsung a while ago in a german home cinema magazine. But I don't think any such flatscreen is available today. Shame, really. I'd buy a Pioneer plasmas in 2.35:1 if it was available...
     
  7. Black Adder

    Black Adder
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Messages:
    749
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Ratings:
    +67
    Yes I know they existed somewhere because I saw full pictures of these 2.35:1 TVs complete with stands as a finished product available to buy (expensive) with a price tag on the pics with a link to where to buy from.

    Not sure whether they were plasma or LCD. This was about August last year but I can't find any mention of them by Googling so far.
     
  8. Ian Dudley

    Ian Dudley
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Ratings:
    +80
    Can't really see the point of this as all the media you could get for it would be 16:9 with letterbox bars anyway. So you'd have to zoom in on the image to get it to fill the screen, which obvioulsy will compromise the quality.

    It's a nice idea, but a bit of a non-starter I think :)
     
  9. madshi

    madshi
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,159
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Hamburg
    Ratings:
    +62
    I disagree. The vast majority of Blu-Ray and HD DVD discs are 2.35:1. So why wasting precious glass (= money) and room on image area which is just black most of the time, anyway!? Furthermore over time there may be uneven phosphor consumption.

    Sure, when doing a 2.35:1 display it's a bit problematic to decide which resolution to use. Maybe 1920x810 would make sense? No zooming needed for 2.35:1 content this way. Of course 16:9 content would need to be zoomed. But that's ok for me.

    Or think of it this way: If you compare a 50" 16:9 plasma to a 50" 2.35:1 plasma, the image for 2.35:1 movies would be noticably bigger on the 50" plasma.
     
  10. Ian Dudley

    Ian Dudley
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Ratings:
    +80
    Are they actually stored on the disc as anamorphic 2.35:1, with the player filling in the blanks to make 16:9, or as 16:9 with letterboxes on the disc? (as is the case with DVD for example)

    I don't have either format yet so just assumed it would work the same as DVD media.
     
  11. madshi

    madshi
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,159
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Hamburg
    Ratings:
    +62
    On DVD you can have it both ways. On HD DVD and Blu-Ray anamorphic encoding is unfortunately not supported, so the black bars with 2.35:1 movies is always part of the encoding.
     
  12. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +411
    And what about the 2.40 that seems to make up 60% of my HD collection, and exactly how are we going to zoom the black bars off the screen without introducing scaling? We are all set up for 16:9 displays, much too much like hard work to change it all.
     
  13. Otto J

    Otto J
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    115
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Horsens
    Ratings:
    +38
    I'll start with your last question: A 2.35:1 setup is about putting movie experience in front of the technical details of picture quality, by giving the aesthetics of the film a higher priority. Yes, you will introduce scaling to the picture, and yes this will introduce some level of artifacts in the picture (although not as bad as most people seem to think). However, the point is that a 2.35:1 (or 2.40:1) movie is designed to be displayed as a larger image than a 1.85. The movie makers take this into account when creating the movies. As an example, Saving Private Ryan is in 1.85:1. This format was chosen due to the wide use of close-up, handheld shots, to give a very intimate feel to the film. Then take Gladiator in 2.35:1 (or 2.40:1, or whatever it is). This movie is filled with wide, open, slow-panning shots to give the movie a feeling of "grandness". If you watch these on a 16:9 set, Gladiator will lose some of the grandness feel, that it was supposed to have compared to 1.85:1 movies.

    Note that the SMPTE spec on recommended viewing angle is based on picture height, not picture width. So, unless you're willing to move the sofa for each movie, you'd in theory need a constant height setup to give all movies a perfect viewing angle. Once again, 2.35:1 is designed to be bigger than 16:9, not smaller.

    Other than that, watching a movie in the correct aspect ratio without black bars just seem to be more aesthetically pleasing than a letterbox image.

    About the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1, you'd usually just mask off or overscan the difference. Since you're going to scale the picture anyway, avoiding overscan really isn't quite as critical. You'll be masking off very little of the image, so the difference won't bother anyone. Whether you go for a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 screen, is up to you. Movies are made in either format. The main advantage to 2.35:1 is that it's roughly 1.33 times 16:9 (1.78:1) in width, and 16:9 is roughly 1.33 times 4:3 in width. This means that the same level of anamorphic stretch can be used - an anamorph lens used to convert 4:3 to 16:9 is the same as the one used to stretch 16:9 to 2.35:1.

    Basically, if you think it's a major problem that you introduce scaling, remind yourself that the electronics are here for the sake of movies, not the other way round. Watching the movie in the right size and aspect ratio is way more important than resolution.
     
  14. madshi

    madshi
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,159
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Hamburg
    Ratings:
    +62
    :thumbsup:
     
  15. PJTX100

    PJTX100
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    8,143
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +564

    My copy of SPR is 1.78:1, I think it's the only 1.78:1 (ie true 16:9) DVD in my whole collection.

    I wish more movies were made in this AR. It does seem a bit strange that the vast majority of films are released in an AR that you can't buy on a TV. But 16:9 is the "jack of all trades".

    Most movies on sky seem to be 16:9. I presume they are pan & scanned? I'd rather have 2.35:1 & black bars vs a pan & scanned 1.78:1/1.85:1. Especially on the projector, where even at 2.35:1 the pic is pretty big. :thumbsup:
     
  16. Otto J

    Otto J
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    115
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Horsens
    Ratings:
    +38
    :oops: That's what happens when you start getting old. Like... 30... :D

    One could argue that 16:9 should have been 1.85:1, since that's what the movies used, but the reason is probably part marketing (16:9 just sounds more sexy than 1.85:1...), part due to the mentioned easier anamorphic stretch. Theatres seem to be a bit more laid back when it comes to masking and stretching...

    (anyone with more specific historic knowledge of this, feel free to chime in!)

    Most certainly! Priority #1: See the whole movie. #2: See it in the right size. #3: See it in the best possible quality. Having constant height should _never_ overrule priority 1 - like I said, it's all about the movies, so give us the whole movie already!

    One additional note: Constant height setups isn't quite plug-n-play (yet?), especially in countries where subtitles are widely used. The core customer base for CIH setups are movie buffs. Movie buffs tend to use projectors to an increasing degree. While CIH setups will start to infect the projector market just about now, I believe the market for 2.35:1 tv's isn't big enough for any manufacturer to bother.
     
  17. ozzzy189

    ozzzy189
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    7,730
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    North Lincolnshire
    Ratings:
    +1,207
    SPR: us version is 1.85:1 uk is 1.78:1 (think it's that way round !)
     

Share This Page

Loading...