HDCriticalFan
Established Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,364
- Reaction score
- 127
- Points
- 208
I thought that I dreamed this (or perhaps "nightmared it").
On "Click" this weekend they showed a new "soon to be launched" flat panel LCD TV. It had a 56 inch diagonal (impressive enough in itself) but its main claim to fame was that it was not 16:9, but 21:9 (cue "but it goes up to 11 !" comments).
I can see that there is a slight benefit when watching blockbuster movies whose 2.35 AR more closely fits the 2.333333 AR of this screen ... but even they ain't goint to fit exactly. And many films have an AR of about 1.7 (close to 16:9) ... and ALL HD TV is exactly 16:9.
So I was pleased when Spencer Kelly raised the issue of "legacy" material in the two "narrower" formats.
To my astonishment the guy then waxed lyrical about how the screen would take 16:9 material and the do a "leave the middle alone and strech the sides" job to make it fill the whole screen (after all, we couldn't have black bars, could we !).
If you haven't seen this mode it has to be the worst possible way to treat images. I can just about put up with s-t-r-e-t-c-h-y vision (at least for news and cartoons) and you kind of get to ignore it after a while, but this vario-vision keeps slapping you in the face because, as people and things move about on the screen, they keep changing shape - it's like being in an old fashioned "Hall of Mirrors" ! Any pans also cause distortion with a sort of "fish-eye lens" effect on the entire image.
Spencer even pointed out that the target market for this screen (cinema buffs) are the very people who dislike such distortions.
It gets better ...
For 4:3 material they will do a vario-stretch to get the picture into a 16:9 frame. Unless I'm misunderstanding the guy, he is suggesting the very worst of both worlds; black bars left and right AND a distorted picture. Unbelieveable !
I just can't see the point of this screen. The total width of the image is slightly smaller than that of a conventional 60 inch screen. So a (currently available) 60 inch screen will show 16:9 material (i.e. ALL HD TV) properly AND give a much bigger (and undistorted) 4:3 picture - about 30% higher and 70% by area if Pythagoras is right.
So, in summary :-
- pay (presumably) more than for a 60 inch screen
- get smaller and distorted HD TV
- get smaller and distorted SD TV
And the benefit would be that any 2.35 material (well, 2.333 actually - if any exists) would be displayed without black bars.
One of the humorous taglines is "No More Compromise - No More Black Bars" ... well I can see a few compromises !
This seems to be a "TV for dummies". But am I missing something ? If so, can someone put me right on this ?
The video piece is available on the BBC Click site.
Regards
On "Click" this weekend they showed a new "soon to be launched" flat panel LCD TV. It had a 56 inch diagonal (impressive enough in itself) but its main claim to fame was that it was not 16:9, but 21:9 (cue "but it goes up to 11 !" comments).
I can see that there is a slight benefit when watching blockbuster movies whose 2.35 AR more closely fits the 2.333333 AR of this screen ... but even they ain't goint to fit exactly. And many films have an AR of about 1.7 (close to 16:9) ... and ALL HD TV is exactly 16:9.
So I was pleased when Spencer Kelly raised the issue of "legacy" material in the two "narrower" formats.
To my astonishment the guy then waxed lyrical about how the screen would take 16:9 material and the do a "leave the middle alone and strech the sides" job to make it fill the whole screen (after all, we couldn't have black bars, could we !).
If you haven't seen this mode it has to be the worst possible way to treat images. I can just about put up with s-t-r-e-t-c-h-y vision (at least for news and cartoons) and you kind of get to ignore it after a while, but this vario-vision keeps slapping you in the face because, as people and things move about on the screen, they keep changing shape - it's like being in an old fashioned "Hall of Mirrors" ! Any pans also cause distortion with a sort of "fish-eye lens" effect on the entire image.
Spencer even pointed out that the target market for this screen (cinema buffs) are the very people who dislike such distortions.
It gets better ...
For 4:3 material they will do a vario-stretch to get the picture into a 16:9 frame. Unless I'm misunderstanding the guy, he is suggesting the very worst of both worlds; black bars left and right AND a distorted picture. Unbelieveable !
I just can't see the point of this screen. The total width of the image is slightly smaller than that of a conventional 60 inch screen. So a (currently available) 60 inch screen will show 16:9 material (i.e. ALL HD TV) properly AND give a much bigger (and undistorted) 4:3 picture - about 30% higher and 70% by area if Pythagoras is right.
So, in summary :-
- pay (presumably) more than for a 60 inch screen
- get smaller and distorted HD TV
- get smaller and distorted SD TV
And the benefit would be that any 2.35 material (well, 2.333 actually - if any exists) would be displayed without black bars.
One of the humorous taglines is "No More Compromise - No More Black Bars" ... well I can see a few compromises !
This seems to be a "TV for dummies". But am I missing something ? If so, can someone put me right on this ?
The video piece is available on the BBC Click site.
Regards