For home theater nuts: Ultrawide TV's
-
In short - no. This is a video issue not a software issue. Blu-rays are currently 16:9, 1920 x 822 (with option overscan to 850) so the *shudder* strechies will be scaling the video. Scaling is bad which is why I switched my TV's overscan off. Now imagine what 4:3 video looks like on them.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^] "Program as if the technical support department is full of serial killers and they know your home address" - Ray Cassick Jr., RIP
Trollslayer wrote:
Blu-rays are currently 16:9, 1920 x 822 (with option overscan to 850) so the *shudder* strechies will be scaling the video. Scaling is bad which is why I switched my TV's overscan off.
That 822 is for a 2.4:1 movie, right? What I'm saying is that, if we get 21:9 TV's with 1080 resolution, is there no reason not to have Blu rays that use 1080 for those TV's, and downconvert for TV's that can't deal with it. This is exactly how the anamorphic flag works on DVD's, when everything is setup correctly nothing will be stretched weird. Artifacts of up/down conversion should be minimal given today's scaling. Of course I've seen many places do it wrong, and as they have it now, at 2520x1080 their TV's do make little sense unless they have a scheme like I have in mind for getting the most out of scope movies. Which is why I brought it up.
Trollslayer wrote:
Now imagine what 4:3 video looks like on them.
I can ignore black bars on the sides, especially if I got some motorized curtains that went in and out like at a theater. :) Like I said, I think these 21:9 TV's only make sense if they're BIG. And to the poster below, I'd say at least 50% of what I watch on my TV is in the scope ratio, so I am probably the perfect market for them. Definitely a niche though, which might make cost an issue.
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
-
The emergence of Ultrawide Televisions[^] (21:9 aspect ratio) has made me wonder: will we see "anamorphic" blu rays for movies filmed at close to that ratio use the full 1080 lines for the vertical resolution, not wasting any on the black bars? Similar to what most widescreen DVD's did in order to take advantage of all 480 lines for 16:9 movies. Is there anything in the current blu ray spec to allow for something like that? It's all java based isn't it? So they could make it do anything, right? ;) Except print. One of those 21:9 displays would be great if it was big enough (it could look weird otherwise). Most of the movies we watch are 2.4:1 or so; being able to use all the resolution for that would be great. It could downconvert the blu rays for people with normal widescreen TV's. Still, not sure how any of this fits into current or future standards. I'd do more research but I'm at work and while codeproject looks like I'm being productive, visiting hometheaterforum would probably raise a red flag. :)
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
They're running out of ways to innovate on TVs. Ultrawides are a solution looking for a problem.
Todd Smith
-
The emergence of Ultrawide Televisions[^] (21:9 aspect ratio) has made me wonder: will we see "anamorphic" blu rays for movies filmed at close to that ratio use the full 1080 lines for the vertical resolution, not wasting any on the black bars? Similar to what most widescreen DVD's did in order to take advantage of all 480 lines for 16:9 movies. Is there anything in the current blu ray spec to allow for something like that? It's all java based isn't it? So they could make it do anything, right? ;) Except print. One of those 21:9 displays would be great if it was big enough (it could look weird otherwise). Most of the movies we watch are 2.4:1 or so; being able to use all the resolution for that would be great. It could downconvert the blu rays for people with normal widescreen TV's. Still, not sure how any of this fits into current or future standards. I'd do more research but I'm at work and while codeproject looks like I'm being productive, visiting hometheaterforum would probably raise a red flag. :)
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
-
Trollslayer wrote:
Blu-rays are currently 16:9, 1920 x 822 (with option overscan to 850) so the *shudder* strechies will be scaling the video. Scaling is bad which is why I switched my TV's overscan off.
That 822 is for a 2.4:1 movie, right? What I'm saying is that, if we get 21:9 TV's with 1080 resolution, is there no reason not to have Blu rays that use 1080 for those TV's, and downconvert for TV's that can't deal with it. This is exactly how the anamorphic flag works on DVD's, when everything is setup correctly nothing will be stretched weird. Artifacts of up/down conversion should be minimal given today's scaling. Of course I've seen many places do it wrong, and as they have it now, at 2520x1080 their TV's do make little sense unless they have a scheme like I have in mind for getting the most out of scope movies. Which is why I brought it up.
