Adios black bars - sort of. Passive 3D. I saw these a year ago in Hong Kong. Looks niche to me, can't say these will go mainstream.


http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/1/276...inemawide-3499

Vizio's 58-inch 21:9 CinemaWide TV coming in March for $3,499, 50- and 71-inch models in 2H 2012



Although Vizio announced its new 58-inch CinemaWide HDTV at CES last month it held back on pricing and a few key specs. The company filled in the rest of the blanks today, letting us know that the set will cost $3,499 when it arrives in March, followed by 50- and 71-inch models (at to-be-announced prices) in the second half of the year.

The ultra wide display features a 21:9 aspect ratio, allowing viewers to watch widescreen movies full-screen without those ever-present black bars, while "regular" 16:9 widescreen content can either be upscaled to fit the wider screen, or the extra space can be used to show Facebook, Twitter, or other widgets available on Vizio's Internet Apps platform (made more useful by the bundled Bluetooth remote with keyboard). Other specs include 2560x1080 resolution, passive 3D (4 pairs of glasses included), a 120Hz refresh rate, and 5 HDMI ports. While the LED edge lit panel is slim at only 1.8 inches deep, you might want to double check that you have the nearly five feet of horizontal space you'll need in your living room to hoist the thing up on your wall. The press release says the set should be available for pre-order from Vizio's site, but so far Vizio.com is just offering to let you sign up for notifications.

What a lovely niche luxury item. It's very nice, but honestly, if I had the cash I'd get something with a wider range of use.

The black bars don't bother me enough to justify spending a few extra thousand to not see them.

Can't wait to see 4x3 AND 16x9 pictures stretched out on these!

Adios black bars - hello pillar bars when you watch anything in 16:9/1.85:1.

This will be under $1k when it hits Walmart.

So how soon before we get 1.44:1 sets for a more complete IMAX experience at home?

How can a different aspect ratio be 'upscaled', it either has to be stretched or cropped. Also, why would you want facebook and twitter widgets on the sides of the screen? That sounds awfully distracting.

I like how they use 21:9 instead of 7:3 so it looks "bigger" than 16:9.

Honestly, at that price I'd rather just get the new 80" Sharp. The high-end Vizios so far haven't exactly impressed me.

Well to be fair I think 21:9 helps paint a more accurate picture of ratio size when directly comparing to 16:9. Of course most people aren't good enough at math to realize how ratios work.

Anybody savvy enough to photoshop some 1.33 and 1.77 images into that screen for comparision?

Anyways, there's simply too much other aspect ration stuff out there for this, 16x9 was chosen as a compromise for a reason.

same reaction as well.

Even IMAX theaters don't do 1.44:1 anymore.

Personally I wouldn't mind having constant image height but I wouldn't buy a Vizio to get it.

Looks cool, but I'd prefer to buy a bigger TV for now

That picture is funny. Because of the bezel, it still looks like there's a black bar.

How do you figure? If anything 21:9 is the one that is harder to understand. They're both the same ratio. Why not call it 56:24? How about 28:12?

Of all the possible ways to describe this ratio 7:3 is literally the simplest way to technically convey said ratio to consumers. That's a fact.

I think you're one of them because you use the word "size" when discussing a ratio. This particular television is 58" but if this new ratio catches on there will probably be cellphone screens in this ratio. It has nothing to do with size. This isn't a "check out the size of this TV!" thread.

1.33:1 Zoomed:



1.33:1 Pillarboxed:



1.78:1 Zoomed:

^^ When you say "stretched", I think you actually mean "zoomed" or "cropped".

Traditionally, "stretched" would mean distorting the aspect ratio of the source material to fit the aspect ratio of the display. In this case, stretching would mean everything would look really, really, fat, especially 1.33:1 material.

The screen has a 16:9 center portion which is 1920x1080 (so that native HD content can be showed in its full resolution), plus extra pixels on the sides. A 2.40:1 movie shown natively would have black bars on all four sides, so if you stretch that out to fill the screen, that would be considered upscaling. If you think about it, upscaling really is a kind of stretching; it's just done without distorting the aspect ratio.

I wouldn't want one. Too much content is 16:9. I would get to use the whole screen for maybe 2/3 of the movies I watch, while any TV or video games would have blank space on the sides (especially older 4:3 content). There is no video material as of yet that could use all of the resolution, as even 2.40:1 movies would have to be scaled.

The only source that could use every pixel without scaling would be an awkward looking computer desktop.

It'd be nice for editing, I suppose.

Quite true. My cable box just calls everything either "Normal" or "Stretched," regardless of whether it's stretching or zooming, so I've gotten lazy in my terminology.

Easy tiger. WTF pissed on your head?

So I misspoke when I said "ratio size". Pardon me Einstein.

If someone is given the ratios 16:9 and 21:9 they can reasonably deduce that with the same relative height, one is longer than the other. They have a common value.

And who said anything about "check out the size of this TV?"

If anamorphic blu-rays existed, this would be fun to own to add more resolution to 2.35 ratio movies.