UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Powered By Google Custom Search Vintage Radio Service Data

Go Back   UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Discussion Forum > Specific Vintage Equipment > Vintage Television and Video

Notices

Vintage Television and Video Vintage television and video equipment, programmes, VCRs etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 9th Feb 2019, 12:24 pm   #21
dave walsh
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ramsbottom (Nr Bury) Lancs or Bexhill (Nr Hastings) Sussex.
Posts: 4,149
Default Re: True "Cinemascope" TV.

I've found this discussion very interesting, not having really thought about the 2.35.1 composition before. To me, it links in quite nicely with the Aspect Ratio Thread although, as I said there, I tend to be fairly relaxed about presentation.

Dave W
dave walsh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th Feb 2019, 1:11 pm   #22
Argus25
Octode
 
Argus25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia.
Posts: 1,898
Default Re: True "Cinemascope" TV.

Feast your eyes on this, it was recently reviewed by Silicon Chip and they loved it , 32:9, and it has a really good curvature:

http://www.siliconchip.com.au/Issue/...rawide+Monitor
Argus25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th Feb 2019, 2:01 pm   #23
Brigham
Heptode
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Co. Durham, UK.
Posts: 794
Default Re: True "Cinemascope" TV.

Loads better than those old 'flatscreen' TVs!
Brigham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th Feb 2019, 2:39 pm   #24
dave walsh
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ramsbottom (Nr Bury) Lancs or Bexhill (Nr Hastings) Sussex.
Posts: 4,149
Default Re: True "Cinemascope" TV.

Really interesting Argus, thanks for showing us that! Could you Brigham [or anyone else] say more about it? I'm definitely out of my depth here I realise that it was primarily designed for an industrial presentation environment and technical design work [perhaps replacing two 27" monitors] but would it be a realistic option for the domestic situation and viewing all kinds of aspect ratios

I'm not a fan of the race to pay more and more for bigger and bigger TV's to impress the neighbours!

On the other hand I have got a 50" FS but that was only 300 new and is big enough. [My brother-in-law paid at least two grand and won't say exactly how much.] This looks like something entirely different though [in the way that the products made by B+O often are for example]. It seems to be on offer at 800-1000.

Dave

Last edited by dave walsh; 9th Feb 2019 at 2:49 pm.
dave walsh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Feb 2019, 12:01 am   #25
julie_m
Dekatron
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Derby, UK.
Posts: 6,999
Default Re: True "Cinemascope" TV.

Wait until we get 2.67:1 TVs (8:3, or 24:9 for the lowest-terms-challenged) -- then, there will be room to fit two 4:3 pictures side-by-side!
__________________
Julie {formerly known AJS_Derby}
julie_m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Feb 2019, 1:17 am   #26
AC/HL
Moderator
 
AC/HL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Heckmondwike, West Yorkshire, UK.
Posts: 6,801
Default Re: True "Cinemascope" TV.

That would really challenge your concentration.
__________________
Bill, BVWS member
AC/HL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Feb 2019, 1:39 am   #27
dave walsh
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ramsbottom (Nr Bury) Lancs or Bexhill (Nr Hastings) Sussex.
Posts: 4,149
Default Re: True "Cinemascope" TV.

I really will need to have that explained gents [but I shall be very grateful honest .]

Dave
dave walsh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Feb 2019, 6:33 am   #28
TonyDuell
Nonode
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Biggin Hill, London, UK.
Posts: 2,845
Default Re: True "Cinemascope" TV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by julie_m View Post
Wait until we get 2.67:1 TVs (8:3, or 24:9 for the lowest-terms-challenged) -- then, there will be room to fit two 4:3 pictures side-by-side!
Stereo pair?
TonyDuell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Feb 2019, 10:55 am   #29
red16v
Pentode
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Winchester, Hampshire, UK.
Posts: 211
Default Re: True "Cinemascope" TV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grubhead View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by winston_1 View Post
Little point really. No one broadcasts 2.35:1 after all.

Just accept black bars at the top and bottom for the odd film.
They don't broadcast in 16.9 either. What they do is broadcast in 4.3 with anamorphic. The picture when transmitted has a wide signal attached which stretches the image to fit your wide TV.
They could do that with 21.9 too. But the 16:9 TV would have to add black bars to fit the new picture.
If not in 16:9 A then they add the black bars to the TV signal, so they are part of the picture. One of the reasons the Philips set didn't catch on was due to the fact that the TV was zooming in on a 21.9 picture to get rid of the bands. Thus resulting in a loss of picture quality.

As I write this I am watching on a 21.9 monitor by LG and they are very good. Not just for games, which I don't use, but for other work too. Such as DTP. Where you can get two bits of text block side by side, which I couldn't on a 16:9 monitor. Not without scrolling!

The DVD's in 21:9 do have a lot of "grain" on them. A bit like watching SD TV on a big screen TV. Caused by the zoom effect.
I think you're referring to the early days of 625 PAL widescreen in the UK when we did transmit widescreen anamorphically as required and signalled*. These days signals are originated and transmitted in 1080 HD which is native 16:9.

* We had Ikegami studio cameras. When you switched the camera between the two different aspect ratios you could actually hear a very small supplementary lens being switched into the optical path of the camera if you put your ear up very close to the lens package in front of the camera. This additional lens compressed the image horizontally before it arrived at the camera's CCD sensor if it was required to work in 16:9.
red16v is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Feb 2019, 2:07 am   #30
Grubhead
Hexode
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK.
Posts: 487
Default Re: True "Cinemascope" TV.

As far as I am aware all cameras use the old 35mm format, which would give you a 16:9. The old style movie cameras used to mask sections of to give a 4.3 picture, since some of it was used for the sound system. It makes sense to send a signal in 4.3 as it would require less space to be transmitted. Then with the anamorphic system, squash the 16:9 to fit a 4.3 picture. Which is what happens. If you select 4.3 on your TV on a full screen 16.9 true widescreen picture, it will appear as a squashed picture. That way the broadcast can still send out a 4.3 picture and it will appear as a normal image on the TV. If the broadcaster was sending out 16.9 all the time a 4.3 TV would have to squash them down. And the broadcaster would have to send out black bars on the left and right to maintain a 4.3 picture looking right on a 16.9 screen. However the 4.3 on a 4.3 TV would then be unwatchable.
Black bars are still added to the signal of a 16.9 picture to show any movie of a greater aspect than 16.9.
Grubhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 2:57 am.


All information and advice on this forum is subject to the WARNING AND DISCLAIMER located at https://www.vintage-radio.net/rules.html.
Failure to heed this warning may result in death or serious injury to yourself and/or others.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018, Paul Stenning.