Trollslayer wrote:
Now imagine what 4:3 video looks like on them.
I can ignore black bars on the sides, especially if I got some motorized curtains that went in and out like at a theater. :) Like I said, I think these 21:9 TV's only make sense if they're BIG. And to the poster below, I'd say at least 50% of what I watch on my TV is in the scope ratio, so I am probably the perfect market for them. Definitely a niche though, which might make cost an issue.
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
Scaling is noticable, for example to me displaying 720p on a 1080p even on with a good scaler softens details. My point about 4:3 is you will only use about 60% of the display area. It's 2.35:1 BTW so 21:9 isn't quite right at this gives 2.3333:1 ;) Also TVs are set to overscan by default and not all have the option to switch it off which is why I switch the overscan off on mine so there is not scaling at all on 1920 wide content.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^] "Program as if the technical support department is full of serial killers and they know your home address" - Ray Cassick Jr., RIP
-
Scaling is noticable, for example to me displaying 720p on a 1080p even on with a good scaler softens details. My point about 4:3 is you will only use about 60% of the display area. It's 2.35:1 BTW so 21:9 isn't quite right at this gives 2.3333:1 ;) Also TVs are set to overscan by default and not all have the option to switch it off which is why I switch the overscan off on mine so there is not scaling at all on 1920 wide content.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^] "Program as if the technical support department is full of serial killers and they know your home address" - Ray Cassick Jr., RIP
That's true, but 2560x1080 allows them to ruin the last bastion of computer monitors with good vertical resolutions even more than 1440p will.:mad: The ubiquitous 1400x600 laptop screens will finally make it impossible to use them for anything except watching cat videos as well. X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X|
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
That's true, but 2560x1080 allows them to ruin the last bastion of computer monitors with good vertical resolutions even more than 1440p will.:mad: The ubiquitous 1400x600 laptop screens will finally make it impossible to use them for anything except watching cat videos as well. X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X|
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
Dan Neely wrote:
will finally make it impossible to use them for anything except watching cat videos
*Evil cackle*
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^] "Program as if the technical support department is full of serial killers and they know your home address" - Ray Cassick Jr., RIP
-
Dan Neely wrote:
will finally make it impossible to use them for anything except watching cat videos
*Evil cackle*
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^] "Program as if the technical support department is full of serial killers and they know your home address" - Ray Cassick Jr., RIP
Trollslayer wrote:
Dan Neely wrote:
will finally make it impossible to use them for anything except watching cat
videos*Evil cackle*
You assume the sort of cat video I'd be interested in working is the sort you approve of. :doh:
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
Scaling is noticable, for example to me displaying 720p on a 1080p even on with a good scaler softens details. My point about 4:3 is you will only use about 60% of the display area. It's 2.35:1 BTW so 21:9 isn't quite right at this gives 2.3333:1 ;) Also TVs are set to overscan by default and not all have the option to switch it off which is why I switch the overscan off on mine so there is not scaling at all on 1920 wide content.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^] "Program as if the technical support department is full of serial killers and they know your home address" - Ray Cassick Jr., RIP
Trollslayer wrote:
It's 2.35:1 BTW so 21:9 isn't quite right at this gives 2.3333:1
Yeah, I use them all interchangeably, as the actual difference is miniscule and I'm never quite sure if they're rounding off or what. Like 2.4, 2.35, 2.3... bah, call it scope.
Trollslayer wrote:
lso TVs are set to overscan by default and not all have the option to switch it off which is why I switch the overscan off on mine so there is not scaling at all on 1920 wide content.
