When the tree is a person called Jeff Bridges with his legs akimbo it's earned an apostrophe.

The filthy strump (bless him)!

Got $40,000? The perfect new TV for Marion Crane...

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/televisions/flat-panels/dolby-prm-4200-reference-monitor

captainsolo said:

Got $40,000? The perfect new TV for Marion Crane...

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/televisions/flat-panels/dolby-prm-4200-reference-monitor

very cool yeah..

hopefully some of that technology will

trickle down to consumer level or prosumer

level models..

later

-1

This is my new favorite thread.

has anyone seen these in a store yet?

i think i'll go out and see if there's a real

one out there yet... 

and isn't the new CES conference about

to start (or has started?)

later

-1

DOES ANYBODY EVEN BUY T.V.'s ANYMORE?  WHEN I WANT A T.V. I JUST DOWNLOAD IT OFF OF THE INTERNET.  

:-P

Silly DAYV, you can't download a TV off the internet.

SURE YOU CAN.  ALL YOU NEED IS A HIGH SPEED INTERNET CONNECTION AND A 3-D PRINTER.  YOU SEE?  YOU CAN GET ANYTHING OFF OF THE INTERNET.  

NOW, WHERE'S THAT RUSSIAN BRIDE I DOWNLOADED YESTERDAY... 

PSYCHO_DAYV said:

 

DOES ANYBODY EVEN BUY T.V.'s ANYMORE?  WHEN I WANT A T.V. I JUST DOWNLOAD IT OFF OF THE INTERNET.  

 

you would like this laptop..

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/06/toshiba-debuts-widescreen-ultrabook/?comments=1#comments-bar

it's superwidescreen also:

A 21:9 aspect ratio Ultrabook will be arriving in stores soon, alongside the next generation of Toshiba's standard Ultrabook, the Portege Z930/935. Both notebooks will use Intel's Ivy Bridge processors and come with SSDs, backlit keyboards, and at least 7.5 hours of battery life.

The 21:9 Ultrabook, named U845W, is definitely an odd duck. Our initial impulse was to point and laugh—it seemed to be made exclusively for people who compulsively seek wider ground to watch 2.35:1 aspect-ratio movies, an odd niche to cater to. But Duc Dang, senior manager of product development at Toshiba, pointed out to us that customers could also use it to display a regular 16:9 movie side-by-side with a browser. Um, yep, we've tried to do that (with limited success) on our laptops.

The screen, which still has 768 lines of resolution (a bit lower than we'd like on a 14-inch laptop, but serviceable) can also show Excel cell columns from A to AA. The machine certainly won't meet everyone's design needs, but when you think of it as a portable dual-monitor setup, it seems less silly. The notebook has a resolution of 1792x768, weighs 3.5 pounds, and measures 0.82 inches thick. Ethernet, HDMI, and 3 USB 3.0 ports adorn the sides, and the computer gets around 7.5 hours of battery life.

later

-1

ok, they're not widescreen..

but the preview of 4k tv's are coming..

-----------------------------------------------

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/06/4k-tvs-are-coming-but-they-face-an-uphill-battle-in-the-home/

TV makers are at a bit of an impasse: for the first time ever, demand for LCD TVs is down year-over-year. After years of increasing sales and declining prices, the market is finally beginning to become saturated, and the incremental improvements and new features that the television companies have added since LCD TVs became mainstream—things like OLED lighting and 3D TVs—have either been well out of consumers' price ranges or too niche to attract a wide audience.

The TV industry is looking for that must-have feature that will get people with existing LCD TVs to upgrade their sets, and one of those features is the 4K resolution standard. While 4K TV sets are slowly making their way to the market, both the discussion panels and vendors at Consumer Electronics Week seem a bit unsure about the standard's prospects in the home

=======

later

-1

        I'm sure there's a technical reason for 16:9 being more convenient to broadcasters and manufacturers, but I don't understand why it wasn't 21:9 from the start. I want to see ALL of my movies and ballgames in widescreen HD and NONE of the news anchormen in more than Low-Def 4:3.

thejediknighthusezni said:

        I'm sure there's a technical reason for 16:9 being more convenient to broadcasters and manufacturers, but I don't understand why it wasn't 21:9 from the start. I want to see ALL of my movies and ballgames in widescreen HD and NONE of the news anchormen in more than Low-Def 4:3.

there's a good article here:

===================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9

later

-1

     Thanks, that was interesting.

     It sounds like the typical Engineer's approach to things: "Let's determine the centerpoint of all common aspect ratios and then divide by the mean area of the...." ;)

     Silly me, I'd just ask "Now what would most people want in wide aspect HD?"

     IMHO, nearly all theatrical releases people want these days come from the anamorphic era, nearly all major sports events are best viewed in the widest aspects, nearly all made-for-TV content doesn't really rate small-screen VHS-def 4:3 presentation and the little that does (nature docs, travel docs, historical docs, and high production values dramas) should have a sweeping cinamatic scope.

thejediknighthusezni said:

     Thanks, that was interesting.

     It sounds like the typical Engineer's approach to things: "Let's determine the centerpoint of all common aspect ratios and then divide by the mean area of the...." ;)

     Silly me, I'd just ask "Now what would most people want in wide aspect HD?"

     IMHO, nearly all theatrical releases people want these days come from the anamorphic era, nearly all major sports events are best viewed in the widest aspects, and nearly all made-for-TV content doesn't really rate small-screen VHS-def 4:3 presentation.

 

while widescreen is great for movies, sports,etc.

how much is out there? and how much do people watch lately?

the vast majority of tv material is 4:3 , and stretching and

cropping it isn't worth it. so we'll be stuck with these ratios

for quite some time.

only people that watch a lot of movies, or hd material care

about true widescreen.

later

-1

the UHDTV format is being approved:

----------------------------------------------

http://news.techworld.com/personal-tech/3377560/tv-with-16-times-resolution-of-hdtv-passed-by-un-standards-body/

along with broadcast formats for 4k/8k and

higher..

also sound in 22.2 multi-channel...

fun..

later

-1

What's next? Ultra HD Blu-Ray?

UHD UV-Ray presumably.

negative1 said:

while widescreen is great for movies, sports,etc.

how much is out there? and how much do people watch lately?

How much is out there?  Are you kidding?  Just about anything new is widescreen.

TV's Frink said:

negative1 said:

while widescreen is great for movies, sports,etc.

how much is out there? and how much do people watch lately?

How much is out there?  Are you kidding?  Just about anything new is widescreen.

which still represents a tiny portion

of all recorded and pre-recorded material

compared to that which is available in 4:3 format.

as i said, excluding movies, only a tiny fraction of

pre-recorded material available is widescreen right

now, so there really isn't much of a need or choice

for it.

later

-1

Ectually...even 4:3 material is inside a 1.78 16:9 frame nowadays, so everything is optimized for a widescreen tv.

The technology is always there, but what matter is when manufactures will jump on board and push the new materials, and if people will buy.

But scope for everything? Jeez, what's next daily soap operas in 2.35:1 Soapyvision?

The move to 4K and 8K TVs will just about spell doom for theatrical exhibition however. Few screens today boast 4K projection, and just the upgrade costs will be extensive.

here you go, sony 84" 4k tv coming later this year..

probably starts around $4000-5000 also, probably

more!
=====================================

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/08/sony-announces-massive-84-4k-flat-panel-tv-set-to-ship-this-year/

later

-1 

...Only 84" ?

;)

That would take up half of my apartment.........if I could still afford an apartment after I got it.