logo Sign In

[hdtv] -> _superwidescreen_phillips_21:9_2:35-1_tv_ — Page 3

Author
Time
Post link

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

The filthy strump (bless him)!

Author
Time
Post link

This is my new favorite thread.

Author
Time
Post link

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

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
Post link

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

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

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

 

 

 

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
Post link

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

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

There  was an announcement that Vizio 20:9 TVs were coming in 2012, A big one early on and a smaller  50" or 55" coming during the 2nd half of the year (nowish?)


I still haven't even seen a Philips or the bigger Vizio that was supposedly already released in the US.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

        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.

Author
Time
Post link

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

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

     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.

    

Author
Time
Post link

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

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
Post link

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.

Author
Time
Post link

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

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
Post link

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.

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time
Post link

Few people are going to have a room big enough in their house to make such high resolutions pay off.  And Hollywood isn't likely to supply such material for home use without draconian copy protection measures that will make Blu Ray seem mild by comparison.

Wake me when they make a flat screen you can roll up like a window shade. ;)

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?