The overscan on DIGITAL DISPLAYS drives me crazy. When scaling by a little bit, like the 2-3% they do, isn't that noticeable when watching most movies, but hook a PC up to it and the text looks like a smeared mess. But so many HD channels now assume tv's have overscan, they don't protect to the edge of the HD signal, and some channels have noise and other crap along the edges. IT'S DIGITAL. There's no reason for any of that crap. I recently hooked up my laptop via HDMI to my new 26" VIZO for the bedroom. It looked like a godawful mess. So I find the overscan on the TV and turn it off. It STILL looks like crap. The laptop, in order to compensate for the inevitable overscan, had scaled down its own output before sending it out. ARGH. So I turned that off. Then it looked crisp and perfect. So we had two digital devices, connected digitally, each with a native resolution of 1920x1080, and each was intentionally ruining the quality of its own signal. Idiots, but it runs rampant. Thanks for bringing up that rant, I guess I needed to get it out :)
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
-
They're running out of ways to innovate on TVs. Ultrawides are a solution looking for a problem.
Todd Smith
Todd Smith wrote:
Ultrawides are a solution looking for a problem.
I dunno, for real home theater nuts it makes sense if it's big. That way, scope films are the largest, as they are in the cinema. (Well, in cinemas that don't suck.) But you have scaling issues as we've beaten to death elsewhere. I'd rather PC's go back to 4:3 displays, just big ass ones. Widescreen has never made sense there to me. Just about everything I do is vertical. And last year when I shopped for a laptop it was nearly impossible to find one that had a higher vertical resolution than the laptop I had for 7 years.
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
-
Trollslayer wrote:
It's 2.35:1 BTW so 21:9 isn't quite right at this gives 2.3333:1
Yeah, I use them all interchangeably, as the actual difference is miniscule and I'm never quite sure if they're rounding off or what. Like 2.4, 2.35, 2.3... bah, call it scope.
Trollslayer wrote:
lso TVs are set to overscan by default and not all have the option to switch it off which is why I switch the overscan off on mine so there is not scaling at all on 1920 wide content.
The overscan on DIGITAL DISPLAYS drives me crazy. When scaling by a little bit, like the 2-3% they do, isn't that noticeable when watching most movies, but hook a PC up to it and the text looks like a smeared mess. But so many HD channels now assume tv's have overscan, they don't protect to the edge of the HD signal, and some channels have noise and other crap along the edges. IT'S DIGITAL. There's no reason for any of that crap. I recently hooked up my laptop via HDMI to my new 26" VIZO for the bedroom. It looked like a godawful mess. So I find the overscan on the TV and turn it off. It STILL looks like crap. The laptop, in order to compensate for the inevitable overscan, had scaled down its own output before sending it out. ARGH. So I turned that off. Then it looked crisp and perfect. So we had two digital devices, connected digitally, each with a native resolution of 1920x1080, and each was intentionally ruining the quality of its own signal. Idiots, but it runs rampant. Thanks for bringing up that rant, I guess I needed to get it out :)
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
David Kentley wrote:
IT'S DIGITAL. There's no reason for any of that crap.
There is. Many TVs are bought in boxmarts not online. When looking at two otherwise identical TVs one overscanned and one not, Joe Moron will think the one with bigger heads is better every time. X| X| X|
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
Todd Smith wrote:
Ultrawides are a solution looking for a problem.
I dunno, for real home theater nuts it makes sense if it's big. That way, scope films are the largest, as they are in the cinema. (Well, in cinemas that don't suck.) But you have scaling issues as we've beaten to death elsewhere. I'd rather PC's go back to 4:3 displays, just big ass ones. Widescreen has never made sense there to me. Just about everything I do is vertical. And last year when I shopped for a laptop it was nearly impossible to find one that had a higher vertical resolution than the laptop I had for 7 years.
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
David Kentley wrote:
I'd rather PC's go back to 4:3 displays, just big ass ones. Widescreen has never made sense there to me. Just about everything I do is vertical. And last year when I shopped for a laptop it was nearly impossible to find one that had a higher vertical resolution than the laptop I had for 7 years.
Same here. For all the progress in screens over the years why does it cost more today for a 1200px tall monitor than it did 11 years ago? Cheapest LCD on Newegg today is $780, I paid $200 for a 17" CRT in august of 2000. And AFAIK crApple is the only laptop maker still using 16:10 screens in new models. :((
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18