No amount of "advanced formatting" is going to fix the aspect ratio's. It will look similar to pan & scan at best. 16:9 is pretty much the standard now. Even most blu-rays are formatted this way. ALL HDTV is formatted 16:9. So unless you only watch Ultra Wide movies you will in fact have to put up with more black bars than if you went with a standard 16:9.

I sorta think the "advanced formatting" is merely the gradient zoom that a lot of TVs such as my Sony XBR already do - keep the center half of the screen at the original aspect ratio, but approaching either edge of the screen, distort the picture horizontally so that a 4x3 picture fills the 16x9 screen. There's a little bit of cropping at the top and bottom but much less than you'd get with a straight zoom. A linear horizontal zoom makes everybody look fat .

There is a reason why people don't buy European electronics.

The thing about it is, 16:9 was adopted because it fit with how most filming would occur in the future, and how editors were pumping out movies. I know one indie director who shoots in 21:9, but then will only take a 16:9 image out of a frame in editing, depending on what was shot of course.

And all movies being sent to screens today are 16:9, go to a recently opened theater and ask what is on display and most will tell you the projectors follow a 16:9 aspect ratio. Older theaters may have 21:9, and some actually have less-wide aspect ratios.

I guess what I'm getting at is 16:9 is where its at, only die-hard enthusiasts might actually be into these new flat-panels. And hell, most of those die-hards will probably desire an actual movie theater esque setup anyway.

I couldn't care less if my movies are 16:9 or 21:9. However, I'd be happy to buy a monitor with 2520x1080 (i.e. 21:9) if it's affordable. It would be very useful for work.

I don't get how you guys can say that most movies are 1.85:1, when 80% of the movies i go to are filmed at 2.35:1 - 2.40:1.

I already HATE the original 16:9 widescreen ratio displays, and now they want to come out with this? Just give me a decent 4:3 display and letterbox my content however the hell you feel the need to. I find pillarboxes way more annoying than letterboxes and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

this is just rediculous , "true movie aspect" is a myth diferent movies are and have been shot at a wide variety aspect ratios and yes some movies are even shot at good ol 16:9 aspect. as the modern world stands we have a large vairty of diferent formats at various entertaint products (i'm refering more thn TV formats )

to name a few of eh confounding thigns in tech hers a short list

Music - cd's, super cd's , and music dvds , (and soem talk is already goign on about adoptinga blue ray music format!)

movies - dvd , hd-dvd (note this format died thank god) , and blue ray

tv's - 4:3 , 16:9 and now 2.39:1

computer monitors : 4:3 , 16:9 , and 16:10

don't consumers already ahve enough confusion when it comes to tech pproducts ??? why cant we jsut find one standard for our future ?

(note i personally like 16:10 , but sicneit is far more prevalent in tv's i think they shoudl stick to 16:9)

In the immortal words of the Principal from Billy Madison:

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul..."

As a theatre projectionist of twenty-seven years, I can tell you comprehensively that in the United States, pretty much 100% of every print struck is either anamorphic 2.35:1 or shot flat (and then either hard matted in the theatre projector or soft matted on the print) at 1.85:1. In fact, I built up Hotel For Dogs and Paul Blart Mall Cop last night and both prints were soft matted in a flat aspect ratio of 1.85:1.

With the exception of some older films or European films (which have a ratio at or around 1.66:1) any movie you see in the U.S. will be one of the two "classic" ratios.

I wish they would have made this decision at the start. As it is now, there are still a fair amount of DVD's in that "Ultra Widescreen"

When you'll have to watch 16/9 or 4/3on this TV,you'll end up having even bigger black lines.
Almost 50% of the screen will be black when seeing 4/3

Phillips doesn't care about your viewing experience they just want to make some extra money. If you do the math the "area" of the LCD is substantially "less" when you increase the aspect ratio.

40 inch LCD in 4:3
32in*24in = 768in^2 LCD area

40 inch LCD in 21:9
36.77in*15.76in = 580in^2 LCD area

The more the aspect ratio stretches out the "more" the manufacturers save in production costs AND the "less" the consume gets.

This should clear things up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

16:9 and 16:10 displays are closer to the aspect ratio of our own eyes, which see 170 degrees sideways and around 100 degrees up and down. 2.35 to 1 just reduces the quality of the viewing experience.
These changes are approaching the pt of absurdity.

16:9 should be standard for all the moviews, period.
I hate those movies on different format that do not fit on the 16:9 TV.

if it where a 100" tv, with 2000+ x 1080 pixels it would make sense, to use a TV like this to watch a recording of Tennis from the sidelines, and go home with a neck pain.

A miracle no one has invented a 2500x180 TV yet!

ill wait till SONY decides to make one and make it better than phillips. lolz. till then ill just sit back and see how this works out. I dont see the point of anything besides 2.35:1 it adds around 33% more picture and llooks great. I dont see buying into though until it becomes a standard. everthing should be bluray 2.35:1 and Sony oakley or nixon or its not worth anything lolz.

"...its important to note that Hollywood uses several different aspect ratios, ranging from 2.39:1 down to 1.85:1. If you come across a 1.85:1 film, you may experience "pillar-boxing", or black strips on the left and right of the picture. However, whatever "advanced formatting technology" Philips has cooked up may solve the problem."

I just have to say that pillar or window boxing isn't a "problem", it is the correct and natural way to display less than full width programming, whether it's 16:9 on this new set, or 4:3 original content on a standard HDTV.

In short, you don't ever mess with the original aspect ratio. This new TV simply trades the vertical black bars on 2.39:1 content and replaces it with more theater-like side bars for less lesser aspect content.

That is the right way to do things.

I'm sorry but WHAT? I just checked a bunch of theatrical releases from bluray.com to see what aspect ratio they had. From the "Newest Reviews" I found the following (16:9 is 1.78:1):

Election: 2.35:1
Death Race: 2.35:1
Friday the 13th Unrated Delux Edition: 1.85:1
Alexander Revisited: The Final Cut: 2.40:1

OK, some of those are pretty old
Crash: 2.35:1
Dan in Real Life: 1.85:1
Mama Mia: 2.40:1
The House Bunny: 2.40:1
The Women: 1:85:1

OK, this is getting silly. Did I find any with a 16:9 aspect ratio? Sure I did. We have, for example, When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions, Category 7: The End of the World, Blackbeard. Do these have anything in common? Yes, they do, they are all made-for-TV releases.

Quite frankly I can not remember having seen a single made-for-theater release in 16:9 aspect ratio ever. I assume there are, but I do not recall having seen any.

So you are saying that all movies made, more or less ever, are of poorer quality than what they should have been due to incorrect aspect ratio?