Philips introduces ultra widescreen Cinema 21:9 LCD TV
By Darren Murph 
posted Jan 15th 2009 10:40AM
posted Jan 15th 2009 10:40AM
[Via GadgetVenue]
posted Jan 15th 2009 10:40AM
The percentage of electronics at the end of their lives which were recycled.
The EPA found that the percentage remained consistent from 1999-2005. Even as recycling rates went up, the amount of electronics reaching end of life outpaced the increase, leaving the figure static. (source: EPA, July 2008)
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
This is only going to be nice on larger displays (like over 50" at least). Anything smaller and watching 16:9 content is going to be tiny. However, I'm sure it'll be expensive at any big size, and probably much cheaper to go with a front projector CIH setup instead.
now if only a rear projection set would do this. this would be what could keep rptv strong for a long time. 80+ inch 21:9 tv sets for $3000-4000
Throw dual tuners so that I can watch two channels at once at 4:3, and give me control to mute one or the other or neither. Yes I'm serious, these days we multitask and I'd likely still have the laptop open at the same time.
Hey Hey now we're getting somewhere! :) I like the RTPV idea too...
2.35:1 ftw ?!
Cinemascope.
truly believe in Philips products. I own a 42" LCD 120hz 2ms 1080p TV and it is the best picture I have ever seen. This thing is way ahead of its time. Thanks to the perfect pixel engine and smooth motion, there is nothing out there that can compare to the clarity and depth of the picture. Forget oled and thin is in, check out one of these in person playing a blu ray movie (this is a must) and you'll see what I am talking about. I love samsung and sony too, but this tv is great.
I have a PS Triple and Sony HD Camcorder, but after buying this tv, Philips proved to be a serious contender.
But why?
It's only the right aspect ratio if all you watch are certain movies. There are a lot of movies (especially animation, indie films, and comedies) shot in 1.85:1 these days.
Also, this is likely to be more expensive than a 16:9 display of the same width, which means you're paying more for someone to have physically removed the "black bars" from the screen. Are they really that distracting?
What if you want to watch 4:3 content? I guess you could put (almost) two images side-by-side on the screen.
What would suck is watching 16:9 content that has been letterboxed to 4:3 for broadcast, though I'm sure they provide some sort of zoom feature calibrated specially for this (and no doubt stretched to hide the hideous borders). I guess what I'm saying is that they'd better have a dedicated remote button for each input possibility.
You mean 2.35 not 1.85. 1.85 content is almost borderless.
What's the model number? What's the native resolution? Is it even 1080x2520? Or is it some other size panel where the pixel count is not proportioned properly and they have to use disproportionate conversion? 1080x2520 is not even a standard resolution so it has to be converted in the setanyway. Not good.
It's probably 1920 x 818, which is the native resolution for 2.35 movies 1080p movies.
I really don't understand the need for this. sure there's a couple of nice ideas as add-ons for the TV however, being realistic Philips won't add a dual tuner, or anything sexy because after all they are still Phillips.
as LB was saying what would be the native resolution for this tv? won't 1920x1080 video look stretched out, or have the black bars at the side or even worse have black bars on top, bottom and both side? that would be awful.
how does Philips think this is a good idea? do you think a regular Joe would walk into a major retail chain and see a bigger size Vizio for less price or THIS and pick the Philips instead?
i like being corrected so go for it.
The people who seriously consider Vizio will pick it up over a 16x9 Phillips, let alone this unit. Price for Vizio is the ONLY thing that sells their product.
Is Philips introducing any new Televisions in the US? I heard they were out of the market.
When ours developed a screen problem they bought it back rather than try to fix it.
Perhaps I'm incapable of doing basic math, but isn't that 2.33:1? How about an actual 2.35:1 set, or even better, how about a 1.85:1 set instead of 1.78 and then come up with a masking system for the 2.35. Yeah, I'm rambling.
The actual ratio will probably be 2.35:1. People have become familiar with the idea of 16:9, so its just natural that they would want to use the x:9 formula. They probably also thought that 21.15:9 sounded a little bit confusing, so they just rounded down to 21. *these are assumptions*
There wont be any real way of knowing what the real ratio is until we have full specs on measurements and pixels. I would only think that they would use one of the 2.35:1 vertical stretch algorithms currently being used by video processors for anamorphic lens systems on front projectors.
This is going to look great next to the 1.66:1 set I keep for watching native Super 16 films! Thanks Phillips!
If you were in a situation where you were vertically limited on screen size (highly unlikely), this would be a sweet option. You would get the most screen real estate in that situation.
Segalvision!
Well it's great and all but we should be smacking the BDA upside their head for not mandating anamorphic Blu-Ray for the (somewhat surprisingly) fast adoption of the cinemascope standard.
If that is true, it shows just how shortsighted CE manufacturers are. Certainly anybody with half of a brain could have seen the benefit of doing anamorphic formats (or, better yet, variable horizontal resolution at 1080 lines to allow for formats different than 16:9) on Blu-ray. Just let the players and TVs decide how to format it. Morons.
I've been looking forward to this, but it better not be 1080p, I don't want to have to upscale and stretch. It needs to be something like 1920x800, full resolution for 2:35 movies without the black bars. I don't mind shrinking my 16:9 content, I just refuse to scale or distort my perfect 2:35 Blurays.
No more scaling ever please (unless its downscaling, which would have absolutely no artifacts).
I had a thought- you couldn't watch The Dark Knight on Bluray without cutting off the imax scenes. Or worse, watch it pillar boxed, then also letterboxed except for the couple of imax scenes. Eww.
it needs to be about 70 inches minimum to even be considered. maybe even 80 inches.
d1I found Extreme Britney Spears Nude video :) Enjoy..
..
http://sexy-tube-world.net/view.php?Britney_Spears_Nude
..
..
Exactly what I was looking for! Woot!