Experience CINEMATIC IMMERSION with a 105-inch 21:9 Cinemascope TV!

[@avforums]

Would you go for a 21:9 105-inch TV over a full-on cinemascope projection system? Let us know in the comments below.

[@ARIKIP]

I wish they made a 21:9 OLED TV at very large sizes for us scope movie fans. 16:9 material would have perfect black bars either side.

[@indeans48]

This is beyond exciting. I'm firmly a projector user, but if 21:9 displays were to make a comeback in the consumer marker I might be tempted to give TVs a try again.

[@Chester-UK]

This type of solution would be great for us. I was expecting this kind of price point and it’s a little toppy at this time, but hopefully that will drop slightly to something we can afford, and it’s not a million miles away now. I’m impressed with the ease of installation; there doesn’t seem to be any need for an external processor. Very exciting and looking forward to seeing more soon. Thanks.

[@vincentmilioto5735]

Other 21:9 tv is Jupiter Pana 105. They also have a 81” version. The latest version, 81X, is mini led and higher brightness. More interesting I think.

[@licensedtaximan4271]

I well remember (like many others) Philips made 21:9 Cinemascope / Panavision aspect ratio tv's (I also think there was another manufacturer as well, I believe a Japanese one) but I do feel that 16:9 is a fair compromise though given that wider aspect ratios don't look too bad on standard widescreen tv given that a 1:85:1 aspect image on a 21:9 would mean black bars either side of the image. As much as this scope tv looks good I feel it will go the way again of 3D tv's. Sadly, imo, 3D didn't take off, of which I own a 50" Panasonic VT30 3D plasma and am miffed about those tv's being finished quite quicky, but there you go. When my tv eventually packs up (it's still going strong) my 3D BD's will also become redundant, plus there is no way we can have a projector and screen in our lounge for a wider aspect ratio and 3D capability. 😔🙄

[@MikeTheBike2010]

I remember chatting to the sales guy about the Philips 21:9 screen back in the day. He tried to tell me all movies are made in the same ratio when I pointed out to him many films would still have black bars…….😂

[@licensedtaximan4271]

@@MikeTheBike2010 Sounds to me like that guy was a bit of a pillock if he thought all films were made in the same 21:9 aspect ratio. Cinerama, Panavision 70, Todd-AO etc, etc comes to mind. 🤭🤪🤔

[@lobogo5000]

Táto veľkosť v Olede alebo microled by bola HyperSuper.

[@Antibackgroundnoise]

As the years go on, visuals and audio seem to be getting better and better. It's just a shame the storytelling has been going the opposite way.

[@marvinabugov4579]

Nice solution . . . but tv’s are getting closer and closer to even more immersive solutions like the Bravia 9. However, the product is definitely innovative and likely will work for some residential solutions, for sure!

[@ram64man]

The days of 4 by 3 are over sadly as good as it is to see such a display made , but the image quality seems very poor that isn’t helped by the display lights , but I feel many people will opt for cheaper Chinese displays on ultra short throw, 300 nits is terrible.

[@MrFrankFurter]

So displays will be wider and wider? Paralysis from the neck down will reach an all time high. Its all a gimmick for peoplewhi get tired of rationalitytoo quickly. What's next, high screen?

[@garyl5128]

@@MrFrankFurter Widescreen CinemaScope has been around since the 50s (it replaced 4:3 Academy screens and was twice the width), and if correctly implemented is a wider more immersive viewing experience. Only IMAX should be taller than scope.

[@garyl5128]

In commercial cinemas with film the guideline was around 12fL with film in the gate, and that was around 41 nits. Today with digital, the DCI guidelines are 14fL which is around 48 nits, so 300 is more than enough for a darkened room if you want a more cinematic experience. Of course if you want the lights on and use it as a normal tv, then with the likes of HDR it's not going to be like what people are used to and a lot of tone mapping will be going on. Would work better in a dedicated room with no ambient light though.

[@ram64man]

@@garyl5128 apart from video fans the majority of time people just want the tv on in the room while they do other stuff or another family member wanted to do something else, eg game night someone’s doing multiple things while just one or two are focus to the point of not breathing through suspense. This is why TVs have moved away from back projection and why lcd /plasmas/oled gave brighter overall performance, most videos are hdr filmed so it’s best that a tv could hit 1000 nits minimum, to 1500-2000 anything more people complain about it being too bright where it hurts the eyes . But since the majority of film conversions are missing 21/9 ratio capture in favour of 4k 16/9 , things like teletypewriter and audio/text description are off the display can be annoying.

[@MrFrankFurter]

I'd like to see a test done involving a 14" 4:3 screen vs a 14" 16:9. Watch the Godfather part 2 on ecah tv in their respective ratios and decide which screen is the more immersive.

[@garyl5128]

What will your preferred horizontal viewing angle be?

[@jurgentebeest6199]

A 14" screen is never going to be 'immersive'.

[@garyl5128]

@@jurgentebeest6199 Exactly. And the correct way to do that test would be to compare the 14" 4:3 tv with a 16:9 tv of the same height, which would be wider, just like the 1.85 and 2.40 formats are supposed to be wider. The ideal theoretical diagonal would be a 17" 16:9 tv

[@BonesJonesUK]

£12k for any LCD display is little bit silly in 2024. No HDR, poor contrast ratio, screen uniformity issues etc etc... all the usual gripes with LCD displays apply. You can get much better fo far less money imo. I would take an 83" OLED for £4k over this thing any day, the reduced size is worth the HUGE improvements in everything else.

[@MrFrankFurter]

Just bring back the 4:3 tvs. Enough of this gimmicky junk.

[@licensedtaximan4271]

..... And with very old rounded edges rather than the squarer later models. 👍

[@jurgentebeest6199]

@@licensedtaximan4271 Color should also be dumped. Quantum Dot black and white is more than enough.

[@MrFrankFurter]

4:3 is the most immersive. Thats how our eyes work.

[@garyl5128]

Not really, not for prolonged viewing if you want a more immersive movie experience. IMAX was 4:3 (can be 16:9 and 1.90:1) but the main image content is within the 2.40 section (like with the aspect changing movies) and that's because making you look up for prolonged periods will give you neck ache. You don't get the same problems with wider viewing angles such as 60 to 80 degrees in an IMAX theatre. Although we have 120 degree binocular vision and can easily look side to side with little head movement, if vertical viewing angles exceed 15 degrees neck ache can occur, so a wider, not taller image is better for a prolonged viewing experience unless you're going to sit quite far back, which is less immersive. All the guidelines (THX, CEDIA, Dolby, Fox SMPTE etc) recommend no more than a 15 degree vertical viewing angle. When CinemaScope was first developed in 1952 and retrofitted into existing theatres, without changing any seating (so vertical viewing angles didn't change and remained comfortable), the existing Academy ratio screen (4:3) was to be replaced by a scope screen that was the same height but twice the width. That kept vertical viewing angles the same, but horizontal viewing angles were now much wider and more immersive. Initially that was 2.66:1 but due to technical reasons, such as increased audio (surround sound) and hiding splices, it has since been reduced to 2.40:1. So, in real terms for non IMAX viewing, you are still watching at a 4:3 display height, but with wider (same height) aspect ratios like 1.85, 16:9 and 2.40:1, you are getting a wider and more immersive viewing experience. That's because with respect to prolonged comfortable viewing, we are limited by vertical viewing angles.