>>69056581

999 inch tv

File: Aspect Ratios02.jpg (69 KB, 500x372) Image search: [Google]

69 KB, 500x372

i guess i need anamorphic widescreen

2.39:1
2.40:1
2.35:1
whats the difference?

34" 21:9 tv $700
101" 21:9 tv $100,500
why

>"If you want to know why TV's still aren't wide enough to make full use of the entire screen with widescreen movies, I can tell you that one of the reasons is that standard definition content would be very very small on such a wide screen
>getting aspect ratio mixed up with definition
that threw me off for a sec, what dipshit wrote this?

>>69056581
I was hell bent on getting a 21:9 monitor until I had the realization that content shot in DCI or IMAX aspect ratios would look retarded and awful.

I'll just stick with 16:9 monitors I think.

>>69057187
i mean im not a big nolan fan so is that ven an issue? the new star wars for example didnt include the imax ratio on the bluray. what films actually have imax ratios? not that many i think.

what size 16:9 you got?

>>69057133
idk i copied it from a bluray.com forum

>>69057325
There are a lot of TV shows shot in DCI and most shows are 16:9.

In fact I can't think of any shows that are 2.35:1.

I guess it's not a huge issue for most, and it's not like IMAX scenes are littered throughout current movies, but for me, just knowing that I could be watching a movie and all of a sudden vertical black bars appear, is a complete turn off. Horizontal black bars from watching wide content on a 16:9 panel is far more tolerable.

I have a 23" 1080p IPS at the moment, but I'm gonna grab a 27" 4K IPS at the end of the year in preparation for 4K blurays. Shit's gonna be nice.

>>69057479
2D image

2048×1080 (2K) at 24 frame/s or 48 frame/s, or 4096×2160 (4K) at 24 frame/s
In 2K, for Scope (2.39:1) presentation 2048×858 pixels of the image is used
In 2K, for Flat (1.85:1) presentation 1998×1080 pixels of the image is used
In 4K, for Scope (2.39:1) presentation 4096×1716 pixels of the image is used
In 4K, for Flat (1.85:1) presentation 3996×2160 pixels of the image is used
12 bits per color component (36 bits per pixel) via dual HD-SDI (encrypted)
10 bits only permitted for 2K at 48 frame/s
CIE XYZ color space
TIFF 6.0 container format (one file per frame)
JPEG 2000 compression
From 0 to 5 or from 1 to 6 wavelet decomposition levels for 2K or 4K resolutions, respectively
Compression rate of 4.71 bits/pixel (2K @ 24 frame/s), 2.35 bits/pixel (2K @ 48 frame/s), 1.17 bits/pixel (4K @ 24 frame/s)
250 Mbit/s maximum image bit rate

Stereoscopic 3D image

2048×1080 (2K) at 48 frame/s - 24 frame/s per eye (4096×2160 4K not supported)
In 2K, for Scope (2.39:1) presentation 2048×858 pixels of the imager is used
In 2K, for Flat (1.85:1) presentation 1998×1080 pixels of the imager is used
Optionally, in the HD-SDI link only: 10 bit color, YCbCr 4:2:2, each eye in separate stream


i see i didnt realize 21:9 fucked up the scope of DCI,or 16:9. i guess ill stick with it as well.

>>69057479
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/vizio-43-class-42-5-diag--led-2160p-smart-4k-ultra-hd-tv-black/3733004.p?id=1219597974182&skuId=3733004&ref=212&loc=1&ksid=87ebf8d9-c8c3-4bf2-9e25-6a6022e990b0&ksprof_id=16&ksaffcode=pg45228&ksdevice=c&gclid=CLiPnvz1vcwCFUEfhgodoHAKPw

this looks like a good 4K

>>69057399
OK, it's just the post doesn't make any sense, as it implies that standard definition fills up less of your screen than high definition does, which at the same aspect ratio would use the exact same amount of screen-space because of upscaling. I assume they're saying that 4:3 content would look smaller on a 21:9 screen, and that 16:9 is a good middle-ground between 4:3 and the wider aspect ratios

One more question, does playing normal bluray on a 4K tv show a noticeable difference in quality compared to a normal hdtv?

>>69057850

Its upscaled x4

Probably not too much, native is better

File: 300px-Filmaspectratios_svg.svg.png (26 KB, 300x600) Image search: [Google]

26 KB, 300x600

Refer to pic related.